Poll: Batch switching for media firms in advertising list

[Yimmy]

Implement Batch switching for media firms. Once a media firm is owned, it is desirable to convert your product advertising to your media firm. When yo produce a lot of products it is tedious to change each product individually. The batch switching capability provided for mass supplier changes would be effective for providing bulk changes to advertisers.

[rafaeltodero]

I liked this idea

[Yimmy]

I liked this idea

Judging by the lack of traction for this poll, you and I are the only ones who do like the idea. Not much hope of getting to 30 votes. Maybe it will get an exception because it would seem to be similar to the existing batch-switching code already in place for other areas (retail, factories, etc)

[mohmaaytah]

You need to be patient. The forums aren’t as active as they used to be. There are some core contributors whose names you see a lot of but most (myself included) drop in and out over time.

[cantdownloadit]

there some polls lately I've seen without a "no option" - its hard for anyone to judge how popular an option is if there is no option to say you don't want it... and I would think it also can harm an idea too.. after all to me (i don't know if this is how devs work), an idea with 12 yes votes and 0 no votes is more viable than one with 20 yes and 10 no...

(my vote is no real opinion - advertising is usually the job of my subsidiary minions so I don't really use it).

[Yimmy]

there some polls lately I've seen without a "no option" - its hard for anyone to judge how popular an option is if there is no option to say you don't want it... and I would think it also can harm an idea too.. after all to me (i don't know if this is how devs work), an idea with 12 yes votes and 0 no votes is more viable than one with 20 yes and 10 no...

(my vote is no real opinion - advertising is usually the job of my subsidiary minions so I don't really use it).

Thank you for your comment.

After creating a few polls without a "no" option, I decided to offer an option quite similar to your choice above -- one such as "perhaps, but doesn't impact my style of play"

The rules for posting suggestions and polls don't require a "no" option, but to your point, I agree that a respondent should be able to express the idea that it doesn't mesh with their style; so, I added this on my more recent polls.

[ohms_law]

Just hire a CMO and set him to only use your own or subsidiary media. Problem solved.

[Yimmy]

Just hire a CMO and set him to only use your own or subsidiary media. Problem solved.

Your reply implies that a CMO provides adequate management of advertising, and that you, and probably many others, are satisfied with that option. Your reply indicates that the change would not benefit your style of play; it does not indicate that implementing batch switching for media firms would not be beneficial to others who have a different style of play -- nine positive votes indicates that some players would find it useful.

I don't choose to hire the CMO, and certain other managers, because of the exorbitant salaries they eventually request. I also don't think they provide sufficient value to justify their potential for fouling up my existing strategies. (This is my style of play.) I am aware that some policies can be set to limit their changes, but I have found that the policies don't cover every option to prevent possible, undesirable (in my opinion) changes.

Your solution is expensive in the game. Mine costs nothing. The code for batch-switching already exists in the game. If David indicates the batch-switching would be too difficult to implement for media, then I continue as before, knowing some suggestions just don't have sufficient mass appeal to justify the change.

Despite my comments above, I appreciate you taking the time to provide an alternative answer that would work for others' style of play.

[ohms_law]

This attitude is why I really don't like polls. I do appreciate your point, and that there are other play styles. That's perfectly valid. However, there is already a mechanism that exists in the game to deal with your complaint, regardless of whether or not you're satisfied with it.

If nothing else I think it should cost something if you'd rather have the computer do some of your work. I certainly utilize it!

That being said, I am all for improvements of the CMO, CTO, and COO positions.

[Yimmy]

This attitude is why I really don't like polls. I do appreciate your point, and that there are other play styles. That's perfectly valid. However, there is already a mechanism that exists in the game to deal with your complaint, regardless of whether or not you're satisfied with it.

If nothing else I think it should cost something if you'd rather have the computer do some of your work. I certainly utilize it!

That being said, I am all for improvements of the CMO, CTO, and COO positions.

Polls are not perfect, few things are; they appear to be the best option available for judging interest in the many suggestions for potential player improvements.

You admit that CMO can be improved, I agree; that is why I have advocated an alternate solution that you seem to oppose for no obvious reason other than you think the existence of one solution -- one which you happen to support -- is adequate for everyone. (I don't think you truly believe this because in the following post by you, you advocate for a solution other than the one that currently exists -- even to the point of creating a poll which you stated you dislike.)

https://www.capitalism2.com/forum/viewt ... 267#p39659

Some of your excerpts from the post are as follows:

"The main issue with subsidiaries tends to be managing technology. If I put factories, service firms, or software companies, etc... into a subsidiary then I have to manage technology sharing between the two. That's perfectly doable of course, but it's an added layer of micromanagement, and I don't feel that there's much to gain there.

Of course, you can put the R&D together with the subsidiary, but they suck up a lot of money, so that can create issues as well."

"I'm not a big fan of the polls, but that's the way it works here. C'est la vie
I came back here because I'm microing a bunch of tech stuff between subsidiaries, and it's a big pain.
I've started a poll thread."


I don't begrudge you your desire to improve a cumbersome process; I advocate it as well. I hope you don't begrudge me my desire to improve a big pain a of microing a bunch of stuff as well.

I have stated my case as clearly and thoroughly as I can. Feel free to comment more if you wish; I will certainly read and consider your remarks; however, I think it is time for me to step back, maintain silence and let you have the last word if you so desire.