Politician Archive

Has anyone actually had "their" city taken over yet or about to? Just curious.

As for "guild cities," I truly don't understand anyone's argument against a guild having/running a city. If your guild is large enough, which mine luckily is, it will not have any problems maintaining a guild member as mayor. We are actually running into a potential problem of not having enough room even when the city expands in the next couple of weeks.

I think everybody agrees that guild-specific cities are fine. It's just that being a citizen or mayor of a city doesn't in the current rules give you the right to prevent other people from moving into the area. And once they're in the area... guess what!, it's politics time. Now you have to figure out how to form a community around the full group of people.

Some new thoughts:

1) First, moving in to a city for the sole purpose of destroy the city hall is griefing, pure and simple. I think we can all agree on that. Okay, that's not new, but it's an important disclaimer to the rest. In fact, I'm going to say this in all bold: To make cities work well, the ability to destroy a city hall by fiat should be removed from the Mayor at the same time control over the ban list of civic structures is removed.

2) Losing "control" of a city is never total, as long as *neither* side can use exploits to prevent voting. The old citizens still have a vote, still get access to city services, etc. If the new citizens and mayor are unpleasant to them, well, see point 3.

3) Even if your faction (I use the term generically here, not as "imperial" or "rebel", but "us" vs "them" vs "those other people") has lost immediate control of the city, you are not powerless! Chances are good that you have some of the prime locations in the city, since you were there first. And, your vote matters, even when you cannot defeat the incumbent who is of another faction. Why? Because votes mean experience. In a way, this is one reason that the reduction of politician XP requirements is unfortunate, because it won't take nearly as many votes to get useful skills as it otherwise would. In any case, if city policy is not going a way that your faction approves of, apply pressure to the mayor by attempting to build a coalition. Say "Hey, we're not happy that you've moved in and we've lost power--but we want this set of changes. We have 20 votes between us--how many of those changes are you willing to implement to get those votes? Only that many? Hmm... We might be willing to give you ten votes for that--would you give us this other little thing for the other ten?" And in the meantime, well, your faction's politician will be making XP on whatever votes aren't traded for benefits.

4) The waiting game is still possible. Assuming that the new faction is not the sort that will have a significant militia presence around at all times to run you old-timers out of town, staying power could still see you through. What do I mean by this? Well, the new folks can do a lot of different things, but they'll continue to have a core set of ornery people squatting in their town center. If you have the staying power, I think the new insect overlords are more likely to want to integrate you than to have you being a thorn in their side forever. Open negotiations. If they're rank griefers who just wanted to take over a city, they're going to lose population over time. If they're sensible people who wanted into a city out of frustration because they couldn't have their own, they might end up taking over and being very unpleasant at first, but once things get started they're likely to see reason.

In the end, I believe in cities as a place for real political conflict to take place. I'm somewhat sad that my city is small enough and in a poor enough location that I don't anticipate any factions forming like this--because coalition building and negotiation are really the big fun potential I see in cities. The challenge is not in building as large a city as you can as fast as you can, it's in coordinating groups of people with rather diverse desires. Even in a city with unified purpose, there's going to be a question of "do we specialize in crafting this week, or defenses since we're under siege, or mission payouts because this is a high value mission planet and we can rake in some really good money? Are the crafters willing to donate the entire cost of the crafting specialization?" In a more diverse city, it'll be even more troublesome. Only a limited number of decorations can be placed in the city--which neighborhoods get the nicest ones? We're planning on placing a cantina and med center, but group A doesn't want a cantina because of the rowdy parties going on at all hours cluttering up spatial chat, and group B doesn't want a med center because of the chance of faction fights starting there before moving to the rest of the city. And to top it off, the best place for a med center is right where Big Crafter Bob's shop is, and Bob really doesn't want to move. (And in the very small scale, if you live in a non-flat area, you probably have really nice views in some places and easier building and not-so-nice views in other places--so who gets the spot with the best view?)

Perhaps I'm strange for thinking that this kind of negotiation is fun. I think it's what a politician is meant to be doing. Perhaps I'm overoptimistic in believing that people can actually work together even with significant differences between their desires, or that people who come in being very irritable and arrogant about not being able to place a city can turn around and become good neighbors given some time.

But I like to believe in the capacity of people to be kind to strangers in this sort of game, even though the anonymity seems to bring out the worst in a lot of folks. We'll see how long my very small city lasts, and if it can grow. To be honest, I'd kind of welcome some griefers, because trying to cater to diverse needs would be more of a fun challenge than finding nice unattached people interested in moving in.

RE: "Private Cities" vs "Public Cities"

See, while I can understand how some people don't feel a city should be a private thing - for many players in the game "Cities" existed long before City Hall Deeds. There were famous Player-created Cities on every server.

Some of these grew quite large and have been established for months already.

Series of buildings carefully laid out and setup by Guilds to combine their abilities to provide services to others, to combine and enjoy similar interests, etc.

Now, SOE has finally caught up with the game and provided a means in which these cities can gain added functionality such as Cloning Centers, Medical Buildings, Shuttleports, etc... yet, after months of living together with people in their pre-patched cities, they now find themselves potentially under attack by other players who may not share the same goals, interests or aspirations unless you are successfully capable of eliminating any free space for a 450m radius around your City Hall.

Coordinated well enough, this will wrestle control from even the most long-standing PA-based pre-patch cities on the servers, disrupting established players who have been working together for months. Perhaps some of you see no problem with that - but had you ever been a member of such an establishment, you would probablylose quite a bit of the spark that has kept you playing this game for many months.

