Cities And Housing Archive

Another thought.

Could be used in conjunction with my previous post. Since the fees I have suggested would be in a secondary treasury account, add mission terminals to the city that only a master politician would be able to place.

How this would work.

If a player is banned, the terminal would give a bounty on a players head. The bounty would only exist while the player was within the city limits.

Example:

Joe blow shows up to the city, gets the warning and declines to pay the fee up front. And goes on a silly impending idiot rampage and gets /cityban slapped on him. Players would then be able to goto the city terminal and pick up his mission for the amount that he was fined. So if a player somehow racked up a 300K fine thats how much his mission would be.

What about city's within range of POI's you say? They get excluded from this whole idea for the simple reason, the mayor that placed the city there already knew that the city would likely control said POI. Since they did that intentionally, they already had the thought of griefing players while they were/are trying to get to the POI. If they didnt have those thoughts, they would have placed elsewhere.

And to keep things fair for the mayors that have taken over for the POI offenders, give them the opportunity to move thier city with a fine loan. For every x amount of meters it takes to move the city hall away from the POI without total destruction to the city they are fined x amount of credits that will be deducted from the city treasury at refresh time. This will give them the opportunity to have thier city moved without having to fork out loads of cash all at once, and allow them to partake in the lockdown situation if they so choose.

---

Fallen_Snow wrote:
BTW, speaking of Jedi. Jedi can be hunted by their own faction right? Why is it in Return of the jedi the room of Rebels Luke walks into (with his lightsaber on his belt) didn't jump up and attack him? was he not overt? Had it been more than two weeks since his last saber fight on the sail barge with Jaba?

---

Because Luke wasn't an SWG Jedi. They are unnatural and don't belong.

All I'm hearing from the DEVs is "it would be too hard/time consuming to implement" might as well lie to use like usual and tell us it can't be done.

Maybe if the DEVs fixed the fact that if you get a ticket to a city you are banned from and just dbl click it in your inventory from another city and or sp, you can still travel there. This can be done, and if the coding is too hard, it's your own fault for designing the system so poorly. This alone would be a vast improvment, someone who is banned should not be able to fly to, not just fly from (and it's obvious you want this to be, since you have to do it via inventory or else you do get the banned message).

About players using griefing tactics to keep others away from POIs, its your own fault you let them build so closely to them. Also, there were times when people had no mounts of any type and Player Cities did not exist, so even if the city is the closest one to the POI, and they decide to "grief", then let them be, shuttle to the next closest city and mount it out.

I mean I hate when I see houses on the Lake Retreat island in the middle of the Lake,, or right next to a POI, all these should be removed.

/citywarn was a wonderful command, if I am a Mayor of a city and I have instructed my militia to act a certain way, then so be it, I earned the right. Players should not be punished because you (the DEV team) designed the mechanics poorley or 'just don't feel like it'. You put the command in initially, knowing it would be useful, it was used, and instead of tweaking it, you took it out all together, and said you would give us another comparable ability, yet, how long has it been since then?

---

EEMAN wrote:

---

Dampear wrote:

---

EEMAN wrote:

---

Dampear wrote:

Th-I guess Im missing something here. How is keeping someone from using a citiy's shuttle greifing? Or keep them from enjoying the content of a nearby POI? Cant they just shuttle to another city and take a speeder? When I first started playing the game there were no mounts and no cities and we had to walk everywhere. Try exploring POIs then. If its an issue of how close the city is to the POI, why wasn't it written into the code to begin with makeing it so cities couldn't be built within a certain distance of the POIs?

---

Thunderheart wrote:

---

Dosi wrote:
What about the jedi who are banning bounty hunters just to keep them from being able to hunt htem in that city?

---

This is a great example of a way to "grief the system".

---

Also, please explain again how exactly BHs being banned from a city is griefing the system? If a Jedi lives in a city, don't they have the right to protect themselves? Making it so the BH would have to shuttle into another near-by city to hunt them be a way to protect yourself? Wouldn't 5 BHs getting the same mission against a low level padawan and hunting said low level padawan together be more a form a griefing then this (since there is no way a low level padawan [or any profession for that matter] could properly defend themsleves from 5 BHs)?

Message Edited by Dampear on 06-03-2005 01:18 PM

Message Edited by Dampear on 06-03-2005 01:19 PM

---

Using a system in a manner "other than what is intended" its the absolute technical definition of exploiting and griefing. Banning a BH because he is a BH is not the intended purpose of cityban and citywarn. this is EXACTLY why citywarn was removed. Go ahead and misuse cityban, see if they dont remove that too. Its intended purpose is for those that come in to harass others, by screaming, yelling, being offensive, threatening r4pe (yes sadly some players have threatened to drive to others towns and r4pe them when they discovered they were played by real women, and i dont mean in game). But aparently those that think like you couldnt use discretion. You choose to use it flagrantly and you lost citywarn. Keep it up and I wont be surprised when cityban goes away too.

