Plantations Open Beta started!

[Medici]

I have, and yes i add workers but far less than youd think and i fire some as i do it, and i am still earning 4-5m per day trading while it all happens.

Fact, what i am doing earns me stars, happiness, health, and i can still trade plus profit. So because its different than what you interpreted its wrong right? I think ill maintain the course, you can follow yours.

[Captain Jack]

I feel you are perhaps being dismissive of an issue that can occur at anytime to any governor whilst there is no mechanism in place to protect their investment.
It would seem an obviously fair solution that a governor who through game mechanics has their home port changed has their investment protected to some extent at least.
If the 90 day statute is too much in this instance than a 30 day grant that carries through port handover one would allow them time to negotiate properly a continuation?
I do not wish to have to lock governors into ports and prefer the game mechanics determine this as intended.

Locking them in creates complications of an unnecessarily complex nature should they instead of simply switching port they lose their privilege through someone gaining higher influence and them losing their status completely. Should this occur with battling players switching a port rank for days on end the complication with regard to plantation permission is just silly.

I am happy to be guided on this but fail to see an inherent fairness.

I am not at all dismissive. This is an issue that has been discussed in the past. It may be new to you but it not new to me. This is why I may seem dismissive to you. Because we are discussing afresh an issue for which I have like 100% awareness while you still are new to it.

I don't see why ex-governors or people who get to govern a port for just one day should get 90-days long permissions for free. This is unrealistic. For instance, right now, if someone decides to take over a port for a day, then he cannot issue permissions for none, including himself. Although he will get a permission for the day and 3 more later, based on ex-Governor position, cool-down period rule. Even 2 days are not enough. Based on how port takeover takes place and the very fact that any nation can be shocked, then I find the current functionality the best way to protect anyone's investments.

Let's get to Governors and Kings specifically:

Rightful Kings and same port Governors will need no operating permission license. If any of them, for any reason, lose their place, they will automatically receive an Operating Permission with 3 days remaining. This will happen to allow them to either attempt to return to their place or negotiate a new contract without losing any production.

I find it hard to believe that a new governor would not issue an operating permission to a fellow countryman. If you are going to switch governors daily, then you may consider issuing real 90days permission on fees, when changing happens. The free ones are already long enough. Or else, we would give you an automatic free way for everyone in the nation to get their permissions.

Besides King lock, there is always Governor's preference. Population only kicks in when none of the two exists. If you fall into this case, then it is actually a poor usage of mechanics in place. I can understand that you do now want to lock your ports as a King. How about Governors though? Perhaps they are not aware that they can set their preference? Time for them to pass by the chancellor.

So, if they have set their preference, then it is not population that decides but influence and this is fair game.

About the investment risk; yes, this is intended. For all. Kings, Governors, ex-governors, foreigners, pirates, all.

Finally, governors do make sense to be stable. What Spain is managing is very weird to say in the lease and Jessica has already warned you about the problems ahead in the way you manage your governor positions. The biggest issue that is created is not your governors permissions but everyone's permissions on Spanish ports. Actually, I hope you solve it soon. All aspiring governors should start by setting their port preference.

[Captain Jack]

"A deadline has now been given to the Governor to reply. If no reply is given, your contract will be activated for a fee of gc15M."

This is confusing. One lined implies i will get my bid at default rate of 15 mill. Another lines says it wont be fulfilled.

Indeed, this line is confusing and should not exist there. It will be removed.

[Kangaroo]

I feel you are perhaps being dismissive of an issue that can occur at anytime to any governor whilst there is no mechanism in place to protect their investment.
It would seem an obviously fair solution that a governor who through game mechanics has their home port changed has their investment protected to some extent at least.
If the 90 day statute is too much in this instance than a 30 day grant that carries through port handover one would allow them time to negotiate properly a continuation?
I do not wish to have to lock governors into ports and prefer the game mechanics determine this as intended.

Locking them in creates complications of an unnecessarily complex nature should they instead of simply switching port they lose their privilege through someone gaining higher influence and them losing their status completely. Should this occur with battling players switching a port rank for days on end the complication with regard to plantation permission is just silly.

I am happy to be guided on this but fail to see an inherent fairness.

I am not at all dismissive. This is an issue that has been discussed in the past. It may be new to you but it not new to me. This is why I may seem dismissive to you. Because we are discussing afresh an issue for which I have like 100% awareness while you still are new to it.

