Politician Archive
Thread: How to destroy unused buildings!
Page 1 of 1
DinesenDK
Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:36 am
#1
Hi,
Im a just a private in our guild, but I got a few question/ideas as our mayor could use a few special tricks.
when the playercity patch came out we decided to share city with another guild which at that point was a great idea. This has now turned out to be a problem as the other guild us no more and there guildhall is still placed in our city. We do know that it will vanish in time when management hits 0, but I do believe mayors should have a option or the possibillty to remove any unused structures as it is taking up place in our city. Another reason for this is it would become alot easier for the mayor to build up the infrastructure if he has this possibillity.
I know this can be abused but hey we did vote for this guy so in the end it is our problem. But ofcause if you guys can make another way to make this possible it is most welcome.
It would be great if the DEV's would adress this issue in any way.
Regards
DinesenDK
Im a just a private in our guild, but I got a few question/ideas as our mayor could use a few special tricks.
when the playercity patch came out we decided to share city with another guild which at that point was a great idea. This has now turned out to be a problem as the other guild us no more and there guildhall is still placed in our city. We do know that it will vanish in time when management hits 0, but I do believe mayors should have a option or the possibillty to remove any unused structures as it is taking up place in our city. Another reason for this is it would become alot easier for the mayor to build up the infrastructure if he has this possibillity.
I know this can be abused but hey we did vote for this guy so in the end it is our problem. But ofcause if you guys can make another way to make this possible it is most welcome.
It would be great if the DEV's would adress this issue in any way.
Regards
DinesenDK
BuddhaBoi
Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:27 am
#2
Yeah, they should be allowed to call the wredking ball on condemned buildings.
Wolf_Raider
Sun Sep 19, 2004 12:02 am
#3
And what do you plan on telling the owner of that building should they return? How do you plan on replacing that building and its contents?
Giving any player a way to affect another players property is a bad idea. What you are asking for will not happen. I do understand that people want to remove the dead weight and eyesores from their cities, but there is too much potential for griefing.
DId the guildhall owner quit SWG or did the guild just dissolve?
With the 6 month purge being implemented in October, abandoned buildings will start to disappear dispite the amount of maintainance in them. No player wants to take a month or 2 off from SWG to find that their mayor deleted their house to make room for a garden or shuttleport. The only thing you can do is wait for the owners account to be canceled for 6 months.
You may want to have the mayor file a Ticket with CSR and politely ask then to check on how much maintainance the building has left and if the owner cancelled his account. CSR might be able to provide contact info if the owner isstill playing on another server.
FreeEnterprise
Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:18 am
#4
Wolf_Raider wrote:
And what do you plan on telling the owner of that building should they return? How do you plan on replacing that building and its contents?
Giving any player a way to affect another players property is a bad idea. What you are asking for will not happen. I do understand that people want to remove the dead weight and eyesores from their cities, but there is too much potential for griefing.
DId the guildhall owner quit SWG or did the guild just dissolve?
With the 6 month purge being implemented in October, abandoned buildings will start to disappear dispite the amount of maintainance in them. No player wants to take a month or 2 off from SWG to find that their mayor deleted their house to make room for a garden or shuttleport. The only thing you can do is wait for the owners account to be canceled for 6 months.
You may want to have the mayor file a Ticket with CSR and politely ask then to check on how much maintainance the building has left and if the owner cancelled his account. CSR might be able to provide contact info if the owner isstill playing on another server.
In all fairness you shouldnt have the luxury of a 2 month break and keep your stuff......players who are actively playing have a better claim to that land than a cancelled account does, I think they should make the purge even more restrictive and say anyone who has cancelled loses their stuff 72 hours after cancelling. Why would this hurt, if your stuff is that important just pay the $15/month while you are on break, its not THAT much money.
Sturngard_Blastshield
Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:44 pm
#5
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Wolf_Raider wrote:
And what do you plan on telling the owner of that building should they return? How do you plan on replacing that building and its contents?
Giving any player a way to affect another players property is a bad idea. What you are asking for will not happen. I do understand that people want to remove the dead weight and eyesores from their cities, but there is too much potential for griefing.
DId the guildhall owner quit SWG or did the guild just dissolve?
With the 6 month purge being implemented in October, abandoned buildings will start to disappear dispite the amount of maintainance in them. No player wants to take a month or 2 off from SWG to find that their mayor deleted their house to make room for a garden or shuttleport. The only thing you can do is wait for the owners account to be canceled for 6 months.
You may want to have the mayor file a Ticket with CSR and politely ask then to check on how much maintainance the building has left and if the owner cancelled his account. CSR might be able to provide contact info if the owner isstill playing on another server.
