Voting system #3503

New Issue

AliasAlreadyTaken · 2023-01-13T00:00:53Z

AliasAlreadyTaken commented

2023-01-13 00:00:53 +00:00

This issue deals with possible changes to the voting system on YL constructions and city services. Please voice your opinion in a civil manner.

👍 2

AliasAlreadyTaken added the

4. step/discussion

1. kind/balancing

labels 2023-01-13 00:01:00 +00:00

Sokomine commented

2023-01-13 01:15:37 +00:00

Copied from my book "Vote on Voting", which I did sent Alias quite some time ago:

Too often, I find myself voting "good" but not "very good" because the building is almost very good - but not yet perfect/excellent.

It would be great to have a new category "EXCELLENT" for yaw-dropping constructions so that those can be properly valued and so that buildings who might qualify as "VERY GOOD" but not yet "EXCELLENT" can be rated "VERY GOOD". Right now "GOOD" covers too broad a range for me.

Another desired category is "TOO SMALL". Sometimes a building as such is very well built, but not yet convincing in size and/or services provided.

Also, a category "NEEDS MORE WORK" might be just the right thing - the building as such may even be excellent but not yet finished or lacking any crucial parts. Lower quality buildings may also get this vote instead of a "BAD" or even "VERY BAD" which might demotivate its builders. The jet fighter at Teranias' airport is for example very well built - but not yet suitable as an aircraft service.

And, last but not least, requiring 20 votes while giving no feedback at all as to how many players have already voted is unfair. The player who put the building up for vote needs to be able to see how much advertisement is needed. It would be good if that player could even see who voted already - so that players who did don't have to get asked again and again to vote. A "please vote!" or general "did you vote already?" in chat is far less likely to attract new voters than talking to players directly. Until things are improved there, I'll continue to vote and promote other votes but not put up my own buildings for vote anymore.

Annotation: I now vote one better than what I'd think would be suitable - because 0 points for medicore is too bad (sure, we want better and better, but that is unrealistic; and new people need to get a chance. We can't close off after having one Puerto del Sol etc.), and "EXELLENT"/"WOW-Level" just don't exist as options.

I still think that "NEEDS MORE WORK" could be a very helpful option in many cases. It may cover "TOO SMALL" and a lot of other things which then could be written in detail in the review book. It would indicate that a player has reached the place, did show intrest, did wish to vote - but more needs to be done/something improved for a true vote to be cast.

The 20 votes requirement is still a problem. Yes, with a lot of advertisement and organized voting tours we managed to get quite some votes. But it's always risky, always on the brink of not enough people comming. Builders do not deserve that. And neither do the voters who would have to come twice if not enough people showed up.

The voting NPC (or Amanda) can hand out a few XP coins as reward for participating. That might be cheapest to implement and help a bit. Amanda already promises a reward - and doesn't hand out anything apart from a compass to locate the place. Sure, for most of us the voting quests are a great event and very enjoyable on their own. But to catch enough players, you need to motivate them more.

"I voted on " stickers could be a reward as well. You could collect them and show them to your friends in your house. Maybe both would be best.

Copied from my book "Vote on Voting", which I did sent Alias quite some time ago: Too often, I find myself voting "good" but not "very good" because the building is almost very good - but not yet perfect/excellent. It would be great to have a new category "EXCELLENT" for yaw-dropping constructions so that those can be properly valued and so that buildings who might qualify as "VERY GOOD" but not yet "EXCELLENT" can be rated "VERY GOOD". Right now "GOOD" covers too broad a range for me. Another desired category is "TOO SMALL". Sometimes a building as such is very well built, but not yet convincing in size and/or services provided. Also, a category "NEEDS MORE WORK" might be just the right thing - the building as such may even be excellent but not yet finished or lacking any crucial parts. Lower quality buildings may also get this vote instead of a "BAD" or even "VERY BAD" which might demotivate its builders. The jet fighter at Teranias' airport is for example very well built - but not yet suitable as an aircraft service. And, last but not least, requiring 20 votes while giving no feedback at all as to how many players have already voted is unfair. The player who put the building up for vote needs to be able to see how much advertisement is needed. It would be good if that player could even see who voted already - so that players who did don't have to get asked again and again to vote. A "please vote!" or general "did you vote already?" in chat is far less likely to attract new voters than talking to players directly. Until things are improved there, I'll continue to vote and promote other votes but not put up my own buildings for vote anymore. --- Annotation: I now vote one better than what I'd think would be suitable - because 0 points for medicore is too bad (sure, we want better and better, but that is unrealistic; and new people need to get a chance. We can't close off after having one Puerto del Sol etc.), and "EXELLENT"/"WOW-Level" just don't exist as options. I still think that "NEEDS MORE WORK" could be a very helpful option in many cases. It may cover "TOO SMALL" and a lot of other things which then could be written in detail in the review book. It would indicate that a player has reached the place, did show intrest, did wish to vote - but more needs to be done/something improved for a true vote to be cast. The 20 votes requirement is still a problem. Yes, with a lot of advertisement and organized voting tours we managed to get quite some votes. But it's always risky, always on the brink of not enough people comming. Builders do not deserve that. And neither do the voters who would have to come twice if not enough people showed up. The voting NPC (or Amanda) can hand out a few XP coins as reward for participating. That might be cheapest to implement and help a bit. Amanda already promises a reward - and doesn't hand out anything apart from a compass to locate the place. Sure, for most of us the voting quests *are* a great event and very enjoyable on their own. But to catch enough players, you need to motivate them more. "I voted on <project>" stickers could be a reward as well. You could collect them and show them to your friends in your house. Maybe both would be best.

👍 4

laylem commented

2023-01-13 09:17:46 +00:00

What if we approach the voting on different dimensions, each on a point scale.
Size, Aesthetics, Theme, Consistency, etc.
Size would be "Do you think the building is the correct size?"
Aesthetics would be "Do you think the building is pleasing to the eye?"
Theme would be "Does the building match or improve the city theme?"
Consistency would be "Does the building have features consistent with the function of the building?"
and maybe an Other as well, for voting up or down for a different reason. Of course others can be added. The final score shall be a weighted average, and the weights of each category will be clearly explained in the dialogue voting for each category.

Also, the 5 point scale, in my opinion should be more clearly defined. Instead of VERY BAD to VERY GOOD let's be explicit about it, and say "I think this build gets -2" or "I think this build gets +1". We can say at the top -2 would be very bad, and very good would be +2. This also gives room to have a more nuanced point scale with more than 5 points, e.g. 25 points.

What if we approach the voting on different dimensions, each on a point scale. Size, Aesthetics, Theme, Consistency, etc. Size would be "Do you think the building is the correct size?" Aesthetics would be "Do you think the building is pleasing to the eye?" Theme would be "Does the building match or improve the city theme?" Consistency would be "Does the building have features consistent with the function of the building?" and maybe an Other as well, for voting up or down for a different reason. Of course others can be added. The final score shall be a weighted average, and the weights of each category will be clearly explained in the dialogue voting for each category. Also, the 5 point scale, in my opinion should be more clearly defined. Instead of VERY BAD to VERY GOOD let's be explicit about it, and say "I think this build gets -2" or "I think this build gets +1". We can say at the top -2 would be very bad, and very good would be +2. This also gives room to have a more nuanced point scale with more than 5 points, e.g. 25 points.

