Citywarn made the entire populace of a city cohesive and responsive. There was a comradery that built upon the need to protect a city. That and TEF for our bases brought people out from all corners of the server everytime our town was attacked. Then citywarn was removed because of POI campers and finally TEF was removed for the carebears.
Now there is little actual reason for finished template players (whether jedi or not) to help out in the city whatsoever. If we have PVE bases the rebels just come in combatant and are immune. Our 4 major PVP bases they never even tried to tackle once since the GCW revamp. What's really sad is that what the devs actually wanted to encourage they squashed, and the GCW is more of a broken joke than before.
Fivo Asia
- Strength In Numbers - Loyal Subjects of the Empire Asia Brothers Industries - Asia Hall SiN CiTY, Dantooine (Offers Vendor at -4703 -1404) A player bodyguard can't protect you either, something agroes you, you are dead. The only difference between a pet and the person, is you pay the person to stand there and watch you die. -- Straker Atrella
what about the option as a mayor to add factional items perhaps flags, recruiter, ect via faction points similar to how a armorsmith buys the schematic for armor. This would give smugglers even more of a market to sell to mayors and allow mayors to add a more factional look to their city. I believe this has been brought up before but as a newer mayor I really wish I could make my city more suitable for a future visit from vader
I guess I've always seen it as a mayor's right to /cityban anyone for any reason
Stated perfectly. Cities are player-built, player operated entities. As a mayor myself, I recognize no authority but my own on how I will operate my city. No player has rights in my city beyond what I grant him.
If you are a visitor in someone else's city, then you are there as a guest, not on entitlement. I'll ban someone because their hair is blue if that's what makes me happy, and *nobody* has nothing to say about it except the CITIZENS who VOTE.
That's the way democracy works. If you don't have a vote, you don't have any say at all in how someone runs their city / state / country / empire / cheese factory. That's just a fact of world politics: I'm sure plenty of people in Europe don't like it that we have guns in the U.S., and tough for them because it's none of their business.
In game, if someone doesn't like the actions of a mayor in a city where they don't live, too damned bad. Don't go there if you don't like it.
/props to the original poster for running your city your way and /props to the many people here who understand that's the way it's supposed to be.
Templari We dont working noobs [ 34 professions mastered ] [ 9 squadrons aced ] [ 197 badges ]
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.
Well yes this would be quite a nightmare.
In fact we need a tool to be able to pickup a full house and drop it somewhere else without having to decorate it once again.
With this :
Mayors and devs would be able to clean up closed structures. The sturctures would be placed them in players inventory with a special marker They would still be counter towards lots usage to prevent exploiting storage.
Want the lot back ?
drop your house
empty it
redeed it
This would clean ghost cities and maybe let devs to move houses, and even entire cities, out some spots where players should never have been allowed to build
No one would be nerfed as to rebuild your city or house you just have to find a nice spot, drop the house and voila you have fully furnished house. IF a full city is to be redeeded this way, the mayor would need a garantee that none but him would be able to get his city slot this planet for a month.
=> plenty of time to find a spot and if the mayor or guildmates doesn't log for a month = ghost city so let plyers have the slot back.
Regarding item movement my guess is all items coords in house are saved not in reference of the general world coords but regarding the house structure. So it seems this don't need much work to be coded.
Another great thing would be to give mayors or achitects a way to level the terrain as it is done with camps. Even better would be to let them lower or upper the ground for better house / city placement. Rocks and hills in the middle of citys are depressing.
Lastly I do understand walls coud lead to griefing and exploit but please at least give us roads, grass, concrete and even marble textures for the city floor. Actually players cities looks more like villages than futuristics cities.
Thanks for passing by Thunderheart, your input is really appreciated.
If you, being a mayor, do not Protect your Jedi, that are supposed to feel safe in your city, and expect the mayor to Protect them, yet you say you don't ban BH's that are hunting your Jedi, That shows me one of of three things.
1). You are Afraid of the BH's. (or maybe you are getting part of the payout)...I have seen it before.
2). You could careless about your Citizens.
3). You're a really bad mayor...
Just stating what I see and you, by all means run your city the way you feel is right, And I'll run my City the Right way.
You are supposed to protect your citizens no matter what. You took on the role as mayor.
If this was a real city, you would have been lenched up and hung out to dry. You never turn your back on your Citizens.
