NEWS The Results Are In!

[Petra Fyde]

Results of the March elections have now been collated. Thanks go to Aurelius of Europa for his post on UO Europa Forum, to Kattasrophe of Siege Perilous for her post on UO Siege Perilous Forum, to Lims-Kragma of Baja for help in Luna on that shard and to my two able assistants, Lady Tia and Tazar.

The full results can be found here:

Britannian Election Results
Britannian Election Results - Asia

 

[Pawain]

I didn't realize PKC was such a common name in the realm....

 

[Tina Small]

Results of the March elections have now been collated. Thanks go to Aurelius of Europa for his post on UO Europa Forum, to Kattasrophe of Siege Perilous for her post on UO Siege Perilous Forum, to Lims-Kragma of Baja for help in Luna on that shard and to my two able assistants, Lady Tia and Tazar.

The full results can be found here:

Britannian Election Results
Britannian Election Results - Asia

Thanks for collecting and posting these! I don't see anything for Oceania, though. Do you need the data to be collected, or did it just get left out by mistake?


Also, is there any way to get to these results from another page? I used the links at the top to go back to the description of Britannia Loyalty and Councils but couldn't find any link there to get to either of the results pages. It would also be nice to be able to jump between the two results pages via a link.

 

[Dol'Gorath]

I didn't realize PKC was such a common name in the realm....

PKC means pending king's choice. Meaning no one either ran or was elected to office and the EM playing the king can appoint someone to office with a special command without having to go through election.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Thanks for collecting and posting these! I don't see anything for Oceania, though. Do you need the data to be collected, or did it just get left out by mistake?


Also, is there any way to get to these results from another page? I used the links at the top to go back to the description of Britannia Loyalty and Councils but couldn't find any link there to get to either of the results pages. It would also be nice to be able to jump between the two results pages via a link.

Eeeek! I'll get onto it. I've no idea how I missed that - can I blame it on my younger son who was visiting yesterday?

Some spurious and unfounded allegations have been removed. My apologies to those posters who had quoted those allegations and whose posts I therefore also had to remove.

 

[Lady Storm]

oh dead disparagee in the kingdom?

 

[Petra Fyde]

Oceania now included. Sorry for the omission

 

[Lord Kotan]

I didn't realize PKC was such a common name in the realm....

Any clue what PKC is supposed to stand for?

 

[Pawain]

PKC means pending king's choice. Meaning no one either ran or was elected to office and the EM playing the king can appoint someone to office with a special command without having to go through election.

I was wondering about that. I would have gotten TBD. Thanks. Now I see it at the top...

Airmid should have ran for Skara.

 

[Frarc]

Any clue what PKC is supposed to stand for?

Pending King Choice

 

[MissEcho]

Pity the town criers don't actually 'remind' people when voting is due. I forgot to nominate again this quarter although I guess there really isn't any point to it on my shard.

The ONE thing all governors on our shard have asked for time and time again is to reduce the cost of the trade deals from 2 million per week to 2 million whenever the deal is CHANGED or at reelection whatever is the sooner and that the deals last for the time between changes and don't 'expire' in a week. Frankly the players who actually play daily are not prepared to waste 104 MILLION on maintaining a trade deal for a year that maybe 5 people will actually use. The 'MOST' money we have had donated was 500k (ONCE) and that was just one guy feeling sorry for us so he donated to all cities with governors.

It just isn't worth it and we have all basically vetoed all trade deals until such time as it is a reasonable cost. As governor I would be prepared to pay say 50-100k per week, but 2 million per week is just not gonna happen. You have no way to tell who is a citizen of your town, if any, and for small shards like ours you would be hard pushed to find 5 characters as citizens actually 'playing' per town. And those who have 'citizens' of particular towns have them just to get the town banner and those accounts are only gonna donate to the town they are 'governor' of.

Unless something is done to improve the basic idea of town trade deals for small shards the whole thing is a waste of time.

 

[Captn Norrington]

It seems like they had Atlantic in mind when they made the trade deals 2 million per week, guess they forgot other shards have people to.

 

[Lord Lew]

Not everyone on Atlantic is swimming in gold, I tired of funding the stone myself and others eventually began pitching in, but more often than not, it was my money on the stone. Now a kind citizen put 50 mil on the stone, do it won't be a problem for a bit!

