Cities And Housing Archive

Imperialist Party Paper #2: Player City Militia Fix and Faction Alignment:
========================================================================
This is part 2 in a series of posts where I would like to throw out some ideas to improve the situation for Player Cities in SWG. [My goal is to post, at a minimum, every Saturday until my core platform has been explained]. I would like very much to get feedback and ideas from the SWG Community--not only on whether they like my ideas or not, but also any ideas you all have and how any changes might be accomplished. The home post of this series can be found HERE.

In this post, I'd like to discuss some ideas on what to do about the lack of security for player cities. In the new GCW CHANGES, we see that city security is a MAJOR new feature: where before, enemy players could just waltz into a city, Rebel and Imperial police will now keep players in line.

But, once again, NPC cities get undue benefit while Player Cities are ignored, burdened, and left out. Since the NUETERING of the militia shortly after launch, player cities have NO WAY to defend their cities. I believe this has significantly contributed to player cities being either war zones or ghost towns.

There have been many suggestions already, but I'd like to offer mine and then comment on existing ideas as they affect mine.

As new and undoubtedly better-than-my ideas are brought up, I'll update.



1. Reinstate the Militia:
========================================================================
Yes, after the Emperor mandated the disarming of city militias due to incidents of violence, I think the time has come to rearm militias by giving them back the /CITYWARN [to use along with the /CITYBAN] command. [Particularly with the rise of Rebel violence with the GCW CHANGES].

I realize this led to griefing of CITIZENS in the past, ergo why I make the following suggestions to limit the function of /CITYWARN to prevent that from ever happening again:

a) make it applicable ONLY to either:
-----i. NON-citizens, or in the alternative--
-----ii. those not having buildings within city limits.

b) make it impossible to /CITYWARN an individual for:
-----i. the time period that you have zoning rights, and
-----ii. [if applicable against ALL non-citizens] four hours after "un-declaring" a residence [giving a person a chance to move].

CONCEIVABLY, the only way this could hurt anyone would be if the militia just indiscriminately targeted the customers who patron the city's merchants. If their customers are being unfairly targeted, their customers can't get their goods.

However, the merchants have the option of:

a) demanding those militia members be reprimanded or removed,
b) voting the joker[and thus the militia] out, or
c) moving their vendors.

ALTERNATIVELY, if a person with goods waiting for them in the city cannot get to them due to being /CITYWARNed, I propose that for 24 hours afterward, ANY increase in cost due to being in a city (sales tax, galaxy transfer cost going to city, etc.) SHOULD BE WAIVED.

Regardless, I believe that anyone under /CITYBAN should not be able to use city vendors AT ALL.

Otherwise, IMHO, you should be shot/stabbed/sicced on by fluffy (the 5-ton Rancor) if you so much as look at the place.



2. City Policing Services:
========================================================================
The new GCW CHANGES have opened up, and not for the first time, the idea of city factional alignment and of faction police walking around.

This is just ANOTHER example of NPC cities getting MORE while Player cities have had things taken away. The militia was SUPPOSED to be the Player City equivalent of the police--but while NPC Cities get MORE police via factions, Player Cities are still BEHIND.

Now, before I get to the idea of factional police in a Player city, I would simply like to re-suggest the idea of REGULAR POLICE in a city. Player Cities are DEFENSLESS--they don't even have the promised militia. How, I ask you, can a mayor be expected, in good conscience, to defend a city with GLORIFIED REAL ESTATE AGENTS?!!!

As such, I have a plan for implementing NPC Police:

1) NPC police would be much like the NPC faction police: tough, but not too tough, AND THEY WOULD NOT GIVE XP OR ITEMS AT ALL

(or would do so at the rate of Meatlump thugs). They would be faction nuetral--NOT EVEN TOWNSPEOPLE FACTIION WOULD BE AFFECTED BY KILLING THEM. I believe that the uniform should be determined by the mayor.

I think that the mayor should also decide the police department's name, albeit it could also be a generic "[PLAYER CITY] Police Dept." [Ex: Tan Odo, an NPC Police Detective from the Player City of Kar Averlak would be: Tan Odo (A Kar Averlak Police Detective)].


