Architect Archive

I could care less about database issues....

SCS was the right decision because that allowed a better player economy, SCS is a good thing reguardless of any database issues.

Bank limits are a good thing, as nothing in the game should have unlimited storage, bank limitations were proper reguardless of any database issues.

House storage limits are also a good thing, hopefully they will scale them better on the high end, but we need solid house limits based on size reguardless of any database issues.

And Player city caps are certainly a good thing, the last thing we need is to have every planet peppered with player cities, it is a good decision reguardless of any database issues.

Housing limts as they are now are total BS and rediculous. Bank limits too.

Posi... don’t be silly.

If SOE gave the customer what they say they wanted then all creatures would fall dead in one hit, The planets would be peppered with player housing and cities that they could buy from NPC vendors for 1k. There would be Phat loot on all NPC's and crafters would be worthless. We would have extractors with a 100BER rate which would destroy the architect profesion.

In building an MMRPG game design giving the customer what they say they want is counter intuitive, and I think you are intelligent enough to see that.

Dayln,

And I am sure you are intelligent enough to know the difference between something that would be game breaking (the examples you gave), and something which isn't (letting cities be placed by anyone that meets the criteria).

The only issue with cities is that YOU don't want there to be many... and YOU want there to be fights over control. The vast majority of players don't want that.

As already stated by SOE they will be lifting the caps. The only issue at this point is whether they should be releasing with limits in place for a month or so. Unfortunately as always they have made a horrible mess with communications and lack of honesty. In my opinion they should release them when they are ready to do it properly... and I belive its only going live now because certain other games are releasing that might draw away some of their player baseif they dont get something out of the door fast.

I agree with Dayln.

Ten starter citeis are more than enough for starter planets. Look at Nabbo on the Intrepeid server...it is a virtual ghost town, but there will now be even more cities put into the game. The cities were never meant to be private, PA owned entities. They will become diverse, politically driven citiesthat will actually add some interesting facets to the game. The limited number of the cities will allow time to see how this evolves and determine if more cities are actually warranted. I have no desire to be part of a player city at this time, but I may change my mind if I see enough positive reasons to be part of a player city.

I do not want to see numerous'cities' littering the landscape and further limiting mining operations, especially on starter plaents. There are other planets that have a higher limit for cities...so players who want a city above all else can go to those planets and set up.

I think more than 10 player cities on the main planetsWOULD be breaking the game, if factI am afraid that 10 is too many, but we will see.I would have done this totally differently, I would have made the existing cities player cities removing all the unessessary buildings and let players build around the existinig stuff, and then had the developers drop maybe 3 more town halls on each planet for the players to build into cities.

...................

Give players what they want. ( continued )

Player wanted MCS with 10 characters per server which means that with thier mules all Architects would have 100 lots. Can you imatine the market today if all architects had 100 lots?

....................

But all this is moot, 10 player cities on naboo for example is going to be 15 cities ( or is it 16? ) man that is a LOT of cities.

Dayln,

Answer me this.... how is the number of cities game breaking?

If you looked at what the devs posted quite some time ago you would see that the worlds are already COVERED with buildings.

The introduction of cities does not in itself impact that.

There might be some additional building by people who want to now participate incommunities.. but I fail to see how this is a negative.

The introduction of cities will in my opinion cause the structures to tend to concentrate in a limited number of areas (there are proximity limitations).

I could see some validity o your argument if you had said that allowing cities on the advanced planets was going to be a problem.... but only because we would be removing some of the principal wilderness used by adventurers once they gat past newbie status.

Things I would rather not see, ( but probably eventually will )

Shuttle port grids dotting the landscape every 1000 meters. Mounts and vehicles become meaningless.

"you are now leaving Joe-blows city" 3 seconds later " you are now entering Jane Blow's city"

"You cannot place a harvester here, or here or here or here or here"

The total loss of all wild areas planets. ( suppose this was inevitable )

I could go on and on, but this is all moot Posi, neither of us is going to get what we personally would want, so I am willing to be patient and watch and see how it plays out. You want unlimited cities from day one ( I think it was once figured at over 30 player cities on Naboo alone bringing the total to some 36 cities ) and I would rather seen them limited and strategically placed, not necessarily by players. ( shrug )

I am willing to accept that they will limit at a large number like ten and hope they change thier minds aobut lifting that. ( 10 is a LOT! )

I must say, listening to people b***h is disheartening. But, oh well, I suppose that is what forums are for.

