Politician Archive
Thread: Cities are meant to actually have politics and turmoil that is gameplay
hate it when I do that....
continuing my point... politics and turmoil won't exist if the city is destroyed
so how about finding a "fix" for this... I understand nothing is broken... maybe keeping a mayor from destroying the city hall unless he has been the mayor for 4 weeks let's say... arbitrary figure...
but if they've been there developing the city for four weeks, chances are everyone has moved in already and they consider the city there home... this will probably, I hope, keep people from moving into a city with the sole intention of destroying it
just a thought really
KeliG, I guess I agree that coming in to destroy it, or grief others to move out so it is your city is wrong. However with the 10 city cap, it is an undesired side affect.
I agree, ghost players should not exist. My first remedy would be that you actually have to enter your house, or go to city hall to have a vote count for the week. Sort of like how a person has to enter their house for them to become a citizen. Second, I would make it so that you have to pay your income tax to vote. Right now I believe income tax is optional.
I also thing 1 strucuter per person is bad. My master merchant is going to have 4 or 5 merchant tents. A lot of people like having their factories and storage houses close by.
I'm from a small PA (selfless promote Spired rock on Datooine-lowca) that we start a city.. my PA leader/mayor knows that our city would not be under the PA control forever.. nor it should be, but I want the city to grow.. I want to know that if someone did take it over.. I can still live in it (hostile take over doesn't let that happen) or destroy it to the ground so they can set up their own city someplace else... (perfect timing etc etc)
This is not what I hope for... I don't mind using up literally millions of credits making the city... but I hate to see it burn to the ground cause some players are jealous.. (I don't think the devs had that in mind.. I'm just hoping) I know that someone can come (with good will) and then eventually run again our mayor and maybe even winning (quiet possible) but hope to continue to run the city and not just stealing from the treasury and then burn it to the ground....
That is what I dont' like and fear.. if there were safety measure.. like unanimous vote for destruction of city hall.. then I would feel better.
dayln.... you need to stop appearing on the same side as me in these things... i'm starting to get a complex.
can we go argue somewhere?
oh, we can argue here.... 1 building per person in a city is bad.... very bad... lol merchant tents are just one example of this one... I understand what some pa's are doing is bad as well but its hard to cover 1000 square km's of land from edge to edge.
bah, oh well, nothing to add, you guys are 100% on target.... defeat ghost citizens.... remove the ability to self destruct a city hall and place zoning restrictions to certain areas rather than blanket approval. that is what I'd like to see.
Um, why do you want hostile take overs and self destructing towns? It's not going to make the game any more interesting.In fact destroying a town is more likely to breakthe game for players;
Asif the Devs needed any help there!
All,
I am disappointed with how limited gameplay is for politicians. I for one think sieges and possible takeovers are good things. I don't like the idea of people owning cities. If you aren't big enough to protect it and have it grow you shouldn't have dropped a city hall. When they changed zoning rights from commercial to all structures I was annoyed.
Right now a mayor has nothing to do. There is no competition, there is no risk or reward.
I can't believe people who are posting, malicius takeover, or siege griefing.... To me that is how cities were supposed to gameplay. People would come and move in and you had to win them over with your vision and policies, or you lost the election.
Now cities are boring and being a politican lets you place gardens and streetlights. That is really worth 73 skill points.
I agree 100%.
They need to fix this by
A. Deleting the houses of ghost citicizens ( or just remove the declared residence status of them at random intervals )
B. Make it so that a player can only own 1 building inside of a city limit ( that would do a lot all by itself )
Well, Amen to the general concept, Mk - though I do think a politician trying to run a "public" city has some right to defend herself against the obvious encroachment of a larger PA seeking a playground of their very own. 
Eventually, I would like to see elections a little more competitive than my last. 31-1-1 was a flattering result and all, but I'm not sure how exciting that will be after the city has been established properly.
- Sydira
I agree on the ghost issue, but whatis a limitation of only one building within city limits gonna do?
you still only get one vote.
also, by mailicious, I feel most of us are implying that people are moving in with the sole intention of destroying the city... this is mailicious....
any other takeover with different intentions is all good by me
ie taking over a city to make it grow from it's current level.. good
And who said their weren't dictatorships in the Star Wars Universe? Not very Star Warsy to have ONLY Democrazys.
Although it DOES seem like is nothing but guild towns around. I hardly even see any non-guild players around anymore. It's like everyone is just grouping up and then going off to create their own little islands = Boring.
Hmm... I'm beginning to think you guys should petition for an all pvp server.
While you are at it you could ask for all structures to be attackable.
Personally I have no interest in "Turmoil" or "Conflict".
I play to have fun, and build aninteresting community in a co-operative environment.
If I wanted PvP conflict I would play something else. Those of you that want it can declare overt and go fight one another... why do you insist that we allow anti-social behaviour to be forced on non-pvp players?
The city zone camping thats happening has at no time been encouraged by the devs. They have introduced politics as an interesting game element WITHIN a city. Their unfortunate implimentation of city zones has simply allowed those that wish to impose their ideas on others a mechanism to do so, knowing that there is little or nothing that can be done to counter it.
New people that arewillingly allowed into a city get to vote, andinternal political competition is fine, but these hostile takeovers are NOT using the political system. They are forced entry into a city... they do NOTHING to encourage open cities, in factquite the opposite. They are simply a form of Guild-vs-Guild conflict.
Quote: "Right now amayor has nothing to do."
Huuuuh??? I don't know about you guys, but I have no time to do anything else. Being Mayor is a full time job if you plan on doing it right. It's not about dropping a bunch of houses and then waiting a week for xp. It's about buildinga community. Finding the right people to join your town so that everyone has the style of town they want. Helping the citizens... tending to the appearance of your city and it's civic structures... organizing community events etc.
If there isnt enough to keep you occupied then I have to wonder why you chose to be a politician.
Hostile takeovers are the ideas of wuzzies that aint got the nads to go overt and fight.
<drops line>