Politician Archive
Thread: It Can’t Be A Hostile Takeover If There Is No Existing City To Takeover…
There seems to be a misconception on the purpose of player cities and the definition of a hostile takeover.
Player cities where intended as a way for players to build a community either as a place of commerce or a faction based city in the GCW. Depending on how well the city was run with regard to appointing militia members and granting zoning rights usually dictates if a mayor maintains control of the city and does not allow a hostile takeover to happen from within.
However, dropping a city hall on an existing group of player structures and making an instant player city and calling it a “hostile takeover” is no such thing since there was no existing city to begin with. The players living in the area did not ask nor agree to form a player city and yet they are having it forced on them by a player that is most likely not doing this with their best intentions in mind but rather in some false claim of it somehow impacting the GCW. They are usually opposite faction players and immediately set outrageous tax’s leaving players with little choice but to be extorted out of their credits or move.
It is a very simple distinction. An existing city that is taken over due to poor management was done so in a hostile takeover. Dropping a city hall on a group of existing player structures with the sole purpose of disrupting their game play is not a “hostile takeover” but intentional griefing.
Lately this has become a more common occurrence on servers and will only get worse the more it is allowed to happen. Player cities are a community feature and not the tool of a single player wishing to disrupt the game play of others.