Next Phase for United Nations feature

[Ragnar]

We just need to make sure it's a hard tool to approve. Getting 90% of all the nations to agree is quite a task.

That would make it impossible to approve. Does 90% of the nations even bother to vote in polls?? I'm guessing you're lucky to get 50% to just vote.

[Mhaphew]

Ok here is another way to look at it.

How about we do it like this.

For every 3 members of a nation you get 1 point.
(OR read on a little further down to see my other theory to make it 1 point per member)

so for instance.

If nation x wants to sanction nation y, it will go up for vote.

Nations a, b and c all have 1 member so they are only worth 1 point, but nation d e and f all have 15 members so are all worth 5 points.

All of you who say this will only benefit big nations are both wrong and right at the same time.

If a nation is very popular and they get a member base of 20 and another nation is less popular and can only get a member base of 10 then why is it ok to punish a nation whos member base is so big? Is it because they play the game infairly?

Or you could simply make 1 point per player, for instance:

Nations a, b and c all have 5 players and are worth 15 collective points, but nation d has 20 players and is worth 20 points, and in a vote Nation D would win against nations a b and c because they have more players.

In Mr. P's way of setting it up, it would have been nations a b and C that would have won, but why is that? That is because all nations would have been 1 point and it would have been a 3 againsts 1 vote, where as my theory makes it a 15 vs 20 vote.


Now because you all want to use LoR as an example because we are the big bad raping, pillaging machine, you could think of it like this...

nations a (LoR 20 members) nation b (friend nation 1 member) and nation c (friend nation 1 member)
Would only be worth 22 points

Now there is a total of 100 members (give or take) so our votes only account for 22 % of the total member base, Now Mr. ps way of doing it would have been a little different, it would have been our three nations, and lets say there is about 8 nations created each set, then our 3 nations would have been worth almost 50% of the total vote.

So SLOB and USA would have only had 2 votes against us, OR, if it was based off the total member base, each nation could have 13 members, giving them a total point score of 26, which would would make it 22 vs 26, and those two nations would beat LoR and their friend nations!

....

Ramble ramble ramble, blah blah blah,

But you all get my point right?

[Mr President]

That would make it impossible to approve. Does 90% of the nations even bother to vote in polls?? I'm guessing you're lucky to get 50% to just vote.

For the past 2 sets i have been watching how many people actually vote in the UN polls. About 70% of all UN nations have voted in the polls each time each set. But there are 2 sides to this. As is, the UN doesn't really do much. People get a message to vote but that all. Now that things have been added into the UN, perhaps we will get more activity. But then again, maybe not. So we need to make sure there is activity in the UN as every vote will really make a difference now. But here is the other side as well, let's say only 3 nations join the UN. All you would need is 2 votes to get your vote to pass (@75%). Thats not too hard to do and sadly, if the UN is not used then certain votes will pass with little to no resistance. So making the sanctions harder is the better way to go.. 90% was just a suggestion. We can set it and tweak it as needed..

Ok here is another way to look at it.

How about we do it like this.

For every 3 members of a nation you get 1 point.
(OR read on a little further down to see my other theory to make it 1 point per member)

so for instance.

If nation x wants to sanction nation y, it will go up for vote.

Nations a, b and c all have 1 member so they are only worth 1 point, but nation d e and f all have 15 members so are all worth 5 points.

All of you who say this will only benefit big nations are both wrong and right at the same time.

If a nation is very popular and they get a member base of 20 and another nation is less popular and can only get a member base of 10 then why is it ok to punish a nation whos member base is so big? Is it because they play the game infairly?

Or you could simply make 1 point per player, for instance:

Nations a, b and c all have 5 players and are worth 15 collective points, but nation d has 20 players and is worth 20 points, and in a vote Nation D would win against nations a b and c because they have more players.

In Mr. P's way of setting it up, it would have been nations a b and C that would have won, but why is that? That is because all nations would have been 1 point and it would have been a 3 againsts 1 vote, where as my theory makes it a 15 vs 20 vote.


Now because you all want to use LoR as an example because we are the big bad raping, pillaging machine, you could think of it like this...

nations a (LoR 20 members) nation b (friend nation 1 member) and nation c (friend nation 1 member)
Would only be worth 22 points

Now there is a total of 100 members (give or take) so our votes only account for 22 % of the total member base, Now Mr. ps way of doing it would have been a little different, it would have been our three nations, and lets say there is about 8 nations created each set, then our 3 nations would have been worth almost 50% of the total vote.

So SLOB and USA would have only had 2 votes against us, OR, if it was based off the total member base, each nation could have 13 members, giving them a total point score of 26, which would would make it 22 vs 26, and those two nations would beat LoR and their friend nations!

....

Ramble ramble ramble, blah blah blah,

But you all get my point right?

I see what your saying. It's just a simple point system. UN Sanctions won't be implemented next set. There is still some work that needs to be done and obviously some more debating on it's setup. I'm not ruling this idea out, i'm just saying lets get some more and go from there.