Politician Archive
Thread: Anyone NOT HAPPY that inactivity rule is gone temporarily?
You do what everyone else does. Either you post on the boards or spawn in C-net. You will find more available people to cross server trade than active people looking for a home. The population is simply bigger. That is how it is easier. The rest is the same. Get the person a house, find a spot, set house up, pay maintenance, declare. That process is identical. You also have control over that property via admin, so you can control it's fate, unlike an active person that may or may not stay. My personal preference is live active people as I run quite a large business and that means customers. Just because I do not engage in or like the practice it doesn't mean others are not free to do so. That is my point and my concern. Power gamers are extremely good at what they do because they think things through and find ways to control their surroundings rather than the surroundings controling them.
My head my be thick, but what is inside is very intelligent. Try thinking things through a bit, what I am saying may start to make a bit more sense.
I think we all agree that something needs to be done about the inactivity, we just disagree on the how. For some reason this inactive rule has many fans. I have yet to see one solid reason why it is good other than it address the inactivity. Please take note, that just because it addresses the issues, do not mean it is either good or effective. Nuking the hell out of Iraq addresses the issue but not in a good way. Same deal with this rule, it creates more problems than it solves and doesn't actually prevent ghost towns or cross server swapers. I've shown exactly why this is the case.
I've also brought up alternative means to address the issue, that simply increasing city hall maintanence. The only solution I can come up with, yet I only hear people that either want to do nothing or do somthing that does a piss poor job and creates other problems. Talk about closed mindedness. The Devs can't seem to come up with a real solution, so it is up to us to do so. So I'll ask people what their ideas for a solution to this problem.
Mep,
Your lesson on how to lot swap isn't the issue. ..... is it. Your view does not display how its easier to swap with the 6-week Timer in place. Prepare to be skull-knocked.
Without Timer
Abido wrote:
This is the whole point of the timer, and the whole point of the system.
Don't EVER argue the needs of those not playing are greater than the needs of those still active in the game.
Yet isn't that what Thunderheart is arguing as a primary design decision in SWG? That player houses need to remain after people leave the game in case they come back? I think often the decision *is* made that those who have left are more important than those still playing, but that's another matter entirely. (I think we agree on that point...)
What the six week timer forces me to do is to micromanage the city. I have to know how many people are active, how recently they've been on, and whether they plan to continue playing. To be blunt, I'm a RL pastor and I already have one church to take care of, thanks. I play SWG for fun, not to relive my workday. I don't mind using up the skill credits in politician skills, though I feel (as all professions do) that we should have more content. I don't mind, and daresay enjoy the time spent planning the city and working out the best balance of skill trainers for the citizens of the town. I don't even mind having to work out the finances with the half info provided by the treasury reports. (Yeah, I know...wishlist...color me cynical.)
What I *do* mind, though, is being punished for things I have no control whatsoever over. We've probably lost 30+ citizens due to inactivity in Aventine. Thankfully we've gained a few to make up the numbers, but not near as many as we've lost. We didn't lose them because they were cross server trades. We didn't lose them to another player city that was doing better/more/other stuff. We didn't lose them because the mayor cranked taxes too high or made a bad speech. We didn't even lose them over RP'd differences. We lost them because they lost interest in SWG due to the lack of content. TIme after time after time people e-mail me, PM me on our forums, or otherwise chat with me to warn me that they're leaving SWG because they're bored. There's not a thing I can do about that. It's not that we don't plan activities, nor that we don't have different kinds for different people. It's just that no matter how hard I work, the (slowly changing) fact that SOE has not thus far provided enough content to hold their interest causes them to leave. And because of that, the city I and others have devoted so much time to creating suffers.
