Politician Archive
Thread: Devs! Jaspor Chooses to Cheat
ooooh yeaaaa. that sooo........
you come and SIEGE someone elses city, and that is in the DESIGN of the game, and the SIEGED defends himself/herself, by some issues still in the design of the game, and this is lame huh ?
bub, YOU have SIEGED someone else's labour. you have DESERVED whatever s/he does to you now.
daaaaamn. what a world this has become. someone does something unethical, and when opposed, blames the defendant as being unethical. this is just PATHETICAL.
Dayln wrote:Astev,
Playing stupid will get you no where. You need to learn the difference between an intended feature and an exploit.
Dalyn,
Jumping to conclusions will get you nowhere. You need to learn the difference between fact and speculation.
Jaspor wrote:
Dayln wrote:
I expect the developers will fix that soon, it is not the intent of player cities.
The question is, why is the mayor that is being sieged not looking for others to join and help him. This fight is what player cities were supposed to be about.
The only thing I see done wrong so far is the locked door thing.
Dayln, don't worry, we have plenty of help lined up. Even if the privacy issue IS a bug and IS fixed, I have no doubt we will maintain the majority. But why should we make their lives easy when they have made ours hard?Let me say this one more time for the people who can do nothing more than scream "exploit!" : the game mechanics allow it. I have not seen a post by any Developer saying that this is an exploit or illegal. We don't want to do anything illegal, we want to play within the rules of the game. If this is confirmed as an exploit, we will remove it.
What else do you want from me?
Honestly, please list what "hardships" we have caused you in this city. I find it difficult for you to list just one.
BUT, now you have taken away our Dev given right to vote for the mayor of our choice.
A quick example:
"Your honor!!! I know I have no proof, but he's ovbiously guilty! Can't you see that?"
What's theresponse? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
"Case dismissed! Get out of my courtroom!"
Correct!
Did I not say you were probably right? But I'm not going to take your word, or that of anyone on this board no matter how much it might "look like an expliot". The fact of the matter is YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW.
TAfirehawk wrote:
YES, please call me a griefer for being open, honest, and up-front. Silly me I suck at RP'ing a Politician, but don't think I can't play the rest of the game
I was just trying to correct Zai.
He said this: "but we told Jaspor from the start that we never wanted to take his city from him."
And Ibac DID in fact say this (that they would take over our city by votes if they could) to me on Day One of cities.
You guys need to get your story straight.
hallauer wrote:
If you look in the post in the main SWG Forum regarding exploits and bugs. It explains why this is considered an exploit. nuff said
hehe. I just went through the exploit post and had a good laugh. Basically what it said is if SOE screws up, we are supposed to second guess wether something is intended or not, and if it isn't, we should tell SOE and not use that bug to our advantage. The point of my post is that everyone is getting mad at Jaspor, when the real fault it SOE. We should do what they say and tell them about it. Only they can truely define it as an exploit.
According to SOE, if bodyshot2 starts doing 4 times the damage and I am hitting for over 4k damage (where 1k is normal) I should report the bug and stop using bodyshot2. Ya, right. As if anyone is going to stop. Especially if it was your primary attack before. You arn't going to start using bodyshot1 because SOE screwed up.
I agree with some people. It is no more an exploit to place houses surrounding a city with the intention to take it over when it grows then it is to lock the city hall doors. Both sides are exploiting by SOE rules and since you aren't reporting the bug yourselves and you are continuing to exploit, all accounts in question should be banned. (I predict I will either get flamed, or there will be a quick change in tone).
Seting houses next to a city that is about to expand is not an exploit, that was intended by the developers. Locking the door of the town hall is an exploit, it was never intened that a mayor could force everyone to vote for him.
Exploits exist in every MMRPG, lamers use them, people that play so poorly that they cannot play the game as intended.
Jaspor... You used an exploit!! Its crystal clear. It was not an intended feature of the city design. This has been made perfectly clear to you. Please remove it for your own credibility. Im positve you are a cool person who is only looking out for your PA. Nothing wrong with that but use the intended game mechanics.
Player city's WHERE designed to have the political landscape change. This means they are open to the majority. Imp or Reb or Neut.Whoever rules, rules. Invasions are allowed! The player city was designed in this fashion.
Dayln wrote:
Seting houses next to a city that is about to expand is not an exploit, that was intended by the developers. Locking the door of the town hall is an exploit, it was never intened that a mayor could force everyone to vote for him.
Exploits exist in every MMRPG, lamers use them, people that play so poorly that they cannot play the game as intended.
If what you say is true, then why would developers waste their time implementing the /grantzoningrights command. It is there so the mayor can allow only those that he wants in his town. To prevent someone from placing structures in the town in places that the mayor does not want them. Yes, the developers allowed it such that houses engulfed by the city would become a part of it, but it was not done like that so a PA can plant down houses, wait for the city to expand, get their mayor voted in just to destroy the city hall.
One solution to this, is a) citizens of a city cannot be banned or warned by the militia.and b) city halls cannot be destroyed once placed, unless there is a vote where 80% of the city agrees to the disbanding of the city (not 50%).
This still leaves the problem where the city can be run into the ground and get destroyed by lack of funds. To fix this they can make it where the mayor can remove funds from the city hall only with an 80% vote of approval. This willl allow the citizens that want to keep the city going to be able to get more citizens, get a polititan to support and take back the city. They city can survive on donations alone.
If hostile takeovers are allowed, then they might as well remove zoneing rights.
Dayln wrote:
Except that you and I do happen to know that keeping people from being able to vote is indeed not what the developers intended for player cities. You are playing stupid, either that or you are not playing and really are that stupid.
Why is this so hard?
I have already conceded that you and everyone else calling this an exploit is probably right, but none of us really know at this point. And as much as you believe that you "know", and as obvious as it is to you that this is an exploit, you still have no idea, no proof, no nothing except your assumptions. I don't care what you believe. If you have proof, or a conclusive statement from a dev that says this is an expoit, offer it up. Until then, this argument is over, because all you have is speculation and rumor, which makes you nothing more than the National Enquirer of this forum.
Don't bother responding. I grow weary of this non-argument with someone who refuses to fully understand what they are reading.
I agree, they should remove zoning rights, it gives mayors too much power.
You are still playing the game that you think the developers intended to have mayors keep their own citizens from voting. If you honestly believe that, then I am surprised your brain generates enough power to keep your fingers moving on the keyboard.