Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
DocMatoi said:
stuff
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While I agree we shouldn't kill our king, please don't strawman. It will only fill the thread with more vitrol.
tryrar said:
Vote Tally : Paths of Civilization | Page 667 | Sufficient Velocity
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While I appreciate how dedicated you are at this, this is two tallies on the same page less than 15 posts in between. Add to that that everyone can already check the tally themselves on the in-site tally program, and I think you should let a little more time pass between each tally pls?
bluefur87 said:
Bureaucracy, it is literally meant to handle this. The legitimacy increase is nothing to sneeze at either.

It sounds cruel and not what we are used to, but setting up cultural ties with your religious pantheon is actually super important. It gives the people a stronger connection to the idea of divine and mystic, and despite our insistence on being a modern society, that's the sort of thing that ties a people together greatly in these times.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It still means killing our King who has ~40 years of experience leading when we need him the most though...
 
veekie said:
Urgh. We're going for the second worst long term combination.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Firstly, that's not even the combo I'm voting for. I'm preferential to Large or Medium ancestral sacrifices, and I would also prefer not to kill the king. That said, the people who are willing to kill the king (and support it far more vehemently than I) refused to keep the inoculation techniques close to our chest without a compromise.

My original plan actually had a 20% chance of leaving us completely as we were before the crisis dropped our stability (econ even, stability likely even), and an overall 60% chance of at least leaving us with Stability -1 (Stab 0 included).

Considering the severity of the crisis, I would be surprised if any other civ could say they didn't lose half of most of their relevant stats this crisis, so us breaking completely even 60% of the time is practically miraculous by comparison.
 
veekie said:
Well, I already got heatstroke yesterday, so my head is already tender :V
But the vote does seem to be very closely split, so if you have an opinion, might as well express it. It's not like people will be less offensive if you didn't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is true but the longer I hang around in this thread the more tempted I get to Ignore every single person except for you veekie, @Sivantic, @Sightsear, and @Academia Nut.

And I've only been active in the discussion for a day and a half.

Sightsear said:
Oh, well you can still vote on things you KNOW you support. Just drop it, don't make a big deal of it, and go "meh" to anyone who tries to call you on it.

Your right about people getting a bit toxic on this thread though. I know a lot of them are intelligent, rational, reasonable human beings, but five pages into a fresh vote and they descend into raving lunatics who invest more emotion than reason into their arguments, and refuse to accept that tough decisions AREN'T trap just waiting to punish them for straying from conventional morality.

It's disappointing, to be honest. And a very good reason to never invest yourself fully into a vote. Vote responsibly, folks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thanks for outlining some of my thoughts in a polite manner. At least this isn't We Stand In Awe....

Goddamn that thread.
Adhoc vote count started by BungieONI on Apr 14, 2017 at 10:16 PM, finished with 238 posts and 48 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Powerofmind said:
Firstly, that's not even the combo I'm voting for. I'm preferential to Large or Medium ancestral sacrifices, and I would also prefer not to kill the king. That said, the people who are willing to kill the king (and support it far more vehemently than I) refused to keep the inoculation techniques close to our chest without a compromise.

My original plan actually had a 20% chance of leaving us completely as we were before the crisis dropped our stability (econ even, stability likely even), and an overall 60% chance of at least leaving us with Stability -1 (Stab 0 included).

Considering the severity of the crisis, I would be surprised if any other civ could say they didn't lose half of most of their relevant stats this crisis, so us breaking completely even 60% of the time is practically miraculous by comparison.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In this case I offer a counter compromise, I will align with your vote on the innoculation if you are willing to bring sanity to the sacrifices.
 
Sivantic said:
While I agree we shouldn't kill our king, please don't strawman. It will only fill the thread with more vitrol.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oof. Yeah.
Sivantic said:
Add to that that everyone can already check the tally themselves on the in-site tally program,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Though there are some issues with that- there's a couple misspellings that ought to be counted down toward the bottom, and i think theyre adding those in when they do their own tallies
 
Powerofmind said:
Firstly, that's not even the combo I'm voting for. I'm preferential to Large or Medium ancestral sacrifices, and I would also prefer not to kill the king. That said, the people who are willing to kill the king (and support it far more vehemently than I) refused to keep the inoculation techniques close to our chest without a compromise.

My original plan actually had a 20% chance of leaving us completely as we were before the crisis dropped our stability (econ even, stability likely even), and an overall 60% chance of at least leaving us with Stability -1 (Stab 0 included).

