Politician Archive
Thread: Petition To Thunderheart stop a Player City Change.
Imaridril
Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:07 pm
#66
For all of you saying that this new fix somehow discriminates against inactive players, I could just as easily make the arguement that the current way things works discriminates against active players by allowing inactive players and ghost citizens to tie up limited game content.
I don'tlike to be rude, but everytime I come and read the politician forum I am shocked at how arrogant and self serving so many of you are. I guess the same people that are drawn to politician in this game are the same sort of people who are drawn to politics in real life.
Sevarhin
Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:16 am
#67
I don't mind the change if and only if they provide a means to deal with the relic structures. ANY of the following would work (and I'm sure other people could come up with more creative solutions).
- let mayors remove those houses (obviously griefable, not a good idea, but neither is letting dead houses clog the city)
-OR-
- if the player is removed from citizenship by this system, have their house pulled outside the city limits to the nearest available plot of land (erm, messy as hell and I'm sure technically problematic)
-OR-
- if the inactive player loses citizenship, collapse the house and all items into their pack allowing a temporary overload (no real difference to the database since it was tracking all those items anyway). I didn't make this one up (I read it in another thread) but it's the best idea I can see.
- let mayors remove those houses (obviously griefable, not a good idea, but neither is letting dead houses clog the city)
-OR-
- if the player is removed from citizenship by this system, have their house pulled outside the city limits to the nearest available plot of land (erm, messy as hell and I'm sure technically problematic)
-OR-
- if the inactive player loses citizenship, collapse the house and all items into their pack allowing a temporary overload (no real difference to the database since it was tracking all those items anyway). I didn't make this one up (I read it in another thread) but it's the best idea I can see.
figgbot
Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:31 am
#69
Scooter says:
"Logging in every three weeks is real easy to do ..and if you are going on a month long vacation, just have a good friiend log in for you just once durring that period."
not sure if its is still against the EULA, but giving your acct info to anyone is highly risky.
and if you are Deployed to fight for our country, or are a juvilile that has parents saying you are goin on vaction, or if your PC blows up and you cant afford to fix it this paycheck etc,etc you should NOT be punished by a game the you pay RL money to play, and in-game money to own structures. Period.
Lionrider
Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:32 am
#70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of you saying that this new fix somehow discriminates against inactive players, I could just as easily make the arguement that the current way things works discriminates against active players.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eaven if you r inactive you have still payd for the game and have the same rigths as an active gamer. It really dossent count why you r inactive as long as you pay (You could as stated befor be eather In the military or have your comp sqrewd for a longer period of time) As long as you pay for the game you have the same rigths as eny 24/7 player !!!
PhaereRalsin
Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:13 am
#71
As a city planner who forked out the cash for 2 guild halls, 45 structures houses and factories, a bank, a cloning facility, and a city hall. Just to have a player city that we could call our home. and also paying (with the help of 3 other guildies) the 150k per week city costs. I herby sign any petition to stop the player city changes.
Seeing as SOE gets $45 a month of my money, i think i get a say too.
/sign
Youch1
Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:23 am
#72
/sign - bad, bad idea with fringe benefits for a handful which will penalise many many morewhen so many other issues need addressing.
Skarra, Master Architect
Sevarhin
Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:51 am
#73
Aylish wrote:
I just want to agree with FlyingEmo and emphasise this part of his/her post:
"Does not solve the issues it tries to fix. I've already spoken to some mayors who artificially inflate their city rank using server swaps. They keep track of the emails of those they do deals with, and will have them log on at a moments notice. Therefore, the vast majority of the cities that will be hurt are the ones that actually have a legitimate city rank, while server swapping will still be as dominant as ever."
I have noticed alot of the discussion is focused around whether it is right for a city to inflate their population with cross-server citizens. Many of the people who support this change are against cross-server citizen exchange.
The thing is, this new rule will not stop cross-server citizens swaps, and may in fact make them more prevalent, as an offset to the less reliable casual citizens.
Bingo.
gunther22
Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:03 am
#74
The Mayor should get a warning if this is going to happen. The Mayor should also get an email saying whose house is low on maintenance!
Imaridril
Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:29 am
#75
Given this change, mayors will be hesitant to let any casual gamers join their cities, simply because they have a higher risk of disappearing and leaving the mayor with less buildable space. However, I don't know any mayor who wont take an active player. That shows blatant discrimination in favor of the active player.
