Goblin Squad Member
|
...accepted by a certain number of characters...Will anything stop the ancient trope of "Please help me form my guild. I'll pay you [something valuable to newbies, but meaningless to a vet], and you can quit right afterward"? I know one-person Settlements will be meaningless, but is there any need at all for controlling this sort of thing?
Yes this is what happens. Signing a fleet charter in Star Trek Online was about 250k credits and even then you had to spam the chat channel to get just FIVE people!!!
I believe the charters in PFO are looking at 10 signatures!!!
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think you guys miss the point. Yes there can be a straight forward structure, where "this guy" leads everything and delegates from there.
Another way is as Ryan suggests, Which is like our Representative Government here in the US.
I think what is being missed... is that no matter which you have above, there is always someone who has the "Cult of Personality" leading things. Either overt like a warlord, or covert like a single Senator. The covert person may not have complete control, but they have enough control to influence votes or decisions of the majority. Thit will always exist.
Except where it doesn't. Sure, it commonly does, but you are claiming universal applicability.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the government type require a vote on or does the initial person requesting the charter, select it first?
The character that drafts the charter will specify the government type. But to come into effect the charter needs to be signed by more than one character.
Once the form of government is selected, can it be changed, and by whom?
The intention is yes, and the mechanism is intended to be defined by the Charter. The intention is that all aspects of the Charter that are specified by the players can be changed. The mechanism for change should also be defined by the Charter.
How many people will potentially have admin rights to a company or settlement?
In general, imagine a system whereby everything the Settlement can do is either delegated, or requires an election. If it's delegated, and the character is a delegate, that character can make that change. If an election is required there will be a process to conduct that election triggered by the attempt to make the change.
The eligible voters are established by the Charter - dictatorship, oligarchy or democracy.
I would like to enable different electorates within a Settlement's management system. So "declaring war" might require a democratic vote (all the members) but unlocking a production resource might require an oligarchic vote (designated voters) and adding a new member might be delegated to a membership manager or membership committee that can act without a vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be interesting to allow ad-hoc delegation of decisions to arbitrary scope electorates.
That would allow experimentation with democratic management, or temporary concessions to broader popularity without necessarily changing the 'regime', when the ruler doesn't personally have a strong opinion so they decide to just make it a popular vote..
Of course, as long as the official regime does not correspond to that electorate, any such election results could be ignored or over-turned.
Regardless, there needs to be a good system for easily designating sub-electorates...
Selecting specific individuals is the fall-back, but selecting groups based on rank eligibility, wealth (or taxes paid to settlement), kill ratio, time spent in qualifying role, current alignment/reputation, and history of alignment/reputation (i.e. has been LG for 6 months straight) would all make sense.
I guess there would be varying types of election thresh-holds, regardless of the scope of the electorate. You could have 50%+1 wins, you could have 100% consensus, you could have 2/3 majority... And you could weight the vote by various means (wealth/taxes, time spent in qualifying role, alignment/reputation, headcount of company for chartered company leaders at a 'council' of chartered companies, etc).
I think all of the formal governance mechanisms will also be balanced by companies having their own resources, etc. Those semi-autonomous power structures may well influence negotiations for how the formal settlement governance rules evolve.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Does the government type require a vote on or does the initial person requesting the charter, select it first?The character that drafts the charter will specify the government type. But to come into effect the charter needs to be signed by more than one character.
Once the form of government is selected, can it be changed, and by whom?The intention is yes, and the mechanism is intended to be defined by the Charter. The intention is that all aspects of the Charter that are specified by the players can be changed. The mechanism for change should also be defined by the Charter.
How many people will potentially have admin rights to a company or settlement?In general, imagine a system whereby everything the Settlement can do is either delegated, or requires an election. If it's delegated, and the character is a delegate, that character can make that change. If an election is required there will be a process to conduct that election triggered by the attempt to make the change.
The eligible voters are established by the Charter - dictatorship, oligarchy or democracy.
I would like to enable different electorates within a Settlement's management system. So "declaring war" might require a democratic vote (all the members) but unlocking a production resource might require an oligarchic vote (designated voters) and adding a new member might be delegated to a membership manager or membership committee that can act without a vote.
