Post Your VP Congress Feedback Here!

[CppMaster]

Vote for both = having interest in the matter but the proposed solution is just as bad and we need a better solution.

Or "I'm interested and both solutions for good". Every option that you vote for should be better than current state.

 

[nekokon]

Or "I'm interested and both solutions for good". Every option that you vote for should be better than current state.

That's not how logic works, you can't say both options are better than the current state when one of the options is literally "No, keep the current state".

 

[CppMaster]

I meant a proposal and a counterproposal. If it's just yes/no for a proposal then yeah, you're right.

 

[glaivemaster]

To me there're a pretty clear/distinctive inuendo between abstain (no vote) or vote for both yes and no.
No vote = don't care about the matter, it can go either ways.
Vote for both = having interest in the matter but the proposed solution is just as bad and we need a better solution.

Opposite for me. The vote threads are worded:

Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented

So for me that means I vote for both if I'm ok with either it changing or staying the same. I don't vote if I don't like either option, because that doesn't fit in with "I'd be ok if this proposal was/n't implemented"

I guess I also don't vote if I don't care or don't know enough about the situation (e.g. nukes, I rarely get to that stage of the game and never use them when I do, so it's meaningless to me), but voting for both - to me - is explicitly being ok with either option.

I guess that's my main feedback for this Congress - the multi-option voting for items without counter proposals is a bit confusing. We should probably figure out how we want that to look in future. The rest has been great though

 

[nekokon]

But if you don't vote nobody would know that you're interested but don't like either option (to implement new proposal or not).
Next congress things would get clearer for sure though. A lot of ppl already gave feedback regarding this confusion.

 

[Rekk]

But if you don't vote nobody would know that you're interested but don't like either option (to implement new proposal or not).
Next congress things would get clearer for sure though. A lot of ppl already gave feedback regarding this confusion.

If you don't like the proposed solution, vote Nay. You are not okay with this specific proposal being implemented.

It doesn't matter if you want a change if you don't like how the change is being made. Propose a different solution next Congress, or wait until someone proposes something better if you can't think of something on your own. The game does not get better if we implement solutions that do not make the game better.

 

[Alpharius]

Spoiler :

The Recursive Bottleneck
One of my fears is that this looks like a tremendous effort on Recursive's part. A lot of organization, review, retitling, moving of threads, etc. I am worried about burnout longterm with this process, or simply the process grinding to a halt should Recursive go on a break or a vacation for a while. While I want to create the most organized and efficient process we can, at the end of the day it has to be sustainable. That might mean less polish and less organization.

Ratification - Is 1 month enough time?
This is a wait to be seen, but I am a bit concerned that 1 month is not enough time to do proper ratification. Not everyone plays as fast as I do Some people won't even play 1 game in a month. We may need to extend this to a few months to ensure people are actually playing with these changes before they give feedback.

Proposal Freezes
I'm already seeing a lot of calls to open up more time for changes and amendments. During the voting phase, during the sponsorship phase, etc. I STRONGLY urge us to resist these temptations. I think it is VITAL to the new process that our more casual forum goers and developers get a dedicated time that they can review things and vote with the confidence that they can go away for a few weeks, and what they voted on remains as is. We need to respect that there will be people who literally swing by the forum once a month, do all of their voting, and then return to the shadows.

I get that people are excited, and the idea of waiting another month "seems so long", but realistically, this is LIGHTNING fast compared to what we do now. Because right now its all up in the air, you have an idea, maybe it gets some attention, maybe it doesn't, maybe we do a poll....realistically most ideas right now take a lot longer than a month to get through. The idea that you can come up with an idea and have a definitive answer on whether it will go into the mod in less than a month is MUCH faster than we operate now.

A dedicated voting forum
I think we should have a dedicated forum for this. Yes we will have less proposals in the future, but I think its disruptive to other more casual threads. I get it takes away the proposals from the main page, but frankly, if people can't be bothered to check out 1 subforum to vote....they shouldn't be voting.

Enforcement
One elephant in the room, what happens in a scenario where a dev decides they don't like the proposal they are coding. Maybe they make a slight change to the proposal in their code to make it more like what they want, or maybe they just keep pushing it off for implementation (aka the classic the president doesn't enforce a new law, so it effectively "dies"). Ultimately this is something for the devs to work out amongst themselves, ultimately they have to do a bit of this today anyway, but its something in the back of my mind. Or...perhaps long term the answer is "sponsorship does mean a dev is interested in your change". If ultimately we are proposing a bunch of things that the dev team doesn't like...that probably won't serve us long term (after all they have to be code AND maintain those changes). Perhaps it would be better if sponsorship was more discerning.

Spoiler :

I think a good solution would be to give more time.
I also agree with @Stalker0 that 1 month for feedback probably isn't enough.
So, maybe lengthening the periods across the board? Gives more time for more thought out proposals as well.

