Politician Archive
Thread: politician/player city changes on test
SmithingWeapons
Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:13 am
#27
While I am all for these changes, I see a new class of character coming up from this, City Treasury Raiders. Say your citizens check to see who is running against you and see no-one. They figure the city is safe and decide not to vote. It is heroically possible for someone to register against you in the last hours and win the election in a landslide of 1-0. They will then be able to withdraw 50K per day for the next three weeks, before you can vote him out or they destroy the city. Like I said these changes are good, but everyone is going to have to stay on top of their cities to make sure they keep their cities.
Message Edited by SmithingWeapons on 11-12-2004 02:14 AM
Trashawn
Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:27 am
#28
SmithingWeapons wrote:
While I am all for these changes, I see a new class of character coming up from this, City Treasury Raiders. Say your citizens check to see who is running against you and see no-one. They figure the city is safe and decide not to vote. It is heroically possible for someone to register against you in the last hours and win the election in a landslide of 1-0. They will then be able to withdraw 50K per day for the next three weeks, before you can vote him out or they destroy the city. Like I said these changes are good, but everyone is going to have to stay on top of their cities to make sure they keep their cities.
Message Edited by SmithingWeapons on 11-12-2004 02:14 AM
Actually no.. according to the new system voting is done every 3 weeks now and people can only register to run for office in the first two weeks so there will be no sneaky "City Radiers" plus there are easier ways of getting 50k a day, With Mokk and Janta missions on dantooineI can easilymake morethanthat in 10 minutes. The other thing stated was there will be email notification to every citizen that some one is running for mayor.
But one thing this does make is better politicians, I'm going to have to work my butt off now to keep my people happy, It almost feels like we area profession again
Message Edited by Trashawn on 11-12-2004 06:35 AM
MTolwyn
Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:29 am
#29
really great now you can take over a city and destroy it with just 2 votes minimum
we all know that most players don t care at all about voting
so any bets when we see the first post "our city has been taken over" ?
as much as it sa pain to change the mayor, having 50% for it is a should be a MINIMUM requirement!
RumbleSteelskin
Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:34 am
#30
I wondered about that too.....sounds like a real easy opportunity for some major griefing...
GadonThek
Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:38 am
#31
Maybe that would be a good thing. Its about time people got off their arses and started getting properly involved in their cities. No offense, but if you cant get your citizens to vote and your city dissapears: good, it means people like me who want to have a go will be able to, instead of us being blocked out by ghost towns full of inactive players or cross-server trade characters.
MTolwyn
Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:09 am
#32
just that most people don t want to be involved into city business
many just want to have a house in a critter free neiborhood where thay maybe can sell some things with the vendor.
And i don t balme them, in fact i m happy about those, cause they are usually no extra work.
I just want to say that when you can take over a city with 5-10% of the total citizens something s wrong and will soon change to griefing
Mayor should have the right to resign anytime, but as long there s a mayor doing his job, a minimum of 50% of the votes should bea MUST to vote her/him out
Samtha
Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:25 am
#33
Trashawn wrote:
With Mokk and Janta missions on dantooine I can easily make more than that in 10 minutes.
Not for long.. they are nerfing group payouts so that you wont get all the payout any more..
SciFiDiva
Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:45 am
#34
This is wonderful. Oh please on the griefing. If your people don't care about you or your city any more than that? Then yeah, you need to go away as mayor. For that matter your city should go away because it obviously isn't a community, just a place to plop houses anddo your thing. It's about time.
Yeah! on the banning thing.I'mstill holding out for /citywarn to comeback though.
Now ifthey'll just fix thedual / ghost citizenproblems on the cityregistries so my citycould grow, i'll send pappi a bottle of scotch and call it a day. 
EvilAlt OfScifiDiva
Mayor, Drifter's Basin, Tatooine, Corbantis
LaideeSage
Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:23 am
#37
I really love all the changes! Thanks Pappi!
One question I have is this:When are the citizens able to vote? Is it during the whole 3 week process, or can their votes only be counted on the last week of the three?
Erann
Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:42 am
#38
MTolwyn wrote:
really great now you can take over a city and destroy it with just 2 votes minimum
we all know that most players don t care at all about voting
so any bets when we see the first post "our city has been taken over" ?
as much as it sa pain to change the mayor, having 50% for it is a should be a MINIMUM requirement!
Wow This is terrible... Most citizen only vote when they are lead to vote usually under constant pressure...