The best comparison I can think of is that mayors end up trying to do the work of Sysiphus. (Mythic Greek sentenced by the gods to forever roll a stone up a hill to the top, only to have it roll down the other side and begin again.) I don't mind recruiting people to join the city. I *enjoy* telling people about Aventine. But I *hate* being in a position where because I know six people are leaving this week that I *must* find replacements to fill their spots. And, as time goes on, I'm discovering that not only must I find those six people, I must also find a place they can put their house that is still available. The revised housing placement rules help, but the ghost structures slowly add up over time, making it harder and harder to find new ground, and I'm left knowing the reality that if I can't reclaim *some* of the lost land, no matter what I do Aventine will slowly be strangled and die from inactivity.
And so where does the inactivity timer leave me as a mayor? I need a source of reliable, available citizens that I can count on to appear in game in a timely manner. And when I note that the mayors on the other servers share my problem, it immediately occurs to me that perhaps we hold the solution to one another's issue, and it actually encourages me to engage in lot swaps. I'm thoroughly against the practice personally, but I see why other mayors see it as a viable alternative to prevent the erosion of their city.
Thedisagreement is that you, as most people, are approaching player cities as though an artificial cap on the established number creates an effective, fluctuating and fun game, which it simply doesn't. The challenge of a city should be in buidling and balancing its priorities and future, not in trying to convince people that paying taxes isn't so bad once you get used to it. And, perhaps most importantly, the advancement of one player community should *never* depend on the failure of another. That's just plain bad design.
I'm not one to curse the darkness without lighting a candle, so let's take a moment and look at the goals/limits of the player city system.
The Vision: Player cities are intended to be player community building devices. Players come together to form a city with the intent of being able to provide benefit for the mutual good, much as Locke thought. The politician is intended to be a dynamic class, with several different goals for the city represented by several different leaders vying for the mayoral seat. Over time, as cities grew and prospered, they would gain access to new and often competing abilities which would require further civil discussion. New players coming to SWG would find the allure of a well run player city so enamouring that they should not be able to wait until they can afford a house and petition the civil government for membership. Older players would find the friendships and relationships built as part of the shared work of the city to be a binding force, keeping them playing SWG when other interests have waned.
The Reality: Player cities are largely deserted. Many are presently run by a sole politician who often can't give away the job for the benefit of a small circle of friends and often little else. Certain specializations, such as research center for a crafting oriented city or increasing mission payouts for a combative one are simply no-brainers in the political decisions. New players have little to no incentive to join player cities, because identical facilities and better business can be found in NPC towns. (City specializaitons remain the one deviation from that and are, it seems, insufficient.) Older players find few if any ties within a player city to bind them to the game any longer than it takes to hit the cancel button on their account.
The Problems: Before we examine solutions, let's define problems. The biggest issue is a philosophical one. The vast majority of SWG's design philosophy in general, and player cities in specific, is based around the Lockian idea that people are essentially good. That given the right environment and tools, people will work together to create amazing things and MMORPG players, given sufficient ability, will generate their own staggering amount of content. Recent events in our world, as well as the experience of SWG (especially player cities) have revealed this to be simply wrong. The fact is that the first impulse of any person given a new tool to play with is to bash someone over the head with it and enjoy playing with two tools for a while. People are by nature selfish. We may strive to overcome that state, but in the end we remain as we are. Players are not, in general, going to work hard to create a city for the benefit of other players outside their circle of friends. Exceptions exist, but they are just that, exceptions to the rule itself. They may well do so accidentally, providing a service to others as Aventine provides skill trainers for half of Naboo, it seems sometimes, but that is rarely, if ever the intent. I realize that this is a controversial point, and that philosophers have hardly settled it, but I think we see ample evidence of the desire for individuals to get ahead at the expense of the greater good all over player cities. The griefing that occured with /citywarn, the cross server trading of lots to artificially inflate cities, and the desire for each small ciricle of PA's/friends/whatever to have their own class 4 city (myself included, of course...) seem to be the most prominent examples.