2) Either by itself or in conjunction with #1 (Reinstate the Militia) above, that Player Cities would be given the option to have NPC police officers patrolling the city. These NPC's would be charged with:

-----a. patrolling the city,
-----b. killing wild animals and other aggro creatures within city limits,
-----c. go aggro on ANYTHING or ANYONE that attacks a CITIZEN of the city [with some exceptions--see below] OR a city-defense structure [see: #3, Defensive Structures].

However, I feel NPC Police and Militia could work TOGETHER if the militia were restored, with the Militia serving as the "chiefs of police" for the city.


3) NPC Police could be instituted, under the present SWG game system, in several ways:

-----a. "Police Headquarters" city improvement: Once the improvement is placed, NPC police would spawn and patrol the city as described above. From here, the mayor could set the uniform, how heavy the police presence would be, etc.

-----b. "Patrol Boxes" city improvement: many IRL countries have police officers sitting in a box during the day, reporting at the police HQ to charge-in and take-out their equipment. Why not make a "Patrol Box" city improvement from which 2-3 NPC police would spawn either in stead of or to supplement a Police HQ?

[NOTE: For 1 and 2, I think that it should be possible to RAISE the level of police from the building, rather than be forced to lay multiple buildings. Having said that, I think laying multiple buildings for even more police at an increased cost should be allowed.

-----c. A Specialization (albeit I don't support this one, as it makes people chose to give up one thing for something we should have anyway).

-----d. Instead of static police or some set fee, make NPC police generation AUTOMATIC from city hall, but make it DEPENDANT on a "Police Tax" from property maintenance. The more taxes get paid, the more police spawn. No tax, no police. This way, EVERY city can have SOME sort of police.


4) I believe NPC Player City Police would be beneficial for several reasons:

1. They would kill the aggro-mobs that pop up within city limits,
2. go aggro on ANYTHING or ANYONE that attacks a CITIZEN of the city OR a city-defense structure [see: #3, Defensive Structures].--a much less grief-prone thing than militia, and
3. They would be on the job 24-7, instead of just whenever the militia (assuming they aren't still worthless) would be on.


5) FACTION POLICE: Alright, what about FACTION Police? Well, in another post, I'll discuss how I'd like City Factional Alignment to work, so for now let's assume a Player City HAS aligned with, say, the Empire.

How would this affect the police?

I think player city faction alignment should have benefits--but as they specifically affect the police:

-----a. NUETRAL NPC Police would be replaced with "special" aligned police. Unlike the Faction police in NPC Cities, *THESE* Police WOULD NOT shoot at someone for their faction. They WOULD ONLY act like regular police--i.e. shoot at things attacking citizens, etc. [with some exceptions, see: b & c]. Also, they would either NOT provide faction or items, or would do so at only a very, VERY low level (this is a war, so I *guess* some faction would be in order--like a max of 1).

How I see this, for example, with an Imperial City, would be neat-o Imperial Faction-esque Police. That is, police that are Imperial but not overtly so. These Imperial-esque Police would be NUETRAL, but aligned with the Empire, ala Naboo's RSF.

Instead of normal ST's, they could wear some sort of red armor reminiscent of the CURASCANT GUARDS, for example. Thus they would be CLEARLY Imperial, but WOULD NOT:
i. conduct scans,
ii. shoot Rebel Overts, Combatants or those "on leave",
iii. etc.

-----b. Assuming militia were fixed and working with the police, Faction police would IGNORE any /CITYWARN action against a member of the same faction as the one the police are affiliated with. [Ex: Dan /CITYWARNs Del, an Imperial Colonel. The Imperial Police just look at Dan, shake their heads, and tell HIM to handle it!]

-----c. Similarly, the faction police WILL NOT go aggro on members of their own faction, even when attacking citizens of the city. [ex: Bounty Hunter Del, an Imperial Colonel, chases down Cal, a Dark Jedi Knight (and thus an Imperial) citizen of the city, into the city, and begins to attack. The Imperial Police WOULD NOT go aggro on Del.].

