Gameplay and Security Council Tech Development

[Hulldom]

A question: given that we have confirmed (in the sense that you've confirmed it, Sedge) that the next Sec-Gen election will be next year, are there any updates on where the "make the Secretary-General meaningful" idea is?

[Sedgistan]

I haven't touched the idea since last year. This was the last summary of where I got to with the plan. I'm aware I need to revist it, and sooner rather than later.

At worst, I'd expect the next one would be a re-run of the current "no powers" Sec-Gen election as done last time, but ideally the additional TG filter category would be in place first.

[SherpDaWerp]

ideally the additional TG filter category would be in place first.

As someone who ran a SG campaign last time... I'd like this to be a requirement, not an "ideally". I don't think SG should run in any circumstance where people have to spam WA Campaign TGs again, even if that means delaying the event by another year.

Especially while it's still not a position with any powers, it's not like it absolutely has to run to pass the torch on to someone else.

[Wymondham]

ideally the additional TG filter category would be in place first.

As someone who ran a SG campaign last time... I'd like this to be a requirement, not an "ideally". I don't think SG should run in any circumstance where people have to spam WA Campaign TGs again, even if that means delaying the event by another year.

Especially while it's still not a position with any powers, it's not like it absolutely has to run to pass the torch on to someone else.

I firmly agree with this - if the next SG election is going to be one for a position that has absolutely no power and therefore the election will be of no mechanical impact, there is no reason why it should occur before the TG filter is implemented imo.

[Nysa]

Looking back on the original suggestion summary linked above, the telegram filter was going to be specifically for the SG election. I wonder if we could just have an 'event' telegram filter that can be toggled off and on depending on what event is going on? Seems more preferable than having filter settings for every event that results in collaboration and communication.

[Sedgistan]

That is a very sensible suggestion.

[Haganham]

wouldn't that affect regionwide telegrams for events like ND and Zday strategies/rules. I wouldn't want those blocked because someone doesn't want to receive a hundred SG campaign telegrams. It's a whole different animal.

[Refuge Isle]

Maybe we can make the SecGen meaningful by allowing them to prevent Nationalist Northumbria from making a spam proposal about communism every two months. Change you can believe in ^TM

[Panagouge]

wouldn't that affect regionwide telegrams for events like ND and Zday strategies/rules. I wouldn't want those blocked because someone doesn't want to receive a hundred SG campaign telegrams. It's a whole different animal.

Event telegrams are not regional telegrams.

[Farnhamia]

Maybe we can make the SecGen meaningful by allowing them to prevent Nationalist Northumbria from making a spam proposal about communism every two months. Change you can believe in ^TM

*looms ominously* Or maybe you should report people you think are breaking the Rules instead of pointing and going "Spammer!"

[Haganham]

I'm not sure if this falls under your purview but I think regions should have more stats available about them, and have some suggestions. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=526256&p=40111172#p40111172

[Sedgistan]

Yep, that falls into this area. I like the idea; I've posted in the thread.

[Juansonia]

N-Day had factions that provided a good system for alliance-forming and opting-in, perhaps Z-Day could do the same? In addition to providing a clear opt-in, it would also ensure that Z-Day bans/ejections don't affect regional location after the event and that TRR doesn't get flooded with embracers from cure regions.

[Sedgistan]

Events are no longer part of my portfolio - they're separated out and managed by Chingis. He hasn't posted a thread yet, but if you have suggestions for Z-Day, post a new thread with your ideas in.

[Kartors]

I came up with a few ideas recently which I thought could be good for the GP.
I think that giving a player the ability to change the tax rate, total budget and the funding of each ministry would make the game a bit more "free" and realistic. For example, the player could be allowed to leave the tax rate as it is, or change it into divisions based on the population's incomes. Regarding the total budget, the player could be able to change it also depending on the government's income, so that extreme deficits/budgets aren't to occur. About the funding on each ministry, the player should be able to set the percentage of the total budget, and the amount set should be able to influence a country's world rank depending on how good they're doing on each ministry. But extreme numbers should't be set (ex. 0% for the Defence Ministry, or 50% for the Education ministry) because if they are set, overfunding and underfunding will harm ones economy.
But if you do not want to set some limits that'd also be nice and everything will become more chaotic.
I also don't kow about anyone else, but having more issues per day would be nicer i think.

