Banning/Permissions Control List for Owners/Co-Owners

First I'd like to clarify something from a later post than this. I think one of our main points of contention is what we each mean by "ban". I might still say 'ban' but I and I believe others supporting the idea only want to separate problem players from the crowd as it were. Perhaps a tragic aspect of the debate is that 'ban' is an easy word to use to convey a simple concept which has complicated ramifications. Basically we're disagreeing on definition or basic concept? well anyway..

So ok.. to the quote. Basically where my idea I would coin the phrase "resident" or "owner" instance.. this idea is basically an extension of this (and I now remember it posted once before).. where you're basically setting up an "event instance" with extended functionality.

Actually that idea alone may be worth it's own discussion in regards to in-game event functions. Basically what you'd be doing though is converting my "resident instance" into an "Event instance".. you start an event and then those features kick in. The "ban" from the event is essentially a temporary ban that only keeps you out of that instance until the event is over.

Is that about right?

 

Exactly

 

Ok cool so we're at least agreeing in principle. It isn't necessary to ban someone from even entering a town. We only need to separate problem players from the crowd.. and we can do that by forcing them into a separate instance. They still have access to the town itself. And really most of the code should already there with selective multiplayer features.

 

I suspect that larger events are going to want a mechanism for the players to make it in the same instance. So it is actually beneficial to put the event in its own instance to ensure everyone interested gets there.

 

I'm just trying to think how exactly that would work. I really do think that particular idea deserves it's own thread.

 

This is a great idea, and it would work for events good. I guess for any other griefing in a town can be handled by ignore/block. Would just have to get everyone in the town to do it

 

Yeah I think you should be able to deal with those people outside of events.. but in the same manner as described. Based on instances. What it's essentially doing is putting the offending player on all the resident's block list.. but only as it relates to the town itself.

 

Tough call on this. It doesn't sound like a yes or no answer. On one hand, someone who paid for a town ought to be able to ban those they deem as unfriendly griefers. On the other, if the town is on the over-world map, it is taking up space in the game and ought to be accessible content. So how about something in the middle? For example, if someone gets flagged by 8 people (for 8 virtues) in a Player Owned Town, they can still enter the town again but will do so at the risk of being made a criminal if flagged again. Criminals will be teleported to the stockades, where they will spend some period of time as the subject of a rotten tomato throwing mini-game for the towns peoples' amusement?

 

Well that's why we're talking about banning from instances rather than the town itself in totality. Everyone could still enter the town so that 'content' is still available to them.

 

yep, and suddenly all is better in the world

 

Although, this current proposed solution for events technically removes it from being a POT only solution, a large POT, like a city or metro with lots of residents would be able to hold larger events because the residents that are not interested will not join the instance, making slots for people that are interested.

If the devs get creative, they could have passage ways and/or signs and ... to make joining an event quite easy and prominent from within the game. It could even be a simple as clicking on text in a chat window.

 

I'm going to take a page out of the NWN playbook. When a DM started an event we had the option of either a silent event (one without notifying the player) or a regular event which noticed all players.. who could then choose to join that event. When thy joined they were teleported to the event's start location.

Now you wouldn't want a global announcement and teleporting players all around the world.. but you could do this in a localized way.. where the event host would start an event and a new instance is created. Anyone in the scene or entering the scene would be notified that an event has started.. joining the event would then teleport you into that (or other appropriate) instance.

There would be a few other details to work out I think but that would be one way to do it.

 

Say would you like to start a new thread on Events or would you mind if I did? I'm somewhat keenly interested in this particular topic.

 

@Filthy Peasant

I apologize for getting on your case here. Obviously, you not only participated in previous discussions, you realized there fallibility and then decided to start a thread that might have more traction. I want to give credit where it is due. I still don't agree with the concept on banning from POT's under any condition. As silly as it is, this is one of those topics that I view as defining in a game. So, I was getting quite concerned that the proliferation of threads would cloud the picture and even worse, make it hard for the game designers to hear everyone's point of view. Regardless, I was wrong to cap your voice and ironically, I happen to be fighting for the opposite in the game.

Please consider my public apology.

 

I would not mind. And if you look at resent posts, you will see I was sorry about bitching about it earlier.

 

While I'm tempted to plug my thread.. *cough* I just want to break down what the ultimate goal of "banning" from a "town" really is. The huge opposition being the idea that player's are unable to enter the town.. period.. but that's not what we actually need it to do. All we really need is to be able to separate the trouble makers from rest. That can be done by expanding the existing selective-multiplayer features to essentially force the offending player(s) into a different instance as the town owner/residents/event host.

It does not by any means have to mean that person is locked out of the town entirely. A point I wish had been made a long time ago. Perhaps from a "town" was simply a poor choice of words and for my part I know I wasn't even thinking about instances until someone else brought it up.. so I guess that's my bad in all of it.. but there you go. There is middle ground here.

 

Restraining order in RL can apply nationwide, so the area of effect is actually much bigger than a single town. POT ban in the game would actually be less restrictive than a restraining order in RL.

 

Thank you sir. We all get emotional when its important to us. Sometimes I let myself get carried away also, and for that I apologize also.

 

Yeah that option is almost the flipside of the softban where troublemakers would be sent to a separate instance of the town. This version seems almost as good (from my viewpoint), having an separate version for events that would require an invite would protect events while still allowing for new players and random interested parties to join. Would just require a little in game advertising on the part of the organisers.

 

I still think alot of people are over seeing the big picture here. If you pay the thousands of dollars for a PoT. You should be able to decide who you share that with. I mean come on!

Think about this, some PoT owner sells goods or plots cheaper than his neighboring PoT owner and then they throw mud at one another for awhile. One thinks hes right the other thinks hes done nothing wrong and now it gets dirty. The 2nd PoT owner comes in and starts advertising his town goods or services or tarnishes the first owners reputation in the first owners town and theirs nothing the town owner can do about it? Even putting them in different instances will not stop the 2nd person from damaging or taking away from the first owner's town who only ran his town the way he wanted too. I know to some extremes the devs could step in if it got too far out of hand but lets say he just solicits goods in other towns and makes it hard on the owner. Are you really saying its fair that the owner not be able to protect his own? Something he paid thousands of dollars for? THOUSANDS!!! for a piece of a game!!!! "As it is advertised" That's more than I have payed for all other games combined. A piece of the game that you think you should be entitled to even though you didn't pitch in on the cost or go threw the trouble of building and managing?

I be danged if I could consider myself entitled to anything someone else paid that much money for. Because I can tell you this..... NO way in the life of this game would I shed out that much money for a PoT if it wasn't truly mine.... If I couldn't really run it the way I want to..... If I couldn't say if it was truly private or public. And Truly mine....

This is what the store says about PoT's: Have you ever wanted to own an entire scene? Now you can!

*key word OWN* meaning no one but that person should be entitled to anything there.

I still think the answer is to be able to make private towns invisible to all except those on the roster and the town also be invisible to those banned from them. They wont miss them because they wont even be able to see them on the over head map. Very simple solution to all that is mentioned. There will most certainly be far more fewer PoT owners than greifer's and at best there would be the smallest fraction of that would abuse this tool as it has been stated many times "would hurt there towns rep, one that they invested so much in." So any exploits that might some how come from this "which I dont see how one could if they simply couldn't go there" could be handled by the dev. team much easier than the other way around. Plus PoT owner's stand to loose far more than any griefer does by abusing any loop holes until they are found. But this can very easily be avoided by putting a long timer on Bans or what not. So as it can't be abused over and over

I REALLY hope the devs jump in on this issue and put this dog to rest!