Politician Archive
Thread: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
josslyn wrote:
MTolwyn wrote:
RynnnDraggon wrote:
If you, being a mayor, do not Protect your Jedi, that are supposed to feel safe in your city, and expect the mayor to Protect them, yet you say you don't ban BH's that are hunting your Jedi, That shows me one of of three things.
1). You are Afraid of the BH's. (or maybe you are getting part of the payout)...I have seen it before.
2). You could careless about your Citizens.
3). You're a really bad mayor...
/agree
being hunted from BH is the risk of each Jedi, and unless it s a knight its the own fault of each jedi to end up on the terminals. I beg to differ - with the CU it forced EVERYONE to be grouped. Jedis have to get the xp somehow and being grouped is the only way to do this hence the reason you see so many low lvl jedis on the boards now. So - as a BH you should be well aware of that issue. This was SOE's fault for pushing a lvl based system into a skill based game. Don't blame it on all those jedi - sure some do get on the boards overall on purpose - but most of them are damn close to finished template jedi if not finished template.
The jedi was actually a full template, but there is another who isin the city and is having a very hard time at it, and it's difficult to watch him struggle.. overall he is making progress, it would only be fitting that he should receive the full support of his Guild AND Community in any way that they may help him. I find it rather difficult to believe their are Mayors out there who will stand back and watch their own Citizens get killed... it's almost like having a Policeman drive away from someone getting killed... If i had a mayor do that, i would be looking for a new City...
Oh and yes i ve a Jedi near to Knight and i think Jedi are killing the GCW as most others think. Do i flee and hide from BHs? No. and anyway i m not on any terms and won t be on any so fast as i avoid anything giving visibility. Well, aren't you just gods gift to SOE - maybe you should write a player guide at how to successfully grind jedi while getting a decent amount of xp and staying off the terms post-cu. Pre-CU this was easy to do, post-cu well it can be done but lets face it - SOE shoved grouping down everyones throats.
I havnt been on the terms until recently either, in fact so far ive had one BH come after me, he made it through the door of the city hall before i Cloaked and he got banned 1 second later.. either way, he had already lost.. The other Jedi hasnt been so lucky.. he's fighting constantly trying to get XP and finish his template before he gets bountied again
but in general you miss my point on this situation I again beg to differ - you are not seeing the point that everyone runs their cities in their own unique ways. We're not saying the way one chooses to run their city is the right or wrong way - everyone has different styles.
Everyone does have different styles, i agree with that as well.. Democratically, the Citizens would rather be protected.. in a moresavage-like approach, the citizens would have to protect themselves.. personally, i think Jedi have too much to lose and wonder if the Jedi in your City are aware of youre policies or are in youre Guild
if punks cause troubles to citizens, we take care of those
Somone killing one of youre citizens isnt causing trouble?
but we don t interfere in basic game machanics as
Jedi vs. BH
and the GCW, because placing a base inside the city means that the city is out for war, so the citizens have to face the situation. And ours do, as it was a democratic vote for entering the war or not. Any player taking up any factions SF status must expect to be killed and cannot hope that someone is arround banning the attackers from the public buildings. Since when did this ever become a GCW issue? BH and Jedi are two seperate things from the GCW. Yes, they all impact it in some form but this is not about the GCW or how one chooses to play THEIR GAME. I'll be damned if someone will ever try to impose on my gaming time or threaten my citizens in any type of way. Rebels get banned if their overt in my city - BH's get banned if their on a mission in my city - simple as that. Don't like it - well I don't honestly care. My citizens are the ones paying the bills - not the outsiders that choose to come in. Once again - it is everyones fair right to run their cities as they see fit. What works for one group of players may not work for another group - that is why there are choices in this game.
Was it voted whether or not Jedi could be killed or camped in youre city as well? Was it up to the Jedi to decide themselves or just the majority?If so, how many were padawans that would actually beaffected by that decision?
/\I totally agree with Ryann with the post, except I do disagree with bringing back Citywarn.
I have seen the use of Citywarn being used to grief players, including myself, and currently don't know any way of bringing it back in such a way as to not likely be used in griefing players.
It was heavly abused before. If people were mature enough to be responsible to use city warn with good reason, it would not have been taken out of the game. But there are some people , even so called adults that don't act like it, and think its funny to see someone die from using citywarn, and pretty sure they would think different if the roles or positions were reversed, have themselves been griefed from city warn, then they themselves would be cussing, and what not to say the least.
