Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: They have to change this new eternal housing system!
Page 1 of 1
Woodis
Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:41 pm
#1
I'm sure this has come up, but I'm seeing no near changes or threads about it, so here's my thought. This patch made houses nearly eternal. From a player city point of view, this latest patchbasically cripples us.
Let's say a new guildie lays a house...normally i'd give him maybe 50k to help him get going, and a little house maintenance, telling him to put in 10k or so. This would last maybe a month, then another couple of months for the decay to kick in before the houses is burnt down. This was feasible, as for a long standing player city, it at least allowed us a way (though still slow) to arrange the city to our needs, and allow new residents to move to in, to fill in the place of these MIA residents.
With the new system, any money I give the fellow is only going to add to thetime it take to lose his house. It's not so hard for a newb to collect a few hundred k from donations, just to get him going. Majority of these players, will quit playing altogether, or go to another server. Very few citizens actually prove to be worthy and long term members, as I'm sure any guild/city can agree. This leaves their house with a huge lifespan, just in extra credits laying uselessly no their account. And THEN, to top things off, even if we manage to work around this, there is now a SIX MONTH "condemned" period.
This suggests that nearly every house layed within a player city is going to be there for at least a year! This is insane, and it cripples any player city from adjusting the city to meet their needs. The way I see, EVERY player city has been absolutely stale-mated by this change!
A very disgruntled and concerned city planner,
Woodis of Millenium
Woodis
Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:17 pm
#2
Perhapssomeone can at least point me to a thread concerning this topic?? 
Resetgun
Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:50 am
#3
Woodis wrote:
Perhapssomeone can at least point me to a thread concerning this topic??
Long debate there. DEVS answer in another thread:
SOETyrant wrote:
Our character and housing purge system is coming. Houses which belong to inactive accounts will be removed from the world, regardless of maintenance fees. More details will be out on this within a few weeks, well before it hits the servers.
Ofcourse this solution is smoke and mirrors until it comes online...
Skelestoner
Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:57 am
#4
one suggestion of mine is for mayors or higher ups to require adminnistration on these new houses for a trial perdio, but thats just one idea. there might be alot of loopholes to that as well.
Privateer21
Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:50 pm
#5
having admin on a house doesn't let you remove it tho. If the issue is the player's bank depleting and the structure being condemned, why not just bank tip some money to the owner, which should un-condemn it and allow you to enter, altho, you're still suck with the eyesore.
I have a spite-filled ex-member who refuses to remove his house from our city and flaunts it to me. If/when the purge ever does happen, I will dance a jig in the spot his house used to occupy and take screen shots.
A retired player can request the house be removed from swg support via, but it seems to be hit and miss. I've had a couple people attempt it and only one be successful. It seems to be an issue with the csr that picks up your mail; that and getting passed the email filters.
regards
d'rew
Bugboy321
Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:20 am
#6
I can tell you exactly why they implemented this, because of all the people who submitted CSR tickets because they forgot that they forgot to pay the rent and lost their houses/factories. And depending on thein-game email system to remind them to pay rent issheer stupidity, just like the people who used crafting stations to exploit storage and then complain when the stuff goes missing. The customer is ALWAYS right, even when they are wrong!
wcmi92
Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:24 am
#7
Here is how it should work:
Upon cancelling your account, 30 days later, *POOF* the house goes up in flames, regardless of maint fees and bank balance. If you need to go inactive, bank your stuff, don't leave it in a house.
Also, I think inactive chars that should also have their houses go *POOF* if they do not log in once every 90 days.
Obviously the second idea is more controversial, as in that case you still have a paying customer, but I don't think ANY argument can be made that SOE should in any way protect the intrest of a non paying customer over paying ones...
Upon cancelling your account, 30 days later, *POOF* the house goes up in flames, regardless of maint fees and bank balance. If you need to go inactive, bank your stuff, don't leave it in a house.
Also, I think inactive chars that should also have their houses go *POOF* if they do not log in once every 90 days.
Obviously the second idea is more controversial, as in that case you still have a paying customer, but I don't think ANY argument can be made that SOE should in any way protect the intrest of a non paying customer over paying ones...
MDEUK
Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:55 am
#8
Woodis wrote:
I'm sure this has come up, but I'm seeing no near changes or threads about it, so here's my thought. This patch made houses nearly eternal. From a player city point of view, this latest patchbasically cripples us.
Let's say a new guildie lays a house...normally i'd give him maybe 50k to help him get going, and a little house maintenance, telling him to put in 10k or so. This would last maybe a month, then another couple of months for the decay to kick in before the houses is burnt down. This was feasible, as for a long standing player city, it at least allowed us a way (though still slow) to arrange the city to our needs, and allow new residents to move to in, to fill in the place of these MIA residents.
With the new system, any money I give the fellow is only going to add to thetime it take to lose his house. It's not so hard for a newb to collect a few hundred k from donations, just to get him going. Majority of these players, will quit playing altogether, or go to another server. Very few citizens actually prove to be worthy and long term members, as I'm sure any guild/city can agree. This leaves their house with a huge lifespan, just in extra credits laying uselessly no their account. And THEN, to top things off, even if we manage to work around this, there is now a SIX MONTH "condemned" period.
This suggests that nearly every house layed within a player city is going to be there for at least a year! This is insane, and it cripples any player city from adjusting the city to meet their needs. The way I see, EVERY player city has been absolutely stale-mated by this change!