👍 1

Boot commented

2023-01-13 16:38:37 +00:00

I am against the introduction of more categories in the vote. If they are too complicated, it will discourage players from participating in voting. Keep things simple.

In my votes, I always start from the player. If he is new to the server, I tend to vote in his favor. The longer he is on the server, the higher my expectations are and the harsher my judgement becomes. The votes are not intended to demotivate new players, but to motivate them. On the one hand to stay tuned to the project and on the other hand to build better.

However, we often also vote on commissioned and joint constructions. It is not always clear who built what. I therefore demand, as in real life (at least in Germany this is the case), a meaningful construction site sign on every building that is voted on. Gladly with information about the builders, their time and material expenditure, as well as their thoughts and motives on function or background stories (lore). Each vote should be available as one book (text by Amanda plus text of the construction sign). These books belong in the library of Haven, that of Puerto del Sol and in the respective city.

Sokomine attaches particular importance to excellence. But this should have nothing to do with the vote by the players. I also consider the (anonymous and little-used) system for the upgrading and depreciation of areas and plots to be inappropriate. It should be abolished.

Instead, a commission of proven and appointed experts should be allowed to award a premium label. I had suggested some time ago to use the international sign of a cultural asset (Blue Shield International) as an item. Individual buildings (including historical ones, whose builders have long been lost), districts and entire cities can be awarded and listed.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Denkmalplakette_Deutschland.svg

What is listed as cultural property is subject to special protection. When the builders are no longer active, their cultural assets become the property of the general public. It may not be destroyed or sold. Cultural goods could be listed in the unofficial map. Cities and villages should compete to create as many cultural assets as possible. Their number can be announced, as in the system of stars for hotels. Each player may submit any building for review, stating the coordinates. The master builders must be informed before the assessment whether an evaluation is desired.

About Laylem: in some countries a 5 is a very good school grade, in other countries an A. Therefore, the current system from very good to very bad should be retained. different dimensions should not be added. Perhaps players who, in addition to voting, put a book with their self-written remarks in the mailbox should be rewarded a bit? However, the donation should then be allowed to be made by the master builder himself.

I am against the introduction of more categories in the vote. If they are too complicated, it will discourage players from participating in voting. Keep things simple. In my votes, I always start from the player. If he is new to the server, I tend to vote in his favor. The longer he is on the server, the higher my expectations are and the harsher my judgement becomes. The votes are not intended to demotivate new players, but to motivate them. On the one hand to stay tuned to the project and on the other hand to build better. However, we often also vote on commissioned and joint constructions. It is not always clear who built what. I therefore demand, as in real life (at least in Germany this is the case), a meaningful construction site sign on every building that is voted on. Gladly with information about the builders, their time and material expenditure, as well as their thoughts and motives on function or background stories (lore). Each vote should be available as one book (text by Amanda plus text of the construction sign). These books belong in the library of Haven, that of Puerto del Sol and in the respective city. Sokomine attaches particular importance to excellence. But this should have nothing to do with the vote by the players. I also consider the (anonymous and little-used) system for the upgrading and depreciation of areas and plots to be inappropriate. It should be abolished. Instead, a commission of proven and appointed experts should be allowed to award a premium label. I had suggested some time ago to use the international sign of a cultural asset (Blue Shield International) as an item. Individual buildings (including historical ones, whose builders have long been lost), districts and entire cities can be awarded and listed. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Denkmalplakette_Deutschland.svg What is listed as cultural property is subject to special protection. When the builders are no longer active, their cultural assets become the property of the general public. It may not be destroyed or sold. Cultural goods could be listed in the unofficial map. Cities and villages should compete to create as many cultural assets as possible. Their number can be announced, as in the system of stars for hotels. Each player may submit any building for review, stating the coordinates. The master builders must be informed before the assessment whether an evaluation is desired. About Laylem: in some countries a 5 is a very good school grade, in other countries an A. Therefore, the current system from very good to very bad should be retained. different dimensions should not be added. Perhaps players who, in addition to voting, put a book with their self-written remarks in the mailbox should be rewarded a bit? However, the donation should then be allowed to be made by the master builder himself.

👍 2

Sokomine commented

2023-01-13 22:02:19 +00:00

Some of the confusion may arise from how diffrently at least Alias and I interpret the question. For me it is: "How good is the build quality of this building?" with possible answers:

excellent: yaw-droppingly impressive (Puerto del Sol, Citadelle etc.) - does not exist as a voting option
very good: still very good
good: less detailed, usually smaller, more plain, a bit humble perhaps - but still something you enjoy encountering
medicore: acceptable, but not really memorable
bad: something slightly above a cobble hut, i.e. square wooden houses with windows going all around, only one room inside, more a base/factory than anything else
very bad: slightly above "Is this severely griefed? Is it intended to be a ruin? What on earth happend here?"

Alias seems to imply "Shall this build become a city service?" with possible answers:

very good: By all means! Why isn't there an official city service NPC here already? He ought to have arrived yesterday!
good: Sure! Please make it an official service.
medicore: Nah. This isn't better than most of what we already got. Can't add valuable NPC to things that are not excellent.
bad: No, it shall not become a city service (yet?). Maybe later once it has been improved.
very bad: I vehemently protest against this becomming an official city service!

laylem wrote:

What if we approach the voting on different dimensions, each on a point scale.
Size, Aesthetics, Theme, Consistency, etc.

That won't help too much I think. Those factors already play a role and are included in the vote by all of us. Trouble is more how much you weight each factor.

Boot wrote:

therefore demand, as in real life (at least in Germany this is the case), a meaningful construction site sign on every building that is voted on. Gladly with information about the builders, their time and material expenditure, as well as their thoughts and motives on function or background stories (lore). Each vote should be available as one book (text by Amanda plus text of the construction sign). These books belong in the library of Haven, that of Puerto del Sol and in the respective city.

Love that idea! The motivation for this discussion here has been that some airports in the past got a copy of Alias' great Airship - and thus looked very impressive even if the actual creator of the airport did build only a boring platform.

I also love the lore part. Too much is lost there! Those details are of intrest. We could have our own section in Havens' library. And the background is often very important. I saw that with the buildings in Pluton. There's a bit more background to them than meets the eye (not lore-wise, but how and why they were built the way they are). Also love the idea of the sign!

Boot wrote:

But this should have nothing to do with the vote by the players.

What then should have an impact? What is the question you are answering? Alias and I obviously think diffrently about the question. Maybe there are more opinions?

Boot wrote:

I also consider the (anonymous and little-used) system for the upgrading and depreciation of areas and plots to be inappropriate. It should be abolished.