[Note that a, b, and c GUARENTEE that no griefing can take place. This is especially obvious given the limitations of #2, above, on just what the police are allowed to do.]

-----d. ON THE PLUS SIDE, Faction police would given at a REDUCED COST [Less for Imperials, and 100% FREE for Rebels (who are freedom fighters)], since they are paid for by the patron faction.

-----e. As the faction police would be trained by their faction and not a rent-a-cop firm, they would be TOUGHER than regular police. [Imperials should be the strongest, as they have the best equipment/training].

-----f. Faction police would IGNORE police department size caps [Imperials would have more than Rebels, due to more manpower and a greater interest in control. These numbers are irregardless of the size of the city or the amount of money a city is willing to pay].

-----g. While faction police won't aggro members of an opposing faction, members of the SAME faction still can't shoot them.

[NOTE the tradeoff of alignment: sure, you don't have to pay nearly as much, but you have limited control over who the police can go after and zero control over the police department's size]



3. Defensive Structures:
========================================================================
[NOTE: While I understand this would be better in a PREFAB CITY (as I will discuss in my post regarding Part I of the overall platform) I think any city now could have any of these structures]

Cities NEED defensive structures, period. Too many cities have become either war zones or ghost towns due to fighting and other security threats. To pretend otherwise is to deny that we are in a Galactic Civil War. Rather than cry NERF!, I propose city buildings to help defend a Player City.


a) The "bomb shelter" or "bunker": a simple yet elegant structure: Anyone not /CITYBANned can enter, and while inside, no one can fight, harm, or be harmed by those inside. Period.


b) Allow "city walls" (ala just about every NPC city out there) that run along the city's border. This will ensure attacks come only from 1 or a cardinal direction (N,S,E,W). Where a building lays on the edge, either:

i. use imminent domain [see Imperialist Paper #1] to move if NOT a citizen, or
ii. Extend the wall around it--either out (if a citizen) or in (if not).


c) Allow City towers and/or turrets from which ONLY
i. CITY MILITIA, or
ii. city police [see #2, City Policing Forces, above],

may fire from AND NOT be force-exited if disabled. They would work like regular turrets/towers: just a regular building, with a place to fire from [turret would shoot ala faction ones, while towers merely allow safe shooting]. Both would stop functioning when disabled [turrets would shut down, and tower gun-holes would "collapse"]. Those inside may leave (NPC police would do so automatically), but would be immune from attack if they stayed inside.


d) NOTE: FACTION BUILDINGS:

Just as with Police, above, my idea of Player City faction alignment would affect defensive structures:

-----i. Existing walls and bunkers would remain unchanged.

-----ii. Turrets and towers would be "upgraded" with more armor/firepower [Imperials would get far, FAR stronger versions, but the Rebel's upgrades would still put the city ones to shame].

-----iii. "Upgraded" turrets and towers would be useable only by the faction police or city militia of the same faction.

-----iv. The "upgrades" would last only so long as the city remained in that faction's control.

-----v. The "upgraded" defenses would cost less [Less for Imperials, FREE for Rebels].

-----vi. The "upgraded" defenses cannot be attacked by members of the same faction.

[Note again the tradeoff--pay less, but only certain people can attack or be attacked with an "upgraded" turret/tower. FORTUNEATLEY, you still control placement. UNFORTUNEATLEY, ANYONE from an opposing faction can just disable them.]



4. City Services Standardization:
========================================================================
Many cities suffer from "free rider" problems--that is, a city pays the expense of making something and maintaining it, and non-citizens either use it without paying, or worse--UNWANTED PEOPLE ARE DRAWN TO THE SERVICES.

To solve this problem, I propose stream-lining popular city services, so cities can:
-----a. charge for admittance as to help pay for the service, and
-----b. /CITYBAN people from using the services.

This is a simple and doable solution--much like cantinas and medical centers do now. While many can think up ways to fix existing services, I propose 3 for now:

A) "Training Hall" City improvement: This would be a LARGE building, like a PA Hall. It would have "stalls" where you could lay trainers.

