-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
I think that while not perfect, this will drastically limit the amount of elections manipulated by offshard or bought votes. Yes a person with multiple accounts will have an advantage, but that advantage will be limited to a greater capacity than the current system permits. This would be a large step in the right direction.
I can only agree, I have seen players go to Siege to ask Siege players to vote on Atlantic. I fear some too, may have invited non Siege players to vote for a Siege town, that is sad.
I like players to use their vote on the shard they play and for the town they feel home in.
I like players to use their vote on the shard they play and for the town they feel home in.
Last edited:
This is as close to perfect it can get. Sadly,as long as the x-shard voting goes on, the genuinely interested people on the shards lose interest, and the governours that the shard people would prefer will not win or even stand as candidates.
no system will be fair as long as there are people with multiple accounts.
it was designed to be flawed. if you play multiple shards, and need different town bonuses for each character / shard, a player may have an interest in several elections.
there is no way to be fair to the player who actually uses the buff, while also being fair to those running in the elections.
it was designed to be flawed. if you play multiple shards, and need different town bonuses for each character / shard, a player may have an interest in several elections.
there is no way to be fair to the player who actually uses the buff, while also being fair to those running in the elections.
But the cities will have buffs of different sorts even if you didnt vote. And loyalty enough to get the buff isnt hard to get if you have to get new loyalty once in 6 months . As long as there are devoted govs that renew the buff and care about their cities , Its much better than if the shards own people give up on elections and trade quests.. I like it when the people of the shard that know the candidates vote for their candidate to get the job done, and not get someone dumped on them that cant win without x-shard votes.
i get what you mean, but couldnt the same be said for the governors themselves? there alot of cities. you can run on multiple stones, and if losing one stone just put efforts on the other.
All in all i just dont like the voting thing. Theres no point / fairness to it when people can have more than 1 account.
http://community.stratics.com/threads/voting-is-dumb.328759/
seems a better way........but guessing the rich will have to pay more per account vote ....rather than player vote...LOLZ....for thoses extras they wish to entice
I think we have even see it on the traders boards....account vote for sale- highest bidder....[whatever]
I think we have even see it on the traders boards....account vote for sale- highest bidder....[whatever]
I dunno, start another thread with a survey please.
So you are wanting to limit the shards to 1 that I can actively participate in elections on? So, if I am active on LS/ATL/GL I now need to choose which shard would be most beneficial to my play style at that particular moment? Seeing as how there are Govenors that don't even actively open up the trade deal this will create quite a few problems for myself...I don't need the same trade deals on each shard, they are all different. Now, If a gov steps up and says he will be utilizing the one I need when it is usually not being utilized would make me lean in favor of supporting him/her. With this proposal I would cast my vote on that shard for that specific Govenors election just to risk the other servers I play on loosing out on the trade deal I need there??
Aye, I be for it! It be a good plan for going forward. I do understand that people play multi-shards, though I do not. That said, I don't like having other shards decide my Catskill Governor elections or anything else for that matter. My opinion only, but it is mine to be sure. Your's truly, Blind Tom the Pirate, [UP]; Shenzin, CVL; Jhakar, K^S and Gallion, Ally. ~ Catskills all.
Rofl! Podolak... You know had you been around that you'd of voted for me!
Exactly!
Hey I have more than one account but this poll you have here only let me vote once.
Right now, you can vote on all shards, your still not guaranteed anything, its a vote no matter what. Basically a roll of the dice from everyone's viewpoint aside from those that know they got allies on multi shards and know they can swing a vote by 300 because of the cross shard alliances. So by doing 1 acct 1 vote. We are at least eliminating the abuse that takes place by cross shard votes. You may not get the trades or bonuses you wanted, but even with current structure, that's not a guarantee. Am I wrong?
Buffs can be changed every week! You can switch you citizenship every week. Governors are every 6 months. Can't be compared. You can build a relationship with your governors and choose to ally yourself with a city that suits your needs.
The system is truly more for the RP'ers and that's the core of it. The fact that these buffs are tied to it was poor judgement on the developers side. I said it once, I'll say it again... those two groups have traditionally never gotten along. If you don't believe me, raise your hand if your shard typically has a separate RP chat. I'll wait.
The system is truly more for the RP'ers and that's the core of it. The fact that these buffs are tied to it was poor judgement on the developers side. I said it once, I'll say it again... those two groups have traditionally never gotten along. If you don't believe me, raise your hand if your shard typically has a separate RP chat. I'll wait.
LOL now that's Funny
Captn Norrington
Stratics Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
Well, it's pretty clear what the community wants, the vote is at 30 people (75%) for yes, and 10 people (25%) for no right now.