You mean area_upvote/area_downvote? In theory I find it a good concept. I'd love to have something where people can tell others if and which places are worth visiting. But the way it's implemented, a vote is only extremly rarely possible - and not when it's needed. I don't explore on a 1 building/week basis. The cooldown for voting again makes the system useless. Also downvotes ought to be far more justified. There's already /bug for reporting griefed areas.

Boot wrote:

Instead, a commission of proven and appointed experts should be allowed to award a premium label. I had suggested some time ago to use the international sign of a cultural asset (Blue Shield International) as an item. Individual buildings (including historical ones, whose builders have long been lost), districts and entire cities can be awarded and listed.

That'd be great! Players could then ask for feedback even if it's "just" a normal house or other building that doesn't qualify as a city service. And people who are intrested have an actual chance of seeing more of the pearls of the server than by randomly walking around.

Boot wrote:

It may not be destroyed or sold.

Well, for me "selling" a building doesn't work. It doesn't change the creator - and that is what counts. Destroying - only those things that are not worth keeping ought to be destroyed. We did that with some builds on platforms in Bahia de Balar because the city was extremly ugly with those platforms and the buildings couldn't be integrated otherwise.

Boot wrote:

Cities and villages should compete to create as many cultural assets as possible. Their number can be announced, as in the system of stars for hotels. Each player may submit any building for review, stating the coordinates. The master builders must be informed before the assessment whether an evaluation is desired.

That'd be very nice! In a way we already have the occasional "Approved by Analyssa" sign. That ought to be extended to a more general sign.

Boot wrote:

Perhaps players who, in addition to voting, put a book with their self-written remarks in the mailbox should be rewarded a bit?

It is much more work to write a detailled review than just click on a vote button. However, the goal I have is to get more people to vote. Those who are motivated to write a review are already comming...we need to get those others to come and take a look as well. Those who are less motivated but may still have an opinion.

Boot wrote:

However, the donation should then be allowed to be made by the master builder himself.

I'm against this. It sounds far too much like bribary. I didn't like the "come to xyz and vote and get a free gold ingot" etc. approach. It's up to the server to reward players for actions required by the server.

Some of the confusion may arise from how diffrently at least Alias and I interpret the question. For me it is: "How good is the *build quality* of this building?" with possible answers: * excellent: yaw-droppingly impressive (Puerto del Sol, Citadelle etc.) - does not exist as a voting option * very good: still very good * good: less detailed, usually smaller, more plain, a bit humble perhaps - but still something you enjoy encountering * medicore: acceptable, but not really memorable * bad: something slightly above a cobble hut, i.e. square wooden houses with windows going all around, only one room inside, more a base/factory than anything else * very bad: slightly above "Is this severely griefed? Is it intended to be a ruin? What on earth happend here?" Alias seems to imply "Shall this build *become a city service*?" with possible answers: * very good: By all means! Why isn't there an official city service NPC here already? He ought to have arrived yesterday! * good: Sure! Please make it an official service. * medicore: Nah. This isn't better than most of what we already got. Can't add valuable NPC to things that are not excellent. * bad: No, it shall not become a city service (yet?). Maybe later once it has been improved. * very bad: I vehemently protest against this becomming an official city service! laylem wrote: > What if we approach the voting on different dimensions, each on a point scale. Size, Aesthetics, Theme, Consistency, etc. That won't help too much I think. Those factors already play a role and are included in the vote by all of us. Trouble is more how much you weight each factor. Boot wrote: > therefore demand, as in real life (at least in Germany this is the case), a meaningful construction site sign on every building that is voted on. Gladly with information about the builders, their time and material expenditure, as well as their thoughts and motives on function or background stories (lore). Each vote should be available as one book (text by Amanda plus text of the construction sign). These books belong in the library of Haven, that of Puerto del Sol and in the respective city. Love that idea! The motivation for this discussion here has been that some airports in the past got a copy of Alias' great Airship - and thus looked very impressive even if the actual creator of the airport did build only a boring platform. I also love the lore part. Too much is lost there! Those details are of intrest. We could have our own section in Havens' library. And the background is often very important. I saw that with the buildings in Pluton. There's a bit more background to them than meets the eye (not lore-wise, but how and why they were built the way they are). Also love the idea of the sign! Boot wrote: > But this should have nothing to do with the vote by the players. What then should have an impact? What is the question *you* are answering? Alias and I obviously think diffrently about the question. Maybe there are more opinions? Boot wrote: > I also consider the (anonymous and little-used) system for the upgrading and depreciation of areas and plots to be inappropriate. It should be abolished. You mean area_upvote/area_downvote? In theory I find it a good concept. I'd love to have something where people can tell others if and which places are worth visiting. But the way it's implemented, a vote is only extremly rarely possible - and not when it's needed. I don't explore on a 1 building/week basis. The cooldown for voting again makes the system useless. Also downvotes ought to be far more justified. There's already /bug for reporting griefed areas. Boot wrote: > Instead, a commission of proven and appointed experts should be allowed to award a premium label. I had suggested some time ago to use the international sign of a cultural asset (Blue Shield International) as an item. Individual buildings (including historical ones, whose builders have long been lost), districts and entire cities can be awarded and listed. That'd be great! Players could then ask for feedback even if it's "just" a normal house or other building that doesn't qualify as a city service. And people who are intrested have an actual chance of seeing more of the pearls of the server than by randomly walking around. Boot wrote: > It may not be destroyed or sold. Well, for me "selling" a building doesn't work. It doesn't change the creator - and that is what counts. Destroying - only those things that are not worth keeping ought to be destroyed. We did that with some builds on platforms in Bahia de Balar because the city was extremly ugly with those platforms and the buildings couldn't be integrated otherwise. Boot wrote: > Cities and villages should compete to create as many cultural assets as possible. Their number can be announced, as in the system of stars for hotels. Each player may submit any building for review, stating the coordinates. The master builders must be informed before the assessment whether an evaluation is desired. That'd be very nice! In a way we already have the occasional "Approved by Analyssa" sign. That ought to be extended to a more general sign. Boot wrote: > Perhaps players who, in addition to voting, put a book with their self-written remarks in the mailbox should be rewarded a bit? It is much more work to write a detailled review than just click on a vote button. However, the goal I have is to get more people to vote. Those who are motivated to write a review are already comming...we need to get those others to come and take a look as well. Those who are less motivated but may still have an opinion. Boot wrote: > However, the donation should then be allowed to be made by the master builder himself. I'm against this. It sounds far too much like bribary. I didn't like the "come to xyz and vote and get a free gold ingot" etc. approach. It's up to the server to reward players for actions required by the server.

👍 1

Ravise commented

2023-01-13 22:23:00 +00:00

I would also hesitate adding more voting categories. But I'd be in favour of reformulating existing ones. Bad and very bad are often not the right words, but I'm not aware of any similarly universal ones.

