Re: Problem[s?] with 63...?

Okay, all this moaning about the whole units thing is starting to get old, fast. Let's address the points you've made, and why all I hear is "whawhawha-mbulance, I'm not winning!":

"The passing over squares to make money part would have worked better if the starcraft rules were removed..." -Units and buildings have NOTHING to do with motion. The "passing over squares" problem is because you didn't pay attention to what proposals passed (I refer you to proposal 57, which changed the way moving works, and passed BEFORE you even made proposal 63). Don't try to blame your failings on something that isn't even related.

"...but I guess people just don't care about trying to make a better game once they've found a loophole to manipulate..." -What "loophole" are we manipulating??? And please define what YOU mean by "better" in this context, because I think the game is pretty damn good as is. Sure, it goes a little faster then it maybe should (with regard to unit cool downs), but that's not something that really bothers me.

"...so that's why the starcraft retraction proposal failed." -Since I was one of the 5 that voted against it, I can be seen as "the reason it failed" (as could any of the other nay-sayers). As such, let me tell you why I voted against it, and as a result, why it failed. We've been playing this game for just over a month, and units were the first thing implemented. If we simply retracted a system every time someone started to pull ahead, nobody would ever win. This is, I believe, the one inherent flaw in vote-driven Nomic games like this one: a player is forced to win in less time then it takes for a vote to pass, or the other players will almost assuredly vote yes, rather than lose (that's just human nature, on the average). As such, players are more or less forced to win through exploitation, in order to circumvent being "voted out of winning."

"I may as well resign now; I've had a pretty bad start through no fault of my own..." -And with proposal 55 having passed (and also 57), you can EASILY get a good start now. All you have to do is quit whining about how "bad" your start was, and try to actually play the game.

"...now my units are being attacked by someone who had a good start in this game and has the financial backing to ruin me pretty quickly." -Your units got attacked once, and that was because you moved an SCV into range of a Guard Tower without protection. Go figure it's going to get killed. My units/buildings have been attacked 15 times. You don't see me bitching about players trying to "ruin" me.

"It's quite clear that fairness wasn't a factor when the starcraft rules were implemented, or all players, even the ones who started in the beginning, would have had a better chance to get in the game" -I can agree that the system favours players who can log in more often. But the main problem that caused disparity between players was the random nature of moves, and the fact that the board was only 20 squares (something I tried to change right at the start, because I knew people would get shafted by "bad" rolls and start whining about it later... I'm like a freaking prophet I can see the future so well). Your comment is like saying the lottery is rigged, because it doesn't give you a good enough chance of winning. Seriously, for someone who uses the word median properly, you sure do seem to lack a little bit of mathematical sense when it comes to interpreting random events properly.

"Implementing a card system to replace the starcraft system would improve the game and provide better parity between players." -See my comment above on random events sometimes screwing players over, and you can probably figure out why your statement is incorrect. In case you can't, let me explain it: random events sometimes screw you over, that's the nature of things being random. As a result, replacing a system that is now entirely deterministic (except when you attack a unit that has higher armor than the attacker's attack strength), with one driven by random events, is only going to cause MORE disparity between players. That's kind of how games are won and lost anyway: one player gets the upper-hand. Would you rather go back to the initial rules, where we all just move around a 20 square board, and there's no way for one player to gain an advantage? Because that's the only way to eliminate disparity between players. And I for one wouldn't play that game, because there'd be NO WAY TO WIN!!!

"I've said this several times in the past, but every starcraft fanboy wants to be Jim Raynor." -I'm not a fan of Starcraft personally, but I have played it, so I know who you're referring to. I would have rather been one of the Protoss, or maybe Kerrigan. But then I'm not a Starcraft fanboy, so that comment doesn't really apply to me. In any case, I don't really see how this comment applies to the game, but whatever.


So in summary, quit bitching about your "bad start." It was bad luck, I agree. But now you have the tools at your disposal to determine how well you do: all you have to do is use them. Or you could resign, as you suggested. Either one is fine with me, so long as I don't have to hear another call for a wah-mbulance because you had some bad luck.