Players who don't log on even once every 3-6 weeks are NOT casual gamers. They are inactive players. Casual players, at least as they have been defined in other MMOGs in the past are players that playat leasta few hours per week. Don't try to turn this into some sort of "casual gamers vs. power gamers" situation, because its not.
And tie up limited game content? Last time I checked, gamers who can't play as much as you can, for example, are entitled to the same privileges you are entitled to.
No they're not. If I spend more time ingame them someone else I can earn more XP. If I spend more time ingame then someone else I have a better chance of getting better loot. If I spend more time ingame then someone else I have a greater potential to mine and harvest better resourses. If I spend more time ingame than someone else I have a greater ability to solve and complete quests. However, this is all beside the point, because player cities are not personal content. I practically never see any mayors acknoledge it, but the simple fact is that if one group of players have a large city, they NECESSARILY limit the ability of other players from also having a large city. What are all these other players supposed to do? Just sit around and wait until the present mayors and his army of server swapped citizens and inactive players gets bored and decide to let others have a try at player city content?
Now not only have you declared that only you, the active player, should be able to access the player city content, but you also have harshly condemed us as "arrogant" and "self serving."
Please reread the first part of what you wrote above. Of course player cities, and any game content for that matter, should be for active players. Inactive players don't use or need content, because, guess what, they're INACTIVE! What's arrogant and self serving is players who think that non-personal content should essentialy be put on hold for them just because they're going to take a 3-6 week break from the game. And what's even more arrogant and self serving are the mayors who want to ride on top of these innactive players in order to give themselves an even greater ability to maitain their elitist grip on the limited number of high ranking city slots available.
Lets get one thing straight. The people who come here and participate have served tireless hours working on their cities, helping people, and trying to make a fun experience for other gamers.
If that's the case, then you have nothing to worry about from the upcoming change. If your city is full of active players who are utilizing the "game content" you're creating, then you're not going to lose your city. However, if your city is full of server swapped citizens and innactive accounts, then guess what, you're NOT "helping people" or making "a fun experience for other gamers". All you're doing is building a personal playground for yourself while at the same time hampering the ability of dozens of other cities to advance in rank.
Also, one more time let me make it clear that this upcoming change is not a punishment against inactive players, as so many of you are trying to make it out to be. An inactive player loses virtually nothing with this change. All he loses is his citizenship, which means nothing to him, since he is not ingame. And even if he does eventually go back ingame, he can reactivate his citizenship in mere moments. The ones who are being punished in this change are mayors who are using swapped citizens and inactive accounts to give themselves an uncounterable advantage towards maintaining control of one of the limited high ranking city slots.
Finally, here's asimilarsituation that might be easier to grasp. Imagine that the devs added a new dungeon to the game, and in this dungeon there was a limit on how many people could be in the dungeon at one time. Over time a line starts to form outside the dungeon. Many, many players want to experience the dungeon, but because the server can only handle a few of them at a time, they have to wait their turn to enter the dungeon. Now lets imagine that one group of players enters the dungeon and then decides to go afk for the next 3-6 weeks, preventing anyone else in line from getting into the dungeon. I think its safe to say that everyone would agree that the above situation would be rediculous if it occured and that everyone who was left out of the dungeon and still waiting in line would have every right to demand that the devs did something to prevent afk players from tieing up the dungeon indefinately. Mayors or small groups who are inflating the size of their city by the use of server swapped citizens or innactive accounts are no different than afk campers.
rsnyc
Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:15 am
#77
i have to agree with imidaril (sp?)...i think this may be agood idea to remove inactive citizens. thre are too many town filled with ghost citizens from other servers....let the real active towns flourish and the ghost town run by a few people fail.
Uutinee
Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:00 am
#78
I also have a group of in my city that are military and some reservists that are presently away.Some have pre-fed their houses and othes have friends check on them thru admin rights. MANY of my citizens are college students who over vacations or crunch times can go weeks at a time without logging in. EVERY HAS DIFFERENT PLAY STYLES! If you do this you cut all the very casual gamers out!
As a mayor and merchant for that matter,I am completely against anything that forces players into a locked check in cycle. Do we have a problem with cross server deals.. of course we do. Is it breaking the game? NO!
SOE Concentrate on those issues that effect our game play and our experience in the world. Fix the fact that anyone can grind up merchant management dump six vendors and give up the skill! Fix the bugs in politician! Give us the tools to eject citizens that are troublemakers! Gives us the tools to remove unwanted houses and some type of city warn to keep out harassers!
Many have enough vacation to take a 3 week leave from the game.. especially in EUROPE! Average for many companies is 4-5 weeks a year.