Theunderbolt
"Prepare for trouble..."
- Location
- USoA
Overactive minds left unattended for an extended period of time?
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)
- Thread starter OneirosTheWriter
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
-
- Tags
- star trek exploration fully automated luxury gay space communism top level canon (canon) #hashtagcontent all-encompassing space amoeba cardassian boy bands cardassian magical girls darkest bureaucracy debate makes the qm cackle like palpatine hoh is an empire quest it has to be foreign infiltrators more ships ship happens singers delenda est starfleet this is not an empire quest ur waifu is collective?
Overactive minds left unattended for an extended period of time?
- Location
- Central Standard Time
Speaking of which, does anyone know if Helm and Navigation are merged on the Excelsiors?
@Simon_Jester
@Simon_Jester
I JUST WANTED THEM TO HOLD HANDS ;_;
Iron Wolf started it!
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
No idea. I've been assuming 'no,' if only because Excelsiors seem to have big bridges, at least as big as Connie bridges if not bigger. So there's no obvious reason for them to merge the positions.
Enterprise:
"...Okay, it's okay. [pats awkwardly on shoulder] But that's not shipping, that's going on adventures together. Don't scare me like that, Aaron!"
[group hug]
Last edited:
ClawClawBite
Mad Engineering!
- Location
- Seattle, WA
The right time for a major bridge reorg is when we get isolinear computers. That is when we can have advanced navigational aids and adaptive software control systems (with a new OS).
Theunderbolt
"Prepare for trouble..."
- Location
- USoA
Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
Ah, another vote for the "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA" tag.
Lewdmarines. Case closed.
- Location
- Australia
Okay, let's dial it all back a notch.
- Location
- Central Standard Time
I say we compromise on "we are horrible people"
Gah!
*runs away, chased by Birds of Prey*
Anyways, back on topic.
Huh. 2304, the graduation year of a good fraction of my OCs, is starting to see its first Commanders.
Fallenblades643
Seeker of the Divine Taste
When we aren't stuck in a ship crunch, I'd actually like to consider making a Federation tortoise-ship analogue, because to date their design paradigm massively compliments are current doctrine.
The Ambassador is likely to be H7 L9 or so.
- Location
- Australia
Vote closes in 3 hours.
It's been 3 hours and 11 minutes so I think it's safe to say the vote is closed.
Vote Tally : Sci-Fi - To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) | Page 1776 | Sufficient Velocity
##### NetTally 1.7.4
Task: SHIP
[x][SHIP] TF3
No. of Votes: 7
[X][SHIP] Task Force 4
No. of Votes: 4
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Task: WS
[X][WS] Plan Recon and Diplomacy
-[X] Starfleet Academy Red Squad Runabouts - Recon team (4 cost for Starfleet, gain +1 to outpost and starbase attempts to detect incoming ships)
-[X] Generate Generic Internal Diplomacy Team from United Earth (10 Cost to Starfleet, 5 Cost to Member World, gain Internal Diplomacy Team)
No. of Votes: 10
[x][WS] Plan Runabouts and Ships
-[x] Starfleet Academy Red Squad Runabouts - Recon team (4 cost for Starfleet, gain +1 to outpost and starbase attempts to detect incoming ships)
-[x] Federalise Fleet Units from Rigel: 1 Turtleship
-[x] Federalise Fleet Units from United Earth: 1 Constitution-B, 1 Centaur-A
-[x] Federalise Fleet Units from Tellar: 1 Centaur-A
-[x] Bank 10 points
No. of Votes: 0
Plan: ◈Runabouts and Ships
Total No. of Voters: 12
- Location
- Australia
12 voters *wince*
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Lot's of micromanagement? Real life issues? Lot's of possible reasons.
- Location
- Patriarchova
For me its the same reason why I rarely vote on research plans. The lists of things to look through are too many and too long, and I can't keep track of how many options from each list we can afford.
Last edited:
- Location
- Australia
*grumbles and debates just ushering in fifty years of peace spontaneously*
- Location
- Patriarchova
Obviously, there is a small subsection of the player base who are fine with these types of votes. 12 voters is easily enough to work with, and while I can only speak for myself when I say that I'm happy to let that small group handle these complicated votes while the entire playerbase pitches in for the simpler ones, I suspect that most others agree with me.
If you do want to keep the rest of us engaged on these war plan votes though, you should find a way to shrink them down into a shorter list of more individually meaningful options, like what you did with the Orion campaign.
Last edited:
Aside from the various people having issues with how micro the SoEs are part of the problem is that there was no real disagreement. Every voter was in favor of Recon and Diplomacy so there were no arguments about the pros and cons of differing plans that can inform/inspire people to vote. The closest we got was the vote between TF3 and TF4 and even that was fairly tame.
As for why there was a lack of disagreement? I'd say it's because the SoE has been going for 11 updates, six of which were war support spending votes. We've basically purchased everything we want to by now. Especially considering that we need to keep war support high enough to absorb battle losses and other negative PR things.
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/Him
AAAAAHHHHH - and who's going to provide the research, ship build, infrastructure build plans?
Thors_Alumni
Proud member of Thors Class VII from Liberl
- Location
- Liberl Zemuria.
Maybe tone down the list of choices so that we don't have to do so much reading to understand the choices we need to make. I am not a fan of micromanagement votes which is why I leave it to the people who can handle doing the Micromanaging.
(JK) Why not. *Shrugs*
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Some of the war plan votes got considerably more voters than this. I think it's the repeated nature of the war mobilization votes that's causing the problem- we've voted on the same question over and over, most of the teams we really want are already recruited.
One idea that just occurred to me is that, with the last mobilization itself could become a thing we only vote on every month. We'd be voting on how to spend 20 or 40 points of mobilization a month instead of 10 or 20 a fortnight. We'd still be tracking the progress of the war on a fortnightly basis, the turn structure wouldn't change, but I think reducing the frequency of these repetitive small decisions would make people (a) more inclined to vote on them and (b) less turned off by them.
The best time to make that change might be with the standdown of the other "accelerate mobilization" internal diplomacy team, which is coming fairly soon. Doing that would also negate one of the main objections to reassigning that internal diplomacy team, namely that we might need more than ten points of war mobilization in a single shot to recruit some of the more expensive team options.
As UberJJK noted, we've had many opportunities to vote on recruiting teams. We've got multiple teams working in most of the key categories we desire. While obviously we still need to track the war on a fortnightly basis, and MOST turns will still have important decisions for us to vote on, maybe we'd do better if we don't worry about voting on small, repetitive decisions each fortnight.