Limits in my opinion are a very good thing ...Over crowding in my humble and unimportant opinion would be such a depressing sight on this game, I would be dissappointed to see Joe Blow's city and 1K meters later run into Jane Blow's city - and considering the vast majority of truly lazy people (I count in that crowd at times) ... seeing shuttle ports dotting the landscape in some obscure grid would be utterly wrong.

I very much enjoy exploring uninhabited areas, I limit how much I go explore, so that I have new areas to explore for a long time to come. I enjoy the danger of going overt to call out a couple Storm Troopers as back up in case I run into some unfriendly group of something - or - others.

Personally, I read something a few posts up about letting players move into the main cities. WHAT A GREAT IDEA!! Look at Theed on my server, the only inhabited( I loving refer to it as "The Lag Triangle") area is from the Starport - bank - cantina. The ENTIRE city is an absolute waste and I feel bad as a Star Wars fan to see that. With these new player cities, aside from the Starport - I'll bet my left shoe that places like Theed will become meare space fillers with rings of stores outside the municipal area - people in Star Ports and places like the Theed Palace absolutly there to do nothing, much less even by seen by anyone.

Why not put those worthless buildings to use? Perhaps have the Dev's figure out a system of turning them into apartments for newbies? Visit a realistate NPC to purchase one? I will be so dissappointed to see the orgional bad city itself - Mos Eisley end up being nothing more then a starport bus station rather then the mythilogical haven for scum and villany because Joe Bubba Blow's city is set up right around its municipal ring with 4 other cities.

Well anyway ... I tend to hope the city my PA builds gets others to move in around it, I look forward to seeing Politicians go at it for votes and campaign for victory, or seeing buisness pop up and no one person having total control over this new city. If you want total control over your environment, the size of the city and blah blah blah ... I remember when I was a kid I played a game called "Sim City" - I'm sure its still out.

Good luck to everyone, I hope despitepeoples constant crying ... you can just put a sock in it and enjoy the game. SOE does what it wants, we play little in the grand scheme except to raise their stock prices. But as a voice in the wilderness ... maybe a whisper will be heard and someone will just enjoy the game for what it is ...

Valion - <BS>

Starsider

"open ... open ... open ... I've got a schematic to make!"

It is really to bad that it is just not going to happen though.

But itwould be the best, then all cantina's would be player owned, There would be no freebie NPC cantina's. Can you imagine the competition between politicians to be mayor of Theed?

It would solve so many issues, and it would make a great end game work for politicians, you have sucueeded at being mayor of a small player city, can you become mayor of Cor Vella?

I've been reading this thread, to be all honest I only found out about the new mounts and player cities when the servers went down this morning an hour before the usual time. I think the cities idea is excellent. I do believe there should be a few specs altered, but do initially think there should be unlimited number of player cities.

A few points to add:

From looking over the player cities on the Test center they have quite a few properties that people can view about the city (Actual Declared citizens etc.)

I'm not sure if these suggestions are truely 'in game' with the new patch(I think a few are), but believe this should be about popularity and who will offer a better place to grow. Cities are there for people to feel like a real community.

- There should actually be councils. The council actually founds the city and the citizens (even if its just the council at the time) votes for a Mayor (council members and citizens if there are any). Possible minimal council limits to 3 characters at least and a maximum or what, 9? 10?.If a person leaves the council, another person must take their place (within reasonable time). These members have control obviously over the implementation of the city, the mayor should have final decision and ability to produce thesites. One thought is, do the players (mayor)have to give up their lots to build this city? How would one be able to put up the theater/cantina/cloning fac/med center/city hall/349859038 gardens and statuesoffered with the 10 lots? This is why a council may come in handy. (or buying a new key and account, if you have the money *scowls at the rich people*)

- The cities should gradually grow with the number of citizens - the more public buildings are allowed to be put up, the larger radius it may have, the less cost in matenence eventually...

