Cities And Housing Archive

Mayors always have the option of moving their cities along with the active citizens in order to fix such space issues. It's done all the time. I personally know one Mayor who has done exactly that. If its a health and active city, they will be able to grow it back to its former status assuming the planet caps aren't kept locked down the way they are now.

I'm sorry guys, but these are contrived arguments being used to justify keeping cities around that their Mayors have come to feel are their personal empires that they are entitled to keep but activity wise, are essentially dead. The current situation is very unhealthy for the game. I'm sorry if it would be painful but this is a realistic fix that the DEV's could get done in short order. It can probably be coded and implemented in less than a week. Giving a mayor the ability to boot all the structures of an inactive player would be too massive of a programming effort. Especially with all the items probably stored inside those structures. That sort of feature will never happen.

Well, I've said all I'm going to on this and will let it rest here. I still think this is a hard choice that SOE needs to make. And to the mayors who will be crying over their lost empires, well sorry, build another one.

---

ArdenStarmariner wrote:
Mayors always have the option of moving their cities along with the active citizens in order to fix such space issues.

---

Moving is a lot of hassle, if you think otherwise make the citizens of Outland, Naboo (as this is probably the reason you came up with the idea) to pack up their things and move to Rori or Dantooine? Both planets can take another city to Metropolis on our server. After all, a healthy city has no problems with moving as you said so feel free if you feel limited on Naboo . But well, looks like Outland isn't that much of a healthy city, seeing that you apparently lost your shuttleport. I also noticed you have enough citizens to get back to Rank 4, but if moving is no option for YOUR city (but apparently you think it is an option for others) I get some ideas where those citizens come from .

---

ArdenStarmariner wrote:

I'm sorry guys, but these are contrived arguments being used to justify keeping cities around that their Mayors have come to feel are their personal empires that they are entitled to keep but activity wise, are essentially dead.

---

a) I am not a mayor (just a citizen of the largest city on Naboo on Eclipse)

b) No, we are fine. Thanks for asking though . We might lose some citizens but not remotely enough to lose rank (after going over the list of citizens I'd not expect a loss of more than 10 citizens, we are at 110 atm and over the next few days another guild, that's guild No. 4 then, will move in, their PA Hall is already placed).

Unlike you I discuss here because I know the issues some cities have without being affected myself in any way, be it the system stays or changes. However you try to hurt other players for personal interests with this, not exactly the behaviour I'd expect from you based on the impression I got from our galaxy forum.

Message Edited by darmokVtS on 01-20-2005 07:01 PM

Looks like house clutter will be taken care of:

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=customerservice&message.id=102#M102

Bottom line, if you don't have the minimum number of active, subscribing players to keep a city at its current, the city should downgrade and keep downgrading until it matches your roster of active players.

---

ArdenStarmariner wrote:
Looks like house clutter will be taken care of:

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=customerservice&message.id=102#M102

Bottom line, if you don't have the minimum number of active, subscribing players to keep a city at its current, the city should downgrade and keep downgrading until it matches your roster of active players.

---

---

ArdenStarmariner wrote:
Looks like house clutter will be taken care of:

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=customerservice&message.id=102#M102

Bottom line, if you don't have the minimum number of active, subscribing players to keep a city at its current, the city should downgrade and keep downgrading until it matches your roster of active players.

---

I am fully in support of a character purge that also removes all structures held by long cancelled subscriptions. Most folks understand and accept that a prolonged period away without payment will result in this consequence. Leaving the planet littered with condemned vacant structures is a blight on the galaxy that should be cured.

As a working mayor in a living city I welcome the opportunity to settle active players in places where the departed have left empty shells.

---

IolasMacLeod wrote:

They definitely need to remove inactive players structures. They are a pain to deal with. However I truly believe that the mayor should have more power in dealing with inactive players within their city

---

I agree because a city should be alive with active players, However, Mayors should be able to have some limited exceptions for let's say a special circumstance. Not sure how works and whether that makes sense in the bigg scheme of things.