Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: If /citywarn did this....
Fallen_Snow
Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:07 pm
#67
Omicron just so you know, this is already in effect for everything I've ever seen. POI's have a very large no build radious around them. For those of us on that make the game that don't know wat a radious is, its a circul. There is also a 25 meter gap between two level 5 city's boarders. So. Draw a circul on a paper. Then draw circuls around that circul that don't tuch. Not only would that take a LOT of citys to isolate ONE such content POI. That would take a ton of different players since its 85 per to make a level 5 city, and then they would have to ALL be working in unison to form an effectiv blockade of a poi. POIs will be close but not INSIDE the city limits. (by close I mean 1000m from the poi waypoint to the city boundry.)
All this can be tested on TC by trying to drop two cities side by side. You will be told when dropping the second city that it must be 1050m from the other even at level 1 to make room for growth.
Try dropping any sctructure next to a POI and you will get a similar message. You can not build here. Its a rough guess but it looks like 1000m when I tested it.
Logically, that would take about 8 cities to form a blockade. Thats 680 citizens minimum and then they would have to basically never leave because the area they would have to cover would be enormus. Remember, city radious distance is 500m from the center. 500x2=1000. Its possible, just not fesable, to blockade a POI. If theres a POI that breaks the above rules Id love to know it, but all the ones I tested with houses don't allow building in the area of them, and from building citys on my server around theed, the no build zone of theed and player citys can NOT overlap, so I would say the same is true for POI no build zones.
Bottom line the citywarn can claim to have been removed because of this spacific type of griefing. (Preventing players from accessing content) But I find it very unlikly that its the truth and would be willing to wager more that it was removed because of that CSR that was citywarned and tripple incapped.
All this can be tested on TC by trying to drop two cities side by side. You will be told when dropping the second city that it must be 1050m from the other even at level 1 to make room for growth.
Try dropping any sctructure next to a POI and you will get a similar message. You can not build here. Its a rough guess but it looks like 1000m when I tested it.
Logically, that would take about 8 cities to form a blockade. Thats 680 citizens minimum and then they would have to basically never leave because the area they would have to cover would be enormus. Remember, city radious distance is 500m from the center. 500x2=1000. Its possible, just not fesable, to blockade a POI. If theres a POI that breaks the above rules Id love to know it, but all the ones I tested with houses don't allow building in the area of them, and from building citys on my server around theed, the no build zone of theed and player citys can NOT overlap, so I would say the same is true for POI no build zones.
Bottom line the citywarn can claim to have been removed because of this spacific type of griefing. (Preventing players from accessing content) But I find it very unlikly that its the truth and would be willing to wager more that it was removed because of that CSR that was citywarned and tripple incapped.
Omicron2
Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:08 pm
#68
Thunderheart wrote:
The original post:
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.
Because the location was random, they would not be able to say we were abusing them by dropping them in a lair of agros.. but the chance would always be there, so perhaps the threat of a citywarn would have a little teeth if you lived on a planet where the agros were a problem.
It seems to me that this would be a fairly simple implementation and a more gentle solution to some of our city woes.
Jedi would use this to grief and avoid bounty hunters..make bh exempt from this and you might have a working idea. This would also destroy pvp in all towns and cities.
Omicron2
Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:14 pm
#69
I totally agree, but I do see how in the current system it would be abused by Jedi and guilds hiding jedi in city limits.
Fallen_Snow wrote:
Bottom line the citywarn can claim to have been removed because of this spacific type of griefing. (Preventing players from accessing content) But I find it very unlikly that its the truth and would be willing to wager more that it was removed because of that CSR that was citywarned and tripple incapped.
AMZero1
Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:15 pm
#70
EEMAN, in the old days when the game was fun if you had a Base in your city you had to guard it! Everyone want s abase and they dont want to guard it. And you said you are putting down PvE base the are easy tgts since they are always good to blow up. The PvP base you need to get intel on when to attack it. So you will know when you have to Guard it. DONT BLAME the JEDI the people that hate jedi are the ones thta havent spent the massive amount of time to get jedi. Since the CU has taken the solo aspect of the game away from players you will see fewer and fewer jedi because of the CU. I became a Jedi because I had done everything else in the game it was the last thing I had to do. And dude you have almost 1200 post get a life and play the game! As for BH being banned from citys thats a great idea! they have the upper hand since 90% of the BH only take missions that are way below there skill level the are all pretty gutless to have a tough fight with a jedi.
