Fwurg

[Mercury]

I considered the option of giving each player a free Hyperspace Lane and I am still looking at different options. I also want to propose an alternative which has a similar property but which wouldn't affect the union wide infrastructure as much.

Suppose that when calculating the necessary capacity of a trade, the first and last zone of the trade only require half capacity? Since traders usually won't have to cross the entire hex, this seems like a balanced thing. Two planets trading through one Bozzy Spine hex would usually require 210 capacity to transfer 100 goods. This would be reduced to 110 by this scheme (identical to granting trade lanes on both ends), without affecting maintenance cost and without allowing trade through a players zone to be reduced in cost (you still need the Bozzy Spine)

What do people think of this alternative? Is it better (or worse) than the trade lane idea? If so, why not?

[Veolian Commonwealth]

I have multiple reasons to dislike the suggested alternative:

1) I'm strongly opposed to any change that divides a sector into further parts. Currently, any positional information at a significance below 'in sector X Y' is just fluff (for example, systems are positioned within their sector based purely on player preference). Once we add an exception to the trading rules that takes into account the fact that one starts half-way in the sector, questions about the relevance of system placement will have to be answered.

And while the 'This is just how the rules work' answer suffices when asked why the system in Sector 10 -5 also gets the 'half-way there' reduction, dividing the conceptual sector still invites a lot of thought on in-sector positioning. I'm afraid that questions about holonet relays reaching half-way into the next sector (because they are 'just on the border'), and any other position-related rule will follow promptly (especially once we get into the combat fleet system, which will invariably contain fleet positioning).

2) It seems to me that this rule-change effectively boils down to 'give new factions a hyperspace lane' without actually giving new factions a hyperspace lane. As far as I see this rule will affect the union-wide infrastructure almost as much as actually deploying hyperspace lanes, it simulates them very closely.

What is wrong with the Union requiring (and probably helping out a with the finances a little) that new members have a level of technology that actually enables them to trade at a union-wide scale? Each faction already starts out with 3 free trade fleets and 1 free holonet relay. Why not have them start out with a free hyperspace lane as well? It seems to me that such an investment is not unreasonable to ask, seeing how the union supports the Bozzy Spine.

3)

without allowing trade through a players zone to be reduced in cost (you still need the Bozzy Spine)

This statement does not make sense to me for two reasons: a) Unless both players are directly next to each other, in which case they will trade directly in any situation, it is always better to trade through the bozzy spine even if all sectors directly next to it have a quality 2 hyperspace lane. b) The proposed rule actually allows reduced trade through a players zone as well, by using the players as a 'transfer station' (admittedly, this does lock up a trade fleet).

[Veolian Commonwealth]

This evening a discussion was held with 75% of the players and the 100% of the adminstrators in attendance.

For the record: A consensus was reached that the rules do not have to be changed to offer greater trade capacity to new players, as the IC solution of supplying hyperspace lanes can be implemented.

[Praetorian Empire]

As representative of the 25 % i am allowed to voice our opinion.

I would like some extra information on this; Are we included in the 'new players' category? What is the actual plan here?

[Mercury]

Since its being resolved IC, that's up to how well you can negotiate ^_^

[Veolian Commonwealth]

I concur with Chriz that some extra information would be nice, especially since this is meant as an IC fix to an OOC problem.

I think that none of the current PC's is going to come up with such a proposal (although the Veolian's already did (last paragraph), and it was completely ignored at the time -- so they're not starting it again). Secondly, future player factions do not have a vote yet, so why would the current voters want to spend extra taxes on the infrastructure of yet unknown parties?

Therefore, it is my opinion that you can't just tell us to 'negotiate it in-character'. Why risk our political necks on something that is supposed to fix an OOC issue? If this is the way we fix OOC issues with IC solutions, I'd rather the rules are changed to reflect the starting position of new players with an upkeep-free hyperspace lane, and be done with it.