When I say it was abused, I'm talking about it being used against another player because of personal vendetta, and the so called fun seeing someone die from using citywarn, using it without good reason.
City Warn had its use, just that the abuse of city warn vastly outweighted the justification of its use, and because of that, it has no place in SWG, and very likely will never be again.
Opt
OptAEON wrote:
I totally agree with Ryann with the post, except I do disagree with bringing back Citywarn.
I have seen the use of Citywarn being used to grief players, including myself, and currently don't know any way of bringing it back in such a way as to not likely be used in griefing players.
It was heavly abused before. If people were mature enough to be responsible to use city warn with good reason, it would not have been taken out of the game. But there are some people , even so called adults that don't act like it, and think its funny to see someone die from using citywarn, and pretty sure they would think different if the roles or positions were reversed, have themselves been griefed from city warn, then they themselves would be cussing, and what not to say the least.
When I say it was abused, I'm talking about it being used against another player because of personal vendetta, and the so called fun seeing someone die from using citywarn, using it without good reason.
City Warn had its use, just that the abuse of city warn vastly outweighted the justification of its use, and because of that, it has no place in SWG, and very likely will never be again.
Opt
OptAEON is correct. As much as it offered a City Mayor a great option for running their city, the command was sorely abused. The primary reason it was removed from the game was because rogue mayors were using /citywarn to block off content to control spawns and prevent other players from getting to the content.
As far as why a person would use /cityban? It is a mayor's prerogative - - that is one of the decisions they make that creates the rules or "local laws" of their city. If you want to disallow Jedi hunting, then so be it. If a different mayor wants to allow it, then that is their choice.
Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Community Relations Manager
Thunderheart wrote:
OptAEON wrote:
I totally agree with Ryann with the post, except I do disagree with bringing back Citywarn.
I have seen the use of Citywarn being used to grief players, including myself, and currently don't know any way of bringing it back in such a way as to not likely be used in griefing players.
It was heavly abused before. If people were mature enough to be responsible to use city warn with good reason, it would not have been taken out of the game. But there are some people , even so called adults that don't act like it, and think its funny to see someone die from using citywarn, and pretty sure they would think different if the roles or positions were reversed, have themselves been griefed from city warn, then they themselves would be cussing, and what not to say the least.
When I say it was abused, I'm talking about it being used against another player because of personal vendetta, and the so called fun seeing someone die from using citywarn, using it without good reason.
City Warn had its use, just that the abuse of city warn vastly outweighted the justification of its use, and because of that, it has no place in SWG, and very likely will never be again.
Opt
OptAEON is correct. As much as it offered a City Mayor a great option for running their city, the command was sorely abused. The primary reason it was removed from the game was because rogue mayors were using /citywarn to block off content to control spawns and prevent other players from getting to the content.
As far as why a person would use /cityban? It is a mayor's prerogative - - that is one of the decisions they make that creates the rules or "local laws" of their city. If you want to disallow Jedi hunting, then so be it. If a different mayor wants to allow it, then that is their choice.
So wouldn't it be better to make those no build zones instead of taking out /citywarn or making the area a no build zone and putting /citywarn back in?
City warn is still an important tool for a city. One example would be the problem with Coverts coming into cities and destroying the S.F. base turrets covert before they were removed from S.F. bases for that reason (I assume). If /citywarn was still in the game, the city militia would have the ability to protect a factional asset in their city.
I understand a few people abused this ability, but it is a needed ability for Mayors and Militia in a city for many reasons. I hope you guys will concider putting it back in soon and make it so it can only be used for what it is intended for.
Doesn't that mean you should be killing all Jedi wholsale?
KhoevenNalarDre wrote:
I also support Rynn's actions. My city has a strict policy against any BH hunting our jedi - you will be banned on sight. Because we fashion ourselves to be devout supporters of the Empire as a whole, that penalty extends to anyone hunting any imperial jedi within our town.
I do not believe these actions are in any way griefing the BH. Is the BH griefing the jedi by hunting them? No, because that's what BH's do, hunt certain other players. So then is the mayor/militia griefing the jedi? No, because that's what mayors/militia do, protect their own.
However, as those responsible for managing the game, you failed miserably in your handling of the entire situation when there were citywarn problems.
Since you lacked the abilities to make it a productive thing, you had to remove it.
I used to love being /citywarned and attacked, it made for great PvP.
The blocking of POIs and game content by griefers was something you should have come down quickly and seriously on, and the abuse would not have been what it was.
