Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: New incumbent vote system : a means for takeovers ?
Page 1 of 2
unity200
Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:41 am
#1
well im not sure if i got the new system right.
it seems, in a 70 or so citizen city, only 9 votes go to incumbent mayor. seems to be a ratio of 1.5 % of the nonvoting citizens vote going to incumbent ?
well if i am right, woe to established cities and pa cities.
only thing needed to takeover some other pa's city is putting in 5-10 citizen to their cities, and getting them vote for own party.
if we take into account that swg player's average age is much higher than other games, and many players have sometimes months they cant log into their accounts and play, but still pay, this will be a big surprise for many citizens & pa members when they come back and see their city blown away to some other party. because in many 80-100 strong pas average online level is around 10-20 players per week. a lull period is all it is needed to take over a city by at most 10 votes, then voila ! your city is free zone until next election, and gone the chance to take the city back.
gone 1.5 years of work by 60-100 people in establishing and caring for a cause.
this, i hope right, is not as i think as it is, and soe did not screw up whole crowds while trying to fix the issue of some little number of insistent mayors mischiefing a little fraction of players.
it seems, in a 70 or so citizen city, only 9 votes go to incumbent mayor. seems to be a ratio of 1.5 % of the nonvoting citizens vote going to incumbent ?
well if i am right, woe to established cities and pa cities.
only thing needed to takeover some other pa's city is putting in 5-10 citizen to their cities, and getting them vote for own party.
if we take into account that swg player's average age is much higher than other games, and many players have sometimes months they cant log into their accounts and play, but still pay, this will be a big surprise for many citizens & pa members when they come back and see their city blown away to some other party. because in many 80-100 strong pas average online level is around 10-20 players per week. a lull period is all it is needed to take over a city by at most 10 votes, then voila ! your city is free zone until next election, and gone the chance to take the city back.
gone 1.5 years of work by 60-100 people in establishing and caring for a cause.
this, i hope right, is not as i think as it is, and soe did not screw up whole crowds while trying to fix the issue of some little number of insistent mayors mischiefing a little fraction of players.
Scoooter
Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:51 am
#2
unity200 wrote:
well im not sure if i got the new system right.
it seems, in a 70 or so citizen city, only 9 votes go to incumbent mayor. seems to be a ratio of 1.5 % of the nonvoting citizens vote going to incumbent ?
well if i am right, woe to established cities and pa cities.
only thing needed to takeover some other pa's city is putting in 5-10 citizen to their cities, and getting them vote for own party.
if we take into account that swg player's average age is much higher than other games, and many players have sometimes months they cant log into their accounts and play, but still pay, this will be a big surprise for many citizens & pa members when they come back and see their city blown away to some other party. because in many 80-100 strong pas average online level is around 10-20 players per week. a lull period is all it is needed to take over a city by at most 10 votes, then voila ! your city is free zone until next election, and gone the chance to take the city back.
gone 1.5 years of work by 60-100 people in establishing and caring for a cause.
this, i hope right, is not as i think as it is, and soe did not screw up whole crowds while trying to fix the issue of some little number of insistent mayors mischiefing a little fraction of players.
If the incumbant mayor chooses not to play his/her profession and campaign for votes each cycle, yes this can happen.
Welcome to voter apathy and low voter turnout
unity200
Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:51 am
#3
i have discovered that there exists no incumbent votes.
thus it is possible to take over a city with even 1 vote ? only thing is some mayor can not comply with registering for only a week ?
how preposterous idea to fix a complaint that is !
'uncooperative mayors can be removed from office' ... dammit ...
with this new system, whole pas can be removed from office for god's sakes.
thus it is possible to take over a city with even 1 vote ? only thing is some mayor can not comply with registering for only a week ?
how preposterous idea to fix a complaint that is !
