HomeGeneral Discussion

General topics about Barons of the Galaxy

Economical, political & community game drivers Messages in this topic - RSS

Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 12


8/3/2020
Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 12
Hi all.

I do like this game, for it's slow pace and traction to automatization and optimization of all activities along the supply chain. Even it's very niche. I’ve been there for a couple of years and was a bystander of the last Great Reset. And I've seen the predecessor reasons before these events. They could be divided (very roughly) on two primary things: economy/politics and players. If we ignore these issues, it may lead to similar consequences. I don't want this to happen and I'd like to share some thoughts on how we can improve the situation.

Economy & Politics
This is a very controversial topic and, for sure, I'm not the first who is attempting to suggest something. But give me a chance. The main issue is a wide distribution (and disruption) of players and their economic capacities around opened systems. But all human experiences proves that is absolutely natural and it's sewn into our minds, so we have to invent how to deal with that instead of trying to block.

For now, I see natural hubs formed on such planets like Mars, Uranus, Centauri IIa, Luyten II. Of course, Earth by default. Mercury in the past. They represent itself as an example of the successful collaboration done by the bunch of players or powerful corporations and very important for the entire sector. The social importance is clear, it gives players the reason to continue the game, which are united by a common goal, but it also has huge economical effects. Those hubs, besides all obvious advantages such as a huge markets for goods distribution, allow remote players to have some kind of backup, where they could buy required goods (to save or to reboost their cities) in large numbers without harming the cities economy, especially if to do so at different hubs simultaneously. With time, all minor colonies will disappear and everything will lead to further consolidation. It's natural to use such trends to improve the situation with a combination of economy and a thin layer of politics. I talk about purposeful decision to build starlord seats, one by one, in the opened systems. While establishing this political entity we could extract additional benefits. At first, it involves a minimum of 9 active players per system and they could be at different levels of development, from the newborn mayors to the elder and powerful corporations, separating zone of economical and political activities between each other. Everyone could be interested in this: small and medium corporations will have the local planetary market of the suitable size allowing them to sell goods in large numbers (and, probably, higher demands if they balanced enough) making a profit and working together, bigger corps could take a planetary seat and provide some civil services where the combination of volume and demand could be a really profitable thing and taking part in a high-level politics at the system scale. And we have to go even further.

I suppose we should add the last layer of the existing political system and ask Dread to implement sector lord seat with the same principle (minimum of 3 starlord could vote for sector governor). On parallel, we could establish a High Council of planetary lords (like it once was done for Earth) who will represent the will of the entire humanity. To add additional weight for this governing body there could be a public signature procedure, where each member agrees to carry out the will of the Council. From my point, this will heat again the interest in politics and help to convince people to participate and to populate opened systems in a more uniform way. What have I noticed, it's challenging but quite real for powerful corps to support several cities simultaneously if they want to. So, there might be a situation, when those corps are growing their planetary seats and supporting (at least, partly) the system hub at one time.

We can try to encourage people to work together. For example, the biggest corporations or guilds could launch a massive campaign to help those who want to resettle to support this idea. There may be credits, structures for deployment, logistics, units, military protection, etc. This won't be a huge issue for them, and in return, they could receive much more. In any case, I guess additional activities help to keep us interested in the game - recently there was a perfect example of intersystem collaboration to fight Dark Star base. Probably, we could launch some sector-wide projects, like fighting hostiles, building the fleet, opening new systems, boosting cities whatever.

Players
The second (or the third?) part is about the player base. I know, dev won't launch any advertising/marketing campaign to attract more players until he makes some upgrades, but the game really lacks the numbers. We could try to do it by ourselves, to introduce the game in different game communities, publics, forums, etc, focusing on a "good old style". Or even to raise some money to launch some ads. We need this, at least for perspective.

That's all. It was only my assumptions and propositions, but I'll be grateful for any feedback or support. Fly safe!
edited by Iyurrr on 8/3/2020
0 link
LilJon
LilJon
Posts: 4


8/3/2020
LilJon
LilJon
Posts: 4
At this point, all I can offer is a very narrow and limited POV. If this is not to be a wild wild west sim (which is good, MHO), then I would like to see a little more consistency in market rules (ie City Charters). Currently, I am heavily invested in CivServs - the costs are minimal and the returns are fantastic. But (and I understand there are probably good reasons) more than a few City Charters restrict or outlaw investments in CivServs.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is really frustrating to have to peruse all the city charters and make varying accommodations to inconsistent policies and, more importantly, inconsistent enforcement tactics.

