Politician Archive
Thread: Um....Baj? I'm not sure this is a good idea on TC...
Bajeezus
Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:31 pm
#66
It's clear there is a split here. My report to Thunderheart about this profession's reaction to the new rule is going to have to reflect that split. I won't send that report until later today, to let everyone have their say, and at that point, I'll copy my report to this thead so you can see exactly how your postions are being communicated to the devs. I think I may actuallly count up the negative and the positive reactions so he can see quantitatively how the split on this issue comes out.
I think it is pretty clear that everyone agrees that the dummy citizens issue is something that it would be nice to code against, but that there is a big split between those who think the active cities should have an advantage, and those who would be opposed to a rule that might hurt the most casual, sporadic players and their cities. That will be the basic message I take to Thunderheart, but as I said, you all still have time to make your opinions heard.
Hunden
Fri Jan 23, 2004 1:31 pm
#67
i am yet to read all replies. i will do that after making this reply and will then offer my opnion..
i followed the link in your post.. it doesnt say 3 weeks at all...
Citizens will now be removed from a city if they haven't been online for about 6 weeks.
that is copy/ paste.. please feel free to double check me as i took too many drugs in the '70's so my brain is fryed
Jonni
Fri Jan 23, 2004 1:46 pm
#68
Okay, 6 weeks sounds much more reasonable and in that case ...at least in principle i agree. however, if the house stays until maint runs out then this is simply going to be another headache for the mayor so in order for this to work and not give the mayor more hassle then it needs to deed the house in question and put it and everything contained within it into a seperate and retrievable database so that in the situation whearby RL interferes and takes someone away for a long period then the only thing they lose is a bit of real estate which wont penalise them as such.
Sasco
Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:03 pm
#69
My attempt at a constructive, restrained post (I feel the main points have been stated by others already in this post):
It is nice to see that Sony can now dictate how long my RL holiday are to be, thanks!
In other words...I pay my subscription like everyone else, but if I want to actually go on holiday I have to what? Buy a laptop & buy an internet connection in whatever country I choose to visit & play just to keep myself as a citizen?
Simply put: You can't tell us how long we are allowed to be away from the game & incur penalties, when we pay our monthly subscription.
Oh & for those that like to bring in RL institutional rules etc....you can usually Vote via a "Postal Vote" for your home country even if you are away more then 3 weeks 
AmonTdow
Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:11 pm
#70
This is going to seriously hurt a lot of cities (the one I'm in included). We have 2 guilds in our city, about 60 people.
They introduced the Decay rate on PVP, 40 of them stopping playing. Untill they remove, untill space expansion, etc.
Now after 3 weeks, they aren't citizens anymore. They day this patch goes live, my city will go from a city, that is pretty busy, down to a village, with no shuttle/med/cantina, how is this fair? We all pay our $15 a month, none of our players are cross server ghosts, there are legit people who play/when they have a chance, or when they feel like it.
They introduced the Decay rate on PVP, 40 of them stopping playing. Untill they remove, untill space expansion, etc.
Now after 3 weeks, they aren't citizens anymore. They day this patch goes live, my city will go from a city, that is pretty busy, down to a village, with no shuttle/med/cantina, how is this fair? We all pay our $15 a month, none of our players are cross server ghosts, there are legit people who play/when they have a chance, or when they feel like it.
Andymantium
Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:21 pm
#71
Tack wrote:
.....
I can only see the good in this. If you don't play, then you shouldn't have a house in a player city. If your house is removed, you can always place another one and redelcare once you come back from your hypothetical leave of absence. Simple store all of your items in your safety deposit box. When you get back, place another house, declare again, and everything is the same. If your city loses a level due to your absence, then your mayor needs to start recruiting so that it can go back up to the level like it was at before.....
I think one of the points of discussion is why any paying customer would need to adjust their play schedules to accomodate. Based on several arguments listed in previous posts, some are implying that the number of hours a person spends playing the game should be a factor in how their game status should be considered. Why someone who plays only once every 6 weeks should not deserve to own a house in a player city, compared to another who spends 12 hours per day online (who apparently does "deserve" it), makes no sense.
