|
Vagabond820 Posts: 21
1/19/2017
|
What if anything can you do?
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
1/20/2017
|
Vagabond820 wrote:
What if anything can you do?
At the moment, there isn't anything special you can do while city leader outside getting the income, based on population. You are expected to be caretaker of the city , planet or system you govern because it is in your financial interest to do so. We're looking into having rulers have bigger weight when voting in event under their ruler ship too.
We do plan to make events with votes that only the rulers can vote in. Something akin to "Laws" that change how things operate in your city or planet which stick around until overturned. "No Capital Ships" or banning of certain goods or banning certain corps or guilds from trading there. There would also be things like voting for or against certain pirate factions which will make them help or harm your city and everyone operating in it.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
ChaChaCharms Posts: 167
1/20/2017
|
increase taxes!!! Taxation with NO representation 
--
Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain..
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
BaronOfThGalaxy Posts: 47
1/20/2017
|
Is banning trade guilds not make a place more like a country than a city? personally I would just leave a guild to avoid those restrictions if I come to one lol
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
IamGroot Posts: 14
3/5/2017
|
No I get it.. I like it, makes it more fun I think. Things like No capitol ships is just saying park your personal army elsewhere. Still should have the option to disregard this law especially if you wanted to raid the city like some funky giant metal Godzilla (with your bad boy guns). However then requiring maybe a bounty placed on your head for being such a rule breaker.
Banning Guilds or corps is also cool.. Like you get fed up with somebody feeding your citizens all that chicken and boosting the undesirable lower class citizens up. Or hard narcotics.. Still would be fun to have a work around. Like a stealth pirate ship just to smuggle in some contraband chicken nuggets and have a % chance to avoid the bounty rule breakers get placed on their head.
Would be wicked cool to get slapped with a title like Smuggler King, and as repercussion find yourself banned from trading on earth what with the Terran Feds hunting you down for the bounty.
I mean I have been in cities where you can get arrested for harassing squirrel's (Brea, Kentucky), or skateboarding on the side walks (Santa Cruz, California), where marijuana is legal (more of a state issue). Like being able to buy alcohol on a Sunday or not.. or shoot your guns.
I realize that coding all that might be helluva lot of time, so if you can just make me a stealth pirate ship I will be happy!! As for leaving a guild I would understand but such just means that choices and politics would have real weight in game. Of course if you left my guild I would remember your fickle loyalty...
If I was a crafty Guild Leader I would say " We may have been banned for now... But by gosh we will have the last Boycott!"
--
"We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like."
- Tyler Durden
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
3/6/2017
|
Any "laws" that we make would revolve around the money and trade. Such as banning guilds from trading in a certain city, or certain goods. It wouldn't stop you from contracting with another corp and trading that way. Terran Fed actually controls the currency so that is in story and practical. But of course a "Law" that says you can't bring your capital ships here shouldn't be enforced by the game. I mean you still can bring your ships and the game somehow can warn you or the ruler and he can deal with it. Laws dealing with trade "To the City" can be enforced by the game, they won't accept it. You can even get away with some law that prevents certain structures from operating, maybe even certain units like monoliths from being built but not stop the movement of ships.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
4/6/2017
|
I know I'm jumping on the bandwagon late in the game and maybe we are too close to launch to play with this much, but I've spent the last decade in civil service and see a lot of potential in the politics side of BoG, so I'm going to weigh in anyway.
I suggest that cities should vote as blocs for planetary rulers, and planet's should vote as blocs for system ruler, rather than have straight popular votes across the board. And the Mayors and Governors should vote on behalf of their blocs. (I'm also, by the way, going to advocate for city rulers to be called Mayors and Planetary rulers to be called Governors). You will have to be more strategic about your alliances and where you and your allies build your industry then to take control of planets and systems. That will also force Starlords to communicate with and be responsive towards Governors and Governors to develope relationships with Mayors. If a Mayor is not in the Governors camp, he might want to ask a few allies to set up shop in that city to sway the next municipal election.
I also think Free Accounts should get some level of buy-in to the political process, at least on the municipal level. Maybe require a minimum corporate level to vote in city elections to avoid exploitation of multiple accounts.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
ChaChaCharms Posts: 167
4/6/2017
|
With higher stake elections I have started to voice my goals for the position. I feel that in order to be elected you have to do this instead of sit back, say nothing, and then just vote for yourself.
--
Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain..
