User Tag List

Thread: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 201
  1. #191 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Community Contributor ChrisLenga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now that we're about two months since we were advised a date couldn't really be provided because testing has been an issue, where does all of this stand currently?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #192 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Project Admin


    RoarAsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,910
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLenga View Post
    Now that we're about two months since we were advised a date couldn't really be provided because testing has been an issue, where does all of this stand currently?
    More info soon!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #193 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Community Contributor ChrisLenga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RoarAsh View Post
    More info soon!
    Hope so, these single player cities sure make it hard on guilds with actual city needs and desires.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #194 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Community Contributor ChrisLenga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Something really should be done soon. Here we are again being prevented to Level 3 which as an active guild full of people we at least need Level 3 to get research status. Kind of already written off the idea of a shuttle port, sadly, but its a growing concern at this point with the fact we can't advance and definitely hurting recruitment and affecting gameplay. Right now we could easily have 50 citizens if our borders expanded but we're unable to because a bunch of single player cities exist at level three status. Perhaps its time for an event where we can go after buildings based on their owns inactivity in-game or something of that nature to try and balance things out or update the new numbers and take care of things that way. So many cities I travel though are dead and vacant with some having ten buildings owned by the same people. I know I'm not alone in this being stuck from proceeding further and honestly, with how unique cities are within a game, its a shame that this isn't a higher priority in terms of fixing it so active cities can continue to thrive while inactive cities can be no longer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #195 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Player



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I find this whole change troubling. Yes I am late to respond as I just discovered the topic. My wife and I have a small village. We have no desire to grow larger so we do not actively recruit. We are happy to just have a bank and junk dealer. We are not against other folk living in our city we just make friends very slowly. To me and her the whole idea here is another form of forced grouping. So I am going to offer my opinion here. This is a bad Idea the numbers for rank one and two cities is perfect. They have a small 150m and 200m footprint and that's a small area. Going on to rank 3 and beyond I can not say. Seems to me that it would not hurt to make the last three ranks more difficult to achieve and maintain.The maintenance cost for any city is trivial and the proposed costs are still trivial.

    An Outpost or Village that seems inactive to you in your 2, 3, or 6 hour window of play time does not mean its a ghost town. We all have trouble finding real good spots for our harvesters,most often for me that happens outside game cities that have attracted huge numbers of folk who want there privacy and access to infrastructure at the same time. Who among us would force these folks out of there play style ( not I ). These changes will have no effect on these folks and may in fact increase those numbers as smaller cities go away.

    Sony faced these challenges. Is the real problem player cities and the current system of the way they are built? In my opinion it is not. The real problem is the longevity of dormant structures. Things constantly change , players come and go and some forget to make room for others. Empty buildings are not the trouble , empty does not mean unused.

    The trouble is now and always has been how do we as players tell if a building in our way is used or unused, the sad simple answer is we don't. it's not up to us. It's up to the devs.
    One simple small way the devs can slowly begin fixing the whole issue is to disable maintenance coming out of the players pocket after it runs out on a structure. Limit the maximum amount of maintenance on any player owned non civic structure limited to 30 days. Give a small one week window to pay the maintenance and then make it go away ( not pack it up ) destroy it. Destroy what is in it and let the it be known that's what happens. At the same time the admin rights on any player owned non civic structure needs to be limited to account only, that way no one can just come along and pay the maintenance to keep a city alive with no actual players.

    For sure I do have my own self interest at the same time I would not like anyone to be treated unfairly because of how and when they play. I think a player city revamp is NOT needed.I think what is needed is to limit admin on player owned non civic structures to the account and to make only the 30 day maintenance on a structure keep it standing. If those things happen only an active player will have buildings and those three things if implemented will solve a lot of issues for both crafters and folks waiting on city advancement.
    Last edited by Ragsinn; 03-15-2019 at 09:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #196 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Community Contributor ChrisLenga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragsinn View Post
    I find this whole change troubling. Yes I am late to respond as I just discovered the topic. My wife and I have a small village. We have no desire to grow larger so we do not actively recruit. We are happy to just have a bank and junk dealer. We are not against other folk living in our city we just make friends very slowly. To me and her the whole idea here is another form of forced grouping. So I am going to offer my opinion here. This is a bad Idea the numbers for rank one and two cities is perfect. They have a small 150m and 200m footprint and that's a small area. Going on to rank 3 and beyond I can not say. Seems to me that it would not hurt to make the last three ranks more difficult to achieve and maintain.The maintenance cost for any city is trivial and the proposed costs are still trivial.

