Thursday, June 06, 2019

Proposal: Civil Engineering

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 2-3 by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Jun 2019 15:01:22 UTC

In “Civil Titles”, replace “If a particular Civil Title applies to an Architect’s Site” with:-

If a particular Civil Title applies to a single Architect’s Site

Remove all Civil Titles held by all Architects.

Removing the race condition where two Architects can meet the requirements of a Civil Title like City Hall, and claim it back and forth from each other endlessly. I think a first-to-qualify mechanic is probably better than an earliest-in-bidding-queue one, as the latter will advantage (possibly even multiple times) whoever is lucky enough to be earlier in the queue when the dynasty ends.

Since under the current rule it’s possible for a contested Title to have gone to the player with quickest reactions to Ideal Dome enacting, this proposal also resets all Civil Titles.

Comments

Farsight:

06-06-2019 10:20:49 UTC

for

derrick:

06-06-2019 11:52:40 UTC

against

I don’t like the “First to keep and maintain” aspect of it.

naught:

06-06-2019 14:26:16 UTC

imperial

pokes:

06-07-2019 11:26:25 UTC

Although I’m sorely tempted to vote yes just so that I can enact this right now to have a better shot at nabbing Playground from derrick, against per derrick

Kevan:

06-07-2019 12:42:34 UTC

[derrick, pokes] Are you both happier with the current system (where tied players can steal back and forth endlessly, effectively sharing the Title since either can steal before DoVing), or Naught’s idea of going back to the old system of tiebreaking by queue position? Or have you got other ideas?

pokes:

06-07-2019 13:01:43 UTC

I like by queue or either everyone or noone gets the points on a tie. Maybe something like on an n-way tie those eligible each get 3/n points. I can propose it but won’t be able to until tomorrow

derrick:

06-07-2019 13:13:07 UTC

The queue position is nice because its final and not entirely random. I will admit I thought we’d see more manipulation of it, and winning by being at the back of the queue feels a touch cheap.

First-Come first keep feels tedious. If you’re tied with someone the tie is broken by the first person to notice the new drop, since they can reach the new maximum first. That gives advantage to people who constantly check, which is something we like to discourage.

The sharing of the titles only cares about speed in one case that’s extremely predictable. Its not a terrible option, particularly until we figure something out. 

First Come Keeps in combination with the bidding queue may be interesting: the queue breaks ties created during a given drop, but not afterwards. It still is a touch tedious, but it adds more wieght to the decision of what blocks to drop and removes the element of speed, which are both good for the game. I’ll be honest that I really want an “invisible” state that requires calculation only at the end of the game, but that might not be what’s best for the game.

Bidding queue tie breaking along with queue manipulation is a strong option, though at this point I’m not sure the best place to add it. One option is to award points for a type of module (docks or research and the most thematic), and spend those to manipulate the queue. Another option is as an alternative to building on a drop.

Another option would be to embrace the sharing of titles: awarding 2 points for each double tie holder, and 1 point each for triples, or some other scheme.

Kevan:

06-07-2019 13:35:07 UTC

Limiting claims to between drops (or in practice, claiming based on the gamestate at the time the most recent drop was posted) would be another way to remove the timing problem.

naught:

06-07-2019 14:49:21 UTC

Hm. We seem fairly divided on this.  against

CoV so we can come up with something we can all agree on.