B) a "Mall": A building in which a city can mandate (or just allow) vendors in city limits be laid here. The stalls would nominally be designated for CITIZENS. Those vendors given "floor rights" could lay a vendor and would have exclusive access to it unless the vendor was removed [the player would get 3 weeks notice].

C) an "Employment Center" city improvement: This would also be a big building, ala a PA Hall, and would be the only place to lay ANY mission terminals of ANY kind.

***ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE ADDED TO THOSE SUBJECT TO THE /CITYBAN EXCLUSION, AND WOULD ALLOW ENTRY FEES.***



5. "Walled in" Specialization:
========================================================================
Like it or not, the best way to avoid problems is to avoid people.

This specialization would place a wall around the outer perimeter of the city and add gates ala Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. The gates allow non-/CITYBANned individuals in (remember: not applicable to Citizens and those with buildings still in the city limits). In essence, you're making the city "quasi-private"--like a house with a banned list instead of a guest list.

While attackers COULD shoot the gates down, this would make them vulnerable to the militia (see #1) and police (see #2).

* * *

Remember, the home post for this series can be found HERE.

Ah well. That's about it. So what do you think?

/cityban will never come back. when cities were introduced, the devs let anyone build a city on top of poi's.

unless you declare a 3-5km zone around a poi, and blow up any cities in that zone now, city management tools will never come back.


i hope things like the krayt increase will drive out those stupid enough to build on top of a poi and these tools can be re-introduced, but i doubt it.

maybe the dev's should just bite the bullet and say 'these cities are going to be bombed fomr space on XX/XX/XX, move before then.'

but too many short-sighted wankers would crybaby if that happened. so we are stuck with cities being nothing more than a collection of structures.

---

GlargTheKelfn wrote:
/cityban will never come back. when cities were introduced, the devs let anyone build a city on top of poi's.

unless you declare a 3-5km zone around a poi, and blow up any cities in that zone now, city management tools will never come back.


i hope things like the krayt increase will drive out those stupid enough to build on top of a poi and these tools can be re-introduced, but i doubt it.

maybe the dev's should just bite the bullet and say 'these cities are going to be bombed fomr space on XX/XX/XX, move before then.'

but too many short-sighted wankers would crybaby if that happened. so we are stuck with cities being nothing more than a collection of structures.

---

Well, honestly, I've noticed that cities/buildings CANNOT be built close to some places, so I would assume POI's SHOULD be included in that no-build barrier.

As such, YES, any building in a Klick of the POI should be moved somewhere else within city limits ala my eminent domain idea [which can be found HERE in the list in Part I].

As for the city losing border space/room, that's an omnipresent threat to cities anyway, and many are restricted since they built to close to a non-building barrier/another city.

Good point.

Message Edited by VirindiStalker on 02-21-2005 09:06 AM

---

SakeO wrote:

The simple fact is, that whenever you allow players to control the access and attackability of other characters, you provide opportunities to grief that will be used only to readily.

If your argument relies the decency of players or infrequency of it occurring, it is probably flawed.

SakeO

---

And this I understand, which is why "decency" has no place in my proposal.

The plan, if you read it, is to divide players between THOSE WHO BELONG IN THE CITY [citizens, those with buildings in city limits, those with zoning rights, and those who have undeclared their residence in the past 4 hours] who have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to be there (and thus are un-targetable) VS. ANYONE ELSE who comes into the city, who:

[S]hould be shot/stabbed/sicced on by fluffy (the 5-ton Rancor) if [they] so much as look at the place.

So, quite the opposite of relying on player decency, the above plan says: Yes, Militia are going to be killers. As such, make sure they can't kill those who BELONG while setting them loose on THOSE WHO DON'T.

The "griefing" that finally took down the militia, if you recall/were here, was that the militia were targeting citizens to get them to leave the city or keep them from voting or even paying the maintenance on their homes. This plan DIRECTLY addresses that by preventing the targeting of those who have a right to be in the city.