---

You mean cityban and citywarn weren't ment to discourage certain people from comming into your city? WOW I guess I definitly missed the boat on that one then. (maybe) Um where exactly was it posted by a dev what the initial intentons of city warn and cityban were? Also, if what you said is true, then the dev team must be a lot dumber then I thought. How would any rational person think that the only people that would get warned and banned would be those types of greifers? They put something into the game that any and all players have access to use against any and all other players and you think that the players would only use it on a very small protion of the community? Comeon, seriously. I know the devs are not that dumb. Unless someone can show me an actual post from a real dev that states that fact, I think maybe it is you that missed the boat on that one. If Im proven wrong I will apologize. Until then...

---

write your appology then. Why do you think it got removed in the first place? because it was cool thing to do to just take it away? You must be running an ebay account because anyone who has played the game since 9-26-2003 would KNOW that time and time again the devs left something in the game and later removed it because it was used to greif others. Do you even REMEMBER when furniture in houses was collidable? Do you remmeber when THAT got changed? Do you remember WHY that changed? How about adding the /eject command, do you remember them including THAT? And WHY? How about making you clone at the nearest NPC city because people would /cityban then /citywarn so they could kill you over and over in the same spot thereby decaying every item in your inventory? Yea the devs would never overlook something like that. TH even said in this very thread that its never comming back bacause players use it to greif eachother. Cityban and Citywarn were intended to be used sparingly. Not every 20 minutes. Here is the link where they removed it Clicky

Message Edited by EEMAN on 06-03-2005 04:59 PM

---

Ok so I see citywarn was removed because people were trying to keep others out of POIs and innocent bystanders were getting killed. This still doesn't explain why citywarn used against a BH who is hunting a Jedi who resides in that city is considered greifing. If the BH is hunting a Jedi that means he or she wished to PvP. Citywarn is a PvP tool. If 5 BHs can hunt one Padawan, why can't a Padawan's friends, help him/her when their within the confines of their own city? By the way, thats still doesn't give the initial reasons citywarn was put in game anway. It just states why it was removed and also that it would be put back.

---

Yomigaere wrote:

/citywarn was a wonderful command, if I am a Mayor of a city and I have instructed my militia to act a certain way, then so be it, I earned the right. Players should not be punished because you (the DEV team) designed the mechanics poorley or 'just don't feel like it'. You put the command in initially, knowing it would be useful, it was used, and instead of tweaking it, you took it out all together, and said you would give us another comparable ability, yet, how long has it been since then?

---

How did you earn the right to decide when another player dies? Deciding when a player is out of line is a human rationalization process that cannot be written with code at this time. Therefore conditionals could not be coded that give you the ability to citywarn those out of hand but somehow prevent you from abusing citywarn when it isnt out of hand. In all honesty the player base has never shown the maturity or responsibility to make a call like that and not abuse it. If it wasnt being abused it would have stayed in the game. Just because someone has MBH in their template does that give you the right to /citywarn them because they MIGHT/POSSIBLY/CHANCE OF attacking another player in town? It would be different if citywarn was used after the BH killed someone but you and I both know that less than 1% would excesize such discression.

What everyone needs to understand is these arent your towns. I know that sounds terrible but they never were. Shortly after player cities came out the devs had several chats about player cities and making them guild-only and they said they were for everyone not just guilds. From a role-playing perspective (and all game mechinics do have to pass some of this) Mayors answer to Regional Governors. The Empire may be evil but they do bring about a certain amount of law and order. Otherwise they wouldnt be tolerated the way they are. A town that is randomly executing anyone comming there would require the mayor be deposed, matial law be in effect with curfews, and a new election be held. All members of the former regime would be imprisioned or executed.

The biggest problem with coding all those conditionals would be lag. For every conditional you add could result in more database lookups and more latency which would tend to irritate most everyone in the game.

Some of what you say is true, they did mess up by allowing people to build too closely to certain items. But to ague that since htey screwed up go ahead and let everyone else suffer makes no sense to me. If anything it gives evidence as to why it cant just be turned back on. It was written that a cityhall could not be placed within 1000m of another city. With a 450m radius this should have prevented someone getting citywarned zoning into a non-player area like Rebel Outpost or rori. Yet on chilastra, whenever I zone there, I enter both structure and a player city. Imagine having to go there to do part of a quest for an expansion that you paid $30 for, only to zone to this outpost, get /citywarned right inside the outpost and killed by local militia? This kind of player controlled discretion would find itself removed within 1 week of being brought back in game.

Again:

Entrance into the city is by entrant's own choice. Entry shall constitute an advised and informed consent. Entrant accepts all risks associated with entry.

