investing in companies some influence

[WilliamMGary]

I think that your idea is totally artificial.

The fact that you bought some shares on stock exchange cannot affect someone's attitude towards you.

So the fact that I just became a major shareholder in your company wouldn't affect your attitude towards me? In fact this could be either positive or negative. a CEO who likes to have control of his company, if you become a major investor his attitude towards you could be negative compared to a CEO who doesn't have such a strong corporate ownership personality their attitude would be positive. It has the potential to add another dimension to the game.

Like really once you hit 40% or more of retail market share the broad strokes of the game becomes kinda dull. Remember I thought the gamification of Goals in the game was silly but then realize I actually enjoyed it.

[megapolis]

Exactly. It will add any attitude. Depending on your intentions. But you cannot explain your intentions to AI.

You know, I wonder how much time do you spend for an in-game day in late game? An hour? A day? A week? A month? Most of your suggestions that are trying to add "another dimension" to the game are just increasing game time without adding something significant to the core gameplay.

In my games I have thousands of firms that need my attention from time to time. It is already quite complicated. You want it to simulate drinks with other CEOs between board of directors meetings? What next? Talking to Labour unions? Talking to each individual worker? What for?

[WilliamMGary]

Exactly. It will add any attitude. Depending on your intentions. But you cannot explain your intentions to AI.

You know, I wonder how much time do you spend for an in-game day in late game? An hour? A day? A week? A month? Most of your suggestions that are trying to add "another dimension" to the game are just increasing game time without adding something significant to the core gameplay.

In my games I have thousands of firms that need my attention from time to time. It is already quite complicated. You want it to simulate drinks with other CEOs between board of directors meetings? What next? Talking to Labour unions? Talking to each individual worker? What for?

lol, it's not like I'm proposing that I be able to be mayor of a city. I'm making a point/suggestion that a AIs attitude towards you (which is already in the game) can be naturally expanded to other aspects of the game. Like their willingness to sell technology to you/Their willingness to issue shares to prevent you from malingering their company etc. My games are just as complex as yours but it's that complexity and depth I enjoy and if there were a few tiny things like this could make the game just a little more enjoyable and interesting. If the attitudes was expanded in the game I don't feel it will take away your focus on your thousand of firms.

Why does attitudes have to be limited to personnel management? Why can't it affect and be incorporated into other parts of the game?

[megapolis]

I know a game with the complexity of economy that you mean. It is called Geo-Political Simulator. Every decision you make there affects everything. For example you can change tax rate for an industry. It will change their profitabiliy. With time it will change amount of people in that industry. it will affect unemployment in your country, amount of goods that your industry is producing etc. Unemployment will change money you spend on social policies. Each change will affect attitude towards you of different people in trade unions, political parties and other groups of people affected by these changes etc. The Butterfly Effect at full scale. Is it interesting? Probably yes. Is it playable? No. You either live in game and feel every connection between any event and every group of people or you simply cannot do anything there. Oh, and there is no documentation while you desperately need an enormous spreadsheet with all that links.

Oh, by the way this game is extremely buggy and almost unsupported. Don't try it.

There's another game with such complexity of relationships. It is called Democracy 3. Its main idea is to make changes in policies and predict all the outcomes of your decisions. You want a business simulator with this? I hope not.

Anyway it does not matter. Occam's razor. That's the only principle you have to follow before asking for a feature. This feature does not pass Occam's razor. Why should a player think of relationship with AIs if his only intention is to take all its money? Why there should be a feature that you will use only once or twice during an endless game?

[anjali]

totally agree with megapolis.
theres no room for attitude in business anyway be it in real life or game. if you buy up the stock of the company the attitude towards you should even go down if there would be such a feature, as your only intention is, like megapolis mentioned, to rip this business apart and sell it for highest bidding. and it doesnt matter if a ceo likes you or not even if ya own 99% of the company. hire & fire is ther secret of huge companies to make the managers work no room for attitude, you just act nice towards the guy on top of ya no matter how much ya hate him, if ya cant do this, just quit, its better then hollywood and the shareholders anyway just asks to fulfill impossible stuff as they look on their piece of paper and the revenue / profit have to go up every year by xx% no matter what this has to happen and on paper it works because on paper you crash the competition, its only economic sunshine etc, which you only achieve by threating the employees like robots. i also did work in a global company as operations manager and thats exactly how they play that game. most managers dont last long until they quit because they are psychologicly destroyed.
so to put it back into the game ... even if i love you to 500% ... i wouldnt sell ya my technology if i am the only one having it, because you gonna compete with me and i have to arrange to share the profit with you or we both gonna drive the price for the product down until we loose both and one goes broke. so i dont think there should be any attitude at all expet $$$. or would you work for free because you like the company you working for and not being able to pay for your car/house/holidays/food?