A very disgruntled and concerned city planner,
Woodis of Millenium
You need to make sure that recruit proper people into your city, and not just the first people you can find... choosing the right citizens to get started is an important part of the City Planning 
Message Edited by MDEUK on 02-20-2005 12:58 PM
josslyn
Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:37 am
#9
You know, that's not always the problem with ALL cities though. I was very careful about who i allowed to move into Solace. I do give free medium homes to those that move in, however i always spend a large portion of time with ppl before allowing them to move to Solace. Sometimes RL takes over and they can't help but leave game suddenly and some just simply never return. There needs to be something implemented to take care of dead structures. 6 month purges aren't going to solve the problem many cities now face.
MDEUK wrote:
Woodis wrote:
I'm sure this has come up, but I'm seeing no near changes or threads about it, so here's my thought. This patch made houses nearly eternal. From a player city point of view, this latest patchbasically cripples us.
Let's say a new guildie lays a house...normally i'd give him maybe 50k to help him get going, and a little house maintenance, telling him to put in 10k or so. This would last maybe a month, then another couple of months for the decay to kick in before the houses is burnt down. This was feasible, as for a long standing player city, it at least allowed us a way (though still slow) to arrange the city to our needs, and allow new residents to move to in, to fill in the place of these MIA residents.
With the new system, any money I give the fellow is only going to add to thetime it take to lose his house. It's not so hard for a newb to collect a few hundred k from donations, just to get him going. Majority of these players, will quit playing altogether, or go to another server. Very few citizens actually prove to be worthy and long term members, as I'm sure any guild/city can agree. This leaves their house with a huge lifespan, just in extra credits laying uselessly no their account. And THEN, to top things off, even if we manage to work around this, there is now a SIX MONTH "condemned" period.
This suggests that nearly every house layed within a player city is going to be there for at least a year! This is insane, and it cripples any player city from adjusting the city to meet their needs. The way I see, EVERY player city has been absolutely stale-mated by this change!
A very disgruntled and concerned city planner,
Woodis of Millenium
You need to make sure that recruit proper people into your city, and not just the first people you can find... choosing the right citizens to get started is an important part of the City Planning
______________________________________
deltayn & chiaca darkfire
jedi knight + master hunter / master tracker
tracking, hunting and harvesting to order...
VirindiStalker
Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:04 am
#10
Condemning? "Poofing"? Heck no. We *ALL* know that "the customer is always right" will nail us.
No, we need to plan FOR this, not try to get it removed [a losing battle].
My idea to handle the conflicting desires of
a) not losing houses, and
b) not getting player cities cluttered and useless,
is EMINENT DOMAIN, #1 in Part I of my plan to save player cities, found HERE.
This solves EVERYONE'S problems, as the people leaving the game or going on sabbatical or WHATEVER aren't going to vote anyway. After the "move", the houses are still there in the game world, but are no longer a city's problem.
No, we need to plan FOR this, not try to get it removed [a losing battle].
My idea to handle the conflicting desires of
a) not losing houses, and
b) not getting player cities cluttered and useless,
is EMINENT DOMAIN, #1 in Part I of my plan to save player cities, found HERE.
Eminent Domain - mayor can MOVE (not destroy) homes of non-voters (in 3 elections/9 wks) to just outside the city. After 3 weeks of not voting, a citizen will be given an automatic notice by the city warning them that they are in danger of being moved via imminent domain. The notice would tell the person that only by voting in the next 7 days can this be avoided. After this, the citizen is flagged. The flag can subsequently be removed by voting [assuming the citizen has not yet been moved], even after the 4 week period. | Note that since non-citizens cannot vote, they are ALWAYS going to be subject to movement unless they become citizens.
This solves EVERYONE'S problems, as the people leaving the game or going on sabbatical or WHATEVER aren't going to vote anyway. After the "move", the houses are still there in the game world, but are no longer a city's problem.
Jasrion
Mon Feb 21, 2005 4:27 pm
#11
VirindiStalker you are a Genius! This is exactly how it should work. Fantastic solution.
OldManDog
Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:25 pm
#12
Im not going to bother myself to even read through the rest. All I have to say is YOU MUST be selective about the people you let into your city. If you scream free house & 50k, please join our city!
Please do expect to have a city full of abondoned houses.
If anything, It should force people to leave the "Crippled City" and thus make a new town of all ACTIVE players and hopefully don't end up with a bunch of quitters again.
Just a Side Note: I watched two Noobs make 500k in their first day of playing by re-rolling and passing the free credits to their buddy & then doing it again. PoorMayor of that town didn't notice untill the 10th time that the house kept disapearing, /rofl
Message Edited by OldManDog on 02-21-2005 06:35 PM
Woodis
Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:26 am
#13
Even with the most selective screening, you're going to end up with people that switch servers, or quit the game altogether. On top of this, as a city radius grows, often so does the layout. I see so many cities with buildings here and there, thrown together as it expanded, and it simply does not look good. There comes a time in most cities existance, where it becomes necessary to adjust huge areas of land. This was a very slow process, however it was bearable. It is simply not realistic to expect every player of a large city (I'm talking rank 4 and higher) to be available to move their houses. It is after all a game, and even the biggest enthusiast of one month, may decide to switch games on a dime and never relog in.
-- Woodis of Millenium
Page 1 of 1