Development Cycle Archive
Thread: IT 6-1: Player City Items
LobKathos
Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:15 pm
#14
TH Wrote:
Player city clone facilities are no longer considered for "respawn closest". Only static NPC clone facilities are now considered "respawn” closest". Players can still clone at a civic clone facility if they have stored their clone information there
>>>What will the default option be? Theres a big problem currently now where the default option is 'closest' even if you have a stored clone that is closer. I'd suggest the default should always be your stored clone ( if you have one on planet ), and you can bail to the 'closest' option if you want to clone back to the city. Might make sense to change to text to indicate 'closest city' too.
Player city clone facilities are no longer considered for "respawn closest". Only static NPC clone facilities are now considered "respawn” closest". Players can still clone at a civic clone facility if they have stored their clone information there
>>>What will the default option be? Theres a big problem currently now where the default option is 'closest' even if you have a stored clone that is closer. I'd suggest the default should always be your stored clone ( if you have one on planet ), and you can bail to the 'closest' option if you want to clone back to the city. Might make sense to change to text to indicate 'closest city' too.
R2DADROID
Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:40 pm
#15
I suggested earlier that we should have a choice to:
- Clone at the nearest static NPC city cloning facility
- Clone at the nearest player city cloning facility: (Player City Name Goes Here)
- Clone where you last stored your clone information, if its on the same planet.
LeBob
Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:57 pm
#16
from the Test Center Patch Notes
______________________________________________________________________
Player Cities
Player city clone facilities are no longer considered for "respawn closest". Only static NPC clone facilities are now considered "respawn closest". Players can still clone at a civic clone facility if they have stored their clone information there.
There is now an option on the city management terminal that allows you to revoke your citizenship at any time.
Citizens will now be removed from a city if they haven't been online for about 3 weeks.
Players will now get a popup when they are city warned, incase they miss the message behind other windows.
Fixed an issue with mayors getting 100 points of xp less than they should have on city updates.
You can no longer deploy a camp in a player city.
_____________________________________________________________________
I have two problems with these, they are in red... I will address the minor one first.
______________________________________________________________________
Player Cities
Player city clone facilities are no longer considered for "respawn closest". Only static NPC clone facilities are now considered "respawn closest". Players can still clone at a civic clone facility if they have stored their clone information there.
There is now an option on the city management terminal that allows you to revoke your citizenship at any time.
Citizens will now be removed from a city if they haven't been online for about 3 weeks.
Players will now get a popup when they are city warned, incase they miss the message behind other windows.
Fixed an issue with mayors getting 100 points of xp less than they should have on city updates.
You can no longer deploy a camp in a player city.
_____________________________________________________________________
I have two problems with these, they are in red... I will address the minor one first.
Was /citywarn not taken out of the game?
Should this say "Players will now get a popup when they are city banned, incase they miss the message behind other windows." ? or is /citywarn being added back into the game?
Should this say "Players will now get a popup when they are city banned, incase they miss the message behind other windows." ? or is /citywarn being added back into the game?
Now for the major issuse...
"Citizens will now be removed from a city if they haven't been online for about 3 weeks."
"Citizens will now be removed from a city if they haven't been online for about 3 weeks."
The results of this could be catastrophic... without the ability to remove houses, a city will be helpless if many of its residents are 'removed'... if a large number of citizens are 'removed' (I'll assume this means only that their citizenship has been revoked) then the city will have no place to move in new citizens as the old citizens still have their houses up and taking up much space... please do not push this code live in this publish... please let the community have some time to digest the implications of this change and give us some time to talk about it... I'm sure the community and the DEVs can come to some reasonable compromise.
thanks
Kaffis
Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:53 pm
#17
So when can we expect an option for a mayor to revoke the citizenship of a person denied zoning rights who became a citizen by placing their residence outside the city, after the city's creation, and waiting for the city to grow to swallow it?
What's the point of zoning rights at all if you can bypass them, and CSRs won't do anything?
Is it the devs intent to make hijacking cities through the use of swarms of collaborators the next griefing trend?
If the devs condone it, then I'll stop bristling at the prospect, and quit a game where the creators encourage griefing. If they don't intend it, they need to do one of two things: 1. let mayors revoke citizenship of any citizen (not my choice -- legitimate voting out of mayors-turned-tyrant and apathetic, ineffectual mayors by the rightful citizens of the city would become impossible if the mayor had a clue what was going on) at any time, or 2. run a check when the city radius expands on buildings newly inside the radius, to see how long they've been there. If the building is younger than the city, put the resident on an "approval list" which the mayor then can review and manually grant citizenship to the residents he/she wants to admit, giving the same control over *intentionally* grandfathered citizenship that the mayor already exerts over new citizenship within the current city limits. The second option doesn't allow mayors to place a city and kick long-standing residents out -- buildings older than the city would be grandfathered just as they are now.