I basically work on 0-100% scale with 20% wide fields and ask the question of beleivability. If I saw it working, would I believe it? For example, I was really disappointed by the station descriptions in Metro books. In the games, however, the stations were displayed in a convincing way, even if they faced the very same problems.

Warning: contains opinions.

0-20% - Not enjoyable, generally unfit for vote. Tear it down and start from scratch. I will be dissapointed and angry if the vote will pass.
20-40% - Unfit for the service, but worth formulating opinion. Chances that resolving issues and answering questions will make me tip next vote.
40-60% - "sigh it's fine" Built in a consistent, acceptable way and size. I wouldn't resist if the vote passes. It's not really a success though, and I expect further development.
60-80% - Built in believable, reasonable, but not particularly beautiful way. Sufficient in lore/setting. I would be surprised if the vote would fail.
80-100% - Built in beautiful way, fits into the environment. Built with a firm view in builder's mind.

For a city, it means having food, water, work and housing for enough inhabitants. In snowy areas, source of heat is also needed. That's a bare minimum, that should be displayed in build or explained by lore (magical flames don't need fuel, but they need something magicy).

My benchmark city is Greenborough. It's very out of my prefered style, but one can't deny it is a city. It has houses, streets, market. To get on the list for me, city must be no worse than Greenborough. I don't consider how long players were present on the server. I try to focus on the build itself as much as possible.

I really argue in favour of a reward for voting. I'd prefer the reward to be unique as much as possible. For example, if a city is on vote, it's coat of arms might be given. Having unique sticker or badge would be really nice, but I understand the limits for in-game items (and someone would have to draw them as well). How about a title? If a player participated in Pluton's church vote, they might choose to have their name displayed as "$Name, Pluton pilgrim" in the same way parties are displayed now.

Plus some xp will be always welcome.

It would be nice if every vote had a patron in some experienced player. Something along the lines of "$patron thinks that thing is good". Patron must not be the builder, of course, and should not be from the same city, if possible. Patron would be shown the build in advance and might provide description to Amands. It should help to set expectations for builders and visitors, ecspecially when new players are involved.

I support the creation of YL (Royal) Trust to mark exceptional builds, but what of it? We need persistent quests :) . Trust approved buildings might get a permanent quest and further fuel city XP...

I would also hesitate adding more voting categories. But I'd be in favour of reformulating existing ones. Bad and very bad are often not the right words, but I'm not aware of any similarly universal ones. I basically work on 0-100% scale with 20% wide fields and ask the question of beleivability. If I saw it working, would I believe it? For example, I was really disappointed by the station descriptions in Metro books. In the games, however, the stations were displayed in a convincing way, even if they faced the very same problems. Warning: contains opinions. 0-20% - Not enjoyable, generally unfit for vote. Tear it down and start from scratch. I will be dissapointed and angry if the vote will pass. 20-40% - Unfit for the service, but worth formulating opinion. Chances that resolving issues and answering questions will make me tip next vote. 40-60% - "*sigh* it's fine" Built in a consistent, acceptable way and size. I wouldn't resist if the vote passes. It's not really a success though, and I expect further development. 60-80% - Built in believable, reasonable, but not particularly beautiful way. Sufficient in lore/setting. I would be surprised if the vote would fail. 80-100% - Built in beautiful way, fits into the environment. Built with a firm view in builder's mind. For a city, it means having food, water, work and housing for enough inhabitants. In snowy areas, source of heat is also needed. That's a bare minimum, that should be displayed in build or explained by lore (magical flames don't need fuel, but they need something magicy). My benchmark city is Greenborough. It's very out of my prefered style, but one can't deny it _is_ a city. It has houses, streets, market. To get on the list for me, city must be no worse than Greenborough. I don't consider how long players were present on the server. I try to focus on the build itself as much as possible. I really argue in favour of a reward for voting. I'd prefer the reward to be unique as much as possible. For example, if a city is on vote, it's coat of arms might be given. Having unique sticker or badge would be really nice, but I understand the limits for in-game items (and someone would have to draw them as well). How about a title? If a player participated in Pluton's church vote, they might choose to have their name displayed as "$Name, Pluton pilgrim" in the same way parties are displayed now. Plus some xp will be always welcome. It would be nice if every vote had a patron in some experienced player. Something along the lines of "$patron thinks that thing is good". Patron must not be the builder, of course, and should not be from the same city, if possible. Patron would be shown the build in advance and might provide description to Amands. It should help to set expectations for builders and visitors, ecspecially when new players are involved. I support the creation of YL (Royal) Trust to mark exceptional builds, but what of it? We need persistent quests :) . Trust approved buildings might get a permanent quest and further fuel city XP...

👍 1

Waldkauz commented

2023-01-13 22:25:45 +00:00

Hello!

German text first english below:

Ich wäre dafür die Optionen auf 3 zu beschränken.

Gut das Gebäude ist sehr gut
Da muss noch einiges gemacht werden. Bitte mit der Aufforderung das der Wähler etwas dazu schreibt.
Geht garnicht.

Je weniger Optionen man hat desto einfacher ist es.

Pro Spieler +-5 Punkte. Das Objekt der Wahl braucht 50 Punkte. Etwa in der Richtung.

Ich würde in vielen Fällen schreiben was noch fehlt und damit eine mittlere Punktzahl vergeben.

Beispiel:

X Punkte wenn es gut ist. Kritik ist immer gut also auch was schreiben.
X Punkte aber nur wenn auch gesagt wird was noch gemacht werden soll. Es dürfte möglich sein zu prüfen ob der Wähler ein Buch eingeworfen hat oder nicht. Ansonsten kann man nur gut oder schlecht wählen.
-X Punkte Schlecht ist nunmal schlecht. Fertig. Mitgefühl ist hier fehl am Platz. Dann ändert sich nix. Auch hier wäre es wieder gut zu schreiben warum man etwas nicht gut findet und was derjenige ändern sollte bevor er einen neuen Versuch wagt. Wenn man die negative Option genauso hoch Negativ bewertet wie die Positive bewahrt man sich auch vor Enttäuschungen. Damit meine ich gedankenlos durchgewunkene Votings, das passiert nach meiner Meinung zu oft. Es gibt einige Schiffshäfen (und andere Gebäude) die es nicht Wert sind so genannt zu werden. Aber sie kommen durch. Warum? Sowas darf nicht sein.

Viele der Älteren wählen nicht nur einfach, sondern schreiben fast immer etwas oder suchen das Gespräch mit dem Erbauer. Wenn dieser nicht greifbar ist sollte sich das meines Erachtens auch negativ auswirken. Es gibt schon genug Geisterstädte.

