User Tag List

Thread: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes*

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56
  1. #1 *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Project Admin


    RoarAsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,109
    Mentioned
    278 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)


    Hello Legends,

    We recently announced that we would be making in-game changes to the requirements of player cities. You can find an overview thread of these changes here. Since the announcement has been made we’ve been reading your feedback and comments and decided to answer some of your questions regarding the upcoming changes. I managed to have a chat with Nubius who is one of the SWG:Legends staff members in addition to being senate liaison to answer and clarify some of these questions you may have.

    What is the upcoming change to player cities and how does it affect me?

    We are increasing the citizenship requirements for each player city rank and the corresponding player city maintenance charges to make starting and maintaining a player city a bit more complex, and hopefully encourage collaboration between players when it comes to contributing to the weekly maintenance costs of a player city. At the moment it is too easy for a small group of players to maintain a city with maximum benefits whilst others cannot start cities at all.

    We are looking for the middle ground between the needs of larger guilds and established cities and those of new players joining the server who also want to participate in this unique aspect of SWG.

    Why is this change being made to the game now?

    We have a problem on Omega currently which is one every SWG server faces eventually, the player city system which is based on a series of caps at certain ranks just fills up and stagnates - this creates the effect of newer players being frozen out of creating new cities whilst older cities can remain for years, maintained with little or no effort by a handful of players.

    The problem on Omega has been made worse by the increased character limit we implemented 18 months ago - with every account now getting 5 characters it is possible for 1 player to create and hold a rank 1 city. The staff at the time felt changing the citizenship requirements for cities wasn’t necessary at the time, but as the Project has grown and grown that decision has made the problem with player cities worse - we have filled the server up far more quickly than was anticipated!

    We are now seeing the unfortunate practice of player cities being bought and sold for massive prices because all of the city slots on each planet are full!

    We have been working on revamping the player city system for over a year now and we have some exciting changes planned, but unless we tackle the fundamental issues at the core of the current problem, only the privileged few who have played on the server longer and are in larger guilds will enjoy the benefits whilst newer players will either be locked out of participating or have to pay a premium to enjoy the benefits with their friends!

    Why don’t you simply increase the Planetary Caps for Player Cities so we can have more at various ranks?

    There are several reasons. There is only so much space on every planet - the planetary caps help to ensure planets do not end up looking like Coruscant! We also have to take into account the needs of crafters who need open world space to deploy their harvesters.

    Why are city maintenance costs being increased?


    As it currently stands on Omega, player cities can be maintained with almost no effort financially - the cost of maintaining the average rank 5 city can be met by a single terminal mission a week or an average of 15 minutes farming junk. Cities were designed originally to be a collaborative effort and require the involvement of its citizens as well as the mayor through donations and the city tax system. At the current maintenance cost levels, the mayor can single handedly fund their city without any involvement needed from those who live there. We are however reviewing the feedback we have received and will be aiming to discuss this with the Senate.

    What can we expect within the next update of Player Cities 2.0 Part 2?

    We aren't ready to release the full details yet but what I will say is that part 2 will be the most significant revamp to the player city system ever carried out on an SWG server - we are going to make player cities significantly more useful for multiple playstyles, not just crafting. From a completely new specialisation system that will end the cookie-cutter dominance of the research centre and DNA laboratory specialisations to new content such as player city collections for mayors and citizens, a quest series with unique player city-based rewards and a massive overhaul of the city decoration system and limits - its all to play for.

    Many of the new features are based of feedback from the community we have received after the last 2 years - we have been listening and taking note.

    SWG is a social game and the player city system allows players to build their own communities - the player city system has always had a lot of potential but it never really lived up to it - we now have the opportunity to unleash that potential and make player cities an essential component of the social side of SWG: Legends.

    We hope that this Q&A has minimized any potential concerns you may have with these upcoming changes, thanks to Nubius for taking the time for answering the questions.

