Politician Archive
Thread: A solution to growth griefing...
Okay, with the new cap there's now going to be problems with growth griefings...people setting down a lot of houses around a city and waiting for it to grow, so that they can go in and take over.
Here's an easy solution...
Allow a mayor to destroy player structures that he/she or any previous mayor did NOT /grantzoningrights to. I'm sure this can be tracked and passed down for each new mayor. This would allow a mayor to go through and destroy structures that weren't intended to be in the city...ie...griefers.
Since there is a cap, there is no longer an issue with people just setting down player cities anywhere, so...seems reasonable, correct? Not much room for abuse.
Please /sign if you agree. 
Or post and tell me why it's a BAD idea. 
--Siddalee
I agree with this being a bad choice.
My suggestion would be any house that is placed before being brought into the city, to simply not count for terms of voting or citizen count.
Something like, your house undeclares the moment it is in the city radius (no longer voting rights), and it will not let you declare it your residence untill you re-deed it and replace.
That would solve all griefing issues, just probably hard to implement
Aynianu wrote:
I agree with this being a bad choice.
My suggestion would be any house that is placed before being brought into the city, to simply not count for terms of voting or citizen count.
Something like, your house undeclares the moment it is in the city radius (no longer voting rights), and it will not let you declare it your residence untill you re-deed it and replace.
That would solve all griefing issues, just probably hard to implement
I LIKE this suggestion, since when they pull up the deed they wouldn't be able to put it down again without you granting them zoning rights. That is a sweet and simple solution. And I don't think it would be that hard to impliment, all the system would have to do is a check of all new houses in the city radius when the city grows, and flag them as in the city but undeclarable until redeeded. Or you can give the mayor power to override that flag if they wish, so they won't be forced to redeed.
The testing would be a pain, but I think it's very possible to do.
Hmmm... Am I the only person that thinks people *should* be able to take over your city in this manner? It seems to me that if they setup homes outside of your city limits, and then you impede on their land (that is what you are doing when your city expands 
) they should have every bit asmuch rights as the people in the city.
A city is a dynamic thing, just because you are currently in control of everything having to do with the city, doesn't mean you should always be in control of it.
Now, I do think that it would be a good idea for you to be able to decide whether to expand your city or not (ie.. "you've qualified for level 3 city, do you wish to expand?")....
You get my vote hypoxia.
Griefing is entirely the wrong word. The word people should use is democracy.
The solution is obvious, and on this forum it should be greatly so. The solution is diplomacy. If people were to talk to those moving into their cities, arrangements could be made whereby both groups get a reasonable resolution.
Make friends and influence people. That's politics right?
Then you haven't been reading what people have been saying on this board.
It's not about wanting to push people out, it's about not giving them the ability to take away from you and your guild what you worked hard to put togther. Tell me what PA is just going to sit there and let another group of people become a part of their city knowing that they're there only to vote one of their own mayor and take what you paid for?
Don't give me the "Oh well that's the nature of the game" excuse. That's lame. Probably 99% of the PA's on all servers setting up a city are looking to keep control of it in their own group. And there's nothing wrong with that. They're not looking to play politics. They're looking to make a place they can call their own. And yes, THEIR OWN, their city, because they built it and maintained it.
Eseeg wrote:Then you haven't been reading what people have been saying on this board.
It's not about wanting to push people out, it's about not giving them the ability to take away from you and your guild what you worked hard to put togther. Tell me what PA is just going to sit there and let another group of people become a part of their city knowing that they're there only to vote one of their own mayor and take what you paid for?
Don't give me the "Oh well that's the nature of the game" excuse. That's lame. Probably 99% of the PA's on all servers setting up a city are looking to keep control of it in their own group. And there's nothing wrong with that. They're not looking to play politics. They're looking to make a place they can call their own. And yes, THEIR OWN, their city, because they built it and maintained it.
What's the point of the city system them? You said it yourself; they're not there to play "politics" but to have their own city.
