Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Marduk · 2012-01-20 20:32:52

It's time to wrap up the discussion here and here.

This setting is for LT30 but will be inherited by LT31, until another poll changes it to a new value.

Duncan_Shriek · 2012-01-22 16:56:03

Voted against; I can't see any reason why this needs to be decided beforehand. _If_ an alliance of more than 14 decides to eliminate the rest, they will be rightfully left in the position to decide how to continue. If nobody is wanting another war, the game is at it's end and nobody can do anything against that.

I don't take the ranking too serious. It's a tool to inform newcomers of the experience and determination of their fellow gamers. For taking the ranking as expression of some sort of achievement, the game is inherently much too unfair.

That said, I personally would be surprised if we had such large alliances. They are hard to manage...

monamipierrot · 2012-01-22 18:13:21

Agreed with Duncan

Steelski · 2012-01-22 23:46:32

I think 14 is still too many, but I'm voting for, because it's better than no limit.

seyit · 2012-01-23 10:25:05

I vote for, I guess

Marduk · 2012-01-23 14:26:00

Duncan_Shriek wrote:

Voted against; I can't see any reason why this needs to be decided beforehand. _If_ an alliance of more than 14 decides to eliminate the rest, they will be rightfully left in the position to decide how to continue. If nobody is wanting another war, the game is at it's end and nobody can do anything against that.
I don't take the ranking too serious. It's a tool to inform newcomers of the experience and determination of their fellow gamers. For taking the ranking as expression of some sort of achievement, the game is inherently much too unfair.

This poll is about the quality of the game, the ranking already has its own system to deal with huge alliances claiming victory. The goal with this poll is to prevent a gangbang from spoiling the fun and ending the game prematurely.

When a few players defeat hordes of enemies most people respect their victory and feel that the game reached a satisfying conclusion, whether they themselves were crushed or not.

Players who prefer a peaceful / UN-style game also have good reasons to vote for this poll: it makes it possible to end the game in a satisfactory way compatible with their gamestyle. Whenever 75% of the players agree to an endturn the top 14 players in score points at the endturn will win and the game is over. If we don't set a limit beforehand we would get an awkward situation when we approach the endturn: the #1 in scores has an interest to vote for only 1 winner, the #10 in scores wants 10 winners etc. (or players could together decide to let everyone win, but I think many players would find that a lame anticlimax).

I agree that 14 is a large number, personally I prefer a smaller number but I thought that may get less support. But this is the first time we use this rule, we can try how it works out (if the poll is accepted) and then vote for a new value at LT31.

Kryon · 2012-01-23 15:01:42

Marduk wrote:

But this is the first time we use this rule, we can try how it works out (if the poll is accepted) and then vote for a new value at LT31.

It is not the 1st time. An alliance limit and endturn was voted for in LT28. See http://old.longturn.org/lt28-limit-number-winners-0 and http://old.longturn.org/lt-28-end-year

The best would be to have a multiple choice vote like we did for LT28 but currently only yes/no votes are possible. If someone wants a lower limit, he/she can open another vote to overwrite this one.

Last edited by Kryon (2012-01-23 18:18:42)

Marduk · 2012-01-23 21:25:13

Kryon wrote:

Marduk wrote:
But this is the first time we use this rule, we can try how it works out (if the poll is accepted) and then vote for a new value at LT31.
It is not the 1st time. An alliance limit and endturn was voted for in LT28. See http://old.longturn.org/lt28-limit-number-winners-0 and http://old.longturn.org/lt-28-end-year
The best would be to have a multiple choice vote like we did for LT28 but currently only yes/no votes are possible. If someone wants a lower limit, he/she can open another vote to overwrite this one.

Hah I totally forgot about LT28! Funny that the poll ended up with the same proposed value as the one selected in the LT28 poll.

@multiple choice:

Multiple choice polls definitally have their usefulness, but limiting polls to yes/no forces players to ask very clear and unambiguous poll questions. Compare it with a parliament: first there's an open discussion about possible alternatives, and the initial idea can be amended. When the initiator of the idea thinks he knows which alternative would get most support, he puts it to a yes/no vote. If he doesn't get it right, anyone else can propose an amended poll and put it to the vote.