    May the force be with you,

    SWG:Legends Staff

    Stay up to date with the latest Friday Feature, which contains useful information to players new and veteran alike!
    View the whole collection: https://swglegends.com/forums/showth...te-Collection*
    Last edited by Laviz; 02-08-2019 at 01:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Former Senator Niko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2,708
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RoarAsh View Post
    Why is this change being made to the game now?

    We have a problem on Omega currently which is one every SWG server faces eventually, the player city system which is based on a series of caps at certain ranks just fills up and stagnates - this creates the effect of newer players being frozen out of creating new cities whilst older cities can remain for years, maintained with little or no effort by a handful of players.
    The cities stagnate because the houses never go anywhere. It takes forever for a house to pack up which makes it extremely easy to maintain populations. Fix that and most of this will resolve itself.

    Thank you for the updated information. I do value more open and honest discussions between the staff and player base so that previous mistakes are not repeated. I am on board with increased costs. I've always thought they were too low. Outside of that, I am skeptical bordering on apprehension about the rest of this.
    -5161 -3954 Lok
    Niko's Space and Resource Emporium
    Just south of Hamunaptra
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Community Contributor DarthDroopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am skeptical about the whole damn thing because what you will have is only large guilds with cities.
    Also it is hard work to just get to a level 3 city and you say your going to increase all of the requirements for all cities,
    and there costs this will push out players that do not have only SWG in there life.
    If you want to make it where only a guild can have a city fine go ahead but I am warning you people will leave.
    Now if you want to adjust it so not every one goes after the same city kind of professionalism for a city fine, but the rest
    is just saying guild only or tax the hell out of you'r citizens and make them grind for you or leave your city.
    Plus you will have players who will be out to steal cities and they are hard to build up, I know you will say that is why there is a
    vote system.
    Even though on live we all saw this kind of thing happen and it was why many that started a city had three or even six accounts.
    On live I had six accounts my wife had her own accounts too, just so we could have a level 4 city for crafting because to go into a
    city was more of a pain than making your own.
    You want to do something for cities then have a house pack up and include the city hall so if the mayor hasn't been on for three months
    you can put that sucker right into his inventory and make room for someone to place a city.
    Because if there not on for longer than three months then why should they have a city, because it means there not playing.
    Last edited by DarthDroopy; 11-23-2018 at 12:28 PM.
    http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx299/judgeingjedi23/jok1.gif
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Player Mystica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "We have a problem on Omega currently which is one every SWG server faces eventually, the player city system which is based on a series of caps at certain ranks just fills up and stagnates - this creates the effect of newer players being frozen out of creating new cities whilst older cities can remain for years, maintained with little or no effort by a handful of players.

    The problem on Omega has been made worse by the increased character limit we implemented 18 months ago - with every account now getting 5 characters it is possible for 1 player to create and hold a rank 1 city. "

    so the players who came after the first year, like me, who had to wait while months to create a city, and who had to wait several month to get just a rank 3 to provide a specialization to our little group, will lost their rank, their cloning center, all the large gardens (they were far to be free) while there's ghost cities which are rank 4 and 5, and these ones will be quiet, because if some of them lost one rank, won't be a big deal, what they will lost exactly ? for a rank 5, if they are down to rank 4, they lost nothing. to save their precious shuttleport that they don't even use, as they just log to maintain their cities, they will just continue to log one time every month max.

    and like I said in another thread, the 5 character system doesn't change anything, as a lot of players on live had several accounts, so the problem is not there. Niko is right, reduce the amount of time needed to pack up an house, extend the demolishing event to houses inside cities, and things will be fixed after some months or even weeks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Community Contributor Kallas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The problem is that this is a completely unneeded change.

    1) Average logged in population is going down. You should encourage more people to play, not make dedicated Mayors want to quit.

    2) You would be taking away the ability to do what current and past players on this server have been able to do, and that isn't fair.

