- Location
- Australia
You surely can't expect us to account for what your rp budgets are in advance and only offer options in total up to that value? :S
-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
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?
Make it a plan vote next time instead of itemizing it so the accountants can do the budgeting for you
Thors_Alumni
Proud member of Thors Class VII from Liberl
- Location
- Liberl Zemuria.
Pretty much that @OneirosTheWriterMake it a plan vote next time instead of itemizing it so the accountants can do the budgeting for you
Make it a plan vote next time instead of itemizing it so the accountants can do the budgeting for you
Or don't!
Seriously, it's the one vote where we don't completely defer to Briefvoice & SWB.
Offer alternative payment options instead!
Last edited:
- Location
- Australia
@Glassware - I may need you to disregard my last reply, that antagonistic GM'ing spiel is starting to sound attractive.
The THREAT PARABOLA was supposed to be me being a crazy guy with OCD!@Glassware - I may need you to disregard my last reply, that antagonistic GM'ing spiel is starting to sound attractive.
Nervos Belli
Don't think this means you've won!
- Location
- Murica
@Glassware - I may need you to disregard my last reply, that antagonistic GM'ing spiel is starting to sound attractive.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Isn't that why you have the Cardassians?@Glassware - I may need you to disregard my last reply, that antagonistic GM'ing spiel is starting to sound attractive.
UbeOne
Daydreaming CPU
- Location
- Philippines
- Pronouns
- She/Her
...@Glassware - I may need you to disregard my last reply, that antagonistic GM'ing spiel is starting to sound attractive.
I'll just say that winning options spend only 10 rp more than Briefvoice approved vote, which would be a popular plan otherwise. I don't really get why people are suddenly acting like we overspent out of our ass.Make it a plan vote next time instead of itemizing it so the accountants can do the budgeting for you
BV approved a budget for just this year's EAS. If our average budget doesn't change and we have to spend something like 200-300 rp over the course of the year again (and we've already spent 50, plus a considerable cost to maintain attachments), BV's budget fails over more than one year. Leaving a RP buffer is necessary to run research over multiple years. We overspent out of our ass, 110%. Don't just listen to one person, listen to all the people please.
Individual research teams and boosts are not that expensive, it only takes a small buffer to guarantee them against event variance. But conversely, if we dip into that buffer or worse, spend all of it and then more like we just did, we can easily shut down a large fraction of our research.
Last edited:
I don't agree, but that's neither here nor there - I am more arguing that having that vote be a plan vote wouldn't really change expenditure all that much.
Honestly, if we have overspent to the extent of failing to fully active the Federation Research Machine this year, it will be a lesson for us questers in moderation, that hopefully will stick ...
(I'm cynical enough to expect that moderation to fail, but can live in hope ...)
(I'm cynical enough to expect that moderation to fail, but can live in hope ...)
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
May I just note that I think the Constitution-C actually sounds like a good idea to me? I know why we passed it up this year, but I think it merits consideration. Don't just think operations and statlines, think broad strategic picture.
Yes, in performance a one-megaton parasite tender cruiser like the Constitution-C has stats inferior to the Little Queenship, yes, but it's also cheaper and can be built in one-megaton berths. The Apiata and Caitians have to invest capital ship berth time to build tenders for their parasite warships, and it's a major deterrent for any other member states seeking to experiment with the technology. Some of the smaller members that could really benefit from cheap parasite frigates simply don't have the infrastructure to support even a handful of the big Apiata-style motherships for them all.
Where is this linked? I mean, which of the threadmarked pages in the thread links to the page that gives this information? I honestly can't even remember where to look it up...
The line-item vote expresses itself as "okay, 70% majority in favor of A, 70% for B, and 60% for C, all three options win." Because line-item votes track preferences on separate questions, not interrelated questions where everyone agrees that we can only pick two options, but disagrees on which ones."
As a plan vote there'd be a clear-cut plurality winner, probably a majority winner as voters fell in line behind one of two or three front-runners. But as a line-item vote you get chaos. It's not the voters' fault; the system simply is not designed to track, in addition to voter preferences on which things should get funded, the extra preference "oh yeah and don't blow the budget."
