Politician Archive
Thread: Cross server resident trade ban
Zamphire8
Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:15 pm
#14
what a stupid Idea.
Alot of people play on mor the one server. Why grief them?
MStarfire
Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:43 am
#15
While in theory, this sounds like a good idea, but you are failing to understand one thing. It is not the minority of players who actually play on multiple servers. By doing this you are denying them the ability to be a part of a city with both characters they play. Personally, I don't see the cross server as a major concern. As a mayor myself, I would be very upset to learn that some of my residents now had to choose which server to own a residnece on. As I have found the ones that aren't active in my city do not play on another server at all.
I realize your efforts are noble in bringing this up, but do we really want one more character perk dictated by code and the developers and not just common sense?
Talos'Voren
Mayor of Amaranth
badpin
Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:59 am
#16
Well I dont see what playing on a server has to do with the use of a character as a residence. The residence is used to buid a city to keep its rank and with a limited amount of citys there needs to be a limited amount of residence.
All im saying is that if you wish to play on another server fine if you wish to be a part of more than 2 cities fine but the benifits and "exploit" of holding and using cross server trades and mulltiple residenceto lock out those people that dont have 10 hours a day to play and wish to be able to have a city but cant due to the fact that6 accounts cancreate a city is un-fair. So to the person that wrote in and said he plays on multiple servers and so do his friends well fine but allow others then to have the oportunity to create a city because by playing on multiple servers creatingmultiple cities with all your friends denies the right for other paying customers to try and have a cityand just because your life is centered around "swg" is not fair to the young kids who want to play who are in school and wish to have a city but either cant log alot or are not "power" gamers. My solution of 1 resident per account would notstop you from playing on other servers it would not force people to decide which city they would want to be in, all it would do is stop this abuse.If a person wishes to play on multiple servers fine and live in multiple cities fine but on the second city they could not be a resident. They couldjoin a guild in that city build a house what ever but not a residence which is used to gain a citys rank.All im speaking of is stopping the use of residence to create and hold a citys rank andI still cant believe that people are arguing about this againI state anyone not interested in this is using this exploit or wishes to use it.
PreLaunch
Wed Jul 28, 2004 10:19 am
#17
Hi,
Just 1 point you have not brought up in your example of this problem.
You say 1 person 6 accounts = a city.
The problem there is that this one person to get that city and keep it going needs to at the very LEAST put down 55 small houses which because they are all lot trades would result in him having to pay the cash to keep them all running.
In my city with a 30% structure tax a small house costs 20k a month to run. So in your example I would have to pay 1.1 million credits a month just to keep those 55 small houses going and then you could add to that the cost of city hall and shuttle port and anything else I have in the city. Considering in your example I am the only one there this cost would send me broke quicker than I would want to think about. On TOP of all that the devs would still not stop it because Cities are meant to be a cash drain and if I was stupid enough to want to drain my cashflow to that extent then the devs would just laugh at me as would any other person on the server.
Lot trades would never exist the way you explain them. I have them in my City but they were never there to artificially inflate our numbers. They were put there simply because if we have to have storage houses then it would be STUPID of me as the mayor to not get these people to decalre residance while they were putting down these storage houses.
CRAFTERS are the main storage house users. Our Weaponsmithhas about 10 storage houses and our Armoursmith has about 8. They are not stupid either though. They dont want to pay taxes on all these houses so they put one inside the city for the lot trader to declare residance and then put the rest outside the boarder so as to not pay taxes on them.
My city population is 145 of those I would say about 15 are lot trade citizens. My biggest citizen getter are as you said multiple account people. I myself have 3 accounts and a few in the city have 4 accounts. Plenty have 2 accounts.
My Job as Mayor is not to worry about what other mayors are doing or what tactics they are using to build numbers. My Job is to get as many TAX paying citizens and structures INTO the city as I can. The more I have the more the tax burden can be spread out and reduced. I had to have a tax of 50% structure to cover all the city costs up until we hit 130 people. We have all the large gardens and all the small gardens and about half the medium gardens.
I have only just recently been able to reduce the structure tax to 30% and the city is only just breaking even. I can tell you that if I happen to find 25 more crafters who all also need a lot trade to use for storage I will grab them with open arms. Those extra 50 houses/citizens will further allow me to reduce the taxes on the city overall down to maybe 15%.