Wer wie ich an besseren Gebäuden interessiert ist wird etwas schreiben. Was verbessert / geändert werden könnte / sollte. Eine kurze Kritik halte ich grundsätzlich immer für gut, egal welche Option ich nehme. Wobei diese bei den unteren Optionen umso wichtiger ist. Schließlich soll der Konstrukteur wissen woran er ist. Information ist alles! Deshalb sollte man den Wahlprozess relativ lange offen lassen. Dann kann der Konstrukteur mit mir reden es verbessern und dann im Anschluß wähle ich erst. Wer nur schnell mal eben eine Stadt bauen will sollte gestoppt werden können. Das geht ohne Probleme durch einen längeren Wahlprozess. Den meisten geht dann nämlich einfach die Puste aus. Wie schon geschrieben, es gibt eh schon viele (tote) Städte. Wenn an der Entscheidung ob Stadt oder nicht viele Spieler beteiligt sind wird es sehr schwierig jemanden zu finden der Schuld an der eigenen Misere ist. Eine mehrheitliches Meinungsbild als Entscheidung wäre da sehr hilfreich. Wenn 20 Spieler sagen das reicht nicht, dann muss der Erbauer sich eben etwas mehr Mühe geben. Da sollten manche auch mal in sich gehen und sich fragen wohin führt das wenn zuviel durchgewunken wird. Etwas das man aktuell recht häufig beobachten kann.

Eine höhere Wertung von Spielern die einen hohen lvl haben halte ich für Unsinn. Man kann sich auch mit dem abbauen von Steinen hochleveln. Was soll ich auf deren Urteil geben? Nix!

Wenn Spieler eine höhere Stimmgewalt haben sollen, dann bitte aufgrund ihrer eigenen erfolgreichen Bautätigkeiten. Also die eigenen gewählten Objekte. Als Referenz. Erfahrung sollte auch honoriert werden.

Nur wieviele schon gewählt haben sollte derjenige wissen aber nicht wer oder gar wer wie.

#####English Below

I would be in favor of limiting the options to 3.

the building is very good
there is still some work to be done. Please with the request that the voter writes something about it.
no way.

The less options you have the easier it is.

Per player +-5 points. The object of choice needs 50 points. Something like that.

I would write what is missing in many cases and thus give a medium score.

Example:

X points if it is good. Criticism is always good so also write something.
X points but only if it is also said what is still to be done. It should be possible to check whether the voter has thrown in a book or not. Otherwise you can only choose good or bad.
-X points bad is bad. Finished. Compassion is here out of place. Then nothing changes. Again it would be good to write why you don't like something and what you should change before you try again. If one evaluates the negative option just as highly as the positive one also saves oneself from disappointment. By this I mean thoughtlessly waved through votes, this happens too often in my opinion. There are some harbors (and other buildings) that are not worthy of being called that. But they get through. Why? Such things should not be.

Many of the elders not only simply vote, but almost always write something or seek conversation with the builder. If he is not available for talking this should also have a negative effect in my opinion. There are already enough ghost towns.

Who is interested in better buildings like me will write something. What could / should be improved / changed. A short criticism I think is in principle always good, no matter which option I take.
Whereby this is even more important with the lower options. Finally, the designer should know where he stands. Information is everything! Therefore, the selection process should be left open for a relatively long time. Then the constructor can talk with me to improve his building and then after some time I choose.
Who wants to build only fast times evenly a city should be able to be stopped. This can be done without problems by a longer election process. Most then simply runs out of puff. As already written, there are already many (dead) cities.
If a lot of players are involved in the decision whether or not to approve a build to be a city, it will be very difficult to find someone who is to blame for one's own misery. A majority opinion as a decision would be very helpful. If 20 players say that is not enough, then the builder must make a little more effort.
There some of the voters should also go times in themself and ask themself where that leads if too much is waved through. Something that can be observed quite often at the moment.

A higher rating of players who have a high lvl I think is nonsense. You can also level up with the mining of stones. What should I give on their judgment? Nothing!

If players should have a higher voting power, then please based on their own successful building activities. Like the own allready chosen objects. As a reference. Experience in building should be rewarded. Not in mining or fighting.

The builder should only know how much ppl already voted but not more.

greetz rabenkind

Hello! German text first english below: Ich wäre dafür die Optionen auf 3 zu beschränken. 1. Gut das Gebäude ist sehr gut 2. Da muss noch einiges gemacht werden. Bitte mit der Aufforderung das der Wähler etwas dazu schreibt. 3. Geht garnicht. Je weniger Optionen man hat desto einfacher ist es. Pro Spieler +-5 Punkte. Das Objekt der Wahl braucht 50 Punkte. Etwa in der Richtung. Ich würde in vielen Fällen schreiben was noch fehlt und damit eine mittlere Punktzahl vergeben. Beispiel: 1. X Punkte wenn es gut ist. Kritik ist immer gut also auch was schreiben. 2. X Punkte aber nur wenn auch gesagt wird was noch gemacht werden soll. Es dürfte möglich sein zu prüfen ob der Wähler ein Buch eingeworfen hat oder nicht. Ansonsten kann man nur gut oder schlecht wählen. 3. -X Punkte Schlecht ist nunmal schlecht. Fertig. Mitgefühl ist hier fehl am Platz. Dann ändert sich nix. Auch hier wäre es wieder gut zu schreiben warum man etwas nicht gut findet und was derjenige ändern sollte bevor er einen neuen Versuch wagt. Wenn man die negative Option genauso hoch Negativ bewertet wie die Positive bewahrt man sich auch vor Enttäuschungen. Damit meine ich gedankenlos durchgewunkene Votings, das passiert nach meiner Meinung zu oft. Es gibt einige Schiffshäfen (und andere Gebäude) die es nicht Wert sind so genannt zu werden. Aber sie kommen durch. Warum? Sowas darf nicht sein. Viele der Älteren wählen nicht nur einfach, sondern schreiben fast immer etwas oder suchen das Gespräch mit dem Erbauer. Wenn dieser nicht greifbar ist sollte sich das meines Erachtens auch negativ auswirken. Es gibt schon genug Geisterstädte. Wer wie ich an besseren Gebäuden interessiert ist wird etwas schreiben. Was verbessert / geändert werden könnte / sollte. Eine kurze Kritik halte ich grundsätzlich immer für gut, egal welche Option ich nehme. Wobei diese bei den unteren Optionen umso wichtiger ist. Schließlich soll der Konstrukteur wissen woran er ist. Information ist alles! Deshalb sollte man den Wahlprozess relativ lange offen lassen. Dann kann der Konstrukteur mit mir reden es verbessern und dann im Anschluß wähle ich erst. Wer nur schnell mal eben eine Stadt bauen will sollte gestoppt werden können. Das geht ohne Probleme durch einen längeren Wahlprozess. Den meisten geht dann nämlich einfach die Puste aus. Wie schon geschrieben, es gibt eh schon viele (tote) Städte. Wenn an der Entscheidung ob Stadt oder nicht viele Spieler beteiligt sind wird es sehr schwierig jemanden zu finden der Schuld an der eigenen Misere ist. Eine mehrheitliches Meinungsbild als Entscheidung wäre da sehr hilfreich. Wenn 20 Spieler sagen das reicht nicht, dann muss der Erbauer sich eben etwas mehr Mühe geben. Da sollten manche auch mal in sich gehen und sich fragen wohin führt das wenn zuviel durchgewunken wird. Etwas das man aktuell recht häufig beobachten kann. Eine höhere Wertung von Spielern die einen hohen lvl haben halte ich für Unsinn. Man kann sich auch mit dem abbauen von Steinen hochleveln. Was soll ich auf deren Urteil geben? Nix! Wenn Spieler eine höhere Stimmgewalt haben sollen, dann bitte aufgrund ihrer eigenen erfolgreichen Bautätigkeiten. Also die eigenen gewählten Objekte. Als Referenz. Erfahrung sollte auch honoriert werden. Nur wieviele schon gewählt haben sollte derjenige wissen aber nicht wer oder gar wer wie. #####English Below I would be in favor of limiting the options to 3. 1. the building is very good 2. there is still some work to be done. Please with the request that the voter writes something about it. 3. no way. The less options you have the easier it is. Per player +-5 points. The object of choice needs 50 points. Something like that. I would write what is missing in many cases and thus give a medium score. Example: 1. X points if it is good. Criticism is always good so also write something. 2. X points but only if it is also said what is still to be done. It should be possible to check whether the voter has thrown in a book or not. Otherwise you can only choose good or bad. 3. -X points bad is bad. Finished. Compassion is here out of place. Then nothing changes. Again it would be good to write why you don't like something and what you should change before you try again. If one evaluates the negative option just as highly as the positive one also saves oneself from disappointment. By this I mean thoughtlessly waved through votes, this happens too often in my opinion. There are some harbors (and other buildings) that are not worthy of being called that. But they get through. Why? Such things should not be. Many of the elders not only simply vote, but almost always write something or seek conversation with the builder. If he is not available for talking this should also have a negative effect in my opinion. There are already enough ghost towns. Who is interested in better buildings like me will write something. What could / should be improved / changed. A short criticism I think is in principle always good, no matter which option I take. Whereby this is even more important with the lower options. Finally, the designer should know where he stands. Information is everything! Therefore, the selection process should be left open for a relatively long time. Then the constructor can talk with me to improve his building and then after some time I choose. Who wants to build only fast times evenly a city should be able to be stopped. This can be done without problems by a longer election process. Most then simply runs out of puff. As already written, there are already many (dead) cities. If a lot of players are involved in the decision whether or not to approve a build to be a city, it will be very difficult to find someone who is to blame for one's own misery. A majority opinion as a decision would be very helpful. If 20 players say that is not enough, then the builder must make a little more effort. There some of the voters should also go times in themself and ask themself where that leads if too much is waved through. Something that can be observed quite often at the moment. A higher rating of players who have a high lvl I think is nonsense. You can also level up with the mining of stones. What should I give on their judgment? Nothing! If players should have a higher voting power, then please based on their own successful building activities. Like the own allready chosen objects. As a reference. Experience in building should be rewarded. Not in mining or fighting. The builder should only know how much ppl already voted but not more. greetz rabenkind