Although as I looked over this critique and carefully re-read the plan, it did occur to me that maybe there should be some some of "merchant flag" that allows a purchaser of goods to come into the city limits and get them--or to rescind the sale if they have been /CITYBANned. Because, as you suggested, you cannot rely on decency, and as my plan calls for, thsoe with a right to be in the city should eb able to be there.

I will have to think of some way to square that in the next week.

---

VirindiStalker wrote:

And this I understand, which is why "decency" has no place in my proposal.

The plan, if you read it, is to divide players between THOSE WHO BELONG IN THE CITY [citizens, those with buildings in city limits, those with zoning rights, and those who have undeclared their residence in the past 4 hours] who have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to be there (and thus are un-targetable) VS. ANYONE ELSE who comes into the city, who:

[S]hould be shot/stabbed/sicced on by fluffy (the 5-ton Rancor) if [they] so much as look at the place.

So, quite the opposite of relying on player decency, the above plan says: Yes, Militia are going to be killers. As such, make sure they can't kill those who BELONG while setting them loose on THOSE WHO DON'T.

The "griefing" that finally took down the militia, if you recall/were here, was that the militia were targeting citizens to get them to leave the city or keep them from voting or even paying the maintenance on their homes. This plan DIRECTLY addresses that by preventing the targeting of those who have a right to be in the city.

Although as I looked over this critique and carefully re-read the plan, it did occur to me that maybe there should be some some of "merchant flag" that allows a purchaser of goods to come into the city limits and get them--or to rescind the sale if they have been /CITYBANned. Because, as you suggested, you cannot rely on decency, and as my plan calls for, thsoe with a right to be in the city should eb able to be there.

I will have to think of some way to square that in the next week.

---

I wasn't specifically reponding to your proposal but,the more general topic of Player City Security. As it happens though, Your plan still relies on mayors and militia making good choices. While it may be "your" town, in many cases towns may limit access to travel routes,POIs or players homes that predate it.

SakeO

---

SakeO wrote: I wasn't specifically reponding to your proposal but, the more general topic of Player City Security. As it happens though, Your plan still relies on mayors and militia making good choices. While it may be "your" town, in many cases towns may limit access to travel routes, POIs or players homes that predate it.

SakeO

---

As far as "good choices" then, I'm having some difficulty understanding what the concern is [and believe me, I wanna know because if you have it, the Devs will].

Because under the current system [what we have now], this isn't an issue--leaving only my proposal here that could conceivably have an affect that could somehow "limit access to travel routes, POIs or players homes that predate it". So I have to assume you're somehow addressing my proposal, directly or indirectly, particularly when you said:

SakeO wrote:
The simple fact is, that whenever you [a generic "you", as in "anyone"] allow players to control the access and attackability of other characters, you provide opportunities to grief that will be used only to readily. If your argument relies the decency of players or infrequency of it occurring, it is probably flawed.

Whereas I have made the claim that, in fact, my proposal solves these problems. So directly or indirectly, the comment did address my proposal--and it is very important to discuss, because, as I said, griefing *IS* a major concern, and it has to be addressed before making any changes.

But this is cool, because the more my plan has the kinks worked out, the more likely it is to be implemented, so believe me, I sincerely APPRECIATE the input.

But to get back to the concept of "good choices":

SakeO wrote:
Your plan still relies on mayors and militia making good choices. While it may be "your" town, in many cases towns may limit access to travel routes, POIs or players homes that predate it.

Now, the concern with the POIs I get--and I addressed it. Many non-build barriers exist for things Like Jedi Shrines, and like I said before:

Well, honestly, I've noticed that cities/buildings CANNOT be built close to some places, so I would assume POI's SHOULD be included in that no-build barrier.

As such, YES, any building in a Klick of the POI should be moved somewhere else within city limits ala my eminent domain idea [which can be found... in Part I... of my overall plan].

As for the city losing border space/room, that's an omnipresent threat to cities anyway, and many are restricted since they built to close to a non-building barrier/another city.

So, in my plan, the buildings and the city limits would simply be shifted, ala cities now. In the present system, if you build too close to an existing city, your city limit is stunted--period. I would apply this to POI's, no doubt.

