Politician Archive
Thread: politician/player city changes on test
Page 6 of 6
Plzurpilot
Sun Nov 14, 2004 1:47 am
#66
Jaspor wrote:I agree it's nice to see us get a bit of lovin', especially when we didn't really expect any. Definitely good for morale.But I also do sympathize with the Politicians worried about having to pester their citizens to vote in order to get XP.But get creative... don't consider it "pestering" them. Make it fun! Have a "Rock The Vote" party in your local cantina once every 3 weeks. Offer city incentives for people who actively vote in 3 consecutive elections. (Something like a decoration outside their house saying "I am a Voter and Proud Of It!") Move active voters up higher on the priority list of requests that you fulfill (like which Trainers to place). Offer "tax refunds" to the voters. They might not consider it "harassing them to vote" if you turn it into something fun.
The thing that does concern me just a little is the prospect of more attempts at hostile takeovers... As I know all too well from firsthand experience, if there's a way within the system for people to try and ruin other people's fun, there will be people there to abuse it. And although there is the week buffer period between the registration period and the final vote count, it still worries me just a bit...
Now thats how you play politics. In our revamp, whenever it may occur, i hope we get new and greater ways to use our political influence.
SeismicEdge
Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:01 am
#67
Well, it's about darn time!!! Eight pages of a petition and months and months and months later they are FINALLY doing something about it.
But I have to say it. For many cities, this is TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE!
But at least they are doing it. 
furrycat
Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:02 pm
#69
> Tedious? Are you serious?
Not tedious because it's difficult or time-consuming but because it offers no benefit to the citizen. Lots of things in this game - yes, including harvesters - are tedious. That isn't any reason to introduce new pointless repetitive tasks.
Paying maintenance on houses is tedious too. That's why as soon as players have a decent amount of money they pay maintenance for weeks or even months in advance. Because it's a chore. At least it's a chore that provides some benefit to the player: don't pay and your house will vanish. Voting in a meaningless election doesn't provide any benefit at all. The mayor can't reward voters who make the effort because voting is anonymous. He can't punish anyone who doesn't for the same reason and also because he has no power to do so.
Where a mayor runs unopposed it implicitly means the citizens are happy with him. If they weren't they would drum up a candidate to run in opposition. Indeed this patch will make that easier. So if they are obviously happy with the mayor why force them to restate this fact over and over again?
All the benefits of voting go to the mayor. None go to the electorate. What this does is force citizens to work for the mayor when it should be the other way round.
This way the mayor effectively has to ask other people to let him progress in his own profession. Would anyone seriously suggest that a TKA had to have his guildmates vote on whether he could get XP for all the mobs he killed over the past three weeks or not? Would they suggest that a Merchant only got XP from a customer browsing his vendor if the customer explicitly allowed it? That a Medic should gain XP only if the patients he heals grant their consent? Why should Politicians be different?
Not tedious because it's difficult or time-consuming but because it offers no benefit to the citizen. Lots of things in this game - yes, including harvesters - are tedious. That isn't any reason to introduce new pointless repetitive tasks.
Paying maintenance on houses is tedious too. That's why as soon as players have a decent amount of money they pay maintenance for weeks or even months in advance. Because it's a chore. At least it's a chore that provides some benefit to the player: don't pay and your house will vanish. Voting in a meaningless election doesn't provide any benefit at all. The mayor can't reward voters who make the effort because voting is anonymous. He can't punish anyone who doesn't for the same reason and also because he has no power to do so.
Where a mayor runs unopposed it implicitly means the citizens are happy with him. If they weren't they would drum up a candidate to run in opposition. Indeed this patch will make that easier. So if they are obviously happy with the mayor why force them to restate this fact over and over again?
All the benefits of voting go to the mayor. None go to the electorate. What this does is force citizens to work for the mayor when it should be the other way round.
This way the mayor effectively has to ask other people to let him progress in his own profession. Would anyone seriously suggest that a TKA had to have his guildmates vote on whether he could get XP for all the mobs he killed over the past three weeks or not? Would they suggest that a Merchant only got XP from a customer browsing his vendor if the customer explicitly allowed it? That a Medic should gain XP only if the patients he heals grant their consent? Why should Politicians be different?
Darthdarklord
Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:16 pm
#70
furrycat wrote:
> Tedious? Are you serious?
Not tedious because it's difficult or time-consuming but because it offers no benefit to the citizen. Lots of things in this game - yes, including harvesters - are tedious. That isn't any reason to introduce new pointless repetitive tasks.
Paying maintenance on houses is tedious too. That's why as soon as players have a decent amount of money they pay maintenance for weeks or even months in advance. Because it's a chore. At least it's a chore that provides some benefit to the player: don't pay and your house will vanish. Voting in a meaningless election doesn't provide any benefit at all. The mayor can't reward voters who make the effort because voting is anonymous. He can't punish anyone who doesn't for the same reason and also because he has no power to do so.
Where a mayor runs unopposed it implicitly means the citizens are happy with him. If they weren't they would drum up a candidate to run in opposition. Indeed this patch will make that easier. So if they are obviously happy with the mayor why force them to restate this fact over and over again?
All the benefits of voting go to the mayor. None go to the electorate. What this does is force citizens to work for the mayor when it should be the other way round.
This way the mayor effectively has to ask other people to let him progress in his own profession. Would anyone seriously suggest that a TKA had to have his guildmates vote on whether he could get XP for all the mobs he killed over the past three weeks or not? Would they suggest that a Merchant only got XP from a customer browsing his vendor if the customer explicitly allowed it? That a Medic should gain XP only if the patients he heals grant their consent? Why should Politicians be different?
I agree 100% and also it makes for a large amount of greefing... that could occure as well
Darthdarklord
Sun Nov 14, 2004 6:34 pm
#71
MTolwyn wrote:
LeBob wrote:
Three weeks is more than enough time to do any damage that the Mayor might do... this is why the Mayor must be chosen with more care.
if a mayor want s to hurt a city it take a few minutes to do so, so where s the difference between 1-3 weeks?
maybe you can rob more money in 3 weeks but doing severe damage takes just a few moments
How about 10 seconds... ohhh i win...disband...oups what does that mean......hey where did the city go...??
MTolwyn
Sun Nov 14, 2004 11:45 pm
#72
yea but instead of instantly destroying it instantly you could rob it daily by 50k till voting day
Darthdarklord wrote:
How about 10 seconds... ohhh i win...disband...oups what does that mean......hey where did the city go...??
Page 6 of 6