Politician Archive
Thread: City Residency and the talked about player purge
Page 1 of 2
jjmartin
Sat May 28, 2005 8:04 pm
#1
I am not a huge fan of player purging but is there anyway that the Devs could work out something to prevent cities that rely too much on dead residents to have shuttles and specializations. It makes it near impossible for level 2 cities to move up. Maybe make it so people have to redeclare residency every three months or something. And give a player a one week warning that it is time to declare residence?
My city has been around since day one and had a rough patch for awhile but are now growing once again but are stuck with level 2 because of lack of room for another level 3 town. (Why they need to limit level 3's instead of level 4's is just stupid.)
Something needs to be done about this soon because there are just way too many dead cities around and it is unfair that they get shuttles and specializations when so many other cities dont get the chance that they worked hard for............
darklightr1
Sun May 29, 2005 7:55 am
#2
Player purging is about the only way to do it. Since they state that if you leave the game, you can come back for 6 months and your stuff will still be there. In order for a city to have the room to place more houses they need to have the dead ones gone. So to have to redeclare after 3 months, might sound good, but their house is still in the way to grow the city, in most instances I would think.
I do feel your pain about not being able to grow since there are so many that seem to have dead citizens. Keep in mind there are a lot of casual players who come on once a week or so. It might look like a city is dead but they just might not be on as much as you or others are.
darklightr1
Sun May 29, 2005 3:15 pm
#3
If memory serves me right, now if a mayor doesnt log in 30 days he isnt a mayor anymore, or somethinglike that.
Pappi
Sun May 29, 2005 3:49 pm
#4
darklightr1 wrote:If memory serves me right, now if a mayor doesnt log in 30 days he isnt a mayor anymore, or somethinglike that.
that is not correct.
Eleutherios
Sun May 29, 2005 7:57 pm
#6
Furthermore, there are busted harvesters from long-gone players on fire over great resource spots. I'm not a resource harvester personally, as I'm not a crafter, but I know of several people who want these locations but can't have them due to these people.
darklightr1
Sun May 29, 2005 8:51 pm
#7
Pappi,
I thought I read that sometime ago that it was the same for mayors? In fact the current mayor of our city which I am trying to take over thinks the same thing.
Let me know if it isnt for real, as this will effect how we are going to do the city transfer.
Itochew
Sun May 29, 2005 9:01 pm
#8
They screwed up when they made the change to not let houses go 'poof'. If SOE kept that in tact, then there would be some kind of flow. Inactive structures go 'poof', and more space opens up.It's not perfect... most would dump a huge amount of cash into the structures, making them last a while, but we'd still get some kind of flow. *They could restrict the amount of credits a structure could hold. Say...max 15k? That would prevent houses from floating for 6-12 months.
Now, the player purge is the only option...and it will shaft some cities. I say 'shaft' because it'll probably be overnight. One day you have a certain amount of citizens, and the next day BAM!
If SOE worried more about game mechanics and less about $$$ (bringing back inactive players), I don't think they wouldn't have to worry about subscriptions as much.
jjmartin
Sun May 29, 2005 9:35 pm
#9
I would think that if ingame mechanics were done properly the money would take care of itself. The best way to sell a product is to have a great one. Then it sells itself...................
Jutewr
Sun May 29, 2005 9:39 pm
#10
darklightr1 wrote:
Pappi,
I thought I read that sometime ago that it was the same for mayors? In fact the current mayor of our city which I am trying to take over thinks the same thing.
Let me know if it isnt for real, as this will effect how we are going to do the city transfer.
The mayor is not removed by inactivity. However, you can vote him/her out at any time.
Ham-Jo
Sun May 29, 2005 10:17 pm
#11
darklightr1 wrote:
Pappi,
I thought I read that sometime ago that it was the same for mayors? In fact the current mayor of our city which I am trying to take over thinks the same thing.
Let me know if it isnt for real, as this will effect how we are going to do the city transfer.
The mayor will not be removed for inactivity.
If the mayor does not log in for 6 months, he will still be the mayor.
BUT, you can run against him. If he's not logging in, then he will not be able to re-register and you'll win by default. The current Mayor has to register to run again also if there is an opponent.
darklightr1
Sun May 29, 2005 10:42 pm
#12
I thought that was true to Ham, It must be a bug now though, I ran and only got 7 votes, and the old mayor didnt run, I got a email saying I won, but nothing changed, she is still mayor and I am not.
Pappi
Sun May 29, 2005 11:36 pm
#13
darklightr1 wrote:I thought that was true to Ham, It must be a bug now though, I ran and only got 7 votes, and the old mayor didnt run, I got a email saying I won, but nothing changed, she is still mayor and I am not.
if something like that happens, you need to contact a CSR to get that fixed.
Page 1 of 2