1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Fixing this city voting thing...

Discussion in 'UHall' started by QMSoar, Oct 4, 2013.

  1. QMSoar

    QMSoar Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    314
    Greetings!

    I sent this to OS this week, but I thought I would post it openly so I could hear the opinions of other players.

    I play a fairly neutral stance on Atlantic when it comes to the new governor system. I love the way it has revitalized our community and want to see it continue to be part of the game. So I'm making this post in an attempt to head off the growing number of problems associated with this one basic design flaw.

    I strongly feel that voting needs to be restricted to once per account, across all servers with the exception of maybe Siege. Just like the housing system works.

    Keeping the system the way it is, aside from all the drama generated from everyone having their hand in everyone else's cookie jar, guarantees that unless you have the support of one of top two or three groups on the shard, you have zero chance of being governor in any town. These groups have the numbers to over run any candidate across six towns with no depletion of their voting strength. We get six character slots, and every one of those can vote in a different city.

    The players who actually live around the town, and want to actively work to better it, are mere whispers against the hurricane when faced with these massive alliances. If they want any chance of getting themselves or their candidate voted in, they have to go to one of the big groups and obtain their support, even though these groups likely have no interest in the town what-so-ever.

    Just looking at some numbers makes the situation clear...

    Group A : 150 members.
    Group B : 100 members.
    Group C : 50 members.

    Group A has the voting power to put anyone they choose into any six towns they choose, uncontested.
    Group B gets to pick up the last three as long as they pick right.
    Group C gets nothing unless they can sneak in under the radar, or pair up with one of the bigger groups. Even if their entire membership is based around one town, and fifty players working for one town is a fantastic thing, they will not be able to win the seat if one of other groups decides they want to put a guild mate or buddy in there.

    What makes it worse is that after election day is done, these massive groups go back to their main towns and leave whoever they supported with the governors seat, and very few people honestly dedicated to the town. Or even worse than that, they steamrolled the seat from an active Group C and now the governor stands alone in a town where all the real citizens hate him.

    Having one vote per account forces people to be loyal to their main town. So in this case...

    Group A would spend a good portion of its voting power to ensure they get their main town. After this they can think about other towns, but will have no where near their full member strength like before. Also, each extra town they make a bid for weakens them as a whole.
    Group B Is in the same situation, but at least they can be assured of getting their main town as long as they don't go head to head with Group A.
    Group C also has vastly increased chances of getting the town they want, and most likely will.

    I find it much fairer all round. It means that in most cases, only the players who are interested in the town are putting down the major numbers on the voting stone.

    So, how about people who have heaps of accounts?

    This is a moot point. There are going to be single players in control of large numbers of accounts no matter how it's worked, including the way it is now. Except now they have the ability to influence six towns instead of one or two.

    How about smaller shards? How will they get enough votes?
    I see no difference between winning an election with 6 of 10 votes, and winning with 60 of 100. It still gets won.
    Well, in truth there is a difference. The difference is that in the first case it was won by votes from players who actually play that shard, and not people recruited cross-server. Smaller shards have smaller numbers, but it still works and is fair. If you want to break it and make it unfair, allowing people to vote cross-server is probably the best way to go about it.

    But this system is all RP anyways, why does it matter?
    It matters. Take a look at the explosion of player activity we have seen thanks to this system. Games are about having fun, and this is bring that by the truck loads. Just because it doesn't have cool colors and lewt stats doesn't mean it is not helping the game.

    Anyone have some input, agree or disagree on this topic?

    -Soar/Compas
     
    #1 QMSoar, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2013
    Lady Khaleesi and outcry like this.
  2. Varingian

    Varingian Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran The Squirrel Empire

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    352
    Cephas [V] likes this.
  3. Merus

    Merus Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran CasteoftheForgotten

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,636
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Residency requirement! Want to run for office or vote... Then that account must own a house on that shard. Xshard interference in elections problem solved.

    Just like irl, you need to live were you vote!
     
  4. Giggles

    Giggles Forum Administrator
    Administrator Moderator Professional Stratics Veteran Social Media Liaison Campaign Supporter The Squirrel Empire

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    1,644
    There are many people (Myself included) that play multiple shards. This system would punish from them from being able to participate in all elections they may with to participate in.
    The system currently is much like a popularity contest. And, yes, it is very much like real elections =). I say they leave it alone.
     
    Flutter likes this.
  5. Merus

    Merus Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran CasteoftheForgotten

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,636
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Consider in the US, regardless of how many states you visit you can not vote unless you establish residency. Want to participate in a shards elections? That's fine, put a house there... Otherwise you are just a visitor.

    Buying votes across shards or calling in all your forum buddies from other shards is not the way we should determine leadership in cities.
     
  6. Giggles

    Giggles Forum Administrator
    Administrator Moderator Professional Stratics Veteran Social Media Liaison Campaign Supporter The Squirrel Empire

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    1,644
    Honestly your proposed "fix" won't really fix anything.

    Number one... I bet that would take a great deal of recoding to allow only accounts to vote on servers where they have a house.

    Number two.. Lets say I have 3 accounts. My main account has my main house, while my other two accounts don't have housing.
    With my other two accounts I am going to place a 7x7 on atl.... vote... done..
    I am then going to demolish those houses... and now place 7x7's on pacific... vote... done.
    The housing timer is only active when you have a house. If I demolish it... I can place on all servers in the same day.
    Sure its more effort... But it can still be done.

