Politician Archive
Thread: Not enough control...
Page 2 of 2
FiveStars
Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:23 am
#14
Just thought I would add on more thought; why not give the Mayor the ability to move a house?
No Items get deleted, no griefing.
Use the same top view provided when you place a house, just make it so a Mayor can click on a house, pick it up, and move it.
Then a Mayor can work towards a city plan. That is what Mayor's do right?
BlueLagoon FiveStars
josslyn
Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:31 am
#15
I've run into this problem now 2 different times with inactives houses. The first time we eventually gave our city of a year up due to so many houses that were piled with so much cash that they could stay standing for 2yrs 
Now i've got the same problem starting in my new city... mind you not as bad as it was in our previous city but I am very specific of how i want things to look in my city. I take pride in it.. and that's just something SOE likes to crush for me. I contacted CSR's about simply finding out if there was any way they could let me know exactly how much maint. was left in each of these "inactives" houses so i could plan my new city layout around them... and guess what?! NO HELP! Their response was something like "We're sorry for any inconvenience these houses are causing you, but we can not give out the info on other players houses". How saddening is that? I wasn't even asking or complaining about having to wait even 6 months for these structures to be out of my city, but just wanting a general idea of how long i really am looking at. The Politician Prof. is truely one of my favorite.. however, we do NOT have enough control over something some of us work so hard on. I've literally spent hours upon hours every night/day i'm online in my city... moving my citizens millions of times (thank god they love me-or so i think.. /snicker), setting gardens, working towards our shuttle (10 more to go before Tuesday!), etc... but yet... I always run into, now what to do about these bloody houses sittin next to my CH 
I've always tried to have an open area around my CH to have sort of the "town sqaure" appeal thing... but these inactives houses make my city look trashy. I really truely believe that us, as the mayors should be able to have more control over city structures and such. Condemn those bloody inactives houses... not my problem they didn't inform me they were leaving for the service or whatever other RL issues may arise. I know there is a RL outside of SWG, but all i ask is for consideration that so many have forgotten about. I'm sorry, but if you can't log in for even 2 minutes to inform someone (anyone, in your city/guild) of your coming abscence then i don't have pity on those ppl. If it was me in their position i would expect it! But that's just me. I'm tired of seeing ppl giving these "inactive players" continuous excuse after excuse... I've worked around their houses for so long.. it's time something is done with our Profession to improve it.
Now i've got the same problem starting in my new city... mind you not as bad as it was in our previous city but I am very specific of how i want things to look in my city. I take pride in it.. and that's just something SOE likes to crush for me. I contacted CSR's about simply finding out if there was any way they could let me know exactly how much maint. was left in each of these "inactives" houses so i could plan my new city layout around them... and guess what?! NO HELP! Their response was something like "We're sorry for any inconvenience these houses are causing you, but we can not give out the info on other players houses". How saddening is that? I wasn't even asking or complaining about having to wait even 6 months for these structures to be out of my city, but just wanting a general idea of how long i really am looking at. The Politician Prof. is truely one of my favorite.. however, we do NOT have enough control over something some of us work so hard on. I've literally spent hours upon hours every night/day i'm online in my city... moving my citizens millions of times (thank god they love me-or so i think.. /snicker), setting gardens, working towards our shuttle (10 more to go before Tuesday!), etc... but yet... I always run into, now what to do about these bloody houses sittin next to my CH I've always tried to have an open area around my CH to have sort of the "town sqaure" appeal thing... but these inactives houses make my city look trashy. I really truely believe that us, as the mayors should be able to have more control over city structures and such. Condemn those bloody inactives houses... not my problem they didn't inform me they were leaving for the service or whatever other RL issues may arise. I know there is a RL outside of SWG, but all i ask is for consideration that so many have forgotten about. I'm sorry, but if you can't log in for even 2 minutes to inform someone (anyone, in your city/guild) of your coming abscence then i don't have pity on those ppl. If it was me in their position i would expect it! But that's just me. I'm tired of seeing ppl giving these "inactive players" continuous excuse after excuse... I've worked around their houses for so long.. it's time something is done with our Profession to improve it. ~Chasity~
Solace City Mayor
Master Politician/TKM
Bluemoonfish
Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:42 pm
#16
This is a great idea. Mayors need to have the power to remove structures from their cities. As player cities stand now there are to many options for a few people or one with multiple accounts to grieve and harass an entire cities population. Placing structures with intentionally malicious names, simply placing a building and filling it with years of maintenance just to take up space that they know the residents of the city want to use for other purposes, players of opposing factions randomly placing structures just outside the city in order to disruptits happy development to intentionally grieve current citizens, or utilizing multiple accounts and current houses in the city to remain citizens and undo their current status of "City Banned" after it 's become very clear 90% of the city doesn't want them around.
The solution i see to the issues addressed so far in this thread is to allow mayors to removeother players structures from the city aftera vote by the residents. Once removed the structures are stored as data and returned to the owner. They could be placed in the player's bank or directly into their inventory in the form of anitem that uses one slot of inventory and onceplaced again all the items are again available to the owner.Maybeaspecial backpack containing the homes contents could appear next to the structure management terminal.
Something really needs to be done to give mayors some authority over their cities. As it stands now there are to many times a city is powerless to do anything about the actions of one or a few players ruining the enjoyment of others. Why should one person be able to spoil the game for 30+ other players.