So.. As MT said above... This is really terrible at a first glance.. now the city has to worry about 2 mins to midnight shotgun voting... Most mayors in the game are infact alternate accounts and pretty much rely on the incumbant all vote victories.
I beleive a better solution to this voting problem would be to leave all votes go tot he incumbant BUT MAKE the MAYOR visit the terminal once every 3 weeks to make sure they are active. if they are not active then send the message to the City and have it flag the Encumabnt inactive [outgoing]which would give flag the mayor to be removed from the list upon next vote session (giving the city 3 weeks plan around a dead mayor) and prompt a replacement mayor to step up in which the winner of the runner up eletection would win.. The OUTGOING mayor would not have any votes UNLESS the city choose to vote for them.
But.. This is a step in the right direction.. I hope this isn't our dev time for the year.
furrycat
Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:45 am
#39
The changes are great for the Politician profession as a whole even though they won't be immediately useful to most people. Most mayors do not want to resign. Most cities do not want to vote in a new mayor because the incumbent quit the game. These are extraordinary events, in the literal sense of the word, and the changse greatly enrich the profession by enabling them to happen smoothly.
The bigger picture gets a big boost today but at some point one needs to look closer to home. Although I'm delighted with the changes as a whole I'm going to continue pushing my case on the XP issue, simply because debating on this forum is being more "political" than I would ever get to be in the city. No one else in town has the skill points to run against me. No one else in town wants to run against me. What "active politics" can I engage in with an electorate who are unanimously happy with my administration?
Hounding people for votes every three weeks is not "active politics." What do I tell the citizens? Vote for me or the city hall will vanish? Nope. Vote for me or I will be booted out of office and someone else will have to get voted in next time you want a new skill trainer? Nope again. Vote for me so I can place a new fountain ... in a few weeks when we advance a rank and have room for it? Nope that won't work either. Eventually people will get bored of going to the terminal to cast a meaningless vote every few weeks and they will begin to resent their mayor pestering them to re-pledge their support for him when there is no one running in opposition.
The job of the mayor is to work for the citizens. By forcing mayors to beg for votes every other week this change will flip the roles; the citizens will be working for the mayor, since without them he cannot progress. This is not how it should be. A mayor accepts the administrative burden of running a city for his citizens. He takes the responsibility so that they may go on about their business safe in the knowledge that someone has the city workload in hand. They don't want to be pestered all the time by a mayor begging for XP.
The comment was made that people should have to work for XP. Most other professions do indeed work for their XP. Others do not (Merchant for example does not require any real effort to level up). Those who do put in the hard hours are rewarded along the way. Fighters who kill mobs for XP are rewarded with loot. Medics who heal gain the satisfaction of helping people out. Crafters earn a reputation which leads to repeat customers. These rewards are independent of the new skills players obtain when they level up. What advantages will the mayor gain as he begs for XP? What favourable impression will he leave with his citizens as he harangues them for votes? Indeed, what meaningful skills will he get when he does advance? Is /citywarn back? Can he relocate incorrectly situated houses? Can he dismiss troublemakers from the city? No, no and no.
Of course this change won't affect larger cities all that much. Established Masters don't need XP all that much, unless they want to grind FS boxes... Look at the new cities, however. Consider the case of a group of ten players who decide to start a city. They place the city hall, drop their houses, declare residence and are all set.
Under the current system, and assuming that no one joins or leaves the city for three weeks (since this will be the voting cycle under the proposed change), the mayor would gain 1000 XP per week. After one week he can place a mission terminal so the citizens can earn money from town. After the second week he can set up a militia and grant trusted friends the right to manage zoning. Or he can store his XP ready for the week four when he will be able to recruit skill trainers. In other words the town already something that player cities can provide after one week and is close to being all set after three.
In the future, the mayor would have 750 "bonus" XP after one week; not enough to learn a box. He would have 1500 after two weeks; now he can choose between setting up a militia or placing a mission terminal. Only after three weeks will he have enough XP to train more than one box. The advantage is that he will be able to go straight to a level 2 skill. The disadvantage is that the city amounts to nothing more than a collection of houses and a money sink during that time.
In reality the city would probably grow over the three weeks. Currently this would mean it could gain a mission terminal, a militia to alleviate the mayor's workload and some skill trainers. If enough people joined they could even get a bank and/or garage. Under the new system the city will still remain exactly as it was on day one for those three weeks. The citizens will be asking what the point was of spending thousands of credits on a city hall and returning there to vote every week (no sense sticking around without terminals or trainers) if nothing is going to change. "We might just as well have placed a guild hall and done without the 24-hour panic period," they will say. How will the mayor respond, if he isn't already preoccupied with wondering why he spent 15 skill points and 620/300 apprentice points.