Message Edited by AMZero1 on 06-02-2005 07:18 PM
Fallen_Snow
Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:19 pm
#71
Not really. Just put it back to the way it should have been before all this nonsense about keeping people from content. Yeah, BH's get attackable in a player city. But think of it this way. Jedi can't grind in a city, just FC (then be reported for exploiting). And think about the role play element that comes in when a group of five BH try coming into the city. It would be just like watching an eppisode of Cops or The sheild. They would catch a beat down so fast it wouldn't be funny. But!!! Before you say thats bad and breaks the 5vs1 rule. It WOULD bring PVP back into the game and make it atleast a bit more of a challange, jedi has got to be in the city to be protected AND then hope that theres a powerfull enough milita on to take out five pissed off BHs.
LuxDiazepam
Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:32 pm
#72
Ok, I must adit that I am a bit confused. I am not trying to flame, simply trying to see all angles on this issue.
TH said that warping a player is a bad idea. I do not see really how sliding some one in a random direction just to the edge of your town is any different then sliding them out of say, your cantina. In both cases the player is denied something that s/he might want. From what I have seen, and I might be wrong, agro MOBs usually are not sitting on the city line.... note that I said usually.
As for PVP bases.... Why can't this be set up like houses are? If you select to place a PVP base in your town, then you give up the ability to remove people from it. Just like you can not lock your doors with a vendor inside. (i know that you can still remove unwanted players from a house, that is NOT the aspect that I am comparing. Instead I am comparing the switch, where you can do one or the other).
As for blocking off POIs..... On this I am very confused. Is there a city some where on some server that completely blocks a player from entering a POI? From what I have seen there's always a way around a city. It might be inconvient, but it's not restricting play to that POI. Please correct me! I just do not truly understand this problem, I can not see how going around the city harms any one. If the players in that city are rude, then there are usually consequences for teir behavior (i.e. lack of sales from vendors in the city, because no one wants to be banned, etc.) I am not saying this play style is good, just that while annoying, it dosn't prevent me from using the content of the game... as I see it. If there is a case where a city is/can block a POI, can some one enlighten me?
As for banning players..... As an MBH, i too like to hunt jedi. As a mayor, I too like to protect my citizens. As a friend of a jedi, I too hate to see him get ganked. I can see all sides of this arguement. This is not really the place to talk about the right and wrong of the 2 professions (jedi forums and BH forums are for that) but as I see it, if I am stalking a mark, and i track him to a city, and I am removed from that city, then it's part of the price I pay for my profession. I know that BH arenot well liked in most places and I can accept that. If I can't get to my mark in his own town, then I will either wait for him, or find another. Those are the options I have in game. It really is no different then getting banned for a city because I am neutral (and a big blue dot, always assumed to be of the opposite faction). This happens to me a lot, and I assume that the people living in that area have decided that they use a similar play style, and that is the style that makes them satisfied in the game. They pay their fees to be able to do that, just as I pay my fees to be able to do whatI think is fun. I understand that I might be banned from their city, and take that risk when I go there.I understand that no one likes to have bad things happen to them. It's human nature to be angry about it. I guess my point is that you can't make all of the people happy all of the time.
Fallen_Snow
Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:35 pm
#73
So, now that you raise that point, is SOE greifing us because we keep sliding around in NPC cantinas? If so... I want to know who the mayors of all NPC citys are so we can report them for greifing.
omadnay
Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:10 pm
#74
IronChickenPro wrote:
Umm...maybe cuz they weren't BH's?
Fallen_Snow wrote:
Well while I disagree with HOW you quoted the person in making it look like banning a bounty hunter from a city was greifing. Read it, thats how it looks if you just read your post and yours is the only one we get a direct link to from the dev tracker. I agree warping a BH would cause a greifing issue. Then again and not to be a pest but you go from one post where it says city wanr and one post were its city ban and no body can confuse a command that works and doesn't work.
You didn't answer my question about why it is when Luke enters the Rebel breifing room with his saber equiped why it is te whole room didn't jump up and deathblow him. (I think its safe for you to see I disagree with the policy of same faction jedi hunting)
And maybe because it is an individual Bounty Hunter's CHOICE.
Some People (Bounty Hunters included) have different priorities...
To some, the mercenary aspect is paramount... a job is a job and they'll do it over and above any other attachments.
Others may hold their allegiance to an Affiliation higher than their mercenary callings.
If there were any Bounty Hunters in any of those gatherings around Luke, maybe they respected him to the point where they did not wish to take him in (They may have even been too afraid).
Honestly, your attempt at bringing a movie element and comparing it to an aspect of the game is quite weak (In my opinion).
The most important thing for you to understand is that not everyone under the same faction holds the exact same list of priorities that you do.