👍 1

Bla commented

2023-01-14 00:15:08 +00:00

Some of the confusion may arise from how diffrently at least Alias and I interpret the question. For me it is: "How good is the build quality of this building?"...

I think it´s a mix of both and a few other things.
But first of all it´s a vote if they get a city service and not a building contest.

So I´m gonna list how I decide 😉

Does this build match the server theme? airship connection but build a death star -> nope
Does this build match the requested service? airship connection but it´s a submarine -> nope
Does it fit into the city theme? medieval city but your airship is a flying hello kitty -> nope
Is it just for you or all players? requested a priest but there is no air/seaship connection and/or no public access to your city -> nope
Is it reasonable? airship deep down underground in a cave, seaship just sits on top of water -> nope
How much effort did you put in? good builds in the city but the priest gets a 3x3 cobblestone hut -> nope

For me if you fail those 6 points it doesn't matter how good the quality of the build is.
If you passed them -> gz you almost made it to mediocre on the Alias scale and I will now decide based on build quality🥳
mediocre is pretty easy to reach if you build more than plain boxes out of the same material without any details.

> Some of the confusion may arise from how diffrently at least Alias and I interpret the question. For me it is: "How good is the *build quality* of this building?"... I think it´s a mix of both and a few other things. But first of all it´s a vote if they get a city service and not a building contest. So I´m gonna list how I decide 😉 1. Does this build match the server theme? airship connection but build a death star -> nope 2. Does this build match the requested service? airship connection but it´s a submarine -> nope 3. Does it fit into the city theme? medieval city but your airship is a flying hello kitty -> nope 4. Is it just for you or all players? requested a priest but there is no air/seaship connection and/or no public access to your city -> nope 5. Is it reasonable? airship deep down underground in a cave, seaship just sits on top of water -> nope 6. How much effort did you put in? good builds in the city but the priest gets a 3x3 cobblestone hut -> nope For me if you fail those 6 points it doesn't matter how good the quality of the build is. If you passed them -> gz you almost made it to mediocre on the Alias scale and I will now decide based on build quality🥳 mediocre is pretty easy to reach if you build more than plain boxes out of the same material without any details.

👍 2

Sokomine commented

2023-01-14 00:32:30 +00:00

Summary of suggestions here:

Change the question beeing asked regarding the vote: "Shall this build become an official city service?"
Reduce vote to three options (yes / needs more work / no)
Rating believability and quality become seperate, additional and optional options
Requirements for a convincing city vary from requirements from each other individual build (harbour, church, town hall etc.) -> vote on "city rights"
Give rewards for voting! Xp and "I voted" stickers with "PLAYERNAME voted on CITY NAME PROJECT on DATE" as infotex (visible in inventories)
show the builder how many people voted during the vote process
From previous posts:
Boots idea of putting up a sign at the build site saying who built what and contributed how
Boots idea about lore books/books telling more about the way and why a build was built
Boots idea of a review system by experienced builders where anyone can put his/her build up for vote on quality (may be combined with the reduced to 3 options above)

Ravise wrote:

I would also hesitate adding more voting categories. But I'd be in favour of reformulating existing ones. Bad and very bad are often not the right words, but I'm not aware of any similarly universal ones.

Thank you for sharing your criteria! It seems that they can match Alias' view good enough while still reflecting build quality as a very important factor.

Perhaps adding more options really isn't the best approach. Perhaps the main question could be the one the vote is really about: "Shall this build become an official city service?" with options similar to what Waldkauz/rabenkind suggested:

Yes. TOWN NAME PROJECT shall become an official city service.
Not yet. TOWN NAME PROJECT needs more work and/or improvements.
No. TOWN NAME PROJECT is not fit to act as an official city service.
Winning the vote requires 50% Yes-votes.

There is the factor of rating build quality. It may be helpful for the builder to receive more feedback then yes/no. Once the player answered the main question, the NPC might ask if the player has a few more moment's time and can answer additional questions, such aus:
"How believable is it for you that TOWN NAME PROJECT can serve as a PROJECT?"

