Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: City unable to grow due to too many cities of that size???
Page 1 of 1
ocili
Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:52 pm
#1
How many of you out there think that they should remove the limitation on the number of cites that can be at a certain rank at any given time? I know I am all for it.
Our city has been stuck at a Level 3 City for over 7 weeks now. In fact it has made us lose members due to the fact we can't grow and become a Level 4 in order to place a Shuttle Port. Not to mention, we can't specialize because we can't grow!!!!
I can understand them wanting to limit the number of cites on a planet, but to limit their size? Why? Are they afraid of overloading a server? If anything I think they should get rid of the ability to place a house OUTSIDE of a city. Lets make it so if you want to have a house, it MUST be in a player city in order to be placed. Makes more sense to me. Then you can get rid of those rogue houses, etc.
Just my two cents worth.....
Tee-Glow
Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:39 pm
#2
Hey, I know how you feel man. City I'm living in has been stuck at whatever level it is before shuttle port since Player Cities came out. We always seen to miss getting the upgrade. We've even sent in a ticket to the devs, but they told us no way. Thing I don't understand is why so few cities on Tat w/ shuttle ports, and why can I go to Dantooine and hop a shuttle port from almost 20 different cities???
Khristen
Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:11 pm
#3
Would you rather have the option to have more Player Cities with a limitation on how many could have shuttleports or fewer Player Cities and no limitation on how many can be of a certain rank? It has to be one or the other, or the core planets would be much too swamped with shuttleports all over the place.
Think of the planetary map for Naboo, as an example. There are 6 NPC cities, all of which have shuttleports and are fairly well spread around the map. We can currently have 10 Player Cities of rank 4 or higher on the core worlds. That's a total of 16 shuttleports. With vehicles readily available to make short distance travel extremely easy, would you *really* need more than 16 shuttleports on that relatively small planetary map? If there was no cap on rank, you could have 26 shuttleports over that map. It would be more like Coruscant than Naboo. The core worlds also have much more traffic than the adventure worlds, so there is also a lag factor involved.
The adventure worlds have more rank 4 spots available because they all have limited shuttle access to start with. When you only have 2 NPC shuttles available, it makes sense to allow players to add more.
They raised the city caps once to allow people to participate in the Player City content. You may not be able to build on Tatooine, but the chance of you being able to start a city on Lok or Dantooine or Rori are pretty good. And there is nothing stopping you from being a part of an existing Player City. Until the character purge happens, there are a lot of empty high-ranking cities out there. You can renew a community just as well as starting from scratch.
Player Cities are more than Shuttleports, they are communities.
Cartman86
Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:34 pm
#4
Too bad not everyone on every server spreads there cities around. Oh and not allowing rogue houses is kind of silly. If people want to live out in the middle of nowhere (or near a cool location) then thats fine. It adds to the game so much more. Instead of driving around in nothingness its nice to see buildings around.
Kinshi
Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:38 pm
#5
Well technicvally there is something stopping you from dealing with an existing city if you want to be a city builder and thats the mayor :-)
Too many Mayors consider their town to be their private sandbox and will get VERY cranky of you try to play in it too. (that is if you are looking to play the Mayor game as well)
They will tell you to get lost and go make your own city, then ya are back where you started.
THe above poster is right, head out to a less populated planet (id choose Rori or Talus). You would have better luck and at least then the town could grow with out having to be blocked by planetary caps and Mayors who dont want you changing their city.
Too many Mayors consider their town to be their private sandbox and will get VERY cranky of you try to play in it too. (that is if you are looking to play the Mayor game as well)
They will tell you to get lost and go make your own city, then ya are back where you started.
THe above poster is right, head out to a less populated planet (id choose Rori or Talus). You would have better luck and at least then the town could grow with out having to be blocked by planetary caps and Mayors who dont want you changing their city.
XwingRogue3
Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:37 am
#7
Cartman86 wrote:Too bad not everyone on every server spreads there cities around. Oh and not allowing rogue houses is kind of silly. If people want to live out in the middle of nowhere (or near a cool location) then thats fine. It adds to the game so much more. Instead of driving around in nothingness its nice to see buildings around.
You can have rogue houses out in the middle of nowhere. At one time I had 3 on 3 different planets. That got to be too much work though lol. Now I have them all together in a real secluded mountain area. Someone followed me to it once and commented that they had never been to this area let alone see a house there. Having "vacation" homes as I like to call them is kinda cool.
bluejanus
Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:37 am
#8
I can feel your pain. It took months for my hometown to reach level 4. We had to wait till another level 4 city died. Took a very long time.
But on the other hand, the limiting the number of player cities on each planet ensures that players get spread out around the different servers of a galaxy and that player interaction doesn't get too diluted by having a zillion player clustering areas. Basically the limits keep players separated but not too separated.
But on the other hand, the limiting the number of player cities on each planet ensures that players get spread out around the different servers of a galaxy and that player interaction doesn't get too diluted by having a zillion player clustering areas. Basically the limits keep players separated but not too separated.
torok
Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:57 am
#9
While I agree that something must be done about dead cities blocking the growth of newer, living ones, requiring people to have their homes ONLy within player cities would be undesirable as well.
Some of us PREFER to not live in cities..for many reasons. We may have purposely chosen home locations on the basis of their beautiful locations and views and WANT to be in an isolated area.
(as another player here mentioned, I too have vacation homes in areas that cant fit other homes around them and I love those places better than any player city Ive seen)
I've lived in player cities as well and dont particularly LIKE being told I MUST place my home in some ugly location cuz it fits someones grand vision while others get zoned to be in the more desirable parts..with views or whatever. I also got tired of would be griefers trying to take over the town or otherwise acting up in the naming of structures, in- town spamming etc. Yes, I prefer to not be part of all that potential strife.
It wouldbe a major hassle for some of us established players with Museums and really cool detailed homes to have to pick up and move from very nice locations we like just to be part of someone else's city vision.
Yes, do something about cities withdozens ofhomes that occupy a top tier spot but actually have no more than 2 o3 three active players ratting about within them and give some more active place a chance to grow.
But not by creating a nuisance for those of us who want to live away from cities.
Message Edited by torok on 03-17-2005 07:06 AM
Page 1 of 1