Considering the severity of the crisis, I would be surprised if any other civ could say they didn't lose half of most of their relevant stats this crisis, so us breaking completely even 60% of the time is practically miraculous by comparison.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do note that no one said you were, BungieOni only said that that was the leading vote at the time and used your reasoning to support it.
BungieONI said:
This is true but the longer I hang around in this thread the more tempted I get to Ignore every single person except for you veekie, @Sivantic, @Sightsear, and @AcademiaNut.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
(◕‿◕✿)

I am sorry that it is getting to you. My personal method is that once the votes are more or less cemented and voting has stopped, I just go off and do other things, read other stories away from SV, so you don't see the alerts.
DocMatoi said:
Though there are some issues with that- there's a couple misspellings that ought to be counted down toward the bottom, and i think theyre adding those in when they do their own tallies
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just checked and compared to VoteTally and the numbers are pretty much the same. The off-site program just comes with a way to manually join votes and tryar has been good at not getting them mixed up.
 
veekie said:
In this case I offer a counter compromise, I will align with your vote on the innoculation if you are willing to bring sanity to the sacrifices.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My preferred vote is Medium Sacrifice, No Sharing, Stay at Home, and -1/chance of -1 with +2 econ. Overall, there is an assumed 50% chance stability increase, and two 25-33% stability hits. Simplified down to base fractions, there are 32 or 18 basic result sets, with 1 result (3%) resulting in a net loss of 3 additional stability (a collapse event). There are 9 results (28%) resulting in a net loss of 2 stability. There are 13 results (41%) resulting in a net loss of 1 stability. There are 9 results (28%) resulting in a net loss of 0 stability.

By trading medium Sacrifice for Large, the net econ drops by 1, but has a much greater chance of resulting in a net loss of 0, or a net gain back to 0 from negative 1.
 
Sivantic said:
Do note that no one said you were, BungieOni only said that that was the leading vote at the time and used your reasoning to support it.

(◕‿◕✿)

I am sorry that it is getting to you. My personal method is that once the votes are more or less cemented and voting has stopped, I just go off and do other things, read other stories away from SV, so you don't see the alerts.

Just checked and compared to VoteTally and the numbers are pretty much the same. The off-site program just comes with a way to manually join votes and tryar has been good at not getting them mixed up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Tryrar. It's tryrar. Sorry, that's a big pet peeve of mine :p

Edit: I will note it is a bit annoying having to merge about 12 votes due to people only voting once and never reading the thread again to redo their vote with tags
 
Last edited:
Powerofmind said:
My preferred vote is Medium Sacrifice, No Sharing, Stay at Home, and -1/chance of -1 with +2 econ. Overall, there is an assumed 50% chance stability increase, and two 25-33% stability hits. Simplified down to base fractions, there are 32 or 18 basic result sets, with 1 result (3%) resulting in a net loss of 3 additional stability (a collapse event). There are 9 results (28%) resulting in a net loss of 2 stability. There are 13 results (41%) resulting in a net loss of 1 stability. There are 9 results (28%) resulting in a net loss of 0 stability.

By trading medium Sacrifice for Large, the net econ drops by 1, but has a much greater chance of resulting in a net loss of 0, or a net gain back to 0 from negative 1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If this helps ensure No Sharing and Stay at Home win, I can change up my vote to anything you two decide as well.
 
Ugh.
And that's why we need to take RH action whevnever our stability drops lower than 1, at worst, or rather 2.
I am not voting right now because I am angry at myself for not pushing for it and angry at everyone else because I am sure as fuck nobody would agree with taking RH when we could.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Ugh.
And that's why we need to take RH action whevnever our stability drops lower than 1, at worst, or rather 2.
I am not voting right now because I am angry at myself for not pushing for it and angry at everyone else because I am sure as fuck nobody would agree with taking RH when we could.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because we have other things we need to do, and AN has said to not be salty about it.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Ugh.
And that's why we need to take RH action whevnever our stability drops lower than 1, at worst, or rather 2.
I am not voting right now because I am angry at myself for not pushing for it and angry at everyone else because I am sure as fuck nobody would agree with taking RH when we could.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, our stability got lower than 1 because of a double-crit crisis. We were at 0, so the main expand warriors that won (which I could swear you pushed for) seemed a safe bet.

But I still wanted to do a festival or something, thus I blame everything on people who decided on a trade mission/expand econ rather than a festival to jump up to 1.
 
Right, so I'm making one more argument and then leaving until update, because people are letting their passion get the better of themselves.

The sacrificing of our king is specifically so he can go to the heavenly realm to help the spirits there, on behalf of the people, or get them to lay off the people. Most kings will not be considered to have that ability, far more likely is that we'll get a more formalized burial method, cremation at that. It will be touted as giving people a means of passing on to the afterlife, and helping the people after death. The spirits will slowly stop being completely mystical forces of nature, and go to being the people of old, providing deeper connections with the land and each other.

There, a realistic yet possible positive outlook to counter the realistic, but negative outlook.
 
Last edited:
tryrar said:
Because we have other things we need to do, and AN has said to not be salty about it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I can't not be salty because everybody who fucking bothered to read the description of LoO and to think of previous crises (me included) should know that Stability 0 might be 'neutral' for the other civs, but not for us.
EDIT: And, like, we knew that high Stability is 'optimistic people' - resilience to Stability hits. Another reason to be annoyed for chasing everything instead of it.
 