I guess my point is that we all paythe samesubscription fee, and as long as you keep doing so, you should be able to play as much, or as less, as you want.
My 2 cents.
Damitri
Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:26 pm
#72
I see this as a bad idea to a small issue that really needed to be put on back burner while other things are fixed. I fear I will loose citizens in my main courtyard, thus hurting the look, and appeal of my town. I fear of downsizing and loosing the ability to move back up either due to loosing my spot, or due to no room for new houses since the area will shrink, thus making it harder to make a move back up. If you redeed there houses and make a package with all there items in it, and place either say in a vendor in City Hall, or on them, then I am for this. Otherwise I am WAY against it. This will definatly hurt players of real cities. I am a Milita member of my city, and I can tell you that I don't see some citizens for weeks(months?) and they are all real players though. I would hate to see us loose our shuttleport due to down sizing. I mean yes we have the money to replace it, but if we loose it, and are unable to move back up in rank due to "ghost"(as SoE will make them since not citizens) houses in the way, the city will far apart for sure. Please do not press this live. I agree please look at the citizen swap issue, but not this way. This will cause alot more problems than anyone is looking into. I also hear the don't make a mountain outta hill thingy.....well in this game one thing goes wrong....its all down hill.........
Garanimals
Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:44 pm
#73
If this goes thru I can forsee the end of my city on Lok. Yes, unlike many of the sheep, I chose a planet where very few people would choose to settle, we have in total 7 cities on the planet, only 4 of which have the citizenry enough to use a shuttle, one of them being us.
We also only have 58 citizens atm, and I am almost positive more than 3 of those have stopped playing in order to pursue some college, or they just waffle between EQ/DAoC/SWG/FPS's at their whim, however their accounts are all paid up. I have no way of contacting some of them because they belong to another guild and no one knows their personal details enough to get in touch.
So now my city, on a planet that hasnt even come close to reaching cap, is destined to degrade to 3, and since we also went out of our way to keep as far away from Nym's as possible we'll see very little traffic. Our nearest neighbor has all the sameamenities as us and so everyone will go there because of ease of travel leaving our city to become a ghosttown. There is not one "ghost" citizen in our city but we're going to take it up the ass nonetheless.
We also only have 58 citizens atm, and I am almost positive more than 3 of those have stopped playing in order to pursue some college, or they just waffle between EQ/DAoC/SWG/FPS's at their whim, however their accounts are all paid up. I have no way of contacting some of them because they belong to another guild and no one knows their personal details enough to get in touch.
So now my city, on a planet that hasnt even come close to reaching cap, is destined to degrade to 3, and since we also went out of our way to keep as far away from Nym's as possible we'll see very little traffic. Our nearest neighbor has all the sameamenities as us and so everyone will go there because of ease of travel leaving our city to become a ghosttown. There is not one "ghost" citizen in our city but we're going to take it up the ass nonetheless.
Seems more of a problem with sheep that are too afraid to go onto an advanced planet and instead crowd onto the starter planets, then bleat when they naturaly run slapass into the advancement cap.
WildmanHT
Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:07 pm
#74
Baj, Im seeing more people saying no to this then yes's. If the Dev are dead set in doing this then have em go after all of those players who server lot swapped so they can have 30+ harvesters and factoriesdown as well...How fair is that for those of us who play this game legit. Lot swapping is far more prevalent then ghost players.
The only way I will vote yes on this is if it impacts lots as well. If not then this is still BS. And frankly, as many have pointed out, this will solve nothing in that people will just macro before going to bed or work.
If you do get a response from TH can you have him actually explain why they feel they need to implement this. I want to hear if from him directly and not just speculation here.
fatgit
Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:16 pm
#75
While I see the issues with lot swapping, it isnt that hard to get your "partner" to login once every 3 months.
