Politician Archive
Thread: Updated Proposal for Cities and the GCW
Message Edited by hajihill on 04-26-2004 05:55 AM
http://tempestccv.tripod.com/ccvdantooine/id16.html
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Politician&message.id=32097
Not everything that is involved in the GCW if faction basedd. In real life, you have ppl who dont want to be involved in war, just as in the game. And there is so much that can be done to improve cities ... why do you ask us only to list stuff that has to do with factions? By what you are saying, there will be absolutely no change in my city whatsoever, becasue we are a mixed player city. And if you are only pushing for changes that revolve around factions, then we get screwed ... AGAIN. Did the devs say "we are only fixing things that have to do with the GCW ... so make a wish list for us and we will see what we can do" ... or did they say that they wanted us to compile a list of things we wanted to see changed in PC's?
If EVERYTHING in this game has to revolve around the war ... what is the point? That isnt how it works in real life. Most ppl in war just go about their lives until the war comes to them ... they dont go out looking for it!!! So why should everything in the game be GCW based?
Well, anyway, some of my ideas are listed in the above two links. If the devs are interested in makeing PC's a real part of this game, maybe they should take a look.
HEY DEVS ... OPEN YOUR EYES AND PAY ATTENTION ... ITS NOT ALL ABOUT THE WAR!!!
I pretty much agree with everything listed above... We need incentives for people to declare thier city for a faction though.... Currently there are some incentives but they are all war related (getting more factional stuff within the city). I would think an enticement for those who plan on remaining neutral to declare would be in order so we could expand the GCW a bit more (70% of the player base is still neutral, what do we have to do to get them to HAPPILY partake and choose a side?)
JEST3R
Thanks Vortexala for taking care of the sticky thread thing.
Hajihill, it's great to see you stepping up to carry on the project here, I applaud you for your effort. Keep it up.
I have an idea that would probably take a good deal more effort on the dev's part but would make us, and the architects happy. In accordance with the stratifying of militia (allowing people to be at different powers/ranks ie being able to warn and ban people) we get a new structure called Barracks. (not locked down so it could be anything, station house, twisted monkey den, anything)It is not necessary for the militia but makes things a lot easier (better then the city hall terminal, more options)and have a bit of a RP flair.
It would essentially be a building, that I"ll describe later, that works the same way as a PA hall does for a clan. You use the terminal and you can add new members/kick people, set the different powers and even titles of your militia. It will also allow the mayor to give power over the militia to someone else as well as keep their power. So a well known guild leader or combatant in your town canbe the militia leader and have as much power as the mayor. (in regards to only the militia of course) However, he is removable by the mayor at anytime, meanwhile the mayor has to be voted out which is a good deal harder.
Now for what I envision the Barracks to look like:
Large open door ala cantina or PA hall, if they want to keep the stupid "load hallway" then have that the same as either a cantina or PA hall. It would open into a large room about the size of a cantina. At the 2/3rds mark of the room heading away from the entrance there will be steps going down into a main pit (again similiar to a cantina or PA). In the pit at the far wall there will be a raised podium or dais, and behind that a terminal for militia control. 2 doors will exist on the back wall either in the center and hidden to an extent by the dais or at the edges. The door on the left will lead to amedium corellian sized room (the U shaped house) that is empty except for a door at the back which would lead to the outside (give it a hallway if needed again) allowing for militia-men to not get bottlenecked in the event of an attack. The door on the right would lead to another room about the size of a medium corellian room, maybe a tad bigger in size, that is a row of 3 cells along the wallwith a hallway leading straight from the door to the back.
Just an idea, but it will give the archs a new building, us easier control over the militia and with a more noticeable area of control over them, and a roleplay atmosphere since you can dress this place up like a jail, a station house, etc. if you want to. I don't know what skill level or city size this should be made available at though, since it is not necessary for the militia just the extra couple of powers we should get.
Thank you Bajeezus, I will do my best. And, thanks to you Vortexala, for stickying this tread for us.