[x] [Harmony]Yes, the people need to be further calmed (-1 to +2 Stability)

[x] [King]Remain home (Chance of stability gain)

[X][Refugee] Some from friendly groups can come in (-2 Stability, +4-5 Econ)

[X] [Sacrifice] Large (-3 Econ, +1 Stability, ???)

[X] [Ward] No, it is sacred magic (Small chance of stability loss)
 
tryrar said:
Tryrar. It's tryrar. Sorry, that's a big pet peeve of mine :p

Edit: I will note it is a bit annoying having to merge about 12 votes due to people only voting once and never reading the thread again to redo their vote with tags
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sivantic said:
See, and I was doing so well in keeping the cases correctly ._.

Darn you, English Class! With your need to capitalise proper names and such rot >.>
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Herp derp, and I got the reason wrong as well, lol


I've seen my name and true name mispelled loads of times. I just laugh at it at this point.
bluefur87 said:
Right, so I'm making one more argument and then leaving until update, because people are letting their passion get the better of themselves.

The sacrificing of our king is specifically so he can go to the heavenly realm to help the people there. Most kings will not be considered to have that ability, far more likely is that we'll get a more formalized burial method, cremation at that. It will be touted as giving people a means of passing on to the afterlife, and helping the people after death. The spirits will slowly stop being completely mystical forces of nature, and go to being the people of old, providing deeper connections with the land and each other.

There, a realistic yet possible positive outlook to counter the realistic, but negative outlook.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Have fun!
Though I will note that we have been remarkably more civil this past hour compared to earlier so I don't know where the passion comment is coming from.
 
Powerofmind said:
My preferred vote is Medium Sacrifice, No Sharing, Stay at Home, and -1/chance of -1 with +2 econ. Overall, there is an assumed 50% chance stability increase, and two 25-33% stability hits. Simplified down to base fractions, there are 32 or 18 basic result sets, with 1 result (3%) resulting in a net loss of 3 additional stability (a collapse event). There are 9 results (28%) resulting in a net loss of 2 stability. There are 13 results (41%) resulting in a net loss of 1 stability. There are 9 results (28%) resulting in a net loss of 0 stability.

By trading medium Sacrifice for Large, the net econ drops by 1, but has a much greater chance of resulting in a net loss of 0, or a net gain back to 0 from negative 1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Done.

Now to try to nap this headache off.



[X] [Sacrifice] Large (-3 Econ, +1 Stability, ???)
[X] [Harmony] No, they could cause further panic
[X] [Ward] No, it is sacred magic (Small chance of stability loss)
[X] [King] Remain home (Chance of stability gain)
[X] [Refugee] Those with preexisting ties can come in (-1 Stability, +2 Econ, small chance of further stability loss)

I'll drop back in to shift if the situation changes later.
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
I can't not be salty because everybody who fucking bothered to read the description of LoO and to think of previous crises (me included) should know that Stability 0 might be 'neutral' for the other civs, but not for us.
EDIT: And, like, we knew that high Stability is 'optimistic people' - resilience to Stability hits. Another reason to be annoyed for chasing everything instead of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True, but pushing for anything over 1 is a waste. And as @Powerofmind said there were plans for festivals last turn that got overtaken by trade mission and expand econ.
 
[] [Sacrifice] Medium (-2 Econ, ???)
[] [Harmony] No, they could cause further panic
[] [Ward] No, it is sacred magic (Small chance of stability loss)
[] [King] Remain home (Chance of stability gain)
[] [Refugee] Those with preexisting ties can come in (-1 Stability, +2 Econ, small chance of further stability loss)

This has a 1 in 32 chance of causing a societal collapse, a sufficiently low chance. It leaves us Economy Neutral, and has an 11 in 16 chance of only bringing us as low as Stability -2.

[X] [Sacrifice] Large (-3 Econ, +1 Stability, ???)
[X] [Harmony] No, they could cause further panic
[X] [Ward] No, it is sacred magic (Small chance of stability loss)
[X] [King] Remain home (Chance of stability gain)
[X] [Refugee] Those with preexisting ties can come in (-1 Stability, +2 Econ, small chance of further stability loss)

This is the same as above, but completely eliminates societal collapse as a result, and raises the 11 in 16 chance to Stability -1 instead of stability -2. It effectively pays 1 econ to blunt the effect of the entire crisis, and is what I'll be finishing on.
 
bluefur87 said:
Right, so I'm making one more argument and then leaving until update, because people are letting their passion get the better of themselves.

The sacrificing of our king is specifically so he can go to the heavenly realm to help the spirits there, on behalf of the people, or get them to lay off the people. Most kings will not be considered to have that ability, far more likely is that we'll get a more formalized burial method, cremation at that. It will be touted as giving people a means of passing on to the afterlife, and helping the people after death. The spirits will slowly stop being completely mystical forces of nature, and go to being the people of old, providing deeper connections with the land and each other.

There, a realistic yet possible positive outlook to counter the realistic, but negative outlook.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't trust the dice to give us that over 'hey we dead priests in the hills now'
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top