Now, it could make sense to have a Faction Penalty associated to same Faction against same Faction, but there is NO reason to restrict a Bounty Hunter because of their Faction.
It's all a matter of personal choice.
- Omadda Szool
Kauri
May the force be with you.
AudioOrgana
Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:25 pm
#75
TH, what do YOU suggest?
What do the Devs say about this?
We can sit out here and continue to go around in the circles we always go in because we have no idea what's going on back there until it hits TC. I'm sorry to be critical, but everything we DO hear about ahead of time never makes it into the game (I won't list all the examples, but think of promised profession revamps that were supposed to happen post-JTL and now we are a whole expansion past that, or things like "recursive macros going away" last year that never came to fruition). It makes it very frustrating to try and contribute because it's all speculation based heresay and it ends with people arguing about irrelevant topics that would never be considered in the first place. When you do solicit our input (like on the aforementioned topics) nothing seems to come of it.
The problem is, we have smacktards running around the game accountable to no one. This is in cities, and in the GCW.
You've taken all the danger out of the game. An Imperial can slay a Rebel in front of a group of a dozen Rebels who can do NOTHING about it. People don't like being PvP attackable? Fine, make it so we can call a dozen NPC stormtroopers to kick their butts if we witness the act - since some people are just so hung up over AI versus Player.
In the case of /citywarn, people can just waltz into a city, create havoc, and again, nothing can be done about it. I'm not someone who thinks mayors should have the uber powers some of them want (to destroy houses and such), but if the citizens of a town vote for a leader that leader should be able to eliminate people from the town. If they are overzealous, well, that mayor may not get voted in next time.
Actually, as I am typing this, I have a soloution :
Re-implement city-warn exactly as before, only give them a five-minute warning. That's plenty of time to vacate any city. You simply know not to return there. If you do - you are fair game.
The catch? IF YOU BUILT YOUR CITY NEAR A POI, and the borders of your city are closer than 500m (or some other figure) to the POI - TOUGH COOKIES. You are NOT ALLOWED to have a milita and use /citywarn. Your city is gimped and can't participate - that's the price for building your city so close to a landmark.
Now, as long as you make the distance to the POI large enough, people can go around the city to gain access. Then, people who choose to not live on a POI can have a safe, harmonious city without the smacktard contingent. If enough people develop land and agree upon it, I see no problem with more private cities that exist where no static content does. We were told when cities came out that more private cities were not part of the FIRST iteneration, but maybe it's time to look back at that now.
Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it's a shame our warnings were not heeded - cities should never have been able to be built near POI's in the first place. You build and your radius starts to encompass the entrance or area of a POI? Again, tough cookies for you - the POI itself never becomes part of your city, you cannot control it. In fact, that could be done now - let people tax structures and such but create "safe zones" around POIs.
I mean, come on, there ARE ways around this. It may require some people to suck up some inconvenience, but hey, that's the risk you take when you build a city to feed off of a POI. You get higher traffic - and less rights. If people don't like it, just like Tiggs said about the respec system - SWG allows you to move your buildings at any time, and if you don't like the new rules, move and find a place that fits.
We have this vast, beautiful game world that doesn't feel "real", and the game has been going further away from it. SOE/LA tells us to "live the adventure" and wants us to feel immersed in the Star Wars universe - but the rules you constrain us with say the opposite.
There are lots of ways of thinking about this, just like lots of issues in SWG that seem like lost causes. How about some meaningful, TWO WAY discussion on topics like this that are actually scheduled to be fixed. It should be so easy, so organic. There is an issue, you tell us (in actual detail, not generic Dev-speak) how you see the situation and what the criteria for a fix are, the process repeats back and forth a few times (remember, TWO WAY conversation, not "drop a bomb post and run for the hills" and never reply) and an implementation is made.
Other than that, we are just wasting our time hashing out these things ourselves. We need to be directed, and we need to see action from that direction.
Wouldn't that be so much better than what we have now?
AO
What do the Devs say about this?
We can sit out here and continue to go around in the circles we always go in because we have no idea what's going on back there until it hits TC. I'm sorry to be critical, but everything we DO hear about ahead of time never makes it into the game (I won't list all the examples, but think of promised profession revamps that were supposed to happen post-JTL and now we are a whole expansion past that, or things like "recursive macros going away" last year that never came to fruition). It makes it very frustrating to try and contribute because it's all speculation based heresay and it ends with people arguing about irrelevant topics that would never be considered in the first place. When you do solicit our input (like on the aforementioned topics) nothing seems to come of it.
The problem is, we have smacktards running around the game accountable to no one. This is in cities, and in the GCW.