Unfortunately, I can say this about many exploitive behaviors you have failed to control while functions were in the game.
CyberFett wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
OptAEON wrote:
I totally agree with Ryann with the post, except I do disagree with bringing back Citywarn.
I have seen the use of Citywarn being used to grief players, including myself, and currently don't know any way of bringing it back in such a way as to not likely be used in griefing players.
It was heavly abused before. If people were mature enough to be responsible to use city warn with good reason, it would not have been taken out of the game. But there are some people , even so called adults that don't act like it, and think its funny to see someone die from using citywarn, and pretty sure they would think different if the roles or positions were reversed, have themselves been griefed from city warn, then they themselves would be cussing, and what not to say the least.
When I say it was abused, I'm talking about it being used against another player because of personal vendetta, and the so called fun seeing someone die from using citywarn, using it without good reason.
City Warn had its use, just that the abuse of city warn vastly outweighted the justification of its use, and because of that, it has no place in SWG, and very likely will never be again.
Opt
OptAEON is correct. As much as it offered a City Mayor a great option for running their city, the command was sorely abused. The primary reason it was removed from the game was because rogue mayors were using /citywarn to block off content to control spawns and prevent other players from getting to the content.
As far as why a person would use /cityban? It is a mayor's prerogative - - that is one of the decisions they make that creates the rules or "local laws" of their city. If you want to disallow Jedi hunting, then so be it. If a different mayor wants to allow it, then that is their choice.
So wouldn't it be better to make those no build zones instead of taking out /citywarn or making the area a no build zone and putting /citywarn back in?
City warn is still an important tool for a city. One example would be the problem with Coverts coming into cities and destroying the S.F. base turrets covert before they were removed from S.F. bases for that reason (I assume). If /citywarn was still in the game, the city militia would have the ability to protect a factional asset in their city.
I understand a few people abused this ability, but it is a needed ability for Mayors and Militia in a city for many reasons. I hope you guys will concider putting it back in soon and make it so it can only be used for what it is intended for.
No-Build zones can't be added to all the places that already had player structures built and asking thousands and thousands of players to move their fairly placed, quiet little homesteads is a bit of a nightmare.
...and FWIW, it wasn't just a few players. It wasn't a huge amount, but at the time, these rogue mayors and their clans managed to rope off the coolest content and hunting spots.
As far as mixing cities and faction combat, that is really a no-win situation. Players put so much work into their houses and communities and they aren't willing to risk them. While the appeal and the imagination of GCW city combat is appealing in thought, in reality, it would be appealing to far less. PvP wars brings a lot of headaches to town that people just don't want to have to deal with on their doorstep.
Now, that's not to say that I don't think it is a cool idea, because I do. However pulling it off in a way that satisfies all involved parties is even more complex than it seems.
As a matter of fact Khristen and I were just discussing this 
For the sake of discussion...
Khristen wrote:
What is the Player City role in the GCW?
At the Fan Fest panel for Player Cities, it was said that Player Cities were designed for civilians and would therefore not be allowed to become a fully factional-aligned city. The Player City system was created to encourage people to come into the city, not limit player's access because of faction, walls, etc. It was mentioned that the team would like to develop strongholds as GCW content so that player's would have the opportunity to blow them up, something that was not meant for Player Cities as more permanent structures.
My personal feelings aside (because I really like the idea of Player Cities as *civilian* content), there are a lot of Politicians who really want factional content for their Player Cities.
Currently we can have faction mission terminals and can place faction bases in the city like any other structure. There is also a Stronghold specialization (whether it works or not, is up for debate) that gives bonuses to PvP situations for militia members, which suggests that it is intended as a form of GCW content since much of the PvP system is built around the GCW. Many have used these items to create their own GCW "strongholds" and want better ways of defending them.
The way Player Cities are currently set up, they have one foot in and one foot out of the GCW in many respects. The potential for it is there, but the actual systems don't support it. /citywarn was used as a griefing tool against non-combatants, but it was also used against those of the opposite faction. /cityban is currently used as an inconveniencing tool against non-combatants and those of opposite faction in place of /citywarn. Because of this half in, half out set up there is a lot of confusion as to what part--if any--Player Cities have to play in the GCW.
Potential and could-bes aside, what is the intended role of Player Cities in the GCW now and in the future?
Well the short answer is in your opening paragraph. The development of strongholds is the most likely thing. Its a pretty big implementation and could be very cool. It would give factional characteristics to the player city, but not open it up for grief.
