Politician Archive
Thread: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Jutewr wrote:
My vendor is my personal property. Your city is not your property. It is owned by the citizens and you are there elected representative. Vendors are indeed my private playground. I can charge what I wish.
- THAT IS RICH!
- How is the City hall not my personal property (or the personal property of the citizens of they city).
- How does a player owned city become public property and your vendor not?
- There is no difference, other then you want to be able to choose to do with your vendor as you want, since you are paying for it. But, you don't want me to be able to do the same.
- That 's funny!
It's not griefing to charge high prices because A) you can make money to pay for the item and B) you don't have to buy from me.
- Sure it is griefing. It is just as much griefing as me not wanting you in my city. You have something I want and you are not letting me have access to it. You've already stated that the effort(time) invested in getting it and the money paidto get it (maintain) are not justifications to preventing other from using it. Buy placing that item on your vender at a price I cannot afford, you are restricting my content.
- If you don't like it, go to another player city or an NPC city.
Message Edited by NihiMetal on 06-30-2005 12:11 PM
Message Edited by NihiMetal on 06-30-2005 12:14 PM
NihiMetal wrote:
Jutewr wrote:
NihiMetal wrote:
Some of us don't like PvP, aren't interested in it, and don't want to get attacked while we go shopping. I don't think that's too much to ask. Why do you seem to think it's neccessary to force other people to PvP?
- I agree, but if that is your position, then don't travel to cities that are declaired as Strongholds
- All we are asking for is the ability to declare our city as a "stronghold" that gives us the ability to /citywarn.
- Then, you know prior to going into that city that you are assuming that risk.
An interesting idea. I don't know if it's something the devs would do, but I think I could agree with that. (There would have to something that warns people before they get to the city, but otherwise ok.)
TH said that, if they could do that now, they would. He said that adding no-build zones requires the location to be empty, and that it is not feasible to force everyone already around a POI tomove.
- Well, so they know what to do they just don't want to do it. So instead they do a whole bunch of things that don't make sense because they don't want to take the time to do it right.
- Could they not give every house that is in the area a "rezoning" deed in thier inventory of the owner that allows them to place that deed in another location (away from the POI) and SoE move that house there.
And make all those people move? They know that people would leave the game if they did that. Agree or disagree, they are going to do what they can tokeep people playing and paying.
I pay $15 a month to play this game. Does that give me the right to do whatever I want? After all, I'm paying for it!
- Yes, I pay $15 a month too. Why is it that your $15 gives you the right to intrude in my self created content but mine does not give me the right to restrict you from what I created?
Why do you feel the need to keep all of your "content" to yourself? I can understand unruly visitors, but you make it sound as though anyone passing through your city ruins it. (And my original statement was sarcasm.)
As I said in my last post, I have yet to have such a situation happen to me. Our city's main restriction from "developing the way we want to develop" has been inactive player structures.
- That is great, I am glad you have not have a problem. AR=re you going to say that because something has not happen to you that it does not happen?
No, but I am saying that I just don't see this as a huge problem. If people are griefing you, /report them. If it's not reportable, what are they doing that's so disturbing?
NihiMetal wrote:
Jutewr wrote:
My vendor is my personal property. Your city is not your property. It is owned by the citizens and you are their elected representative. Vendors are indeed my private playground. I can charge what I wish.
- THAT IS RICH!
- How is the City hall not my personal property (or the personal property of the citizens of they city).
The second part is correct. It's not your's, but the citizens'.
- How does a player owned city become public property and your vendor not?
Because my vendor can't restrict people from game content. Cities can.
- There is no difference, other then you want to be able to choose to do with your vendor as you want, since you are paying for it. But, you don't want me to be able to do the same.
The purpose of my vendor is to interact with the population at large. The same with player cities.
- That 's funny!
I'm glad I could provide someentertainment for you.
It's not griefing to charge high prices because A) you can make money to pay for the item and B) you don't have to buy from me.
- Sure it is griefing. It is just as much griefing as me not wanting you in my city. You have something I want and you are not letting he have access to it. You've already stated that the effort you invested in getting it and the money you pay to get it mean nothing. Buy placing that on your vender at a price I cannot afford, you are restricting my content.
/rolleyes Two completely different things, and you know it.
- If you don't like it, go to another player city or an NPC city.
Jutewr wrote:
Why do you feel the need to keep all of your "content" to yourself? I can understand unruly visitors, but you make it sound as though anyone passing through your city ruins it. (And my original statement was sarcasm.)