    3) Those that want this are just bored and are trying to get this pushed thru to increase their cities population by way of reducing 1 man cities.

    4) The increasing of expenses as a credit sink for whatever misguided attempt at economics in game is wrong headed. Increasing a tax, is
    what helped to start an American revolution. Not a good idea. As for decreasing the cost of things on the bazaar, how is taxing a few mayors going
    to change the cost of an Exar Kun Mural on the bazaar?

    5) Free Market economics should be allowed to do as the word suggest, be free to fluctuate, with very few controls. However if your looking
    for a way to control the costs on the bazaar, and control hyper inflation, Increase or decrease the rate at which items occur, as to which is desired
    effect. Decrease availability to increase price, Increase the availability to lower the prices. For example, the cost of Exar Kun Murals are way too
    high, increase the drop rate. The more on the market, the cheaper it will be. Another example, the cost of RIS armor is high, decrease the time
    the static spawns of reclusive gurk king to 1 hour and make it a 100% drop rate, and bingo, instant drop in cost.

    6) If your goal is to simply decrease number of cities so that it's less data for the server to keep track of, and thus allowing you to have a less
    robust server, thus cheaper server, then just tell us that, remove all the 1 man cities, and move on.

    7) If your goal is to placate all these Economic Majors in the making, then stop it right now. A Vocal Few should not drown out the silent majority.
    A few weenies wanting to bring economics into a game, for which there are more than economics going on, is just wreckless. We will just quietly
    go play elsewhere.

    These are my thoughts and opinions. Please be mindful that I am a mayor of a large level 5 city, and Guildleader of a large Guild.

    Other mayors have voiced similar opinions.

    Remember....

    The captain of the Titanic thought is was a good idea to increase speed, when the owner asked him to.


    Kallas - Guildleader of DREAD, and Mayor of DREAD
    Last edited by Kallas; 11-23-2018 at 12:43 PM.

    ATW's Last night of SOE SWG - New Intrepid Talus - ATW Guild - Kallas Starburner GL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Community Guide Doni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthDroopy View Post
    I am skeptical about the whole damn thing because what you will have is only large guilds with cities.
    Also it is hard work to just get to a level 3 city and you say your going to increase all of the requirements for all cities,
    and there costs this will push out players that do not have only SWG in there life.
    If you want to make it where only a guild can have a city fine go ahead but I am warning you people will leave.
    Now if you want to adjust it so not every one goes after the same city kind of professionalism for a city fine, but the rest
    is just saying guild only or tax the hell out of you'r citizens and make them grind for you or leave your city.
    Plus you will have players who will be out to steal cities and they are hard to build up, I know you will say that is why there is a
    vote system.
    Even though on live we all saw this kind of thing happen and it was why many that started a city had three or even six accounts.
    On live I had six accounts my wife had her own accounts too, just so we could have a level 4 city for crafting because to go into a
    city was more of a pain than making your own.
    You want to do something for cities then have a house pack up and include the city hall so if the mayor hasn't been on for three months
    you can put that sucker right into his inventory and make room for someone to place a city.
    Because if there not on for longer than three months then why should they have a city, because it means there not playing.
    Although the Feature said several times they dont want to push players out of this content, I don't see the issue with it being a big collaborative thing to build a city! it's a CITY!! moreover, SWG is a social game. It doesn't take a guild to run a city, it takes players to run a city. If you need to attract citizens you'll have to play the meta and be creative. I've known cities that contain several guilds or no guilds at all including collaborative Trader cities.

    If you dont want to be a part of that, you can place your house anywhere in the game worlds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Community Veteran


    Vayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    I'm from Jersey, aren't I?
    Posts
    317
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Niko View Post
    The cities stagnate because the houses never go anywhere. It takes forever for a house to pack up which makes it extremely easy to maintain populations. Fix that and most of this will resolve itself.