Faultless. You as mayor are not accountable to ANYONE for how you run your city. Your decisions and your justification for those decisions are absolutely no one's business but yours and your citizens.
Nobody has any legitimate right to an opinion on how you run your city. Not in game, not on the forums. You don't owe these people anything of an explanation at all, and as I just said, if they don't like what you do then tough tomatos, cry more noobs.
By the exact same reasoning, a mayor is entitled to no say at all in how a BH chooses his quarry. Sure, the fact is that the game is currently riddled with respec BH that want 80k and under jedi, and as a mayor that has nothing to do with you unless that BH decides to bring the fight to your establishment. In that event, the BH agrees upon entering city limits to be subject to whatever rules and conditions you set forth without possibility for repreave or appeal.
Think of all mayors as being like GarVa. They can be as flagrantly offensive to whoever they want and suffer zero review or reprocussion; they both have perfect immunity to any consequences of their actions. hahaha
Still love ya Garvs. Sort of.
You see my point though? As mayor, you are absolutely IT in terms of authority. There is no questioning your rules, there is no court. You win by default no matter what you choose to do in your town.
That's exactly how Center of Fear was sold to Axis on Bloodfin a few months ago.
Templari We dont working noobs [ 34 professions mastered ] [ 9 squadrons aced ] [ 197 badges ]
Another great thing would be to give mayors or achitects a way to level the terrain as it is done with camps. better would be to let them lower or upper the ground for better house / city placement. Rocks and hills in the middle of citys are depressing.
Lastly I do understand walls coud lead to griefing and exploit but please at least give us roads, grass, concrete and even marble textures for the city floor. Actually players cities looks more like villages than futuristics cities.
Part of the problem with terraforming, be it leveling or adding texture to it, is the huge amount of lag it creates. For something as permanent as a city or a structure it would be a nightmare. Camps can do it because it is a very temporary thing and doesn't create a permanent lag pocket by it's existence. For those with less-than-optimal machines, it becomes very easy to tell when you're coming up on an NPC spawn or a GCW base....your graphics hiccup when you enter the flattened terrain as your machine struggles to bring the rest of the art onto your screen. From my experience the game loads the regular terrain, then the modified/flattened terrain, then the basic artwork for the base/spawn, followed by the actual NPCs.
NPC cities can get away with it because they're hard coded into the terrain. There isn't any "modified" terrain layer to bring up since the streets and buildings themselves are part of the terrain.
| Khristen Lockslett Barezz |
| Galactic Senator |00
Owner of The KhrisNea Company located in Kor Spera, Corellia, Naritus -730, 1195
well as being mayor and leader of my guild and city...one thing i would like back into game is the militia tefs.....i have a jedi alt, and run missions from my city, i have some fine militia in my guild but they feel totally helpless when a bh or '2' come.
This wouldnt just go for jedi too, but if i go Special Forces, and get attacked in my city by a special forces rebel then my militia should be able to defend their city and defend me.
Is there any plans to bring this back or is this a definite no no?
Cryo.. /\ N-Tri //////..t..\\\\\\ The Most Handsome Guy In The Galaxy - Self Proclaimed!
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.
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.
Arnwald wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
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.
Well yes this would be quite a nightmare.
In fact we need a tool to be able to pickup a full house and drop it somewhere else without having to decorate it once again.
Actually we agree. It is something we definitely would like to do, but it is an incredibly complex technical issue.
Khristen wrote:
Arnwald wrote: (snip)
Another great thing would be to give mayors or achitects a way to level the terrain as it is done with camps. better would be to let them lower or upper the ground for better house / city placement. Rocks and hills in the middle of citys are depressing.
Lastly I do understand walls coud lead to griefing and exploit but please at least give us roads, grass, concrete and even marble textures for the city floor. Actually players cities looks more like villages than futuristics cities.
Part of the problem with terraforming, be it leveling or adding texture to it, is the huge amount of lag it creates. For something as permanent as a city or a structure it would be a nightmare. Camps can do it because it is a very temporary thing and doesn't create a permanent lag pocket by it's existence. For those with less-than-optimal machines, it becomes very easy to tell when you're coming up on an NPC spawn or a GCW base....your graphics hiccup when you enter the flattened terrain as your machine struggles to bring the rest of the art onto your screen. From my experience the game loads the regular terrain, then the modified/flattened terrain, then the basic artwork for the base/spawn, followed by the actual NPCs.
