Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: Please fix it so inactive accounts lose their residency declarations on their houses.
Page 1 of 2
ArdenStarmariner
Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:42 am
#1
With the latest test center changes to house maintenance, I think something else needs to be added.
If your account is not active and paid up, your residency declarations should be immediately removed. That way cities that are bloated with citizens on inactive accounts lose them and are forced to decay down to what they really should be. Residency declarations should also have a decay timer which gets reset every time you log your character in. Stop logging in and it decays down and deletes your residency declaration.
If your account is not active and paid up, your residency declarations should be immediately removed. That way cities that are bloated with citizens on inactive accounts lose them and are forced to decay down to what they really should be. Residency declarations should also have a decay timer which gets reset every time you log your character in. Stop logging in and it decays down and deletes your residency declaration.
Amsaran
Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:48 am
#2
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Inactive players and accounts create dead houses that take up space in the city until the house finally is destroyed for insufficient maintenance.
In the meantime you could be building in that spot for a new member of the city or other things.
In the meantime you could be building in that spot for a new member of the city or other things.
ArdenStarmariner
Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:01 am
#3
Biggest issue is that so long as an inactive character has a declared residency in a city, that inactive character counts as one of the city's citizens. So inactive characters are being used to keep a city at the metropolis level when it should be a village. If SOE automatically purged the residency declarations on inactive accounts and/or timed out residency declarations of characters that haven't logged in after a very long time, more dead cities would decay and make room for the new, younger, and active cities to move up. Right now city advancement on many planets is dead because of this sort of bloated citizenship.
Fidgiter
Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:10 am
#4
If we have a resident who is in the military it isn't our fault or that residents fault that they are inactive.
If we have a resident who leaves the game because they find it is too broken to be fun it isn't our fault they are inactive.
This suggesting is really troubling. If I was able to clear a lot occupied by a nonresident so an active player could move in it wouldn't be so bad. However, the combination of having the residence automatically removed while the structure would clog up valuable real estate is an aweful combination which would unfairly punish every single resident of the city for something that is not their fault.
I do not use and do not sanction the use of ghost residents (Those who make a residence on a server and are playing on another galaxy). I do have residents who are in the military and who are not active in the game because they are waiting for the CURB and GCW update. If they return to find their community crumbled into the dust this first impression may well lead to their final departure from the game.
Message Edited by Fidgiter on 01-20-2005 07:11 AM
Scoooter
Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:21 am
#5
ArdenStarmariner wrote:
With the latest test center changes to house maintenance, I think something else needs to be added.
If your account is not active and paid up, your residency declarations should be immediately removed. That way cities that are bloated with citizens on inactive accounts lose them and are forced to decay down to what they really should be. Residency declarations should also have a decay timer which gets reset every time you log your character in. Stop logging in and it decays down and deletes your residency declaration.
Better yet let the housesdecay.
If the cities have the house cluttering up their city they should get the citizen and the banked income tax associated with it.
The better answer is for mayors to be able to move the house out of the city.
Most cities that have these types of citizens want the space.
If you add that all you will force is an even harder hit to cities.You are telling mayors with large cities..You get to lose rank and you have no where to add more citizens because we are leaving the house there for years.
Think about what you are asking for
Amsaran
Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:23 am
#6
Very good points. I also believe maybe mayors should be able to move dead residents/house out of the city.
Message Edited by Amsaran on 01-20-2005 08:39 AM
ArdenStarmariner
Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:36 am
#7
You guys need to read the test center patch notes and see what's coming on house maintenance. Basically houses are going to be around ALOT longer than they use to. I won't go into it. Just read the patch notes.
I'm sorry, but for whatever reason, if someone ISN'T paying their monthly subscription, they shouldn't be allowed to use their character to help keep a city from losing its metropolis, city, town, etc. status. And if they haven't logged their character in months, they shouldn't be allowed to help keep a city inflated either.
I'm sorry about the rare exceptions out there such as someone going on military duty, but with any cancer is cut out, you have to take a little good flesh along with the boat load of bad flesh you have to remove. And those cases are what, 1% of the cases of inactive accounts being used to give cities their status permanently? Sorry, that won't fly.
