Politician Archive

Thread: Inactive List Should be tied to housing

ArthurP
Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:33 am
#14

Some really good ideas. Oh, and the house DOES go ->POOF<- when the player QUITS the game and/or deletes his character - and it should be expected to.


The bottom line is - SOE is griefing here. Why not go ALL the way with the inactive rule? If a player is gone for 6 weeks, they lose citizenship, skills, faction, pets, belongings... Of course this is ridiculous - and proves the arbitrary nature of the citizenship rule. Paying customers are being griefed.


I like the one per server - although even there - I know ppl who LOVE having multiple characters on diff servers. Sure, some lot swap, but not all I guess. What this points to is the DEVS lack of planning. The REAL problem is lack of meaningful storage in houses - so players are FORCED to place MULTIPLE buidings just to store all thier clothing, resources, crafted items, and decorations and loot. If they had even build in a feature whereby cabinets could HOLD items and not count against the house - that would have fixed it.


Let's face it, the inactive citizenship rule does not directly work toreclaim planet geography or free up the precious database space. What is DOES do is GRIEF ACTIVE players to the point that they leave a city after it looses services and land space to this arbitrary rule. THAT is the definintion of a GRIEF.


PLEASE END THE GRIEFING!




¯¯¯¯ArthurP Coodle¯¯¯¯
Now Playing in the NEW Bantha PooDoo Cantina
in Beautiful, Historic Kestrel City, Naboo
ï Now with Mayor Power ! ð


ArthurP
Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:15 am
#15
If players asked for it - I beleive we have more players who will cry out against it...


I know MANY players who had to step away from the game BEFORE this rule was inacted - and they DID plan. They paid their SOE billl and house maintenance. They notified friends and gave building admin. Neither they or city planners could deal with or plan for a rule that didn't exist yet.


Why in the world should thier PLAN include uprooting their house and leaving their favorite city? This points to the heartless nature of the rule. Cities come and go... I beleive the city cap rule is FINE and actually think Metropolises should get MORE space and trainers, decoration - so that cities become what they were MEANT to be. Not the home of ONE uber guild - but a thriving metropolis of many citizens, guilds - all working together.


Again, my city is fine for now. But in time, this rule wil create ghost towns and MORE of a database problem than before - and a loss of space. This will not only effect cities in existance now, but it's an ongoing rule that will effect ALL cities eventually and those who cried FOR the rule will be back and complaining about it.


STOP THE GRIEFING - END THE INACTIVE CITIZENRULE



¯¯¯¯ArthurP Coodle¯¯¯¯
Now Playing in the NEW Bantha PooDoo Cantina
in Beautiful, Historic Kestrel City, Naboo
ï Now with Mayor Power ! ð


Mkappus
Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:23 am
#16
I agree it is an imperfect solution to the problem. Instead of saying we need to get rid of it, we need to be proposing alternatives. Any alternative needs to address


1. The system needs to be dynamic, there have to be checks and balances to keep the system alive, growing and changing.

2. Any rule cannot supercede a players property rights.


The Devs really shot themselves in the foot with the 1 character per server rule. I don't think the realized the potential and amount of server lot swaps, for citizens and for harvestors there would be. All these rules are painful and I think it is going to get worse. I hear there may be a rule addressing lot swaped harvestors coming down the road very soon.


At the moment I can't think of a viable alternative different from what the devs have done. Yes some cities may fail now, but any city going forward does know about the rule and can now plan for it. Those of us who have the first cities need to do our best to adapt and overcome the changing environment.



Goliath
Master Shipwright, Master Architect, Master Artisan
-=V=- Shipworks 3 Locations Theed, Coronet and
Tatooine by Krayt Graveyard 5909, 4373

3 vendors at GF6 11/11 - Shipwright, Architect, Resources
ArthurP
Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:34 am
#17

There is no adapting - once a citizen is gone and their house left with months of maintence - a city is in trouble.


An on the lot swapping - keep THIS in mind. People swap with ACTIVE players who can log in and out and keep their characters live on both servers (or more)...This rule does NOT address active lot swappers AT ALL.


This inactive citizenshipGRIEFS players who many only have ONE account, ONE server, who have paid thier bills, and been called away from the game for a while. This I know for a fact.




