Official: the borehole poll

Maniac · November 13, 2002, 18:09

(Edit: Please read Base Square as Base Radius in the 6th and 7th poll options.

)

(For once it isn't a multichoice poll. You have three days to vote.)

It's about time we determine some rules concerning borehole placement - if you want any at all of course. Therefore I offer you the following choices. For more discussion, have a look at the Centauri Preserve.

No boreholes at all!

Keep boreholes a rare event for special tiles - every one planned for construction needs to be mentioned or discussed in the Centauri Preserve.

Build them but keep it modest: zero to two per base depending on the surrounding terrain.

Build them but keep it within certain limits: two to four per base depending on the surrounding terrain.

Try to build as many as possible of them, but respect the Big Huge Terraformation poll, i.e. only on arid and rarely moist squares. Also don't reform already terraformed tiles.

Use some system to cramp as many as possible of them in each base radius (6?), regardless of underlying terrain (eg also on rainy squares), but don't reform already terraformed tiles.

Use some system to cramp as many as possible of them in each base radius (6?), regardless of underlying terrain (eg also on rainy squares), and reform already terraformed tiles.

That's it. Start voting!

Drogue · November 13, 2002, 18:36

I'd go for somewhere between 'every one planned' and 'keep it modest'. They can be great for creating powerhouses, but i usully crawl them, so that an energy powerhouse (usually only the one) gets access to large quantities of energy but doesn't have the bad eco effects, and minerals bases don't have them built in base squares so as to highten eco damage. the last thing we want is worm rape (or worse, locust rape

)

Method · November 13, 2002, 21:32

boreholes are great things - between 2-4, and as many as possible. not until after environ econ though.

crawling boreholes is a bad idea IMO. they take too long to build to only exploit half of their potential

Pandemoniak · November 14, 2002, 04:38

I'd go for somewhere between 'every one planned' and 'keep it modest': "any borehole after the first per base must be discussed in the Centauri Preserve", could be an option.
I voted every one planned, though.

Kirov · November 14, 2002, 05:51

Keep them modest, but build boreholes also outside base tiles to crawl them.

Drogue · November 14, 2002, 06:51

I disagree with TKG. I think sometimes a base only wants one of their resources. Also, if it was a choice between only building inside base area, or not building at all, i go for the not at all, theres just way to much Eco damage IMHO.

GeneralTacticus · November 14, 2002, 06:56

It's not all that much, as long as there are enough forests inside the radius (and there's no damage at all with a Hybrid Forest built).

Pandemoniak · November 14, 2002, 07:19

GT, I think we might need a couple of boreholes before we can build an hybrid forest.

GeneralTacticus · November 14, 2002, 07:31

So what? The ecodamage won't last for very long.

Pandemoniak · November 14, 2002, 08:15

I wont let you be the cancer of the planet. I'll be the cure.

/me puts his sunglasses on and ask to be called "Johnson".

Drogue · November 14, 2002, 08:16

Go Pande!!

Maniac · November 14, 2002, 08:29

Hmm. I guess the DIE would need to organize a poll whether we should(n't) crawl boreholes.

Kirov · November 14, 2002, 08:32

GT, note that sometimes you have to remove workers from borehole tiles in order to avoid rampant ED. If you have actually worked the borehole, you lose 6 min and 6 energy, but if you have _crawled_ that borehole, then you can simply switch from min to energy and voila! You're ecofriendly and rich.

moomin · November 14, 2002, 08:35

Voted 2-4 per base. That's the amount of workers that can be allocated without serious drone problems, and we can crawl nuts.

But then again, we're the peacekeepers and this is only Talent, so perhaps we could squeeze in another one or two eventually.

Earwicker · November 14, 2002, 09:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Kirov
GT, note that sometimes you have to remove workers from borehole tiles in order to avoid rampant ED. If you have actually worked the borehole, you lose 6 min and 6 energy, but if you have _crawled_ that borehole, then you can simply switch from min to energy and voila! You're ecofriendly and rich.

Crawling energy from the borehole is a good interim option when the ecodamage gets too high, but for the most part boreholes should be used fully. The extra minerals will help along the construction of expensive facilities like TF/ HF.

We can begin two programs simultaneously: one for the construction of tree farms, another to assign formers to borehole construction. With the right timing, the eco-calming effects of the tree farms will coincide with the increase in eco-damage the boreholes bring.

Zero to 2 per base.