Unfortunately, my decision on what to do if my (and JEST3R's) attempts to get some developer response to the official stance on this issue continues to go ignored is not clear cut. I'll keep trying to bring it to light for a while, but eventually, continued neglect can only be taken to mean the intentional denial of support.
What's the point of zoning rights at all if you can bypass them, and CSRs won't do anything?
Is it the devs intent to make hijacking cities through the use of swarms of collaborators the next griefing trend?
If the devs condone it, then I'll stop bristling at the prospect, and quit a game where the creators encourage griefing. If they don't intend it, they need to do one of two things: 1. let mayors revoke citizenship of any citizen (not my choice -- legitimate voting out of mayors-turned-tyrant and apathetic, ineffectual mayors by the rightful citizens of the city would become impossible if the mayor had a clue what was going on) at any time, or 2. run a check when the city radius expands on buildings newly inside the radius, to see how long they've been there. If the building is younger than the city, put the resident on an "approval list" which the mayor then can review and manually grant citizenship to the residents he/she wants to admit, giving the same control over *intentionally* grandfathered citizenship that the mayor already exerts over new citizenship within the current city limits. The second option doesn't allow mayors to place a city and kick long-standing residents out -- buildings older than the city would be grandfathered just as they are now.
Unfortunately, my decision on what to do if my (and JEST3R's) attempts to get some developer response to the official stance on this issue continues to go ignored is not clear cut. I'll keep trying to bring it to light for a while, but eventually, continued neglect can only be taken to mean the intentional denial of support.
PsychoticChipmunk
Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:58 pm
#18
I'm unable to test most of these thanks to my current city rank. Land restriction is making it incredibly hard to get to rank 2 but we'll make it, even if I have to bribe every merchant on the server.
However I would wish to ask you, Thunderheart,two question regarding actual player city items. Are you going to increase the number of decorations a city is able to hold or do something to allow us to place more streetlamps? It seems that the numbers are far too limiting if you wanted to haveseveral actually well lit streets. Are you guys working, or planning on working on, adding walls, archways, stairs, bridges, and pavement/streets to cities as some form of civic structure/decor? Well thanks.
Oh and since it wasn't mentioned what about our master lvl skills? Are they going to be fixed in this next publish?
Sutarion
Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:02 am
#19
Let's get on topic:
In regard to the 100 less xp,
I believe that this was fixed in an earlier hotfix/publish. This may well be a repeat patch note. One bug squashed!
In regard to starports in player cities,
It's been mentioned that this will most likely not happen, however, in the future, there may be ways to make transportation easier. (Basically, ways to prevent the "missed the shuttle" between layovers)
Sutarion
d0qtrX
Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:02 am
#20
rockmusicnerd wrote:
Anyone with a name like "2l3374u" should not be on here making fun of ANYONE, let alone the developers of this fine game.
It's hard to imagine "fine" being a good adjective to use when describing this "game."
mzf5c5
Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:03 am
#21
I know one we could use big time....Since living on Dantooine. Player cities garages!!! Yes, very, very much needed.
Thanks TH
Sutarion
Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:07 am
#22
Player garages will be added, however, we do not know when. They will likely be here in publish 7 or 8.
However, please be sure to read the post before replying. This thread is not so much a wishlist as it is a place to confirm that certain bugs pertaining to Player Cities have indeed beenfixed.
Sutarion
ThorsAnvil
Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:07 am
#23
There is an old saying, that there is many way's to skin a cat.
This Holds true in Software, as a Software tester I constantly have developers ask my Why would I do it that way.
Some people just think differently, so the developers are asking people to try it, they may have missed something that others didnt see.
The simplest example is when you sit, do you use the Radial, command or the action button? or mix and match.
hasibert
Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:14 am
#24
only a little stupid question
:
:Why ist it "IT 6-1" and not "IT 1-1" ??
krais99
Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:18 am
#25
Can we please start a discussion on the issue of players who are inactive after a few weeks getting their citizenship revoked in a player city? This is a huge issue for many of us.. I'd like to know what the devs are thinking and why this change is being implemented.
ViRuSVX9
Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:18 am
#26
The inabilty to clone at a player city as closest city unless you are stored there is very frustrating. I know i forget to stor emy data in my city often and when i get kill by a kryat going back to mos Takie is not to great. I know this was done to reduce some of the PVP greifing that was being done but still it is very irritating.