It is a very convincing PROJECT.
There may be some aspects where it's lacking, but overall it may serve as a PROJECT.
It seems to be a very basic, not very convincing PROJECT, but it might barely suffice.
I have trouble imagining how it might serve as a PROJECT.
I can't imagine at all how it might serve as a PROJECT.

And then, the (for me) most relevant question:
"How do you rate the build quality of this building?"

Excellent
Very good
Good
Acceptable
Needs some more work and improvements
Needs a lot more work and improvements
Tear down and build anew

Those additional questions would be optional. Perhaps they could be part of the rating buildings for sightseeing system Boot suggested?

Ravise wrote:

For a city, it means having food, water, work and housing for enough inhabitants. In snowy areas, source of heat is also needed. That's a bare minimum, that should be displayed in build or explained by lore

Yes. However, a city may just be starting, and it may take time until these things are all present. But in the end they ought to be there. The city services system does not cover that well. I have suggested "city rights" as a voting point in the villages-discussion earlier. Perhaps that might help? Technicly, "city rights" may mean the city has a wall (and is convincing as a city!), and it'd get the city crown block and not an NPC for that vote.

Ravise wrote:

For example, if a city is on vote, it's coat of arms might be given.

Not all cities have coats of arms yet. Also people might want to limit who else has a coat of arms of them. Perhaps this could be combined with Boots idea that the major hands out the rewards? Not directly then - but the major might decide to let the NPC give a free coat of arms to each voter. Still doesn't work if there isn't one yet.

Having unique sticker or badge would be really nice, but I understand the limits for in-game items (and someone would have to draw them as well). How about a title? If a player participated in Pluton's church vote, they might choose to have their name displayed as "$Name, Pluton pilgrim" in the same way parties are displayed now.

The title idea sadly does not work well if there are multiple votes going on. Diffrent textures are indeed a problem. What we might do could be an "I voted" sticker (bribe Styxcolor or someone else to do the texture) with "PLAYERNAME voted on CITY NAME on DATE" as text for mouseover in your inventory. The NPC on the testserver are already able to set texts for their quest items. It's technicly possible. Just can't be seen outside of inventories. But then, shared locked chests exist.

Ravise wrote:

Patron would be shown the build in advance and might provide description to Amands

As a way of filtering out non-worthy buildings in the beginning? Might be an option. I don't know if Alias will agree with that...

Ravise wrote:

I support the creation of YL (Royal) Trust to mark exceptional builds, but what of it? We need persistent quests :) . Trust approved buildings might get a permanent quest and further fuel city XP...

Oh yes! NPC love living in nice buildings :-) They're very eager to hand out quests if they work in an inspiring environment (Warning: Scouts may think diffrently.)

Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote:

Therefore, the selection process should be left open for a relatively long time.

Enough time to vote is important. 3 days is not enough. A week ought to suffice.

Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote:

Then the constructor can talk with me to improve his building and then after some time I choose.

This is problematic. For some of us it's a no-go if the building is changed while the vote is beeing helt. People then vote on diffrent things, may even be confused why a building won that to them then(!) looked very bad.

Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote:

There some of the voters should also go times in themself and ask themself where that leads if too much is waved through. Something that can be observed quite often at the moment.

Hmm, yes. I can't plead innocence here :-(. Often buildings as such are ok. But then the city doesn't develop any further. Or does not improve. Perhaps the "vote for city rights" and starting as a settlements/village with a stage coach service as discussed in the villages topic might also solve this.

Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote:

If players should have a higher voting power, then please based on their own successful building activities. Like the own allready chosen objects. As a reference. Experience in building should be rewarded. Not in mining or fighting.

Don't worry! I talked about that with Alias already. The level counts for such things as the bailiff vote - but not for the city services.

Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote:

The builder should only know how much ppl already voted but not more.

Something got lost in the translation here. You said (roughly translated) "The builder ought to know how many people voted - but not who or how." How many players voted would be a very helpful information. Who voted might also help in avoiding advertising the vote to those who already did, but then that's less necessary.

Summary of suggestions here: * Change the question beeing asked regarding the vote: "Shall this build become an official city service?" * Reduce vote to three options (yes / needs more work / no) * Rating believability and quality become seperate, additional and *optional* options * Requirements for a convincing city vary from requirements from each other individual build (harbour, church, town hall etc.) -> vote on "city rights" * Give rewards for voting! Xp and "I voted" stickers with "PLAYERNAME voted on CITY NAME PROJECT on DATE" as infotex (visible in inventories) * show the builder how many people voted during the vote process From previous posts: * Boots idea of putting up a sign at the build site saying who built what and contributed how * Boots idea about lore books/books telling more about the way and why a build was built * Boots idea of a review system by experienced builders where anyone can put his/her build up for vote on quality (may be combined with the reduced to 3 options above) --- Ravise wrote: > I would also hesitate adding more voting categories. But I'd be in favour of reformulating existing ones. Bad and very bad are often not the right words, but I'm not aware of any similarly universal ones. Thank you for sharing your criteria! It seems that they can match Alias' view good enough while still reflecting build quality as a very important factor. Perhaps adding more options really isn't the best approach. Perhaps the main question could be the one the vote is really about: "Shall this build become an official city service?" with options similar to what Waldkauz/rabenkind suggested: * Yes. TOWN NAME PROJECT shall become an official city service. * Not yet. TOWN NAME PROJECT needs more work and/or improvements. * No. TOWN NAME PROJECT is not fit to act as an official city service. Winning the vote requires 50% Yes-votes. There is the factor of rating build quality. It may be helpful for the builder to receive more feedback then yes/no. Once the player answered the main question, the NPC might ask if the player has a few more moment's time and can answer additional questions, such aus: "How believable is it for you that TOWN NAME PROJECT can serve as a PROJECT?" * It is a very convincing PROJECT. * There may be some aspects where it's lacking, but overall it may serve as a PROJECT. * It seems to be a very basic, not very convincing PROJECT, but it might barely suffice. * I have trouble imagining how it might serve as a PROJECT. * I can't imagine at all how it might serve as a PROJECT. And then, the (for me) most relevant question: "How do you rate the build quality of this building?" * Excellent * Very good * Good * Acceptable * Needs some more work and improvements * Needs a lot more work and improvements * Tear down and build anew Those additional questions would be optional. Perhaps they could be part of the rating buildings for sightseeing system Boot suggested? Ravise wrote: > For a city, it means having food, water, work and housing for enough inhabitants. In snowy areas, source of heat is also needed. That's a bare minimum, that should be displayed in build or explained by lore Yes. However, a city may just be starting, and it may take time until these things are all present. But in the end they ought to be there. The city services system does not cover that well. I have suggested "city rights" as a voting point in the villages-discussion earlier. Perhaps that might help? Technicly, "city rights" may mean the city has a wall (and *is* convincing as a city!), and it'd get the city crown block and not an NPC for that vote. Ravise wrote: > For example, if a city is on vote, it's coat of arms might be given. Not all cities have coats of arms yet. Also people might want to limit who else has a coat of arms of them. Perhaps this could be combined with Boots idea that the major hands out the rewards? Not directly then - but the major might decide to let the NPC give a free coat of arms to each voter. Still doesn't work if there isn't one yet. > Having unique sticker or badge would be really nice, but I understand the limits for in-game items (and someone would have to draw them as well). How about a title? If a player participated in Pluton's church vote, they might choose to have their name displayed as "$Name, Pluton pilgrim" in the same way parties are displayed now. The title idea sadly does not work well if there are multiple votes going on. Diffrent textures are indeed a problem. What we might do could be an "I voted" sticker (bribe Styxcolor or someone else to do the texture) with "PLAYERNAME voted on CITY NAME on DATE" as text for mouseover in your inventory. The NPC on the testserver are already able to set texts for their quest items. It's technicly possible. Just can't be seen outside of inventories. But then, shared locked chests exist. Ravise wrote: > Patron would be shown the build in advance and might provide description to Amands As a way of filtering out non-worthy buildings in the beginning? Might be an option. I don't know if Alias will agree with that... Ravise wrote: > I support the creation of YL (Royal) Trust to mark exceptional builds, but what of it? We need persistent quests :) . Trust approved buildings might get a permanent quest and further fuel city XP... Oh yes! NPC love living in nice buildings :-) They're very eager to hand out quests if they work in an inspiring environment (Warning: Scouts may think diffrently.) Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote: > Therefore, the selection process should be left open for a relatively long time. Enough time to vote is important. 3 days is not enough. A week ought to suffice. Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote: > Then the constructor can talk with me to improve his building and then after some time I choose. This is problematic. For some of us it's a no-go if the building is changed while the vote is beeing helt. People then vote on diffrent things, may even be confused why a building won that to them then(!) looked very bad. Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote: > There some of the voters should also go times in themself and ask themself where that leads if too much is waved through. Something that can be observed quite often at the moment. Hmm, yes. I can't plead innocence here :-(. Often buildings as such are ok. But then the city doesn't develop any further. Or does not improve. Perhaps the "vote for city rights" and starting as a settlements/village with a stage coach service as discussed in the villages topic might also solve this. Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote: > If players should have a higher voting power, then please based on their own successful building activities. Like the own allready chosen objects. As a reference. Experience in building should be rewarded. Not in mining or fighting. Don't worry! I talked about that with Alias already. The level counts for such things as the bailiff vote - but *not* for the city services. Waldkauz/rabenkind wrote: > The builder should only know how much ppl already voted but not more. Something got lost in the translation here. You said (roughly translated) "The builder ought to know how many people voted - but not who or how." How many players voted would be a very helpful information. Who voted might also help in avoiding advertising the vote to those who already did, but then that's less necessary.