    An Outpost or Village that seems inactive to you in your 2, 3, or 6 hour window of play time does not mean its a ghost town. We all have trouble finding real good spots for our harvesters,most often for me that happens outside game cities that have attracted huge numbers of folk who want there privacy and access to infrastructure at the same time. Who among us would force these folks out of there play style ( not I ). These changes will have no effect on these folks and may in fact increase those numbers as smaller cities go away.

    Sony faced these challenges. Is the real problem player cities and the current system of the way they are built? In my opinion it is not. The real problem is the longevity of dormant structures. Things constantly change , players come and go and some forget to make room for others. Empty buildings are not the trouble , empty does not mean unused.

    The trouble is now and always has been how do we as players tell if a building in our way is used or unused, the sad simple answer is we don't. it's not up to us. It's up to the devs.
    One simple small way the devs can slowly begin fixing the whole issue is to disable maintenance coming out of the players pocket after it runs out on a structure. Limit the maximum amount of maintenance on any player owned non civic structure limited to 30 days. Give a small one week window to pay the maintenance and then make it go away ( not pack it up ) destroy it. Destroy what is in it and let the it be known that's what happens. At the same time the admin rights on any player owned non civic structure needs to be limited to account only, that way no one can just come along and pay the maintenance to keep a city alive with no actual players.

    For sure I do have my own self interest at the same time I would not like anyone to be treated unfairly because of how and when they play. I think a player city revamp is NOT needed.I think what is needed is to limit admin on player owned non civic structures to the account and to make only the 30 day maintenance on a structure keep it standing. If those things happen only an active player will have buildings and those three things if implemented will solve a lot of issues for both crafters and folks waiting on city advancement.
    While you make some valid points, you also make some points that are irrelevant. I completely agree about the maintenance aspect, but then mayors could enforce those who are within their city to be admin of a structure thus maintaining maintenance so that the structure doesn't pop. That makes your solution broken unfortunately. I bring that up as I've seen that before with some cities during the early days of the cities becoming a thing back on Live. Secondly, while I admire you and your small circle having your tiny little city, a city is meant to be more than just a small group. I'm in favor for the number changes because certain things just require a group. Are you saying we should enable group heroics to be done solo too? If you can't (or don't want to) maintain the required number of citizens to maintain a city, then you shouldn't have one. Keep in mind, even 1 and 2 technically have caps as there's only a certain amount of cities allowed on each planet. So why should they be filled with a bunch of cities that aren't interested in progressing?

    As far as your destroying of structures, I find that incredibly... unfriendly toward players. Legends does not want to be known for an anti player server as then people won't continue to come here. Simply put, that is a very dumb idea and I don't see that ever being implemented. Many of us (including me) would leave if something like that was ever instituted. Packing up is fine, but to destroy things in a structure that could have taken hours, days, months and in some events years to acquire? Get real please.

    Outside of that, you can't possibly require a bank that often and if your so worried about a junk dealer, grab yourself a smuggler and there you go.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Lenga aka Jarrock

    Guild Leader, VAST & City Mayor, VAST Coast

    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #197 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Player



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLenga View Post
    While you make some valid points, you also make some points that are irrelevant. I completely agree about the maintenance aspect, but then mayors could enforce those who are within their city to be admin of a structure thus maintaining maintenance so that the structure doesn't pop. That makes your solution broken unfortunately. I bring that up as I've seen that before with some cities during the early days of the cities becoming a thing back on Live. Secondly, while I admire you and your small circle having your tiny little city, a city is meant to be more than just a small group. I'm in favor for the number changes because certain things just require a group. Are you saying we should enable group heroics to be done solo too? If you can't (or don't want to) maintain the required number of citizens to maintain a city, then you shouldn't have one. Keep in mind, even 1 and 2 technically have caps as there's only a certain amount of cities allowed on each planet. So why should they be filled with a bunch of cities that aren't interested in progressing?

    As far as your destroying of structures, I find that incredibly... unfriendly toward players. Legends does not want to be known for an anti player server as then people won't continue to come here. Simply put, that is a very dumb idea and I don't see that ever being implemented. Many of us (including me) would leave if something like that was ever instituted. Packing up is fine, but to destroy things in a structure that could have taken hours, days, months and in some events years to acquire? Get real please.

    Outside of that, you can't possibly require a bank that often and if your so worried about a junk dealer, grab yourself a smuggler and there you go.
    If only the person who owns the account can be an admin then no mayor or other person can pay maintenance ..treat houses like harvesters ..as far as being unfriendly I do not think so . If you value the stuff in it ..pack it up ..it's a one click button. Destroying the property is not a necessity but removing it to make room for others is. I am not asking anyone to make any changes to things that require a group, and far as I can tell these proposed city changes won't either . A city is a place for players to play, I use both a bank and a Junk Dealer for about every 2 hours of combat. I do not need a smuggler or for someone to decide I do. The root problem is houses and the way they are maintained. Not the City system.