You've taken all the danger out of the game. An Imperial can slay a Rebel in front of a group of a dozen Rebels who can do NOTHING about it. People don't like being PvP attackable? Fine, make it so we can call a dozen NPC stormtroopers to kick their butts if we witness the act - since some people are just so hung up over AI versus Player.
In the case of /citywarn, people can just waltz into a city, create havoc, and again, nothing can be done about it. I'm not someone who thinks mayors should have the uber powers some of them want (to destroy houses and such), but if the citizens of a town vote for a leader that leader should be able to eliminate people from the town. If they are overzealous, well, that mayor may not get voted in next time.
Actually, as I am typing this, I have a soloution :
Re-implement city-warn exactly as before, only give them a five-minute warning. That's plenty of time to vacate any city. You simply know not to return there. If you do - you are fair game.
The catch? IF YOU BUILT YOUR CITY NEAR A POI, and the borders of your city are closer than 500m (or some other figure) to the POI - TOUGH COOKIES. You are NOT ALLOWED to have a milita and use /citywarn. Your city is gimped and can't participate - that's the price for building your city so close to a landmark.
Now, as long as you make the distance to the POI large enough, people can go around the city to gain access. Then, people who choose to not live on a POI can have a safe, harmonious city without the smacktard contingent. If enough people develop land and agree upon it, I see no problem with more private cities that exist where no static content does. We were told when cities came out that more private cities were not part of the FIRST iteneration, but maybe it's time to look back at that now.
Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it's a shame our warnings were not heeded - cities should never have been able to be built near POI's in the first place. You build and your radius starts to encompass the entrance or area of a POI? Again, tough cookies for you - the POI itself never becomes part of your city, you cannot control it. In fact, that could be done now - let people tax structures and such but create "safe zones" around POIs.
I mean, come on, there ARE ways around this. It may require some people to suck up some inconvenience, but hey, that's the risk you take when you build a city to feed off of a POI. You get higher traffic - and less rights. If people don't like it, just like Tiggs said about the respec system - SWG allows you to move your buildings at any time, and if you don't like the new rules, move and find a place that fits.
We have this vast, beautiful game world that doesn't feel "real", and the game has been going further away from it. SOE/LA tells us to "live the adventure" and wants us to feel immersed in the Star Wars universe - but the rules you constrain us with say the opposite.
There are lots of ways of thinking about this, just like lots of issues in SWG that seem like lost causes. How about some meaningful, TWO WAY discussion on topics like this that are actually scheduled to be fixed. It should be so easy, so organic. There is an issue, you tell us (in actual detail, not generic Dev-speak) how you see the situation and what the criteria for a fix are, the process repeats back and forth a few times (remember, TWO WAY conversation, not "drop a bomb post and run for the hills" and never reply) and an implementation is made.
Other than that, we are just wasting our time hashing out these things ourselves. We need to be directed, and we need to see action from that direction.
Wouldn't that be so much better than what we have now?
AO
omadnay
Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:29 pm
#76
Sorry for the above off-topic response...
I'm honestly enjoying the on-topic discussions, but I don't have much to say that hasn't been said...
I feel like some things will be in game that will hinder certain pplayers and professions... and that's fine.
People need to realize that some things will go against them.
As has been said, a Mayor and a City have some rights to set things up so that certain types of players/behavior are taken care of by "security".
I mostly agree with someone else's post...
It's a shame that people use these things to grief, because we'll never get so many cool City features implimented for the same exact reasons.
Anyone remember the old ideas of Outlaw Cities and zones?
They were great ideas, but can you imagine this playerbase with those kinds of rules and freedoms?
And if not being able to use a shuttleport is your definition of preventing players from getting to content, then I find that absurd.
I prefer to ride somewhere, rather than take a shuttle, myself (I'll never trust mass transit).
May the force be with you.
P.S. And I like the idea from AO above me... bring in more tools for Cities to use, but if Cities are near POI's, restrict them from some of those options/privelages.
And directing the communties focus and actually having some back and forth is absolutely the way to make this community stronger.
It is nice to see you using some time to post today, TH.
- Omadda Szool
Kauri
I'm honestly enjoying the on-topic discussions, but I don't have much to say that hasn't been said...
I feel like some things will be in game that will hinder certain pplayers and professions... and that's fine.
People need to realize that some things will go against them.
As has been said, a Mayor and a City have some rights to set things up so that certain types of players/behavior are taken care of by "security".
I mostly agree with someone else's post...
It's a shame that people use these things to grief, because we'll never get so many cool City features implimented for the same exact reasons.
Anyone remember the old ideas of Outlaw Cities and zones?
