Next ACDG - faction start positions (moved from "Darsnan as Game Creator" thread)

[Nubclear]

But Maniac, if the majority wants a huge map and not a large one...Who are you to deny them?

[Maniac]

I can try to appeal to everybody's sense of fairplay, and challenge you to win this game by having good skills, and not by having very favourable game settings.

Besides, there is no majority for a huge map...

[Snowflake]

Well we can fairly say that some factions want standard map and other factions want huge map. So it seems to me that large is a good conpromise.

[Chaunk]

Yeah, I wasn't saying that the masses say huge, merely that the modal answer was huge not "slightly less than large". I'm all for a huge map from a morganic point of view, but know it'd be terrible for the spartans, and therefore huge, going against the modal vote, but perhaps closer to a mean.

And in fairness, Maniac, there's no majority for any map. Should we then not have a demo-game?

C

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Chaunk
I'm all for a huge map from a morganic point of view, but know it'd be terrible for the spartans, and therefore huge, going against the modal vote, but perhaps closer to a mean.

This really shows you really want huge I suppose.

[Skanky Burns]

We should try a preferential voting system for map sizes. The only problem is who would be trusted to count all the votes. Actually, if the voting was transparent (everyone's vote visible to the entire public) then these results would be fair.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Jamski
Simple MULTIPLE CHOICE poll.

If no single option gets 50% or more, then the winner will be determined by taking the AVERAGE result in each category, and rounding up or down to the nearest whole number. Make sense?

World Size

• Tiny
• Small
• Standard
• Large
• Huge

A little reminder of the setup Jam gave...

[Maniac]

Oh yeah, another argument against a huge map size: The larger the map is, the longer it will take before factions meet each other. And what were the most entertaining years of the previous ACDG: those while you were still in solitude, or those while you had interaction with other factions?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Chaunk
Yeah, I wasn't saying that the masses say huge, merely that the modal answer was huge not "slightly less than large". I'm all for a huge map from a morganic point of view, but know it'd be terrible for the spartans, and therefore huge, going against the modal vote, but perhaps closer to a mean.

Actually, as I showed in that thread, the mean vote is 3.714, counting tiny and 1, huge as 5, and averaging. Since 3 is standard and 4 is large, 3.714 is a little smaller than large.

Originally posted by Chaunk
And in fairness, Maniac, there's no majority for any map. Should we then not have a demo-game?

No, we take the mean, as Jamski said at the begining, and as I worked out. Everyone chooses the option they want, and we work out the mean, which is used.

Straight majority isn't the way to do it either. If 12 people want a tiny map, and 13 a huge, surely a standard is the fairest (or slightly bigger than standard), not a huge, because it has a majority.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Chaunk
Drogue, since the majority vote on may size was huge, i don't think "slightly less than large" was agreed on at all

Originally posted by Darsnan
I'd have to agree with this statement. Isn't this vote supposed to be a case of Majority Rules, and not a case where the decision is skewed to reflect a statistical center of the voting pattern? If it is the latter, it would make it exceedingly difficult for the person setting up the game to decypher the exact settings for the game.

No. There was no majority, and as was posted by Jamski when starting the poll, and has been used in all the ACDGs since decisions in DG1, when it is a case of a "small, medium, large" poll, the average is worked out.

There was no majority for huge, as Maniac said, there was 13/42 people voting for it. Even with a majority, imagine this scenario:
12 people vote for tiny
13 people vote for huge
What is fairest? IMHO, something slightly larger than standard. If someone wants to play a tiny game, they will be at a significant disadvantage if the map size is huge, so thats 12 people, almost half, who have their worst map size possible.

That is why we have always used the mean, because it is fairest.

The decision is not skewed, it is how the poll was publicised, and the rules on which we voted. Therefore there are two options, either disregard the poll, and vote again, stating that it will use the majority option (though what happens when there's no majority I don't know) or we accept the poll and the rules that were posted with it. IMHO, if people want to vote again, let buster make the poll, using whatever rules he believes is fairest, and let him interpret it as he wishes. However you cannot accept the votes cast in that poll while not accepting the rules that were used for it.

