Politician Archive
Thread: On City Takeovers, Correspondant please respond
Page 2 of 2
Deepcore
Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:26 am
#14
I have to agree that it's not an exploit just poor judgement on the half of the militia member. The set-up we have on Haven Island is to have a Militia house that is stocked with property deeds. The Militia member takes one of the deeds, places the house according to the city plans and then transfers the structure to the new resident who can then go in and declare. This obviously means that one of the requirements to be a Militia member is that you must have a minimum of two lots free.
On a side someone approached one of our militia a few days ago and asked to run an event, a swoop race. This event required him to have Zoning rights for him to set up a track. He was going to place small harvesters as markers for the race. We got one of our surveyors to check for resources and low and behold we found a vein of ore with 5 stats over 900 at 89% under our city. The request was politely declined 
Message Edited by Deepcore on 07-15-2004 09:43 AM
eman7h
Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:01 pm
#15
While I don't see it as an exploit, it IS greifing, and that is punishable by a CSR.
So I wouldn't plan on it if I were you.
Achilles467
Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:24 am
#16
eman7h wrote:
While I don't see it as an exploit, it IS greifing, and that is punishable by a CSR.
So I wouldn't plan on it if I were you.
CSRs have been consulted and they see nothing wrong.
ZorinTalis
Sun Jul 18, 2004 4:21 pm
#17
I see it as a legitimate and tactical move to take over a city. What if the planet is city-capped and someone would like to set up a city with intentions of growing it and defending it? What if the city is stagnant and isn't growing at all? What if the mayor doesn't even have zoning enabled?
Is it a dirty move? Sure it is.. but as has been stated, it is within the mechanics of the game. As mayor, it is your responsibility to prevent it from happening. Selling civic structures after the takeover or not returning property contained within the city hall would be a bit much but still not an exploit or a matter for a CSR to handle..Loss of the city hall deed may be a big bite too but hey, thems the breaks if you don't take steps to secure your city.
How about those that try to place objects in front of their voting terminals in an attempt to keep people from accessing the voting terminal. Now THAT should be considered an exploit and dealt with accordinglly.
Regards,
-=ZT
Fidgiter
Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:54 am
#18
People keep asking me to consider Stronghold and I explain that we need to have a large Militia for then so they say let's get everyone on the Militia. I then mention how a single member of the militia can undermine the entire city by a minor lapse in judgement or how a corrupt militia member can bring the city to its knees and nobody will have a clue they did it.
To answer the question: Yes, I find this to be an offensive exploit that is used to cause grief.
For the short term I think /grantzoning should permit the placement of a single structure. Once the structure is placed the Militia would need to /grantzoning again. This would prevent a lapse of judgement from resulting in the destruction of the city.
For the long term remove /grantzoning from the Militia and add a new Administrator option to the city. Give the Administrator two options. One to /grantsinglezoning as described in the short term. Another to /grantzoning which would work as it presently does. The Administrator would be appointed by the Politician.
Militia are Police. Stronghold requires Militia. /grantzoning compromises security. Militia compromise Stronghold. Stronghold is useless.
Laeren
Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:51 am
#19
I still say you guys are looking for an in-game mechanic to solvea social issue. If you can't trust your militia, then don't make that personmilitia. If you can, then let them do their jobs. Yes, you're taking a risk that one of them is going to turn on you, but that's how it always is. Just take care of your militia, don't treat them badly, and you'll find that you will eventually have a group of people that you can trust with your city and /grantzoningrights.
It's very similar to people complaining to devs to "add more content cuz I'm bored and don't know how to socialize in an MMORPG". Looking for programming solutions to player interaction....you might as well go play single-player games where you can just hit the reset button if you picked the wrong answer. Sorry, just doesn't work that way. If your militia griefs you, it's not the game's fault, it's just a social thing and any blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the players.
If you don't want to delegate power becuase of your own trust issues, then you'll just have to be a very busy mayor.
Fidgiter
Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:48 am
#20
There should never be a situation where the mistake of one militia member can cost the entire city. The most disgusting aspect of this is that NOBODY, even the Mayor, will ever know who the Militia member was nor will (s)he be able to undo the damage. The property rights of the individual outweigh the property rights of the community and the Mayor is the representative of the community and this is lame.
As far as operating the city goes my militia is lean and mean. They are more or less deputy mayors than Militia in my books. I will never use Stronghold because I feel the risk of having it is far greater than the benefit. Nobody else see's this as wrong? Shouldn't being a Stronghold ENHANCE your security?
Until SOE does somethingto empower the Mayorthis is how I'll continue to do business. It doesn't mean I have to like it and it sure as heck isn't going to stop me from beating the war drums of change so we can actually use the Stronghold Specialization and expand our militia to be an asset and not a vulnurability.
edit: note to proof before posting =>P
Message Edited by Fidgiter on 07-19-2004 10:51 AM
the_redeye_jedi
Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:48 pm
#21
People need militia to ban attacking enemies from town.
The problem is the /grantzoning ability is also given to these same people, who while they may be great fighters, don't have any idea about structure placement.
To this day I still don't understand why "militia" means "assistant city planner"
It would be a much improved system to split these abilities up. I hope the devs realize how dumb it is in it's current form.
-Zito
Fneegan
Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:35 am
#22
TWO THUMBS UP
Well said.
It would also help that the /grantzoning was applicable to ONLY ONE structure and not for 24 hours.
I quote:
http://swg.stratics.com/content/?Cat=264&uid=488
justG - We are currently concerned about mayor resignations and city turnovers, so we are looking at that soon. As to citywarn and cityban, there are some larger issues surrounding griefing with these commands that are being looked at too
http://swg.stratics.com/content/?Cat=264&uid=488
justG - We are looking at ALL lot limits, and the exploits that allow you to have access to many many many lots
justG - We are looking at ALL lot limits, and the exploits that allow you to have access to many many many lots
So, I'm guessingthat the Devs are fully aware of a number of currentexploits, problemsand issues that need to be fixed.....it's justa matter of time. I'm sure, they don't want the new influx of players coming with JTL to be affected by these same ongoingproblems.
Page 2 of 2