Especially when the QM pulls a "sadistic choice" move like "oh yeah, and you can start a massive humanitarian relief project if you juuuust sign over 200 RP here." It doesn't take an idiot to lose track of the numbers on this when they're so ridiculously buried in layers upon layers of abstraction and when our annual RP income relies heavily on random chance.
You know, there's an easy way to fix this.
Amortize the cost of the humanitarian aid program.
Make it cost 50 RP/year, and trickle 10 pp/year, for four years. The entire problem is that we're getting a huge 'lump sum' reward we arguably don't need (it's been a good pp year) in exchange for a huge 'lump sum' cost we can't afford. Realistically, the humanitarian program is going to take years to bear fruit anyway because it involves massive amounts of research into xenopsychology and xenobiology and engineering and logistical planning. It's not fast. So why not just turn it into a trickle program that pays off over several years and remove the crippling up-front effect and huge up-front reward?
Such debates would be so complicated and stupid, because most of us just don't have the information to make useful contributions on that front anymore, and it's just freaking unapproachable.
Stuff like the Maiden of Dawn project and the Constitution-C tender (which I still favor for reasons) are good 'conversion projects.' Something that takes almost the entire existing RP surplus and converts it into 'currency' in one go? Should be very explicitly described as an OPTIONAL option. Something we can look ourselves in the mirror after voting against.
Yes, in performance a one-megaton parasite tender cruiser like the Constitution-C has stats inferior to the Little Queenship, yes, but it's also cheaper and can be built in one-megaton berths. The Apiata and Caitians have to invest capital ship berth time to build tenders for their parasite warships, and it's a major deterrent for any other member states seeking to experiment with the technology. Some of the smaller members that could really benefit from cheap parasite frigates simply don't have the infrastructure to support even a handful of the big Apiata-style motherships for them all.
Huh. Well, there you go then.
Where is this linked? I mean, which of the threadmarked pages in the thread links to the page that gives this information? I honestly can't even remember where to look it up...
Line-item voting is TERRIBLE as a mechanism for spending a fixed budget without going over budget. For example, if you tell voters "we can afford two of these three items, pick two" as a line-item vote... well, suppose that 40% of the voters want A and B, 30% want B and C, and 30% want A and C.
The line-item vote expresses itself as "okay, 70% majority in favor of A, 70% for B, and 60% for C, all three options win." Because line-item votes track preferences on separate questions, not interrelated questions where everyone agrees that we can only pick two options, but disagrees on which ones."
As a plan vote there'd be a clear-cut plurality winner, probably a majority winner as voters fell in line behind one of two or three front-runners. But as a line-item vote you get chaos. It's not the voters' fault; the system simply is not designed to track, in addition to voter preferences on which things should get funded, the extra preference "oh yeah and don't blow the budget."
Forgo, as noted above, it is grossly unfair to expect voters to exercise fiscal responsibility in a voting system configured so as to set them up to fail to do so.
Especially when the QM pulls a "sadistic choice" move like "oh yeah, and you can start a massive humanitarian relief project if you juuuust sign over 200 RP here." It doesn't take an idiot to lose track of the numbers on this when they're so ridiculously buried in layers upon layers of abstraction and when our annual RP income relies heavily on random chance.
So, what, we were supposed to pass up good options this year on the off chance that next year's will be even better? I mean, trading off 100 RP worth of MWCD options this year for 100 RP worth of MWCD options next year is, on average, going to be a zero-sum game.
@OneirosTheWriterI think we just got a little over enthusiastic about RP sinks this turn in particular
You know, there's an easy way to fix this.
Amortize the cost of the humanitarian aid program.
Make it cost 50 RP/year, and trickle 10 pp/year, for four years. The entire problem is that we're getting a huge 'lump sum' reward we arguably don't need (it's been a good pp year) in exchange for a huge 'lump sum' cost we can't afford. Realistically, the humanitarian program is going to take years to bear fruit anyway because it involves massive amounts of research into xenopsychology and xenobiology and engineering and logistical planning. It's not fast. So why not just turn it into a trickle program that pays off over several years and remove the crippling up-front effect and huge up-front reward?
