CUEmu - Thread Posts

IronChickenPro

Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:11 pm

Fallen_Snow wrote:
Well, that would PROBABLY be because both rebels and Imperials have a few things in common, ONE being that they dispise smugglers and Bounty Hunters and try to avoid assosiating with them at all costs. Esspecially since Bounty Hunters are considered Mercinaries and would have no political bias one way or the other to fight for either side which would make them pointless to have been involved with the faction. So, Again I ask, why didn't they jump them? If its because no Bounty Hunters were present then you must then answer why is there not another faction for Bounty Hunters that had always been talked about.

You're awfully worked up about this Luke issue. It's like walking into a room and asking if there are any 500 pound man-eating tigers waiting to chew on my liver. Just because they aren't in the room doesn't mean they don't exist.

Bounty Hunters are bounty hunters...they can hunt same faction if they choose. It may be frowned upon...but what if they joined the same side just to give themselves an inside advantage. You forget they are contract killers and will resort to any tactic to get their mark. Just breath in and out...relax and enjoy.

[Kordell Lealee[

- FS Elder Slacker -

Proud member of ZEN - Zenith, Rori

xtxShifter

Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:18 pm

#54

It's a shame that player cities weren't implemented in a way that prevented them from blocking off content. There are so many fun additions to player cities that can never be made now.

Elder Shipwright Ledaio
Kaadara - Naboo
Valcyn

Fallen_Snow

Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:28 pm

#55

Im worked up because of same faction hunting jedi but not because it makes sense, because by all rights Leia didn't say to Han. "Btw sweetie, hes a jedi when he helps get the sheild generator blown up help me kill him, Kthxbi" I mean, not one factionally aligned bounty hunter in any of the movies? I don't think you comeaplty understand what Im saying. Watch EP 5. On the bridge of the Super Star Destroyer The exact words are "Who are they?" "Bounty Hunters sir" "We don't need their kind of scum" It doesn't say "Imperial Bounty hunters" It just says Bounty Hunters. Bounty hunters should have been factionless if they are going to hunt both sides. Sorry. Watch the movies and youll see by canon the inclusion of Bounty Hunters in either faction is incorrect as to canon as Thunderheart is so happy to keep this game in for Armor and wepon sake.

"Please note, I have no programming skills to speak of, so this "low level" task is not taking away from any designer fixing the top issues."
Q-3PO

Doesn't this describe all the other devs too?

Banzai51

Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:37 pm

#56

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".

This is a perfect example of why we need group TEF again. If you give us the game tools to fight back and protect citizens, then we can drop most of the city ban nonsense. However, the city ban is the ONLY tool left to protect our citizens. Give us a better game tool and we will use it.

======================
Gone, daddy gone. Accounts are gone.

GrandPotato

Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:56 pm

#57

What would be really cool is if you implemented an NPC militia, the mayor could determine the uniform, and the title would be %cityname Milita, or %cityname Militia Captain, etc. That would be a nice addition, along with timers or a city "faction" system like proposed earlier. Just griefing someone for entering a city should be out of the question, but if you got proper warning, and refused to leave, then the NPCs come after you.


oOjow Eeno Labs Erbo Anyi Ojow Eeno Labs Erbo 
iEeno Labs Erbo Anyi Ojow Eeno Labs Erbo Anyi 
wLabs Erbo Anyi Ojow Eeno Labs Erbo Anyi Ojow
 Erbo Anyi Ojow Eeno Labs Erbo Anyi Ojow Eeno
 Anyi Ojow Eeno Labs Erbo Anyi Ojow Eeno Labs
 Ojow Eeno Labs Erbo Anyi Ojow Eeno Labs Erbo
 Eeno Labs Erbo Anyi Ojow Eeno Labs Erbo Anyi

FrankLee

Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:59 pm

#58

This is not insurmountable. It's probably not even hard to code.

(Brief Mode: Draw a 2k circle around content. If a player city is inside of that circle, or could grow to be, turn off citywarn. For all other cities, leave it on.)

Verbose Mode:

Step 1: Define your POI's and the 'content margin' you want, that is, where the 'safe' playable boundaries are. Make it a hypothetical 2k from POI's, unbuildable, for argument's sake. AFAIK, this code is already in place. I know you can't build or drop faction installations very close to most POI's as it is.

Step 2: Reinstate /citywarn the way it was originally. Once /citywarned, the offender becomes hostile and attackable in 30 seconds. The code already exists, no development required.