👍 1

JeCel commented

2023-01-31 21:11:37 +00:00

Kalek asked me to post this for them here:

there are a lot of categories to think about in the voting to "service"-buildings - would it be possible to have like a pre-sellection by the bailiffs or maybe by people who are voted to be buildexperts for 1 or two month (a like Bailiff role)? They could discuss those buildings and with the creator before it comes to a vote that maybe only take sight at one of thos many categories?

Kalek asked me to post this for them here: > there are a lot of categories to think about in the voting to "service"-buildings - would it be possible to have like a pre-sellection by the bailiffs or maybe by people who are voted to be buildexperts for 1 or two month (a like Bailiff role)? They could discuss those buildings and with the creator before it comes to a vote that maybe only take sight at one of thos many categories?

tour commented

2023-03-13 10:27:04 +00:00

Sokomine wrote

The 20 votes requirement is still a problem. Yes, with a lot of advertisement and organized voting tours we managed to get quite some votes. But it's always risky, always on the brink of not enough people comming. Builders do not deserve that. And neither do the voters who would have to come twice if not enough people showed up.

I guess the main problem is that most people are not aware of the voting itselt. I nearly never checked Amanda for new votings. Yet the only way I get these informations are the blue news in the chat... IMO they have several problems:

You need to follow the chat. When I'm busy with building I can't really focus on that
The message comes every 15? minutes. When I join and see there is a service for vote I will immeadently go there. But when I already played 10 min and started a project of my own, I sometimes rate that higher than actually go on a voting tour.

Furthermore there is not even a possibility to see if you already voted on that city... I once forgot to vote, since the city was so well that I forgot time during exploring and had to log out before voting. When I logged back, I forgot that I hadn't voted so far...

I would really favour to get the news of running Votes (where I did not participate so far) in the /news dialoge during the server join.

Sokomine wrote > The 20 votes requirement is still a problem. Yes, with a lot of advertisement and organized voting tours we managed to get quite some votes. But it's always risky, always on the brink of not enough people comming. Builders do not deserve that. And neither do the voters who would have to come twice if not enough people showed up. I guess the main problem is that most people are not aware of the voting itselt. I nearly never checked Amanda for new votings. Yet the only way I get these informations are the blue news in the chat... IMO they have several problems: * You need to follow the chat. When I'm busy with building I can't really focus on that * The message comes every 15? minutes. When I join and see there is a service for vote I will immeadently go there. But when I already played 10 min and started a project of my own, I sometimes rate that higher than actually go on a voting tour. Furthermore there is not even a possibility to see if you already voted on that city... I once forgot to vote, since the city was so well that I forgot time during exploring and had to log out before voting. When I logged back, I forgot that I hadn't voted so far... I would really favour to get the news of running Votes (where I did not participate so far) in the /news dialoge during the server join.

👍 2

JeCel commented

2023-04-11 17:49:23 +00:00

There was a discussion somewhere about mayors being able to know how many already voted. Maybe it was here maybe not (but I hope it was here).
I just got a little idea. Maybe it was mentioned here already, but I honestly don't wanna read all the long texts here, so:

It was mentioned that there might be a problem with anonymity when showing how many already voted. But what if there was a hint when a certain mark was reached? For example the mayor could get a notification, when 10 people voted, and another when 20 people voted. Or only as soon as 20 people voted. Or some other mechanic than a notification: maybe a little symbol that appears somewhere in the dialogs? Or a new dialog option?
That way they'd at least have some kind of orientation.

There was a discussion somewhere about mayors being able to know how many already voted. Maybe it was here maybe not (but I hope it was here). I just got a little idea. Maybe it was mentioned here already, but I honestly don't wanna read all the long texts here, so: It was mentioned that there might be a problem with anonymity when showing how many already voted. But what if there was a hint when a certain mark was reached? For example the mayor could get a notification, when 10 people voted, and another when 20 people voted. Or only as soon as 20 people voted. Or some other mechanic than a notification: maybe a little symbol that appears somewhere in the dialogs? Or a new dialog option? That way they'd at least have some kind of orientation.

👍 1

flux referenced this issue

2023-04-29 23:09:02 +00:00

daydream reports: if Amanda could SAY the city n ... #4315

Sign in to join this conversation.