'uncooperative mayors can be removed from office' ... dammit ...
with this new system, whole pas can be removed from office for god's sakes.
unity200
Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:57 am
#4
well see, this is not a matter of 'roleplaying'.
there are cosmopolitan cities where no majority exists, they are ment to be this way. and there wannabee mayors can 'campaign' and 'outvote' others.
besides those however, there are player cities, or faction cities. where one character is decided on to be mayor, and almost public to pa.
these cities, like ours, house 70 citizens, all of one pa, taking their city as 'theirs'.
those ppl go around with their lives, occasionally log in to play with their friends, then get logged out for even months, still paying their fee.
these are PEOPLE. the city issue in this case is not a matter of 'gameplaying' or 'roleplaying', it is a matter of responsibility towards people.
providing a means for some parties taking over other's cities by just 10 vote, is no type of responsible game development.
there are cosmopolitan cities where no majority exists, they are ment to be this way. and there wannabee mayors can 'campaign' and 'outvote' others.
besides those however, there are player cities, or faction cities. where one character is decided on to be mayor, and almost public to pa.
these cities, like ours, house 70 citizens, all of one pa, taking their city as 'theirs'.
those ppl go around with their lives, occasionally log in to play with their friends, then get logged out for even months, still paying their fee.
these are PEOPLE. the city issue in this case is not a matter of 'gameplaying' or 'roleplaying', it is a matter of responsibility towards people.
providing a means for some parties taking over other's cities by just 10 vote, is no type of responsible game development.
Ashet
Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:57 am
#5
The other side of this coin is before these incumbent changes, all votes defaulted to the incumbent. The town I lived in the mayor had quit the game, and someone prepaid the account so that the city would not just disappear, but we could not get control of the character and try as we did, we could never muster enough votes to get another mayor elected as so many players were not always active. There was a fair amount of energy that was spent on this, and we finally tracked down the player and got hold of the account.
So the changes to voting are very welcome in my book.
unity200
Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:05 am
#6
i am not opposed to change in the voting system, however, there must be a change based on the situation at hand.
nobody can deny that majority of players in swg are adults. these people do not live online. they occasionally log in for 2-3 weeks when their real lives allow them to, and then go on with their lives for another 2-3 months without ever being able to play any game.
it is normal to see cities with 70 citizens, only 20 of them to be found active for 1 week, in different times.
what should people do if some attempted takeover takes place ? should them call each other in real life with international calls, and make a crusade against some wannabees taking over a city out of animosity or mischief ? what kind of logic that would be ?
it is a need to vote out uncooperative or mischievous mayors. i was on the first wave of city founders over 1.5 years (or so) ago, and from that time on i was aware of that need.
however, soe is always going to extremes while fixing something, they break some other issues.
what was needed was a barrage system. like, say, 15 % or so of unused votes going to incumbent, and balancing the player's low online rate issue, so that they can still be voted out if they are uncooperative with a measure of votes, but no 10 strong wannabe grief players taking over other's city on desires of action.
nobody can deny that majority of players in swg are adults. these people do not live online. they occasionally log in for 2-3 weeks when their real lives allow them to, and then go on with their lives for another 2-3 months without ever being able to play any game.
it is normal to see cities with 70 citizens, only 20 of them to be found active for 1 week, in different times.
what should people do if some attempted takeover takes place ? should them call each other in real life with international calls, and make a crusade against some wannabees taking over a city out of animosity or mischief ? what kind of logic that would be ?
it is a need to vote out uncooperative or mischievous mayors. i was on the first wave of city founders over 1.5 years (or so) ago, and from that time on i was aware of that need.
however, soe is always going to extremes while fixing something, they break some other issues.
what was needed was a barrage system. like, say, 15 % or so of unused votes going to incumbent, and balancing the player's low online rate issue, so that they can still be voted out if they are uncooperative with a measure of votes, but no 10 strong wannabe grief players taking over other's city on desires of action.
unity200
Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:09 am
#7
this new situation provides for even 10-15 strong wannabe grief 'pvper's - kinda equivalent of uo pk's if you get what i mean - to take over 100 strong pa cities.
Scoooter
Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:45 am
#8
unity200 wrote:
i have discovered that there exists no incumbent votes.
thus it is possible to take over a city with even 1 vote ? only thing is some mayor can not comply with registering for only a week ?
how preposterous idea to fix a complaint that is !
'uncooperative mayors can be removed from office' ... dammit ...
with this new system, whole pas can be removed from office for god's sakes.
Well its a 3 week cycle.
The mayor has the first 2 weeks to register.
And yes the recent voting changes default no votes to the incumbant,
The mayor will have to play the profession, register and campaign for votes.
