Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: The Wacking Of Player Cities
Page 1 of 2
LordReaver
Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:40 am
#1
I am constantly seeing many posts about people wanting to live in npc cities, but what I don't see is people looking at the effects it will have on player cities. Player cities are already next to wasteland, so making it possible to inhabbit npc cities will just push them off the side of the map. Honestly though, is it really that hard to get to your house? If you live more than 1.5km from a npc city then you should use the shuttle rather than driving, it's faster anyways.
Another thing is if there were apartments or whatever you want to call them, then they would be freaking tiny. They would be like motel rooms rather than apartments for there to be a reasonable amount of them in one city. The only difference would be no bathrooms because those don't exist in Star Wars...It would be a real waste in memory to have these things in the game. I do understand why you want them, but seriously, YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING! Maybe in 5 more years technology will have increased enough for this to work, but it simply can't be reasonably done right now. However, there is one way that it could be done, which is to have to load into the building, but if you have to load anyways, then I say just live in a player city and spare the Devs some work.
With so little space one could have and the obvious high fares due to lack of rooms, wouldn't it make so much more sense to live in a player city?
Ok, I have to stop writing things at this time of the night (5:41)... or morning depending on how you look at it. So I'm going to stop here because I'm about to fall asleep. On a last note, I'm not for or against having apartments, but I am against the lag they may cause. Maybe I will edit it later and finish what I was trying to say...
ReinerdOne
Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:26 am
#2
just create a lobby for the tower, and instance the rooms...
no biggy
Diaso
Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:47 am
#3
I see no prupose for apartments. All I see when I hear about ideas like this are: bugs, waste of time, lag, and waste of money. As many of you now know, it is very hard to walk through Coronet with no lag unless u have a amazing PC. Now if apartments did come out in npc cities, I would almost never travel to a npc city again. I'd fly my little ship to the Starport I need walk to ticket teriminal and fly to a Player City. Many veteran players wouldn't want this... considering we've been waiting on GCW and CU forever.
OsirixJedi
Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:13 pm
#4
Ever play Anarchy Online? Apartments in SWG like those in AO would be cool. But it's not something that we really need like RIGHT NOW or anything, really just something that should be back burner..
Diaso
Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:17 pm
#5
FRankly, I think apartments would completely ruin SWG. It was a great idea but if you think of the long-term affects, it just isn't worth it. Sure it'd be cool for a few weeks but soon people will get sick of the lag and people would be mad that their Player Cities that took so long to make would become Ghost Towns. Personally, I just think we have to focus on SWG and JTL bugs that are currently going on right now. There are GCW bugs, Harvestor bugs, they are thinking of implementing a new vendor system, the terrain bugs, NPC bugs, etc etc. Once SWG's bugs are contained for the most part then mabye can we start adding nice things like apartments, city walls, and city roads.
Darth_Meatloaf
Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:20 pm
#6
I should think that, if apartments did come into existence, they would have less space and higher rent.
Rather than killing player cities, this would actually BENEFIT them. That's right, it's hypothetical situation time.
Say Mr. Joe AveragePlayer loads into SWG for his first time. Apartments exist. Due to the appeal of living so close to a city, player demand for the has shot up and the rooms are THE cool thing to have.
Mr. Joe Averageplayer decides to check this out! Everyone talking about it, why not do like the vets are doing and move right in?
So he goes into an apartment building lobby, does whatever is needed to get a room of his very own, and loads into it.
Said room is quaint and cozy. Okay, it's cramped and only has one window. But Mr. Joe doesn't mind and moves his meager posessions in.
-FLASH FOWARD TWO WEEKS-
Joe has become a bit less overawed with the apartment life. Many of his harvesters (or, if not a crafting type, his most-used vendors) are all out in player cities or in the wilds. Joe has a lot of stuff now, and the small storage space is starting to run out. To make matters worse, Joe lives on a new player's income and can barely afford to pay the rent. The rent of an apartment is high to compensate for the massive credit accounts veterans have. (If the devs have any sense, this will happen.) In addition, if he fails to pay, all his posessions are removed and his apartment deleted/cleared out.
So Joe decides that maybe the apartment isn't working out. He hunts around and finds a guild to join with their own player city. It's kind of remote and secluded, but Joe gets a small house there.
Quickly, Joe realizes that this house is a great deal. Although remote, it has much higher storage for much less rent than an apartment does.
And all over SWG's apartments this effect occurs. Convienience of life in a big city gives way to monetary concerns and space requirements.
I do hope I've expressed my views clearly. I'm rather tired. >_>
Rather than killing player cities, this would actually BENEFIT them. That's right, it's hypothetical situation time.
Say Mr. Joe AveragePlayer loads into SWG for his first time. Apartments exist. Due to the appeal of living so close to a city, player demand for the has shot up and the rooms are THE cool thing to have.
Mr. Joe Averageplayer decides to check this out! Everyone talking about it, why not do like the vets are doing and move right in?
So he goes into an apartment building lobby, does whatever is needed to get a room of his very own, and loads into it.
Said room is quaint and cozy. Okay, it's cramped and only has one window. But Mr. Joe doesn't mind and moves his meager posessions in.
