Politician Archive
Thread: Petition To Thunderheart stop a Player City Change.
Nairb3
Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:10 am
#79
Look I think its a good Idea ... why because it gives cities a challege to keep there status.... if you don't like get those people to log on once a every 3 weeks for 2 minutes its to get rid of the cross server lot trades that have been happening ..... I jsut think its a good Idea myself go ahead and flame me
Scoooter
Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:39 am
#80
"EVERY HAS DIFFERENT PLAY STYLES! If you do this you cut all the very casual gamers out! "
Now those comments need to stop. A person who cannot even do a simpl log in every 2-6 months is NOT repeat NOT a casual gamer. How many people will pay $15 fo the privilidge of playing once every two months..Get Serious.
And as far as ruining gameplay.
If you have a level 4 city and level 3 cities cannot grow because your town is filled with inactive accounts or accounts that have quit..what does that do to the game play to the players in the level 3 city. Quit being selfish.
If someone in your city has a legitimate reason of being gon for longer than 3-6 weeks he can give his logon ID to someone he trusts and log in once every three weeks.
This is not that tough
FlyingElmo
Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:38 pm
#81
FOR THE LAST TIME. THIS CHANGE WILL HURT EVERY CITY. NOT JUST THE BIG CITIES OR THE SERVER SWAPPERS. BY THIS SOLUTIONS VERY NATURE, AS CITIZENS LEAVE YOUR CITY YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECLAIM THE SPACE THEY TAKE UP. AND EVEN IF THIS ISNT AN ISSUE FOR YOU KNOW, YOU WILL BE THE ONES EVENTUALLY CRYING WHEN YOU CANT BUILD ANYMORE DUE TO ALL THE INACTIVES IN YOUR CITY, TAKING UP SPACE BUT NOT CITIZENSHIP.
Now, onto some posts
Don't try to turn this into some sort of "casual gamers vs. power gamers" situation, because its not.
This is absolutely what this is about. Your entire post reeks of it. We all know that casual gamers are more likely to just disappear than power gamers, and every point you make deals with how casual gamers are hurting your chances at leveling your city.
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.
Great. You sure can. And guess what...that has nothing to do with anything at all. The fact is, regardlessof how much people play, they have the same potential to do those things. They have the same freedom you have to do whatever you can do in the game. This new rule basically revises that and says, "Since you dont play as much as other people, you don't get to participate in this content."
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!
I don't even need to say anything here. Have you ever held a real job, been a fulltime student, or served your country? Have you ever gotten out of your gaming chair and experienced the fun world of being a new parent or taken any sort of vacation? And suddendly, because you can't spend as much time online as the next "joe gamer" you get penalized?
And here is the most important thing: If i pay $15 a month for a game, I dont want to be treated any differently than any other gamer, regardless of how much I play. I pay for the same content that you pay for, and I deserve it as much as you. Don't tell me that you deserve it more because you are able to sign in more than me.
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.
Here is what it really comes down to. You are sad because your poor city can't upgrade to the next level. And you are too shortsighted to see any further than progressing your own city's rank. You can't see the problems that WILL occur because of this because you are just too **edit** ignorant to acknowledge them. its like wanting to make a shortterm investment, but losing out in the long run. Its too bad you can't even see what problems exist, and be willing to find a different solution that won't case more problems.
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.
I give up. Some people just don't get it. Everyone is going to lose here and yet some people just don't care, because they want to upgrade to the next level, even though they will suffer through the same **edit** problems eventually. Everyone here wants their city to be as good as it can possibly be, but what it comes down to in the end is making the game fun for those around you. And just because a city has some inactives doesn't mean mayors haven't been doing that. I'm sick of people like you coming on here and critizing us, who work hard for those we serve everday, and telling us that obviously we aren't trying hard enough because we have inactives. I don't know if you're fit to be a mayor with your shortsightedness.
eltucco
Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:51 pm
#82
This is going to completly kill our city. Please dont do this. If the players are paying for their accounts then they should have the right not to login every three weeks and not lose their citizenship. Especially if they are paying for their account, house maint and possibly taxes.
Lack of player city content is the reason for ghost towns. Not inactive players.
DONT DO THIS.
FlyingElmo
Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:52 pm
#83
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.
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. And before you blame those particular mayors for taking that hard-line, lets lookat why they are being pushed to that decision: a solution that wasn't quite thought all the way through.
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. And what you'resaying is that theythatthey are less worthy to be entitled to that content as you, since they can't play as often. Great logic there 
.
. 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.
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." Oh, the irony.
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. In many cases, they have sacrificed their own credits, personal desires, and freetime to make sure that everything runs smoothly, in order to benefit those individuals who play SWG with them. These are people have created a community and are about to see it adversely affected, because of an illogical solution made by the developers that will hurt more than it will help.