But it would be good to have a discussion on the forum about whether or not to bring back multiple choice polls. Also it depends on Dude, for him yes/no polls make his work easier since it makes it very clear what people want and how the ruleset should be changed (e.g. if you have a poll with 10 options and each receives 10% support; if a very extreme option receives 10%+1 vote then it's possible that a majority of the players would be very unhappy about this outcome).

Kryon · 2012-01-23 23:33:32

Marduk wrote:

(e.g. if you have a poll with 10 options and each receives 10% support; if a very extreme option receives 10%+1 vote then it's possible that a majority of the players would be very unhappy about this outcome).

When I say multiple choice votes, I meant the "instant runoff" voting method maho used at the old website. This method allows multiple voting steps to be completed instantly. I really like it as the situation you described can not happen with this method. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting for more info.

Last edited by Kryon (2012-01-23 23:34:56)

Steelski · 2012-01-26 13:47:44

I have a feeling some of us are going to find out soon how much it sucks when your alliance of 7 nations gets rolled over easily -- no matter how good you are or what you do -- by an alliance of 14 nations. Double research and double production = 4 times the ownage? Some players might not be able to form or join in an alliance of 14 due to their starting location for example.

det0r · 2012-01-27 23:17:29

Steelski wrote:

I have a feeling some of us are going to find out soon how much it sucks when your alliance of 7 nations gets rolled over easily -- no matter how good you are or what you do -- by an alliance of 14 nations. Double research and double production = 4 times the ownage? Some players might not be able to form or join in an alliance of 14 due to their starting location for example.

This is exactly the reason that I am against such large alliances. But a limit of 14 is better than no limit.

Marduk · 2012-01-28 16:05:29

Kryon wrote:

Marduk wrote:
(e.g. if you have a poll with 10 options and each receives 10% support; if a very extreme option receives 10%+1 vote then it's possible that a majority of the players would be very unhappy about this outcome).
When I say multiple choice votes, I meant the "instant runoff" voting method maho used at the old website. This method allows multiple voting steps to be completed instantly. I really like it as the situation you described can not happen with this method. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting for more info.

Yea that worked quite well. If Akfaew agrees we can bring this back.

Marduk · 2012-01-28 16:18:51

det0r wrote:

Steelski wrote:
I have a feeling some of us are going to find out soon how much it sucks when your alliance of 7 nations gets rolled over easily -- no matter how good you are or what you do -- by an alliance of 14 nations. Double research and double production = 4 times the ownage? Some players might not be able to form or join in an alliance of 14 due to their starting location for example.
This is exactly the reason that I am against such large alliances. But a limit of 14 is better than no limit.

I guess it would be ok to have one more poll, though we should finish the polling phase after that. E.g. if you propose a limit of 8 players then "yes=set to 8 players" and "no=keep at 14 players".

Steelski · 2012-01-30 23:17:43

Marduk wrote:

I guess it would be ok to have one more poll, though we should finish the polling phase after that. E.g. if you propose a limit of 8 players then "yes=set to 8 players" and "no=keep at 14 players".

I made one with 10. I hope it's ok (for akfaew too).

Marduk · 2012-01-31 21:40:07

Steelski wrote:

Marduk wrote:
I guess it would be ok to have one more poll, though we should finish the polling phase after that. E.g. if you propose a limit of 8 players then "yes=set to 8 players" and "no=keep at 14 players".
I made one with 10. I hope it's ok (for akfaew too).

Cool, so let's keep this as the final poll about the player limit for LT30.

Longturn.net

#1 2012-01-20 20:32:52

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#2 2012-01-22 16:56:03

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#3 2012-01-22 18:13:21

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#4 2012-01-22 23:46:32

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#5 2012-01-23 10:25:05

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#6 2012-01-23 14:26:00

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#7 2012-01-23 15:01:42

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#8 2012-01-23 21:25:13

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#9 2012-01-23 23:33:32

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#10 2012-01-26 13:47:44

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#11 2012-01-27 23:17:29

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#12 2012-01-28 16:05:29

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#13 2012-01-28 16:18:51

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#14 2012-01-30 23:17:43

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

#15 2012-01-31 21:40:07

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Board footer