In all fairness you shouldnt have the luxury of a 2 month break and keep your stuff......players who are actively playing have a better claim to that land than a cancelled account does, I think they should make the purge even more restrictive and say anyone who has cancelled loses their stuff 72 hours after cancelling. Why would this hurt, if your stuff is that important just pay the $15/month while you are on break, its not THAT much money.
I agree 100%
You want to talk about grief. Try running a city for 9 months and put time and effort creating a environment that supports a enjoyable player experience for your citizens, guild membes, and player community and watch how many people join and quit the game, switch guilds and leave houses and structures behind, or are booted from your guild and leave their houses and structures on purpose.
Who is griefing who?
How can you even attemp to build a city that supports miltary bases bases by strategically placing buildings and dealing with the HUGE footprints associated with bases and faction scanners when there are abondoned and condemed builds that you have to build around
Wolf_Raider
Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:36 pm
#6
People changing Guilds, getting kick out of the guild and leaving structures have nothing to do with this post. Thats an ingame issue between your city and them. Other then trying tonegotiate with them, there is little that can be done about playersdropping houses and leaving them in your city.
Unless I misread DinesenDK's post, this thread concerns buildings belonging to players who have left SWG.
SOE and most MMORPG's out there know that players will quit for various reasons. No MMORPG is perfect for everyone. But they also want to offer an incentive for players to return. Deleting someones character after 72 hours is not much of an incentive. It would only discourage many people from returning. People are going to quit for various reasons (New Game, bordom, RL financial issues, Military service, etc). I left SWG for a few months, do you think I would have much incentive to come back knowing I had to start over?Knowing thatI lost all the credits, equipment, skills, and other items I EARNED? Some of those items are not currently available in the game (Alderan flora, NS bicep, The first 3 COA badges). I would have little reason or desire to return knowing I had to start over.I did the newbie grind, dont wanna do it again. Loosing a house to unpaid maintainance is one thing (lost one of them the day before I came back), but loosing everything for being gone only 2 months doesnt encourage players to return.
The houses currently only last till maintainance runs out, then they start to decay until they are rubble. Next month, they will start removing characters that have been gone for more then 6 months.
So far, the people who have posted here want to destroy the buildings. Why not try and have the buildings MOVED? That would give the desired results of getting the abandoned buildings out of the city. People who left for a short time have something to return to without starting over. If they wanna return to the city, they can ask permission to recieve zoning rights.
This would probly have to be done by CSR since players cannot be trusted with this power (some can be trusted, but not all). I dont think CSR would do this currently. However, if there was enough support and demand by players for this feature, they might allow CSR's to do this. Most likely this would be a very low priority. You never know, they may be able/willing to move the building if asked nicely.
I do understand where some people are coming from.If the building belonged to an account that was permantly banned,then Isay nuke it now.But thats the only condition I would accept for destroying another players house. It can be frustrating to try and work around them, but the only thing we can do currently isto try and come up with asolution thatwill not cause undo grief to players (both current and possbly returning).
Sturngard_Blastshield
Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:09 am
#7
Wolf_Raider wrote:
People changing Guilds, getting kick out of the guild and leaving structures have nothing to do with this post. Thats an ingame issue between your city and them. Other then trying tonegotiate with them, there is little that can be done about playersdropping houses and leaving them in your city.
It has everything to do with this post. Read the first paragraph of the first post about someone leaving a guild hall in someone elses city.
It is no more complicated than this:
Party A builds a city, invites party B to join the city to increase their gaming experience. Party B leaves for what ever reason and Party A has to deal with the grief associated with abondoned structures.
The reason for leaving is irrelevant.
The owners of the city should have the ability to control their city that they invested millionscredits and hours of game play to create. If aplayerleaves the game/planet/guild/city, they as an individualshould not recievespecialbenefitsto while a entire group of games suffers at their expense.
LVDogma
Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:55 am
#8
We also have had nothing but trouble permitting other guilds to move into the city. Out of five so far, 3 folded and 2 moved and each time at least one building was abandoned blocking progress. Just recently we were able to rebuild in this 'guild enclave' area but it had remained a ghost town for months.
I don't think mayors should ever have the ability to delete structures. I've been a mayor from the advent of the player city patch and I certainly want the ability to move a house however. If I could move buildings I would have the easiest job in SWG. I would even be willing to pay a huge money sink fee. Say 1 million credits to move a PA hall with some scaled system based on size.
90% of my problems are buildings that need to be moved a very short distance and the remaining are abandoned buildings I would prefer to move to less traveled locations.