How hard is that to understand? Mayors and militia are not PLAYING GOD with citizens. They're acting to define the type of city they want to have. If they want no Rebels, they can have no Rebels. If they want no BH, they can have no BH. Every visitor to a player city is there at the sufferance of the citizens, militia, and mayor. The best part of having a player city is the right to tell some nimrod spamming on your doorstep that he's about to be fired upon. Well no, the best part is actually firing upon him, but you get the point.

Don't want to be subject to possible /citywarn or /cityban restrictions or liabilities? Don't go to a Player city that you're unfamiliar with.

---

FrankLee wrote:
Again:

Entrance into the city is by entrant's own choice. Entry shall constitute an advised and informed consent. Entrant accepts all risks associated with entry.

How hard is that to understand? Mayors and militia are not PLAYING GOD with citizens. They're acting to define the type of city they want to have. If they want no Rebels, they can have no Rebels. If they want no BH, they can have no BH. Every visitor to a player city is there at the sufferance of the citizens, militia, and mayor. The best part of having a player city is the right to tell some nimrod spamming on your doorstep that he's about to be fired upon. Well no, the best part is actually firing upon him, but you get the point.

Don't want to be subject to possible /citywarn or /cityban restrictions or liabilities? Don't go to a Player city that you're unfamiliar with.

---

And what you fail to understand is its not YOUR city. If it WERE your city you would have a ban option just like houses where they couldnt even cross the borders into the city. You spout off these rules like 'dont go to a city you are unfamilair with' as if someone is lobying to remove /citywarn when in fact its already gone, has been for over a year. I have current game mechanics and previous rulings on my side.

Fact: core systems already said the cities dont belong to any one guild or group of people. Therefore the arguement that its their city to do as they wish cannot apply. Clear evidence of game mechanics support this. Player structures DO belong to you and you can do as you wish with them, those sructures give you abilities that player cities do not. If player cities were intended to work in another manner, access lists, ban lists, privacy modes would be enabled to cross the borders. This works similar to the town you live in in real life. You pay taxes, you elect your mayor. This does not give you the right to decide that hispanic people cannot live there, this does not give the mayor the right to shoot, harass, or mistreat any asian who drives into town. You do have the right to pass oridances and enforce those (say for example a public smoking ban). Even in that case a smoking ban in the town wouldn't warrent capital punishment.

Fact: core systems already said that killing someone for the sake of killing them is wrong and therefore they removed it. This was clearly too much power to give to just anyone. The devs thought players could handle it but as evidence, they were proved wrong. It became a pvp tool not a keep the peace tool.

Fact: players already were running cities exactly the way you described.. it was taken away because it turned out to be innappropriate. All the debate in the world from the standpoint of 'I am right and I should be right. By way of this measure, anything I say should be the way it is' fails. It was already tried and operated just like you wanted, and that became the wrong answer. Its well beyond trying to argue that it is the right answer now.

Fact: players were constructing cordon's with their cities to block access to the krayt graveyard so that no way existed to enter into that area and attempts to enter via another city resulted in an instant /citywarn and death. This was not 1 rogue city but 5 cities acting in a consipracy fashion. (conspiracy as in organizing to cause an effect, not conspiracy as in overthrow the government).

Fact: the removal of tef and replacement of the on leave/combatant/special forces player states brought forth a new PVE element to the GCW. Without more code that forcibly removes all GCW structures from within city limits a /citywarn would be categorized as an exploit if used on PVE players attacking a PVE base within the borders of a city.

Fact: the existance of many cities placed only a few hundred meters from a starport outpost would enable militia to deny players access to content they are paying for in expansions. How would you feel if the starting point for a quest like the jedi starfighter was located by conversing with an npc in one of these outposts? Suppose everytime you went there to start the quest you were killed by some players who have nothing better to do than deny you acess to your quest? Now even more conditionals would have to be written as to when this could be used and when it cant or forcibly removing cities from the map.

Ask yourself this, if you are SO RIGHT and I am SO WRONG... why are you failing when it comes to using /citywarn then? If I am so wrong why don't you have that ability? Could it be because what I say is exactly what the devs have already said? I'm not trying to flame you. I've read through other posts you have in other topics and see that you are mostly rational. I just dont understand why you see this as some sort of entitlement someone is trying to take from you when in fact your approach should be more of a lawyer appealing a ruling. Presumed innocence is excluded because the case has been tried and ruling found not in your favor. It is upon other merits you have to make your appeal. Personally I would like to see some citywarn returned, just not the ones where exploiting is possible. We really are on the same side, IF the goal is dealing with out of hand players but NOT if the goal is to allow forced pvp onto anyone at anytime.

I was thinking of if banned or warned, the person automatically gets aggroed in the border of the city..

place bases within your city near your city hall, citywarn eveyone that comes and your bases will never be hurt. Exploit