station.com Sign In / Change User Join Free Why Join? See the world of SONY
   
Search the Knowledge Base Games Community Store My Account Help
Star Wars Galaxies
Politician
Sign In  ·  Help
Jump to Page:   1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · »  |  Next Page
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Dryc
SWG Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 61
Registered: 10-13-2003



Reply 31 of 183

Viewed 8375 times


I tihnk rynnn did the right thing. I'm about to start up a city with some friends and one of our rules off the bat is: all opposing factions who attack our faction bases are banned and 2. all BH who hunt our jedi will be banned.
Mayors protect thier citizens plain and simple.
06-27-2005 05:53 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Thunderheart
Dev
Posts: 14821
Registered: 07-02-2003


Thunderheart

Reply 32 of 183

Viewed 8372 times




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.

Opt


OptAEON is correct.  As much as it offered a City Mayor a great option for running their city, the command was sorely abused.  The primary reason it was removed from the game was because rogue mayors were using /citywarn to block off content to control spawns and prevent other players from getting to the content.

As far as why a person would use /cityban?  It is a mayor's prerogative - - that is one of the decisions they make that creates the rules or "local laws" of their city.  If you want to disallow Jedi hunting, then so be it.  If a different mayor wants to allow it, then that is their choice.


 

Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Community Relations Manager

06-29-2005 01:31 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
CyberFett
Jedi
Posts: 2601
Registered: 07-28-2003


CyberFett
PA: DwV - Dark Warriors of Valor
Server: Valcyn

Reply 33 of 183

Viewed 8213 times




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.

Opt


OptAEON is correct.  As much as it offered a City Mayor a great option for running their city, the command was sorely abused.  The primary reason it was removed from the game was because rogue mayors were using /citywarn to block off content to control spawns and prevent other players from getting to the content.

As far as why a person would use /cityban?  It is a mayor's prerogative - - that is one of the decisions they make that creates the rules or "local laws" of their city.  If you want to disallow Jedi hunting, then so be it.  If a different mayor wants to allow it, then that is their choice.


So wouldn't it be better to make those no build zones instead of taking out /citywarn or making the area a no build zone and putting /citywarn back in?

City warn is still an important tool for a city. One example would be the problem with Coverts coming into cities and destroying the S.F. base turrets covert before they were removed from S.F. bases for that reason (I assume). If /citywarn was still in the game, the city militia would have the ability to protect a factional asset in their city.

I understand a few people abused this ability, but it is a needed ability for Mayors and Militia in a city for many reasons. I hope you guys will concider putting it back in soon and make it so it can only be used for what it is intended for.

General Vultan Blackstar

<DwV> Dark Warriors of Valor
Commanding Officer
Imperial Counter-Terrorist Unit
Imperial Headquarters (IHQ), Naboo
06-29-2005 01:42 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Alyxian
Jedi
Posts: 1057
Registered: 07-29-2003


Alyxian
PA: The Honored Maidens
Server: Starsider

Reply 34 of 183

Viewed 8020 times




KhoevenNalarDre wrote:

I also support Rynn's actions.  My city has a strict policy against any BH hunting our jedi - you will be banned on sight.  Because we fashion ourselves to be devout supporters of the Empire as a whole, that penalty extends to anyone hunting any imperial jedi within our town.

I do not believe these actions are in any way griefing the BH.  Is the BH griefing the jedi by hunting them?  No, because that's what BH's do, hunt certain other players.  So then is the mayor/militia griefing the jedi?  No, because that's what mayors/militia do, protect their own.



Doesn't that mean you should be killing all Jedi wholsale?

Alyxian Gorgaan
"Just an honest Trader"
Will Fly for Booze
Ships, Paint, Missiles, Droids, and More!
Shop located in Tal Kyrte on Lok, in the Mall
StarSider
06-29-2005 01:54 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
nikko11
Jedi
Posts: 986
Registered: 06-26-2003



Reply 35 of 183

Viewed 7996 times


If you had instituted a policy of penalizing a city that abused their citywarn privleges then you would have been able to control it.

However, as those responsible for managing the game, you failed miserably in your handling of the entire situation when there were citywarn problems.

Since you lacked the abilities to make it a productive thing, you had to remove it.

I used to love being /citywarned and attacked, it made for great PvP.

The blocking of POIs and game content by griefers was something you should have come down quickly and seriously on, and the abuse would not have been what it was.

Unfortunately, I can say this about many exploitive behaviors you have failed to control while functions were in the game.



Do you enjoy Little People (Midgets)?

visit the:

Midgets Who Work at Target
06-29-2005 01:56 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Thunderheart
Dev
Posts: 14821
Registered: 07-02-2003


Thunderheart

Reply 36 of 183

Viewed 7886 times




CyberFett wrote:


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.

Opt


OptAEON is correct.  As much as it offered a City Mayor a great option for running their city, the command was sorely abused.  The primary reason it was removed from the game was because rogue mayors were using /citywarn to block off content to control spawns and prevent other players from getting to the content.

