Politician Archive
Thread: New TC City Changes 12-4-03
i agree canceling the militia is bad move... it is a shame that small few can ruin a nice feature for everyone else.. plus from what i have noticed most of the people crying about citywarn..(notice i said most.. not all) are the ones griefing.. in the first place and had a just reason to have /warn used on them.. but oh no they are the angels.. when they tell the story ,,,
frustrating.. you set up for something.. and it is ruined....
Oh well life goes on ..
If a person stores their data in our cloning center and they die....
Can they still clone at the nearest non-player city cloning center?
Common sense would say that they could, but I need to confirm this.....
Here is the deal on /citywarn and /ignore. /ignore remains the most powerful way of getting rid of annoying people in the city. They are looking for attention and using /citywarn plays into their game. The more attention they recieve, the more often they will come back. The use of /ignore gives them exactly what they don't want, to not be given attention and hence ignored.
/citywarn was one of those dev on crack things. I have no idea what they were thinking when they decided to put this in the game.It is clearly a tool for those that want to grief others. People that are mature can either ignore people or work with them to solve any problems. People that just want to impose themselves on others and entertain themselves at others expense will find the best use for citywarn. I am glad they finially did some head pulling out of ... well, you know, and removed this griefing tool out of the game.
Instead of a city militia, how about a city cancil for the zoning rights. We still need multiple people who can place or grant permision to place structures so those things can be done when the mayor is not around. We also need an /examine function for structures so we know who the structure belongs too so we can work with them to move things around.
This is lame! Some people can't just be ignored. Here's a hypothetical situation:
SayI have a Rebel city, for example. Some of us are overt, but most are covert. Some of the militia are nuetral though.
So we get Imps walking into town and start attacking the overt Rebs. Our militia should be able to use a warn to let them know that they will have more enemies in a minute than the few overts they found to pick on. Maybe we don't allow ANY fighting in our city, regardless of alignment.
See? /ignore doesn't prevent you from getting killed in your on town if you are invaded. But without /citywarn, the militia would all have to be factioned to prevent this sort of thing.
Um, why don't the devs try fixing some game systems (player city clone centers) BEFORE they ruin others?
Meplorium wrote:
Here is the deal on /citywarn and /ignore. /ignore remains the most powerful way of getting rid of annoying people in the city. They are looking for attention and using /citywarn plays into their game. The more attention they recieve, the more often they will come back. The use of /ignore gives them exactly what they don't want, to not be given attention and hence ignored.
/citywarn was one of those dev on crack things. I have no idea what they were thinking when they decided to put this in the game.It is clearly a tool for those that want to grief others. People that are mature can either ignore people or work with them to solve any problems. People that just want to impose themselves on others and entertain themselves at others expense will find the best use for citywarn. I am glad they finially did some head pulling out of ... well, you know, and removed this griefing tool out of the game.
Instead of a city militia, how about a city cancil for the zoning rights. We still need multiple people who can place or grant permision to place structures so those things can be done when the mayor is not around. We also need an /examine function for structures so we know who the structure belongs too so we can work with them to move things around.
That's probably one of the best reasons for getting rid of citywarn I've seen. I was also asking the question "Why did they remove it?" But then, what can these 'griefers' do but talk/shout and be annoying.
A: They can't do jack.
So if that's all they can do, ignore them and they go away. You can also still ban them from city services.
Now all they need to do is change the militia title to council and all will be good.
Philomorph wrote:
This is lame! Some people can't just be ignored. Here's a hypothetical situation:
SayI have a Rebel city, for example. Some of us are overt, but most are covert. Some of the militia are nuetral though.
So we get Imps walking into town and start attacking the overt Rebs. Our militia should be able to use a warn to let them know that they will have more enemies in a minute than the few overts they found to pick on. Maybe we don't allow ANY fighting in our city, regardless of alignment.
See? /ignore doesn't prevent you from getting killed in your on town if you are invaded. But without /citywarn, the militia would all have to be factioned to prevent this sort of thing.
What's the difference between your situation and how it was before we had cities. If people walked into Theed overt they get ganked by the opposition. That's just how the PvP game is. If your militia wants to help the overts they just need to group together and get the group TEF.
I'm not sure you need anything more, do you?
First off ToranTT are you even a mayor if not you really dont know what your talking about, in my city we have made it so we are a faction over the normal factions, this is so i can have citizens from both sides in the conflict, what if the rebels are attacking, i have all sides in my militia, neut reb and imp. plus the hole group for the TEF would not work, sometimes you need to be able to take action asap
WHAT?!
This cannot be true - so cities now lose the one and only way of actually protecting themselves from the game?
Removing this feature will now encourage people to abuse cities and very much undermines the role of the mayor and the militia. It also undermines one of the benefits of acity - we have nearly 30 newbies who made the long, hard journey across Tatooine to Darkfire because they felt SAFER there and felt that our city provided a safer environment from them to 'grow-up' in. We've used /citywarn once when an covert Imperial placed covert scanners in the city and started hassling Rebels.
As a role-playing City, the Militia have a very, very important role to play - taking this feature out makes Player Cities much less exciting, and much less relevant to the game.
Plinka - please tell them to put it back because this is a horrible, horrible mistake.
There must be some way to stop griefers without punishing the the majority of players in this way!
Thanks,
If you want to RP, that is fine. Do so all you want with duel. If they duel you back, then you have an RP fight. Just because you want to RP, doesn't mean your target does. Citywarn allows people to PvP those that do not want to PvP. That is the root problem and why it was removed from the game. Havingcitywarn out of the game does nothing to your RP. It does however remove a griefing tool.
Either you pick sides, or you are neutral. Neutrals aren't involved in the GCW, why put in a function that allows them to enter the war at will. If you want to PvP, then go declare and PvP. You can always get the group tef if need be. If a group of overts walks into your town, and no one is overt themselves, then say 'hi' or just ignore them. If you have zoning rights up, there is nothing they can do to you that /ignore doesn't solve. BTW if they are looking for a fight, and you give them one, then they know where to go next time for a fight. If you /ignore them, they get bored and walk away and most likely never return to your boring town. /Ignore is a far more powerful command than most people realize or even understand, where /citywarn can actually encourage people to grief your city by using it.
I think the problem some people have is that citywarn gave them power that had nothing to do with player cities and everything to do with making others do what they want them to do. If people come to your city and don't RP, then kill them. If they take something that doesn't belong to them, kill them. If you don't like where they had their house ever since July, kill them until they move it. All of these are not good reason to kill someone. Actually I can't think of any reason that justifies the use of this power. Just because someone is rude and kill steals doesn't mean you go ahead and kill them when they come into town. Sure I have been in a situation where killing someone seems like a good idea, however where does one draw the line from protecting city interests to personal venditias.
The basic fact is /citywarn is to powerful and it is too tempting to use it incorrectly, if people even realize there are times it shouldn't be used. It is simily a tool to getting others to do your will, be it shut up, not go afk, steal land they have had since July or control game content. Forntunetly this game belongs to everyone, not just one person, so bending people to your will is neither the goal of the game nor is itfun to be on the recieving end. With decay in place, this takes on a whole new meaning in that people can actaully force others to lose items. The "Do as I say, or I'll force you to lose your stuff" mentality is not attractive guys. You go play your game and let others play their game. If you don't like how they are playing their game, then just ignore them and move along. Find a group of friends that all want to achieve the same goals and work together to that end. Anyone else can simply be ignored.