I am not looking for explanations why it is that way, or why it should be that way, or why I should just deal with it. If there is to be a movement toward more consistent and uniform growth, this would be an area I would like resolved.

Like I said, my two cents worth is worth just about two cents wink
0 link
LilJon
LilJon
Posts: 4


8/3/2020
LilJon
LilJon
Posts: 4
Oops. Sorry. Forgot my manners.

This is a really great idea!
+1 link
Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 12


8/3/2020
Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 12
Thanks.

I guess its reasonable for a smaller cities and I can understand mayors who want to compensate a bit their efforts to grow them. If we're talking about the large megapolises like 50m people of more, I suppose there could be room for a several corps providing civilian services.
0 link
LilJon
LilJon
Posts: 4


8/3/2020
LilJon
LilJon
Posts: 4
There are other ways to make a profit. If it is more beneficial for city managers to use CivServs to manage growth, that is not a problem. With a more active political atmosphere that you propose, there is the opportunity to make the -rules of the road- more uniform and consistent. Businesses hate uncertainty and vagarities; makes long range planning more onerous. Uniformity and consistency in business processes are primary drivers behind the EU ... well, maybe that is a bad example, these days wink
0 link
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1467


8/11/2020
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1467
I don't like the idea of making a set number of players required to do something. Like 9 required to start a planet. People make free accounts all the time. As for politics, there "rulers" have no real power right now. They have the passive bonus of income and higher logistics and maybe they will get a bonus in voting but no real politics.

I am still looking for a good way to make small players, who happen to rule a small city, have a lot of power of mega corps in that city or planet. For example the simplest might be that the ruler can ban trade for certain corps, or ban the use of their warp gate, or spaceport. A more robust system would be to be able to adjust the rate or "tax" the gates, ports, city trade by Corp or guild.

This can get abusive pretty quick though, without warning someone can up the price of the warp gate 10x or tax your goods 10x or suddenly make your freighters attack on sight . I would have to implement a slow roll out of charter changes so if you are suddenly being charged more at a city, it takes a day or two to implement plus a comms message. Now there also needs to be a screen somewhere where I can see all the laws against all the corps.

One day..... =)
0 link
Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 12


8/16/2020
Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 12
I didnt say about fixed number to start a planet, a was talking about planet emperor, system and potential sector lord.
0 link
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1467


8/24/2020
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1467
I'm against the Sector Lord idea. For one, I have to stop somewhere =) One days the rulers will have actual power over the area they rule and a system lord is strong enough. We can have System on System "wars" and that would be the upper limit of scale. You can still control an entire Sector if you and your guild mates own all the systems, it would effectively become a sector lordship by council..

I would love to see a situation where the system or planet lords disagree with the city rulers and how that plays out. I'm still considering how to make this work. For example the simplest "power" I can give rulers is to ban / tax certain players on buy / sell in the city they control. The price of the goods is the central mechanic and control of who and how much is moved is a very fundamental power.. But does the planet lord settings override entirely the city rules? Can a planet lord say , Mutha Chicken can't sell on this planet, but a city lord in that planet can specifically white list him and allow it? That would make the hierarchy going up simply setting the default rules, but any city ruler can override it specifically. Should that have some sort of in game meta cost to go against the upper rule? Some sort of political score penalty you pay for opposing the planet or Star lord? They can always attack you too. No HQ no Vote =)

That would get really interesting if I had an automated attack on sight mechanic the planet lord can "red-list " a corp and the forces auto attack him, UNTIL he gets into a city on the planet where he is protected. Be fun stuff.

I like the idea that the lowest rulers, the city rules, in the end have the most power over the city, but they can only rule one city, The bigger rulers who already rule another city and the planet can't really take over a rouge city, they would have to replace the ruler with someone else. Or Ban THAT ruler from trading on the entire planet. SO he can only trade in his own city. Sounds very real world =)

edited by DrDread on 8/24/2020
edited by DrDread on 8/24/2020
0 link
Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 12


8/25/2020
Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 12
That makes sense.
0 link






Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.3.8.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software