Politician Archive

Solution by my opinion would be to have zoning rights extend to the 'future' 450m radius right from day one, and remove the /commands from the city hall at the same time.

Imo leaving it as it is, or taking just the /commands away promotes griefing either way in some cases

First off the subject is a little off. Because I think the real problem is the idea that a perfectly good city can have its city hall destroyed aganist its residents wishes. It is irrelevant who does it or why, so sieging is really not the problem, it is razing. It is just as bad if a valid mayor flips out and destroys his city's city hall because of a bad hair day.

The solution to the problem seems easy to me. Do not have a manual city destruct option. Well, but city's should be destroyed in some cases. 1)If a city's populace diminishes enough 2)If a city isnt upkept enough 3)If a city wants to. Ok, well to these Id answer have a city autodestruct if 1)minimum population isnt met and 2)If the city's maintenance isnt paid. Case 3) can be solved using either of these. Ok, well a loophole exists. A mayor can cut all taxes and/or empty the maintenance fund. Ok, well how about, when a civic structure (like city hall) is damaged, any citizen may donate funds directly into it for repair? I think that covers it.

I think this solves the razing issue, and I hope everyone can get behind these ideas. Now all this Sieging business is separate.

Ainianu - "this method of 'hostile takeover' is really pvp, and that is not what i played the game for, the galactic civil war was optional, and this level of competing should be as optional as that was."

Exactly right, it is PvP. Exactly right, it should be optional. However, joining/running a city (with a City Hall) is the "switch" whereupon you agree to be a part of this optional PvP. The annoying part is no one (SOE) told you. Just like if you want extra perks (ATSTs, stormtrooper and rebel tropper pets) that no one else gets, you have to take on the extra risk (overt PvP), so it is with cities, the perks (shuttleports,banks, etc) expose you to more risks (losing elections). I have heard overt Imperials do the same complaining that I hear here. "It is not right that I get exposed to all these extra risks from people (Player Killing - Getting Voted Out), I just wanna have fun with my toys (ATSTs - Player Cities)" Those toys come with a price tag ... no wait, that is incorrect. Its the other way around.Agreeing to joinin PvP, comes with added benefits. Thats the way it is now. You can lobby SOE to let you have ATSTs without being in a faction, but I doubt that'll happen. In fact, SOE has strongly hinted at limiting factional toys to be used against factional targets.

Even worse than cities though, is the economic PvP. If you wanna buy or sell anything that isthe "switch" for the economic PvP. So everyone is forced into it, whether they realize it or not. Top end goods get priced out of range of a large segment of the players, because a small segment earns so much more than them. Sellers get outbid for raw materials, especially limited ones (like Kryat Tissues), by the top end sellers. Some people can buy Holocrons, some have to hunt endlessly for them, and others have no way of getting them short of charity.

"Couldnt agree with you more. This also isnt Dance and Craft Online. It's Star Wars Online. Note the second word please."

So? I was said that to be subject to PvP I had to declare. Why are PvP rules enforced on me while I'm still neutral? (Well, I'm not, but that's for the sake of the argument)

The "it's not YOUR city" argument is somewhat flawed, but not for the reasons people usually associate t it.

I'd agree whith this argument, if Mayors and concurrent politicians had a real reason to make people vote for them. Votes now have nothing to do with the politician skills, but are related to whom is a PA mate of whom, mostly. For unguilded lone guys, choosing a Mayor can be a choice, but what woumd ùake him choose a politician over another? Skill? Soon all mayors will be master politicians. Work put in? That's coming back to a private city. Roleplay? Most people don't care.

I'm pretty secure in my city, in that we held forum elections on to whom was to be mayor, and all members have to vote for the winner ingame, hence avoiding voice dispersal.

>

Problem with it beinga type of PvP is that the "community" around the city hall is not comprised of mayors or people who build the city. Not everyone agreed to join this "PvP" as you call it, most of a city is just people who put their house down in a city with an atmosphere or theme that they liked. Why should they be forced into dealing with a "hostile takeover" more accurately called"razing" as another poster put it? Yes, if someone built something like a city hall that is in a limited supply, they should have some risk of losing control of it, as they do with the voting system and the citizenship requirement. The problem is that these people can come in and destroy a city hall, and thus a community, that pre-existed them, and that never wanted to allow their presence.

Koweim

>

Actually that wasnt another poster, thatsomeone was me. In any case, the reasons for city PvP and faction PvP seem entirely analagous. Why cant I join the Rebels, get some missions, and kill stormtroopers, without other people "forcing" PvP on me by attacking me while my TEF is active? I just want the atmosphere and experience the theme I like, not PvP. The answer is that you get something extra, whether in material or experience or in general enjoyment. That something has an associated cost, being an available target in PvP. Same with the city. You want the benefit of having a shuttleport/cloning center/mission terminal/hospital, etc right outside your house? You want the feeling of being a part of a city, and getting to vote? Dont you think there should be a cost? Well currently there is, you are open to city PvP.

I think a big part of our disagreement would have to be your last line. A community is a lot more than a city hall. The community that pre existed the city hall can post exist the city hall. What you are trying to protect is not the community. Sounds nice and gets you more sympathy, but its not true. What you are trying to protect are your facilities. Your stuff. Well,if you lose in PvP, you lose value. It can be the condition on your stuff, or money to reinsure your stuff, or money in terms of economic profits So I dont have a problem with it.

In any case, the sieging phase should be ending soon anyways, as cities stop expanding, having reached Metropolis or the max size thier populations can support. Then will come the migration of the non-loyals. They will move to whatever the nicest city is for thier gamestyle, and those cities will be able to support the most and coolest facilities, which will cause even more people to move in. So we should see a few giant cities per server and a scattering of little PA playhouses.

There is a completely foolproof was within the current rules to have your own little private kingdom. It doesn't involve cheating at all. The simple solution is to not grow your city. Remain at your current size as long as you have people in your next growth band poised to become citizens.

As Glinda the good witch said, 'the power was yours all along'.... some people just didn't plan enough to realize how simple and elegant a solution this is without cheating.

The concept of forcing cities to be democracies is simply wrong and not in keeping with a Star Wars theme.