CUEmu - Thread Posts

KhoevenNalarDre

Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:43 am

Khristen wrote:

Player Cities are not factional entities. While Player Cities may contain factional elements, the city itself is a neutral entity. Faction bases have their own defenses that are unrelated to Player Cities.

I must make a quick note on the above statement. I have a major philosophical issue with this statement. Until such a time as the game provides another option for a large group of factioned players to build homes, place shuttles, banks, and cloners all within an area they patrol and defend, certain cities will continue to be factional in effect regardless of whatever statements such as the above are made and regardless of the source. Intentions and reality are often only distant relatives.

Now for the requested feedback...

City Defence

Militia

Militiamembers should have assigned rights similar to the way a guild manangement console allows rights to be given to guild members. Using a similar interface, the rights of CityBan, GrantZoning, CityPardon, as well as any other new rights that may be aded to militia at any point in the future, shouldeach be individualyset per miltia member. This would allow for more specialized roles played by militia personnel. Furthermore, it would allow a mayor the freedom to create a much larger and stronger militia for purposes of city protection without compremising zoning security. This would also likely make the Stronghold specialization a much widely used selection.

I also agree with the earlier post that suggests basic combat bonuses to militia within the city limits, and those bonuses then being increased for the Stronghold specialization.

City Ban

The list of those banned should be viewable at the city terminal. A new entry on the city ban list should be possible at the terminal without having the player within target range. If you know a particular person is a "criminal" as far as th laws of the city is concerned, and is undesired, there is no reason for that person to need be present in order for thier status within the city to be changed. The terminal should also accept guild names for this function the same way private structures do. Pardoning a player should also be possible without them present with use of the terminal.

Banning a player should result in their citizenship status being revoked. If a player is currently banned, they should be denied the ability to declare residence within the city. As already stated in an earlier post, a player who at one point is not seen as a threat to a city will not always remain viewed in the same light.

I agree with the post suggesting that an option be included in each private structure to automatically ban all individuals on the City Ban listing.

Zoning and Transferring

Zoning should come in two variaties; one structure placement and unlimited structures within 24 hour period. /grantZoning should only allow the placement of a single structure. /grantMultiple (or any other new name) should be the command for the ability to place more than one structure. A new comman, /grantTransfer, should be needed to be used in order to grant someone the ability to transfer a structure that is insidea city. If you have not been approved to place a house, you should not be considered as being approved to own a house within the city. Keeping this as a seperate command from zoning commands also adds the ability (if above changes in militia function are made) selectively allow militia to grant transfer permission to assist people who may be moving or switing accounts, etc, without giving the militia the ability to allow for the placement of new structures which could interrupt city design.

City Ignore

this idea has already been presented in earlier posts, but I would like lend my support of it. /cityIgnore should remove all bubbles from spatial originating from the city ignored person.

City Bounty

Any person attacking a military base or NPC of such a base within city limits gains "visibility" within that city. This would have nothing to do with whether or not the person is a jedi, only that the person has attacked military targets within that city. The people who have gained the city's "visibility" would then appear on a list on the city management terminal. The mayor of the city (and perhaps militia members if it is a right that can be toggled on and off, otherwise just the mayor) would be able to pull up the list and place a bounty on any person appearing on it. The bounty amount would be determined by the person placing it, and would be deducted from the city coffers once placed. No bounty higher than the available funds in the treasury can be placed. Once a bounty is set, it appears on the BH terminals. Under the newly announced bounty listing system that does not use target names, the bounty would appear as "City Name Bounty". Because of the limited source of the bounty, only the first person to make the kill gets paid, the rest receive a "mission failed" type message. Upon completion of a bounty on their head, a person's name would be taken off the city's list until they attacked the city again.

It is important to note that this does not force pvp upon a player. If this change were made it would be announced in Publish or Patch notes and any player who choose to attack a base that resides within a city would be aware of the potential risk their own actions are creating.

This system has many benefits for many players. It gives the mayor, and perhaps militia, a way to strike back at those that attack their cities when nobody is there defend it. It also gives them a more active role as city defenders.This creates more options for BH's who perhaps do not wish to hunt only jedi, or possibly do not wish to hunt jedi at all. The system would create an added level of excitement for those who would suddenly have an unkown hunter on their trail, and it is easily avoidable for players who do not wish to be hunted by simply not attacking bases that are within a city. Also, because the city must pay for the bounty, it keeps the number of these bounties, and certainly the payout figures given for a single kill, under control.

Message Edited by KhoevenNalarDre on 07-06-2005 03:51 PM

_________________________________________________________

. . . . O n e . . L i f e . . . . O n e . . V i s i o n . . . . O n e . . E m p i r e . . . .
Khoeven Nalar'Dre
Former Mayor of IHQ - ONE Chief Officer
. . . . O n e . . L i f e . . . . O n e . . V i s i o n . . . . O n e . . E m p i r e . . . .
_________________________________________________________

I pledge ONE Life serving ONE Vision to build ONE Empire

tekkaman_ixen

Sat Jul 30, 2005 7:28 am

#15

At bria there are a few groups that are allways trying to take over entire cities... Sometimes they wait for a city to be about to grow, and they start placing structures around it and declaring residence there. Once the city grows, they are automatically citizens, and being as many as they usually are, they vote against the mayor, and game over....

I believe it would be great if the mayor/people in militia could accept each of the new citizens... Maybe they could place the house with that method, but for sure they shouldn't be able to vote against the mayor.

Maybe they could be given a few weeks and then see their house packed into their datapad too, those two measures would for sure save cities from that kind of strategi.... And mates, whenever the empty houses are wiped, maaaany cities will be in danger.