Step 3: Retrofit. Apply old /citywarn code to player cities. Any and all player cities which have ANY portion of their city, or ANY FUTURE EXPANSION RADIUS thereof, within the 'content margin' completely lose /citywarn functionality. If you're perched on an important POI, no griefing, because you don't have the ability. If you want the power, you move the city to someplace not sitting on top of content. The onus of moving, restructuring, and any other associated problems becomes that of the citizens, not the CSR team.

-No CSR-mediated lot/house/street/city transfers.
-No griping about sites.
-No problems with denial of content.
-A single line of retrofitting code that could probably be done with a SQL statement at server boot.

Obviously, I'm sure there's something more going on than just that, but seriously... turn the function back on for those cities that are not, and can not be, offenders. Structure all new build zones to take city growth into effect.

FrankLee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything I tell you is a lie. - Vergere
Jedi = Luke Skywalker - What friggin' genius designed this PR campaign?
Humans are SUPERIOR! - John Crichton
The Dallet Series (ongoing story)

GreatWarrior

Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:31 pm

#59

Thunderheart wrote:

CIEBrandon wrote:

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

Thats actually how it used to work and what happened is players would build their city next to some piece of content in the game (like the Krayt Graveyard or one of the static Imperial Bases) and prevent every player they could from even getting there.

Using this excuse is like saying someone can walk through your backyard to get to the next block instead of using the sidewalk to walk around the block another 5 minutes to get there. You wouldn't like someone cutting through your property as a short cut that you don't like. Its your property.. you pay for it.

Your argument may be true on longer distances forthose people.. but theydon't pay for our cities... a 500 credit ticket is nothing. Last I recall our residents pay the 700k a week to run our city... for us.. for our citizenship.. not for someone to get to a POI quicker. If you are keeping our cities a public circus thencitizens of cities that don'twanttrouble makers there should have lower maintenance cost. We shouldn't have to pay for someone to get to a POI faster if we don't want them there and they are causing trouble. We didn't build our cities saying "Oh yes! This looks like a good spot for everyone on the server to get to this spot faster!" we said "Oh this looks like a good spot for a city.. for our citizens". The well being of tax paying citizens should come before the public.

As a mayor if I see a large group of people causing trouble I can't rely on the in-game city system to stop the problem. I have to pick up the shuttleport... thats the only excuse you left us. What is "griefing" is allowing trouble makers tojip our city's citizens of services that belong to them. Almost everyone has a bike, they can learn to use it.

Message Edited by GreatWarrior on 06-02-2005 08:34 PM

oOoooOooooOooooOooOooOoOOOOo
--------- A True Corrupted Politican of Corporate Universal ---------
<-( ¤ Smürg Suresîght ¤ )->
-------------- Married to an evil politican too /tag Lykazie ---------------
oooOoooOoooooOoOooOOooOooOoo
Funny Quote of the Month
"'blue holoed people used to be the nerfed people 'elder jedis' yay we getting nerfed" - A Jedi on Ent Holograms

Colaboy

Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:51 pm

#60

I was happy to see citywarn go away. One time I entered a city to purchase a house from an architect, and I was warned the moment I entered the city. I honestly think they should get rid of city ban as well. 90% of the time its being used to grief other players. One time I went to hunt a Jedi within a city limit, after I collected my bounty, I was banned. Come to find out, that Jedi didnt even live in that city.. TH said that thosetypes of options can easily keep players from certain content of the game.. Isnt /cityban essentially doing the same thing to my content as a Bh?? If someone's responce to my question is ""But you can still speeder in from another location"" The same can be said about game content with citywarn...

"I will never be condescending - which means talking down to people."

Fallen_Snow

Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:08 pm

#61

Colaboy wrote:
I was happy to see citywarn go away. One time I entered a city to purchase a house from an architect, and I was warned the moment I entered the city. I honestly think they should get rid of city ban as well. 90% of the time its being used to grief other players. One time I went to hunt a Jedi within a city limit, after I collected my bounty, I was banned. Come to find out, that Jedi didnt even live in that city.. TH said that those types of options can easily keep players from certain content of the game.. Isnt /cityban essentially doing the same thing to my content as a Bh?? If someone's responce to my question is ""But you can still speeder in from another location"" The same can be said about game content with citywarn...

Im not sure if you are advocating the return of citywarn or supporting the removal of city ban. your last sentance just makes it to confusing from the first. First you say you are happy about citywanrs removal. Then you say if someone has the argument to support keeping citybans that is upheld what about citywarn.

Incase you didn't figure it out, cityban is being defended and now you just stated that you think if cityban is defended then so should citywarn.

Also, some citys have guilds inside of them. They make city policys that dicate no hunting of jedi in their city limits. If you violate this policy they ban you. Regardless of if its a factional based city, a guild based city, or what have you. Its called, politics. Its ran by politicians. And, thats the name of their profession. Imagine that.