Secondly, there is little to no reason to live in a player city. Most all of the important features of a player city are not only duplicated, but often exceeded in NPC cities due to the presence of more players. It's something of a catch-22; If player cities had more players, they'd have more players. As it stands now, when player cities first came out I offered to extend citizenship to a couple of players living not far from our city, but outside its radius. Given the presence of mounts and now vehicles, their immediate question was why they should bother to move their existing buildings and pay taxes in order to enjoy what they could now given a very brief ride. There simply is no good, tangible in game answer to that question. I can offer intangibles, like community and friendship, but for most that's a secondary consideration, at best. As it stands now we offer a very generous package to people moving in to our city and still have difficulty gaining new members.
Third, the goals of player cities are too easily satisfied. If you're a crafting town, you work your way to R&D. If you're combat, you up mission payouts. I've never heard nor seen a city using medical center, entertainment district, or sample rich environement thus far. There are no real competing goals to be worked with as things stand now, because there is too little for player cities to do too easily.
Finally, cities are great places to "live", but horrible places to actually stay. This is related to the second point, but reflects the fact that even after people have declared citizenship and become a part of the community, they're rarely, if ever, to be found in that community. The need for harvesters, harder missions, or big game hunts pull them out of player cities before there's any chance for community to form.
Possible Solutions: These are pure, off the hip thoughts, so expect no polish... The initial, and most basic solution, is to rework our theory of community in SWG to reflect a more (though never completely!) Hobbesian view of human nature. People band together, according to Hobbes, because life in the natural state is nasty, brutish and short. They create and institute government to protect them from threats internal and external. If you want that creating to involve player cities, then consider making it more difficult to establish communities and homesteads away from them.Increase the maintenance exponentially for every house within 10m of your house unless you're within an established player city radius. Or, perhaps make animal/gang attacks on structures more likely, draining the maintenance pool more quickly when damage is done. Allow player cities to establish defensive perimeters to ensure these attacks are rare or non-existent inside their borders. In short, give players some external threat to make joining a player city more advantageous than the right to pay taxes. (Please note that I'm *not* suggesting a purely Hobbesian approach, which leads us near to Stalinism more than anything. Merely that if we stop assuming people will band together because other people are so wonderful to be around and start giving them reasons not to live aloneit will work better.)
Secondly, in addition to the stick, there must be the carrot. Player cities must offer some compelling, tangible benefit that causes people to regard them as a significant advantage over living alone or in a NPC city. In addition to the above, there must be some benefit to living in a player city. Perhaps not every NPC city on the planet has every type of facility possible to have. It's entirely possible that some NPCcities might not even have med centers, or cloning centers. (Continuity debate aside there...) When I think of what advantages I have in RL in living in the city I do, I come to the conclusion that the only things that I really gain from living here over 60 miles in the country are benefits in terms of commercial and transportation options. NPC cities should *never* exceed player cities in these categories, as they presently do (starports and bazaars). Also, the creation of a compelling set of worthwhile choices to be made by the mayors of player cities will, if done properly, consist of advantages to players that entice them to live in cities that choose a compatible path. I realize the roleplaying advantages of a player city are incredible, but that's a very small enticement to most people it seems.
Third, as mentioned above there should be several worthwhile, mutually exclusive goals that cities can pursue for each playstyle. Break apart the benefits given to each specialization, and spread the new, smaller speciallizations across the politician tree. Allow mayors to pick several (depending on how many total there are) but never enough to min/max for every alternative. Think of them akin to SIm City ordinances, with benefits, costs, and balances to be maintained. Some suggestions:
- Fiscal responsibility policy-Reduces the city maintenance costs by a randomly determined 1-25% (bell curve, leaning towards the middle) every week.
- Improved Job Market-Mission payouts remain unchanged, but every view of a mission terminal returns twice as many missions available as normal.
- Industrial Subsidy-costs of running one chosen type of factory are reduced by 25%
- Musical heritage program-All entertainer gain an additional 10% experience
- Virtuoso training-All citizen entertainers' buffs become 10-20% more effective.