To respond to JEST3R's comment, I would like to point out a thread actually from the GCW forums: The GCW Economy and Strategic Interests
In this thread Fidgiter discusses a proposal to allow for factional items to be player craftable as such:
Fidgiter wrote:
- Bases - Architect
- Turrets - Architect & Weaponsmith
- Shield Generators - Armorsmith
- Uniforms - Tailor & BE
- Weapons - Weaponsmith
- Armor - Armorsmith
- Medical Supplies - Medic & BE
- Factional Complex - Politician
- Furniture - Architect
As with all player craftable items these would have the potential of being higher quality than those currently available through FP expendtiture. Additionally, in reference to how to sell these items....
Fidgiter wrote:
Aquisition & Distribution
A new factional complex called a Supply Depot would be required to facilitate the dispersal of player made factional items. The Supply Depot would be crafted by a Master Architect and placed and operated by a Master Merchant. Within the Supply Depot there would be Quarter Master's who would facilitate the purchase and sale of factional items & deeds.
A crafter purchases the deed using FP then stocks the item on the quarter master. The quarter master would derive an FP price for that product based on the % of the potential quality of that item. When the item is "purchased" using FP there is an FP reward to the crafter who stocked it.
I really like the suggestion of the Supply Depot, and that it be placed and maintained by Merchants. This effectively draws one more profession into an active standing in the GCW, and creates another GCW oriented structurefor placement in cities. The addition of a city rank requirement, on the order of 2 or 3, would allow for this to be something attainable and city oriented. However, the discussion of payment in this quote leaves me uncertain... JEST3R has commented that more FP sinks are needed, in order to increase their worth. A FP economy would take less FP's out of the system, however transition between FP's and credits is a difficult task. I would suggest that credits simply be utilized after the item has been crafted, and (to address the issue of smuggler discounts) that smuggler's get a credit discount equivalent to their FP discount at no creditloss to the merchant in question.
One question, would a Merchant who maintains a Supply Depot be required to remain overt?
Fidgiter wrote:
Manufacturing
The first step in manufacturing factional items would be for the crafter to go overt and purchase a deed (Using FP). As long as that factional deed and schematic exist, that crafter must remain overt, online and would suffer from a TEF (To prevent them from hiding inside a private structure). The factory(s) used in the production would also gain a TEF and be targetable as long as they are manufacturing the item.
This introduces a GCW and PvP risk towards the production of factional items. The crafter would require the support and defense of the combatants through this process and there would be a stratetic interest in the enemy to try and disrupt the production cycle. In this way a new aspect of the GCW would be created with Industry having a role.
--------------------
Mayor Feliz Gizmacher
Finally, I think this manufacturing step adds still more to this concept. This would require more involvement in the GCW, as crafters and artisans would now require bodyguards when transporting factional assets, and would be suceptible to ambush in the process. I am not sure I agree with the idea of factories now being targetable however, and think that smugglers could here be employed to carry this merchandise without a TEF or overt status. This would also get smuggler's involved and would address another concern of the author of this proposal.
Also worthy of mention is a post made by Warlock_The_Darkone where he says, "Remember that once the SE comes out some crafters are going to do this anyway... the Tie's and X-wings ect... so this would help out alot... "
Possible change to Original Proposal:
Changes:
9. Allow for appropriate crafters to make Faction items based upon schematics attained from appropriate faction recruiters.
10. Require that artisans, and persons holding factional schematics and GCW related itmes (bases, turrets, uniforms, armor, etc) be TEF'd or overt while carrying those items (unless they are a smuggler).
Additions:
6. Include a Supply Depot, placable by a Merchantin player run cities, to allow for the sale and distribution of player crafted, faction aligned goods.
7. Preserve smugglers FP discount with player craftable faction items, at no loss to involved merchants.
I think theseadditions will not only set the stage nicely for the addition of the SE, but would also provide a serious draw for cities that had only considered joining the GCW before now.
JEST3R what do you think?
Look, I don't want to sound difficult or insinuate that I am ungrateful to Hajihill for taking this initiative, but the fact of the matter remains, Hajihill is NOT OUR CORRESPONDENT.
I find it preposterous that he starts a thread, that for all intent and purposes sounds like this is an 'official request' from our 'correspondent' or other SOE representative.
Having said that, I'm at a loss as to your references and assumptions. Any new politician to these forums who has not been here from day one, won't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
hajihill wrote:
Alright Politicians and GCW enthusiasts everywhere,
We’ve been called upon to complete a task. We need to formulate a proposal to the devs for the city focused portion of ‘Galactic Civil War - Publish 11’.