NPC cities can get away with it because they're hard coded into the terrain. There isn't any "modified" terrain layer to bring up since the streets and buildings themselves are part of the terrain.
Thats exactly right Khristen!
Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl Community Relations Manager
So let me be clear and ensure I understand this. Thunderheart you said previously that player cities could be used to deny people content if they were built close to said content but in this recent patch the ability to shuttle to these cities was cutoff right? Is this not the same as what you are preventing. If it is not then why were you waging the previous argument 3 weeks ago?
Jilea wrote: So let me be clear and ensure I understand this. Thunderheart you said previously that player cities could be used to deny people content if they were built close to said content but in this recent patch the ability to shuttle to these cities was cutoff right? Is this not the same as what you are preventing. If it is not then why were you waging the previous argument 3 weeks ago?
No, it's not. A player may not have the right to SHUTTLE into the town next to the Krayt Graveyard but there are no game mechanics preventing him from driving out there and wandering around the town.
It's like a driver's license - shuttling is a privledge, not a right.
--------- Niiight the Wookiee on Starsider - The Third Jetpack Crafter
I founded my city, and was it's first mayor, and am on the militia. When a BH comes after me in my own city, he's NOT going to be allowed to use my city services and civic structures that I paid for against me.
/cityban on sight.
It's not like BH's weren't already given everything they wanted and then some in Pub 66, uhh, 19.
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.
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.
Arnwald wrote:
Thunderheart wrote:
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.
Well yes this would be quite a nightmare.
In fact we need a tool to be able to pickup a full house and drop it somewhere else without having to decorate it once again.
Actually we agree. It is something we definitely would like to do, but it is an incredibly complex technical issue.
Khristen wrote:
Arnwald wrote: (snip)
Another great thing would be to give mayors or achitects a way to level the terrain as it is done with camps. better would be to let them lower or upper the ground for better house / city placement. Rocks and hills in the middle of citys are depressing.
Lastly I do understand walls coud lead to griefing and exploit but please at least give us roads, grass, concrete and even marble textures for the city floor. Actually players cities looks more like villages than futuristics cities.
Part of the problem with terraforming, be it leveling or adding texture to it, is the huge amount of lag it creates. For something as permanent as a city or a structure it would be a nightmare. Camps can do it because it is a very temporary thing and doesn't create a permanent lag pocket by it's existence. For those with less-than-optimal machines, it becomes very easy to tell when you're coming up on an NPC spawn or a GCW base....your graphics hiccup when you enter the flattened terrain as your machine struggles to bring the rest of the art onto your screen. From my experience the game loads the regular terrain, then the modified/flattened terrain, then the basic artwork for the base/spawn, followed by the actual NPCs.
NPC cities can get away with it because they're hard coded into the terrain. There isn't any "modified" terrain layer to bring up since the streets and buildings themselves are part of the terrain.
Thats exactly right Khristen!
I thought i read from FF chat that a house roll up option (pick up the house with everything in it) is being worked on currently. Is this not true?
Jilea wrote: So let me be clear and ensure I understand this. Thunderheart you said previously that player cities could be used to deny people content if they were built close to said content but in this recent patch the ability to shuttle to these cities was cutoff right? Is this not the same as what you are preventing. If it is not then why were you waging the previous argument 3 weeks ago?
There is a subtle difference. Not being able to shuttle only adds a delay to the content. Players can still go to the city via swoop bike. But citywarn allowed the local militia to kill other players and thus keeping them out of the city indefinitely as long as there were enough militia members to get the job done.
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
Jilea wrote: So let me be clear and ensure I understand this. Thunderheart you said previously that player cities could be used to deny people content if they were built close to said content but in this recent patch the ability to shuttle to these cities was cutoff right? Is this not the same as what you are preventing. If it is not then why were you waging the previous argument 3 weeks ago?
There is a subtle difference. Not being able to shuttle only adds a delay to the content. Players can still go to the city via swoop bike. But citywarn allowed the local militia to kill other players and thus keeping them out of the city indefinitely as long as there were enough militia members to get the job done.
Blimigerite is correct.
Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl Community Relations Manager