¯¯¯¯ArthurP Coodle¯¯¯¯
Now Playing in the NEW Bantha PooDoo Cantina
in Beautiful, Historic Kestrel City, Naboo
ï Now with Mayor Power ! ð


Kaaetlin
Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:50 am
#18
What about ppl that got banned when everyone was getting banned,but they have paid up maintenence on their houses for like ever are we just suppose to wait months and months on these houses to go poof and their auto-vote is gone but we have a dead weight house in the way of progress!!! And we have many in the military that are gone and paid maintenence up so it will be there when they get back but they have told us and we know this and for that reason their places are safe but deadweight houses something should be done with them too,b/c many have quit but their houses stand in the way!!!



Kaaetlin Crestingdark
Master Dancer/MasterMusician-MeS-



aka Katrina Morgan
MasterCM/TKM - MeS-
Chibi-Bar
Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:58 am
#19

The lot swapping doesn't really effect.. since I right now I have FOUR players in the city gave me their lots.. (I got 32 lots harvestors under my command per se... that is SAME server)


the exchange server lot swap just free up lots on their own server while giving it up on another... it doesn't effect much..


the ideas I toss out effect cities.. mainly most of my citizens came a long time ago WAY before the rules of 6 week.. we are a metropolis about 2 months before this happening... and been level 4 since week 4 of the city patch (place city hall at 11pm at night on patch day) so... some people have been with us since day one.. (a lot actually)


so how do we plan for that? some quit the game due to fustration with promise of return... some quit due to unable to pay the bills... or whatever reasons.. some leave but still PAY for the game while on military leaves.. moving.. vacation.. or just taking a sabatical...


people who STILL pay for the game and not logging in shouldn't be punish for it..






Sasheria Windsong

Master Artisian and Master Architect
Drop off Vendor Cynthia: -4752 -4341
Architect Shop Vendor Sasha:-4756 -4341
Citizen of Blood Gulch, Dantooine
ArthurP
Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:06 am
#20

Let me clear this up. If someonedeletes their character - the house goes POOF. I would imagine that if they cancel thier account the same thing happens. It would be ODD for SOE to keep a character active when it's been cancelled. If they dont delete it.. could it be they want to give time for them to come BACK to the game JUST IN CASE - and in just the way they left it?


If so, WHY is citizenship SUCH a big deal they have have to remove that?


END THE GRIEFING - REMOVE THE INACTIVE CITIZENSHIP RULE




¯¯¯¯ArthurP Coodle¯¯¯¯
Now Playing in the NEW Bantha PooDoo Cantina
in Beautiful, Historic Kestrel City, Naboo
ï Now with Mayor Power ! ð


ArthurP
Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:32 pm
#21
> Cities aren't meat to be easy. You aren't entitled to have a city forever just because you have one now.

No, cities aren't meant to be easy to maintain or GET. It is also true that you aren't entitled to have a city just because you WANT one and can GRIEF someone off their position by removing the citizenship of a paying customer.


Let's use this same mentality on hunting. To use the same argument, I should be able to petition SOE to remove the hunting skills of players who were first to toKrayt hunting ground. I'm a LATE COMER and because they were here first, and Krayts have limited spawning - SOE should GRIEF the first hunters to give ME a chance.


A paying customer is a paying customer - and have as much right to thier character, skills, faction, property, citizenship, etc as the NEXT player. SOE should not GRIEF one player to make it FAIR to another one. This presumes that the problem is a player. The problem is SOE and thier database limitations. I dont want to get into what doable in terms of the game mechanics. But the FIX is simply aGRIEF - and per SOE's own rules, not conducive to fair and fun gameplay.


While I feel for those who wish to have a city and have it grow - I refuse to think GRIEFING another player or a group of players - is a solution. Taking away a players citizenship and NOT their house kills a city - and GRIEFS the player and all his fellow citizens.


If you want a city - the game mechanics make it possible to JOIN one and take over via an election. THEN you can make that city your own. I don't see a problem here. The only problem is SOE's willingness to again use a sloppy shortcut solution, rather than address the problem head-on. Let's not make this a player vs player problem.



¯¯¯¯ArthurP Coodle¯¯¯¯
Now Playing in the NEW Bantha PooDoo Cantina
in Beautiful, Historic Kestrel City, Naboo
ï Now with Mayor Power ! ð


Exitio56
Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:49 pm
#22

This solution was implemented to pacify the whiners who lost the city race on Day 1 of the Player City Patch. The whole reason for the race in the first place was their asstasstic database not supporting all comers to be able to place a player city.


Some people worked against the spirit of the game and got cross-server trades to get a shuttleport in their town, which is the one thing that makes a PC on a outlying planet viable, to be sure. Some towns have the problem of people quitting and either that person not pulling up their house or not having people that want to move to their city. Those towns should adapt or pack it in, certainly, but if they have the money to manage it and the desire to live in an empty town, why not let them?


Player Cities are supposed to be a money sink, right? if they're genuinely concerned about everyone getting a chance in a big player city they should FIX THE DAMN DATABASE so there don't need to be caps.





__________________________________________________________________________________________
Exitio
+12 Master Chef, n00b Imperial Pilot
Founder of Geigen City, Tatooine
Vendor Location - Exitio's Fine Food and Drink: 4178 5220, in the Geigen General Store
Mkappus
Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:29 pm
#23
Your argument:


Let's use this same mentality on hunting. To use the same argument, I should be able to petition SOE to remove the hunting skills of players who were first to toKrayt hunting ground. I'm a LATE COMER and because they were here first, and Krayts have limited spawning - SOE should GRIEF the first hunters to give ME a chance.


is ludicrous. You are missing one huge point. The person hunting is actively participating in the game. The person who is gone is not. I am sorry, but I do believe a person who is paying SOE, and is actively participating on a server has more rights than a person who is paying and not present on a server for 6 weeks.


Secondly, the 6 week inactivity rule does nothing to hurt individuals. True it penalizes towns, but it does not treat individuals at all differently.


No one is being griefed, they set up a rule and it has to be followed. I think it is more of a grief to have player caps. Everyone is upset because this rule wasn't established from the get go, and we all hate change. We had it easy now life is harder.


It is an adequate rule at this time. It would be nice if the mechanics were different, or if there were a way to move the persons house. But there isn't without violating their property rights and their right to not have their stuff moved.


Again, give me another way to set up some kind of checks and balance to make cities dynamic. Ranting and crying about a rule is just that crying.



Goliath
Master Shipwright, Master Architect, Master Artisan
-=V=- Shipworks 3 Locations Theed, Coronet and
Tatooine by Krayt Graveyard 5909, 4373

3 vendors at GF6 11/11 - Shipwright, Architect, Resources
Exitio56
Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:37 pm
#24




Mkappus wrote:




I am sorry, but I do believe a person who is paying SOE, and is actively participating on a server has more rights than a person who is paying and not present on a server for 6 weeks.






This is probably the most important point of your statement, and certainly at the heart of this controversial issue.


Your money isn't any greener than mine, and mine isn't greener than anyone else's. It's also arguable that the greatest contribution some certain players can make to the game is to not play it but leave their house standing, but that's another story.



__________________________________________________________________________________________
Exitio
+12 Master Chef, n00b Imperial Pilot
Founder of Geigen City, Tatooine
Vendor Location - Exitio's Fine Food and Drink: 4178 5220, in the Geigen General Store
ArthurP
Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:49 pm
#25


Mkappus wrote:




I am sorry, but I do believe a person who is paying SOE, and is actively participating on a server has more rights than a person who is paying and not present on a server for 6 weeks.






THAT statement is ludicrous. But let me say it more specifically:


A serviceman in the military who bought this game - paid in advance in good faith - and was called to active duty - should at least have EQUAL RIGHTS to his character and affiliations as the next player. But if you want to point to someone who OUGHT to have "MORE RIGHTS"I'll vote for the man or woman defending my butt any day.


Its crazy that the concept of "More Rights" shouldeven be concidered - but now I know where the whole argument comes from. DEVS PLEASE END THE GRIEF.



¯¯¯¯ArthurP Coodle¯¯¯¯
Now Playing in the NEW Bantha PooDoo Cantina
in Beautiful, Historic Kestrel City, Naboo
ï Now with Mayor Power ! ð


Kyorlana
Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:14 pm
#26
I have to admit that although I see the benefits of the 6 week rule... because it presently leaves effectively derelict buildings where they are I disagree with it. In my mind the situation sould be this:


  • Is your SoE account paid for? If yes then go on. If not then why are you still reading this thread? Go resubscribe!

  • Is your property on city land? If yes then you are automatically declared a citizen of said city. If not then none of this applies to you anyway.

  • You don't want to be a citizen of said city? Then it's tough, pick up and move.

Am I oversimplifying things? I don't think so.


Personally I don't think there should be a revoke citizenship option on the mission termial as a bug work around either.


Page 2 of 4
Previous Next