- Bacta contract-All healing attempts are 10% more effective
- Fortified drinking water-All citizens gain an additional 3-5% resistance to poison and disease.
- Target range-Citizens gain +5% accuracy on all ranged combat rolls
- Teras Kasi Dojo-Above, but for Melee
- Research center-One crafting skill type is chosen (engineering based, medical based, natural based (BE/Scout/Ranger), Domestic based) and the corresponding citizen professions gain +1 experimentation point.
I'm sure there are more out there, but these are just some startingideas. Make the mayor give serious thought to which policies will keep the most people happy this week.
Finally, give people a reason to stay IN player cities. The bazaars and starports would help, of course, but there has to be a way to get people away from Coronet and Theed. Make player starports faster than NPC ones. (Shuttles as well!) Add NPC's to give flavor and a bit of a crowd to current player cities. People, even fake ones, attract people. (I've been tempted to scatter our skill trainers all over town for that reason, but I'd hate the flood of e-mails saying "What did you do with trainer X?" :-P) Give players some strong reason to visit, or make their home in the player cities. I think this is possibly deriviative of the above issues, and should probably be re-evaluated once those issues are properly addressed.
If you've read this far, thank you. If you've read this far and you're a developer, many more thanks. Remember that we're all on the same side here. We all want each and every player city to be the very best it can be, and for each mayor to have relevant, worthwhile things to do with his or her skills and time. I've got to get some sleep here, so be well, and thanks for listening.
-Charin Ianaro
Mayor, Aventine, Naboo, Kettemoore
(Edit: Left an 'o' off of a 'too'...pet peeve.)
Message Edited by Avallach on 04-10-2004 01:51 AM
Abido wrote:
Avallach wrote:
The fact remains that the vast majority of lost citizens are people who have left or taken a break from SWG, chosen or otherwise. (We have at least one member who's deployed in Iraq right now, for example, and a couple who have lost jobs and had to take a break while searching.) The problem isn't that cities don't fluctuate, the problem is that there's an artificial cap on the number of cities per planet. If they fixed the database adequately to allow cities to grow if they have the citizens, then the need for an inactivity timer disappears. (Truly inactive cities *will* fall due to maintenance, unless someone's picking up the tab week after week which isn't worth the effort.) I understand what the timer was meant to do, it's just a bad solution to the wrong problem.
This is the whole point of the timer, and the whole point of the system.
Don't EVER argue the needs of those not playing are greater than the needs of those still active in the game.
This is a fine solution to the very problem that creates a fluctuating Player City atmosphere. As to how this could possibly do "nothing" to the lot swapping, I disagree. It creates a monstrous hassle. A hassle that may involve work from toons that no longer exist on other servers, or maybe they no longer play and can't remove the houses from these dealings. Whats the argument to fight lot swap problems?..... Land space and the ability to remove inactive houses.
Reactivate the timer.
Actually it makes lot swaping more attractive not less. People will leave the game be it on your server or another. The difference is, if they are a lot swaper and you have admin on that house, then you have control over when that house goes away. That isn't the case when some guy decides to take a few months off until space and pays up for many months.
We need a system that hurts lot swaping, not encourages it.
Arrange 5 lot swaps. Pay house maintenance for 5 weeks. In 6 weeks house goes away as does the citizen. Repete process every month and a half for continued effect. Just to easy and actually more managable than getting active people on the server.
Meplorium wrote:
As to the need for player cities to be more engaging, well that is a bit off topic. Personally I spend a lot of time in my city. I am a crafter however and that is where my resources, factories and shops are. I have a reason to be there. If you are a combat player, there is nothing for you there save for some social time or to restock on supplies from the cities crafters. I don't think cities were ever suppose to be these large havens where everyone stays put. I've seen cities with 6 faction bases going down the main street. Very PvP directed city and very active to boot. They have the land to do that, at least for now. The activity rule takes land and they may come to the point of choosing between their shuttleport and bases. This is another case of the active rule failing. It can kill a city that gives land to content. There is content in this game, you just need to be creative to get it. Though some people have 'done it all' and more of the same is just not interesting anymore. You can get philisophical about it all you want, but in the end people are just bored. I am sure Hobbes put a few people to sleep in his day.