And if you guys didnt realize, people still pay city taxes on structures inside a city even if they are not declared there. They just don't show up on the city's roster and they don't count toward keeping the city at its current level. Anything placed inside the city gets taxed via its maintenance rate.
Of course the suggestion is going to be troubling to Mayors who see this as kicking the legs out from under their permanently acquired city status. Even if their metropolis only has 2 or 3 active citizens and about 80 some odd inactive ones. Do you really think you can justify keeping metropolis status like that when your city really should be a village? I think not.
...
I'm sorry, but for whatever reason, if someone ISN'T paying their monthly subscription, they shouldn't be allowed to use their character to help keep a city from losing its metropolis, city, town, etc. status. And if they haven't logged their character in months, they shouldn't be allowed to help keep a city inflated either.
I'm sorry about the rare exceptions out there such as someone going on military duty, but with any cancer is cut out, you have to take a little good flesh along with the boat load of bad flesh you have to remove. And those cases are what, 1% of the cases of inactive accounts being used to give cities their status permanently? Sorry, that won't fly.
And if you guys didnt realize, people still pay city taxes on structures inside a city even if they are not declared there. They just don't show up on the city's roster and they don't count toward keeping the city at its current level. Anything placed inside the city gets taxed via its maintenance rate.
Of course the suggestion is going to be troubling to Mayors who see this as kicking the legs out from under their permanently acquired city status. Even if their metropolis only has 2 or 3 active citizens and about 80 some odd inactive ones. Do you really think you can justify keeping metropolis status like that when your city really should be a village? I think not.
...
Message Edited by ArdenStarmariner on 01-20-2005 10:46 AM
Fidgiter
Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:46 am
#8
ArdenStarmariner wrote:
I'm sorry, but for whatever reason, if someone ISN'T paying their monthly subscription, they shouldn't be allowed to use their character to help keep a city from losing its metropolis, city, town, etc. status. And if they haven't logged their character in months, they shouldn't be allowed to help keep a city inflated either.
When there is a condemned structure in a city or town and that real estate is needed for an active resident or business a demolotion crew comes and levels it. The Mayor of the city should have the ability to move that structure outside of city limits (The owner would get an email so (s)he knows where it is) to clear space for a new active player to move in.
You say, "And if they haven't logged their character in months, they shouldn't be allowed to help keep a city inflated either"
They, the inactive player, are not the people who would suffer. The people who would suffer are the paying subscribers who are still active. They, the inactive player, may suffer if/when they return. What should be addressed is WHY players become inactive to better retain customers and hopefully bring back departed ones.
ArdenStarmariner
Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:51 am
#9
I don't agree. I think the newer and active players are suffering now because they want to build their own cities, grow them, and can't because there's a ceiling now of dead cities holding the planet quotas. And something like what I'm proposing needs to be done to correct that. Even if the mayors of those dead cities find it painful.
Why should I not expect you to fill your citizenship roster with active players in order to keep your city status? If you want to keep your city status, then work for it.
Why should I not expect you to fill your citizenship roster with active players in order to keep your city status? If you want to keep your city status, then work for it.
Fidgiter
Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:03 am
#10
ArdenStarmariner wrote:
I don't agree. I think the newer and active players are suffering now because they want to build their own cities, grow them, and can't because there's a ceiling now of dead cities holding the planet quotas. And something like what I'm proposing needs to be done to correct that. Even if the mayors of those dead cities find it painful.
Why should I not expect you to fill your citizenship roster with active players in order to keep your city status? If you want to keep your city status, then work for it.
Ok, I'll start emailing people ooc and calling their homes and places of work to demand they renew their subscription and start playing again! I'll ask my friend in Iraq to go AWOL so he can log in once in a while to keep his acount active too. They obviously have their priorities all mixed up and I must be a slacker for not harassing them IRL to get them back into the game.
If I was given the ability to move a condemned structure outside of the city limits so I could place the structure of an active player I would be more than happy to do so. If that inactive player comes back again then I'd move him right back in. I work hard to keepour city alive andour city IS alive. I have friends that left and I hope will return again but this is not by any fault of me or the other members of our community and we should not be punished for it.
