With all respect to your Department, this is the actual discussion topic, not the Act project itself.1) how many are pro and against this measure (criterium of quantity) ; 2) which reactions are caused by using or not scouts (criterium of consequence) ; 3) whats our purpose on prohibiting or not scouts (criterium of teleology) ; 4) What was written/regulated about this subject so far? (criterium of gramatical/legal historicity) ; 5) which are our current social/psychological conditions and situations for this to be needed to happen and regulate? (criterium of social historicity) ; 6) which are the other people opinions about this subject? (criterium of quality) ; 7) whats the morality and fairness behind so? (criterium of justice) ; 8) what are our possible dos and don'ts in such a case? (criterium of deontology) and at last 9) whats the logic of a regulating? (criterium of validity).
For that reason, I must for now waive temporarily my responsability to judge this case as a minister in order to obtain more needed information for a future better decisory opinion, endorsing what was already came up with by our rapporteur on case Sir minister of game affairs Dr.MonaLisa. Until there, I sincerely hope everybody gives your valuable and needed contribution.
In short to your questions:
- We will know how many players like/dislike/want to use the scout glitch based on posts in this topic.
- There is no Act currently being processed. When we will see all opinions, then we will start working on it. In the past we used the "Word Online" document (on OneDrive now) where all ministers could edit the Act and leave comments "live". I also think when we finish the discussion there will be not much doubts between Ministers. This Act will be prepared based on other players needs.
Who forces you to press the ready button? Have you actually tried to ask host to enable crowns? I'm pretty sure I seen active players using them last month. Usually the good players (who used crowns in the past) are those who host games. Are they forced to do it as well?Although it makes sense, I don't agree with that because I haven't learned anything about its importance for balance between players - it's quite the opposite, I am TOTALLY against this as a way of unbalancing and demeriting other good players skills. Today I am forced to face 2, 3 and even 4 players at once for more than 30-50 minutes without using crowns and I feel myself obliged to make population bigger (to my own and others disgust) to re-balance it again. Or then, today it is all about timeline... before army timeline wasn't all that important provided that we can win in the end, but now it is - either you get an excellent army and building or you will lose and this makes precisely my point because new players will NEVER reach good timelines. Anyway that's completely another story out of topic...
Talking about the balance, it must be some kind of joke. Most of EE1 players hate EE2 because of crowns and their weird powers.
Now, how you want to win a game facing 3 other players with crowns enabled? They have a possibility to spam way more universities and separate crowns between them 3. It's then impossible to win, especially when they all attack at the same time. Also starting the discussion about the "balance" and giving 1v3 as argument is some kind of pathology. Fair teams (this is 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v5) have always been used in 99% of all games.
And one more thing, with range glitch fixed imperial crown power gives too big advantage. Enemy army would die from crown owner's catapults before could reach their attack range. If that's what you call skill (and not moving army from different directions to kill catapults first, managing economy, building speed, etc.) then we know two different definitions of this word.