- Taxes from citizens should be implemented to keep a steady (but low) income for base maintenence, the tickets to and from city shuttles (they are priced higher) should go towards the city's maintenence funds. (We should be able to price the cost for shuttle tickets, including cloning prices, insurance, and theater usage)

- There should be multiple cities but compared to other cities only a certain limit of cities may actually be put on map.

- Cities that are not thetop cities may not have inbound shuttle drops but can catch the shuttle from their town to a major city (player or game based), or keep from the smaller cities of having shuttles at all, this is a hard one but if the city size is based upon what buildings you can put up when, then the larger cities in general would be able to do it if we put the city on a level increase, gaining city XP with how many people live there and how many people visit, trade, bank, use the facilities. etc even if they are non-citizens. They can level the city and thus growing bigger, possibly having city ladders (heh diablo) and the larger ones get perks etc.

-Balance for citiesnext toeachother when it comes to distance between eachother.

- They need to make planets bigger in general - and make the maps loop over to the other side :x heheh (sorry theres just an unsatisfying feeling when you hit the end of the road, when you KNOW there has to be something on the other side..... there has to be.... *pulls out her hair*)

Okay I need peoples input to help balance this out, maybe they will actually take some of the ideas, we need to start a platform to try to help both sides. Please excuse things that may just cancel eachother out, I'm sort of on a memory splurge and typing what I'm thinking at the moment.

I've been reading this thread, to be all honest I only found out about the new mounts and player cities when the servers went down this morning an hour before the usual time. I think the cities idea is excellent. I do believe there should be a few specs altered, but do initially think there should be unlimited number of player cities.

A few points to add:

From looking over the player cities on the Test center they have quite a few properties that people can view about the city (Actual Declared citizens etc.)

I'm not sure if these suggestions are truely 'in game' with the new patch(I think a few are), but believe this should be about popularity and who will offer a better place to grow. Cities are there for people to feel like a real community.

- There should actually be councils. The council actually founds the city and the citizens (even if its just the council at the time) votes for a Mayor (council members and citizens if there are any). Possible minimal council limits to 3 characters at least and a maximum or what, 9? 10?.If a person leaves the council, another person must take their place (within reasonable time). These members have control obviously over the implementation of the city, the mayor should have final decision and ability to produce thesites. One thought is, do the players (mayor)have to give up their lots to build this city? How would one be able to put up the theater/cantina/cloning fac/med center/city hall/349859038 gardens and statuesoffered with the 10 lots? This is why a council may come in handy. (or buying a new key and account, if you have the money *scowls at the rich people*)

- The cities should gradually grow with the number of citizens - the more public buildings are allowed to be put up, the larger radius it may have, the less cost in matenence eventually...

- Taxes from citizens should be implemented to keep a steady (but low) income for base maintenence, the tickets to and from city shuttles (they are priced higher) should go towards the city's maintenence funds. (We should be able to price the cost for shuttle tickets, including cloning prices, insurance, and theater usage)

- There should be multiple cities but compared to other cities only a certain limit of cities may actually be put on map.

- Cities that are not thetop cities may not have inbound shuttle drops but can catch the shuttle from their town to a major city (player or game based), or keep from the smaller cities of having shuttles at all, this is a hard one but if the city size is based upon what buildings you can put up when, then the larger cities in general would be able to do it if we put the city on a level increase, gaining city XP with how many people live there and how many people visit, trade, bank, use the facilities. etc even if they are non-citizens. They can level the city and thus growing bigger, possibly having city ladders (heh diablo) and the larger ones get perks etc.

-Balance for citiesnext toeachother when it comes to distance between eachother.

- They need to make planets bigger in general - and make the maps loop over to the other side :x heheh (sorry theres just an unsatisfying feeling when you hit the end of the road, when you KNOW there has to be something on the other side..... there has to be.... *pulls out her hair*)

Okay I need peoples input to help balance this out, maybe they will actually take some of the ideas, we need to start a platform to try to help both sides. Please excuse things that may just cancel eachother out, I'm sort of on a memory splurge and typing what I'm thinking at the moment.

I don't have the post link, but the 10 cities limit is temporary, until the next patch, when it will be raised.

Imagine the alternative... where the map is a solid grid of player cities.