I approve of a complex system involving multiple electorates. I would also like there to be as complicated an inventory management options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To make it more complex, the authority to do various things can be delegated. So the Board could delegate total authority to a single character - withholding only the right to strip that character of that authority. That is pretty much how Western corporations work - the Board hires a CEO and delegates near-total authority to the CEO.
That's how TEO's system is set up. The combined vote of the council has the highest authority but the Grand Master can act on his own if he feels a quick decision is needed in nearly all cases except the creating and removing council members. Those limitations will probably extend to company disbandment or transferring the ownership of a settlement once the game goes live.
If that power is abused the council could simply dispose of him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will not be able to attempt to complete a charter until you have successfully cleared and held territory. Since that will be virtually impossible to do alone it should be a very, very rare occasion when someone is asking for signatures as a broadcast request for help.
So when you lose that territory do you lose your company?
If so that means if a company is feuding you, you can remove them from existence by conquering their holdings, thereby removing their feud.
I like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius - the discussion was about Settlemtents not Companies. There's no territorial component to Company existence or creation.
I thought I understood it this way as well. Even if a company owns a poi or a settlement, the loss of the holding does not end the conflict (feud or war). It also does not disband the companies if their settlement is lost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Andius - the discussion was about Settlemtents not Companies. There's no territorial component to Company existence or creation.I thought I understood it this way as well. Even if a company owns a poi or a settlement, the loss of the holding does not end the conflict (feud or war). It also does not disband the companies if their settlement is lost.
Also, it would be pretty hard to conquer territory as a new company if in order to be a company you need to own a territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would much prefer an in-game mechanism. Once a leader quits, that mechanism could be used to replace him. And if he doesn't quit but does a bad job, you can always challenge him.
Let's say any form of challenge lasts for a week. If within a week, the current leader does not show up, he simply forfeits his position. Challenges could be 1v1 fights, elections or whatever imaginative system the devs can think of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's say any form of challenge lasts for a week. If within a week, the current leader does not show up, he simply forfeits his position. Challenges could be 1v1 fights, elections or whatever imaginative system the devs can think of.
What if the leader goes on vacation, ends up in the hospital etc?
In general a leader who only logs in once a week isn't fit for their position but that doesn't mean good leaders don't dissapear for a week sometimes.
I think if a group wants to run it so leaders can be booted by election they need to set things up as a democracy, and if they think 1vs1 deuls should determine leadership they need to set that up in the meta-game.
I like what Ryan has suggested where active groups may be able to replace truly inactive leadership through GM petitions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Duels to determine leadership seems like a fantastically bad idea to me. Leaders will need to train Aristocratic skills to be effective, but the one who wins a duel will be the one who trained more combat and less leadership skills. It works in real life because people in our world are not created equally in that our skills do not balance out to some equal number IRL. But in this game it seems like an unwise way to do things.
Unless of course we play like aristocracy and simply pick a champion to defend the title...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would much prefer an in-game mechanism. Once a leader quits, that mechanism could be used to replace him. And if he doesn't quit but does a bad job, you can always challenge him.
Let's say any form of challenge lasts for a week. If within a week, the current leader does not show up, he simply forfeits his position. Challenges could be 1v1 fights, elections or whatever imaginative system the devs can think of.
I 100% agree with this.
Problems that arise in the metagame need to be solved in the metagame.
I do not agree with this at all. when I play the game, I tend to be 100% in the game. Why hang out in forums when I could be in-game? So, to me, every system/mechanical failure is an in-game issue. If my settlement leader disappears...and "we the people" can make no decisions on our own, I do not see what that failure in the system has anything to do with metagame.
Perhaps something in the charter about a a way for residents to wrestle power from a leader? When the Charter is created this option can be selected or not...then I can make the choice to join a settlement that has the option...or not. The failure then falls on my shoulders.
EDIT: But, to clarify, as long as there is some way, metagame hoops or whatever...it is better than no way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[mild thread necroing after external-thread reference]
Perhaps something in the charter about a way for residents to wrestle power from a leader? When the Charter is created this option can be selected or not...then I can make the choice to join a settlement that has the option...or not. The failure then falls on my shoulders.
There is already an in game mechanic for wresting power from the existing structure. Take the people who agree with you and go to an empty hex. Form a settlement. Come back, take a POI, build some siege weapons, take the city. (Or just stay in the empty hex, forget your past and leave the old leadership to play with themselves.)