What this will cause is Ghetto's in cities where the players have stopped playing, left after putting 3months+ cash in their houses, taking up a house space, but will no longer be a citizen of the town - causing land shortages.
I cant confess to knowing the answer to this one, but I don't think a 3week cizizenship removal is the one.
What this will cause is Ghetto's in cities where the players have stopped playing, left after putting 3months+ cash in their houses, taking up a house space, but will no longer be a citizen of the town - causing land shortages.
I cant confess to knowing the answer to this one, but I don't think a 3week cizizenship removal is the one.
BaalZamon
Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:26 pm
#76
Against. I understand if a citizen does not add other citizens as admins on their house, that they should lose it; but if others take on the duty why penalize the entire city? If after 3 weeks they are no longer citizens, why should their house occupy groundwithout paying taxes as the rest of the city structures? These houses would not be considered a part of the city, correct? Why even be able to enable zoning rights if structures can eventually be placed in your city yet not be part of your city?
I'm glad that other Mayors might enjoy this aspect of the game, constantly nagging their citizens via out of game options to login, inviting people into a city that can tarnish the reputation their entire population has worked for just to avoid losing city options, having to trust others in this game not to take advantage of you. Ever see a NPC citylikeMos Espa completely empty? Isn't that what the devs are trying to avoid here? How? How will making people log every 3 weeks make a city regularly populated? So willMos Espagrow smaller too because fewer people visit?
Reavus
Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:33 pm
#77
Citizens will now be removed from a city if they haven't been online for about 3 weeks.
I say YES to this idea; however I would look into other ways of determining if a player is inactive or not. Just looking at if a character hasn't been played in 3 weeks isn't necessarily the best method; given many reasons cited before.
I'd suggest the following instead:
- Cancelled accounts become labeled "inactive" after 3 weeks.
- If a char on a particulary galaxy isn't played "regularly" (say an average of 2 hours a week per month)* AND then doesn't login to that char for 3 weeks, then I would say the char is "inactive".
* "2 hours a week per month" - so say you play 1 hour one week, 3 another, 0 the next, and 5 the last week in a month. That's 9 hours in 4 weeks, or 2.25 hours per week. That's pretty casual. I doubt many "ghosts" do that.
A char isn't losing anything by being classified as "inactive" on a particular galaxy. They don't lose any possessions (unless through structure decay from lack of maintenance).
Neither are cross-server trades of lots affected by this; only a char's citizenship.
What this does is encourage cities to seek out "active" players. Personally I'm tired of going to all these ghost towns - no one to talk to, group with, no doctors, no entertainers, no shops, no vendors; nothing. So many cities, so little to offer. How can you justify a city based on nothing?
Youch1
Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:45 pm
#78
"...a change is made that might adversely affect a possible scenario"
No - let me stress again. This change will adversely affect many many players in any number of given scenarios - far more than will benefit.
We're putting forward hypothetical examples because we're trying to warn of the major problems this will bring about forlots ofotherwise satisfiedgamers. We can't put forward actual examples because the patch hasn't gone live yet.
I'll just add, finally,that I'm a little baffled as to why this even on "Test Centre" anyway.
The next patch will hit the servers long before the three weeks expires, so the devshave no way ofgauging the outcome or testing the coding properly.
If they insist on pressing ahead with the change,they should at least have it running in the background on TC for a couple of months tosee if it works as intended.
A longer testmight also offera revealinginsight into the reactions of TC players if/when all their hard work goes to waste.
The "here today, gone tomorrow" element of the TC populationmirrors lifeon themain servers in many ways. TC gets busy when a new patch/feature looms, then quiet when the "treats" go live.The main serversfollowsa similar pattern.
I'd imagine a great many characters createdon TConly log in every few weeks to try a few new things.
The question is, will they still be logging in andtesting as enthusiastically if their hard-earned city implodes through no fault of their own?
More importantly, will subscribing players?
Skarra, Master Architect