Can someone please point me to any official thread that makes this requests from us? I see NO LINK, to any request from anyone official from SOE.
Taking from the previous GCW related thread, we’ve gotten a lot of feedback from those among our number, and feedback from JEST3R relating to what seems doable and desirable from a purely GCW standpoint.
Where are the links to this "previous GCW related thread"? What feedback summaries are we to review or compare? Where is this so called feedback from JEST3R?
What we need to do is synthesize all of this information into an agreeable and workable document. To this end only suggestions that have been agreed upon by both the GCW correspondent (JEST3R), and this group have been included in this version... Any additions will need JEST3R's approval and a general idea consensus among those of us participating in this forum. Publish 11 is to be GCW focused, and so our requests must be GCW focused too.
Can we please take a step back here? How is it that OUR feedback as politicians must be APPROVED by the GCW correspondent before it is even presented? WHY will any additions need JEST3R'S approval?
INTENT:
Outline changes and additions to the city system, in order to better augment their role in the GCW.
CHANGES:
1. Allow for restriction of the use of city services (e.g. shuttleport, cloning center) based upon factional alignment.
This opens up a can of worms for anyone who has the power to administer this to grieve other players of opposing factions. What of the cities that are neutral? the cities whose economic health depends on a trade between those of all factions? What of the income from a shuttleport that will be lost whencollection of funds is restricted to faction specific players? Isn't there a more viable alternative to restricting use of city facilities byfaction aligned playersby pinpointing or reducinga broad sweep of this to ALL those of one particular faction alignment?
2. Allow for factional cities to show up as such on the world map and the travel map (so travelers know before they touchdown on landmines and such).
How necessary is this? Don't players already KNOW or can deduce through the use of the planetary map what faction a city enjoys? Why must exploration of the unknown be reduced even further in this game? Why are we trying to take away all risk factors from an explorer?
3. Increase crackdown frequencies by a great deal, and have them occur in player cities also.
This sounds like a GCW correspondent request, not a Politician's request. If you want to place the emphasis on Player Cities, then you must devise an incentive for crackdowns to occur in the City, based onthe citizensmanaged or controlled situations and or behaviors. Player cities are controlled by players, and as such the consequences of their actions must remain in their hands.
4. Allow for certain city specializations (i.e. ‘Stronghold’) to affect/decrease the frequency of scans.
Maybe... but this line item belongs with Item #3; it is not a separate issue.
5. Allow the grant Zoning rights, and the militia to be separated.
Separated how and based on what criteria? Who then would zoning rights be granted to? Who grants these rights? This needs to be more explicit.
6. Allow ‘Stronghold’ specialization give bonus to overt members of the appropriate faction when within the city limits of a faction aligned city (not just militia).
This idea is not a bad one; however, there seems to be a balance issue here. Perhaps granting the bonus to only those who are citizens of the faction aligned city would be more appropiate and fair.
7. Decrease footprints of factional structures (minefields, scanners, and bases) in order to promote placement in cities.
The footprints of minefields and bases are fine. Cities who wish to place these faction aligned structures should take into account the land needed to place these structures. This is part of the challenge in building a faction aligned city. I do agree however, that scanners have a disproportionate amount of footprint on the land.
8. Return high-level faction missions from beta (like Detachment HQ) and allow these missions to be acquired only in faction aligned cities at the appropriate terminal.
Could you elaborate on this?
ADDITIONS:
1. Allow placement of factional banners, decorations and structures in declared cities.
You first need to address the cap of ALL decorations in cities; having the ability to place faction aligned decorations need to be factored into the existing caps. If the caps are not raised, then these decorations are not perks -- they are merely more decorations to choose from, or more precisely -- added art.
2. Allow for FP taxes to citizens, and allow for a certain portion of factional structures FP upkeep be paid from this city fund.
I am lost on this one. What is FP taxes?
3. Allow NPC faction patrols to be purchased, and upkeep paid for by the city out of city FP and treasury funds.
Under what conditions must a city meet to enable the purchasing of NPC faction patrols? Who purchases these? The mayor? The Miltia? If cities are struggling now to meet their weekly maintenance, how do you increase the income of the city to meet the maintenance of NPC faction patrols?