So while the argument of whether or not cities should or should not be public will never be agreed upon, you have to admit it really would suck to have something many players have worked for months to establish destroyed simply because of the malice of other players.

--Mikka
Mayor, Krayt's End

What is all this talk of Democracy? Have you Seen the type of government that our Empire has? Perhaps people want to play it as an Empire and not a democracy but there is the key "play" it is a roleplaying game. Roleplay the city as you wish if you are the "mayor" play the part to stay elected even if it means eliminating your rivals by military means. Griefing let someone try they will fail and when they do it will be another amusing thing for this politician.

Citizen General Darkan

Darkan's Evil Empire

Tatooine, Scylla

Why are we even talking democracy here for a second lets get real.

Democracy in it's truest since would have two heads not one two seperate rulers with = power to veto the other.

Two nations in history used democracy, The greeks and the Vikings and both Failed. It is a historical fact that democracy is a failed government type.

Voting is not = to democracy. A republic also votes.

This is not the United States (in game terms) There is no Constitution granting you rights except the PNP and the AUP.

With that there are several different styles of government but only one this game allows, a dictatorship.

When is this game going to stop being run by people who feel it should be a utopian society and allow it to be what it was designed and modeled after? Georg Lucas' Star Wars. A Universe in termoil.

This is not a Utopian Society, Not the UNited States or any other country you do not fall under the laws of the land for protection you have no bill of rights.

Addressing that, if someone built the city themselves and their frineds and people they have gotten to know decide to move into the city, then by all means why does someone else feel they have the right to try and take over something someoen else built?

In this game you can have your account deleted for trying to cheat someone of the things they rightfully have etc... If you are like me and have built your entire city with your own resources, and had guild mates and frineds move into it it is very unsettling to have someone come along and try and take from you what you spent so much time and effort into. I do not see what is wrong with a dictator as a mayor. I do feel it is the individuals responsabilities to find out aboutt he city they are moving too and what their mayor intends to do his/her goals etc.

To those who had possed a challenge to that rulership this last week. You will have to pry my city from my cold dead corpse.

also.. there is no "check and balance" once a mayor is in power.. he/she can do ANYTHING to a city..

including destroying it...

that is not democracy

agreed but what mayor would not want to see their city thrive and prosper?

I for one do want that. to the point where i pay out of ppocket expenses to help growth.

but sadly.. there are other players who are jealous and want no diplomacy (as in.. work together instead of just hostile take over) just to destroy your city so they can start theirs (some place else)

which is sad.. I don't think the Devs had THAT in mind.

KeliG I would agree in the case of the two parties involved being of the same war faction. But there is no way that rebels and imperials will enter into dpilomatic union succesfully. After all there is no trust.

In my case, If constellation city had been rebel, we would never have gone near it with any hostile intentions full stop.

If it had been purely neutral, then our actions would depend on our perception of how neutral it really was. If, as is clearly the case in CoC, the population is heavily imperial, then we wouldattempt to take over the city with full hostility and feel 100% justified in our actions.

Unfortunately, the United States is NOT a democracy it isa republic, and checks and balances is part of Madison philosophy, NOT democracy, NOT republic.

Democracy means that the people vote on everything. *Everything.* Laws, what have you. And it did not fail inAthens because Democracy itself was bad - their city-states (MUCH like player cities in this game) were small enough that it was effective. It's just that that Athens, itself, was not.

I used the word wrongly, forgive me, because most people do not know the distinction between democracy and republic. They associate democracy with the U.S. This system is set up for a republic, more truly, but because of the frequency of the voting cycle, it is almost a democracy, because the people can vote policy by policy as their mayor enacts them. Like, for example, there is a quick exchange of offices if the person in power enacts a new policy that no one likes. It's almost as if you're voting on each issue, because it's so SHORT a term, you can only do one or two things a week.

Either way, the system is set up to allow any form of government - you don't always have to go by what the system presents you directly.

For example, our mayor has an e-mail vote on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE (should we change the city name, what should I vote on next, would you rather donate money or have taxes). Thus, we are a democracy, even though the system is set up for a republic.

But at the same time, we are "thug-run" because our city has been built, maintained and protected by our guild, even though the system is set up to allow completely free cities.

So, my point is, you don't always have to follow the system to the letter - this is YOUR wold, YOUR game...you should do what YOU want, as long as it does not seriously destroy someone else's game. (i.e. plopping a city hall down in the middle of a crowded area and taxing the hell out of everyone.)

~Casslyn

The needs of the few takeover the needs of the many? Well we cant say that, but when there is a larger party that wishes to partake of a disputed area/cityslot Why woudl the minority still hold power? why should they? yes they got lucky and got their city hall down. But to A. Make a city on one of the Big 3, B. Decide on a spot where there is sufficient opposite faction power to challenge. and C. Not have the strength in numbers to back it up you are going to have to go into political overdrive to not get taken over. Whether you recruit the heck out of the server, or go off server, or Ban, Harass, fight the siegers. If you allow them to become part of your city (yes you allow them by willingly growing past Level 1) Then you better be ready to play the political game and if you lose whatever happens to the city after that point whether you spent months planning your city or it was all spur of the moment is no longer up to you.

Thats why a city. Esepecially on the Big 3 planets with 10 max should have been VERY carefully planned and thought out. Or else you pay. But maybe the siegers will be nice and give some reparations to the losing PA to give them a headstart on a more suitable building area.

taking over a city is fine... all I'm saying is don't do it maliciously strictly with the intent of destroying the city hall.... that imo should be changed by the devs.