"Please note, I have no programming skills to speak of, so this "low level" task is not taking away from any designer fixing the top issues."
Q-3PO

Doesn't this describe all the other devs too?

Tanks

Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:29 pm

#62

AschMhaRhee wrote:

We all know that /citywarn was being abused by jerks.. so how about this.

If I /citywarn a troublemaker in my city, they are instantly transported to a random spot on the city border. This would get them out of the city and make a slight inconvenience for them but not leave room for it to be exploited or abused. It would just get them out of the city.. which is really what we need to have happen anyway.

Ahem, any BH walking into a city whether they are after a Jedi or not would be /citywarned as SOP. So, this is not going to happen if I have any input into it.

Bounty Hunter Correspondant 2003 - 2005

Master Bounty Hunter

Dark Jedi (Pre-Pub 9)

MurfThrelklya

Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:45 pm

#63

Thunderheart wrote:

Some players would still use the ability to prevent other players from getting to game content by warping anyone who comes near their city away and just generally causing confusion and frustration. Any additional rule you add to try and make it not a "griefable" ability makes implementation much more time consuming.

Giving players the ability to warp other players is generally (almost always) a bad idea.

My question would be, what content could be within the city limits of a player city? How could keeping one out of a player city deny someone access to content?

Murf Threlk'lya
Clan Alya - Starsider

Omicron2

Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:48 pm

#64

Thunderheart wrote:

CIEBrandon wrote:

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

Thats actually how it used to work and what happened is players would build their city next to some piece of content in the game (like the Krayt Graveyard or one of the static Imperial Bases) and prevent every player they could from even getting there.

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.

That is definitely a fun idea, but more difficult to implement than might appear on the surface.

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

It depends on where the city is....

watchfulone wrote:

What about implementing /citywarn but only if your city hall is in an appropriate zone. In other words, any city halls within 1k of significant content would not be able to enable /citywarn as a feature.

Players would just build bigger cities and work to encircle the area. Aside from that, that is also quite a bit of work on the back end.

wildcard1973 wrote:
The issue was never about having ample time to leave the city limits...it was always about certain player cities being located near and among POI and static content, and allowing members of that city to effectively prevent access of the playerbase to that content.

Yes - that's correct.

Personally, I like the idea of a militia. It is a double edged sword though. For instance, players that want to be "the criminal element", this is exactly what they are interested in. Then what would most likely happenis they would go around trying to get banned. While in itself, that isn't a bad idea, it does create a situation where some players are rewarded for bad in-game behavior.

Actually, the city banning of someone is not excluding them from content. What it does do is force them to not have access by shuttleport. One can always shuttle in from a neighbouring city or drive from a starport. There should be a larger buffer zone. To stop people from overlapping poi and citiy bountrdies....force the city hall to be placed far enough away that the radius (city limits of that city) once it was at the largest level was at least 500m away from any poi.

This is an easy math problem...give every poi or content sensitive area a static radius....and potential city /city hall placement would have to be validated by it's largest potential size...thus the poi and city boundries would never overlap.

As far as militia/jedi/bh are concerned....I could see a jedi's guildmate city banning a friend...and having a gank squad of militia go after them while they hide in a house...doesn't look like there will be any type of resolution.

Message Edited by Omicron2 on 06-02-2005 10:03 PM

Fear The Wookiee!
Omicron - Master TKA, Pikeman, & Brawler.(Active because of Station Pass)
Omicron-II - Master Bounty Hunter, Combat Medic (Retired by the NGE)
Omicron-III - Human Shield/ Meatlump (test center)(Retired by the NGE
Omicron-IV - Master Shipwright, Smuggler(Retired by the NGE)

" With the NGE the system was over-simplified." -Helios_Soe

Fallen_Snow

Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:49 pm

#65

Tanks wrote:

AschMhaRhee wrote:

We all know that /citywarn was being abused by jerks.. so how about this.

If I /citywarn a troublemaker in my city, they are instantly transported to a random spot on the city border. This would get them out of the city and make a slight inconvenience for them but not leave room for it to be exploited or abused. It would just get them out of the city.. which is really what we need to have happen anyway.

Ahem, any BH walking into a city whether they are after a Jedi or not would be /citywarned as SOP. So, this is not going to happen if I have any input into it.

So when is the new BH coraspondant coming then? We seem to go thru coro's every other week. But Ill agre I don't support city warn warping players. But Citywarn does need to be returned

"Please note, I have no programming skills to speak of, so this "low level" task is not taking away from any designer fixing the top issues."
Q-3PO

Doesn't this describe all the other devs too?

Cities And Housing Archive

Thread: If /citywarn did this....