I know buildings can be moved, there was a 'bug' that let you rotate an existing building at one point. I think if the building was not loaded, i.e. No one entered it and the private building zone was not rendered, moving it to a new location would be handled well by the SWG code.
Put as many limitations as you need to make this a safe feature. Again I would be happy to pay a heavy fee, I'd be happy to have it require a vote first as well. I can certainly 51% of my citizens come vote on certain measures at least once. I could line up several moves, have the vote pass and then move abandoned or blocking buildings to another location in the city.
No need to destroy them at all.
On a side note, none of the buildings owned by accounts that have been inactive for 6 months or more have been removed yet. My friend quit the month player cities were patched in and her small house is still in the city.
I don't think mayors should ever have the ability to delete structures. I've been a mayor from the advent of the player city patch and I certainly want the ability to move a house however. If I could move buildings I would have the easiest job in SWG. I would even be willing to pay a huge money sink fee. Say 1 million credits to move a PA hall with some scaled system based on size.
90% of my problems are buildings that need to be moved a very short distance and the remaining are abandoned buildings I would prefer to move to less traveled locations.
I know buildings can be moved, there was a 'bug' that let you rotate an existing building at one point. I think if the building was not loaded, i.e. No one entered it and the private building zone was not rendered, moving it to a new location would be handled well by the SWG code.
Put as many limitations as you need to make this a safe feature. Again I would be happy to pay a heavy fee, I'd be happy to have it require a vote first as well. I can certainly 51% of my citizens come vote on certain measures at least once. I could line up several moves, have the vote pass and then move abandoned or blocking buildings to another location in the city.
No need to destroy them at all.
On a side note, none of the buildings owned by accounts that have been inactive for 6 months or more have been removed yet. My friend quit the month player cities were patched in and her small house is still in the city.
Pooka
Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:52 am
#9
In my opinion an easy fix for this would be to auto-remove unused building that belongs to unused accounts to what we can call "escrow".
So if/when the player returns/reactivates he will be informed that "due to inactivity your house and its contents has been moved to escrow, you can retrieve it by typing /retrievestructure on the place you wish to re-place the structure and its contents" or something similiar.
Should be easily implemented considering that CSR's already has the power to do this AND they can retrieve fallen/destroyedbuildings with all thier contents.
The house itself will be placed and the items placed in a pile in front of the structure maintenance terminal.
Dead houses are a pain to say the least and been a pain since day one of player cities.
And this IS in fact an easy fix as the codes already exists in a somewhat similiar state but for CSR's only.
Message Edited by Pooka on 09-23-2004 12:52 PM
Sturngard_Blastshield
Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:02 am
#10
Pooka wrote:
In my opinion an easy fix for this would be to auto-remove unused building that belongs to unused accounts to what we can call "escrow".
So if/when the player returns/reactivates he will be informed that "due to inactivity your house and its contents has been moved to escrow, you can retrieve it by typing /retrievestructure on the place you wish to re-place the structure and its contents" or something similiar.
Should be easily implemented considering that CSR's already has the power to do this AND they can retrieve fallen/destroyedbuildings with all thier contents.
The house itself will be placed and the items placed in a pile in front of the structure maintenance terminal.
Dead houses are a pain to say the least and been a pain since day one of player cities.
And this IS in fact an easy fix as the codes already exists in a somewhat similiar state but for CSR's only.
Message Edited by Pooka on 09-23-2004 12:52 PM
Very very logical concept. It make a lot of sense to me.
This type of functionality would be great.
Pooka
Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:03 pm
#11
Sturngard_Blastshield wrote:
Pooka wrote:
In my opinion an easy fix for this would be to auto-remove unused building that belongs to unused accounts to what we can call "escrow".
So if/when the player returns/reactivates he will be informed that "due to inactivity your house and its contents has been moved to escrow, you can retrieve it by typing /retrievestructure on the place you wish to re-place the structure and its contents" or something similiar.
Should be easily implemented considering that CSR's already has the power to do this AND they can retrieve fallen/destroyedbuildings with all thier contents.
The house itself will be placed and the items placed in a pile in front of the structure maintenance terminal.
Dead houses are a pain to say the least and been a pain since day one of player cities.
And this IS in fact an easy fix as the codes already exists in a somewhat similiar state but for CSR's only.
Message Edited by Pooka on 09-23-2004 12:52 PM
Very very logical concept. It make a lot of sense to me.
This type of functionality would be great.
Sometimes I just stun myself with my smarts ... *chuckle*
Page 1 of 1