It's an issue of "rights". I am not saying I would ban everyone on sight, but I am saying that "Player Cities"should not be considered public content. NPC cities are Public Content and should be designed that way. Player Cities arecontent created by players and the content there inshould be geared towardthose that created it, not thosethat did not.
That is all. It's an issue of ownership and I have aissue with SoE telling me that something I (we)created and I (we) pay for, and I (we) maintain is not my own. I have a problem with SoE saying that even though I created it, I paid for it, and I am maintianing it, my rights to that self created content are less important then those people that did nothting to create it, pay for it, or help maintain it.
That is why I get upset aboutthis. Player Citysshould befor thecontent of those that created it, but because SoE is do worried about people complaining because they cannot go to a player city (to get everything they can get without going to it) my gaming experince is limited.
And on top of all that, I am PAYING so that you can get what you want, but I cannot get what I want.
Jutewr wrote:
Because my vendor can't restrict people from game content. Cities can.
POIs is the first answer that springs to mind.(Note the "can" in the original statement.)And yes, I know, cities should be able to be built there and etc. But as TH said, it's too late.
NihiMetal wrote:
Jutewr wrote:
Because my vendor can't restrict people from game content. Cities can.
What "content" are you being restricted from? What are in player cities that are not in NPC Cities?
NihiMetal wrote:
Jutewr wrote:
Why do you feel the need to keep all of your "content" to yourself? I can understand unruly visitors, but you make it sound as though anyone passing through your city ruins it. (And my original statement was sarcasm.)
It's an issue of "rights". I am not saying I would ban everyone on sight, but I am saying that "Player Cities"should not be considered public content. NPC cities are Public Content and should be designed that way. Player Cities arecontent created by players and the content there inshould be geared towardthose that created it, not thosethat did not.
That is all. It's an issue of ownership and I have aissue with SoE telling me that something I (we)created and I (we) pay for, and I (we) maintain is not my own. I have a problem with SoE saying that even though I created it, I paid for it, and I am maintianing it, my rights to that self created content are less important then those people that did nothting to create it, pay for it, or help maintain it.
That is why I get upset aboutthis. Player Citysshould befor thecontent of those that created it, but because SoE is do worried about people complaining because they cannot go to a player city (to get everything they can get without going to it) my gaming experince is limited.
And on top of all that, I am PAYING so that you can get what you want, but I cannot get what I want.
It happens. RL mayors don't own their cities.
So am I. Jedi is the best example. I'm one of those peoplewho thinks Jedi have no place in this game and should be removed. Yet, I pay for their content, while my professions get nothing. (And please *not aimed at anyone specifically* please don't turn this thread into an argument about Jedi.
We're more or less arguing in circles now. I don't think either one of us is going to change our minds.
Jutewr wrote:
POIs is the first answer that springs to mind.(Note the "can" in the original statement.)And yes, I know, cities should be able to be built there and etc. But as TH said, it's too late.
NihiMetal wrote:
Jutewr wrote:
Because my vendor can't restrict people from game content. Cities can.
What "content" are you being restricted from? What are in player cities that are not in NPC Cities?
Yes, I agree about the POI but that is it, but that is a seperate issue and one that should be delt with. It is a shame that we stop ourselves from doing what is right and provides the most content freedom for everyone because it is consider "to hard" to develop a solution (ie, no more battlefields).
Pretty much sums up a lot of the problems this game is experiancing.
Hmm... I just read this thread, and well... this is what I'd call "abusing power". The city ban command isn't there for you to ban people to protect a Jedi, it's there to ban people who are disrupting the flow of the city. The bounty hunter was doing no such thing, but rather doing his job. You're griefing him because you wanted to protect you husband, who is a Jedi who knows what the consiquenced of being a Jedi are and knows he can get hunted any time.
This is something that I think is terribly wrong about city ban. Yes, it's a useful command, however people are using it to abuse the power and protect people (Jedi) that know a bounty hunter could be on their tail at any time. That's the life of a Jedi. It's not supposed to be an easy one. There's way too many ways in this game a Jedi canprotect himself from a bounty hunter, which usually leads to greifing the bounty hunter. Sure, it may seem right to you because either you're a Jedi or a friend/lover of a Jedi, but really it isn't right. You're disrupting the bounty hunter's game play, which is classified as greifing.
This is exactly one of the reasons why city ban was going to be removed, because people where using it for greifing. There was no right for this command to be used to protect your Jedi husband. Poor him, he was going to be killed because he's a Jedi. Boohoo. He knows the risks of being a Jedi, and if he doesn't like them then he can simply drop it. Simple as that.