4. Allow for faction aligned cities to be reset to neutral for a set period of time during a raid, thereby losing factional perks.
This does not compute. To program this, you must enable a trigger for an event like this to happen. How does the city know it is being raided? When a base is under attack? When opposing factions attack a citizen? What if they attack an opposing faction who is not a citizen? Wouldn't this set up a great condition for exploiting -- similar to when corpses could reset a base? What 'faction perks' would be lost? Do they even exisit?
5. Allow for Faction aligned cities to appear as missions that may only be acquired from opposed faction aligned city terminals.
You lost me on this one as well. Are you suggesting that a city can be aquired through a mission? Or are you suggesting that you could receive a faction aligned mission to be performed in a player city?
Once more, I reiterate... while I respect your efforts to walk in our correspondent's shoes, Hajihill you have not been named by SOE as our correspondent. Until such time, threads like these are an effort in futility... or at the very best, an exercise in 'what if' scenerarios.
To respond to Sacred Nemesis:
The link to the request is here: 19 Answers
Thunderheart wrote:
Politician: To what degree do the devs want to involve cities in the factions and the GCW? Surface stuff like placement of Rebel and Imperial Banners, slightly more involvement might be on the level of allowing faction cities to pool faction points for citizens, or complete integration with the GCW including possibly attackable city facilities and substantial motivation for players to want to declare their cities to one faction or the other??
We want to involve cities in the GCW a great deal. There is a lot of opportunity, but it’s a challenging task with a lot of details to consider. To accomplish this, I’ve been working with the Politician Correspondent, Bajeezus on putting together a list of player proposals to work with the devs on. Since Baj is stepping down to turn his attention to his family and lil’ Baj that’s being delivered by the stork soon, it is a key issue that I’ll be looking for in the new correspondent.
And now for your questions:
And regarding all of the other questions you have posed I would ask that you return to the first link in this thread (linked again here)and reference it for a complete discussion of each of these points. I refrained from including thisverbatum in this thread this was intended to be a concise version of the same, and not to simply repeat what is written elsewhere.
SacredNemesis wrote:
Where are the links to this "previous GCW related thread"? What feedback summaries are we to review or compare? Where is this so called feedback from JEST3R?
Hajihill's response:
The link you are requesting is up front and center in the first post of this thread... however I will copy it from there for you.... "previous GCW related thread"
Can we please take a step back here? How is it that OUR feedback as politicians must be APPROVED by the GCW correspondent before it is even presented? WHY will any additions need JEST3R'S approval?
Hajihill's response:
What we are addressing here is Publish 11, this is a GCW focused publish, not a politician or city focused publish. For us to be successful in having our requests heard I think it is safe to assume that we should work with the GCW correspondent, JEST3R, as closely as possible.
hajihill wrote:
To respond to Sacred Nemesis:
The link to the request is here: 19 Answers
Thunderheart wrote:
To accomplish this, I’ve been working with the Politician Correspondent, Bajeezus on putting together a list of player proposals to work with the devs on. Since Baj is stepping down to turn his attention to his family and lil’ Baj that’s being delivered by the stork soon, it is a key issue that I’ll be looking for in the new correspondent.
It appears that you have not been named as the official correspondent. So I repeat, by what authority do you take it upon yourself to start this thread and expect any feedback to be taken seriously by the developers or TH? Or has this thread been started by you as 'evidence' of your participation in a key issue that TH is looking for?
See, my point is this. If you do not wear the Corrospondent's Tag under your name in these forums, much of your effort will be regarded by the player community as alot of propaganda for your own political aspirations in these forums.
Once more, I can appreciate your effort. I just don't abide by your assumption that the community as a whole will accept your self-ordained position.
TH, where are you in your selection process? Have you made any progress? and when will Baj be 'officially' stepping down?
I've read the proposal by Baj... thanks for pointing it out to me (I was offline since 3/31 and only recently returned this past week).
However, it seems to me, that the original thread posted by Baj needed no summaries or edits by you (Haj) or anyone else for that matter. This thread only serves to add confusion and a rehash of the comments already started in Baj's thread.
Message Edited by SacredNemesis on 04-26-2004 06:19 PM