Anyways, I hope this helped!

[Haganham]

Not sure if this is gameplay or gameside communications, but I think people should receive a notice when their region posts a poll in which they are eligible to vote.

[Improper Classifications]

Not sure if this is gameplay or gameside communications, but I think people should receive a notice when their region posts a poll in which they are eligible to vote.

That can easily be filled by a regional telegram or an RMB post.

[Sedgistan]

Sounds like a gameside comms suggestion.

[United Calanworie]

Added to the list.

[Neo-Hermitius]

I have an idea that I think would make the "Influence" stat more useful. Currently it doesn't serve much purpose besides if you are a RO. My idea is that if you have more influence then the governor then you can depose the governor.
An example of this would be like if my WA delegate has more endorsements then me they would get a drop down with stuff like "depose, depose and replace with someone else". If you decide to depose by default you become the governor. I can't see any downsides currently about this.

[Quebecshire]

I have an idea that I think would make the "Influence" stat more useful. Currently it doesn't serve much purpose besides if you are a RO.

That's not true, influence is just as relevant to the person being ejected as it is to the person ejecting. The more influence you have, the more costly it is to remove you. The more the RO has to spend.

My idea is that if you have more influence then the governor then you can depose the governor.
An example of this would be like if my WA delegate has more endorsements then me they would get a drop down with stuff like "depose, depose and replace with someone else". If you decide to depose by default you become the governor. I can't see any downsides currently about this.

I can see a lot of downsides... if you want to be in a region without a permanent, executive Governor, join a game created region or a Frontier. Standard regions, strongholds, whatever you want to call them are meant to be secure through the Governor and Sucession system. That's their positive trade off in exchange for no spawns.

[The Ambis]

Seconding Queb. One of the fun parts if we want to take down a stronhold is the "snake charm." A governor should be safe. They should only be sabatoged if they CTE, get DEAT, or willingly hand the governor over.

[Neo-Hermitius]

I have an idea that I think would make the "Influence" stat more useful. Currently it doesn't serve much purpose besides if you are a RO.

That's not true, influence is just as relevant to the person being ejected as it is to the person ejecting. The more influence you have, the more costly it is to remove you. The more the RO has to spend.

My idea is that if you have more influence then the governor then you can depose the governor.
An example of this would be like if my WA delegate has more endorsements then me they would get a drop down with stuff like "depose, depose and replace with someone else". If you decide to depose by default you become the governor. I can't see any downsides currently about this.

I can see a lot of downsides... if you want to be in a region without a permanent, executive Governor, join a game created region or a Frontier. Standard regions, strongholds, whatever you want to call them are meant to be secure through the Governor and Sucession system. That's their positive trade off in exchange for no spawns.

I was also gonna do it with frontiers/regions with only a WA delegate where if you have more influence then the delegate you can depose them. I was imagining for non frontier regions it would take more effort to take them so it would be more stable. I was also imagining that you could have a check box if you want the feature.

[Sedgistan]

Neo-Hermitius, please see:

How this thread works:

If you want to suggest a change, please post a new thread for it. Then make a post in this thread summarising the idea, and including a link to your thread. Extended discussion on changes belongs in the separate threads, not here.

[Neo-Hermitius]

Neo-Hermitius, please see:

How this thread works:

If you want to suggest a change, please post a new thread for it. Then make a post in this thread summarising the idea, and including a link to your thread. Extended discussion on changes belongs in the separate threads, not here.

Oh Ok. Sorry!