Politician Archive

The first-come, first-serve placement of cities seems to be a hot-topic for many folks. I happened to be in a PA that got a lucky lottery ticket, but I think there are better possible solutions. Not to jump too far ahead, but I think the following solution would also help remove more excess cash -- and it would be excess cash, not the lively hood of the poorer folk.

First of all, even though I'm in a fairly small PA, I think the largest cities should end up with the largest concentrations of players. The only way I see to have this happen, and not screw over less populated servers / planets is to have a dynamic system. Any weekthere is a 'ring' of cities at their cap, I would suggest that the requirement for that ring (city size) get raised by 5 citizens and 50k upkeep / week. This would gradually raise the costs until only the most vital PA and PA associations could afford the largest cities.Now, we don't want to drain the economy of all credits, so any week that a ring isn't full, the costs need to go back down by the same amount.

I'm sure the numbers would have to be tweaked, but I think a solution of this type would make for a fairer distribution of the cities. Please feel free post even better solutions in this thread.

So basically what your saying is that once I work hard to fill my city. I should have to then max it out with small houses and have it implode on me.

NO WAY sorry, Bad idea. There is a finite amount of land, haveing to add another 5 a week would destroy anyones ability to have any sort of layout, prevent any sort of defensive arrangements, and destroy the tax base because losing a ring as you put it in my case would cost me over 40 citizens.

RETHINK your idea. It's a dangerous proposition. Cities that are Maxed worked hard to get there, they should be further rewarded for their success not punished because your group didn't have it's act together. On Launch day on my server, all those citys that made level 5 in 5 weeks were the ones that had many people working together to get their spots. Architects at preselected sights to build the hall, politicians camped and ready to train. Security groups to remove interfereing spawns, and travel tickets purchased in advance.

To suggest that a city that has played by the rules and succeeded in playing the game should now have to basically make their city a hovel and and a slum to avoid it's implosion it a horrible idea. I suggest you rescind your suggestion immediately.

Jaye

Not number of buildings -- number of citizens.

Some 50 member guilds have got high-level cities. a bit ago I read a post about another city that can't grow because of the caps.

If there is a city with 300 residents that is limited to rank two, I think that's a problem.I'm not saying that you can't keep your city, just that the largest city sizes should go to the folks with the largest population (and money) over time.

Oh, btw, if you missed it in my first post, I'm in one of the 'lucky' guilds. I think we were the second city on our server planted -- and we have may 25 people who play regularly. We also have a shuttle port and greatly enjoy it's use. But if a guild with 25 active people is keeping out one with 300, I don't think that is right.