Politician Archive
Thread: No politician does city stay?
Page 2 of 2
DocSavag
Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:53 pm
#14
The exploit is that you can keep the city at all if you don't have a qualified person in the role of mayor. Its not explotatative because you are getting anything out of it personally. It is exploitatitive because the city isn't supposed to be operated without a novice politican at mayor. You can't FOUND the city without one..You can't GET elected without it why should you be able to continue in your post without it?
Give up any skill you want...but I think that if you give up novice as the mayor you should be removed immediately from the post and the city should be deleted at the next cycle unless someone else registers and gets elected. That would be the only fair thing to the other cities waiting in line for a slot or waiting to expand.
I'm sorry you don't understand my logic or that you disagree with it but its my opinion and is at least as valid as your opinion that you should be able to keep a job you don't have the skill to get any more.
DocSavag
Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:58 am
#15
I argue that the rule is implied by the mechanics of how you get the city in the firstplace and the fact that it currently works this way is an oversight much the way the vendor issue is an oversight in the code. They simply didn't take it into account or when faced with the quesiton didn't have the time to address it before rolling it out. In either event the logic of the situation indicates to me that if you are required to obtain a skill in this game to hold a position..you are required to keep that skill to retain that position.
I'll review my posts but I believe I stated either that I found the concept to be explotative or a "bit of an exploit" and I do..it is taking advantage of a game design flaw to gain an unfair advantage. I'm not asking anyone be punished for it I simply state that if you are doing it, you might consider that it could be fixed one day. And then your city and all you have worked for could be lost..that was my message.
As for lobbying the devs to fix it I'm not, but if I were asked I would support it being fixed. Just as I would support lower skill requirements for Politician, an alternate way to gain xp, and other skills to make the politican a more full fledged profession.
StumanKadir
Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:01 am
#16
"I argue that the rule is implied by the mechanics of how you get the city in the firstplace and the fact that it currently works this way is an oversight much the way the vendor issue is an oversight in the code."
Hang on, they have had how many months to rectify this and haven't as yet? You would think that an easily solved problem such as this would of at least been acknowledged at some stage since Patch 6 was released. It hasnt to date, even though this issue is in no way new to the profession. The vendor issue has been considered an oversight, the Devs and TH have said as much, yet they are silent on thisissue.
They simply didn't take it into account or when faced with the quesiton didn't have the time to address it before rolling it out. In either event the logic of the situation indicates to me that if you are required to obtain a skill in this game to hold a position..you are required to keep that skill to retain that position.
There are many things they didnt take into account when they released the Player Cities patch - that is recognisable by almost everyone in this forum. And yes, in the normal course of events, you are required to hold a profession to keep a skill - but not to hold a position. Its hard to argue logic when theonly other precedent in this game, equal to that of the Mayor of a city, a PA Leader can effectively do the same thing. A guild leader requires no skill, yet they hold the leadership of a guild. Logic would, according to you, dictate that as the leader of a guild is required to place a PA Hall, should they not also be forced to retain ownership of that Hall? Yet one of the first things a PA Hall placer does is hand it off to another character so as not to be burdened by the loss of 9 lots.
If I dropped Novice Politician, I lose the skills inherent to that profession. Logic doesn't dictate that I can no longer hold, what is to all effects, a position as the head of a city. A profession yes I could understand, but a position?
I'll review my posts but I believe I stated either that I found the concept to be explotative or a "bit of an exploit" and I do..it is taking advantage of a game design flaw to gain an unfair advantage. I'm not asking anyone be punished for it I simply state that if you are doing it, you might consider that it could be fixed one day. And then your city and all you have worked for could be lost..that was my message.
I'm still uneasy of the easy bandying around of the word "exploit" whether used in the context that you used in it, or as an outright cry. If something is allowed to be done in the game, as that is the way the game was coded, and it is not announced by TH or the devs that "thou shalt not do this", then it surely cant even be considered to be exploitative, or even a "bit of an exploit", and that is my message.
I still fail to understand though where you get the idea that being a Mayor without the Novice Politician profession, somehow offers the player an "unfair advantage". If there was an advantage to a Mayor, I for one am not aware of it. I see my role as being a helper to other players, as a content adder to the game. Its a job I have grown to enjoy for those reasons - even taking into account the continual interruptions the position has to my gameplay, to the detriment of my skill point usage, to my back pocket, to my stress levels.
