Phoenix Forums

Ted

Hi
In the other thread I asked what happens if a political runs out of money and can't pay wages!!

David gave me a clear answer for which I thank him,but it's been niggling at me and I'm not of the opinion that the penalties go far enough!!

I've been playing the game under the assumption that if a political didn't have money to cover wages everything would shut down as employees/crew/troops say sod you mate..no wages no work!!!

Now I find out that's not the case and the EEM pay the wages for you!!!

In my opinion that encourages the style of play we have all been discussing on the other thread,build large warfleets and sod the economy!!!
If a player/aff wants to do that fine,but they should have to live with the consequences of running their economy into the ground for what is basically one roll of the dice in the hope of smashing an opponent into economic ruin where it will all start again!!
If the plans succeeds all well and good,but if such a player/aff underestimates their opponent and find they have a military machine that can defeat this plan and who have been more prudent with their economy they will be in dire straights!!!

But at the moment no one needs to worry about losing out because no matter how big you build your military machine someone will pay the wages for you if you can't!!!
This being the case why bother to trade.who needs money..we can get by without a few political orders!!
I'm not saying we should see an increase in the amount of wages crews need,and I'm not saying that bases and ships should cease to function as soon as the money runs out!!!

What I would like to suggest is this:
For every week wages can't be met a politicals assets effciency drops by say 5%.
This way there is still some sort of saftey net until financies are back in the black.
Of course there will be some situations where some wages can be paid but not in full,so the player can have the option of who to pay first.

Anyway that's the basics.
You can all tell me to shut up now,and I'll get back in my box!!

Steve-Law

Well said. A 5% drop sounds like as good a penalty as I can think of, but I'd say something needs to be done.

Of course this would need plenty of warning before it was implemented so people can get their assets in order (reducing troops in outposts etc).

finalstryke

It doesn't need that much warning.

I think the EEM thing was brought in to help newbies with politicals more than players who own 100 ships and 5+ starbases.

The latter type, upon reaching 0 Stellars should soak up any reserves left in the affs bank account (the one currently used to pay for promotions etc).

Once that's been bled dry then other stuff should start (efficiency drops or whatever).

Ted

I'd go along with the idea that if a political position runs out of stellars it starts to dip into affiliation funds and when they're gone the effciency starts to drop!!!

That way you would get more cooperation between aff members to help balance the books.If a political is too much of a drain on aff resources the PDs could raise an issue to basically confiscate the assets of the offending political before it's too late!!

ABBA

I'd say affiliation funds should only be dipped into to pay wages for affiliation-owned assets. Why should an aff pay for assets they might not even know about, and cant remove from the bankrupt political's control? The only way to stem the loss would be to expel the player from the affiliation entirely.

TonyH

Dan Reed

this would cause difficulties when a player owns some aff assets, some personal ones. We already have the ability to transfer funds from the aff's account. I would prefer for this to be kept under more control - ie. having to transfer funds explicitly when the aff's central account is to be dipped into.

If a political has negative cashflow, that can be balanced by transfers from politicals with positive cashflow, or from the aff funds if desired. But when the money runs out across the aff - or the rest of the aff are unwilling to transfer money from their own accounts or vote a "central" transfer through - then there should be penalties.

I'd be happy with the efficiency drops to start with, but if a political continues to live beyond their means then there should be more extreme option kicking in after a sufficient period of time. If the PD gets warnings when there are efficiency drops (and they are for long enough) there can be no complaints when the repo boys move in.

In a game where Stellars are designed to be the ultimate limiting factor, we have to have some kind of fiscal prudence necessary. Otherwise, what kind of limit is it?

Dan

HPSimms

I agree with the basic premis that Politicals should be penalised if they go into the red. Also that only affiliation owned assets should be subsidised by the affiliation.

Any economy that is allowed to run out of control tends to collapse. The choice is guns or butter, or even better an economically viable mix of the two

I was not aware of the EEM subsidy and I consider it to be totally wrong for poor economic management to be subsidised (rewarded?) from what are effectively GM resources.

Geoff

Avatar

If the position is AFF owned then the funds should be drawn from the AFF account, if it's player owned, then he/she must either make the position AFF owned, in which case AFF leadership might politicaly decide to strip the position off the players hands, OR...in case of ships, remove the crew and put the ship in the drydocks, disband GPs so that the fees aren't paid.

Then if the account is still on the red and the positions are still player owned we should see a gradual increase in mercenary/employee resignations, until once again the player cash flow permits him/her to pay up once again.

This thing with EEM paying must end!!

Steve-Law

Crew are still paid wether they are on a ship or not, as are whatever people are/were in your GP.

There could be an argument to change this though? You could perhaps have "proper" cryo pods, that store people, during which time they are not paid wages (or are paid, 0.1 stellars or some such), but there is a freezing/thawing period (like tooling/untooling).

That way you "store" your people when times are hard... It can't be exploited to have a ready to react army for free, due to the time needed to thaw them out (thawing would take longer than freezing, maybe 2/3 weeks (including medical tests observation afterwards)?)

(There's also, IC, a moral/ethical element along the lines of slaves... :)

Jons

I am in full agreement that the EEM funding of politicals in the red should stop. It is completely wrong for them to step in and bank roll a player. Funds should come from his own bank, failing this from Aff funds. If this is then wiped out then there should not only be a penalty to the player but also to the Aff itself. It's the PD and VPD's job to keep the Aff running smoothly and not let players run riot with the purse strings....