In short, as there is no "choice" for a mayor/militia to make (it's out of their jurisdiction) there's no issue I can see.


As for "players [sic] homes that predate [the city]," I also addressed this:

a) make it applicable ONLY to either:
-----i. NON-citizens, or in the alternative--
-----ii. those not having buildings within city limits.

I won't pretend that "i" would be valid given these concerns, but as I like wiggle-room [and was sure to leave some], I think "ii" would simply be the choice of the Devs in implementation--meaning those with buildings in city limits may not be /CITYWARNed. After all, if you CANNOT /CITYWARN someone, you CANNOT shoot them. Thus my system DENIES the option to make any "choice", good or bad: if you have any building, preexisting or not, you're protected--period.

And, again, since POIs are taken out of the picture, there's no real business for someone to be there other than to access the city.



UNLESS, the thing you mentioned about "access to travel routes" proves to be the sticking point. This idea intrigues me. How exactly would this be done beyond what the current system does? If there's an obstacle in the way, you go around it. If a city doesn’t like you, go to another.

I mean, is there an example of something in the game with only 1 route to anywhere? I mean, I'm not aware of it so I can’t say. Is this access to shuttles? That can be denied with /CITYBAN--so I see no problem there.

Even if, worst case scenario, EVERY city on EVERY planet applied /CITYWARN and /CITYBAN and there were militia on call 24/7 in EVERY one of them, ready and waiting for you (unlikely but possible), there's still the major NPC cities to travel by [one is guaranteed to stay loyal to your faction regardless] and a mount/vehicle.

So, I guess what I'm scratching my head over is, what "choice", good or bad, could a mayor or, indeed, a conspiracy of mayors, make that would actually "limit access to travel routes" in any significant way beyond the present system? I mean, I could place an Imperial base in my town and that'd "limit" people's travel as well [more so in the new GCW system].

Or is it gang-land like "sniping" and such that's the cause of concern? Again, my personal opinion is obvious, but if this can materially limit a person's access, it needs to be addressed.

Well, I'm obviously having trouble in abstract. Here, take this for an example of worst-case scenario:

Rebel Guy Stucca was a Rebel, and was not a nice guy. We was SOOO bad, he got every mayor in Chilastra to blacklist him. This was ESPECIALLY bad after the "Virindistalker"'s ideas had been adopted. Not only was he /CITYBANned from all Player City shuttles, ala the old system, AND dodge Imperial NPCs from the bases cities placed inside the cities that shot him on site, but NOW the new Player City Police and militia were out for him too! It was so bad, there were volunteers to stand guard in EVERY city to watch for him and SHOOT HIM! He couldn't set foot into a town without getting shot at.

However, instead of deleting his char or moving to another server, Rebel Guy Stucca was smart. He utilized chinks in the city armor: He used the NPC cities to shuttle himself about, and when traveling on swoop he stuck to POIs, Jedi Shrines, and the gaps between cities to get where he needed to go.

Yeah, try as they might, Rebel Guy Stucca wasn't going anywhere...

Is *that* the concern, that a player would be *that* limited?

Granted, that's *possible*, so it needs to be addressed. I don’t think it’s that much of a burden (course, I’m grinding a Jedi, so maybe my view of travel is biased), but some players conceivably might if the idea that access to a player city was an entitlement entered the thought process…

IMHO, however, if one person so alienates an entire server in some fashion, and said person dislikes the treatment, I think that person should either learn the MULTIPLAYER aspect of MMORPG, or probably leave the sever/game or just learn to deal with it.

Or is this where the good/bad choices come in? That the mayors of every city of every planet would get together and single someone out? Or, in the alternative, that ENOUGH (maybe 5-6) would do it in one place and make people fight their way through to some POI/hotspot just inside the circle of blockign cities?

check the cities around the krayt graveyard for examples of why this would not work.

I really did not want to get in to the nuts and bolts of your proposal which does address alot of the possible pitfalls but unfortunately relies on a great number of changes in code, and probably existing cities as well, to add a function that I don't believe adds that much to the game. personal opinion there, we can agree to disagree.