    Sony had an agenda ..make money ...sell subscriptions. They did everything they could to do that even made it so players could play without playing.I am pretty sure the Folks at Legends have a very different agenda. In the days of live My wife and myself had 12 boxed versions of the game ( we love it ). We did that to play our way without the need to rely on the whims of other folks.

    200ish cities allowed in game ..this server has on 1600 ish max and over the last 3 months 6000 unique logins. What you describe..mayors and guild leaders paying maintenance for absent players. That's already happening and why shouldn't it, its how Sony wanted it. If legends wants to fix that problem they can make houses like harvesters. Only the account owner can pay maintenance, that maintenance is capped to 30 days, and only the account owner can be an admin. It is not perfect, smarter folks than me may have better ideas. The city changes that are proposed do not address any of that.

    In reality the proposed changes will not effect my wife and myself. She reminded me that her sister and my brother and sister are all players. It would be easy enough to ask them to sign up log in and make characters and join our city and have us admin on their houses and nothing changes for us. That's the last thing I would like to
    see happen more folks playing without playing. I love that we found legends and She and I like all of the folks we have encountered,for me this is a chance for debate
    about an issue that has long bothered me "urban sprawl".

    So our city has 4 vendors selling ISO,Lyase,Holocrons,Tailor goods, Chef foods,Houses,Harvesters. We have a medic in the pa hall for free doc buffs an ent for ent
    buffs ( I buff others when I am on and sent a tell ) My wife has an officer she can and has in the past logged on so folks can have those drops and buffs. We contribute to the community and do what's allowed within the rules to play as we wish. I would wish that everyone who comes to legends enjoys it like we do and stays forever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #198 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Senate Liaison & Lead QA


    Nubius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,122
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    @Ragsinn Just a small point but its important, structures within a player city will automatically flag for pack-up after their owner is offline for 90 days regardless of how much maintenance is in the maintenance pool - a building with 10 million credits in the put will still be eligible for pack-up after 90 days if its owner doesn't log in, if players on the admin list are active it makes no difference, its all about the owners activity.

    Outside of a player city however there is an issue with houses hanging about forever, even when they run out of maintenance. Unfortunately Sony's house pack-up event was coded in such a way that it requires constant manual updating of the inactive structure list by a dev rather than updating itself on an ongoing basis. This is why they only ran it sporadically. We have said before we are looking at ways to make this system automatic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #199 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Community Contributor ChrisLenga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nubius View Post
    @Ragsinn Just a small point but its important, structures within a player city will automatically flag for pack-up after their owner is offline for 90 days regardless of how much maintenance is in the maintenance pool - a building with 10 million credits in the put will still be eligible for pack-up after 90 days if its owner doesn't log in, if players on the admin list are active it makes no difference, its all about the owners activity.

    Outside of a player city however there is an issue with houses hanging about forever, even when they run out of maintenance. Unfortunately Sony's house pack-up event was coded in such a way that it requires constant manual updating of the inactive structure list by a dev rather than updating itself on an ongoing basis. This is why they only ran it sporadically. We have said before we are looking at ways to make this system automatic.
    Now when you say flag for pickup, you mean zoning violation within city limits? and there's no way to run an automated script to do the work of the dev in terms of automating the portion outside city limits?
    Sincerely,
    Chris Lenga aka Jarrock

    Guild Leader, VAST & City Mayor, VAST Coast

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #200 Re: Player Cities Revamp - Part 1 
    Player



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I appreciate being able to be heard. There is no way I can fully understand what is and is not possible in terms of fixing the housing issues. All I can offer is idea's.
    If it is possible to shorten the amount of time for in city pack ups from 90 to 30 days maybe that would give more chance to folks actively building cities.
    I am still not in favor of fixing what is not broken ( player city revamp ) I can not see what it adds to legends to make it better. Again there is no way for
    me to fully understand what is and is not possible. Also have not seen what part 2 would bring.

    I will offer this, if the changes proposed are an effort to make folks come together for the purpose of having a city for a guild or group.
    The cost needs to be much much higher in the 10's of millions. I alone without selling anything can generate half a million an hour selling junk loot.
    I want to be fully understood. I am not anti macro but I don't afk hunt in a group . That half million an hour is accurate for a well geared toon going slowly.

    Happy Hunting all !
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO