Politician Archive
Thread: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
/cityban on sight.
It's not like BH's weren't already given everything they wanted and then some in Pub 66, uhh, 19.
Thunderheart wrote:
Ka-oan wrote:
Wouldn't that be a known risk inherant with the creation of a Factionally Aligned City? Why not put warning messages up when a structure is about to be placed inside one of these cities? How about making it a voting item for the citizens already present in a city if the mayor tries to change the City Specialization [sic?] to a Factionally aligned one? There are lots of options available, just post an "In-Concept" thread, watch them pour in.
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 agree that there are many possibilities for sure, but for sweeping changes like this, its best to ease in a little at a time. The first step in that direction would be the addition of strongholds. Its something that can be "attached" to the city and as things evolve, it can be observed to know what the best "next step" would be.
Arnwald wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
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.
Well yes this would bequite a nightmare.
In fact we need a tool to be able to pickup a full house and drop it somewhere else without having to decorate it once again.
Actually we agree. It is something we definitely would like to do, but it is an incredibly complex technical issue.
Khristen wrote:
Arnwald wrote: (snip)
Another great thing would be to give mayors or achitects a way to level the terrain as it is done with camps. better would be to let them lower or upper the ground for better house / city placement. Rocks and hills in the middle of citys are depressing.
Lastly I do understand walls coud lead to griefing and exploit but please at least give us roads, grass, concrete and even marble textures for the city floor. Actually players cities looks more like villages than futuristics cities.
Part of the problem with terraforming, be it leveling or adding texture to it, is the huge amount of lag it creates. For something as permanent as a city or a structure it would be a nightmare. Camps can do it because it is a very temporary thing and doesn't create a permanent lag pocket by it's existence. For those with less-than-optimal machines, it becomes very easy to tell when you're coming up on an NPC spawn or a GCW base....your graphics hiccup when you enter the flattened terrain as your machine struggles to bring the rest of the art onto your screen. From my experience the game loads the regular terrain, then the modified/flattened terrain, then the basic artwork for the base/spawn, followed by the actual NPCs.
NPC cities can get away with it because they're hard coded into the terrain. There isn't any "modified" terrain layer to bring up since the streets and buildings themselves are part of the terrain.
Thats exactly right Khristen!
I thought i read from FF chat that a house roll up option (pick up the house with everything in it) is being worked on currently. Is this not true?
Jilea wrote:
So let me be clear and ensure I understand this. Thunderheart you said previously that player cities could be used to deny people content if they were built close to said content but in this recent patch the ability to shuttle to these cities was cutoff right? Is this not the same as what you are preventing. If it is not then why were you waging the previous argument 3 weeks ago?
There is a subtle difference. Not being able to shuttle only adds a delay to the content. Players can still go to the city via swoop bike. But citywarn allowed the local militia to kill other players and thus keeping them out of the city indefinitely as long as there were enough militia members to get the job done.
Lotussutol wrote:
I thought i read from FF chat that a house roll up option (pick up the house with everything in it) is being worked on currently. Is this not true?
Thunderheart wrote:
Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Community Relations Manager
MTolwyn wrote:
Such kind of griefing, yes i call it grieving to abuse /cityban to stop a BH from doing his missing and getting his reward, caused alredy the loss of /citywarn. If this happens too often it s just a matter of time till we also lose the /cityban command.And if i d be the BH i would report you for griefing in this case.
How is that stopping him from doing his mission? How is it griefing? I suppose you report any city that is a "stronghold" as griefing you because that grants their jedi militia members a defense bonus?
The Jedi was in a building. If he'd attacked, he'd have been kicked out anyway because of the TEF, or the Jedi could have left then waited for him to come out and immediately re-entered and the BH wouldn't have been able to follow.
A /cityban does nothing to stop a BH from completing his mission. What it does do is deny him the use of services and the use of civic buildings as cover. As a citizen of my city, I'm entitled to protection when a non citizen comes into town to murder me.
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.
Yes Kurt, and if you'll recall, at the time it was removed you also acknowledged that the lack of something like Citywarn was a crippling problem for maintaining order in Cities, and that the dev staff would continue working on something to help them maintain the internal order that Citywarn was meant to create .... and then you let it drop off your radar, never to be heard from again, like a thousand other promises.
Now you act surprised that so many of the original cities that filled up planets are ghost towns, when it is the complete limbo you've left the Player City system in for two years while flying off to work on expansions that has brought about this result. The abuse of /citywarn is nothing compared to the abuse of customer goodwill that this project has perpetuated under your management team.
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...
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.
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.
but in general you miss my point on this situation
if punks cause troubles to citizens, we take care of those
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.
I don't consider "letting" BH hunt the Jedi in my guild. I don't care if it's a basic game mechanic or not. These are my guild members and my citizens and I will ban ANY non-guild bounty hunter that enters my town. I don't like their kind in my city. If I wish to role-play a hard-nosed mayor who will only allow her own bounty hunters to enter her town.. well, then that's the way I'm going to play it. I don't let my guild members hunt same faction Jedi, either. That is my right as mayor and guild leader. If you don't like it as a bounty hunter.. stalk the Jedi OUTSIDE my city limits. They do go out there on a regular basis.
You did the right thing. I would have done the same thing for any of my guild members.
Kurt,
Since we are on this discussion, can we actually demand for "factional recruiters" depending on mayor's faction to be placed like "Trainers" inside Player Cities?
GCW revamp was such a good idea for everyone but with removal of /attack command with Combat-Upgrade, there is no quick way to get to combatant fromont he leave statusto get also to a recruiter to use "City Factional Terminals" efficiently.
Thanks in advance.
UnBanCire wrote:
Can't /cityban just make that player unable to enter the city completely? Sort of like not being able to enter the village untill an Old Man visit?
Doing that creates the same type of issue that we had with /citywarn. You essentially prevent people from accessing POI content with this (in a city built around a POI). I would also imagine this would be a technological nightmare.
Thunderheart wrote:
Blimigerite wrote:
Jilea wrote:
So let me be clear and ensure I understand this. Thunderheart you said previously that player cities could be used to deny people content if they were built close to said content but in this recent patch the ability to shuttle to these cities was cutoff right? Is this not the same as what you are preventing. If it is not then why were you waging the previous argument 3 weeks ago?
There is a subtle difference. Not being able to shuttle only adds a delay to the content. Players can still go to the city via swoop bike. But citywarn allowed the local militia to kill other players and thus keeping them out of the city indefinitely as long as there were enough militia members to get the job done.
Blimigerite is correct.
Since when did content spawn in player cities....gimme a break, you took the lazy way out and took away city warn because little cry babies hated dieing in cities. Then came along coverts being able to blow up "FAIRLY" placed turrets on PvP bases and AGAIN you took out the lazy way out and just removed the turrets from the game, instead of adding back in city warn. City warn, or even better making it so coverts couldnt attack PvP bases items, would have been the proper, most logical way to fix that issue. Lets not even get started with the ranged arms...