UrXiiZiirii
Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:29 am
#17
josslyn wrote:
I've run into this problem now 2 different times with inactives houses. The first time we eventually gave our city of a year up due to so many houses that were piled with so much cash that they could stay standing for 2yrs
~Chasity~
Solace City Mayor
Master Politician/TKM
Yes, because your fictional city in a game is more important than a marine who make get the call at 3am to go to Iraq.
Then to come back (hopefully) from war only to find his hobby that he's paid for gone, because it made your city ugly.
Drkapprntice
Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:34 am
#18
Bluemoonfish wrote:
This is a great idea. Mayors need to have the power to remove structures from their cities. As player cities stand now there are to many options for a few people or one with multiple accounts to grieve and harass an entire cities population. Placing structures with intentionally malicious names, simply placing a building and filling it with years of maintenance just to take up space that they know the residents of the city want to use for other purposes, players of opposing factions randomly placing structures just outside the city in order to disruptits happy development to intentionally grieve current citizens, or utilizing multiple accounts and current houses in the city to remain citizens and undo their current status of "City Banned" after it 's become very clear 90% of the city doesn't want them around.
The solution i see to the issues addressed so far in this thread is to allow mayors to removeother players structures from the city aftera vote by the residents. Once removed the structures are stored as data and returned to the owner. They could be placed in the player's bank or directly into their inventory in the form of anitem that uses one slot of inventory and onceplaced again all the items are again available to the owner.Maybeaspecial backpack containing the homes contents could appear next to the structure management terminal.
Something really needs to be done to give mayors some authority over their cities. As it stands now there are to many times a city is powerless to do anything about the actions of one or a few players ruining the enjoyment of others. Why should one person be able to spoil the game for 30+ other players.
chasity and i have talked for hours on this and i have to say your idea of having their house and items be stored in a back pack is excellent. i mean they did it with the vendors when that one bug was fixed, and they placed all your vendor items in a special pack. why not use the same system here? when the players do return they can simply contact the city mayor and replace their house. thats not much of an inconvience at all, and it allows those that are on everyday to get more enjoyment out of the game. (and the marine who get the call at 3am will have his hobbie when he comes back.. and it wont get destroyed after the 20 days of maintence he had in it runs out and its gets destroyed anyway :smileytongue
this is actually a way to save peoples items instead of allowing them to be destroyed. and if their character does get wiped after 6 mo of inactivity the pack gets deleted too.
lordoricle
Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:54 am
#19
/agree i like this idea, and i am a firm believer in mayoral powers inside a city....no matter what "griefs" we must endure. As i have stated before i believe the number one factor with our "power" peoblem in our cities is that SOE does not trust us with the responsibility. But the reality is that these types of powers are needed for us to run a true player city.
Regards,
Proud member
josslyn
Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:20 am
#20
UrXiiZiirii wrote:
josslyn wrote:
I've run into this problem now 2 different times with inactives houses. The first time we eventually gave our city of a year up due to so many houses that were piled with so much cash that they could stay standing for 2yrs
~Chasity~
Solace City Mayor
Master Politician/TKM
Yes, because your fictional city in a game is more important than a marine who make get the call at 3am to go to Iraq.
Then to come back (hopefully) from war only to find his hobby that he's paid for gone, because it made your city ugly.
FYI- Anyone in the service doesn't just get a "call" at 3 am in the morning saying they have to leave that moment for the service. I have half of MY family and friends in the service and not one of them has ever gotten a short handed notice of having to travel over seas in a short period of time like you are stating. Yes, our cities may be FICTIONAL, but does that mean we should take less pride in them because they are? I didn't think so. It's common courtesy. I would expect for SOE to get rid of all of my belongings LONG before a 6 month deletion. So don't come here flaming those of us that actually do care and take pride in our cities and just ask for the same common courtesy we have given you by placing a structure in our fine cities 
Chasity
Solace City Mayor
Master Politician/TKM
furrycat
Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:51 am
#21
Good ideas in this thread.
Extra lots for mayors to place houses then /transfers to people. Good idea.
Ability to move an entire house with the contents intact. Good idea.
Ability to /condemn a structure and have it redeeded and placed in the owner's inventory; contents to be restored when the deed is next placed. Good idea.
Doesn't seem like it would be difficult to do either. Moving a house should just be a case of changing its co-ordinates in the world. The items inside are stored separately and shouldn't be affected.
In regard to this,
> Yes, because your fictional city in a game is more important than a marine
> who make get the call at 3am to go to Iraq.
>
> Then to come back (hopefully) from war only to find his hobby that he's
> paid for gone, because it made your city ugly.
If the city is truly trivial and unimportant to the mayor then surely it is equally trivial and unimportant to the citizens. If you would ask a mayor not to care about the effort he puts into laying out his city then you should also ask the citizens not to care about the items they accumulated.
Extra lots for mayors to place houses then /transfers to people. Good idea.
Ability to move an entire house with the contents intact. Good idea.
Ability to /condemn a structure and have it redeeded and placed in the owner's inventory; contents to be restored when the deed is next placed. Good idea.
Doesn't seem like it would be difficult to do either. Moving a house should just be a case of changing its co-ordinates in the world. The items inside are stored separately and shouldn't be affected.
In regard to this,
> Yes, because your fictional city in a game is more important than a marine
> who make get the call at 3am to go to Iraq.
>
> Then to come back (hopefully) from war only to find his hobby that he's
> paid for gone, because it made your city ugly.
If the city is truly trivial and unimportant to the mayor then surely it is equally trivial and unimportant to the citizens. If you would ask a mayor not to care about the effort he puts into laying out his city then you should also ask the citizens not to care about the items they accumulated.
Page 2 of 2