[GS] Livestreamer Previews Discussion Thread

[Giskler]

I'm confused by Kristina talking to herself.

 

[Zaarin]

They fixed the Netherlands colors. It looks great now.

That hideous orange looks great?

 

[AvianBritish]

I wonder if Coal power-plants, Oil power-plants and Nuclear power-plants stack? Seeing as they are not the same building.
That would mean every city withing 6 tiles (or 9 with Mexico City) will get at least 11 production and 3 science each plus whatever the Coal power-plant's adjacency is.

 

[Disgustipated]

That hideous orange looks great?

I think that was sarcasm, but I honestly can't tell. And yes, that is hideous orange.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

That hideous orange looks great?

I like it, but then, it's University of Illinois colors.

 

[Uberfrog]

I don't find the voting system counterintuitive at all. It makes sense. You vote for a resolution (aim for voting blocs or understanding the others' designs) and then you vote for a target or outcome.

However I do find that in a few cases, most importantly the diplomatic victory point award, it will be far easier to exploit the system as the AI is predictably going to vote for themselves.

So this will be a problem.

I think a better alternative for these particular votes would be to SPLIT the votes rather than have them done at the same time. First you vote for a resolution. Then you get back the results and vote on the target/outcome.

It's the same idea in practice... just decouple the resolution and target.

However I can see this being exploited into ALWAYS rejecting a diplomatic victory.

Except what you describe is exactly the reason it is counterintuitive. The problem with the system as designed, and why it differs from any real voting structure ever conceived, is that the substance of a resolution is inextricably linked to its target. When you have two directly opposed resolutions (one positive, one negative), this problem is exacerbated. A negative vote (in this case Cyrus against Laurier) is turned into a positive one.

Any reasonable referendum (which is essentially what these are) needs to be voting for or against one clear outcome. As it stands we are voting at cross purposes between two outcomes, on an undefined target. This means that Cyrus, Wilfrid's mortal enemy, unwittingly helps his foe towards victory by voting for his desired outcome.

A split vote would solve this problem, but would presumably result in more inconclusive votes overall. I imagine Firaxis designed the system as it currently is to make the outcomes more decisive. The problem is that voting for your preferred option can directly bring about its opposite. This is really not transparent to the player, and certainly beyond the capabilities of the AI. It's broken.

 

[NegativeZero]

That hideous orange looks great?

Well, at least players wouldn't miss em when their troops come marching through. That neon orange can be seen from space!

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

That hideous orange looks great?

I like it. Her orange was too... Brown before. To each their own!

 

[AvianBritish]

I like it, but then, it's University of Illinois colors.

It's also my hometown's football club colours!
Luton town~ Luton town~ Luton town, Luton town, Luton town!~

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That hideous orange looks great?

Yes.
Way better than the burnt orange looking color which wasn't really pleasing.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Can I ask what stream this picture is from? I really want to see what happens when the environment gets decimated like that.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I think that was sarcasm, but I honestly can't tell. And yes, that is hideous orange.

It was not sarcasm. This is Dutch Orange. The previous one was too pale for me.

 

[Aristos]

Can I ask what stream this picture is from? I really want to see what happens when the environment gets decimated like that.

Not much, apparently. Watch Marbozir's late game video.

 

[Zaarin]

I like it, but then, it's University of Illinois colors.

Είναι όλα ελληνικά για μένα.

That neon orange can be seen from space!

Aha, so that's SETI's plan.

I like it. Her orange was too... Brown before. To each their own!

To be honest, there are very few shades of orange or yellow I like--and those are the more low-saturation/high-luminosity oranges and yellows like amber, gold, and ochre. But that particular fluorescent emergency cone orange is particularly hideous.

Way better than the burnt orange looking color which wasn't really pleasing.

I'd say it was about as close to pleasing as that family of colors could get. I admit to being a cold color person myself; make all the civs purple, blue, and green. (Red is fine, too, especially dark red/burgundy/maroon.)

 

[Giskler]

Can I ask what stream this picture is from? I really want to see what happens when the environment gets decimated like that.

Marbozir showing off late game.

 

[UWHabs]

Except what you describe is exactly the reason it is counterintuitive. The problem with the system as designed, and why it differs from any real voting structure ever conceived, is that the substance of a resolution is inextricably linked to its target. When you have two directly opposed resolutions (one positive, one negative), this problem is exacerbated. A negative vote (in this case Cyrus against Laurier) is turned into a positive one.

Any reasonable referendum (which is essentially what these are) needs to be voting for or against one clear outcome. As it stands we are voting at cross purposes between two outcomes, on an undefined target. This means that Cyrus, Wilfrid's mortal enemy, unwittingly helps his foe towards victory by voting for his desired outcome.

A split vote would solve this problem, but would presumably result in more inconclusive votes overall. I imagine Firaxis designed the system as it currently is to make the outcomes more decisive. The problem is that voting for your preferred option can directly bring about its opposite. This is really not transparent to the player, and certainly beyond the capabilities of the AI. It's broken.

Yes, the voting system works fine if you have a specific result that you really want, since you simply vote for it and go on with it. The problem becomes if there is a result you really don't want, like in the picture posted, where you're usually best to not vote for that, but to vote strategically otherwise. Basically, the problem comes if you vote against the majority opinion, your vote counts for nothing. So if you want your vote to count for something, you have to predict how everyone else will vote and vote with it.

Another weird example is the "unit production" resolution, in that the "+100%" means differently when talking about gold or production. They should really change that one so the A side is "units are cheaper" and the B side is "units are more expensive", so it's more obvious.

 

[bite]

@Giskler thanks so much for all your work with these screenshots and combing through the footage.

Indeed, you are a champion

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Indeed, you are a champion

Agree Great job.

 

[bite]

The wildcards unlocked by Cultural Hegemony are called Acteurs non-étatiques and Hallyu in baguette.

I think Hallyu refers to Korean Wave.

Acteurs non-étatiques gets translated as non-state actors. No clue what that means. Maybe corporations? Need someone fluent in baguette to translate it.

Edit: Well, apparently there is something called Non-state actors.

Now they are diving into my world of International Relations and things are getting interesting

 

[Giskler]

Indeed, you are a champion