I like the 5% idea as it can be shown as an eff drop, ie you can only afford to pay 60% of your crew/emp's then they only work at 60%. This would see warships with only 60% combat eff, starbases producing less stellars due to reduced merch etc. The political/Aff would have to do something about the situation or it would spiral ever downwards (Monopoly come to mind, with the political selling off ships and assets to raise stellars and reduce out goings)

Just my 2p

Cheers
Jons - SMS

Avatar

I meant offloading crew in the aspect, that if you don't, then the unpaid crew, might consider the ship as a means of getting paid. A new profession, the Repo man...person!!

Sjaak

QUOTE (HPSimms @ May 24 2004, 02:20 PM)

I was not aware of the EEM subsidy and I consider it to be totally wrong for poor economic management to be subsidised (rewarded?) from what are effectively GM resources.

I myself are a bit worried that it seems to be possible that the EEM (=GM) sustains the positions of those affl who are not able to pay for themself. Moreover as it seems to be an problem that too many ships are around.

It looks like a bit of double-talk if one of the same GM states "there are too many ships" while the same GM doesn't take his chances to legally remove those ships.

If wages can be partially ignored (which this is basically is) why should one bother to check if the new ship is sustainable??

But to even things out, I don't mind getting a couple of free factories or resource complexes... So, where do I send my invoice??

David Bethel

BTW there was some code that allowed the EEM to conficate assets if you went too negative, and something along those lines will be brought back in at some point. IF a political goes -ve its flagged up for the GM each day (just like any increase in wealth over a certain level) so we can see if anyone is taking the piss.

The one thing you can not do is take more stellars when someone gets into this situation, however the affilation my need to be held responcable ?

Sjaak

QUOTE (David Bethel @ May 25 2004, 09:22 AM)

Ofcourse I don't know whats happening exactly. And I can understand if an player goes into negative for an couple of days... An deal that went pooff at the very last moment, and starbase thats get damaged.. his tradeship that was pirated etc etc.

BOTH if an player is making losses each week, then something is wrong. And then the GM would abide by the rules he made. Otherwise why not cancel salaries expenses all together.. Salaries should be paid by all players not only those players who got their act together.

I do find it very frustrating to learn that some players get free warships, while I decided not to buy/make/takeover some because I was feeling that I didn't had the income to sustain them.

David Bethel

QUOTE

I do find it very frustrating to learn that some players get free warships, while I decided not to buy/make/takeover some because I was feeling that I didn't had the income to sustain them.

Erm none gets free anything, every week the -ves get bigger due to wages etc, to get any control back you need to have money transfered to the player.

Ted

The point is that there is too big a safety net for the less prudent economists among us!!!

If there's a drop in effciency across a politicals assets due to lack of stellars it should make players look at a more even expansion of their assets!!!

If I had known that the EEM paid wages(even for awhile)the fleets,bases,GPs and agents my political would be running would be huge now!!!but I've always aimed to expand steadily and evenly across the board to make sure my political could pay for it all.

Having to much of a"comfort" zone for players running into the red financially does not encourage us to play the game,for want of a better word properly!!!

Ted

Hi all.
Is any work being done in this area?
We have all these discussions where most players(well here anyway)seem to be in agreement,but then it goes all quiet.
Can we have an update on the state of play please.
Cheers

Ted

Hi all again!!

I know David and Mica are working hard on the infrastructure rules and I appreciate it

But is there any chance of a comment or two concerning this topic please?
IMHO I think it is important to know where we stand on this and it ties in with the infrastructure rules as well.
Cheers

David Bethel

QUOTE

If I had known that the EEM paid wages(even for awhile)the fleets,bases,GPs and agents my political would be running would be huge now

errm lost here - the EEM does not pay anything you simply go more and more negative and this means you can do next to nothing - like all political orders will fail for instance ?

Ted

QUOTE

errm lost here - the EEM does not pay anything you simply go more and more negative and this means you can do next to nothing - like all political orders will fail for instance ?

But how far does a political go into the red before their assets(troops/employees)start to say no pay no work and quit?
If you haven't the money to pay wages you shouldn't have the ability to run bases and ships!!

I could very easily burn all my stellars and expand my little"empire"a great deal if I know that I don't have to worry about wages.
I can get by without a few political orders.Once I know I'm going into the red I'd just transfer power to another aff member who's still in the black to keep things ticking over.
I'm not trying to be awkward or seem ungrateful for all the work you've put in,I'm not I think this is a great game,but the lack of consequences for not looking after your finances makes the trade and infrastructure rules a waste of time.Sorry but that's how I feel.

HPSimms

QUOTE (Ted @ Feb 11 2005, 12:21 PM)

I'm not trying to be awkward or seem ungrateful for all the work you've put in,I'm not I think this is a great game,but the lack of consequences for not looking after your finances makes the trade and infrastructure rules a waste of time.Sorry but that's how I feel.

I am in full agreement here. I once made a severe cut to the wages at a starbase (by accident) and half the employees promtly resigned. I would expect similar results if I did not have the funds to pay them.

Geoff

ptb

QUOTE (HPSimms @ Feb 11 2005, 02:31 PM)

I once made a severe cut to the wages at a starbase (by accident) and half the employees promtly resigned. I would expect similar results if I did not have the funds to pay them.

I didn't even know they did resign O_o

But yes if you can't afford to pay them then (i assume) the reason you go into negative is the "i promise to pay you all when we have money again" reasoning, as opposed to just reducing all wages to zero. but that should still cause some resignations.

Also it gives loan sharks something to do