Politician Archive
Thread: City Mechanism Failings....
Page 1 of 1
T-Magnum
Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:18 am
#1
My guild is in the process of moving from a city on Dantooine to one on Tatooine. During this process we have discovered some very unfortunate, in fact the better word is "horrendous", oversights on the part of the development team in regards to managing ones city.
1) The first problem deals with the cash in the city coffers. There is a cap on the amount of money that can be withdrawn (50k per day)....this is just downright retarded. I can understand that the devs put this in place to prevent a shady mayor from absconding with city funds, but for the love of god, why not allow the citizens to vote for the mayor to take out a larger amount for just these kinds of situations? At first we thought this was a bug or a problem that had not been addressed yet. So the mayor along with many of the citizens all sent CS tickets in to try and get some help. However the response from CSR was just atypical of Sony's customer service track record "Do not flood the CSRs with tickets - this can result in a ban" I mean **edit**? The reason we sent in the tickets from everyone was to demonstrate that there was unity on this issue from current citizens.
2) The second issue is far more problematic. This deals with the issue of the incumbent mayor being able to resign when another challenger is present. I really cannot fathom a reason behind not allowing this or having some sort of mechanism in place. In our particular case, the current city on tatooine, formerly mos hopeless, Bria, has a mayor who would like to resign, but cannot. We have an experienced mayor on our city of Dant who we need to resign and then run in the new city, but who also can't resign. One issue here is with MIA voting (missing in action players) who have left the game or simply left the city and failed to clean up after themselves and won't come back to vote - so all the MIA votes go right to the incumbent as oppossed to a substitute. This is the worst mistake of implemetation of player cities that I can point out. A non-vote is just that, a non-vote - it should not automatically go to the incumbent. This is causing huge problems for us trying to get someone else elected in both cities.
If anyone has any suggestions, we would like to hear them (especially if you are a DEV) - feel free to post here or please contact Ocina or Katilla in game
1) The first problem deals with the cash in the city coffers. There is a cap on the amount of money that can be withdrawn (50k per day)....this is just downright retarded. I can understand that the devs put this in place to prevent a shady mayor from absconding with city funds, but for the love of god, why not allow the citizens to vote for the mayor to take out a larger amount for just these kinds of situations? At first we thought this was a bug or a problem that had not been addressed yet. So the mayor along with many of the citizens all sent CS tickets in to try and get some help. However the response from CSR was just atypical of Sony's customer service track record "Do not flood the CSRs with tickets - this can result in a ban" I mean **edit**? The reason we sent in the tickets from everyone was to demonstrate that there was unity on this issue from current citizens.
2) The second issue is far more problematic. This deals with the issue of the incumbent mayor being able to resign when another challenger is present. I really cannot fathom a reason behind not allowing this or having some sort of mechanism in place. In our particular case, the current city on tatooine, formerly mos hopeless, Bria, has a mayor who would like to resign, but cannot. We have an experienced mayor on our city of Dant who we need to resign and then run in the new city, but who also can't resign. One issue here is with MIA voting (missing in action players) who have left the game or simply left the city and failed to clean up after themselves and won't come back to vote - so all the MIA votes go right to the incumbent as oppossed to a substitute. This is the worst mistake of implemetation of player cities that I can point out. A non-vote is just that, a non-vote - it should not automatically go to the incumbent. This is causing huge problems for us trying to get someone else elected in both cities.
If anyone has any suggestions, we would like to hear them (especially if you are a DEV) - feel free to post here or please contact Ocina or Katilla in game
Message Edited by T-Magnum on 07-06-2004 05:29 AM
Message Edited by T-Magnum on 07-06-2004 07:30 AM
PrincessSarah
Sat Jul 10, 2004 8:30 pm
#5
*nods* I had to take down my CH and lost 600k 
I was lucky enough to be elected into another city.. but damn.. 600k.. 400 of it was mine
Stratta
Sun Jul 11, 2004 1:02 am
#8
/agree
currently your second problem is the same as we are having in our city, current mayor wants to resign and no way to change the MIA votes.
SeismicEdge
Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:36 am
#9
/right on. Everybody go sign my petition on this same forum. Keep this alive and sign it often and they WILL listen!
Conchita
Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:30 pm
#10
/agree
This whole situation drives me insane. Im in the same guild TMag is in, so Im about as fed up with it as he is. Same as the rest of our guild. There really is no logical reason behind it. 
Xtoz
Wed Jul 14, 2004 4:52 pm
#11
/Agree
The mayor should have more options. Whats the use otherwise.
AKA Xtoz
Page 1 of 1