Adding a political system

[SuzakuCMX]

No. Anything more than just a title would either give tons of ability to troll or have to be guided decisions (such as setting MW tax between 5% and 10%).

"Checks and balances" = boring for whoever has it, just an e-peen stroke to have the name.

Plus it makes no sense lorewise.

[Bled]

No. Anything more than just a title would either give tons of ability to troll or have to be guided decisions (such as setting MW tax between 5% and 10%).

"Checks and balances" = boring for whoever has it, just an e-peen stroke to have the name.

Plus it makes no sense lorewise.

You miss the point of what checks and balances (separation of power) represents, and it would not be difficult to work into the lore. Earlier in 404BC during the times of ancient Greece separation of powers was implemented into dictatorships along with republics (essentially what we see in FFXIV). So with that said it could be done but the functionality to work required ratios are horrendous, so IMO it should stay out.

[SuzakuCMX]

You miss the point of what checks and balances (separation of power) represents, and it would not be difficult to work into the lore. Earlier in 404BC during the times of ancient Greece separation of powers was implemented into dictatorships along with republics.

You miss the point of what checks and balances are supposed to do, which are to limit an individual's power, which means the individual is going to get bored.

It would be difficult to work into the lore. We already have 3 grand company leaders representing each of the 3 available city states. We are grouped up to fight against the Garlean Empire. Why would we split up by dethroning the Grand Company leaders we just got or start new political empires when we're about to get crushed by an outside power + a mysterious other power?

[Dyne]

You miss the point of what checks and balances are supposed to do, which are to limit an individual's power, which means the individual is going to get bored.

It would be difficult to work into the lore. We already have 3 grand company leaders representing each of the 3 available city states. We are grouped up to fight against the Garlean Empire. Why would we split up by dethroning the Grand Company leaders we just got or start new political empires when we're about to get crushed by an outside power + a mysterious other power?

Those grand company leaders are not really the king of their respected nations. They are just generals.

[Bled]

You miss the point of what checks and balances are supposed to do, which are to limit an individual's power, which means the individual is going to get bored.

It would be difficult to work into the lore. We already have 3 grand company leaders representing each of the 3 available city states. We are grouped up to fight against the Garlean Empire. Why would we split up by dethroning the Grand Company leaders we just got or start new political empires when we're about to get crushed by an outside power + a mysterious other power?

Checks and Balances limits the powers of three governing bodies not just one individual. The whole point of checks and balances was to separate power into three distinct branches that would fight over power them selves in turn checking each other regularly (much like how nuclear proliferation, same theoretical approach). The founding fathers emphasized separation of power so much to limit the probability and longevity of a dictator.

And lore wise the grand companies are nothing more then militias set up to defend the greater good in times of strife, i don't see what they have to do with the governance of each city state. the "political system" would not change grand companies, and grand companies would not change the politics.

[SuzakuCMX]

Checks and Balances limits the powers of three governing bodies not just one individual. The whole point of checks and balances was to separate power into three distinct branches that would fight over power them selves in turn checking each other regularly (much like how nuclear proliferation, same theoretical approach). The founding fathers emphasized separation of power so much to limit the probability and longevity of a dictator.

And lore wise the grand companies are nothing more then militias set up to defend the greater good in times of strife, i don't see what they have to do with the governance of each city state. the "political system" would not change grand companies, and grand companies would not change the politics.

So we're thinking more than one person per branch now? Then it's too complicated, too many people, power spread way too thin for a video game.

Also, Grand Companies very much so affect politics. They use the city's resources and are used to unite the city-states to fight against an enemy, not just to protect each separate city-state.

[Bled]

So we're thinking more than one person per branch now? Then it's too complicated, too many people, power spread way too thin for a video game.

Also, Grand Companies very much so affect politics. They use the city's resources and are used to unite the city-states to fight against an enemy, not just to protect each separate city-state.

I agree the system that would need to go into place in order for something like this to work is retarded and should not be done.

My only argument is that it could be done whether its a good idea or not.

Like you said above, introducing factors like grand companies into the player run political systems would be much to complicated for a Video game; especially when they could just leave that mechanic out and still have a functioning system.

Edit: I forgot to answer the first sentence in your post >< yes i think there would have to be a branch of some sort involving a high number of people involved.

[SuzakuCMX]

I agree the system that would need to go into place in order for something like this to work is retarded and should not be done.

My only argument is that it could be done whether its a good idea or not.

Like you said above, introducing factors like grand companies into the player run political systems would be much to complicated for a Video game; especially when they could just leave that mechanic out and still have a functioning system.

Edit: I forgot to answer the first sentence in your post >< yes i think there would have to be a branch of some sort involving a high amount of people.

Ah I see :P Yes it could be done, but it wouldn't be "healthy" for the game and it would probably end up either being ignored or abused to hell.

[Dyne]

So we're thinking more than one person per branch now? Then it's too complicated, too many people, power spread way too thin for a video game.

Also, Grand Companies very much so affect politics. They use the city's resources and are used to unite the city-states to fight against an enemy, not just to protect each separate city-state.

You are thinking small. Grand companies are something that is going to happen in a few months from now and will maybe last until an expansion comes out with much more interesting content. Unless of course it becomes on par with besieged and/or dynamis. Grand Companies cannot be the end all/be all for the game otherwise people will get tired of it eventually and look for another game to play.

[SuzakuCMX]

You are thinking small. Grand companies are something that is going to happen in a few months from now and will maybe last until an expansion comes out with much more interesting content. Unless of course it becomes on par with besieged and/or dynamis. Grand Companies cannot be the end all/be all for the game otherwise people will get tired of it eventually and look for another game to play.

Stop putting words in my mouth, broski. It doesn't help your point at all.

Not saying Grand Companies will be all the content we need, I'm saying they function well enough as an additional NPC political system and that PC political systems would be a waste of resources at this point (and probably every other point) and not work as intended at all.