Poluting planets with dead cities and dead structures is plain out dumb. Rather than starting a new city find an established one, get settled in, make friends and allies, then run for Mayor. WALA! You have a City. The game mechanics exist to turn over control of cities so USE these mechanics.
ArdenStarmariner
Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:16 am
#11
Oh? And what's to keep you from going to Mos Eisley or any other new character starter town to find new and active citizens for your city? Ummm, interrupting people's real lives, dragging them back into a game they no longer play, just to keep your ghost town metropolas alive is silly. And if your gaining new players as citizens, well your not one of the dead cities now are you?
As to the space problems in cities, well thats going to happen regardless of my proposal when the patch currently on the test center goes in. So its not a valid argument against what I'm suggesting. It's an issue I grant you, but one irrelavent to what we are discussing here.
There's nothing you have said yet here that justifies a city holding onto and block the city cap on one of the planets. Especially when there are newer and younger Mayors out there who are willing to work harder for the cities they want to build than you are willing to work to keep yours.
As to the space problems in cities, well thats going to happen regardless of my proposal when the patch currently on the test center goes in. So its not a valid argument against what I'm suggesting. It's an issue I grant you, but one irrelavent to what we are discussing here.
There's nothing you have said yet here that justifies a city holding onto and block the city cap on one of the planets. Especially when there are newer and younger Mayors out there who are willing to work harder for the cities they want to build than you are willing to work to keep yours.
darmokVtS
Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:18 am
#12
ArdenStarmariner wrote:
Why should I not expect you to fill your citizenship roster with active players in order to keep your city status? If you want to keep your city status, then work for it.
There are cities that cannot do this even now due to lack of free space (I don't think any on our server is in such a trouble tho, but I know of cities on other servers with such problems), the situation will get even worse if the affected cities cannot even hope for houses on inactive accounts go poof when the maint runs out as we maybe can expect if the current maintenance change from TC goes live.
Simply put, unless there is no option put in place for mayors to somehow reclaim the wasted space from housings of inactive players to use that new space for new citizens a proposed change like yours is a really, really bad idea as some cities are as of now completly unable to do something about it.
Message Edited by darmokVtS on 01-20-2005 05:20 PM
Scoooter
Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:28 am
#13
ArdenStarmariner wrote:
You guys need to read the test center patch notes and see what's coming on house maintenance. Basically houses are going to be around ALOT longer than they use to. I won't go into it. Just read the patch notes.
I'm sorry, but for whatever reason, if someone ISN'T paying their monthly subscription, they shouldn't be allowed to use their character to help keep a city from losing its metropolis, city, town, etc. status. And if they haven't logged their character in months, they shouldn't be allowed to help keep a city inflated either.
I'm sorry about the rare exceptions out there such as someone going on military duty, but with any cancer is cut out, you have to take a little good flesh along with the boat load of bad flesh you have to remove. And those cases are what, 1% of the cases of inactive accounts being used to give cities their status permanently? Sorry, that won't fly.
And if you guys didnt realize, people still pay city taxes on structures inside a city even if they are not declared there. They just don't show up on the city's roster and they don't count toward keeping the city at its current level. Anything placed inside the city gets taxed via its maintenance rate.
Of course the suggestion is going to be troubling to Mayors who see this as kicking the legs out from under their permanently acquired city status. Even if their metropolis only has 2 or 3 active citizens and about 80 some odd inactive ones. Do you really think you can justify keeping metropolis status like that when your city really should be a village? I think not.
...
Message Edited by ArdenStarmariner on 01-20-2005 10:46 AM
You are making the fatal assumption that there are a lot of metros out there in that state.
They need to be declared for income tax.
You add this with the TC change then all cities are screwed because we wont have the space to replace inactive citizens
I have the largest city on Valcyn (186). I lose 10-15 citizens a month to decays. The last 12 months I have been able to shoe a net citizen increase becuase I replace the decayed houses with active citizens.
So the TC patch is not going to allow me to do my job because of space and you want to take away my rank because SOE wnats to cater to cancelled accounts not giving me the opportunity to do my job as a politician.
Not quite right is it
Page 1 of 2