Method · November 14, 2002, 18:01

moomin, this is thinker. 2 steps above talent

and stop being so eco-frienldy. if anything, we should be encouraging pops now. havn't you read the eco damage formula? have you talked to blake?

Drogue · November 14, 2002, 18:14

We are roleplaying as well as playing to win, so creating eco-damage just for the hell of it hardly seems appropriate to me. Think Green people, and keep Planet a peaceful place to live!

(Shameless Green Party plug there, but hey, you know we're right

)

Method · November 14, 2002, 18:20

if we're role-playing, then how do we know about eco damage and pops?

i'm not saying that we should just destroy the enivronment completely, just a bit (

). otherwise we screw ourselves for later. if we prevent pops, then centauri preserves don't do any good.

Pandemoniak · November 14, 2002, 20:01

SCientist Pr. Blake from the Alternative Lab told us about a formula he made when we discover Centauri Ecology.

GeneralTacticus · November 14, 2002, 21:16

Quote:

I wont let you be the cancer of the planet. I'll be the cure.

In what way will I be the 'cancer of Planet'? Building boreholes to speed up construction of Hybrid Forests will protect the environment in the long run, not damage it.

Quote:

GT, note that sometimes you have to remove workers from borehole tiles in order to avoid rampant ED. If you have actually worked the borehole, you lose 6 min and 6 energy, but if you have _crawled_ that borehole, then you can simply switch from min to energy and voila! You're ecofriendly and rich.

You have me confused here. What do you actually want to do with boreholes?

Quote:

We are roleplaying as well as playing to win, so creating eco-damage just for the hell of it hardly seems appropriate to me. Think Green people, and keep Planet a peaceful place to live! (Shameless Green Party plug there, but hey, you know we're right )

TKG has a good point; unless we know how the local ecosystem works (including how it reacts to damage), it willl be very difficult to protect.

Drogue · November 15, 2002, 07:10

We never knew the 'formula' for eco-damage on Old Earth but we still knew that building great drills into the planets crust would probably not be such a good thing! We may not know about pops, but I think we all know that the general theory is if we pollute more, we damage planet more, and the more heat we release, the more the ice caps will melt.

lucky22 · November 15, 2002, 13:31

Write in: Third option, only if a base has built or is building a tree-farm. Of course hybrid forests immediately upon availability.

GeneralTacticus · November 15, 2002, 20:52

Quote:

We never knew the 'formula' for eco-damage on Old Earth but we still knew that building great drills into the planets crust would probably not be such a good thing! We may not know about pops, but I think we all know that the general theory is if we pollute more, we damage planet more, and the more heat we release, the more the ice caps will melt.

And the more minerals we produce, the faster we'll be able to build things to protect the environment (i.e. Tree Farms, Hybrid Forests & Centauri Preserves).

Kirov · November 16, 2002, 04:34

Yea, just tell me that there's nothing more profitable to environment that huge cities full of factories and resource-gathering facilities...

GeneralTacticus · November 16, 2002, 05:41

Quote:

Yea, just tell me that there's nothing more profitable to environment that huge cities full of factories and resource-gathering facilities...

I'm not saying that's good for the environment, just pointing out that increasing mineral production (e.g. building boreholes) will help us build facilities to protect the environment.

Pandemoniak · November 16, 2002, 07:30

Quote:

Building boreholes to speed up construction of Hybrid Forests will protect the environment in the long run, not damage it.

You're right. This is not the pollution which is a nuisance to environment, this is the impurities that are in air and water.

Anyway, we can rushbuy this jolly hybrid forests with EC from simple solars...

Main_Brain · November 16, 2002, 09:52

The Common Worker Demands Boreholes!

Maniac · November 16, 2002, 10:05

I find it odd no one has voted "No boreholes at all." I distinctly remember several people telling they didn't want to harm Planet this way.

Drogue · November 16, 2002, 10:12

I think most of those people (like me) realise that to appease the common masses, we need *a few* boreholes, and as such voted "everyone planned" or "keep it modest". I'm, not against them completely, I just think they should be
1) Outside base squares, and
2) A very limited number of them, to create powerhouses maybe.

Maniac · November 16, 2002, 10:32

The director indeed needs to take the common masses into account and take a moderate stance, but the voter doesn't need to! S/he has to follow his/her conscience. Because the most honest thing for me is to take the average of all votes, not just the most scoring option. So to form a counterweight against the pro-boreholers, it would've been best for the anti-boreholers to vote all 'No boreholes at all!' to pull the average down. Anyway, it doesn't matter now. The 'keep it modest' option will probably be the most scoring and most average winner.