-FLASH FOWARD TWO WEEKS-
Joe has become a bit less overawed with the apartment life. Many of his harvesters (or, if not a crafting type, his most-used vendors) are all out in player cities or in the wilds. Joe has a lot of stuff now, and the small storage space is starting to run out. To make matters worse, Joe lives on a new player's income and can barely afford to pay the rent. The rent of an apartment is high to compensate for the massive credit accounts veterans have. (If the devs have any sense, this will happen.) In addition, if he fails to pay, all his posessions are removed and his apartment deleted/cleared out.
So Joe decides that maybe the apartment isn't working out. He hunts around and finds a guild to join with their own player city. It's kind of remote and secluded, but Joe gets a small house there.
Quickly, Joe realizes that this house is a great deal. Although remote, it has much higher storage for much less rent than an apartment does.
And all over SWG's apartments this effect occurs. Convienience of life in a big city gives way to monetary concerns and space requirements.
I do hope I've expressed my views clearly. I'm rather tired. >_>
Maisland
Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:02 pm
#7
I don't understand why anyone wants appartments in the game myself. Not only are there the issues that you pointed out which would arise, but if I am tired at the end of a day's playing and don't want to make that long trip out to my house, I just go to one of the hotels and log there. No big deal. Plus, if I need storage in an NPC city, there is always my bank safety deposit box which I don't actually use now.
LukeBorgman
Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:16 pm
#8
Ghost towns are a problem in their own right. Blocking player residences in static cities should not be part of the solution.
Any argument against something some players want because it might take away from what you want is just selfish and not in the best interest of the game. Let players make their own choices. If apartments in static cities kills aPlayer City, then that Player City should be dead. I don't think that will happen much, but it's a bad argument based on the premise that: If what others want is bad for what I want, then they should not get it because my wants are more important then theirs. I see this argument way too much on the forums.
I would like to see the option of residence in a static city but agree that it is not a high priority. The technology doesn't have to be a killer. I'd rather see it done like current houses instead of instanced, but instanced would be better than nothing. I think this should have been done before Player Cities but that's water under the bridge. Player Cities resulted in thinning out most static cities to the point of worthlessness and I though that was a shame, but static cities simply didn't have enough to offer to encourage players to congregate in them which I thought was fun.
I think it'd be cool to see static cities hold their own against Player Cities. Having a place to run into and interact with people other than Coronet and Theed would be cool and would spread out the static city-going population and might even result in less lag.
Yci
Tue Mar 01, 2005 5:36 pm
#9
Or...
Have little bit of both.
Personally, I like the idea of apartments, but I have to agree, the Lag would end up keeping me away from them most of the time. But in any instance, here are a couple ideas that could help...
1. Make it so that apartments do not use lots. This leads to people getting the apartment simply because they have run out of space and they want to hold on to more useless (or cool) loots. Each apartment room would cost roughly 3000 per day and only hold 50 items. This would be option 1, and only allowed in NPC cities. The lag from this would be horrible, unless rooms are actually instances of each other, which would make the most since and be less fun (personal opinion there)
2. Have apartments that can be crafted by an architech. Experimentation allows for the number of apartments that are rentable. The renter sets a price, and anyone can rent from them. Same limits as above though on storage, 50 items. Of this income, the owner of the building (which takes 2 -5 lots) pays 20% in taxes alone (maybe a little high). This provided a mney drain in more way than one. The only problem here is that if the owner of the building leaves the game, the apartment building has no owner. This leads us to the next step... Land Management terminals. Allow all houses, guildhalls, city structures, harvestors, factories, and apartment buildings, to be rentable/buyable. Buying one of these will take up lots (just like normal). Renting them allows you to either make money (renter) or have a house that does not take lots (rentee) albeit a much higher cost (money drain again). In a starport, one could find a terminal to see what houses and apartments are for sale or lease. If the owner of an apartment building goes missing, then the building is automatically put on the terminals for some calulation of price. Rent*30 days*40 tenants = price, or something like that. Then you have to set contracts, otherwise griefing occurs. Set the amount of time that it is rentable. The rest of this is working out game mechanics to make sure that all is fair and no one can get scammed. Apartments placed within player cities would still have to pay the city some cash as well, but the players could count to the city count as well. This would keep player cities alive.
Both are possible. But if anything does happen, I would prefer to see it after the CU.
samijx
Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:44 pm
#10
If they added apartments into the rarely used cities, then these cities would actually get some use. If that happens, the population could spread out from the 3-4 cities that attract 90% of the population, thus making the lag issue better. (Lessen the lag load on Theed/kaadra/coronet, etc.)
NovaSpice
Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:46 am
#11
ReinerdOne wrote:
just create a lobby for the tower, and instance the rooms...
no biggy
Exactly.
LordReaver
Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:00 am
#12
Umm.... Why did I get so many 1 stars? I wasn't being rude or anything.
Yci
Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:06 pm
#13
LordReaver wrote:
Umm.... Why did I get so many 1 stars? I wasn't being rude or anything.
Probably hit by the 1 star bandit...
He/she has been pretty bad lately
Page 1 of 2