Politician Archive

Thread: Proposal to the devs for city involvement in the GCW

Chibi-Bar
Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:16 pm
#40

also.. it would be nice if the mission terminal on the HQ is on the FIRST floor instead of the BOTTOM floor...





Sasheria Windsong

Master Artisian and Master Architect
Drop off Vendor Cynthia: -4752 -4341
Architect Shop Vendor Sasha:-4756 -4341
Citizen of Blood Gulch, Dantooine
Olepi
Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:26 pm
#41






Bajeezus wrote:

The Galactic Civil War re-vamp is coming up, andin response tothe thread you all did on ways to get cities involved in the GCW, Thunderheart loved it and asked me to create a polished proposal for him to give the devs in April. Along with a quick summary of the ideas, I also posted an unedited list of your ideas, cut and pasted directly from the thread, to the correspondent's forum. Jest3r, the GCW correspondent, replied to each and every suggestion, and offered to help work on our polished proposal with us, which means we get the combined voices of two groups of players, both politicians as well as players of the GCW, supporting whatever we come up with to present to the devs.


In general, Jest3r was very supportive of a larger role for cities in the GCW, and agreed that bringing in cities is a great way to help add a cooperative, strategic layer to GCW play. The concepts that he disagreed with all shared one trait, which was that they infringed on features that had previously been exclusive to faction HQs. His belief is that if you give cities some of the important features of faction HQs, such as faction recruiters, then you take away some of the very few good reasons that players have for building faction bases at all, which are too few to begin with. He supports many of the ideas that you had, those which did not overlap with HQ features.


Over the next week or two, I'd like to give you all the opportunity to identify which faction city features you all value most highly, and then try to organize them into a coherent system which will give cities the best mix of features to bring them into the heart of the GCW.


Next post: Jest3r's responses to your ideas...







Man i am really confused... according to Pika i think was her name that used to be our corospondant she stated for 100% fact that the reason that the /citywarn command was removed was because cities were not designed by the developers to have any part or pariticpation in the GCW and that those of us that had any invovlement in the gcw and wanted to align our cities that were who utilized /citywarn were basically exploiting a problem. This was one of their many excuses to take away the /citywarn command. When asked well if we are not supposed to have factional involvement with the cities why then at militia 4 do we get the ability to place factional mission terminals specific to a faction in the GCW?


Further - with the introduction of the Imperial crack down why don't we have more of an imperial presence in player cities as well especially if the mayor is of fation affiliation one way or another imperial = ie more factional presence of said faction and less of the other.


Second if the Developers have decided that we are allowed to have factional allignment and invovlment with cities then can we please have recruiters from either faction so that we do not have to travel to a POI to declare etc?


further can we please have /citywarn back since the "excuse" is now no longer an option and no longer valid as stated accroding to Pika.


Message Edited by Olepi on 04-02-2004 04:29 PM

Bajeezus
Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:03 am
#42

I meant to get the next stage of our GCW project running at the beginning of this week, but I've been particularly busy, and will be shooting to get the next thread on city involvement in the GCW running tomorrow, Wednesday. Thanks for all the input here, and I'm sure we are going to be able to present something very exciting to the devs when we are finished.
Bajeezus
Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:23 am
#43

I love the discussion going on here.


I had intended to wrap this little project up myself by the end of the month, but there are going to be some changes in this correspondent position, and I think handing off a really good project like this to get the newcorrespondent started on a high note, to someone who can bring a lot of energy and enthusiasm to the project is the right way to go.
aachil
Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:18 pm
#44

I had another thought about this, a way to have teritory control. If the number of citizens in Imperial cities out numbers the citizens in Rebel cities then rebels would have increased maintainance costs on structures (perhapse a sliding scale dependant on how badly they are outnumberd but arround 10% to 30% increase). Then tie the uninhabitable planets to key planets.

E.g. Endor structures are tied to Naboo balance of power, Dathomir structures are tied to Corelia balance of power and Yavin structures are not tied to any balance of power.

Have the effect be more significant on the advanture planets, as it only effects harvesters.

This would create some interesting server situations, where a side is weak they could concentrate on a single planet (taking over neutral cities by arrangement perhapse or simply by concentrating on keeping down enemy cities on that planet) and enable themselves to have a cheap base of operations. Where the battle is more even it would revolve arround control of the two key planets, Naboo and Corellia, having a sliding scale of dominance would add finess to some of these strategies and encourage guild alliances.

Many neutral players are neutral to avoid any risk of PvP but it should be posible for them to participate in the GCW this way they can assist simply by taking residence in a factioned town (their citizenship counts even if they are not factioned). Also having a 'no build' for enemy arround factioned cities would give a role for neutral players who wish to aid the war.

These ideas for economic impact of GCW would work best if the material spawning was addressed in tandem, becoming more likely near or arround player cities.
Fidgiter
Tue May 04, 2004 5:25 am
#45

So the repeated theme is that cities should not be allowed to have factional recruiters because that is the only purpose of factional bases. Ok, I can see that faction bases are usless apart from the recruiters so I have a counter suggestion that belongs on the GCW forum.


Make factional bases worth something MORE than just a stupid recruiter!


Once bases are more than justbig expensive houses for a recruiter the recruiter can be put into the city. What is a recruiter? It's a person. They spawn in the countryside sometimes. They spawn as part of missions. They DO exist outside of bases but randomly. The Politician, as a master of his or her own domaign, has some measure of control over the ground the city resides on. It stands to reason they could support and house a recruiter if they qualify (skill, factional specialty, fp expenses).


Mayor Feliz Gizmacher



Mayor Feliz, RSO Commanding Officer
FidgitCo Construction, Droid and Starships
Furnishing the Galaxy since September 2003
Dune Retreat Mall, Tatooine
Page 4 of 4