Official: Science: case on case vs. greater goal

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

As our scientific output should soon rise drastically due to trade posts, science boosting buildings and general growth of our nation and our cities the average time needed to research a specific science should decrease. if we also play turns faster due to more turn threads and hopefully a decreasing amount of unit management per turn we might quite often reach the point, where the MoDST, his delegates or the president himself (who is actively playing the game) will have to decide for a new research goal, though there hasn't been a poll open for a couple of days on the subject. for this reason i would like to set a goal, which will give the responsible persons a better idea of what is wanted in the near-/midterm-future.

No Goal: as the name says, every decision will be polled case by case.
"Soft Goal": the designated goal will act as a guideline. every decision will be polled nevertheless (though the poll might sometimes bring results after the chosen science has been researched already). the responsible persons might choose a science not on the path, if otherwise rp would be wasted (when we already have a higher output per turn as that science will need)
"Hard Goal": A choosen goal is a choosen goal. no sideways. no further polls until that goal is in reach or unforeseen events might happen.
"nukes": aka abstain

[Gilgamensch]

I can't decide between no goal and soft goal.

Soft goal would leave the MoDSaT a bit more freedom while playing (so long he decides in the best interest of the game ).

But Hard goal would leave to many people outside, so that's not really a choice.

I am leaning more towards soft-goal, but I haven't decided yet.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
But Hard goal would leave to many people outside, so that's not really a choice.

well, no goal or soft goal would actually leave those people out who visit the forums only once a week or so. on the other side, those few people who participate here at all, seem to be here almost every day. of course even if we have a hard goal there would be polls about what to research or how to decide what to research when the community wants them.

[Gilgamensch]

You said on the top:

"Hard Goal": A choosen goal is a choosen goal. no sideways. no further polls until that goal is in reach or unforeseen events might happen.


This would mean, that there might be no poll for 'ages'.

On the other hand, you said:

of course even if we have a hard goal there would be polls about what to research or how to decide what to research when the community wants them.

I am a bit !?!?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
of course even if we have a hard goal there would be polls about what to research or how to decide what to research when the community wants them.

thats one example for an unforeseen event

[Pedrunn]

My votes in previous scince polls were always based in no goals. And i think i will keep this way.

Unless of course a revolution kind of goal like it was for getting monarchy or in the future probably Industrial Revolution and nuclear power. So, should i have voted 'Soft Goal'? Too late now.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, if we had goals right now, i would vote for bureaucracy as next goal. that gives a clear path as well (at least after we got geometry):

masonry (aqueducts, our biggest cities will need them soon) -> feudalism (knights, pikemen) -> bureaucracy (republic, better science though harder to wage war; diplomats!)

[Martin Gühmann]

I think it became clearer and clearer after poll that we had a goal, so poll on a advance by advance base and once we see a certain advance on our whish list make the final poll: Go directly to that tech. So no goal in general.

-Martin

[HuangShang]

no wait, i want hard goal to nukes

i voted soft, for then, there will accually be a goal
otherwise, all our science research would be eratic and aimless

[child of Thor]

I guess i must be a democrat after all, i voted for no goal.

[Tamerlin]

In order to adapt our strategy to the events and circumstances I don't think we should define goals but rather research the advances we need at a given moment. This does not preclude us from aiming a goal when the need arises.

[Gamer man]

It is my opinion that:

I say we need to make a soft goal, a goal that will give us focus and direct it a bit otherwise we will be all over the place. We need the freedom to react to a situation with technology so that rules out Nuke and Hard goal and if we are all over the place and it will hurt us in the fact that our technology will be varied but with some over others. If we can split the technology evenly this would be fine as one group will back us up if we fall behind in another. If we are Focused we can have one group dominate enough to act as an umbrella to our weaker departments of reserch. If we go with a non focused non balanced departments then we will have some better than others but not enough to cover the departments we lack in

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

a new face
welcome aboard gamer man

[Devil of Truth]

All this talk about "hard" and "soft" goals, not to mention the buggering in this thread, got me thinking... Zaphod, are you trying to tell us something?

IMHO, I think we should go with a soft goal.

[child of Thor]

Hi Gamer Man!
It is true that we need some focus, something to aim for. The only problem is that if the game can change its outlook so quickly, like now for example with the germans taking one of our cities and breaking our treaty, then you have to be able to change your goal in an instant. We need to be flexible like a reed in the wind
We could always state in threads(poll it) if we want a long term goal, like prefering Comunism over repbublic for example?