Politician Archive
Thread: News Flash: Planetary Caps Leaked
BlueNandruidh wrote:
I already went out and bought the Gold DAOC and Trials of Atlantis (after trying FFXI, not for me, too much grouping needed). I still am playing SWG, but have gone from daily to once a week- but the reason is far different than others...
..For me, I can not stand this community, and the hostile, petty player base that moans and threatens in every single instance. I've never seen such a unwarranted hostile player base, nor amore uneducated/uninformed one.
Then stay off the boards. I love people who write here saying "I can't stand you people" yet you come writing here to say it. Guess you love attention.
I sure wish there were 2 message boards, one for the current batch perusing this, and another for the other 312,000 happy players, so I could move over and at least get my developer information without having to correct lie after lie, and one uneducated design suggestion after another.
Here's $10, go get some web hosting and start your own board.
There are valid, developmental reasons things -must- be done with caps, limits, and cautions. This is a design mandate. You cannot develop limitless then scale back. You develop small and open the scaling. Design 101. Forget that, it's Design 001. But of course, 99 percent of you have no development experience, and the 1 percent who does hasn't worked on design systems of such a magnitude, and thus have to understanding of the why? Only the "why me?"
Do *you* have the experience? I do, several years of it, on massive systems. I write code for Navy radar systems. We don't go tell the Navy, a few days before we deliver systems to them, "Oh by the way, while we've been working on this system for a few years now,we should mention we can't track more than 10 targets at a time for you, even though you were probably expecting more." We tell them from the start what we think we will and won't be able to do, and tell them as soon as possible if there's something we think we won't be able to meet along the line. The devs of this game knew what they were making, they knew what the design was going to be, and they had to have known what would happen when they allowed players to make cities. You don't have to have much developing experience to know that when you're dealing with a large number of people who are going to form their own groups, they're going to want their own space if you give them a mechanism to do so. That's not developing, that's basic psychology. They had to have known there would have been the desire to form more than 10 cities on a starter planet. I can understand that their database is getting hammered, and that some limit needs to exist, but annoucing this like they did reeks of a complete lack of planning on their part.
Why didn't they hold a huge stress test of cities on TC like they did with mounts? That seemed like a big success.
Why can't this community try this? Upon finding something like this out, start a polite thread and say, "I have understood there are caps in place for the initial release of player cities. Could you please explain this in further detail prior to the release of them, and indicate how you envision everyone getting a chance to participate in city building?" Wow! Look at that!!! I didn't threaten the firstborn of a developer nor did I attack the player correspondant who helps your profession out. I did not use a mean or nasty tone and was able to ask everything I need to know in a sentence! How simple...and civilzed.
Again, had we been told this say, a month ago, the reaction would have been different. No hint was given this would be done. There was speculation, but no word from on high. The Devs have dropped a huge bomb on the community, and we have no recourse to rise up in anger. Or cancel, which is what a lot of folks are threatening to do.
The problem is once again, the developers of this game allowed a false expectation to build, instead of early on laying out the details of what was going to happen. Every time they do this it just makes it look like they are flying by the seat of their pants when it comes to creating this game. And now, when everyone is ready to do something they thought they would be allowed to do, the other shoe is dropped, with an "Oh, by the way..." annoucement. How can you not expect people to not react with anger at that?
DarthNiphty wrote:PosiTec, just what size DB have you worked on? And with what languages and which DB structure? Could you tell me, in Big O notation, just how big the SOE DBs are and just how small Player Cities will be since you know all of this?
I didn't think so. Player cities are a lot bigger than what you think. The zoning along can be a real headache. Why don't you just play the game and enjoy and stop trying to force your rule upon others? So you can't play 24x7, big deal. Join up with a city who got founded by people who do play 24x7. If not, wait a month for them to fix any issues on their end, then drop your city hall. Sounds to me like they're being fair. 10 initial cities per major planet to see how they pan out, then allowing outposts from there. I'm sure if you want to whine some more, they could "nerf" it back to 5 cities per world. Perhaps they'll "nerf" you as well and silence your posting rights so the rest of us can enjoy the game. Wouldn't that be a grand day?
