Kamisha Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) [quote]Land Loyalty The recent implementation of Land Loyalty for shared items is part of a much larger change to do with the Land restructuring since the end of Kingship that you have been waiting for. You probably understood by now that it means shared items can only be collected by people who have been in the land for a period of time, but that these items can then be given to whoever they think should have them. This change is to get ready for some much more powerful items that will need a large amount of land loyalty to grab, this will ensure that only people who are very loyal to a land are able to take and use these items. These new powerful items shall be similar to the ones monarchs had, but will be much more flexible. Treasuries These are a piece of work that has been promised by Mur ..."soon"... that we really wanted to get finished. Not only will this feature help The Treasure Keepers with their duties, but also other people with roles that require them storing a large amount of creatures or items that are kept for their role. Treasuries also offer a means to use the Torch Contest Score and BHC prize money to benefit the lands that win. Torch Contest score will be used to "buy" creatures, items and other abilities for a successful land via the treasury managers. Citizens Currently lands are unable to promote citizens. This is a major problem as citizens are the lifeblood of a land, not to mention more technical issues. Citizens will be able to join a land by applying at a capital, and being voted in by their peers. You control your land, if you don't care, you don't have to go and vote. This leads to no central authority approving applications as before, and the whole land gets a chance to cast their individual votes. You control your land, not one person who is deemed to know the lands interest. Voting will be weighted based on your land loyalty score and as an applicant you will have to reach a certain percentage of the total land loyalty of all the current citizens in order to be admitted.[/quote] [url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/12010-development-focus-public-vote/"][u]Vote Here[/u][/url] Edited April 3, 2012 by Kamisha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 I voted for citizenship and while I see the reasons for the proposed system (it doesn't put a time limit on the voting process, I assume), I'd propose something different. Perhaps have a voting period of 2 weeks to a month after the applicant has sent in their application. People can go to the capital to vote for the applicants acceptance into the land, or denial with their votes being weighted by land loyalty. The applicant would need at least 50% or so of the votes at the end of the 2 weeks to get in. If the ability to vote people in quickly is desired, let people be automatically granted citizenship once 50-51% of the total land loyalty has voted for them joining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No one Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) @Change: it about 1-2 years or more, it might be possible that a lot of ppl left the game with a lot of loyalty with them (say 60%) . At that point ... nobody would be able to join that land ? The formula should be more elaborated. But discussing the possible issues is the way to solve it. Edited April 3, 2012 by No one Watcher 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) "Perhaps have a voting period of 2 weeks to a month after the applicant has sent in their application. People can go to the capital to vote for the applicants acceptance into the land, or denial with their votes being weighted by land loyalty. The applicant would need at least 50% or so of the votes at the end of the 2 weeks to get in." 50% of the [i]votes[/i] not 50% of the total loyalty. Yes, if what you said happened they'd be unable to join instantly and would have to wait 2 weeks. Plus, if no one [not you] voted for them or against them, they wouldn't get in. Edited April 3, 2012 by Change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyphis the Bard Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) *cough* Its a simple solution: Only consider the loyalty of the people who actually vote? Have a set period of time for voting to occur, with each land loyalty point counting as one vote. At the end of the voting period, the amount of votes determines the outcome. That means that you could have say 10 people with land loyalty 5 vote no, and it would come out as 50 votes no, but one person with land loyalty 80 say vote yes, and then it comes out yes by 30 votes. NOTE: I don't really think that that is fair, and think that the number of people who vote should also play a role, not just land loyalty. For instance, the following:[list] [*]Each land loyalty point counts for one vote. [*]Voteing lasts for X number of hours (336, for example, would be two weeks, allowing people to talk to the candidate to find out their reasons and motivations). [*]When the final tally is calculated, it is multiplied by x/100 (with x being the number of people who voted for that option) [/list] In this model, 10 people with 5 land loyalty each comes to an adjusted voteing weight of 2.5; and one person with land loyalty 80 comes out to an adjusted voteing weight of 0.8. Two people with Land loyalty 80, on the other hand, have an adjusted voteing weight of 3.6. This way, you don't have people who have been in the land for a really long time keeping people out just because they have a grudge, but still allows people who are more familiar and dedicated to a land to keep people from joining for improper reasons. EDIT: Citizenship seems to be a big point of discussion, might be worth moveing the citizenship related posts into a [url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/12011-development-focus-citizenship/"]suitable topic[/url]... Edited April 3, 2012 by Kyphis the Bard Phantom Orchid and Soothing Sands 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyphis the Bard Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 I wonder what lands with no Capital will do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightsage Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 I think that getting people to vote should be part of the process. Perhaps require 50% of the land loyalty of active citizens (same way as adepts logged on in the last 5 days or perhaps a little longer for this such as 14) to vote in favour in order to become citizen. As for the length of voting, I believe two weeks to a month is far too long. It would make the voting procedure tiresome and would make the activity indicatore before mentioned inaccurate. Most of the active citizens should be able to find time within a week to vote. I don't think negative votes should matter, the border of getting people to vote is a much more involved one. After all, to be admitted you'd require over 50% of the land loyalty. I'd suggest an activity indicator of 14 days and a 7 day voting period. Watcher and Kyphis the Bard 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorak Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 [quote name='lightsage' timestamp='1333496491' post='108212'] I don't think negative votes should matter, the border of getting people to vote is a much more involved one. After all, to be admitted you'd require over 50% of the land loyalty. [/quote] I think negative votes should matter, or perhaps there should be a way to leave a comment on a candidate for citizenship that would be displayed to other citizens before votes are made. There should be some sort of way to share knowledge of plots, infractions, foreign allegiances, etc., without having to contact each citizen individually. Kyphis the Bard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragual Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 It can be their focal point. The central place in their land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burns Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 This is the point where i miss my mod ability...*hinthint, Wookie* Maybe the easier solution would be balloon voting, some of you surely remember it. A applicant gets a a balloon vote with the nice yellow smiley face balloon and the grey sad face balloon with the question if you want this guy to join your land or not, obviously only visible for citizens. Then it's not the citizens who need to check the capital every now and then, but the guy who wants in who needs to find people and convince them. If you really want to join a land, that shouldn't be too much of a task. If the sum of all votes is less than 60% of the sum of the land loyalty of current citizens who were active in the last 5 days, the outcome is negative, if more than 60% of the land throw their vote in and the majority popped the yellow bloon, they get accepted. Guillak, Tarquinus and Kyphis the Bard 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted April 4, 2012 Root Admin Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote name='Kyphis the Bard' timestamp='1333496414' post='108211'] I wonder what lands with no Capital will do? [/quote] Are people in the Dimension Seekers, who would have MDA loyalty, really loyal to Magicduel Archives? The alliance seems a tad misplaced really to be deciding who joins the Archives... Does tribunal have a focal point? Phantom Orchid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragual Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Perhaps, every 10 land loyalty would count as 1 vote, but only after you have say, 30 land loyalty. So if you have 40 land loyalty, you count as 2 votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFH Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 [quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1333535214' post='108247'] Are people in the Dimension Seekers, who would have MDA loyalty, really loyal to Magicduel Archives? The alliance seems a tad misplaced really to be deciding who joins the Archives... Does tribunal have a focal point? [/quote] The fact that alliances are "misplaced" and that some people built land loyalty just to abuse the system, shouldn't deprive lands all lands from having such systems of citizenships. The previously mentioned stetements are issues that council, probably, will have to deal with... Tarquinus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts