Chat Polls Discussion

[NicodaMax]

Agree on all points.

[Theseus]

Seems fine.

Originally posted by notyoueither
re 4. Fake wars.

I forgot that it should be allowed to break a resource deal if it isn't for the purpose of resource sharing.

Say we don't need our copper and sell it to a neighbour thinking that we won't be needing it. Then another neighbour springs its surprise invasion on us.

We should have the power to cancel the deal, but the game will not allow it short of ten turns.

Teams need to be able to declare war to stop deals, provided that they do not immediately sell the resource again after completing some units, ie sharing.

Sharing would be two teams effectively turning one source of a strategic into two by oscillating export/cutting/export/cutting/etc.

Can't said neigbor just gift the resource back to us?

[notyoueither]

They may not want to as a form of passive aggression, or they may simply 'forget'.

[Solomwi]

No problem with those at all, nye. I'd rather have the ability to declare war to break a deal, but I think we can work around it as well as anyone if we don't get it.

[Harovan]

My point of view is, that if somebody trades away his only source of metal in a multiplayer game, he is shortsighted and deserves to suffer appropriate disadvantages. You don't do this sort of things in a MP environment. You just don't. If you do, it's own fault. It may be good as a tool of powergaming against a mindless AI (and exploitish at that, as the AI does not do it!), but against human players it's just bad play.

Another, sound "no" (better "hell no") for dodging the game mechanics (10 turn fix) to enable such fishy tricks.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They may not want to as a form of passive aggression, or they may simply 'forget'.

Ummm... then f*ck'em, they deserve to get stomped, and thus we get our resource back!!

[NicodaMax]

Originally posted by Theseus


Ummm... then f*ck'em, they deserve to get stomped, and thus we get our resource back!!

That's the spirit!!

[DeepO]

1. 24h, lenient
2. no
3. abstain
4. No. With possible exceptions
5. yes, but supervised


3: I want to vote yes on this one, but I don't know enough to see if it can be an exploit or not. In general, I'm known to push the limits on exploitation, but enough is enough. Galley chaining for instance, was a fun mini game in Civ3, teleporting from OB in CIV is too much. The difference is that it would have been very easy for Firaxis to remove galley chaining in a patch, and the effects were very straigthforward (the full application was not). With teleportation from OB, the result is unwanted, but can't be easily removed by Firaxis. It's not easily predictable either, so using teleportation is an exploit for me.

GPs is a bit unclear to me. I can see it becoming a fun diplo mini-game. I can also see it becoming one of the worst possible exploits, similar to how we perceived the GoWND win. I don't want to land in that last option, not even if we're the ones gaining most from it. As long as I don't know, I'll abstain.

4. Fake wars are not okay in my book, I've seen what they can mean to a game last time (we didn't really use it except during the Voxodus, but the dance of the GoWND catapults during the Bobian war opened my eyes. We were wrong to start it.) If the situation occurs where we get attacked the moment we trade away our only resource, too bad. That's the risk of trading away a strategic resource, deal with it before it leads to problems.

There might be situations were a fake war is needed, or perhaps can be approved in public by a majority of teams. For instance, the Voxodus was approved by most teams, I think. Starting a fake war to give them a half-decent chance to get back in the game might be okay.

5. I want city gifting to be in, especially long term. I see city trades to limit border sizes, I see mutual agreements were one team gets a city on the other's continent for the duration of a deal (think Hong Kong, or Guatanamo). I don't want city gifts be used for teleportation, I don't want to see rapid exchanges of cities (say 5 times in 10 turns). I don't want city gifts for the purpose of razing ill-placed cities (I don't want fake wars to raze ill-placed cities either, place them bad and you suffer.). So I'd place it very well supervised, possibly even declare all city-trade negotiations public. But I'd allow it.

DeepO