Cities And Housing Archive

---

CIEBrandon wrote:

TH- how about just making them not able to travel in or enter into the city period once they have been banned.

Or.. since players can "grief" each other too easilly how about npc's that patroll the city and can attack players that have been banned. They would have to be lvl 80's atleast though. Maybe make the npc patrolls cost money from the city treasury but atleast it something.

Honestly I dont see how keeping unwanted players out of PLAYER MADE cities can be considered keeping them from content.

---

a /ccitywarn comandcould just automatically ban that person from entering any building inside the city limits

How about a system with steps to it?

1. Miltia give a warning to a player, and the player receives a system message that they have been warned, and an email is sent to the player and all militia members that they have been warned. no actual action other than the warning email.


2. Militia gives a second warning in which a second email is sent out to the militia and the player indicating that it is a final warning, that they are banned fro the city and that upon the 3rd warning....


3. Militia gives the 3rd warning, and results in emails going out once again, explaining that they are not only banned, but are no longer welcome in the city. This 3rd warning would have a X minute timer and would would upon the timer's expire give a pop-up message to the player giving them the option to be teleported to the nearest city of their choice, or they will gain be open to combat with the militia of the city. From that point on, the player would have a permanant red flag in the city where they to return. This email would also have an appeal process in which the player could appeal to a CSR for the mayor and the player with the CSR to meet and voice their reasons to have the step 3 removed.

Step 3 could only be used on a player once to remove exploiting the shuttling, and CSRs could track if anyone was abusing the appeal process. Players are give the ability to avoid PVP and go to a city they want, not just randomly dumped on the city edge.

Timers could be put in place so that the 3 steps could only be done after a certain lapse of time, and Steps 1 and 2 would eventually drop down over time to 0 again. Step 3 would remain set unless the CSR or mayor removed it.

This allows the access to POIs as step one would not restrict movement. It would allow cities to deal with repeat offenders. Cities found to be abusing it would be quickly spotted as players appealed frequently for unjust bannings.

Also, each step would do a /report to be logged away for future use in the appeal process.

A bit complex, but not to far from stuff we already have in place, and would be a huge step in getting cities to the point that they should be. Safe places to live.

Message Edited by KJFett3 on 06-02-2005 10:46 AM

!Drevin of DROW!

!!

The problem with giving players a warning before they are attackable is that the issue is about game content. When the developers implemented the /citywarn feature, they failed to account for cities that are literally on top of signficant content areas. Players can use /citywarn to gate content, which is understandably a no no.

In addition to the post above, an alternative is to only allow players to citywarn players who are in combant/SF mode. Thus, you could tie the feature to the GCW, and players who really want at content can go on leave to get to it.

For any type of implementation of /citywarn, there will have to be cities deleted from:

-a considerable rangeof poi

- and also if they lie in the path of any static city and the poi.