Banning/Permissions Control List for Owners/Co-Owners

Fine.. player-run towns.. being the term used by Portalarium.. but my point still stands. You're making the assumption that player owned towns will replace the player run towns.. but as far as I'm aware these is a baseless assumption.

 

Not solved by a longshot unfortunately. It doesn't stop anyone from standing at the edge of your lot and spamming you with emotes or whatever other way they can find to cause distractions.

It also restricts any event to being locked inside of a single lot. What if a town wants to host an outdoor event?

 

I do not understand how they can replace player run towns. Player run towns and npc towns have an exact number of lots for placement of housing. Player owned towns have a certain number of lots for placement also, but they do not have to rent out or give out the lots to anyone if they do not want. If they were meant to replace the player run towns with player owned towns, this would shorten up the public lots and really have the potential for pledge housing, unless they made more lots in the NPC towns.

 

This issue has become unnecessarily complex. Seems to me if you paid good money for a POT, and you want to ban someone, for whatever reason, you should be able to do so. The POT owner has total control over who can place a house in his town. I don't how a ban is any different.

If you have a good reason to ban, nobody's hurt. If you don't have a good reason to ban, people won't support or live in your POT.

I just don't see the harm. As for TEK's well thought out list:

1. Unfairly banning a player who has not broken the ToS from an entire hex of the game world - why is TOS relevant? The POT owner is the arbiter of his domain.
2. Banning enemy players to gain advantage in PvP. IE banning in the middle of fights etc etc etc - So there's a one-time advantage for PvP. So what? How is that more important than the POT owner's rights?
3. Banning/unbanning friendly players out of hex to save them from death in PvP. - same as above.
3. Preventing players from access their private home inside of a hex. PoT owner grief. - good point. Could be addressed by coding that if a player is banned, his house and belongings are removed from the POT.
4. (longshot) Possible game breaking exploits regarding mass bans. - not sure what these would be? I mean, you can only ban the players that actually VISIT your town, so ......
5. Unfair teleport type powers regarding ban/unban - again, hard to imagine any serious issues but could solve this by making bans last several hours/days/weeks.
6. Combat reset/heal/death exploit utilization with ban/unban. - could solve this by making bans last several hours/days/weeks.

If some POT-owning idiot is abusing the bans, just avoid his town. This game is going to be HUGE geographically. Just don't step in his pile of poo.

MOST of the time bans will be used for legitimate reasons. As defined by the POT owner. Don't restrict all POT owners' freedoms and ability to conduct their towns in a reasonable way just because a few rotten apples might play loose, in a very limited way, with the rules.

 

It's not like you're going to be forced to ban people from your town.

 

I believe it's just a misunderstanding. Consider for a moment the promise that there will more housing available at launch than what has been purchased by players.. which would include both NPC and player-run towns.. but NOT player owned towns..

Player owned towns have not yet been defined.. the number of lots and their sizes will be defined by the town owners. If these are included in the calculations it would be harder to guarantee a % of lots over what has already been accounted for.

Player owned towns should be in addition to player run towns and NPC towns..

 

yep, I feel the same way.

 

Fair enough and not only I would not ban people from the town I will not even allow people staying there to ban people from their lots. But like I said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And if we can review the LB story about the thief, just having the mechanics in place is inviting people to abuse them. There is no justification in RL or fiction for white listing a town.

 

I must say this is an unexpected hot topic, good to see people can debate without table flipping though.

 

My answer is... So what? These days passwords aren't that secure. They probably weren't that secure back in medieval times and ancient times, but they used passwords because they didn't have any better technology at the time. They had to trust their members.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk.

 

Consider using Friends Only Online.

 

How would you enforce players banning people from their houses? I would say your thief scenario is a good reason to have this system in place, because people do abuse the game and will do anything they can to create problems for others.

 

In all this discussion, we totally missed this most important detail of pure SOTA awesomeness.

 

Not the best option for community events, especially those aimed at involving newcomers.

 

This is the point right here. Why should Portalarium create permissions for player owned towns and something different for player run towns that are bought with in game gold.

If a town is purchased with in game gold nobody really paid for that town. They don't "own" it. It is in the world in a game we all purchased. Why should we be blocked from going there? Let them have guards.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk.

 

That would work for some situations yes. But if you have a public event planned, and you invite the general public, and you are putting on a theater show, or doing some event that took a month to prepare for, rehearse, get everyone scheduled for the same time to show up, only to have it ruined in a min or two by some unfavorable people, then the friends online would not work so well. What would work well is a banning feature. Whether it be for a hour, a day, a week or a month, or permanent.

 

Passwords in medieval times were probably really easy to hack though. Like the King's password was probably his mother's maiden name, or his pet's name. Like "Windsor" or "Bobo".

 

you are confusing the town types. You cannot buy a player run town, they merely exist. You can buy a player owned town pre launch with money, or post launch with in game gold.

 

As the land lord, we can impose requirements on the tenants. I have no intention of doing anything like others have discussed doing, but I have obviously strong feelings against invisible walls. So I will boot anyone that does a white list ban on their lot since it does not represent the open and friendly personality of the town that I feel is most important. It is not a complete set in stone rule; however, for example, if someone what getting griefed by many players, then I would be ok with a short-term (1 day) white list ban. Also, if bans are enforced in terms of realistic mechanics like a locked door, I would not take an issue with then.

 

But could you live with banning individuals?