"Good choices" is a termI hear too often as a school behavioral professional to rememeber it is not a common term. It baically means that a subject chooses to do the right thing and not engage in destructive or malicious behaviors. You can take that to mean not griefing and making reasonable and considerate decisions when placing and operating there cities.

The "travel routes"I mentioned generally apply to cities near existing NPCs cities. I densely developed city can be prohibitive to travel around very large cities or POIs. Having to go completely around a city to prevent possible abuse of city powers would be annoying. Yes, you would limit how close cities can be built but, some exist and would need to be uprooted to comply or else most citeis would be grandfathered in and nullify aspects of your plan.

The beauty of exploits and abusesis that they usually weren't forseen or thought that they would occur very rarily. While you have thought of alot, I'll bet the Devs did too. My original post was a general warning to any feature that would give any player the ability to interrupt another players game play.

I didn't say your idea specifically could not work, it is well thought out, but, again, it relies on alot coding,could require uprooting current cities to enable some of its safeguards and in the end it strikes me as being not worth the changes and possible exploits that my gut tells me are still possible in it.

My answer to policing the griefing cities would be more/better CSRs than player based judgement.

SakeO

---

SakeO wrote:

I really did not want to get in to the nuts and bolts of your proposal which does address alot of the possible pitfalls but unfortunately relies on a great number of changes in code, and probably existing cities as well, to add a function that I don't believe adds that much to the game. personal opinion there, we can agree to disagree.

"Good choices" is a termI hear too often as a school behavioral professional to rememeber it is not a common term. It baically means that a subject chooses to do the right thing and not engage in destructive or malicious behaviors. You can take that to mean not griefing and making reasonable and considerate decisions when placing and operating there cities.

The "travel routes"I mentioned generally apply to cities near existing NPCs cities. I densely developed city can be prohibitive to travel around very large cities or POIs. Having to go completely around a city to prevent possible abuse of city powers would be annoying. Yes, you would limit how close cities can be built but, some exist and would need to be uprooted to comply or else most citeis would be grandfathered in and nullify aspects of your plan.

The beauty of exploits and abusesis that they usually weren't forseen or thought that they would occur very rarily. While you have thought of alot, I'll bet the Devs did too. My original post was a general warning to any feature that would give any player the ability to interrupt another players game play.

I didn't say your idea specifically could not work, it is well thought out, but, again, it relies on alot coding,could require uprooting current cities to enable some of its safeguards and in the end it strikes me as being not worth the changes and possible exploits that my gut tells me are still possible in it.

My answer to policing the griefing cities would be more/better CSRs than player based judgement.

SakeO

---

That statement has a very broad scope and can easily be a double-edged sword. It's really something that is VERY difficult to allow for. A BH going after jedi could fall into this category. Someone who wants to roleplay a particularly distasteful character could easily be justified in being a nuisance because that's his play style.
The point is, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. At some point, people need to be able to take steps to protect their own interests. With the new GCW changes, there will no longer be a group TEF. Yet, there is a possibility that several BHs could attack one padawan simultaneously with no help possible from friends. So, there will be no way for players to protect their interests in their cities. Keep in mind, it is THEIR city. No one is forced to go there. There's so much worry about people getting rampantly banned. Word will generally get out when things like this happen if it's un called for. So, people will stop going there, crafters won't put any vendors there. People will start moving out if some people are turning it into a real ghost town.
Now I'm starting to ramble. Basically, my view is that some type of city warn needs to come back. Cities will remain little more than a collection of storage buildings until players feel that they have some sort of control over their cities. With the GCW changes, NPC cities will become more populated again and player cities will be even more dead. Most people will get more of a feeling of ownership and pride if they have the ability to keep out people they don't want.
If you keep worrying so much about the extremes, then the majority of players will continue to be denied features simply because of the potential for the extremists to misuse it. If CSRs in this game were worth anything, then it would be possible to put in features like citywarn. The people who abouse it and grief would be banned, and the majority would benefit from the features.
Instead, what we have is a situation where NO ONE gets the features because a few people can't play nice.