I'm not interested in negotiating an IC fix if everybody is OOC aware that we need the fix. Especially since this statement indicates that there is a serious possibility of my faction coming out on the short end of the deal.

[Mercury]

I don't really understand the problem that appears to have popped up. Nor do I really understand the need for additional clarification. What wasn't clear?

Regardless of the source of the problem, the solution is either an IC solution, or an OOC solution. The choice was to made to resolve this IC. If its an IC solution, it requires IC action. If all players agree on what course of action should be taken, I am sure they will be able to convince the NPC voters.

For one, Chancellor Acehtoo wishes to help new member worlds (and promised so in her election program), Senator Afra hammered on infrastructure during her election campaign and I'm pretty sure Senator Ght'Twwf will see the merit of improving general trade in the Union. Senator Bolv'ar might even agree if it is explained to him that this will allow fleets to get to strategic locations more quickly. All of those have political influence with other NPC's in turn.

If you prefer an OOC solution, I am still open to that, but that wasn't what was decided on yesterday. Since its an IC solution, you'll need to take some form of IC action. To be honest, I think that should be obvious, and I don't understand why it is suddenly problematic.

[Veolian Commonwealth]

I was under the impression that we decided that new players should get a hyperspace lane as part of their starting package.

Apparently, we did not have the same idea with regard to how an IC solution should be implemented. From my point of view, having all new players start out with a hyperspace lane (as proposed at the beginning of this thread) is IC, as it employs IC resources to solve the OOC problem (of new players having to little trade capacity). I see this as the same kind of IC as the Bozzy Spine. However, I see how this might be taken as still being an OOC solution though.

Let's just say that I was a bit surprised by the 'negotiate it yourself' statement, as it felt as if we had to solve an identified OOC problem by putting our political position in the line. It still feels that way to me, as there is no guarantee that an actual agreement will be reached IC, and thus the problem might not be solved (which is clearly undesirable, with respect to wanting to attract more players).

Since the Veolian's previous proposal of this idea (which basically boiled down the exact same thing) was completely ignored by all involved, I was under the impressions that no faction gives a damn. The short explanation of the different senator's positions by admin does help, as I hadn't counted on support from Niom or Excaria and certainly not from Komes.

Now that it's clarified (for me at least) where we stand on the IC/OOC unclearness I'm interested to see where this goes; I'll post the proposal this evening.

[Praetorian Empire]

I understand what both our views are now. Do we really have to make this into another big political discussion? I vote for using the method proposed by Brend. I am fine with politics but this will be the bozzy spine extension all over again. I vote for putting the focus on the dark plots and keep this discussion OOC.

[Veolian Commonwealth]

I say we do this IC.

On a meta-level: since we are trying to fix an OOC issue, most NPC's will back this proposal without to much effort. And if we get three or four big players, we have almost a majority already. Let's just do this IC, and see what happens.

Most problematic is the actual justification of this, since there appears to be no budget for anything, how come this can be paid for.... We'll see.

[Mercury]

I don't really see this running into a large debate with various opposing factions and multiple voting rounds and detailed manipulation of factions involved. I don't expect problems to pop up, but I do think that if this is resolved IC, then arguments should be presented to support the proposal, and a vote should be tallied.

I get the impression people feel this will be a hard-ass debate, but IC the proposal makes economic sense for almost everyone: there is general profit to be had and the new equilibrium is better for everyone.

I think my note of "how well you can negotiate" has been taken as a serious warning of potential failure, rather than a light-hearted remark that the matter would require some IC arguments. Its not just about political negotiations where you can get your way only by giving something in return - a lot lies in the presentation. For example, if you say "We probably need to cut the military budget to build these hyperspace lanes", then Senator Bolv'ar is not going to support it. However if you say "We need to improve our infrastructure so our military can get to where it is needed", then you might in turn get his support. It's not a very difficult puzzle and you don't necessarily need to pay with political collateral.

[Praetorian Empire]

Ok fine, but who will open this discussion? Since it was proposed by the Veolian Commonwealth and supported by the Praetorian Empire before...