As far as why a person would use /cityban?  It is a mayor's prerogative - - that is one of the decisions they make that creates the rules or "local laws" of their city.  If you want to disallow Jedi hunting, then so be it.  If a different mayor wants to allow it, then that is their choice.


So wouldn't it be better to make those no build zones instead of taking out /citywarn or making the area a no build zone and putting /citywarn back in?

City warn is still an important tool for a city. One example would be the problem with Coverts coming into cities and destroying the S.F. base turrets covert before they were removed from S.F. bases for that reason (I assume). If /citywarn was still in the game, the city militia would have the ability to protect a factional asset in their city.

I understand a few people abused this ability, but it is a needed ability for Mayors and Militia in a city for many reasons. I hope you guys will concider putting it back in soon and make it so it can only be used for what it is intended for.


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.

...and FWIW, it wasn't just a few players.  It wasn't a huge amount, but at the time, these rogue mayors and their clans managed to rope off the coolest content and hunting spots.

As far as mixing cities and faction combat, that is really a no-win situation.  Players put so much work into their houses and communities and they aren't willing to risk them.  While the appeal and the imagination of GCW city combat is appealing in thought, in reality, it would be appealing to far less.  PvP wars brings a lot of headaches to town that people just don't want to have to deal with on their doorstep.

Now, that's not to say that I don't think it is a cool idea, because I do.  However pulling it off in a way that satisfies all involved parties is even more complex than it seems.

As a matter of fact Khristen and I were just discussing this

For the sake of discussion...


Khristen wrote:
What is the Player City role in the GCW?
 
At the Fan Fest panel for Player Cities, it was said that Player Cities were designed for civilians and would therefore not be allowed to become a fully factional-aligned city.  The Player City system was created to encourage people to come into the city, not limit player's access because of faction, walls, etc.  It was mentioned that the team would like to develop strongholds as GCW content so that player's would have the opportunity to blow them up, something that was not meant for Player Cities as more permanent structures.
 
My personal feelings aside (because I really like the idea of Player Cities as *civilian* content), there are a lot of Politicians who really want factional content for their Player Cities. 
 
Currently we can have faction mission terminals and can place faction bases in the city like any other structure.  There is also a Stronghold specialization (whether it works or not, is up for debate) that gives bonuses to PvP situations for militia members, which suggests that it is intended as a form of GCW content since much of the PvP system is built around the GCW.  Many have used these items to create their own GCW "strongholds" and want better ways of defending them.
 
The way Player Cities are currently set up, they have one foot in and one foot out of the GCW in many respects.  The potential for it is there, but the actual systems don't support it.  /citywarn was used as a griefing tool against non-combatants, but it was also used against those of the opposite faction.  /cityban is currently used as an inconveniencing tool against non-combatants and those of opposite faction in place of /citywarn.  Because of this half in, half out set up there is a lot of confusion as to what part--if any--Player Cities have to play in the GCW.
 
Potential and could-bes aside, what is the intended role of Player Cities in the GCW now and in the future?

Well the short answer is in your opening paragraph.  The development of strongholds is the most likely thing.  Its a pretty big implementation and could be very cool.  It would give factional characteristics to the player city, but not open it up for grief.

Some bullets:

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.

l   Outside of the structures, its the people that make up a city and people can opt in and out of the GCW.

l   Faction Terminals in cities is a nice fun perk.  It allows players to jump in and get some faction action.

l   Walls in any MMO always lead to a variety of challenges and problems, both technical and social.

As far as the intended role?  The intended role is for players to gather in cities and create large social groups.

To intrinsically involve those groups in the GCW becomes much more difficult.  Does everyone chose to take part in GCW conflicts?  What about all the people who don't want to participate?  (The majority of the community at large prefers PvE, not PvP).   This is only the tip of the iceberg.  Anything involving cities and the GCW would require lots of forethought and planning.


 

Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Community Relations Manager

06-29-2005 02:06 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Blimigerite
Jedi
Posts: 8371
Registered: 10-19-2003


Blimigerite
PA: CIA / IPS
Server: Intrepid

Reply 37 of 183

Viewed 7766 times


/wishes TH would post more like this

Ladu Blimigerite / Izurak Blimigerite
Dark Jedi & Jawa Choking Addict / Respec'd BH & Generally
..................................................
a cranky old man
Member of The Lost Soldiers Gaming Clan.
Join our community at www.lsclan.com
IPS: Jawa Camper

06-29-2005 02:12 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Yalton
SWG Ensign
Posts: 192
Registered: 10-02-2003



Reply 38 of 183

Viewed 7736 times




nikko11 wrote:
If you had instituted a policy of penalizing a city that abused their citywarn privleges then you would have been able to control it.

However, as those responsible for managing the game, you failed miserably in your handling of the entire situation when there were citywarn problems.

