Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see a system in the game, where one person can own 'something', but contract that administration of said 'something' to another party.
For instance I could build a settlement with 6 other people, and then we could give control of the settlement to 'person A'. Person A can do anything they want within the limits of the contract, but we can remove them from their position at any time.
I would like to see this implemented in a way that would allow a two voting structures in a single administration, where one has the ability to dissolve the other, and both can make changes without the approval of the other.
My main reason for wanting this is so a group of players can have a single player that runs their settlement, adjusting taxes and granting access within limits we define for them.
EVE has a system whereby members within your organisation can have various roles such as "Starbase Defense Director" (hope I got that right) and they can power up/down defenses on your bases, etc. Since various parts of PFO are being modeled after EVE I don't see this not being there. Though, from what I can tell, you're wanting this to be on a case by case basis whereas EVE's system applies corporation wide. So, if I had that role then I can mess with the defenses on any starbase the corporation owns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan has been pretty clear that he wants to minimize the ability of traitors to use game mechanics to effectively destroy a Settlement or Nation. I would imagine this means that, if there are roles like Buri mentions, that we'll have the ability to assign them at the proper scope.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For instance I could build a settlement with 6 other people, and then we could give control of the settlement to 'person A'. Person A can do anything they want within the limits of the contract, but we can remove them from their position at any time..
Are you talking about giving control to someone who is not a member of the settlement? Just make someone king and they can do whatever they want, sort of. It would seem only people who are good at organizing large groups will be able to get a settlement built, and then they would be the best person to run it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Notmyrealname, that kind of ignores the whole "but we can remove them from their position at any time" part, doesn't it?
I meant that as an alternative. If I remember right they are planning on the leader being able to give control of things to other members,and you can limit how much control someone gets.Anyway my point was only a leader type will get the settlement built and they would be best to run things, unless they are not online enough.
edit- I suppose you could remove the king too...assasination.