Is it jsut me or do most people see this system as a way to lock out people as opposed to taking people in and expanding and creating a metropolis?
--ddtd
People have always had the ability to place houses pretty much wherever they wanted. Sometimes it was griefing, sometimes not. Given that there will be a limited number of cities at the beginning, I think it is very reasonable for people to camp the 450m limit. Demand for city membership > supply.
Think of player cities as simply a guaranteed exclusion zone of 450m. This is better than what exists today for players who have built up inhabited areas. The cost of this zone is the price of atown hall (and the in-game work involved to get it and place it in time). If the exclusion zone is worth the price, take it. If not, just continue to build your city as you normally would. With luck, you will be able to build out without too much problem. If you gain a reputation as a cool city, griefers won't be the only ones who want to be citizens. You may not be the first to have a shuttleport, but the extra effort you concentrate on designinga cool town center may pay off.
ultraddtd wrote:
Eseeg wrote:
Then you haven't been reading what people have been saying on this board.
It's not about wanting to push people out, it's about not giving them the ability to take away from you and your guild what you worked hard to put togther. Tell me what PA is just going to sit there and let another group of people become a part of their city knowing that they're there only to vote one of their own mayor and take what you paid for?
Don't give me the "Oh well that's the nature of the game" excuse. That's lame. Probably 99% of the PA's on all servers setting up a city are looking to keep control of it in their own group. And there's nothing wrong with that. They're not looking to play politics. They're looking to make a place they can call their own. And yes, THEIR OWN, their city, because they built it and maintained it.
What's the point of the city system them? You said it yourself; they're not there to play "politics" but to have their own city.
Is it jsut me or do most people see this system as a way to lock out people as opposed to taking people in and expanding and creating a metropolis?
--ddtd
It's not a matter of locking people out. We will welcome anyone into the city who wants to live there, they just have to understand that since it's OUR PA who put up the city, then OUR PA will be the ones running things. That's our biggest concern. We had a meeting and agreed that only members of the PA should be able to run for mayor and be in the militia. That's what we want the control for.
As has been said countless times, we don't want a bunch a 1337 k1ddi3z coming around and deciding they're going to set up just outside our zone of control then try to get one of their own into the mayor's office and take what we worked for, and then see it destroyed becuase one way or another because they bring the city down. That's not politics, that's griefing, or theft if you want a better term for it.
why is it everyone thinks they own a city? the devs stated that these cities are not supposed to be private right now..... private cities would come later on. If you want a PA owned city, wait til they make the ability to have a private city available.
A city is not privately owned in this game... its not intended to be (although they've included some tools to make it that way already). If the city expands and my house is sitting where you expanded I'm forced to pay property taxes or move... you don't want me and my group of friends coming in and taking over your city? I don't want you to be able to charge me taxes or make me move. No one should have the right to destroy my house.
don't want some group of griefers to take over? don't build where they will want to be or don't build a hall to begin with right now. A big part of the fun of cities will be the politics involved amongst a wide variety of people... these aren't supposed to be PA expansions. The number of griefers out there will be far less than people speak of to begin with but everyone is looking at the extreme possibilities and trying to keep them from happening.
Oh, and by the way, Eseeg, your guild decided you would only let guild members run for mayor? but you'll let others move into the city? Once they're in, if they decide to run for mayor, how will you stop them? If myself and a bunch of friends move into town and we're all good people but I decide i'd like to be a mayor, how are you planning on stopping me? Or should the devs include the ability to block people from running for mayor unless approved by the current mayor?
Oh, and let me ask you this, when a republican is elected into an office that has been democrat held for 100 years, is he stealing the city hall there? and the mayors residence? and the fire dept? and the police dept?
Theft is not the right word here.
Ropock wrote:
why is it everyone thinks they own a city? Theft is not the right word here.
Exactly, the second you drop city hall, it becomes public property. Politics is about managing disagreeing and often times rival groups.
City halls have no doors for a reason (maybe I'm a bit symbolic here). They can't break down the door if you open it.