Veto Power Update (Suggestion)

[DezNutz]

There seems to be an issue with the King/Queen's ability to issue a Veto. Currently, a veto will negate a vote as long as the Yes votes do not reach 2:1 (2/3rds) of the voting powertable at the end of the vote (Do have questions on this though). However, for a King/Queen to issue a veto, they must issue the veto at the time of their vote. Voting No or even Yes (I will provide an example for such), eliminates the King/Queen's power to issue a Veto.

A King/Queen's Veto should be a separate action from his/her Vote. A King/Queen should have the option to vote on the law or payout as they see fit. In comparison to reality (I know this is a game and shouldn't compare, but it is a worth example), a King/Queen would have no voting authority and would either approve or veto the the law or payout upon completion of the legislatures vote. Since this is a game, the King/Queen is given the option to vote. As with real life, a veto can be overturned with a 2/3 majority. This is accomplished in game by forcing the King/Queen to issue the veto option before the vote comes to an end. The veto option in itself is a fantastic feature, but needs to be adjusted.

My suggestion is basically giving a King/Queen the option to Veto at anytime as long as the vote has not expired.


Additionally, I think that the Veto should remain the same in requirements of 2:1 to overturn and it should base this value on the maximum voting power during the time of the vote. If the total voting power is 100 at the start of the vote and increases to 110 before the end of the Vote, the Yes votes must be 2/3 of 110 to overturn the Veto.

A few examples:

A King/Queen voting No is not affirmation of issuing a Veto as some King/Queen's allow the majority of the nation decide on issues, even though they may disagree. National issues can change on short notice and the ability to Veto should still be an option.

A King/Queen voting Yes is also not an negation of the use of Veto. The law change or payout may have the initial approval of the King/Queen, but national issues and concerns can change on short notice and the ability to Veto should still be an option.


Hopefully, I explained that thoroughly. I'm in a bit of a rush and want to get this out, so as not to forget.

[Haron]

I think voting "Yes" and later issuing a veto should not be allowed. That would be similar to changing one's vote. Once a person has voted, it's not possible to take that back.

Also, I think it's fine that the King/Queen has to vote either "No" or "Veto". If you want the majority to decide, then vote "No". If the King/Queen finds the issue to be an important one, the Veto can be used.

Basically, I think the way the Veto works is good, although very powerful. The King/Queen holds a lot of power this way, but in my opinion, that is as it should be. If anyone wants to take over the throne, we all know there are ways to do that. The way the Veto works is also of vital importance in "national takeovers". Not sure if we'll see any more of those, but it is still something to consider.

[DezNutz]

I think voting "Yes" and later issuing a veto should not be allowed. That would be similar to changing one's vote. Once a person has voted, it's not possible to take that back.

Also, I think it's fine that the King/Queen has to vote either "No" or "Veto". If you want the majority to decide, then vote "No". If the King/Queen finds the issue to be an important one, the Veto can be used.

Basically, I think the way the Veto works is good, although very powerful. The King/Queen holds a lot of power this way, but in my opinion, that is as it should be. If anyone wants to take over the throne, we all know there are ways to do that. The way the Veto works is also of vital importance in "national takeovers". Not sure if we'll see any more of those, but it is still something to consider.

I've thought about national takeovers, but that doesn't mean anything. If the ones taking over the nation don't vote and become King/Queen before the vote is finished, they can veto any existing votes when they cast their vote as King/Queen in the current setup.

You could also take a look at it from the other side. If those performed the take over try to issue votes that could pass without Veto and the nation regains control, the nation should be able to stop votes via Veto.

[Haron]

I think the ability to veto at a later time gives the king/queen too much power and flexibility. They are more than powerful enough as it is.

I think they should be forced to cast the veto when they cast their vote.

[DezNutz]

I think the ability to veto at a later time gives the king/queen too much power and flexibility. They are more than powerful enough as it is.

I think they should be forced to cast the veto when they cast their vote.

If they are already powerful enough, why have the Veto at all. (No I'm not advocating that we remove the Veto)

[Malachi Constant]

I think what Dez is getting at is that circumstances and things can change in the voting period and players should be able to amend based on new information.

I agree with this.

I think anyone should be able to change their vote if new information comes to light. There is no advantage of coin or credit for an individual to change their mind and caste a vote another direction. The voting system moves slowly and that is good but it also allows for things to transpire that may change the original thought on someone's vote.

I would at minimum hope the dukes+ can change their vote. The USA is run like a congress or parliament and opinions can be swayed on matters.

[Haron]

I understand that this is his reasoning. However, that goes for everyone, not just kings and Queens. And I think no one should be allowed to change their vote after they have cast it. That would be a bad idea, in my opinion. If you fear that things may change, wait until the last moment to cast your vote.

[Malachi Constant]

Well, then at minimum change the in game notification for voting from new voting available to voting about to expire?

That's not the solution I want, just a middle ground I am suggesting

[Haron]

I don't mind changing the notifications, but I DO oppose any option to change a vote after it has been cast.

[DezNutz]

I don't mind changing the notifications, but I DO oppose any option to change a vote after it has been cast.

A veto is not a Vote. A player can vote yes or no. Please show me the column under the vote tallies that says Veto Tally? A veto is a complete rejection of the vote tallies unless a 2/3 (2:1) majority is reached in the affirmative. Your inference that a veto is a vote is utter nonsense. Your assumption is based on when you click the option Veto, the King's votes are added to the No column and the Veto option has been enabled for the vote. If Veto where a vote, the King's voting power would be to issue the veto and his votes than could not go to either Yes or No since he didn't click one of those choices. But that doesn't occur in the game because a Veto is not vote.