I would HATE to QM a quest where a research establishment as big as the Federation's was regularly running short of RP to activate its teams. So far all we've had to vote on is "so, which team does what." There's no question of whether teams get activated, no debate over which pet projects get the axe this year.The QMs want us to be short of rp, possibly every single research turn. There obviously isn't any modeling of the other Great Power's researching, but if there was, then none of them would be able to keep up with the Federation. We spend pp like candy when Cardassian Quest players are tearing each other's hair out to get the rp to keep all their cruiser designwork going.
Such debates would be so complicated and stupid, because most of us just don't have the information to make useful contributions on that front anymore, and it's just freaking unapproachable.
I dunno. Rogers was Starfleet. Muscular Starfleet, 'armed and vigilant' Starfleet, but still Starfleet. I can't imagine him really being against the relief programs; at most I can imagine him wanting them to go a bit slower and be less disruptive.
Well see, the problem was, you offered a currency conversion option whose fluff description was so compelling it swayed the voterbase to the point where we'd practically have to be Admiral Cartwright NOT to take it...
Stuff like the Maiden of Dawn project and the Constitution-C tender (which I still favor for reasons) are good 'conversion projects.' Something that takes almost the entire existing RP surplus and converts it into 'currency' in one go? Should be very explicitly described as an OPTIONAL option. Something we can look ourselves in the mirror after voting against.
The problem is that historically the MWCO hasn't behaved like a 'store,' in that options we pass up right away don't reliably come back next year. If we want to transfer to the MWCO as a 'store' model in which we can spend RP as currency, we need a budgeting system that works more like the Snakepit, and more assurance that our options will still exist next year if we pass them up this year.
It's in the regular MWCD posts:
So the Amarki have 31.75O, 42E, and 22T while the Ked Paddah have 27.6O, 28.9E, and 29.9T.
Just because it can be a tad confusion sometimes, I know I make the mistake often enough, the "Resources" bit refers to the various races' stockpiles while "Income", which is directly under "Resources", refers to their annual income
- Location
- Aotearoa
In addition it's tracked in the Member World Yard sheet here
Referenced on the Public Spreadsheets tag.
Last edited:
We can sell the Apita a Rennie and/or Rennie-A, they only need to ask. There has to be at least one under construction that we can give them.
Edit: We do have one under construction, NCC-2636.
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Notably, the Apiata don't actually have any 1-megaton berths. They would be refitting these in 2mt berths, as a faster alternative to more LQNs.
They don't have any 1mt berths, though. They have 0.6 and 2. That's all. It's such a waste for them.
If we wanted to encourage other members to experiment with the tech, I'm okay with that, but Apiata Connies isn't the right way to do it.
The Sydraxians are modifying their Kalindrax-R to be a tender. I can see them wanting a cheep 1.2mt Renaissance/Rennie-A based Tender so they can continue using the Kalindrax-R as a heavy cruiser as intended.
Maybe the Apita want to experiment with the Connie because they want their next-generation tenders to be beefier?
The Little Queenship is 2H7L at 1.8mt; that's 0.9H 3.8L per MT
The Queenship is 3H8L at 2.1mt; that's 1.42H 3.8L per MT
The Connie-B is 3H4L at 1mt; that's 3H 4L per MT
Assuming the new ships are the same weight as the old ships, at 3h 4L per MT, the Theoretical New Little Queenship would be 5H 7L and the Theoretical New Queenship would be 6H 8L. That's a tanky as the 5mt Sanctuary at 2.9mt lighter.
The Little Queenship is 2H7L at 1.8mt; that's 0.9H 3.8L per MT
The Queenship is 3H8L at 2.1mt; that's 1.42H 3.8L per MT
The Connie-B is 3H4L at 1mt; that's 3H 4L per MT
Assuming the new ships are the same weight as the old ships, at 3h 4L per MT, the Theoretical New Little Queenship would be 5H 7L and the Theoretical New Queenship would be 6H 8L. That's a tanky as the 5mt Sanctuary at 2.9mt lighter.
Thors_Alumni
Proud member of Thors Class VII from Liberl
- Location
- Liberl Zemuria.
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. I'm on my phone right now so I can't check to be sure.
I doubt that we will have the RP to spare next year as almost all of it will be needed to cover research expenses next year.