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
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
Last edited:
