Ratjoy.com » Forums » Suggestions, Technical Support and Feedback » Stocks, the stock market, player influence, and responsibili
You need to register or login to post a reply.
Stocks, the stock market, player influence, and responsibili
|
M Burch RJ: Farmerbob CO: Farmerbob Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 151 Karma: 14 Joined: Sep 2, 2012 |
Posted on Jun 5, 2013 A purely player driven stock market simply isn't going to work. People are going to abuse it terribly.I'd like to make a couple suggestions here, which are (IMHO) a strong framework without trying to be a complete solution, since I don't know how everything is coded. 1) Use actual real-world mechanics to value a company. Income, expenses, etc. 2) Player influence would be linked directly to company performance. 3) Allow player influence to go negative. 4) If a player's influence goes negative, they are fired from any chairmanships they might posess. They keep their stocks, but have no control. Pariah. 5) Private companies would not be able to go public if their owner has negative influence. 6) Players could not be fired from their own fully owned companies no matter how bad their influence gets. 7) Negative influence "gains" should be an order of magnitude larger than positive influence gains. The way I imagine this working is that if a player loots one company to prop up another, or crashes a company and rebuilds it repeatedly, they are eventually going to be forced to leave the public sector and go to the private sector. This won't stop people from slashing and burning companies, but it will keep them from doing it regularly to PUBLIC companies, and if someone slashes and burns on a large enough scale, recovering from it will take a LONG time. If you screw up and go negative, well, just like in the real world, if you do stupid things, you get fired. You get your golden parachute and get kicked out of the boardroom. You lose control of the company, and your stock is changed to non-voting stock. No matter how much stock you own, you cannot get control back. Ever. If you want to play with the big boys again, you have to build a new company and rebuild your influence. This would require a rework on employee oversight as well, to keep your employees with minority shares in your company from EASILY screwing you over and taking your company. *edit add - Possible work around to the employee thing. All hired employees would share the same influence gain or loss of the chairman? If you screw over the company, you're going down too. |
|
M Burch RJ: Farmerbob CO: Farmerbob Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 151 Karma: 14 Joined: Sep 2, 2012 |
Posted on Jun 6, 2013 Was just thinking about the stuff above and it hit me what had been bothering me. Influence is a spent commodity.Either the way we use influence now would need to be adjusted, or a new stat would have to be generated. Reputation? And then use reputation for the above idea. The whole idea is to tie company performance to player status in a feedback loop. If you create wealth and maintain wealth, the public will approve. If not, you will be driven back into the private market. If you damage some companies to improve other companies, the negative will significantly outweigh any positive. Nothing should prevent such actions from taking place! But there needs to be a real price for choosing to engage in questionable business practices. |
|
Hajji Pajji RJ: Trade Merchant CO: VonDutch Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 194 Karma: 8 Joined: Oct 21, 2012 |
Posted on Jun 6, 2013 I'll play devils advocate (thou I agree with you)If I run 30 companies: 1) How couldn't I run them successful, once a Company is established there isn't much to mess that up 2) so with 30 companies increasing my reputation, I have a huge advantage Also: 3) what does this upgrade fix? |
|
Brent Goode RJ: BB Goode CO: BB Goode Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 506 Karma: 180 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Jun 7, 2013 I will argue Hajji as the devil's devil's advocated:If you were also required to: -keep a percentage of public companies public, -and your compensation was tied to company performance, -and your company's ability to maneuver, (loans etc..) were limited by Chairman influence, -and your other companies suffered from your negative influence cuts and that was able to really spiral at some point, then it might well matter. To simply deal with influence is not enough. But if other mechanisms were put into place, the sum total might be enough to create a viable driving force for the system. And I like just keeping influence as the main factor. It has a real value. If enough negative effects are felt for going negative, or being below a certain number, possibly average-leveraged against the number of companies you own (in Hajji's example) it could be a powerful thorn in someone's side. I tossed out a couple of other ideas in the "F***ing stock market" thread. Feel free to chew them up. |
|
M Burch RJ: Farmerbob CO: Farmerbob Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 151 Karma: 14 Joined: Sep 2, 2012 |
Posted on Jun 8, 2013 Hajji, here's an example of How I imagine this working.Let's say you have 30 public and private companies worth 2 trillion dollar net worth. You loot one of them by one trillion. That money is instantly turned into twenty trillion additional value after b2b/shop sales, etc. from other companies. So on one side your loser lost 50% of it's value. Your gainers only gained 33% value. Then you have to adjust the order of magnitude of the losing side, the effective calculated rate of losers vs winners would be 500% compared against 33% So you lose 15x the reputation from the hacked company than you gain on the other companies. Is it a bit clearer what I'm proposing now? Ya, there's holes all through it - it's NOT a super simple idea, and would need a lot of attention to find the loopholes, but I think that putting a reputation feedback loop tied to companies is critical for the development of a stock market that can work. At the same time, it's surely possible to have enough well-run companies that you can absorb treating a small company poorly and gutting it, but if you are doing sufficiently good things in the public marketplace that your shady dealings aren't draining your reputation, well, I guess we'll just have to take the good with the bad now, won't we. Private company performance should not impact the ability of a player to run a private company. Do what you want there. Your reputation will still be calculated but you never lose control of a private company. But if your reputation is negative, you won't be able to bring a company from private to public, and if you are the chairman of a public company and go to negative reputation, you get tossed out on your ear. What this whole thing is intended to do is create a mechanic by which players in the public market must do significantly MORE good than bad if they want to continue acting in the public market. It cannot and will not stop the occasional corporate piracy, but it will encourage stability and growth. I think. Private companies would need to be of some minimum size before reputation would be impacted by looting. Almost everyone has started a new company only to trash it the next day. Public companies have a built in minimum size. |
You need to register or login to post a reply.