Apart from that, a mayor (or maybe a council between the mayor and other members running for mayor) should be able to move houses out of the city, in case that people has left long ago, or they are a threat for the city.

Another way I've seen to take a city is to grant permission to a player and then forget revoking that permission... The player can place a house and transfer it to another member of his group, then do it as many times as he needs.... Again the idea up there would make the city safe against this kind of behaviour...

WOW:Server Argent dawn:
Level 60 Human Paladin(master hammersmith/minner)
Level 60 Human Mage(master alchemist/herbalist)
Level 46 Elf Druid (master tailor/enchanter)
Level 38 Tauren Hunter (leatherworker/skinner)
Any other basque nearby? We're as the jedis after Episode 3.....

-I support a rollback and keeping & balancing the old combat system.

...and making SWG a better place to be. - Your voice counts!

Plzurpilot

Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:39 pm

#16

Defending My City - The Nostradamus Idea

I stated a verson of this a while back some of you may remember it.

1) Give each mayor his or her own faction, just like thug or townsperson faction and call it after the mayor such as "Nostradamus faction" This is how favorable you are to the Nostradamus administration and his milita or thugs whatever.

2) Based on a range of politican skill, city rank, and how much money the mayor wants to spend he gets so many "police NPC's" that wander the city. They con yellow to everybody. If you attack and kill them you would get negitive faction to that mayor.

3) The mayor may add or subtract up to200 fp from any player and a milita member may add or subtract 50 fp. This is in place of city warn.

4) each time a player looses fp from the milita or mayor they get a message saying that if they fall below -200 fp they may be attackable by the city NPC police force.

5) if a player does fall below -200 fp they may get a message from a police officer stating that if they do not leave the city with in 1 minute (giveing them ample time to get to any poi's) they will be forced to attack them

6) at -300 they can not /declareresidenc thus stopping any hostile takeovers of the city because you have to declare residence in order to vote

7) at -400 fp they are automaticly citybanned.

Nostradamus Smyth, Former Mayor: Vodo-Siosk Dantooine
Master Droid Engineer | Master Politician | Master Artisan | Master Architect

Catman-Does

Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:07 am

#17

Khristen wrote:

Player Cities are not factional entities. While Player Cities may contain factional elements, the city itself is a neutral entity. Faction bases have their own defenses that are unrelated to Player Cities.

Barriers--be they physical or invisible--are not going to be allowed. "Walls in any MMO always lead to a variety of challenges and problems, both technical and social." -- Thunderheart

Player Cities are not meant to be gated communities or private estates. No player or group of players should have exclusive access and passage to a potential of a 900m diameter area of game world. "The intended role [of Player Cities] is for players to gather in cities and create large social groups." -- Thunderheart

Ok well Thunderheat clearly needs to smell some coffee if he thinks cities and towns aren't going to be faction based... in most cases: they are; they're huge places owned by guilds or guilds of the same faction. Theres a few cities that are mult-faction but that's because the guild itself is multi-faction. That statement is totally flawed and a further slap in the face as there are 3 permenant NPC faction cities. You can even make your city a "Stronghold" which is supposed to give your militia a combat bonuses - ohh gees I wonder what that could be for.

For neutral towns we have NPC CITIES (and we got the devs moaning these aren't being used enough)!!!!! Cities are faction based and if they're not it's because the people running it have choosen to make it so. Those that want their cities to be faction orientated place bases and place guild bans on their shopping malls etc.

If a city wants to stop the opposing faction from coming in; using their shops and structures: whats the big deal? Sure they've shot themselves in the foot by limiting their customers but so what? That's their problem. Quit holding our hands and holding us back.

Why ANY of the quoted text would prevent a city from having watch towers & fencing/walling is totally beyond me no one is asking for an impenterable city wall with 500k HAM turrets ever 30meters.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
         Catman Does                      Catius           
 Dark Jedi Imperial Colonel     Droid Engineer & Shipwright
>>>Leader of STEALTH, an Imperial/Neutral Guild on Naboo<<<
>>Shopping Centre -7345 1060 --- Offers Vendor -7349 1054<<
"So instead of sticking to the thing that our players really love,
 we start changing it. And now we?re alienating the players
playing our game, losing our subscribers."- Jeff Hickman

Fidgiter

Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:30 am

#18

On Cityban

Add menu onto City Management Terminal to see who is on the Ban List

Add ability to ban entire PA much as you can do for structures

Add ability to ban people from the city management terminal.

Add option to have cityban list applied to structureban (Owner/Admin option)

On Grantzoning

Create Civic Council which would have authority for /grantzoning (Shouldn't be Militia function)

Civic Council would automatically have /grantzoning active

/grantzoning would only work for a single structure placement

/createzoning would let a Mayor reserve sections of land for specific placements. For example: They would reserve a small house plot which could be used for small houses, medium for medium, large for large, factory for factory ect. A misplaced structure wastes land which diminishes the potential for everyone.

I realize the Developers have said this and that about Player Cities but overall this forum is for us to provide feedback. The point of a forum is ruined if we are unable to discuss things because they declared they don't want to listen. In practice cities are used for factions, they are used for private fiefdoms but overall they are used as a place where like minded folks can live together and have a place they can call home.

Mayor Feliz, RSO Commanding Officer
FidgitCo Construction, Droid and Starships
Furnishing the Galaxy since September 2003
Dune Retreat Mall, Tatooine

Politician Archive

Thread: Politician Round Table Discussion, Week of 7.1.2005 /cityban and Defending Our Cities