Indeed, sure would love to hear from a Dev on such an Issue
WoW realy so what you have to share is also Insignificant ???
i think the one vote is fine, but also make it ONE SHARD. No buying vote one shard just to have them make a char on another shard to use that vote. vote on your home shard
Not sure I could agree with that at all as a matter of fact the people I know in game stay very abreast of current news and this is the place to get it, so how is it you came to this conclusion ???
I sure hope RP around the towns are more important that the trade deal.
And yes, one vote for each account sound right for me and it should be the shard your house are placed on, maybe even the sub server, where your house are placed
No Ones asked you to limit anything but Voting, 1 Acct 1 Vote , Pure and simple if you wanna try and argue that's not anything but fair then get out the Big Rubber Stamp that says XShard Voter and apply to Forehead. PS Ive yet to find a Shard that doesn't utilize every single trade deal in 1 town or the other so not sure where you going with that , Plz try again.
Riyana
Operations
Administrator
Professional
Governor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Event Coordinator
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
I prefer the idea of having maybe 5 or so votes per account, but usable on any shard. That way people who play multiple shards can still vote in a couple different places, and people who just play one shard would have greater voice on their home shard.
If that isn't possible, one vote per account is the way to go. The current system gives more power to people who DON'T care about a particular shard than to the people who do. No shard should be picking another shard's governors.
As for the trade deal--it has been problematic since the beginning for a number of reasons. I think that the citizens of any city that pays the 2m/week should be able to choose their own buff. The current system encourages players to be loyal to the trade guilds, not to the cities. The fact that people will drop citizenship in one city for another based on the trade deal completely misses the point of having CITY loyalty.
Before the trade quest came out, I paid my city's trade deal for a long time with mostly my own money. I burned through a ton of money that I could have spent on more fun things--stuff for myself, stuff for my friends, stuff for my city events--and it seemed to be for absolutely nothing. I never used the thing myself.
At one point, I had a solid RP reason not to pay it, so I didn't. I couldn't tell any difference. Only a couple people ever said anything (and not necessarily directly to me...), and I had no way of telling if anyone at all ever used it. I put out ballot boxes on the stones for it and got zero response. Every once in a while someone would wail on general chat that few or no cities had trade deals--but almost no one ever contacted me, or my husband who is also a governor, or many other governors on our shard. And even fewer people bothered to put money into the stone.
Frankly I'm sick to death of hearing about the stupid trade deal. If you want a trade deal, talk to your city governor and put some of your own time and money into it instead of expecting someone else to carry it for you forever with no indication of whether you actually use it or not. However, if all you want out of the governor system is a buff, then you're missing the point.
If that isn't possible, one vote per account is the way to go. The current system gives more power to people who DON'T care about a particular shard than to the people who do. No shard should be picking another shard's governors.
As for the trade deal--it has been problematic since the beginning for a number of reasons. I think that the citizens of any city that pays the 2m/week should be able to choose their own buff. The current system encourages players to be loyal to the trade guilds, not to the cities. The fact that people will drop citizenship in one city for another based on the trade deal completely misses the point of having CITY loyalty.
Before the trade quest came out, I paid my city's trade deal for a long time with mostly my own money. I burned through a ton of money that I could have spent on more fun things--stuff for myself, stuff for my friends, stuff for my city events--and it seemed to be for absolutely nothing. I never used the thing myself.
At one point, I had a solid RP reason not to pay it, so I didn't. I couldn't tell any difference. Only a couple people ever said anything (and not necessarily directly to me...), and I had no way of telling if anyone at all ever used it. I put out ballot boxes on the stones for it and got zero response. Every once in a while someone would wail on general chat that few or no cities had trade deals--but almost no one ever contacted me, or my husband who is also a governor, or many other governors on our shard. And even fewer people bothered to put money into the stone.
Frankly I'm sick to death of hearing about the stupid trade deal. If you want a trade deal, talk to your city governor and put some of your own time and money into it instead of expecting someone else to carry it for you forever with no indication of whether you actually use it or not. However, if all you want out of the governor system is a buff, then you're missing the point.
Last edited:
Cant agree more!
i doubt that is really true....i belive most players read stratics for info and ideas...its not as if we are in the tens of thousands any more
Democracy -when everyone is equally unhappy.
I am going to get this out of the way early. The governor races are a mistake. Why? Let me list a couple of reasons.
1) Vote buying and giving 4k ingots to get rep up so you can win a election? Tsk tsk. My solution to this is that Rep has to be earned prior to the start of the nomination and election cycle. City Rep should be locked during nomination and voting. No last-day election stealing.
