Alteration to how Proposed Changes to Universe Settings are Handled

When new changes to a universe are being put up to an in-game vote, the following should be true:

A) If a suggestion is proposed as a package deal (economy increase + Deut to debris field, for example) then these settings CANNOT be separated into individual options and MUST be offered to players to vote on as whether they accept the package deal or not.

and

B) When a vote is offered in-game about changes to settings, it MUST include arguments for/against the proposed change as part of the text of the in-game poll being voted on.

CONTEXT:

For Suggestion A, the Vega universe is in the midst of turmoil due to a vote being broken up into individual parts, the option that was more favorable to a mining play style passed while the suggestion meant to balance out that change for the fleeting play style was denied. This needs to be avoided in the future.

For Suggestion B, Universe 1 had a vote at the end of 2023 about Deut to DF that people had been debating on the board for a long time. The problem is, not everyone visits the board to see the context of what they are voting for so all they saw in-game is "Deut to DF? Yes or No". The context of the vote is just as important as the vote itself, so this context should be provided. Perhaps the community needs to agree to appoint someone to summarize arguments if a member of the team does not want to do it and that summary should be posted to the boards in the topic where the suggestion was being made for approval by the community (based on "likes") before it gets included in the official vote poll.

Quote from Neotinea

Hello,

I think a little explanation is needed to clarify things:

Vega asked for 2 things:

- change the peaceful fleet

- to have the deut into DF while lowering the DF.

On the first vote, there was an error and the "deut into df" and "df" options were separated.

This was corrected in a second vote but nobody said it was rejected, we didn't get the full results of the first vote and we still don't have the results of this vote. I think there's a bit of interpretation here.

The only result obtained and retained is that of peaceful fleet, which was not the subject of a compromise, and completely independent of the rest.

As a result, what I can say is that the combined options are taken into account, that there was a mistake, and everyone makes mistakes. Obviously we're going to make sure it doesn't happen again, but the situation wasn't as catastrophic (in the sense that I think the word turmoil is a bit over-rated for the situation), although we're sorry that Vega players will have to vote again.

With point A out of the way, let's move on to point B:

I get the idea, and it wouldn't be so bad to give some context at the time of the vote. We can discuss a potential solution between staff/commu and advise.

I'll let you discuss it amongst yourselves first, and I'll also have a word with the team.

I'll switch the topic to feedback, there's no point in having a vote, but let's work on it.

Display More

Appreciate the clarification from your side of things regarding the Vega situation, that it was a mistake rather than there being something systemic to it. A lot of reactions made it sound as if the second vote wasn't actually undoing the problem but perhaps that was just people arguing like they have been in Universe 1 over "fleeters wanting something miners won't give".

Krumme I agree summaries can be difficult, and inevitably won't always be perfectly balanced, but the side asking for the change is what matters most because a lot of people will have no idea why the change is even being proposed if they see no benefit to themselves. Of course dissenting opinions should be included too, but the people asking for the change being able to explain why it is important on a universe wide level could make a big difference to some of the results that keep getting rejected over and over despite having a lot of support.