They were great ideas, but can you imagine this playerbase with those kinds of rules and freedoms?
And if not being able to use a shuttleport is your definition of preventing players from getting to content, then I find that absurd.
I prefer to ride somewhere, rather than take a shuttle, myself (I'll never trust mass transit).
May the force be with you.
P.S. And I like the idea from AO above me... bring in more tools for Cities to use, but if Cities are near POI's, restrict them from some of those options/privelages.
And directing the communties focus and actually having some back and forth is absolutely the way to make this community stronger.
It is nice to see you using some time to post today, TH.
- Omadda Szool
Kauri
Message Edited by omadnay on 06-02-2005 11:36 PM
EEMAN
Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:33 pm
#77
AMZero1 wrote:
EEMAN, in the old days when the game was fun if you had a Base in your city you had to guard it! Everyone want s a base and they dont want to guard it. And you said you are putting down PvE base the are easy tgts since they are always good to blow up. The PvP base you need to get intel on when to attack it. So you will know when you have to Guard it. DONT BLAME the JEDI the people that hate jedi are the ones thta havent spent the massive amount of time to get jedi. Since the CU has taken the solo aspect of the game away from players you will see fewer and fewer jedi because of the CU. I became a Jedi because I had done everything else in the game it was the last thing I had to do. And dude you have almost 1200 post get a life and play the game! As for BH being banned from citys thats a great idea! they have the upper hand since 90% of the BH only take missions that are way below there skill level the are all pretty gutless to have a tough fight with a jedi.Message Edited by AMZero1 on 06-02-2005 07:18 PM
1. Nowhere in any of my post did I even mention jedi. You need to stop hitting the bong in mom's basement and get a job. The pot smoking is rotting your brain.
2. I have only pointed out that your arguements are unfounded and only serve against you. Not only did you fail to explain why you need /citywarn; you go on to explain how having it will allow you to bypass game mechanics and intended game mechanics such as denying other players access to your player bases. Nowhere did I say *I* was placing PVE bases. If you pick up the phone and dial hooked on phonics (1-800-abc-defg) you will learn how to read my post and discover that I illustrated how citywarn and cityban turn PVE bases into forced PVP and that goes against the entire intent.
3. Yea you are sooo right about not seeing jedi after the CU. They've only quadrupled in visibility since then. If you are going to lie do it with credibility.
3. And speaking of getting a life, if you have time to sit around and play this game the number of hours it takes to get jedi then you had enough time to get off the couch and get an education. Despite editing your posts you still butchered nearly every facet of your comment. Perhaps if you spent more time in school and less time playing 'grind the jedi' you would have a chance at something else in life other than chief fry cook at burger king.
Fallen_Snow
Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:34 pm
#78
omadnay wrote:
IronChickenPro wrote:
Umm...maybe cuz they weren't BH's?
Fallen_Snow wrote:
Well while I disagree with HOW you quoted the person in making it look like banning a bounty hunter from a city was greifing. Read it, thats how it looks if you just read your post and yours is the only one we get a direct link to from the dev tracker. I agree warping a BH would cause a greifing issue. Then again and not to be a pest but you go from one post where it says city wanr and one post were its city ban and no body can confuse a command that works and doesn't work.
You didn't answer my question about why it is when Luke enters the Rebel breifing room with his saber equiped why it is te whole room didn't jump up and deathblow him. (I think its safe for you to see I disagree with the policy of same faction jedi hunting)
And maybe because it is an individual Bounty Hunter's CHOICE.
Some People (Bounty Hunters included) have different priorities...
To some, the mercenary aspect is paramount... a job is a job and they'll do it over and above any other attachments.
Others may hold their allegiance to an Affiliation higher than their mercenary callings.
If there were any Bounty Hunters in any of those gatherings around Luke, maybe they respected him to the point where they did not wish to take him in (They may have even been too afraid).
Honestly, your attempt at bringing a movie element and comparing it to an aspect of the game is quite weak (In my opinion).
The most important thing for you to understand is that not everyone under the same faction holds the exact same list of priorities that you do.
Now, it could make sense to have a Faction Penalty associated to same Faction against same Faction, but there is NO reason to restrict a Bounty Hunter because of their Faction.
It's all a matter of personal choice.
- Omadda Szool
Kauri
May the force be with you.
Apprently you don't read the dev tracker much, but this argument (mine) was about as weak as someone elses (wont name names but hes been posting here) argument as to why the Armor hole exsisted pre-cu and could not EVER be fixed because Wookies didn't wear boots or gloves and such in the movies. Hence the referance to canon by a special inavidual in a post long ago in a thread far far away.