So yes you are right in saying lot trades are an issue but they are not as massive an issue as you make out. Those houses have to be paid for which drains the games cash flow which in the end is something the devs want.
I am also sure that in any press release the developers make on cities in SWG they would much rather say "we have cities of over 200 citizens" than to bring back the inactivity rule and stop lot trade citizens and say " we lost 200 cities over night".
This once again is more of an issue on the heavy populated servers. You can not bring this rule in across the board because you will destroy practicaly every city that exists on some of the newer or less populated servers. You could make the EXTREME statement that maybe the entier Europe servers are simply peoples alt characters and NOBODY realy plays there as their main. So bringing in your rule whould close down that servers city population overnight. They would disappear. That would not make the kind of headlines the developers are after.
Im sure they would much rather say "We have so many players that some servers have lost room for new cities and the ingame population grows bigger by the day, just look at cities as an example. "
X-caliber-Bria
Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:22 pm
#18
"All im speaking of is stopping the use of residence to create and hold a citys rank andI still cant believe that people are arguing about this againI state anyone not interested in this is using this exploit or wishes to use it."
Hmm so If I diagree with you I am an exploiter orI secretly long to be an exploiter.... That is some messed up logic.
As you can probably tell I disagree with you and am not an exploiter.....
Anyhow, I just don't see this as being that detrimental to the game. I see it as a minor as compared to other game breaking problems that exist andcalling it an exploit is embellishing at best. To be honest I would rather see work done to fix the master politician not having any bonuses at master before they ever addressed this. Then maybe add player city malls, then allow terraforming, streets, bazaar terminals,etc etc etc...
Is the real problem that you currently cannot get your player city around one of SOE's imposed player city caps? If it is, that really is annoying but is also a different issue all together and one that the proposed solution inthis thread most likely won't help you with.
badpin
Wed Jul 28, 2004 2:08 pm
#19
Not messed up logic just desperate for change.
I agree with all you points on what needs to be fixed in politicianI have been our citys only mayor since the second city draft.
I feel the inactive player thing was on the right track.
I do believe cross server trades for residence is an issue.
More of what imsearching for is a way to allow citys to be ranked to recieve a schuttle or other city buildings other than by residence and political skill.
For instance-sales,activity,an event prize.ect...
And if I seem as though I am not the best at this to some of you Remember our citys name is Anarchy.
Pinwha
Hvzeda
Wed Jul 28, 2004 2:25 pm
#20
badpin wrote:
Also I am not against cross server trade for storage or any other use as long as someone maintains it.
I am against cross server residence trade and feel it needs to change.
If someone is going to do a cross-server trade for storage, it would be dumb not to make them a citizen. But you state you are against cross-server for residence so you would have to be against cross-server for storage, but you state you have no problem with cross-server trade for storage. Which is it?
There are far more bigger issues in the game than cross-server exchange. Broken profession, incomplete professions, GCW revamp, etc, etc, etc.
I'm a residence in three cities on three different servers. On one, the city needed a pa hall and ask me if I would use my lots to help them out, so I did. I don't maintain it and their city benefit. So you want to deny that city and the people in that city their enjoyment? On another server, I run enough missions to pay maintenance and now and then run missions with a few citizens there. I have cross-server exchange in the city I manage and most of those houses are storage units for crafters. A couple of them will from time to time log in to escape the server in which their main is on. So you want to deny all of us our enjoyment of the game? As far as I knew, my monthly payment is no better or no worse than your monthly payment. So you play the game the way you wish and I will play it the way I wish.
badpin
Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:45 pm
#21
yes point made but again the issue or seems lack there of is the use of cross server trade to increase residence of a city and there by recieving benifits from these so called residence for political xp, city rank advancement and keeping a citys rank.
I fell my point is better stated if I approached this from another angle how about the devs eliminate residence as a way of gaining or holding city rank as it is abused.
And as far as moreneeded broken issues I beleive the only place to start is from the ground up and the fundemental structure of citys is broken.
