Politician Archive
Thread: How SMART is the innactivity rule?
Page 1 of 1
PreLaunch
Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:38 am
#1
As far as an advertisement for the game goes, is it better to say we have many cities over 200 knowing in the back of your mind half those people have left the game or is it better to go to a fanfest with players having a clear indication of the exodus from SWG by all these cities collapsing galaxy wide over time.
Just doesnt seem very smart to me. I can understand new cities wanting their shuttleports and so on but if you get to the stage where this rule reduces a planet like Tat to having just one player city that qualifies for a shuttleport all that says is that the population of this game is gone.
Dont know but if I was a developer I dont think this is the sort of press I would be trying to achieve for my game.
Ihave seen some cities on my server go from 120 to 50 in the last two weeks. Doesnt bother me but if I was a developer as I said I wouldnt want that sort of thing to be common knowledge which is what this rule/code has achieved.
DoctorGriggs
Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:42 am
#2
PreLaunch wrote:As far as an advertisement for the game goes, is it better to say we have many cities over 200 knowing in the back of your mind half those people have left the game or is it better to go to a fanfest with players having a clear indication of the exodus from SWG by all these cities collapsing galaxy wide over time.Just doesnt seem very smart to me. I can understand new cities wanting their shuttleports and so on but if you get to the stage where this rule reduces a planet like Tat to having just one player city that qualifies for a shuttleport all that says is that the population of this game is gone.Dont know but if I was a developer I dont think this is the sort of press I would be trying to achieve for my game.Ihave seen some cities on my server go from 120 to 50 in the last two weeks. Doesnt bother me but if I was a developer as I said I wouldnt want that sort of thing to be common knowledge which is what this rule/code has achieved.
For every city collapsing, there is a new one coming up. What is happening is instead of having 20 cities on a planet with half of them being inactive you are ending up with stronger, more active cities. This inactivity rule was really smart. Player cities should be competititve. They should not allow any John Doe to place one and grow it using server lot swaps. Hell, I could make my own city and move 100 people in it. Pretty lame. I am glad we never did any server lot swaps to falsely inflate our citizen counts. And now with this rule, my guild, one of the largest on Gorath, can FINALLY have a city on a primary planet.
Linoric
Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:57 am
#3
My guild has been waiting for some time to start a city on tatooine. But due to the mass ghost towns from all the lotswapping we could never place a city hall... At least we have a chance now...
Laeren
Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:15 am
#4
I'd like to point out that this rule doesn't stop lotswapping. The lotswappers are still playing on the other servers, and it only takes them 5 mins to log into your server, putter around in their house for 10 seconds, then log out. And that satisfies it.
This rule is just to make sure that those who aren't playing the game lose out. If you get called away to serve your country, you lose. If you have surgery that puts you out for a month and a half, you lose. If your computer dies and it takes you 6 weeks to replace it, you lose.
This rule wasn't designed to stop lot swapping, not at all. In fact, in some cases, it might be encouraging it.
Page 1 of 1