|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
7/16/2017
|
The custom voting system we implemented recently doesn't do anything except tally a vote or poll. It can be used by rulers as a tool to decide on actions to take. However we do want to expand it to make the event actual impose a law or punishment on a player if needed. For example, the War Reparations event can be turned into a punishment inflicted on another corp who the ruler ship feels is acting unjustly. Other examples can be game emforced trade restriction or even banishment from a city or planet, with the NPC Terran Feds enforcing it by attacking those corps in those areas Such edicts would only last a week or so and rulers can only issue a vote or edict like this to one corp every couple of days but it can be devastating.
This would give being ruler not just give you money but also now give you actual POWER in the game. A star Lord can literally boot a player out of the system or force him to pay reparations, hand over units or whatever else we can put in. We can also make these edicts require a majority vote but the ruler gets a big bonus to the vote.
In the end this kind of political power would be how any abuse by players can be enforced by the players themselves. We would only have to get involved as admins in situations of scorched earth abuse.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Rekkles Posts: 36
7/16/2017
|
Brilliant idea! Keep up the amazing work!
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Aywanez Posts: 64
7/17/2017
|
That sounds like it would make abuse by strong players easier. But of course it isn't that hard now, and there is relatively little of it, so maybe that's ok.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Rekkles Posts: 36
7/17/2017
|
Aywanez wrote:
That sounds like it would make abuse by strong players easier. But of course it isn't that hard now, and there is relatively little of it, so maybe that's ok.
Then you dont want corrupt starlords eh? Would make voting for a good leader more important!
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
7/17/2017
|
Using a vote to force players to hand over units makes me uneasy. Giving a ruler some ability to control what goes on in their jurisdiction makes sense though. Maybe forcing the scrapping of units and structures, but first giving the affected corp sufficient warning so they can evacuate.
Their should be some checks and balances between the tiers of ruler. A Starlord shouldn't be able to override the dictates of an Emperor and an Emperor shouldn't override the dictates of a Mayor. Emperors should have control over the parts of planet outside the city or in cities without rulers and Starlords should have authority over planets with no Emperors.
By the way, I still think we should rename Emperors to Governors and call the system leader the Emperor.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
7/17/2017
|
Hutton wrote:
Using a vote to force players to hand over units makes me uneasy. Giving a ruler some ability to control what goes on in their jurisdiction makes sense though. Maybe forcing the scrapping of units and structures, but first giving the affected corp sufficient warning so they can evacuate.
Their should be some checks and balances between the tiers of ruler. A Starlord shouldn't be able to override the dictates of an Emperor and an Emperor shouldn't override the dictates of a Mayor. Emperors should have control over the parts of planet outside the city or in cities without rulers and Starlords should have authority over planets with no Emperors.
By the way, I still think we should rename Emperors to Governors and call the system leader the Emperor.
Ruler of New York sounded a little sexier than Governor of New York.
If star systems have Emperors then what do we call Planet rulers? And you're now kicking out "Star Lord" as the coolest title name out there! ... Except for the ruler of the entire universe which would be called the "Galactus" probably =)
To the talk about what kind of powers rules would have. I would be uneasy about unit handovers and such also, I think the best you can get would be a War Reparations for 1% of their net worth (Terran Fed Controls the Currency) and if you did get some kind of banishment ruling, it wouldn't force salvage anything, it just means that not only will the Terran Fed NOT protect you on Earth anymore, The Terran fed might start attacking you on Earth for the week. Of course, Terran Fed only applies on Earth. Unless there is an edict of some sort that will spawn and send terran fed group to attack another corp.
You might be able to put down a "No Trade" or at least maybe a "No Sell" law against the corp for that City or planet, system. Which would prevent them from Selling anything there, they could still buy, and they can still sell to another corp. It wouldn't devastate your game so much as force you to sell outside the city or planet. A star Lord No Sell edict would be painful however. You could also make them pay a toll on selling instead.
You bring up a good point about hierarchy, a Ruler couldn't make edict against another ruler. Or perhaps a Emperor can edict a ruler on that planet, but the edict wouldn't apply to that rulers city (he rules there) and same thing if a star lord edict down on a planet lord or ruler, the law wouldn't apply in the area you control. That would make for some interesting politics. You can still edict another ruler but its not as effective because even if you give me a no Sell Edict I can still sell in my city if I rule there.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Aywanez Posts: 64
7/17/2017
|
About their being no TerFed elsewhere in the galaxy, perhaps rulers can get a decision (like the banishement- once a week and only with majority vote) to add a unit to local TerFed. Construction cost is paid for by the ruler, but they don't have to pay support. City rulers can only create small infantry (maybe mechanised or armor) units, planet rulers would get to build smaller ships (destroyer and below, or something) and Starlords would get the ability to add whole Monoliths to the TerFed fleet (and Battleships/Dreadnaughts, psht, who cares?) The risk of course is that once election goes the wrong way, those units may turn on their old master (if he is "banished" by the new regime.)
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
7/19/2017
|
Aywanez suggestion is similar to one I've been meaning to raise. In Emperor of the Fading Suns their was a mechanic that put players in charge of Ministries. The ministries were seperate entities with their own units and resources that that player could control. The ministries supposedly had responsibilities, but you could just use them for your own purpose or wreck them so no one else could use them later. If some one else was appointed to that ministry later they gained control of all the ministry units including ones that the first player had built with ministry resources.
What if systems, planets and cities had a seperate military logistics pool? Rulers could build units that would count against that pool instead of their own. The size of the pool is tied to population. The catch is that when you lose an election you lose those units to the next ruler. What pool they go into has to be decided at construction. Scrapping for these units is disabled during the 200 turns that votes are being cast.
An alternative would be to just give rulers some control over Terran forces. City rulers can only control what kind of guard order Terran's have because they can't leave the city. Planet Rulers have a few ground units that can't be loaded and taken off planet. And system rulers get a fleet.
To clarify my feelings on nomenclature, I want:
Mayor = City Ruler
Governor = Planet Ruler
Emperor = System Ruler
Starlord = Chris Pratt
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Aywanez Posts: 64
7/20/2017
|
OMG, EotFS had so much promise, and it was cut down so badly. We used to have a 40-odd rule list on preventing abuse, one of which was that you couldn't loot the Eye (Imperial secret police) until the ministry was taken up by a player (it was a source of some easy resource loot and a free transport unit.) I really wish someone made a proper sequel to that.
|
|
|
0
link
|