Architect Archive
Thread: City ganking... Can you see it coming?
Here's my 2 cred's worth.
If I understand correctly,a city will have a certain diameter of "influence" or control depending on it's size, as it grows, so does it's area of influence. Which should prevent someone from slapping down a city hall next to an existing one the new group"claiming" control. All that would do is limit both cities from growing larger. Do understand the city layout correctly?
I'd think the easiest and more realistic way of preventing "ganking", is to require a certain time in residency (2 to 4 weeks?) before one is allowed to vote (aside from the initial settlers). They would have some of the benefits of being in a city, ie. close to public transit, closer to the cantina, grocery store, schools, etc. 8) . more customers thru their store, and general protection from roaming critters, but not be able to participate in it'sgovernment. After the requisite time, the individual is granted "resident" status and is allowed to vote.
This time period will help show to the established community the desire of someone to be a participating and valuable community member. Someone with a stake in a community will be more concerned with seeing it grow and prosper, benefiting the community and thereby himself. (Which is hopefully the goal of the city planners).
What you have then is actual politcal intrigue. You have people with competing ideas tryin to gain support from it's citizen.Proponents making deals, gaining blocks of backers etc. but all withthe knowledge that those indivduals seeking office have in mindgoals of improving the city. Not someoneis seeking gain to pirate it's resources and leave.
And how will you know that? Because they've invested in the city. You've seen them around for several weeks. Putting a store up, building a customer base, you've seen them in your cantina, they've helped you, you helped them. You know they're not transients.
Someone who has not personally invested in something will hold it cheap and think nothing of it, nor will they consider the effort someone else has put into making something valuable.
So if voting priveledges are not immediate, but earned, you'll have people who'll tend to participate in a city and build it. That's where I see the fun in participatinin a city. Making it prosperous and watching it grow.
I hope that was 2cred's worth
Vayde_Aren wrote:
Ah, that zoning function does offer some solutions.
But the point has already been made. Creating a cluster of houses is one thing; a city is another animal entirely. It does NOT grant you an enclosed zome that only you and your PA own. If someone gets in, they can take the area's control, IF the circumstances are right. Those of you who don't want their cities taken.. the answer is simple: DON'T BUILD A CITY. Keep your structures disconnected, don't join together in that final step to be a city. Call it a 'city' among yourselves, but don't form one according to the game rules, and nobody can do squat to your stuff... er, except block your view of the ocean if there's room, a la that other thread a day or two ago.
With the rules as they are [which you are all aware of, so ignorance is not an excuse anymore], you can preserve your investments. However, cities as an entity carry this risk, and it is a well-known risk. Cities are resources, and people want them, and by the rules of the system they are stealable IF the thieves work very hard and are dedicated.
For crying out loud, you realize that at last we are provided with a system by which either the Empire or the Rebels can actualy take over a city from their opponents? Rival PAs can actually attack each other in a meaningful way? You people are screaming for strife but are unwilling to accept any consequences. Be glad this is not Shadowbane, where ALL buildable objects were player-attackable; it would chew most of you to pieces.
Er, actually, no. Your suggestion seems like a good way to have someone else come along and plop down a city hall in the midst of your town and take over. If you have a bunch of people living close to each other who get along, the best way to make sure that community continuesto be the way you like itis to put down a city hall and formalize it, then switch zoning to on to keep out anyone you don't want.
I think you are misunderstanding the purposes for which the devs have instituted the rules that they have. They are there to provide an interesting new form of player interaction where players can cooperate to create something. The voting systems are in place to insure that disagreements between the player citizens can be handled using in game mechanics. I fully expect that if those mechanics are used merely to destroy a city, that the CSRs will deem that to be griefing and will take the appropriate action. If the devs wanted player cities to be destroyable by players, they'd simply make the structures attackable. Now, if one group manages to wrest control of a city from another, and continues to live there, then that is another matter entirely. That's called politics. Of course, that's going to be nearly impossible if zoning is turned on.
This is not Shadowbane. The devs have repeatedly stated that they do not want non-consensual PvP. They were in fact reluctant to include the militia rules for that reason, but felt it necessary to give the players some ability to police their own cities. I don't know who is calling for more strife, it seems to just be you and Dayln (I don't have a big problem with it, but I'm not calling for it). If Shadowbane was so good, why are you playing SWG?
FulminataXII wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding the purposes for which the devs have instituted the rules that they have. They are there to provide an interesting new form of player interaction where players can cooperate to create something. The voting systems are in place to insure that disagreements between the player citizens can be handled using in game mechanics. I fully expect that if those mechanics are used merely to destroy a city, that the CSRs will deem that to be griefing and will take the appropriate action. If the devs wanted player cities to be destroyable by players, they'd simply make the structures attackable. Now, if one group manages to wrest control of a city from another, and continues to live there, then that is another matter entirely. That's called politics. Of course, that's going to be nearly impossible if zoning is turned on.
