Politician Archive
Thread: Um....Baj? I'm not sure this is a good idea on TC...
Page 11 of 11
Fidgiter
Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:10 am
#131
"You actually want to stop a tool that will hurt Cities with bot houses. Vacationers! the Military! Schoobreak Kids!"
So people that are in the Military, are students, go on vaction, have familiy and lives or are payed accounts that take a leave from the game because of discontent are Bots? Nothing more than second class citizens of the game? This is where the major breakdown in your position lies. These are real people and the type of people that should NOT be impacted by this. They are paying accounts and are not cross citizen swaps. Cross server citizen trading is the crime, not casual gamers.
You have something against casual players and regard them to be Bots? You think you are better than them or that they should be deprived the content that they PAY for? You think we should shun them and lock them out of content to be able to protect ourselves from the whims of SOE? You build your city full of powergamers without a life and think your better for it? I declare, NO!
I absolutely want to protect the interests of ALL players. I don't think denying Joe Casual gameplay options so I could favor L33t Nolife is a good solution or makes for a better city. If protecting the interests of ALL players in the game is a crime I'm guilty as charged. Treating Joe Casual with respect should not be a gamble for the very respect he is treated with may make him a more active player.
If I knew then what I know now I'd have made the same exact choices because the choices I made are the ones best for my city, the players of the game and for SOE. If SOE is so shortsighted that they wish to disenfranchise paying customers whose only fault was encouraging casual players I guarentee the hemorrhage of players will accellerate.
"Now that is a bizarre failure of logic"
No, it is not. It is good practical business sense that SOE wouldn't want to alienate a large segement of the customer base by rushing to a ill conceived measure such as this. I find the tone of your position to be a bit hostile. Just because your opinion differs doesn't make yours right and ours flawed.
"fluctuating City environment"
A fluctuating city enviroment is NOT seeing millions of credits of infastructure and many long hours of planning go down the drain because of wasted real estate by folks who have to take a leave from the game (while paying). What is supposed to be fluctuating is the ADMINISTRATION of cities. The voting system gives way too much strength to the incumbant. They should remove the ability of the incumbant Mayor to take down a city that is above Tier II and give more options to be able to have fluctuations in the governement of the cities.
To Summarize
Cities are not just for the Elite. Casual players and those who have RW obligations should not be denied a chance to participate in content they pay for. The 3 week rule punishes Mayors and the citizens of a city that treat casual players with the respect they deserve.
changing the rules without giving the Mayor the tools they require to compensate is totally unjust and unfair. If they impliment this Three or Six week rule the structure of that timed out citizen should VANISH into the pack of that character so the Mayor could have a new active resident move in at their place. This will help revitalize the city and if the Mayor fails to accomplish this task THEN that city isn't worthy of maintaining their station. To do it any other way is to punish the entire city for the inactivity of a minority.
Reform the democratic systems so instead of having old cities (Yeah, 4 months is really old) die and decay wasting player investments and ruining gameplay for hundreds of players, new upstart mayors will have a chance to take the reigns of the city.
Mayor Feliz Gizmacher, Founder of Dune Retreat
BisonJelly
Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:51 am
#132
Arkenor wrote:
A better way to fix the same issue, or at least lessen it would be for a character to have amassed 10 play hours (or whatever. Pick a number. ) before they can declare residence anywhere.
Nice Idea.
Sevarhin
Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:48 pm
#133
Abido wrote:
That "we shouldn't be behind cities who were established first" sentiment comes across as sour grapes. Someone doesn't like the outcome of a situation where they were beaten, so they want to re-write the rules... well, of course they do.Wrong. The fact that you're actually supporting they way Cities were given to the community on its first day shows where you stand right there.
LOL. So supporting a sytem where thousands of people competed under known rules to determine a winner is bad, and your suggestion that we just flip a coin is much better. Gotcha.
Look, this isnt' about maintaining an undeserved lead, okay? For the record, to clear the air and all that, my city was first on the server, first to levels 2, 3, and 4, and has far more than we need for level 4, with no bot houses, and more people joining daily. So we're not going to shrink, okay? My motivation in arguing against this injustice is not some ridiculous personal fear of losing out to someone more deserving of our spot.
This proposal is simply flawed. Small cities especially (depending on house sizes and layout - things they may have established long before, and could not possibly have known would have such dire impact on their fate) could be completely crippled by it, as has been pointed out - and nobody has offered a solution. Larger cities could be forced to destroy their carefully planned layout just to deal with accumulating crap from people dropping out of the game.
It's simply a bad idea. I understand that some cities, equal in every way currently to another city, might be excited at the chance to have a do-over (much like the loser in any other contest wouldn't jump at a chance for redemption, especially if they thought they'd improved in the interim), but this is not that chance. This is a flawed plan.
And finally, to reiterate and make it even more clear that this has nothing to do with maintaining an undeserved lead, I'm *fine* with attrition if and only if the mayor is allowed to do something about those derelect houses. But city footprints were not designed to accomodate large numbers of orphan structures. The sytem needs work before anything of this nature can be implemented.
WildmanHT
Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:34 am
#134
Sluggy----My apologies, i meant my previous post to be directed to Abido and not you. I got the posts mixed up and didnt notice that you were quoting someone. Most likely our resident whiner..
Abido...Your logic on that if your city outpaces, outgrown or outsold in the last 2 months is lame...First of all, outsold???? Ummm, may come as a suprise but some cities dont sell stuff...
Outgrown? So if I understand what you keep preaching here is that some how if you have more citizens then my 70 I have now your some how better and deserve my level 4 status? What a joke! We have an extremely active city with 70 folks and we dont care if we get to level 5. I dont ever recall where it was mandated that a city had to keep growing to get to 85+ citizens.
Not all cities were placed in the first 15mins..Actually, part planning and luck we put down city hall in 45mins after it went live. Also on the server and planet(Naboo) we're on the city cap on the first day wasnt even met for almost 24hours so Ive heard....
You missed out so deal with it and quit complaining to the rest of us. If was in your shoes Id go after what ever level 4 city is ahead of you and recruit just enough of their citizens so they drop a level and you can advance.
Kerico
Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:46 am
#135
Bajeezus wrote: on 1/26
Hey folks. I haven't gotten feedback from the devs or TH yet on this, but then again I didn't post it on the correspondent's forum until Friday afternoon.
Anyway, I'm going to unsticky this thread now. Feel free to keep discussion going, but unless you all have some big compromise breakthrough or one side just gets the other to plain old give up, I'm not sure that more back and forth on this one issue is going to produce any new results.
Could you at least get them to tell us how it's going to work?
3/6 weeks?
Retro-active or count from patch day?
Page 11 of 11