As soon as someone enters the race for power, by all means use the new system as described. But if no one runs against the mayor and you are going to force him to wait two weeks to get any XP benefit at all and three weeks to get the full quota, at least make it guaranteed by letting unopposed mayors gain full XP without having to hassle citizens.
The bigger picture gets a big boost today but at some point one needs to look closer to home. Although I'm delighted with the changes as a whole I'm going to continue pushing my case on the XP issue, simply because debating on this forum is being more "political" than I would ever get to be in the city. No one else in town has the skill points to run against me. No one else in town wants to run against me. What "active politics" can I engage in with an electorate who are unanimously happy with my administration?
Hounding people for votes every three weeks is not "active politics." What do I tell the citizens? Vote for me or the city hall will vanish? Nope. Vote for me or I will be booted out of office and someone else will have to get voted in next time you want a new skill trainer? Nope again. Vote for me so I can place a new fountain ... in a few weeks when we advance a rank and have room for it? Nope that won't work either. Eventually people will get bored of going to the terminal to cast a meaningless vote every few weeks and they will begin to resent their mayor pestering them to re-pledge their support for him when there is no one running in opposition.
The job of the mayor is to work for the citizens. By forcing mayors to beg for votes every other week this change will flip the roles; the citizens will be working for the mayor, since without them he cannot progress. This is not how it should be. A mayor accepts the administrative burden of running a city for his citizens. He takes the responsibility so that they may go on about their business safe in the knowledge that someone has the city workload in hand. They don't want to be pestered all the time by a mayor begging for XP.
The comment was made that people should have to work for XP. Most other professions do indeed work for their XP. Others do not (Merchant for example does not require any real effort to level up). Those who do put in the hard hours are rewarded along the way. Fighters who kill mobs for XP are rewarded with loot. Medics who heal gain the satisfaction of helping people out. Crafters earn a reputation which leads to repeat customers. These rewards are independent of the new skills players obtain when they level up. What advantages will the mayor gain as he begs for XP? What favourable impression will he leave with his citizens as he harangues them for votes? Indeed, what meaningful skills will he get when he does advance? Is /citywarn back? Can he relocate incorrectly situated houses? Can he dismiss troublemakers from the city? No, no and no.
Of course this change won't affect larger cities all that much. Established Masters don't need XP all that much, unless they want to grind FS boxes... Look at the new cities, however. Consider the case of a group of ten players who decide to start a city. They place the city hall, drop their houses, declare residence and are all set.
Under the current system, and assuming that no one joins or leaves the city for three weeks (since this will be the voting cycle under the proposed change), the mayor would gain 1000 XP per week. After one week he can place a mission terminal so the citizens can earn money from town. After the second week he can set up a militia and grant trusted friends the right to manage zoning. Or he can store his XP ready for the week four when he will be able to recruit skill trainers. In other words the town already something that player cities can provide after one week and is close to being all set after three.
In the future, the mayor would have 750 "bonus" XP after one week; not enough to learn a box. He would have 1500 after two weeks; now he can choose between setting up a militia or placing a mission terminal. Only after three weeks will he have enough XP to train more than one box. The advantage is that he will be able to go straight to a level 2 skill. The disadvantage is that the city amounts to nothing more than a collection of houses and a money sink during that time.
In reality the city would probably grow over the three weeks. Currently this would mean it could gain a mission terminal, a militia to alleviate the mayor's workload and some skill trainers. If enough people joined they could even get a bank and/or garage. Under the new system the city will still remain exactly as it was on day one for those three weeks. The citizens will be asking what the point was of spending thousands of credits on a city hall and returning there to vote every week (no sense sticking around without terminals or trainers) if nothing is going to change. "We might just as well have placed a guild hall and done without the 24-hour panic period," they will say. How will the mayor respond, if he isn't already preoccupied with wondering why he spent 15 skill points and 620/300 apprentice points.
As soon as someone enters the race for power, by all means use the new system as described. But if no one runs against the mayor and you are going to force him to wait two weeks to get any XP benefit at all and three weeks to get the full quota, at least make it guaranteed by letting unopposed mayors gain full XP without having to hassle citizens.