This is not Shadowbane. The devs have repeatedly stated that they do not want non-consensual PvP. They were in fact reluctant to include the militia rules for that reason, but felt it necessary to give the players some ability to police their own cities. I don't know who is calling for more strife, it seems to just be you and Dayln (I don't have a big problem with it, but I'm not calling for it). If Shadowbane was so good, why are you playing SWG?
I agree with your statement that the Devs reated rules to prevent griefing of this type, and I pray these succeed. If it is politics that bloom in the game, with city takeovers the ultimate 'victory' in such circles, I am merely trying to point out to people that, with these rules, cities will change hands if the founders are not vigilant. People in this game have alot to complain about, and forewarned is forearmed. Just trying to point out that, if people ignore the possible future of their city, it will sneak up on them, giving rise to a whole new subject for [whine[ complaint.
And for Shadowbane: sir, you are correct, it's not Shadowbane, and I for one am extatic. I am not there playing it any longer, because I came to despise that gamethanks to the exact subject we are discussing.
i have to agree with tigris and Dayln here. Why is it you can tell me I can't build somewhere? What right do you have to do that? And in this case I'm not even given the option of voting you out because I can't get into the city to begin with.
I was under the belief that zoning meant for building city structures, not general residences. If zoning does indeed stop me from building a house in a city I do have a big problem with that.
Now, with that said, I don't think a mayor should be allowed to get elected and then in a days time destroy every structure in the city. That is out of line and overboard.... but... If they come in and want to take over the political structure I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have that opportunity.
pretty much right here the best solution isn't zoning, it will be time constraints. You can't just move in and be declared overnight. You have to pay taxes to move in yes, but that's the price you pay for joining. As for mayors being able to come in and take down a city in one night of being elected..so be it. Guess you better make sure you remember to vote. Will you like it if you're a resident? no. Will you like it if you're trying to expel people? yes. Strategies and tactics adding depth to the game. I think I'm going to nickname cities Covert PvP 
Finally archs could affect the GCW lol
How many movies are out there where the minority finally gets enough people to raise up and challenge the oppressing system? Let's put that scenario in SWG. Rebs have control of a town and some covert imps move in before they're known as covert imps. Slowly but surely they get more and more people in the town and get close to having enough to win the vote of their own mayor. Lo and behold one of em gets busted on an outing to Dathomir as a known Imp..news runs rampant and before you know it, the rebs know all about all the imps they live next door to. What do you think is going to happen? A vote for a new mayor? I'm thinking zoning restrictions, mass player bans, and all out griefing. Well there's the strife, but is it really fun when it's done by griefing?
Where's the adventure/fun/intrigue/excitement in living in a city where you can't disobey the cops and then run from em occassionally? 
Here is what I don't understand. Someone said that the whole "move a big guild in and outvote the mayor to take over the town" was "Starwarsy".
I've seen people try to compare it to the US political system, and basing their "stances" on "how it works here".
I just wanted to point something out. The Galactic Empire isn't a democracy. At least, not anymore. It is far more "Starwarsy" for tinpot despots to grab a piece of land and hold it. It's not the United States, it's not even Earth.
The problem with letting people vote out the city planners will result in..... no cities. Why can't there be private cities? What's wrong with a mayor using his "force zoning rights" skill? People put large amounts of work into towns, moreso if they are RP towns.... They buy the buildings, they do the work. What right do some punk kids have to ruin it just because it's "fun". If these people were willing to put as much work into it perhaps it would be worth considering, but I think we all know that this won't be the case. They're just going to grief the town, and leave it to be their own 'private town', except this time, it won't provide anything for anyone else outside this new "PA of punks". Towns can be a great center of fun for people, but only if they're allowed to follow their vision.
I think the amount of "griefing" people are talking about would be extremely limited. Could it happen, sure... will it happen... probably once or twice...
but can anyone give me a single reason why I shouldn't be able to move into a town and run for mayor? the "no zoning rights" denies me that opportunity. it simply forces me to found a city of my own. why should i not be able to join a city? what reason can you give to keep the average player out? why should my rights to take advantage of a towns advantages be denied?
Ropock wrote:
but can anyone give me a single reason why I shouldn't be able to move into a town and run for mayor? the "no zoning rights" denies me that opportunity. it simply forces me to found a city of my own. why should i not be able to join a city? what reason can you give to keep the average player out? why should my rights to take advantage of a towns advantages be denied?
I can give you a few reasons why.
1. I don't know you.
2. I paid for and/or built the buildings you want to run. You spent 15 skill points (i.e.jack *self edit*).
3. There are five buildable planets in the game eachwith16 sq km of land. Yet you want to live in the exact spot my city is at andfeel justified in running for mayor. Explain the logic in that.
Here's a bit of wisdom for you. The First Law of Thermodynamics applied to life... You can't get something for nothing.
I'm not playing the game so Dayln and the grieferscan get their daily dose of intrigue, strife and screwing with people for no other reason then the fact they can get away with it. I play for my enjoyment. When that goes away, so does my account. You want me to provide content for you? Pay my monthy fee. Otherwise, bugger off and play somewhere else.
I'm betting that the majority of the people that see nothing wrong with a city being taken have nothing to take themselves.
Marduke Akkad