And you somehow have the gall to come in here andaccuse THEM of being self serving, and then baselessly try and slam them even more by relatingtheir virtual profession to that of a real life one? Take your ignorance to a different forum, since you seem to despise this one so much.
Kori_Krishna
Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:02 pm
#85
What exactly is the big deal with letting cities get to lvl 5 ? They already prevent another hall to be built at max radius when they place the hall. If the city can grow then fine. If not, then fine. Why not let all cities get to 5 if they can ? They still occupy no-build-other-city-hall-radius ..just not the actual " no build " radius. Now everyone can have what they want if they can pay for it and recruit people to live with them. Want more space ? DEMAND SOE beef up the database farm. God knows they get millions per month from us gamers. Why do we have to "work" and "sacrifice" anything ? We pay the bills. We are the customers. We DEMAND to get what we pay for. We do not pay for the right to do more work and track online times of other gamers and hope people log in yadda yadda...PLEEEEASE. This is a game. This is entertainment. Last time I checked I was PAYING per month to do this NOT getting paid by SOE to manage other players.
P.S. ...Easy fix....New buildable adventure planets....
Kori Krishna
Imaridril
Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:44 pm
#86
And here is the most important thing: If i pay $15 a month for a game, I dont want to be treated any differently than any other gamer, regardless of how much I play. I pay for the same content that you pay for, and I deserve it as much as you. Don't tell me that you deserve it more because you are able to sign in more than me.
If you're not logging in even once over the course of 3-6 weeks, then you are NOT playing the game. Ingame content, by its very nature is meaningless to inactive players. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, an inactive player loses virtually nothing from the upcoming change. I highly doubt anyone cares if the server still thinks he's a citizen when he's not logged on. Not to mention that a player can reactivate his citizenship literally within seconds of returning to the game.
Here is what it really comes down to. You are sad because your poor city can't upgrade to the next level. And you are too shortsighted to see any further than progressing your own city's rank.
Actually, I don't live in a city, and I'm not a politician. I couldn't care less about having a city, mainly because they've been implimented by SOE so poorly from the beggining. However, I do have friends and I'm part of a guild that has a city that is currently gated because virtually inactive cities are holding onto all the high ranking city slots.
And just because a city has some inactives doesn't mean mayors haven't been doing that. I'm sick of people like you coming on here and critizing us, who work hard for those we serve everday, and telling us that obviously we aren't trying hard enough because we have inactives.
Even if you have a few inactives, you're not going to lose your city. You'll have at least 3 WEEKS to find more citizens. The only way you'll get hurt by this change is if your city has so many innactives, who are in control of so many lots within the city that you have absolutely no room for bringing in more citizens. And to be honest, if that's the case, good, you deserve to lose your city. There are plenty of active players who are waiting in line at a chance to try out high ranking player city content, and it makes no sense to hold them back for the sake of people who aren't even playing the game.
TroThorns
Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:10 pm
#87
The ironic part is the one person towns (if there are any) would deal with this just fine. This will only hurt cities where the mayor doesn't know how to contact the citizens in real life and/or control the accts of all the citizens...
Strava wrote:
I dorecognize the problem from a game design point of view: The extreme example would be one active player running a state of the art top notch city alone, which you all must recognize IS kinda unwanted.
However SOE's solution to this is problematic:
1. What's gonna happen when a city no longer has enough population to support certain buildings? Is the building gonna be scrapped or can the city still keep the building?
2. What's gonna happen with the denounced citizen's house?
Ifhousesare not removed, problem is what Scape said: towns wont have room for expansion by newcomers.
If the houses ARE removed, it will seriously damage inactive players' incentive to reactivate their account andplay SWG again.
This problem would be solved if SWG didnt have the current money problem. There's no money sink, which results in players being able to support a lot by themselves. If echonomy was better planned from the start, atown with low active player count wouldnt be able to support thebuildings, and SOE wouldn't have to implement this type of artificial control with player cities.
Conclusion:
Fix echonomy so that cities losing active population willbe forced echonomically to downgrade their city
FlyingElmo
Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:25 pm
#88
Really, I can completely sympathize with those of you whose city cannot progress to the next level. And I too would be mad if a whole bunch of citizens from another city weren't as active as the ones from your city, and that you felt robbed because of it.
But this solution will cause more problems in the long run than it solves.
I'm completely for looking at other ways to make cities locked by the cap to be able to progress to their next rank. I also wouldn't mind getting rid of the server swappers, and being able to remove those citizens who do nothing but take up space from my city. I think we all can agree on those points.But unfortunately this change isn't the way to do it, for the reasons I listed on the last page (i just thought of another one...citizens who have become jedis rarely log onto their old account unless they need money, so that would count for at least 9-11 more potential inactives in my player city).
Some better solutions would be to:
- Make players play at least 24-48 hours on a given server before being able to live in a player city.
- Allow players to be marked inactive after 3 weeks as long as they mayor can remove those houses.
