Politician Archive
Thread: Player Cities and the GCW
Page 1 of 1
Mirgonael
Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:57 am
#1
(I posted this on the GCW forum as well, but as it applies solely to player cities, I thought I should post it here as well. THIS would FINALLY give player cities a purpose)
Currently, player cities are little more than collections of giant backpacks. I have heard it mentioned that cities may one day be able to declare a faction. I have the following suggestions to make this not only workable, but also make player cities contribute to the GCW as a whole:
1) Attackable city structures - Player city Shuttle Ports, Cloning Facilities, Banks, and Garages of a declared city should be attackable by the opposing faction. Once a certain amount of damage is done to them, they would cease to function. An overt member of the same faction as the city would then be able to use Structure Repair Kits, crafted by Architects, to repair the structures and restore them to working order. In this manner, rebels could attack an Imperial city, disable its shuttle to delay the arrival of Imperial reinforcements, and then attack the city's central target (suggestions 2-4).
(THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE PLACED BY THE MAYOR AND ADD TO CITY UPKEEP COSTS)
2) Factional NPC's for city defense - A player city should be able to place factional NPC's to defend their city once the city has declared a faction. Cities should be able to place the following types of NPC'sbased on their city level:
City Level 1 - Recruits
City Level 2 - Recruits, Stormtroopers (Rebel equivlent)
City Level 3 - Recruits, Stormtroopers, Darktroopers (Rebel equivlents)
City Level 4 - Recruits, Stormtroopers, Darktroopers, AT-ST's (Rebel equivlents) (*)
City Level 5 - Recruits, Stormtroopers, Darktroopers, AT-ST's, AT-AT's (Rebel equivlents) (*)
(*) - I honestly don't know what Rebel cities should have in place of AT-ST's and AT-AT's as there are no equivlents in the game currently... nor should there be. Rebels are the underdogs. My suggestion is primarily aimed towards giving we Imperial players something worth defending, and giving Rebel players something worth attacking.
3) City Defenses - Cities should be able to place the following city defenses based on city level:
City Level 1 - none
City Level 2 - Mine Fields
City Level 3 - Small Turrets
City Level 4 - Medium Turrets
City Level 5 - Large Turrets
4) Rewards for attacking player cities - In front of City Hall in each faction-declared player city should be an object to be targeted (A statue of the Emperor in Imperial cities). If the statue is destroyed, then the city defenses will not respawn until it if repaired. Once the statue is repaired, there should be a timer before it is functional / attackable again. Once the timer runs out, the faction NPC's of the city respawn and the target / statue can again be attacked. Repairing the statue should not be possible until all damaged city structures are repaired. If a group of players manages to destroy a city's target, they should be awarded FP's based on the city's level. Additionally, Residents of the city under attack should be rewarded with faction points based on the number of players their city defenses kill. Bascially, this is your faction's way of congratulating your city on turning back the enemy forces (and giving players a little something for the credits their city pays to maintain the defenses and contribute to the GCW).
Well, that's my two cents. I'm truly interested to find out everyone's thoughts on this. (I really hope a Dev reads this and posts why this could or could not happen)
Ralphito
Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:37 am
#2
this will never happen, i have been a politician off and on for over a year, they finally put out that patch that made voting a needed thing, they will never put faction stuf in cities, then there would be no point in grinding out FP to buy bases. but i loved the idea and i hope they take it into some consideration
Pappi
Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:19 pm
#3
never say never...
we've had our share of GCW discussion, but since the GCW revamp is postponed the thread is buried. feel free to bring this up again when the GCW revamp gets closer
edit: whoops, forgot a word...
we've had our share of GCW discussion, but since the GCW revamp is postponed the thread is buried. feel free to bring this up again when the GCW revamp gets closer
edit: whoops, forgot a word...
Message Edited by Pappi on 01-06-2005 12:17 PM
Khristen
Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:20 pm
#4
Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit offensive to have all player cities described as "little more than collections of giant backpacks."
