Politician Archive
Thread: The Problem With The New Maintenance Rule.......Serious Issue
Page 5 of 5
Rowgue
Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:29 am
#53
I'm not saying this will never happen to you if you run your city the right way. What I'm saying is that it should not happen on such a wide scale as some of you are describing if you run your city the right way. Every post I've seen on this issue ( and make no mistake there are several pages full of them ) has people talking about how half the houses and tents in their city have been abandoned for months, and they don't have the space to add new structures. If this is just a problem someone is having with one or two structures then I don't see the harm in just letting it decay naturally ( don't mistake that for me agreeing with the new maint from bank issue, that was a bad idea).
I also find it interesting why people feel the need to grow cities to 200 citizens and beyond. In my experience once you get to a certain point (say100 citizens giving yourself a slight buffer from falling back down to the next level before you have a chance to rectify your count) it serves no purpose to continue to grow the city. You have already reached the pinnacle of development when you hit 85 citizens, so going to 200 or higher just opens the city up for more issues like this for no real gain.
And once again I will reiterate my main point which was to point out that there is no way on earth the Devs will ever give one player even a sniff of the ability to in any way, close down, condemn, stop the maint payments, destroy, or by whatever name you want to call it someone else's structures. This thread simply cannot be productive since there is no way to "fix" this that can be done in the game mechanics that will not open people up to tremendous amounts of griefing (weather the mayor's think they are griefing or not). And if you want an example of this how about the scenario where someone just to piss people off plops down a city hall in the middle of a cluster of houses because he wants to clear out that area for a new city. He gets elected with his vote and the votes of a few friends, and proceeds to condemn all of the houses there so his friends can set up their homes. That is why people have said you are beating a dead horse, and that is why people are trying to offer you solutions to curb this issue in the future. This issue was brought up way before the maint from bank issue was even on the radar, that is why zoning rights are now in the game. That is as far as the Devs were willing to go was to allow you to say you cannot place your house here.
Hvzeda
Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:53 am
#54
Rowgue wrote:
I'm not saying this will never happen to you if you run your city the right way. What I'm saying is that it should not happen on such a wide scale as some of you are describing if you run your city the right way. Every post I've seen on this issue ( and make no mistake there are several pages full of them ) has people talking about how half the houses and tents in their city have been abandoned for months, and they don't have the space to add new structures. If this is just a problem someone is having with one or two structures then I don't see the harm in just letting it decay naturally ( don't mistake that for me agreeing with the new maint from bank issue, that was a bad idea). Someone with 100 million credits in their bank account means that the building will be there probably when the server removed.
I also find it interesting why people feel the need to grow cities to 200 citizens and beyond. In my experience once you get to a certain point (say100 citizens giving yourself a slight buffer from falling back down to the next level before you have a chance to rectify your count) it serves no purpose to continue to grow the city. You have already reached the pinnacle of development when you hit 85 citizens, so going to 200 or higher just opens the city up for more issues like this for no real gain. Assumption on your behalf. All we (our city) want is to bring in new residents to replace those that have left the game, but our mayor can't because there are abandoned houses from people that left the game. In fact, where we are at, the terrain prevents even 100 residents and without some major rearranging we don't have the room to make tier V. Some cities do want to have many people as possible. Why shouldn't they be allowed? Maybe they are a roleplaying community and 200 people can add alot more content in a RP city than 85. More residents mean more revenue for the city. Maybe they are going to a metropolis look. More power to them if they want to go that route and I won't judge them as I hope they don't judge us being content with trying to maintain a population between 60 and 70.
And once again I will reiterate my main point which was to point out that there is no way on earth the Devs will ever give one player even a sniff of the ability to in any way, close down, condemn, stop the maint payments, destroy, or by whatever name you want to call it someone else's structures. This thread simply cannot be productive since there is no way to "fix" this that can be done in the game mechanics that will not open people up to tremendous amounts of griefing (weather the mayor's think they are griefing or not). And if you want an example of this how about the scenario where someone just to piss people off plops down a city hall in the middle of a cluster of houses because he wants to clear out that area for a new city. He gets elected with his vote and the votes of a few friends, and proceeds to condemn all of the houses there so his friends can set up their homes. That is why people have said you are beating a dead horse, and that is why people are trying to offer you solutions to curb this issue in the future. This issue was brought up way before the maint from bank issue was even on the radar, that is why zoning rights are now in the game. That is as far as the Devs were willing to go was to allow you to say you cannot place your house here. It could be fixed if they didn't allow money be taken straight out of the bank to keep this structures around orimplementing the account purge.Providing solutions doesn't solve the problems now. And the solutions don't solve anything? Zoning rights doesn't stop someone from quitting the game and having their house stay up forever? Being careful who you allow to become a citizen doesn't stop someone 3 months later quitting the game and not pulling up their house so you have room to find a new resident.
I am oppose of givingmayors the right to condemn/destroy playerhouses. Stop the payments being made to the structure from the player's bank account, implement the account purge or give CSRs the ability to remove the house and place it in a virtual bank holding after the account has been inactive after a certain period. This removes all griefing ability from the mayor.
You haven't considered the scenario of a player that leaves the game but sells everything to increase their bank account or maintenance pool fund but leave their house in order to grief the city that their house is located in.
Rowgue
Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:24 pm
#55
Actually I have considered that scenario, that's why I stated that I disagree with the maint from bank change. The problems described by some here of massive amounts of inactive citizens and abandonded structures however, was a problem for most of them even before this change was implemented. It has little to do with causing the problem, it just makes it worse because they will be there much longer now. Once again I don't agree with maint being taken from the bank, I think it should be changed back, but the cause of the problem is rooted far deeper in the past for cities with these problems on massive scales this is not the cause of it.
Rehavam
Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:19 pm
#56
It's all nice how people think of mayors who could grief people by allowing them to destroy structures even with a timer and the items being stored in a temporary bank box as suggested when atm we as cities/mayors are being griefed by people who don't pull their structures from the shopping areas of our cities when they stop crafting or quitting. They are the griefers not the mayors/cities.
Hvzeda
Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:19 am
#57
/agree
We had two merchants that left the game but didn't pull up their tents on our Market Street. Now we have two tents with empty vendors sitting in them and we have other merchants that are wanting to place a tent have their vendors in this location but we can't. I know one individual was a very successful BE so that tent will be staying there long after our city is gone.
The abandoned houses probably causes us more of a problem than other cities because we have alot of terrain that is unbuildable and our mayor had to actually decline a resident because they wanted to bring in a large house and there was no room. So we lost a future resident that is an active player. 
I just wish that the devs would do a little work on helping us out here. Run a program to find accounts inactive over a certain period of time, send email to those accounts stating that due to inactivity their accounts will be purge if they don't reactivate their accounts by a certain date or respond to the email that they are wishing to come back (SOE could charge them a small monthly fee to 'freeze' their assets in the game). Won't solve everything but it could be a step in the right direction.
Sighryn
Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:53 pm
#58
Don't worry folks! Help is on the way!
Those structures belonging to absent landlords are drawing from bank accounts and no one is watching.
I've been letting my houses run on automatic because it is convenient. Guess what? =Every= day I get an email reminding me that each of my houses is on auto replenish.
That means it's probably the same for all those inactive houses.
Just think how fast that will totally fill the database.
It will become an emergency. The DEVs will look into it.
Problem solved.
/sarcasmoff
Pappi, when the problem is noted -please- give the team a helpful nudge in the direction of fixing -the- problem, not -a- problem?
Message Edited by Sighryn on 03-01-2005 05:57 PM
Page 5 of 5