Abido wrote:
Mep,
Your lesson on how to lot swap isn't the issue. ..... is it. Your view does not display how its easier to swap with the 6-week Timer in place. Prepare to be skull-knocked. - Feel free to try to skull knock if you can. Doesn't look like it though. It is easier to swap lots as there are far far more people on other servers without residence on your server as there is people on your server without residence. This very simple fact makes it easier to find a lot swaper over a real resident. The 6 week rule increases demand for residents. The basic rule of supply and demand comes into play. The demand will find the supply.
Without Timer
1. Folks from different servers swap lots, and declare residences. This artificially inflates the citizen count, and the residents will continue as long as local moneylords pay the maintenance via shared admin. All houses through this method are static, and will be permanent through local payments. A City of 25 or so can hold and maintain a City of 85, 125, frankly the sky's the limit. - With current maintenance levels this is true. Change those maintenance levels to better reflex the current game economy and this won't be the case for most, but not all players in this situation. The 6 week rule still allows for lot swaps to take place and for this very situation to carry on. A real solution to the problem is needed.
With Timer
1. Folks from lot swapping will need to log into their partnered servers every 6 weeks and redeclare. (hassle) - Loging in takes maybe 2 minutes. This can be done while waiting for a shuttle and get this, once very month and a half. I fail to see how this is a hassle or even prevents this. Again this rule does nothing to prevent this from happening.
2. Folks that are partnered in lot-swapping can never quit the game, for if they do, it will cause fossil homes that will never be destroyed unless the local money admins let it rot.......... if they even got proper notice as to the change. (hassle) - They quit the game or continuing playing as much or as little as anyone else in this game. This is what makes the lot swaps more attractive not less. People that leave the game with houses you control, and you don't lot swap without getting admin to pay for the house, can be taken down by you not paying maintanence. Houses that you do not control remain behind often much longer. This fact you point out makes lot swaps more attractive with the active rule, not less. The mayor or city leaders have full control over the structures in their city and can let those that no longer give them the pop count die out. This is in contrast to active players that leave the game with an unknown amount of maintenance paid on their house.
3.Citizens that have long ago declared, and left the game (break, quit, leave), affect their residential town and its lively manner. Never, ever, pay more attention to those not in the game versus collections of people that are actively playing. The Timer kept the Player City environment fluctuating, which is exactly what was intended. - It did accomplish this task at the expense of removing available land to the city of active people. As you said, never, ever pay more attention to those not in the game versus 'actives'. This rule gives limited city land to people who do not play and burdens people actively playing. This problem needs to be address. I think we both can aggree that active players should have preferrence to the resources in the game. The active rules does not accomplish that.
4. Bugs have arisen with double declaration. If folks were a resident elsewhere, and they live in a new place, some have lost citizenship at the new place. This effect is minimal, and is the only reason why it should have stopped. But thats probably not the case, is it, my "omg, theres a chance that I can lose?" lobbying peer group. - Losing to inactive players always sucks, see your comments about active verse inactive players above. Yougot that much right. Many things are buggy in this game. Bugs can be fixed, poor game design can be fixed too. Hopefully they will do both down the road as the activity system is plagued by both problems which I previously described.
5. The Timer made for a competitive Player City environment. One which enabled the Politician game to come alive, pitting City vs City in contests of popularity, events, and creativity to thrive and endure. You are forced to thrive, or decay. Play the class and game as intended, or quite frankly, get the hell out. You're not serving the class or Player City game by lobbying for static cities that can endure from the first 15 minutes of that first placement day. In summary, you need to have the Timer to guage what cities are active, and what are not. We can ALL pay and maintain any City. Play with a chance to lose, or you're not really playing anything, now are you?
