Politician Archive

Not everyone's city is composed of Server Swaps. Our "bot houses" consist of less than 6% of the population.. and if they all poofed tommorow, I'd need a whole 3 bodies to get back to lvl 4 (to preserve our place in "line").

I have a real concern about our casual players. . not the "armed forces" cry, but we have plenty of kids that get grounded.. log on for 3 seconds to tell me to watch the property since they'll be offline for several weeks.. and they're MIA in the interim.

I should lose these paying customers? They should lose their stuff because they're being punished IRL for some reason or another?

Why punish them more? And create dumb arguements of "But MOM, I have to log into SWG or I lose my house!! PLEASE???"

.. yeah, that'll fly...

Baj,

You are taking into account that many of the responders are those with cities? Those with much to lose?

Challenge the Player Base, and make them have active cities!

Oh, you're populace of 80 citizens with 40 casual players should get sympathy from my city of 75 citizens, 8 casual players? I think not.

Prepare yourselves, mayors. Active, lively towns SHOULD take your spot. This is the same premise that will bring my own demise in the end. Another, more active city, will take me down. And it SHOULD!

Wimps.

Let me say from the outset that I don't expect Aventine to lose too much on this one. I've said that before, but it continues to get overlooked. We're not a bot city. We're a city with several (though hardly most) members who are taking breaks, on military deployment, or have cancelled their accounts. When I last checked populations, we could lose 20+ people without too much issue, and I seriously doubt that this will accomplish that. I don't like server swaps either, but I'm not sure that this will really prevent them. You simply make them slightly more difficult. Honest players with legitimate characters and reasons to be away will suffer, and the swappers will continue (largely) unabated.

Many seem concerned that player cities aren't all that active. I would suggest to you that this is not because of bots, but because there's simply no reason to stay in town for most people. They're a jumping off point, or an ending point for journeys, not the journeys themselves. Aside from the mayors and crafters (many of whom are combat players on the side....), who *actually* hangs out for long periods inside a player city? For our group it's a quick stop to rest, heal, grab more missions and head out. Heading out often means flying off planet, which means they won't be back for a while. Secondly, consdier the population thresholds we're dealing with. A town of 70-75 people is *never* going to look like a city of a million people. It's going to feel like a small town of...well, 70-75 people, actually. If you want player cities to seem more city-like, consider NPC spawns within the town. (Quest giving or not, doesn't matter, really.)

I guess my point is still the same one it's always been. I agree with the motivation behind this change. Bot swapping cities are a problem as long as city caps exist. I just wish we could find a via media that didn't cause difficulty for those with different play styles or schedules. /shrug

Thanks, Baj, for stickying this thread and representing us to the devs so well, thanks to those who have kept it civil for discussion, and thanks to whomever five starred the original post after the one star bandit struck. It's always easier to curse the darkness than offer an alternative. (I just wish I had one to suggest for this system beyond raise the caps...)

"Oh, you're populace of 80 citizens with 40 casual players should get sympathy from my city of 75 citizens, 8 casual players? I think not."

It's not like you have any choice. 80 paying accounts gather more money to SOE than 75 ones. That your citizens play more isn't an issue, they don't pay more, so they don't have more rights. If unemployed don't rule the world, that's for a reason.

I've still been letting this concept distill...

Senario 1: SOE impliments "3/6 and out", non-destructive: Result: We have empty houses taking up valuable real estate (since mayors can't remove/move inactives)

Senario 2: SOE impliments "3/6 and out", destructive: Result: Real Estate is "freed up" , but casual players (or anyone who is paid up, but can't get in for one reason or another) lose all their hard-earned stuff.

Maintenance and time will remove those ghost houses. Two Things: 1) Let their maintenance run out and don't "help" them. 2) Kindly ask them to move out.

Hmm....I guess theres a 3rd choice. Be prepared to accept the consequences of having Ghost Homes in the city, and play the game as intended as Politician. (meaning: Either thrive as an active town, or falter to a more active town other than your own).

Exactly what is it you are fighting for? Security once your city starts? I myself hope that it is a competition, and one's City is always subject to ridicule, and open to be outpaced by another city.

Outpaced, not outbotted, or out "ghost homed." Join me, on this fight for a fluctuating Political atmosphere.