Mrs_Green
Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:16 pm
#22
You really like to assume things, dontcha? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the second city is not entirely composed of one group of friends that mainly play on a different server? Perhaps one player started playing on the server, met a nice group of people, and some of his friends on the first server came over too? In my case, my main character is the mayor ofa pvp oriented town. As a change of pace, I'd like to start a twi'lek only city, composed of people who enjoy roleplaying the species Twi'lek. Most of my zab pvp buddies aren't coming. I'm looking to interact with a different type of group. And yes, your idea will force people to choose which city they would like to be a part of. If youa ren't a resident, you don't get the city emails, you aren't a part of the city. And your hairbrained scheme would definitely make me choose which city I wanted to run. Since I'd only be able to have one residence, I can only have one city hall. Explain that one, Einstein. For someone so crazy about anarchy, you sure seem to be a big fan of ridiculous oppresive rules.
badpin wrote:
So to the person that wrote in and said he plays on multiple servers and so do his friends well fine but allow others then to have the oportunity to create a city because by playing on multiple servers creatingmultiple cities with all your friends denies the right for other paying customers to try and have a cityand just because your life is centered around "swg" is not fair to the young kids who want to play who are in school and wish to have a city but either cant log alot or are not "power" gamers. My solution of 1 resident per account would notstop you from playing on other servers it would not force people to decide which city they would want to be in, all it would do is stop this abuse.If a person wishes to play on multiple servers fine and live in multiple cities fine but on the second city they could not be a resident.
badpin
Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:43 am
#23
The last post had several very good points.Thank you
But as our City may be diferent than most we charge no taxes and never have.
Our city is completly paid for by a small group within the city.
We pay about 565k a week in maint for all buildings in the city.
Citizens just have to pay maint on their buildings.
Our treasury started with a bit over 50 mil credits we are down a bit to maybe 35 mil atm but turning around 4-5 mil a week in sales.
No citizen has ever had to payed any tax we are very generous to all citizens with resorces and credits.
It is my opinion that at some point credits make no diffence anymore we are allelite crafters and resorce traders.
I feel your point hits the spot for most, except those that have mega credits.
Also I am not against cross server trade for storage or any other use as long as someone maintains it.
I am against cross server residence trade and feel it needs to change.
Afecks
Thu Jul 29, 2004 1:58 am
#24
I don't see cross server resident trades as an exploit or as a problem. What difference does it make to you? Those 6 players are paying for maintenance on all 85 houses, so what's it to you? Sounds to me like it's personal. You have your methods, other mayors have theirs, hence why they aren't mayor of your city, and vice versa. Leave everyone else the hell alone.
Acantho
Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:29 am
#25
badpin how many times are you going to post this same thing???
I agree with you that cross server trades for the sole purpose of increasing the number of residents is wrong. But I don't agree with your resolution.
What I'd rather see is them to reinstate the loss of citizenship after a certain time has passed. That was slightly glitched but it worked. I know... we lost a ton of citizens that way. This would keep cities flowing but the problem it creates is that once they're no longer citizens, their house remains... so how do you get new citizens if you can't build. Sure the maintenance will run out but I know for a fact that some houses have enough maintenance in them to last years. We'll see a city update before some of these houses run out of maintenance.
There isn't enough good land out there to build cities on. You'd end up with a exponential increase in houses as people leave the game etc. and new people join all wanting their own cities... or to join cities... or cities moving to open space to start over.
Sure this would allow you to get your lvl 3 or 4 or 5 but in the end... I'd rather see lots of vegetation/animals/etc then houses
And yes I was babbling and don't even know if I stayed on topic. LOL
I agree with you that cross server trades for the sole purpose of increasing the number of residents is wrong. But I don't agree with your resolution.
What I'd rather see is them to reinstate the loss of citizenship after a certain time has passed. That was slightly glitched but it worked. I know... we lost a ton of citizens that way. This would keep cities flowing but the problem it creates is that once they're no longer citizens, their house remains... so how do you get new citizens if you can't build. Sure the maintenance will run out but I know for a fact that some houses have enough maintenance in them to last years. We'll see a city update before some of these houses run out of maintenance.
There isn't enough good land out there to build cities on. You'd end up with a exponential increase in houses as people leave the game etc. and new people join all wanting their own cities... or to join cities... or cities moving to open space to start over.
Sure this would allow you to get your lvl 3 or 4 or 5 but in the end... I'd rather see lots of vegetation/animals/etc then houses
And yes I was babbling and don't even know if I stayed on topic. LOL
menyou
Thu Jul 29, 2004 1:53 pm
#26
I don't like lot swaps of any type (including the static harvester issue) however I'm not sure how to solve the problem.
People MUST be allowed to hold multiple residences BUT they should be active residences.
People MUST be allowed to hold multiple residences BUT they should be active residences.