- People play to win, that includes doing such things as cross server trades. If a cross server trade is less risky than an actual citizen, then you do what is at lower risk to win the game. Again, cross server trades are less risky. You only pay for 6 weeks of maintenance. If you get a mail from the person at the end of that 6 weeks you know to pay for another 6 weeks, otherwise you let the house die and regain the land. Now that is simple and reality hassle free, unlike houses you have no idea how long will be there and are taking up space. Also note those activities you speak of are in fact more of a 'hassle' than setting up a lot trade and logging in once every month and a half to fulfill your part of the deal. I aggree with your vision of mayor and cities though, it is a nice one. This rule doesn't get us to that point. Now a 5 mil per week maintanence would. Think of all the fund raising events needed to keep the city alive. There is no amount of cross lot swaping that pays for that. Now that is competition and goes a long way to removing money from the game, which is desperately needed. If you can't raise that kind of money and play 'the game as intended, then quite frankly, get the hell out'. It goes both ways on that one, and that is what a skullknock is.
Reactivate the City Residential Timer. It actually gave the hassle against the lot-swappers the Player City environment so desperatly needs. All arguments against the City Timer have been folly and meritless. I can only conclude that they are defending their "gameless" game.....a system that actually threatened their cities into fluctuating against their local peers. Blanket statements like "horrible implementation" and "too short/too long timeframes" and "buggy, so just drop it" are baseless, and impractical compared to the value this system brought to our game. - The reasons against the active rule are both sound and mathetically correct. The impassioned love of this rule has been rather irrational and did nothing to address lot swaps. Actually it created more of a need for them, not less. The limitation of the rule is not enough to 'hassle' anyone as 2 minutes once every month and a half is hardly a 'hassle'. At bestit is adifficult thing to remember since you need to do so very infrequently. Blanket statements were not made by me. I suggest you reread what I have read because it is clear it was a difficult read for you. I gave sounds reasons, even an equation of the space problem and even how lot swaping is better than obtaining actual residents. Though the need to resort to such tatics as over simplying and incorrectly protraying what I said I can see needed by you. This is similar to those that lot swap, it is easy and cheap.
You can sit down now, Mep.
Avallach wrote:
Yet isn't that what Thunderheart is arguing as a primary design decision in SWG? That player houses need to remain after people leave the game in case they come back? I think often the decision *is* made that those who have left are more important than those still playing, but that's another matter entirely. (I think we agree on that point...)
Wow, a truely thought out and well writen post. Now I am standing.
Great pointabout players leaving in high numbers due to a lack of content. They leave their houses behind though as they plan on coming back for space when there is more content. This is want is really making the Loss Land Rate higher than the Regained Land Rate right now. If those two rates were equal, then there wouldn't be a land issue and this inactive rule wouldn't be so damaging.
Mayors should be having fun, not baby sitting people to find out of they are active or not. Having to run around and find 6 citizens is hard. What do you do if you can only find 3? Either you A) look else where, i.e. swap, or B) let your city fall and join the others that left the game. People could and do choose either choice. The fact is lot swaps are more important now, not less.
As to the need for player cities to be more engaging, well that is a bit off topic. Personally I spend a lot of time in my city. I am a crafter however and that is where my resources, factories and shops are. I have a reason to be there. If you are a combat player, there is nothing for you there save for some social time or to restock on supplies from the cities crafters. I don't think cities were ever suppose to be these large havens where everyone stays put. I've seen cities with 6 faction bases going down the main street. Very PvP directed city and very active to boot. They have the land to do that, at least for now. The activity rule takes land and they may come to the point of choosing between their shuttleport and bases. This is another case of the active rule failing. It can kill a city that gives land to content. There is content in this game, you just need to be creative to get it. Though some people have 'done it all' and more of the same is just not interesting anymore. You can get philisophical about it all you want, but in the end people are just bored. I am sure Hobbes put a few people to sleep in his day. 