- Cap the total number of cities on a planet. Not their ranks.
- Add incentive for a city to be less than a metropolis other than maintence cost ( such as allowing the same structures, number of decorations, etc to be built regardless of rank)
Feel free to add to this list you guys.
PhaereRalsin
Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:20 am
#89
I think one person mentioned mayors being able to evict and/or remove houses, and also mayors being able to cotnrol others accounts.
See this scenrio happening anywhere, mayor can evict and remove houses, Those cities ran by guilds, and warring guilds at that, start recrutiing new citizens, and they recruit Citizen A. Now A is the alternate character/hired character/friend of Enemy B. Now B instructs A to joint he city, knowing that he has politician skills, and A gets in really good quickly with the guild, and the populace, he starts campaigning, and enters an election at some point. Now hes actually networked enough to get voted in, or made a deal for xp, or something, doesnt matter, hes mayor now.
Now this is perfect for A's mission from B. As mayor, he has new powers, REMOVE citizenship and REMOVE houses, effectively destroying the guild, city, structures, bank, cloning, statues, factional bases, etc. All done in a span of 3 hours, in middle of the morning, and at the instruction of Enemy B's Guild.
Now allow mayors to remove citizenship, and/or remove houses, and you are asking for trouble. Allowing SOE to remove the same, is violating our side of this. We pay $15 (some more) a month to play this game, if I want to join a city, and be a citizen, fine, if Joe over here wants the same, fine. Now Joe logs in every day, 3-4 hours, and builds himself up, I on the other hand have a very hectic schedule and am only able to get time between two kids, 55 hours a week running a restaurant, and significant other, to log in maybe once this month, for 15 hours straight. Now i log in to find out that i no longer am a citizen of my city, but Joe over here is still one, because he was here every day.
Now that seems like I'm being punished for not logging in, but I paid my $15 just like he did, why the different unfair treatment?
Scoooter
Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:22 am
#90
FOR THE LAST TIME. THIS CHANGE WILL HURT EVERY CITY. NOT JUST THE BIG CITIES OR THE SERVER SWAPPERS. BY THIS SOLUTIONS VERY NATURE, AS CITIZENS LEAVE YOUR CITY YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECLAIM THE SPACE THEY TAKE UP. AND EVEN IF THIS ISNT AN ISSUE FOR YOU KNOW, YOU WILL BE THE ONES EVENTUALLY CRYING WHEN YOU CANT BUILD ANYMORE DUE TO ALL THE INACTIVES IN YOUR CITY, TAKING UP SPACE BUT NOT CITIZENSHIP.
Thanks for the caps and bold..really needed that.
This however is a completely separate issue. Mayors need to be able to evict. There is a strangulation of the smaller cities that cannot grow. Two separate problems.
Seems to me you should be constructive and come up with a workable method in which mayors can evict that does nit elad to exploition or griefing.
TH says quite often he needs good factual reasons and arguments to take to the devs to propose change.
The fact is you do not know the impact except to your own city because you need to get true statistics.
TH will persue eviction if it is prosenetd in a form he can take to the dev team that will work.
Concentrate on that
McNum
Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:25 am
#91
In theory this sounds like a decent idea, however, there are several issues here. For the inactive players who really don't play a character for 3 or 6 weeks I have no sympathy. Being in a Player City is a responsibility, and should be viewed as such.
However, one should never, ever implement a time based penalty for not logging in unless an option exists for going on a "vacation mode". Perhaps like the one used in the web based game Utopia. If you didn't log on daily there you would eventually lose your province. However, if you put your province in vacation mode it would be in a time freeze until you came back. This came with the catch that you could not log in for the next three days and the kingdom leader could remove your vacation status at any time. How could this be used in SWG?
1. You should be able to put your entire account into vacation mode (you would still pay your $15 a month, though).When done none of your characters would be playable for a minimum period of time, like a week or so, to prevent abuse. But your structures and citizenship(s) would be in a time freeze and wouldn't use maintenance. However, the Mayor should be able to unfreeze the citizenship counter (for whatever reason the Mayor would want to do that). That way Mr. Military Guy can go to Iraq for how long he wants without losing citizenship, if he has an agreement with the mayor, of course. Likewise with going on longer vactions, hence the name.
2. A non citizen structure should be taggable by a Mayor for destruction/redeeding. That would mean that a lost citizen who had his 3 weeks run out could be sent an internal email that his house would be redeeded (or destroyed) in X days. His items would be added to a special "home bag" which can only be reopened in a house he/she owns. Like the vendor bags the merchants got when the vendor bug was fixed.
If those two ideas were implemented the three week suggestion would not be unreasonable at all. Because legitimate reasons for being offline would be covered in the vacation mode, and the structure clutter would be solved by having the Mayor be able to redeed non-citizen buildings. (Like Zoning Rights in reverse.)
But that's just me thinking out of the box again. 