If you have an inactive mayor or someone that will not trouble themselves toregister and send a few e-mails asking for votesand are at risk of losing your city I would suggest you replace him/her with someone that will.
unity200
Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:59 pm
#9
some of you still do not get the idea.
on the average, most 70-80 citizen cities can average 10-15 active votes per cycle.
it is almost impossible to get 30-40 of people into action EVERY cycle, because they are real people living real lives.
think that im a small, highyl active pa because we are youngsters who are able to be online each night, and not much to do in our evenings other than playing computer games. only thing we would need is to put in 10 people in your pa, given there are now the 'alt' characters on most jedi, this is not much of a problem.
thus, i repeat, this is not an issue of 'someone not playing his mayor responsbility' stuff.
this is an issue of takeover window, just like the first times player cities were introduced. and, it is not good.
on the average, most 70-80 citizen cities can average 10-15 active votes per cycle.
it is almost impossible to get 30-40 of people into action EVERY cycle, because they are real people living real lives.
think that im a small, highyl active pa because we are youngsters who are able to be online each night, and not much to do in our evenings other than playing computer games. only thing we would need is to put in 10 people in your pa, given there are now the 'alt' characters on most jedi, this is not much of a problem.
thus, i repeat, this is not an issue of 'someone not playing his mayor responsbility' stuff.
this is an issue of takeover window, just like the first times player cities were introduced. and, it is not good.
unity200
Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:19 pm
#10
there must be a barrage as in real world election systems.
like 20 % of incumbent votes going to incumbent mayor, totaling around 14 votes in a 70 citizen city might be sufficient to prevent most takeovers. and, if mayor needs to be voted out, warning 20-30 people to vote one time wouldnt be much of a problem. 14 or so votes are not too hard to beat for the pa owning the city, but hard for any potential takeovers to outvote.
these numbers might be a bit different of course, however such a barrage system has to be instituted to prevent future serious grief problems that would be voiced by not scarce 10-20 people complaining in forums, but hordes of pa members.
like 20 % of incumbent votes going to incumbent mayor, totaling around 14 votes in a 70 citizen city might be sufficient to prevent most takeovers. and, if mayor needs to be voted out, warning 20-30 people to vote one time wouldnt be much of a problem. 14 or so votes are not too hard to beat for the pa owning the city, but hard for any potential takeovers to outvote.
these numbers might be a bit different of course, however such a barrage system has to be instituted to prevent future serious grief problems that would be voiced by not scarce 10-20 people complaining in forums, but hordes of pa members.
Draklaa
Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:17 pm
#11
Don't forget about zoning rights
No one can lay any property down if zoning rights are active. Which then means that no one can move into your city unless you allow them to. Which means they can't run for mayor.
Now, if you give them the right to live there, then they have the right to run for mayor, IMHO.
Puertoriqueno
Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:53 pm
#12
The way we, and two other cities on Tat got around this was simple.......As mayors, we took down the city and sat in line to set it up somewhere else with our guild only
allowed as citizens. Then we do not have to worry about someone else coming along and getting the job, because no citizen will vote for them. Sofar it has worked out
well, but unfortunately it closed the open city thing pretty much for good.
unity200
Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:05 am
#13
if this issue was something like an individual smuggler losing skill because of not being online, this would be ok. as it only concerns him/herself.
if this was an issue about a jedi not gaining xp without pvping, this is again ok, as this is an issue about the jedi him/herself.
however, a city takeover is not a personal issue. it involves long labour of 50-60 people over 1 years at least.
this is no joke. if some guild enemy pa manages to put 10 people in another pa, - a deed that has been common in the past for half the amount -, it is possible to take over a 100 citizen city for god's sakes.
what campaigning, what 'playing the part' dammit.
if this was an issue about a jedi not gaining xp without pvping, this is again ok, as this is an issue about the jedi him/herself.
however, a city takeover is not a personal issue. it involves long labour of 50-60 people over 1 years at least.
this is no joke. if some guild enemy pa manages to put 10 people in another pa, - a deed that has been common in the past for half the amount -, it is possible to take over a 100 citizen city for god's sakes.
what campaigning, what 'playing the part' dammit.
Page 1 of 2