Since you lacked the abilities to make it a productive thing, you had to remove it.

I used to love being /citywarned and attacked, it made for great PvP.

The blocking of POIs and game content by griefers was something you should have come down quickly and seriously on, and the abuse would not have been what it was.

Unfortunately, I can say this about many exploitive behaviors you have failed to control while functions were in the game.




The problem with citywarn is the same there was with the old faction combat system. They are not going to force NONJEDI in to PvP.

As for Turrets on SF bases they have been removed. They were ment for PvP only. SO adding the turrets onthe OUTSIDE of the base they made them also PvE. They weren't supposed to be able to content for nonPvPing people. so they removed them. This keeps them from being placed to grief people also. Yes placement of a SF Tac Center with Turrets if the turrets worked correctly could be used to grief.

Citywarn becoming a way to just eject people from you're cities also removes content no matter how you do it. Why? Because for BH and Jedi part of the content is BH hunting Jedi. If you can keep a Jedi safe in the city because you ban or citywarn all BHs you have removed that content.

If you don't like BHs hunting Jedi. That is part of life as a Jedi. A Jedi is more powerful and that is one of the penalties for being a Jedi.
06-29-2005 02:14 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Ash057
Jedi
Posts: 2015
Registered: 06-26-2003


Ash057
PA: FOAD
Server: Bloodfin

Reply 39 of 183

Viewed 7713 times




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.

 

 


 

TOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOL
TOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLAsh Jedi Guardian | Maynard Combat Medic
TOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLFOAD | Alternate Destiny | Semper Fidelis
TOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLSome say the end is near.
TOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLSome say we'll see armageddon soon.
TOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLI certainly hope we will.
TOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLI sure could use a vacation from this BS
TOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOLTOOL
06-29-2005 02:15 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Thunderheart
Dev
Posts: 14821
Registered: 07-02-2003


Thunderheart

Reply 40 of 183

Viewed 7591 times




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.

 

Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Community Relations Manager

06-29-2005 02:23 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Blimigerite
Jedi
Posts: 8371
Registered: 10-19-2003


Blimigerite
PA: CIA / IPS
Server: Intrepid

Reply 41 of 183

Viewed 7076 times



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 would prefer more of a Merchant update which would give vendor owners the ability to sell gear at a discount to one faction over another.   This would help identify Rebel or Imperial Cities by their merchant class.  It would also be more realistic as many sellers would prefer their weapons, armor, ect to be sold to friendlies instead of possible enemies.

Of course Merchants could also use a 'relist all' button

Ladu Blimigerite / Izurak Blimigerite
Dark Jedi & Jawa Choking Addict / Respec'd BH & Generally
..................................................
a cranky old man
Member of The Lost Soldiers Gaming Clan.
Join our community at www.lsclan.com
IPS: Jawa Camper

06-29-2005 02:42 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
TheNarcis
Jedi
Posts: 3705
Registered: 06-26-2003


TheNarcis
PA: Serenity
Server: Lowca

Reply 42 of 183

Viewed 6642 times



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.

 


Not to stray off topic TH.  But can you please do something about the housing with medium naboo houses.  We had a layout we cannot complete.  I understand the principle behind it for the faction base exploiters.  But we have no bases and were enjoying this benefit for 2 years.  The effect this has does not effect the current exploited bases, so there really is no logic in it at the moment.  Please reconsider.

- Malak Draven
06-29-2005 03:00 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
ImageAccess
Community Advisor
Posts: 636
Registered: 04-15-2005


ImageAccess
PA: THC
Server: Shadowfire

Reply 43 of 183

Viewed 6614 times




Blimigerite wrote:
/wishes TH would post more like this



I agree.  I'll digest this later on and hopefully post.  I wish every dev posted.  Furthermore, I wish every dev posted as much info as this set of posts has in 5 mins throughout the past 2 years, constantly.

06-29-2005 03:02 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
nikko11
Jedi
Posts: 986
Registered: 11-26-2004



Reply 44 of 183

Viewed 6601 times




Blimigerite wrote:

Of course Merchants could also use a 'relist all' button







Oh god, yes we do!

But we've been asking for that for years, I think they must like to hear us beg.



Do you enjoy Little People (Midgets)?

visit the:

Midgets Who Work at Target
06-29-2005 03:02 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
 
Re: Thanks to the Devs for the City Ban...
Options    Options  
Ka-oan
Jedi
Posts: 1786
Registered: 07-01-2003


Ka-oan
PA: -X-
Server: Chilastra

Reply 45 of 183

Viewed 6571 times



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.






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.

(ggggggggggggggg:WX??????????????WX9ggggggggggggggg)

The Noboru Family:
Ka'oan - Elder Jedi |-o-| Hidayasu - Spy |-o-| Kiyoki - Mandolorian Commando
Tusken's Bane, Chilastra
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
06-29-2005 03:04 PM  

Report Abuse to a Moderator
Jump to Page:   1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · »  |  Next Page