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
4/6/2017
|
Another thing you could allow city rulers to do is apply limited modifiers to the tariffs in their city. You might assume the only reason to adjust the tariff is to lower it but, in fact, the city ruler has an incentive to discourage purchasing if they want to encourage growth. For example I built a bunch of farms and ranches in New York to encourage population growth. (I intuitively assumed that food encouraged growth more than other products without thinking about actual game mechanics, but this line of reasoning is still valid as it applies to all products). I've got the demand for all food down around 50% and am drip feeding product into those market to keep demand low and encourage population growth. Those farms and ranches are operating at a loss to encourage growth. (I've invented food stamps!) If I pushed it down lower everyone would swoop in and start buying that food up, which would undermine my efforts because I'd be subsidizing them instead of the city. So the ability to increase the tariff on a few products might be very useful to city leaders.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
4/6/2017
|
Looking at cities this way, it seems like the best way to promote a city's growth is to always sell to it and never buy from it, which doesn't really make sense. A low cost of living is attractive to immigrants, but exports also mean jobs and growth. One way you could, possibly, jigger the economy is to have purchases from the city stimulate demand for Infrastructure and have sale of Infrastructure add an absolute value to the population number rather than Infrastructure having a supply and demand effect on population growth like other products.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
4/6/2017
|
ChaChaCharms wrote:
With higher stake elections I have started to voice my goals for the position. I feel that in order to be elected you have to do this instead of sit back, say nothing, and then just vote for yourself.
A richer political model would require quietly building a coalition with private messages and promises of graft. Or deciding whether you should hold back your coalition's votes until the last minute to lull your adversaries or pull way out in front in the begining of the election to intimidate others from throwing their hats in the ring.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
4/6/2017
|
You want the corps to elecct the city leader, but then have only the city leaders elect planet leaders and only the planet leaders elect a Star Lord. More "Republic" than "Democracy". At first that is how it was planned and it tipped to a democratic one to have more people involved.in the vote. But ya know, I'm wold consider changing it to the way you described. I'm not sure though, now that paid accounts have the benefit of voting. I kind of want to keep the biggest vote availabel to them.
I can however, very easily make it so the existing rulers have a larger weight in the vote, Thats kind of a halfway of what you wanted. . I was conisdering doing this for all votes, so a Star Lord can walk into a vote in New York and vote if he wanted and it would weigh heavily. Normaly a Star Lord cant vote in a location he has ne industry but I can chang ethat to make all voting events incluide the planet ruler if its onthat planet and the star lord of that system.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
cyb0rg Posts: 123
4/6/2017
|
Maybe leaders could initiate events specific to their role every once in a while?
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
4/6/2017
|
I'm just thinking out loud, I guess. You might be too close to launch to be tinkering with stuff like that.
But I wasn't suggesting that Starlords should have more influence on city and planetary elections. Just the opposite, that the Starlords will need support from the planets and planetary leaders will need support from the cities. (In real life, even in a democracy, local support is important because the local party machine is what turns voters out to the polls). When I talked about a planet or star's ruler tinkering in a lower election I imagined them either building in the city or getting their allies to build there. So you could end up with a situation where the Starlord of Sol knows that Earth isn't going to vote for him in the next election, but if he can replace or ally with a few city leaders, then he can replace Earth's ruler with a crony.
I guess I just think politics will be more fun if it's more byzantine with lots of loophole and unexpected reversals. To further complicate the equation, I suggest freeholders with industry outside cities also get to vote directly in the planetary elections, as does industry in a city with no ruler.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
4/6/2017
|
And if only paid accounts are eligible to run for office, then that does give us a special role in deciding the planetary and systemwide elections under the voting bloc system, while allowing free players to still have a stake.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
4/6/2017
|
Or, another way to do it would be to give the city and planet rulers extra votes based on the population they control, but still let the Corps cast their own votes for the higher office. I like the former model better though, because it gives you an opening to let free players participate while putting subscription players center stage. Also, I like the concept of "Freeholders" corporations setting up shop outside if city borders to maintain their autonomy in planetary and stellar votes.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
4/6/2017
|
Lot of interesting ideas, You haven't even touched on how Moons affect the Planet they orbit. Right now they are considered separate planets but they can have some influence over the parent planet election
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
4/6/2017
|
Do tell!
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
ChaChaCharms Posts: 167
4/7/2017
|
Personally I feel that not only industrial power but military power should play a role in elections.. It is reckless for people to elect an official who cannot defend the constituents of his or her territory. Moons affecting elections would be awesome, also the ability for a moon to deploy weapons that can bombard planet-based defenses?
--
Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain..
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
4/7/2017
|
ChaChaCharms wrote:
Personally I feel that not only industrial power but military power should play a role in elections.. It is reckless for people to elect an official who cannot defend the constituents of his or her territory. Moons affecting elections would be awesome, also the ability for a moon to deploy weapons that can bombard planet-based defenses?
You mean like turn the moon into a system killer death star from that last star wars movie? It sucks out the power of the sun and then destroys a nearby system-- omg this sounds as stupid as the movie did =)
|
|
|
0
link
|