    ...
    I largely agree. Player cities tend to be ghost towns. If mayors could free up spots to breathe life into their city with people who will play and pay, it would certainly help move things in a good direction.

    As a mayor from live, I would have loved a system that allowed me to free up spaces to bring in new citizens or relocate existing ones more towards the city center if they wanted. As it was, we were a fairly active city but by the time we got to our peak level, the active players all had spots on the perimeter. A visitor wouldn't realize that we actually had people in the city doing things in their shops, museums, hospital or cantina.

    I was an active recruiter and would have had no problem booting the derelict houses to encourage new citizens further. I would have welcomed that challenge, because running a city was what I loved doing at the time.

    As far as the credit increase, it seems logical to me. It's very easy to make credits. Dare I say, too easy? It's obvious that the cost of running a player city - conceptually the costliest aspect of SWG in terms of size, scope, scale, etc. - is not commensurate to the flow of credits in the system today. In another thread, I ran some quick and dirty numbers and came to a conclusion that RoarAsh echoed in the OP: it's basically a few runs to the junk vendor and the city is paid for. Divide that up amongst the required accounts and a group of people working together should have an fairly simple time maintaining their city. And "working together" is really what player cities are all about.

    I look forward to what's coming next. The change may ruffle a few feathers, and maybe a few will pack their ball and run home. But I'm willing to bet that a few people are waiting on the outside, looking in at a chance to play a part of SWG that they couldn't before. To say nothing of those who are currently blocked by planetary caps due to ghost towns above them.

    /salute

    Current Deals: Pet Food, Starship Texture Kits, Batteries, Bacta, Ship Repair Kits, Clothing, Missiles
    IG Contact: Vincer Kaden or Garova or Visit the shop: /wp Dantooine -1032 2754 V Mart
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Community Contributor Kallas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The extra cost mount when you are running a city, so the base cost is not the only cost.
    You get charged for every terminal, every garden, every decor. So, the jealous goofballs
    that say "I always thought the cost of running a city was too low", are just that, jealous
    and clearly goofballs. (i'm using goofballs in place of something vulgar btw, insert whatever
    word you care to imagine).



    Most mayors have MILLIONS in the treasury, so your not going change those cities. Most
    cities that are level 5 are Guild Cities, and guildies can donate.

    I made every civic building in my city. The city hall, the cloner, the shuttleport, ect, so
    making a city isn't easy, nor is getting perfect strangers and even guildies to join the
    city. To this day, i have several guildies, who haven't moved into my Guild city.

    So to those that use the words "easy" and say things like " the cost is way too Low", you
    really need to not say anything because it's like voting, until you vote, your opinion
    doesn't mean anything to someone who voted.

    ATW's Last night of SOE SWG - New Intrepid Talus - ATW Guild - Kallas Starburner GL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Community Contributor Kallas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As far as the whole credit sink BS, it is exactly that.

    We do not need extra cost added.

    For example: I am a Imp General. Talus, has been flipped to Rebel. I can't
    even take a shuttle to my Own city of DREAD, for which I am the mayor, without
    a HUGE travel tax. Far more than the cost of my city for 4 weeks. Is that fair?

    You got your credit sink, so leave my city out of it.

    BTW, I leave the Imp outpost, and use an ITV to get to my city, so, you see, every
    stupid thing you put into a game, can be circumvented.

    I can't afford that, i work in RL, and can't spend hours playing, afk grinding, or some
    other senseless way to earn credits. Remember most of the players are now adults, who
    work.
    Last edited by Kallas; 11-23-2018 at 01:25 PM.

    ATW's Last night of SOE SWG - New Intrepid Talus - ATW Guild - Kallas Starburner GL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10 Re: *Friday Feature - Discussing Player Cities 2.0 Changes* 
    Community Contributor


    OroMatoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wrong approach to the issue imo, you'd have found a better solution if you'd spoken to the community first.

    🕱🄾🅁🄾🕱#4580
    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