So the unfair advantage lies where? People are still free to run against me. I had to spend the skill points initially to gain the position as will they. I can drop the skill once I get into office, so can they. I spent a heap of skill points and money and time building this city up - they won't have to as its all been done. If there is any unfair advantage it surely lies with the incumberent. It was they who have done all the work, everyone else who comes after just has to maintain it.
As for lobbying the devs to fix it I'm not, but if I were asked I would support it being fixed. Just as I would support lower skill requirements for Politician, an alternate way to gain xp, and other skills to make the politican a more full fledged profession.
And to this all I can say is a hearty yes. This profession is half-cooked, with lots of loose ends flaying around, and to me as a Mayor, I am surprised that even with all of the problems inherent in the system, that PCs have been rather successful (well they are to me at least).
(nb: this bottom bit shoudnt of been there 
)
)Message Edited by StumanKadir on 06-29-2004 11:08 PM
DocSavag
Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:56 am
#17
StumanKadir I have explained 3 times now why it is an unfair advantage. The advantage is the city existing at all. If you dont' have someone with novice politican you can't form a city. Keeping a city without a novice politican as mayor is unfair to other cities that would like to form.
As far as you personally it does also give you an advantage. If I decide to run against you in the election I have to tie up 15 more points than you do to run. That's unfair. Why are you even allowed to run against me at all without novice politican?
The fact that it isn't fixed doesn't imply they don't want to fix it or that they won't. I don't toss around the word exploit but when someone is using a game mechanic to attain or keep something beyond what is reasonable then it qualifies. Thats it..thats my opinion.
At least we agree on the fact that the politican profession needs to be fleshed out and finished. Hopefully that will come in time as resources currently on other aspects of the game are returned to the live team.
Message Edited by DocSavag on 06-30-2004 09:02 AM
StumanKadir
Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:13 pm
#18
Hmm...now lets see, I've kept my Politician skills so that I can move up and down the skill boxes as needed, and so that I can service the citizens of my city adequately.
YouNFeegan on the other hand posted this not less than a week ago, and I quote.....
"Well, after sacrificing my Novice Riflemen (with my awsome T21),and reverting back to Rifles IV with my laser rifle to surrender enough points to finally master Politician - I've now surrendered Politician. I wasn't even master for 24 hrs...lol (or boohoo) Now, if it were you, just how low would you lower your politician skills?
Our city has everthing in the line of civic structures and I won't be adding more gardens to it. We're about 67 citizens but I doubt I get 6700 xp every week. Actually, I have to check that.
Tks"
The posting can be found at http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Politician&message.id=35449#M35449
It would be nice to see if you can practice what you preach for change 
Message Edited by StumanKadir on 07-01-2004 01:26 PM
StumanKadir
Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:25 pm
#19
Docsavage, I respect your viewpoint but still consider that you are wrong.
You argue initially that its for personal advantage and consider it "a kind of exploit" because of that,but then you say that the advantage is in the city remaining - but isnt this more of a community advantage than a personal advantage?. If our city was on Naboo or Tat or Corellia where city caps meant that our city remaining in existance was preventing othersfrom placing a city (or growing) for themselves, then yes, I could be drawn to agree with you and say that an unfair advantage over others is in existance.
But on the less populated planets (we are on Talus), that is not an issue. My actions have no impact over others who wish to place and grow cities, nor do they impact other players - aside from an inability to porperly fulfill my position by an inability to grant zoning rights, replace trainers, streetlights, etc.
My point still stands though and that is -until it is said otherwise, I (and others) are free to drop and pickup our Politician skills as circumstances (and apprentice points) dictate.
For myself I have found that it is impossible to run a city of the size of Draicco without the necessary skills (or the ability to pickup needed skills as necessary) and as such remain a Politician - at present a 2/1/3/2 one. Others do not have such needs (such as Nfeegan so eloquently illustrates in the above quote), and are currently free, due to the existing game mechanics, to treat this profession as a temporary one.
ArthurP
Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:02 pm
#20
As a Master Politician (yes i own an empty box), I'll add my two cents worth to this discussion.
By definition, an exploit is using the game mechanics to take an unfair advantage - and go against the spirit of the devs law - if not the letter of said law. I'm sure there is a more precise definition but I think this will work.
To START a city, a player must round up citizens AND have novice politcian. This we can agree on as working as designed. If this player wants his city to grow, take advantage of all benefits available - he will need to develop his skill tree. To do this he will need votes, and depending on the size of his/her city this may take a long time.
Once a city is established and lets say fully decorated and fitted with all mission terminals and trainers... WHAT does he need those skill points for? Nothing... The devs even gave us a nice empty box for Master Politician for all our hard work and patience - but let's not go there.
If this politician decided to drop all BUT novice politician, I'm assuming there would be no complains, right? Why not. Isn't he and his city 'exploiting' a system that allows for the city to function with mission terminals, trainers, building, decorations, specializations that the mayor no longer has skill points for? Isn't this the same thing?
If you say, "Yes", what if the mayor is voted out of office and a new novice politician takes his place. Is it your belief that the city should revert back to the functions that only a new novice politician can support? If you say yes, then I belive you are in the minority - certainly among the devs who have yet to suggest such a thing.
As to dropping mayor altogether, it's just a matter of degree. If he can drop down to Novice Politician and not effect the city - what's the big deal of dropping politician totally. It's certainly not HIS fault the devs made the system function this way.And I think a city will eventually fall if the mayor is that uninterested in the job.. but that's for his citizens to decide.
While I'd tend to agree that perhaps the system could use an overhaul (more power and content for mayors), until the devs give us the abilty to resign - it's not even fair to call the reclaiming of skill points an exploit - if you are STUCK in a job you no longer want. If you are in a city that is capped and can't grow - I can see your frustration... but calling this an exploit is not the answer to your problem.
Fneegan
Thu Jul 01, 2004 12:15 am
#21
I'm all for DocSavag on Pappi on this also.
I totally am for you guys and totally understand. It's pretty clear.
If you're gonna give it up,a city should also give up whatever that a particular level of politician entailed just as being able to be a mayor in the first place - required that you become politician in the first place.
If you give up:
-city custom -> there goes the gardens, fountains and statues
- martial policy II -> there goes your clone centre
Then, see how many will drop it.
DocSavag
Fri Jul 02, 2004 8:22 am
#22
StumanKadir wrote:Docsavage, I respect your viewpoint but still consider that you are wrong.You argue initially that its for personal advantage and consider it "a kind of exploit" because of that,but then you say that the advantage is in the city remaining - but isnt this more of a community advantage than a personal advantage?. If our city was on Naboo or Tat or Corellia where city caps meant that our city remaining in existance was preventing othersfrom placing a city (or growing) for themselves, then yes, I could be drawn to agree with you and say that an unfair advantage over others is in existance.But on the less populated planets (we are on Talus), that is not an issue. My actions have no impact over others who wish to place and grow cities, nor do they impact other players - aside from an inability to porperly fulfill my position by an inability to grant zoning rights, replace trainers, streetlights, etc.My point still stands though and that is -until it is said otherwise, I (and others) are free to drop and pickup our Politician skills as circumstances (and apprentice points) dictate.For myself I have found that it is impossible to run a city of the size of Draicco without the necessary skills (or the ability to pickup needed skills as necessary) and as such remain a Politician - at present a 2/1/3/2 one. Others do not have such needs (such as Nfeegan so eloquently illustrates in the above quote), and are currently free, due to the existing game mechanics, to treat this profession as a temporary one.
I don't agree that sacrificing skills within the politican tree should be detrimental to the city in the terms of items already placed. That is not fair to the city. I only ask that you keep novice politician because I feel giving it up makes you unqualified to hold the position of mayor.
Fneegan
Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:20 am
#23
StumanKadir wrote:You NFeegan on the other han
Yes - that's what I said. You can do it AND so can I. But, I'm not so concerned about it because - I am willing to sacrafice a profession AND keep mayorhood - if that's what it takes. Hey, I'll get the skills back if I have to.
You on the other hand, such as the cross server lot swapping of static lots in the Architect post thinkit's fine if it's only when you are the one thatbenefits.
YOU want the cake and eat it too.
Page 2 of 2