Quote:
Originally Posted by Kohola_KinG
Decided to post in the official forum as it's a lot more official than unofficial.
As we all know era is a dictatorship. I'm not saying it's a bad dictatorship but is it the right thing for era? I honestly don't believe so.
This thread isn't to flair up any tensions or for people to QQ. It's simply just in the best interests for era.
We all know managers at the start are full of ambition, motivation and plans. They don't always get what they want done but they get some stuff done and then what happens is they start to laze off and things slow down.
This is exactly why i think a democracy of some sort would be the best for era. Would it not be better to have people elected for the manager role and let them deliver their projects and they know that if they don't continue to work hard they will lose their "votes", if you will.
Let's say they get to manage for 6-8 months and then another "election" if you will takes place for somebody else to take over and deliver their work.
I see a lot of questions against this but i just want to get across my intentions as to why i think it could work and why it would be better.
The people of era always want the best for the game, they play the game so they obviously want a better game experience. It gives them power to put somebody in place who will deliver what they want.
It also keeps managers on their toes and keeps them working.
Maybe many will disagree, i dunno, just a suggestion.
|
Voting for an actual change isn't affective. However, if Era wanted to devise a way for players to rate the manager on a monthly basis that would be more affective.
For example, the player logs in on the first of the month and is given the opportunity to rate the manager from 1-10. The results are displayed publicly. You may vote at any time once a month.
This way you could record the managerial performance month over month; i.e., "Oh, Zao has had a rating greater than 60% for the last 4 months, he is a good manager".