 

[Dot_Warner]

I think the Devs see the Trade Deals as being continuous gold sink, which they could be, just not at the current price.

Lets do a little math. (lets assume that all cities have governors and all cities keep funding a deal)

27 shards x 9 cities x 2,000,000 gold a week x 52 weeks a year. 25,272,000,000 gold a year theoretically taken out of the UO economy.

Spelled out: 104,000,000 gold per city per IRL year x 9, that's 936,000,000 gold per shard every year. X 27 shards = 25,272,000,000 gold.

I'll bet someone is enamored with a theoretical 25+ BILLION a year gold sink. However, it's unsupportable in the long run (through legitimate means).

We know that the above number isn't what's really being removed from the economy of course, many towns forgo a Trade Deal, and the number of empty cities listed as 'PKC' has risen yet again. The cost of the trade deal, usually falling on the governors to fund, is the #2 problem issue when the system is discussed (#1 being lack of ease to communicate with city citizens).

While better communication could require potentially extensive server-side tinkering, rejiggering cost of the trade deals could be hot fixed within a day. If the system is truly "still in its infancy," then lets see it adapting to the realities of life instead of blindly stumbling in circles.

 

[Winter]

...
The ONE thing all governors on our shard have asked for time and time again is to reduce the cost of the trade deals from 2 million per week to 2 million whenever the deal is CHANGED or at reelection whatever is the sooner and that the deals last for the time between changes and don't 'expire' in a week. Frankly the players who actually play daily are not prepared to waste 104 MILLION on maintaining a trade deal for a year that maybe 5 people will actually use. The 'MOST' money we have had donated was 500k (ONCE) and that was just one guy feeling sorry for us so he donated to all cities with governors. ...

You are right. Trade deals should be chosen by the Governor, and the individual should pay to use it, not the other way around - that is, each person who wants the trade deal should pay the 50K-100K per character. That way it would still be a money sink, but the Governor wouldn't have to pay out of pocket to maintain it.

 

[Vivian Fellows]

 

[cazador]

I don't know I play on a pretty dead server...I guess you just have to have a super awesome governor @Lord Gareth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Riyana]

I think the Devs see the Trade Deals as being continuous gold sink, which they could be, just not at the current price.

Lets do a little math. (lets assume that all cities have governors and all cities keep funding a deal)

27 shards x 9 cities x 2,000,000 gold a week x 52 weeks a year. 25,272,000,000 gold a year theoretically taken out of the UO economy.

Spelled out: 104,000,000 gold per city per IRL year x 9, that's 936,000,000 gold per shard every year. X 27 shards = 25,272,000,000 gold.

I'll bet someone is enamored with a theoretical 25+ BILLION a year gold sink. However, it's unsupportable in the long run (through legitimate means).

We know that the above number isn't what's really being removed from the economy of course, many towns forgo a Trade Deal, and the number of empty cities listed as 'PKC' has risen yet again. The cost of the trade deal, usually falling on the governors to fund, is the #2 problem issue when the system is discussed (#1 being lack of ease to communicate with city citizens).

While better communication could require potentially extensive server-side tinkering, rejiggering cost of the trade deals could be hot fixed within a day. If the system is truly "still in its infancy," then lets see it adapting to the realities of life instead of blindly stumbling in circles.

The governor system appears to be and is consistently described as a RP system. Using it as a gold sink is doomed to failure. .. RPers typically aren't the ones with billions of gold lying around. The trade deal cost combined with the expectation that governors will run city events (again with no special tools and out of their own pockets) assures that even moderately wealthy players will struggle before long.

 

[old gypsy]

The governor system appears to be and is consistently described as a RP system. Using it as a gold sink is doomed to failure. .. RPers typically aren't the ones with billions of gold lying around. The trade deal cost combined with the expectation that governors will run city events (again with no special tools and out of their own pockets) assures that even moderately wealthy players will struggle before long.

That is probably the most accurate observation I've read so far.

 

[Minerva Foxglove]

Well said yes. I always wondered if this boost thing fits togeather with the rest of the concept. The roleplayers and some more people care about elections and meetings ... but isnt the boosts mainly interesting for PvP? Wouldnt it be better to separate it from roleplaying and put it in Felucca?