This game is supposed to be about having fun. If you're not having fun, then leave. That's your right as a consumer. There's plenty of games out there to pick from. SOE does the best to make everyone happy who plays, but some things they do are not going to be liked. You who are here complaining represent a very small number of customers in the game. So go ahead and complain about how you feel you've been wronged. It gives the more intelligent user base some more real-life drama to watch
Ah lets see.. what's required to store a zone? Hm well, we'd need to coordinates to the two opposite corners, what type of zone it is and maybe even connect it to a city/mayor.. there, done deal!
And as for your remark about leaving if you're not having fun, why should we give up so easily so the minority who likes this change can have all the fun? It's pretty clear that the majority is VERY unhappy with this limitation, and many would be willing to wait until they can fix their so called db problems.
DarthNiphty, it is also our right as consumers to complain when a product is misrepresented.
Two major issues.
1. Griefers who place mining structuresall over and around your PA so you can't build a town hall. We have a rather large city that is carefully laid out, and imps on our server have not only purposely placed mining structures all over our city, they have come here on the boards giving out our location and ASKING that this be done. So come the day we can plop down our city hall we will be unable to due to being griefed.
2. City cap. This should NOT go live due to real life not allowing us to zerg to our PA's and get trained in Politician. If our carefully planned and worked out city fails to be planted because of the combination of SoE allowing griefing and the last minute 'oh by the way...', I will cancel. So what you say? Exactly, so what. Consider it the straw that broke my back, along with allowing the nearby HQ to get destroyed thanks to your MANY bugs and exploits that can be used against them.
I have the feeling I won't be the only one cancelling if this goes live as said. Not that it matters of course, it won't make a dent in the coffers, but oh well.
Does this mean I have to join your PA to live in your city? If that's the case, I may just have to live out of my safety deposit box
.
Madame Sirii Ajaan
Master Dancer of and for the Stars
marqueA2 wrote:
Not all cities are being planned by a PA.
-Sans
thank you! This is so true.
Joshie wrote:
We've already known that there would be a limited number of cities available just because of the nature of each planet's layout. This is not a huge shock. I'd be surprised if 130 cities can be maintained on each server.
Yes, but to hear that those of us who intentionally chose an out of the way spot months ago may not get to place our town because of arbitrary planet limits is frustrating. If we miss out on getting a city in our first choice place, it won't be because there's another town too close to us. There are no settlements of more than 2 or 3 houses in range of our current little town. If we can't have a city on Naboo, it will be because we weren't able to get set up as fast as some of the other folks on Patch Day, whenever that will be.
They could have told usabout the limits beforeso we'd have known to live on Rori or Dantooine in the first place. If they really need these limits, I can't believe they didn't know or decide on them until just this week. Moving may not be that hard on some folks, but I'm a crafter/merchant. If we have to move our town, I'm going to have to move the contents of 3 well stocked vendors (600 items total)andmove everything in my factory's output hopper, in addition to my normal inventory and full bank box. I'll also be moving the city Museum that I run, which fills a large house, and took many many hours of fiddling with to get all the cool items floating at just the right height to look like they're placed on all the tables.
Oh, and I'll have to figure out how to do all of this with the zero lots I have left, so I can't just place a new house and start moving in. I guess it's our fault for trying to make a nice little town before the real town structure got put in, but since there's no real content in game that doesn't take combat skills, I had to have something to do...
I have been more excited about Player Cities than any other aspect of the game. However, I do not find the "Race to Place" scenario appealing. I've just read through these 8 pages of posts and see that there were maybe 2-3 supporters of the cap. The overwhelming majority of players replying to this thread have had a negative reaction.
Perhaps the negative reaction was forseen. Perhaps that is why the information came from "Deep Snout" via Plinka the "Player Correspondent."
Plinka tell Deep Snout that you have news to report from the Players: They dislike the cap idea.
As anxious as I was for the Player City patch, I would prefer to wait until they have their DB issues solved.
I love the "If I cant have my own personal private city I am going to quit" posts
You want to be Mayor of a city..... then offer more, be a better mayor and represent more of the people ( not just your PA ) than the other guy does.
What did you guys think? there would be as many cities as players in the game? 3000 cities of 1 person? Of course there are limits, I would have limited it to 6 myself , I think 10 is too many.
Plinka wrote:
The political game is upon us. How will you play the game?
Have the devs picked up on the degree to which most people are disgusted at the thought of having to play 'the political game'. YUCK. Politics. YUCK.
How will I play 'the political game'? Run as far away from it as I can possibly manage.
YUCK.