As always, it is up to the GM to decide the map size, these are just a guide. If buster wants to use one of the pre-sized maps, then large would be the best option, due to being the closest to the average vote. If buster wants to do a different map size of his choosing (even shape, could be fun ) then something around the mean, slightly smaller than large, would be the best, IMHO. But the polls are just a guide, and buster can use them as he wishes, IMHO.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Drogue
If buster wants to do a different map size of his choosing (even shape, could be fun )

Buster, the Ringworld Engineer???

[GeoModder]

my thoughts exactly...

[buster]

There are some points to consider here:

1) Minority rights

As far as game settings go most will tend to vote for maps/settings etc that suit their playstyles. A situation could arise where the agreed upon parameters would effectively make it impossible for someone wanting a different playstyle.

For instance map so large and each player on far apart islands that only build would be a realistic playstyle, because there is no or only very cumbersome & resourcedemanding ways to attack anyone until the game is well progressed - at which time factions suited for agression will usually be so lagging in tech they no longer pose a threat. Likewise placing everyone so close that hostilities could break out on turn 5 makes it hard on the builders.

As the next game will have a mix of playstyles it needs to be setup so that everyone has a chance. That means regardless of how large the map players decide to use players should not be too far apart and they should be connected by land. If they are not it is in my view simpy not viable for an agressive player. Placing players two & two would likely be death sentence to the the builder paired with the agressor and so place that faction at a huge disadvantage.

Thus it must be something like all 4 connected - not close or on a huge blob of land but connected with some turns & twists and narrow points - builders having about the same distance to agressively disposed factions (ie: you could come under attack well before planes and choppers arrive on the scene by an army of worms or rovers - not because there is not enough land for everybody but because the others are close enough that it is a realistic possibility if that is the way they decide your relations should develop & so you need to take the threat seriously and cannot just ignore defenses knowing the worst you are likely to face is a unity rover landed from a boat in 2130).

At least that is how I see it. In my view deciding on a different setup means agressive factions need to accept that they will probably end of playing as handicapped builders or that you pick factions that benefit equally well or little from alterations to above setup.

Anyway my point is - three deciding on a setup that gives number four a major disadvantage just wont do if you want a fair game. In this case number four should either change faction or the choice should be overruled or I guess the fourth faction can accept to play with a handicap.

Practically speaking the choices made here as I see it necessitates a few limitations:

a) As we have a green player (Gaia) - amount of worms & fungus should be standard (none or few = big disadvantage, lots = big advantage)

b) Mix of build and agressive factions = factions landbound and spaced so that you will be likely meet each other on turn 20 or so.

c) most other choices should be - in my opinion left at default. At least if some choice is decided to be changed from default - it should compensated by some other choice. Say you turn on steal tech (good for agressors) something else should be turned the other way (example getting artefacts from pods) meaning more techs will need to be actually researched. Still in my view it is not completely fair as Gaia (with their worms) will tend to do more podpopping than others but maybe that could be balanced by cranking up the amount of fungus.

And now when I am at it - the reason some factions are considered "underpowered" is in my opinion because most setups tend to favor build for the simple reason that usually pbems are played 4 or so instead of seven and on larger maps.

I personally would have no problem playing believers in a seven player game on the standard size planet map that comes with SMAC, knowing there is likely at least a couple of unfortunate players not too far away who are undoubtedly behind with their tithes.

On Angels we will fix the main impact of the probe bug with a rule (ie: if they are running at 4 probe they are immune regardless of whether the game allows you to probe them or not). Meaning check their SE settings from the comm link before probing and if they are at above three don't do it. I will work it out in detail - it does not solve all complexities but will take care of the most damaging ones.

Anyway - that my view in generalized terms. If it seems "the people" is with me I will submit one list of settings etc for approval/disapproval. If there are lots of dissenting voices I guess we will need a whole series of polls to decide on individual factors & then on how to balance it out in the end.

[Maniac]

What else can I say besides

[Snowflake]

I voted standard map because I was a DA at the time and I would want to change my vote to huge now that I'm a Gaian. However this seems unecessary since what buster said seems very reasonable to me.

I do not have many MP experiences. One thing I have a little concern is that if factions will meet around 20 turns, would it be likely a faction could be wiped out by the Spartans before it has time to develop the necessary defense technology? I do not wish a faction be eliminated this early.