2) In my point of view, the making of governors is a mistake because it is a separation of the player base to an extent. Governors have much greater access to the EM's than those that can't/won't bribe Atlantic players to x-shard over to vote. To most this may not be important but I think this is bad policy. The governors meet with EM's (King Blackthorn) on a weekly/bi-weekly schedule while those that do not hold the governor title have no formal, or any, access to the EM's. This, I feel, can create a clique environment. Do I think that current EM's and governors have created this environment? I don't think so, but my past history playing a few shards in the 13 years of playing this game tells me that people like exclusive 'clubs'. Which the council of governors is the most exclusive of all.
1) Vote buying and giving 4k ingots to get rep up so you can win a election? Tsk tsk. My solution to this is that Rep has to be earned prior to the start of the nomination and election cycle. City Rep should be locked during nomination and voting. No last-day election stealing.
2) In my point of view, the making of governors is a mistake because it is a separation of the player base to an extent. Governors have much greater access to the EM's than those that can't/won't bribe Atlantic players to x-shard over to vote. To most this may not be important but I think this is bad policy. The governors meet with EM's (King Blackthorn) on a weekly/bi-weekly schedule while those that do not hold the governor title have no formal, or any, access to the EM's. This, I feel, can create a clique environment. Do I think that current EM's and governors have created this environment? I don't think so, but my past history playing a few shards in the 13 years of playing this game tells me that people like exclusive 'clubs'. Which the council of governors is the most exclusive of all.
While I agree with the First point, I will have to disagree with the second. The meetings are open to the public, and the floor is always opened to the public. Also, King Blackthorn is not your EM, it is a group of at least 3 different broadsword employees controlling him. your EM is your EM, Blackthorn is Blackthorn. all players have the same access to the EM as any other players. if your EM refuses to interact with you, let them know you are displeased and file a complaint. EM's are here for us all.
Last edited:
My mistake. I have always thought that each shard EM's acted as the local Blackthorn for their shards.
I always thought the same thing, until that post I linked was put up.
Riyana
Operations
Administrator
Professional
Governor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Event Coordinator
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
Actually, with the trade quests now in place, there is no longer any reason to have to buy loyalty at all. I think the Minister of Trade boxes need to go away now. Taking them out would pretty much eliminate all but the most dedicated newbie votes. No more buying city loyalty. (It's strange too that you get loyalty for dropping things in the Minister box but NOT for giving money to the city stone...)
Governor meetings are only once a month on my shard (and on most shards I think). All citizens are welcome to attend, and many times (again, on my shard at least), non-governors have had the opportunity to address the king and/or participate in other ways.
I think a lot depends on each individual shard's EMs. From what I've been able to tell, there is a lot of variety in what EMs can/will do.
Riyana
Operations
Administrator
Professional
Governor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Event Coordinator
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
I always thought that 3-4 people statement might be referring to who sets up the guidelines for what the King can and cannot do more than who is physically playing him. The King is not your EM in the sense that one of your characters is not another of your characters, and since he is a pure RP character he will never respond as your EM.
yes, but the STRATICS community
i wonder how the majority of players would vote.
also lets not forget about 1/3 of UO players are asian and dont speak english. we also dont know how they would vote.
I dont care any way on this issue, just tired of seeing very low priority issues being given dev attention when there are major problems with the game.
I see no reason why one exploitable system should be changed, while all others (even ones mesanna has constantly been emailed about) find a blind eye.
we just has Cats EM at the vesper christmas party witch was a event open for everyone, we also had him pop in at the start of the relay for life naked races we had witch was all so open to everyone
It would make some sense that Blackthorn is in fact NOT an EM from any shard, as Governor's requests go through their shards EM but are forwarded to the King's Secretary. I know they go through channels upward.
Meetings should be consistent shard to shard and 1 x per month. If you wish to speak with your EM email them or post to their forum. It may take a few days to get an answer, but as long as the question is relevant and not seeking some favoritism of some sort they'll typically answer, in my experience. The answer maybe NO there's nothing we can do, but an answer nonetheless.
Meetings should be consistent shard to shard and 1 x per month. If you wish to speak with your EM email them or post to their forum. It may take a few days to get an answer, but as long as the question is relevant and not seeking some favoritism of some sort they'll typically answer, in my experience. The answer maybe NO there's nothing we can do, but an answer nonetheless.
Would the Christmas party or your Relay for Life races been an appropriate time and place to speak with the EM? If players started to ambush the EM's with questions at events, they might stop showing up to them.