As a mayor ofa city, I would never use the city ban command to save a Jedi citizen. It isn't right. And I wouldn't expect this if I was a Jedi in the city. If a Jedi citizen comes into the city and has a bounty hunter on their tail, well guess what?I step back. That's their problem, not mine. They chose that path when becoming a Jedi, so who am I to get in the way?
Alright... so now my little rant is over. In short, the reason you used the city ban command is completely wrong and you should never have done it. This is abusing your power as the mayor and greifing another player. This is not the intented purpose of city ban.
Just a couple of points:
- A City Hall ceases to be personal property the moment it is placed. When the city is created it becomes part of that city and is tied to it. The current mayor (which could change every three weeks) has *admin* rights to the Hall, but does not *own* it. This is why City Halls are different from PA Halls in that only the current mayor can have access, it cannot be used as a residence outside of the Player City system, and it cannot be redeeded. City Halls are paid for by the City Treasury, regardless of who is putting the money into the treasury.
- Vendors cannot be privatized. They cannot exist in private structures, you cannot designate an item only to be sold to a particular person (or group of persons), and they do require maintenance.
- *ANY* player using offensive language, making threats (whether or not those threats can be carried through or not), spamming or otherwise harrassing another player can and should be reported. Use the /report option and immediately follow up with a Harrassment ticket (use the Holocron and "Report a Harrassment") which will require you to verify the first name and attach any recent /reports from you.
- Forced PvP is *not* going to happen. The only thing even close is the BH/Jedi system, but that system involves only those players who chose to become Bounty Hunters or Jedi.
- It is too late to prevent player structures from being built around POIs. It's not impossible, but it's also not a cop-out. It's bad for business, but it's bad for the game. Even if they *did* manage to do it, though, we *still* would not get /citywarn back (see above).
- Cities, be they Player Cities or NPC cities or RL cities, are public access. The cities themselves are not private property, although they can contain structures and homes that are.
- /cityban only prevents a player from using city services. It does not prevent them from entering public structures or entering/leaving the city other than via a shuttleport.
Message Edited by Khristen on 06-30-2005 12:54 PM
AudioOrgana wrote:
Swg-Addict wrote:
PS.:
/citywarn
was removed because it was a terrible exploit:
Whoever was citywarned, became attackable by the millit within the cityboarders.
The exploit was: If i dont like someones nose, i citywarn him followed by an instant attack, followed by a deathblow.
I totally agree, it is an exploit (Exploit=unitended use of a gamemechanism).
Tho it was fun:-P
There was a timer associated with it; many of us also suggested that timer be longer - say, five minutes.
When you are /warned you get five minutes to vacate the city and not return. If you choose to return in the future, you will be open for attack.
If that person choose not to leave, it was their own problem.
AO
here here Audio....
And if the person cloned at the npc city they ported into they wouldn't get "griefed"
Maybe some people did "lag" and not see the warning but then again if you adventure out of the npc cities aren't you aware that there are things that can kill you ?
It's not forced pvp.
One freely entered a situation that could result in pvp. It's not the militia's problem that the person doesn't know how the game works.
It's why we have the stupid GCW pve now.
"Personality whaaa" wanted access to all the cool things of the GCW and being overt, but they really didn't want to pvp and hoped they could get around without getting into pvp.
When they were engaged in pvp by others ( and lost) then the floods of whaaa started and the game got changed.
In my nearly 8 years of playing mmorpg's it's the "personality whaaa" that ruins these games over and over.
Thereare basically two types.
Those that get their overpowered abilities that allow them domination taken away from them ( pvp'ers)
Those that have no pvp intentions or find they can't pvp welland want the game curtailed to benefit their playstyle as equally as those willing to take the risks.
You see, deep down these types do want balance.................
For everybody but "my account".
Does this mean because I don't want my lvl 1 crafter or merchant getting killed while making harvester runs that crafters and non combat characters should get a godmode switch ?
Thunderheart wrote:
Blimigerite is correct.
I enjoy when Devs join in and tell us when our threads are on the right track or if we are just rambling non-sense. It keeps us honest. Thanks.
Thunderheart wrote:
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.
I understand that the "stronghold" concept is in the design phase right now. I suggest making available a main structure to place in a city such as a faction aligned fort, but also having seperate objects like a faction aligned communication tower, generator (like ESB), and flagpole (with appropriate banner flying) which can be co-opted or destroyed by an opposite faction.Each of these objects could do something positivetowards the GCW, but not affect the maincityhousing structures.
Future thoughts could be given to faction aligned Merchent tents, shuttleports, and the spawn of appropriate faction alignedNPCs in the player city.