PoT's and perception of over power.

@smack Incorrect. You will always have Single Player Online access, regardless of ban status, so your scenario does not hold. You can only be banned from multiplayers access to a specific POT. This has been stated many times in a number of threads.

 

UO is not free from players with bad reputations, TEK. You know that.

POT owners should be held accountable for their actions. But we should do that on an individual basis. If there's a POT owner that doesn't want an event wrecked by someone that is bending the TOS and pushing the limits on what's socially exceptable in that POT, I don't care if they ban the people. The POT isn't a playground to see how far the TOS can be pushed.

 

And let me say this too...if there's a POT owner that is banning players in a way that breaks the TOS, then they should be banned.

 

Now, here is the million dollar question.

Will Port add more none PoT's to an already crowded map to allow for more lots to be sold.

If you can ban whoever you like whenever you like....it will be abused. It's not even a maybe in my mind.

So....in order to get to that PoT you have to log into single player online...move thru the other PoT...log out and back in? Sounds fun. Seems like a logistical problem.

 

After a banned player gets their stuff from the bank at the POT, why do they need to go back to the POT? There are over 230 more they can go to.

 

What if they live in a nested PoT(the scenario we are talking about)

Not directed at you, but there is a guy in that video who smugly states "If I own a town I can ban you, end of story." Why would anyone want to give up that power?

 

Oh you mean if they are banned in the connecting POT but not in the POT they lived in? That's actually a good question, Rune. Yes, they'd have to log into single player mode to get through the first POT.

I'd totally be in favor of Portalarium making it so they could just skip the first POT and go where they live and are not banned. That's a point that is deserving of its own thread.

Well the more important question would be, why would you want to live in that guy's POT? If the answer is, you wouldn't, then don't live there. That's a problem with decision making, not the POT owner ban system.

 

I see two possible positions here,
1. Players will like the game better with the rules rune is suggesting.
2. Players will like the game better as is.

I don't see why the thread is getting detoured from that.

Rune and some others are saying players won't like the current situation and will end up dissatisfied. Others are saying its fine and those backers are projecting their fears. But the real question is which of the alternatives will players will like better and think is fairer when everything is said and done -- or whether there's a third alternative, or middle ground. Am I wrong?

 

Do you honestly see a middle ground?

I thought perhaps a contract system that allows players protection when they take a lot...instead of being evicted on whim...the PoT owner can still evict them when that contract is over, but loses absolute control.

Banning should not be in a PoT at all....can't you already ignore players?

 

Here's the problem...Rune doesn't speak for "players" or even "most players" and certainly not "all players". Rune doesn't know what "players" will or will not like. Rune only knows what Rune likes.

It's totally fair for Rune to say what he likes and doesn't like. It's not fair to give Rune some kind of mega responsibly to speak for anyone but himself.

People are however coming into this conversation and using an argument that goes like this...."Players" don't want what we have. The only "players" that like this system are the ones that have "the power".

This completely ignores the fact that POTs don't have to be lived in, and POTs are not a part of the main story line so you don't need them to finish the game. So let's just say for a moment that Rune (and others) are completely right about "players" and what they want. Let's even say for a moment that "players" would flock to this game and give it millions of dollars and solve all the problems in the world if we simply didn't allow POT owners to ban whoever they wanted.

This still wouldn't solve how Portalarium would somehow mange the 10's of thousands of "players" that may have conflicts in the game (like RP events) that will be ruined by slow reacting moderators that would be overwhelmed and incapable of making decisions about who should or should not be able to attend Bowen's Weekly Astrology meeting. This is why POT owner bans were put into the game in the first place.

So yeah, I think you're wrong here. I think that if you don't like POTs, you don't go into them. If you don't like the rules of a POT, you don't go into it.

 

Yes, you can ignore players. But if you're running a social event like a play and someone is jumping around naked in your play and that person is shown to everyone that has not ignored them yet, even though you specially said "under no circumstances should anyone be on the stage jumping around naked".

That's why POT owners can ban. And yes this kind of thing happened several times during pre-alpha.

 

I don't know; I just figured it should be part of the discussion.

I personally don't support any "invisible wall" banning that doesn't involve role-playing. And if they do have it, I think it should always be temporary. If the only purpose is just to stop disruptions of events, it doesn't need to be permanent.

I don't know what problems there are with rent contracts. POT owners would have to step in and address any potential problems they see with it. It might be abused. But it seems to me that with or without a rent contract, the POT owner would still have the right to exclude that person from the city permanently once it expires ?

 

Heh, I never even said I speak for everyone else, but I have heard a lot of complaints here and elsewhere. Regardless, that avoids the issue and makes it sound like a vendetta.

In an ideal world, no one will abuse the power given to them. But we aren't in an ideal world.

No one has been vetted that has purchased these PoT's.

A simple scenario....say you want to play with some friends you enter a PoT owned by Joe Blow(made up fictional character) and he doesn't like you because you didn't give him something or whatever. He bans you on the spot and laughs, "Hah I can do this and you can't do anything about it...stay out!" Now, it's a major event and you would love to be part of it, but now all you can do is look at that town on the map and realize you should have given that guy what he wanted and everyone can play nice. Now the next time a PoT owner says hey give me this you will or be ostracized. Better yet, he broadcasts that he banned you and a bunch of other PoT's ban you as well...

That situation couldn't happen in the current system...but wait it can, because there is no rules stating that can't happen.

 

Portalarium has already stated that POT owners will not have an automatic system to collect rent. So no rent contracts.

I'd LOVE to have rent contracts, I'd love an automatic system to collect rent. But there are many POTs that won't charge rent, they just want a place to play their game in peace. That's why they can ban people.

This is selective multiplayer. If you can't handle the rules in someone's POT you're going to be banned. This is really no different than if someone is playing in friends only mode.

 

Drocis,

Yea, so there are two potential sources of conflicts you and rune are describing,
1. POT owners having a conflict with people causing trouble in their town.
2. Other players having a conflict with POT owners.

Regardless of the players you or rune represents, I would think we could discuss the best solutions to both of those problems. "Players being happy" in that sense is reducing the total number of conflicts and problems with the system.

 

The issue with this is: What are the rules? They are written in quicksand and people can ban you at whim.

 

Everytime you say things like "players won't like it" you're saying that. Just stick to "I" and not "players" and you will be fine.

This doesn't need to happen because players don't have to live or goto POTs if they don't want to. You're using a strawman.

It's a big world, go find something else to do. And while you're at it, let the world know that "Joe Blow" is a horrible town owner.

Why don't players have to vet POT owners?

 

True. Ask yourself this, and Tek brought this up in the video....what happens when the wrong person gets banned and goes viral with it across the net....MMORPG.com has a front page story of the slum lords of shroud?(I'm using this as an extreme to make a point.)

This will be bad for all of us not just PoT owners.

 

I agree with you.

So here's my question. If you don't go to a POT, you can't get banned. So where's the problem?

 

True. I recall a play rehearsal I was at in Kingsport that had a combat scene requiring actors to flag for PVP. Shortly after the scene started a couple of people suddenly appeared, leapt onto the stage and killed all the actors who were flagged for PVP. I guess we could have sent an email to portalarium requesting intervention, but I'm not sure that's the best solution in those circumstances.