There are thriving communities out there with active citizens who work and play together. Where it's not about who's the biggest and the baddest. Who are quite content to remain neutral in the GCW and face the challenges that neutrality brings in a galaxy engulfed in Civil War (theoretically, at least). Cities that measure their growth not in shuttleports and ranks, but in the community itself.
I'm all for more GCW content. Within reason, though. It's not all about combat and killage. Certainly a galactic war affects everyone, but a community--what a player city should be--is more than what side they're on.
Kor Spera, Corelliais a neutral city, both by design and game mechanics. We have members of both the Imperial Army and the Rebel Alliance living together peacefully in our borders. While every citizen in the galaxy is under the rule of the Empire, the culture of Corellia--as well as the Empire's inability to put the notoriously independent planet firmly under its grasp--allows for more relaxed standards. Our Imperial members loyally serve the Empire that they believe in, but know that Kor Spera will never be an outspoken, strong supporter of the Empire. Our Rebel Alliance members do what they do covertly, knowing that if they violate the law openly they would be jeapordizing the neutrality that Kor Spera has worked so hard to build. Our neutral members can live in a city free of constant battles between Rebel and Imperial and not have to worry about being openly associated with one side or the other.
As far as the suggestions for factioned cities, I think they are all good ones for cities that want to go that route. My only concern is that cities could inadvertently be turned factional. As it stands right now, if a factionally-aligned mayor puts down a civic decoration or building it automatically shows on the planetary map as part of the mayor's faction. The only way to change how it shows is by picking it up and having a neutral mayor replace the structure. The faction of the mayor placing structures essentially determines the faction of the city. It would certainly open up the potential for competing mayors to debate for factional support, but it's important to realize that not every community wants to be a part of a factional war. We don't have medical, research, entertainer and other non-combat specializations for nothing.
Mirgonael
Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:22 pm
#5
Khristen, I completely agree with you. There are some player cities out there that have great community cohesion and a true sense of family. Unfortunately, those are few and far between. When player cities were first introduced, they were active and often crowded. Now, 9 out of 10 cities are ghost towns. True, some still maintain a level of activity and host player events, but those are the exception. What I'm suggesting is a way to bring the action back to those ghost towns.
As for mixed-faction cities, I have the following additional suggestion:
- The city Mayor goes to the City Management Terminal in City Hall and selects an option called "Declare City Faction" and selects Rebel or Imperial. An E-Mail is immediately sent out to all residents of that city, and a one week counter starts. Residents can then go to the City Voting Terminal also located in City Hall and, right next to the option to vote for mayor, there would be an option to vote for City Factional Declaration. Players could vote to support the declaration or vote against it. At the end of the week, if the vote passes, all of my previous suggestions would be made available and the mayor could begin placing city defenses. If the decision is voted against by the majority, then a mail would go out to all residents saying that the City Factional Declaration was voted down and would not be taking place. Then the mayor could, if they wished to, try again.
Would this solve the problem?
Message Edited by Mirgonael on 01-06-2005 04:24 PM
(Edited for typos... twice)
Message Edited by Mirgonael on 01-06-2005 04:26 PM
Khristen
Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:25 pm
#6
That would be an excellent solution to the problem!
Honestly, I'd love to see the voting terminal in city hall work the way the ballot box terminals are supposed to work and let the mayor program it with various propositions and such. It's been forever since I've tried one of the architect-made ballot boxes, but it used to be that anyone could reset them and that you couldn't pick them up once they were dropped. Regardless, perhaps there could be options tied into the city voting terminal that would give a mayor more control over the city. Abilities that could be controversial/potential griefing would require a citizen vote in order for the mayor to use that ability (for example aligning the city to a faction orremoving structures).
Those are good suggestions for GCW content for player cities, though.
BT-Trajan
Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:08 am
#7
I continue to lament the loss of the GCW (battlefields, bases etc...) and the negative impact it has had on Player Cities. Maybe, just maybe it will return with some genuine content and balance from the Develpoment team in this calendar year. But...I am not holding my breath. I choose to focus on what I have in-hand to make playing SWG fun, such as PvP tourneys, JTLS and Jedi activites, parties/keggers, and anything else the community can think of to make life in SWG fun and worthwhile.
Page 1 of 1