    I am just being realistic. Do some people abuse it and buy votes? Yes. Would that stop with this "fix"? No.
     
    #6 Giggles, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2013
  7. Merus

    Merus Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran CasteoftheForgotten

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,636
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    I'm guessing the vast majority of accounts are not in a position to demo housing just to xshard vote. Will some still be able to do what you suggest, sure, but will that be enough to change the outcome of a shard election? I don't think so. It has to be better than what we have now with people spamming on every shard to trade votes between shards with folks who have absolutely nothing to do with the other shard.
     
  8. QMSoar

    QMSoar Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    314
    I think there are a number of people who play multiple shards, and it would be nice to accommodate their desire to vote on them all. But we've already seen from the last elections that that option comes with a heavy price.

    You are an active player on these shards. Wouldn't it bother you that the results of your elections could easily be decided by players who have never been there, and will likely never return after casting their vote?

    Even on Atlantic, where we have a the highest natural population, last election saw many people from other shards creating characters to cast a vote, knowning nothing more than someone had asked or told them to. These cross-shard votes made a difference.

    Why would anyone wish that upon a shard they actively play?

    The choice is a smaller evil for a greater good.
     
    #8 QMSoar, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2013
  9. Spellbound

    Spellbound Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    90
    What if only a house owner on the shard can vote, only if house was placed at least one month ago. No owners of homes transferred less than one month earlier would be allowed to vote either. The house owner character must be at least 30 days old.
     
  10. whiterabbit

    whiterabbit Stratics Legend
    Professional Premium Stratics Veteran Supporter Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter PITMUCK

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    7,748
    Likes Received:
    3,125
    JUST MAKE OZOG DA KING, HE WILL PUT WHO HIMZ WANTS IN OFFICE. DAT BEEES FAIRE.
    OZOG FER KING
     
  11. Flutter

    Flutter Always Present
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    21,553
    Likes Received:
    3,840
    But, I actively play on several shards, have guildmates, participate in guild hunts and events, and wish to support my guild regardless of what shard I have housing on. You simply cannot punish people for playing multiple shards in this day and age of UO. It's the only thing keeping the game alive.
     
    Victim of Siege, Shakkara and Viper09 like this.
  12. hen

    hen Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    420
    We can't compare it to any rl nonsense as we can be gargoyles on one shard here orcs on another and well maybe some folks like to roleplay a rock or something.
    Sure it's the same player but I always kept shards distinctly seperate and I am sure some others do too.

    Sometimes when people from another shard come begging for a vote on Drachs general chat, I ask them name and city. Then I tell them I will vote for the other guy.
     
    #12 hen, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2013
    AppleJax likes this.
  13. Giggles

    Giggles Forum Administrator
    Administrator Moderator Professional Stratics Veteran Social Media Liaison Campaign Supporter The Squirrel Empire

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    1,644
    And that's just it. No one is forcing anyone to vote for them. There is nothing stopping you, or others, from voting against said person offering money or vote exchanges. That would be enough to turn the tides right there.

    Lets say Player X is on Catskills in general chat requesting votes on Pacific, in exchange for Catskills votes. Good citizens on Catskills are appalled by these shenanigans, and they decide to take their 30 buddies to go vote for the other guy who is not Player X. I think that turn of events would be hilarious.

    We aren't going to get much help making this system even more complicated by having housing intermingled with it.

    The fastest and most effective fix from abuse would be;

    -Simply requiring the characters to have a minimum of 30 days age before they can vote.

    -OR, we can add a city reputation requirement of some sort before they can vote. Player needs to have honorable status with Vesper before player can vote on Vespers Governor.

    Those two things right there would stop a lot of the abuse without getting silly about it. And those two things won't interfere with the players whom are active in multiple shards.
     
    #13 Giggles, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2013
  14. Ray_Martin

    Ray_Martin Journeyman

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    66
    Hasn't it been stated that it's a work in progress? One person has two cities on an active shard (Chessy.) Because he has a ton of accounts. During events involving the governors it's pretty lame and he opennly stated he only wanted one of them for the agreements and doesn't plan on doing anything.
     
  15. QMSoar

    QMSoar Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    314
    I agree with your point about the housing. Linking voting to the housing doesn't really make sense. All it really achieves is the same result as restricting the votes to one across all servers. You can only have one house per account, so it would just be a complcated way of going abut the same thing.

    The character age restriction would help, especially with cross-server voting, but it would not solve the problem. It could be worked around as the election dates are decided well in advance, and once you have the characters made, they are good for all future elections. It's also introduces the new problem of restricting new players who may be wanting to legitimately take part in the election but have not yet been in the game for a full month.

    Loyalty can be bought instantly and easily, and players have an awful lot of money. I don't think basing restrictions in this area is going to be much help at all. It will be just another hoop for them to jump through, and not a very hard one at that.

    My biggest concern with the current system is the ability to cast multiple votes on the same server using all six character slots. We really need to get this out of the system. I'd be happy with a solution that fixed this and left in the cross server voting.
     
  16. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92
    I don't think there is any way that doesn't require substantial attention being taken away from the Devs to 'fix' this.

    Several people I know were on the losing end of organized xshard groups the first election cycle. So they got organized themselves and they won this time around. Pretty sure it stunned some people.

    Unfortunately I think most players are going to have to suck it up and deal with it, or they are going to learn to forge new relationships and create new partners to win.

    Limiting players to only being allowed to vote on one shard or only being allowed to cast one vote for all seven of your characters on that shard is going to drive off more people than a 'fix' would save.