I don't see why ex-governors or people who get to govern a port for just one day should get 90-days long permissions for free. This is unrealistic. For instance, right now, if someone decides to take over a port for a day, then he cannot issue permissions for none, including himself. Although he will get a permission for the day and 3 more later, based on ex-Governor position, cool-down period rule. Even 2 days are not enough. Based on how port takeover takes place and the very fact that any nation can be shocked, then I find the current functionality the best way to protect anyone's investments.

Let's get to Governors and Kings specifically:

Rightful Kings and same port Governors will need no operating permission license. If any of them, for any reason, lose their place, they will automatically receive an Operating Permission with 3 days remaining. This will happen to allow them to either attempt to return to their place or negotiate a new contract without losing any production.

I find it hard to believe that a new governor would not issue an operating permission to a fellow countryman. If you are going to switch governors daily, then you may consider issuing real 90days permission on fees, when changing happens. The free ones are already long enough. Or else, we would give you an automatic free way for everyone in the nation to get their permissions.

Besides King lock, there is always Governor's preference. Population only kicks in when none of the two exists. If you fall into this case, then it is actually a poor usage of mechanics in place. I can understand that you do now want to lock your ports as a King. How about Governors though? Perhaps they are not aware that they can set their preference? Time for them to pass by the chancellor.

So, if they have set their preference, then it is not population that decides but influence and this is fair game.

About the investment risk; yes, this is intended. For all. Kings, Governors, ex-governors, foreigners, pirates, all.

Finally, governors do make sense to be stable. What Spain is managing is very weird to say in the lease and Jessica has already warned you about the problems ahead in the way you manage your governor positions. The biggest issue that is created is not your governors permissions but everyone's permissions on Spanish ports. Actually, I hope you solve it soon. All aspiring governors should start by setting their port preference.

Thanks for the explaination CJ, I can see a lot of sense in what you say, but if 2 governors have the same preference than port population would see them continually change places, I fail to see why there can't some reasonable continuity supplied to a player who one day governs a port and the next day not. I understand what you mean about changing chairs to deliberately avoid payment, but that isn't what we are currently looking at. As you say you understand this well though and I confess to almost no knowledge, like much of the player base if discussions I've seen are a genuine indicator.

Could you do me a favour and explain the bolded bit, via PM if you feel necessary as I have never had contact with Jessica at any point that I recall, if a public concern was raised it passed me by. I've been King for over a year now so it's not as though I haven't been present to be contacted.
For now I have locked in the governors whilst working out another way to allow fairness to be dominant.

[Medici]

If we wanted to let go of some acreage how would we do it?

I cant find an option to do so. This leads me to think the only way is simply not bidding on the same amount when the contract is up. In that case all i can find is to not bid but that requires not using your quartermaster or plantation manager. In that event we would risk losing the acres we wish to keep.

If its not possible now, i would think any owner should be able to return unwanted acres at their discretion at any time.

[William one eye]

If we wanted to let go of some acreage how would we do it?

I cant find an option to do so. This leads me to think the only way is simply not bidding on the same amount when the contract is up. In that case all i can find is to not bid but that requires not using your quartermaster or plantation manager. In that event we would risk losing the acres we wish to keep.

If its not possible now, i would think any owner should be able to return unwanted acres at their discretion at any time.

Seems reasonable, would be nice to have 2 options,

Give back, rent still due if not paid in full - happens instantly.

Negotiate a return with governor for partial or
full refund of any unpaid rent. - happens when both parties agree on rate

Thought about sale to another player but this would probably lead to players renting acreage in speculation of profit by sublet and could lead to intentionally unused land.

[Meliva]

FIgured id just ask here, but do you think you could add plantations as an option to sort through on the global events page? Not sure if you have this planned and havn't got to it yet, or simply forgot. It would also be nice to be able to further sort it by port, but it's fine if we just get the first.

[Kangaroo]

Is there a way to know if land is available, and if so how much there is available. prior to buying a permission to operate?

[Cutpurse]

Is there a way to know if land is available, and if so how much there is available. prior to buying a permission to operate?

new window will open when you choose to buy the permission, from which you will see remaining acres before you confirm spending 100c on construction permission

[Kangaroo]

Is there a way to know if land is available, and if so how much there is available. prior to buying a permission to operate?

new window will open when you choose to buy the permission, from which you will see remaining acres before you confirm spending 100c on construction permission

ty sire, I hadn't gone past the prior window on a non Spanish port