Echoing this because I have similar concerns

Spoiler :

Limited time right now to respond, but in short I like the congress and think it could be improved with some (significant?) tweaks.
1. Proposals be grouped by devs/respected community members into categories based on their impact to the existing Vox Populi mod. Eg: Rebuilding the happiness model would be major, tweaking the ratios of unhappiness generation might be medium or minor. More impactful proposals should require more significant review and consideration, and possibly a higher "yes" vote threshold than medium or minor tweaks, regardless of sponsorship.
2. I recommend a post-approval phase where changes that impact each other are adjusted for sanity. This can be open for comment, but shouldn't deviate enough from the original proposals to require additional voting. If the post approval sanity check fails, some or all of the proposals would be tabled until the next session.
3. A senate! eg, the congress becomes the "house" and is the general player base. The senate are active modders and devs. The house introduces proposals, the senate critiques them (possibly as part of the sanity check), and can push alternate proposals back to the congress in the next session. This is another kind of gut check on the viability and "goodness" of proposals by people who are intimately familiar with the feel of the game. Can be overruled by some large vote by the player base, as long as the change is sponsored.

+1

Also wanted to put more emphasis on this: "More impactful proposals should require more significant review and consideration, and possibly a higher "yes" vote threshold than medium or minor tweaks, regardless of sponsorship".
Would also prefer if said proposals take longer to vote on, and maybe less impactful proposals could be implemented faster. I think a good example would be a mod integration that only adds some minor details to the UI.

Spoiler :

Can I thank Recursive & team for all the hard work they have done with this mod, & the way they are opening it out so all players of this mod are included in its future & changes to it. Beside not having all the votes in a sub section in Congress forum, I must say it is great how you have put all the proposals together for people to vote on & are still listening to ways to amend proposals & take peoples views into account. Must have taken you lots of work & time to do this.

It is quite amazing the level of support for a mod to a game which is now 12 years old, & shows the potential it had. Hopefully, this mod can carry on its success for a few more years at least.

hear! hear!

 

[ma_kuh]

I also read voting Yes+No as happy with either decision. Abstaining means you support neither the proposal nor leaving it as-is.

Functionally, you're also depriving the vote of +1 interactions, meaning it's more likely to fail to pass even if 9 people vote yes, which better represents what you feel should happen.

 

[Stalker0]

Also wanted to put more emphasis on this: "More impactful proposals should require more significant review and consideration, and possibly a higher "yes" vote threshold than medium or minor tweaks, regardless of sponsorship".

I do think there is room for an "advanced proposal". Basically, once something hits a certain amount of impact, it gets more scutiny than the normal. And that can happen during veto review. If a dev goes, "whoa this is heavy", they can flag it with the "advanced proposal" and then it enters the more stringent process.

 

[CppMaster]

Любопытно, но почему два государства под международными санкциями не могут торговать друг с другом? Что им терять? Хуже им не станет. Они уже в глобальной изоляции, ну так пусть строят свой маленький союз и дружат против всех остальных.
В одной игре сначала Зулусы, потом я были заблокированы. И у меня нет никаких опций для развития отношений с Зулусами. Почему? Весь мир от нас отвернулся, а мы не можем сделать шаг навстречу друг другу и отправлять тайные грузы с разной роскошью.

И почему страна под санкциями может выдвигать какие-то предложения на конгрессе?

Вопрос снятия санкций, думается, должен автоматически выдвигаться на каждом конгрессе. В таком случае у каждого государства будет 1 бесплатный голос да/нет по каждому такому пункту. Иначе эти санкции могут длиться вечно, т.к. ИИ регулярно выдвигают "супер-ценные" предложения аля "Sofia в сфере влияния Польши" или пытаются отозвать эту сферу влияния.
20 ходов санкций уже достаточно сильно бьют по любой экономике, т.к. полностью блокируют торговлю - нет прибыли. нет счастья от импорта ресурсов.

Естественно, этот бесплатный голос надо будет учитывать в дипломатических сделках, когда покупаются голоса по некоторым пунктам.

----
Curiously, why can't two states under international sanctions trade with each other? What do they have to lose? They won't get worse. They are already in global isolation, so let them build their own little alliance and be friends against everyone else.

In one game, first the Zulus, then I were blocked. And I don't have any options to develop relations with the Zulus. Why? The whole world has turned its back on us, and we cannot take a step towards each other and send secret cargoes with different luxuries.

And why can a country under sanctions put forward any proposals at the congress?

The issue of lifting sanctions, I think, should be automatically put forward at every congress. In this case, each State will have 1 free yes/no vote for each such item. Otherwise, these sanctions can last forever, because. The AIs regularly put forward "super-valuable" offers a la "Sofia in Poland's sphere of influence" or try to withdraw this sphere of influence.
20 moves of sanctions are already hitting hard enough on any economy. completely block trading - no profit. no happiness from importing resources.

Naturally, this free vote will have to be taken into account in diplomatic deals when votes are bought on certain points.

This is a thread about Vox Populi congress: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/vox-populi-congress-guide.678962/
Not about the in-game World Congress.

 

[jarcast2]

I stopped playing Civ5 more than a year ago but I am still following VP development from time to time out of curiosity.
I stumbled upon the forum recently and seeing all those bottom-up proposals fired me up again.
This idea of a congress where the developers and players go hand in hand toward what is expected to be the golden version is absolutely amazing.
Especially the difficulty rework with the bonus-neutral difficulty is giving me hype and I look forward to start playing VP once again when it gets implemented.

Keep up with the good work guys <3

 

[CppMaster]

This idea of a congress where the developers and players go hand in hand toward what is expected to be the golden version is absolutely amazing.

Actually, with the VP Congress, I think we will never reach the golden version. Which is a good thing if VP will just keep improving