Some bullets:
l Its a bad idea to make factional cities. Lots and lots of hard work and creativity go into building player cities and the idea of making things vulnerable tends to make players frustrated and defensive when something happens to those structures.
l Outside of the structures, its the people that make up a city and people can opt in and out of the GCW.
l Faction Terminals in cities is a nice fun perk. It allows players to jump in and get some faction action.
l Walls in any MMO always lead to a variety of challenges and problems, both technical and social.
As far as the intended role? The intended role is for players to gather in cities and create large social groups.
To intrinsically involve those groups in the GCW becomes much more difficult. Does everyone chose to take part in GCW conflicts? What about all the people who don't want to participate? (The majority of the community at large prefers PvE, not PvP). This is only the tip of the iceberg. Anything involving cities and the GCW would require lots of forethought and planning.
Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Community Relations Manager
nikko11 wrote:
If you had instituted a policy of penalizing a city that abused their citywarn privleges then you would have been able to control it.
However, as those responsible for managing the game, you failed miserably in your handling of the entire situation when there were citywarn problems.
Since you lacked the abilities to make it a productive thing, you had to remove it.
I used to love being /citywarned and attacked, it made for great PvP.
The blocking of POIs and game content by griefers was something you should have come down quickly and seriously on, and the abuse would not have been what it was.
Unfortunately, I can say this about many exploitive behaviors you have failed to control while functions were in the game.
The problem with citywarn is the same there was with the old faction combat system. They are not going to force NONJEDI in to PvP.
As for Turrets on SF bases they have been removed. They were ment for PvP only. SO adding the turrets onthe OUTSIDE of the base they made them also PvE. They weren't supposed to be able to content for nonPvPing people. so they removed them. This keeps them from being placed to grief people also. Yes placement of a SF Tac Center with Turrets if the turrets worked correctly could be used to grief.
Citywarn becoming a way to just eject people from you're cities also removes content no matter how you do it. Why? Because for BH and Jedi part of the content is BH hunting Jedi. If you can keep a Jedi safe in the city because you ban or citywarn all BHs you have removed that content.
If you don't like BHs hunting Jedi. That is part of life as a Jedi. A Jedi is more powerful and that is one of the penalties for being a Jedi.
Thunderheart wrote:
l Its a bad idea to make factional cities. Lots and lots of hard work and creativity go into building player cities and the idea of making things vulnerable tends to make players frustrated and defensive when something happens to those structures.
That is your opinion but I strongly disagree. Our guild has 2 cities both are rebel only. Lots of hard work and creativity went into building the city and we prefer not to supply or support our enemies.
Ash057 wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
l Its a bad idea to make factional cities. Lots and lots of hard work and creativity go into building player cities and the idea of making things vulnerable tends to make players frustrated and defensive when something happens to those structures.
That is your opinion but I strongly disagree. Our guild has 2 cities both are rebel only. Lots of hard work and creativity went into building the city and we prefer not to supply or support our enemies.
Well, I'm actually agreeing with you. Just to parse it a little tighter, Faction Cities are cool and fine and represent a lot of fun times, but making those cities vulnerable to attack and loss could jeopardize all your group has worked to create depending on the design, which is why the designers are of the opinion that its a bad idea.
Personally, I lean more towards the idea of the strongholds. It separates the cities from the center of combat and also brings all the fun of GCW combat to bear.
Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Community Relations Manager
Thunderheart wrote:
Ash057 wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
l Its a bad idea to make factional cities. Lots and lots of hard work and creativity go into building player cities and the idea of making things vulnerable tends to make players frustrated and defensive when something happens to those structures.
That is your opinion but I strongly disagree. Our guild has 2 cities both are rebel only. Lots of hard work and creativity went into building the city and we prefer not to supply or support our enemies.
Well, I'm actually agreeing with you. Just to parse it a little tighter, Faction Cities are cool and fine and represent a lot of fun times, but making those cities vulnerable to attack and loss could jeopardize all your group has worked to create depending on the design, which is why the designers are of the opinion that its a bad idea.
Personally, I lean more towards the idea of the strongholds. It separates the cities from the center of combat and also brings all the fun of GCW combat to bear.
I would prefer more of a Merchant update which would give vendor owners the ability to sell gear at a discount to one faction over another. This would help identify Rebel or Imperial Cities by their merchant class. It would also be more realistic as many sellers would prefer their weapons, armor, ect to be sold to friendlies instead of possible enemies.
Of course Merchants could also use a 'relist all' button 