Banning/Permissions Control List for Owners/Co-Owners

Only 20? And how many PvPers could 20 people occupy? When there are potentially 10s of thousands of people playing at anything particular time.. I think you might need a bit more than 20 for that kind of strategy to work reliably.

 

There is a valid and significant issue with the potential for abuse and we all know there is going to be some people that will abuse it. That will give all POT's a bad name. So all I am saying, is that players should be aware that the owners are individuals and, just like a guild, their mileage may vary. Plus, I think having your in-game player persona attached to the town will be a deterrent for potential abusers.

It works the other way as well. A good POT will provide well earned honor and respect of its owner.

 

Well I am not sure how to take your consider people that exercise an option to griefing to be considered a 13 year old dictator. I for one, as an individual, would use it appropriately, and when ever it is needed. The power should lie in the owner, not the griefer. The griefer would have the ability to page a gm and plead his case if he felt he was wronged. This is a much better scenario in my opinion than forcing the person who did nothing wrong to defend his situation. Let the griefer call the GM and let the gm review the game to see what happens. I bet 99% of the time the griefer would not page a gm because he would be in the wrong and he would be reporting himself again basically. It seems to me that you want to give all the power to the person to do the griefing and non of it to protect ones self.

I remember bartending and having to toss out drunks or disorderly people. And yes in real life we had to ban some of them. They keep trying to come back into the bar over and over again lol. I would always wonder why a person felt the need to go some where where he is not wanted. How much fun could that be anyway. Unless your sole purpose is just to annoy or aggravate.

 

I must not be making myself clear. I did not say you are a 13rd old evil dictator, I am saying there will be at least 1. Having a town, regardless of powers, is an invitation to be a first class griefer. The saying, one man's hero is another man's murderer totally applies here.

If an owner wants to take responsibility for a town, they should get credit for their efforts and take responsibility for their mistakes. If they relinquish all responsibility and turn in the keys, the town should be labeled a player run town instead. It is only fair.

 

"If an owner wants to take responsibility for a town, they should get credit for their efforts and take responsibility for their mistakes. "

Yes they should get credit for their efforts, and take responsibility for their mistakes. I agree, thats why I say we need the power to maintain control. If a town owner gets a bad reputation for doing it, so be it. He only hurts himself. But If he gets a good reputation for keeping the unwanted out, that should be a positive. No one is forcing anyone to go to a player owned town, they are totally optional. The rules of the town owners may vary. The good thing is that there are close to 100 of them to find what your looking for.

 

Great, then we are just talking past each other.

By making it clear who is responsible, there should be less objection to giving abusive powers to the owners. That is my point of making it very easy to determine.

 

See your wording is wrong, you keep saying abusive powers, god like powers, when in fact they are a tool. I do think anyone has the ability to abuse anything really. Do you really think that people that spend $750 - $5000 for a town want to sit around banning and abusing people? Sure you are right, maybe one or two people would. But again they can be reported also for this.

 

maybe. This should be examined because partying up or maybe some other trick might be available to us to manipulate instances and selective multiplayer might pop up and allow people to run this quest successfully. Having safe zones for them to stop off in will just help that scenerio. What if they can manipulate instances by blocking eachother ensuring that they will not be in the same instance rather than partying up to stay in the same instance OR with careful precision in voice chat they could swap between blocking one another to adding each other as friends again and then adding eachother to parties and then they can occupy the same instance after they get the quest. It is harder to kill an entire party of PvPers.

I think Chris probably already has a good idea about avoiding these BS exploits from happening. I'm sure he thought of this type of stuff and other things similar, but Chris and his team are spread thin on this project so we might have to see some of the more creative exploits until after they have been successfully completed.

The contraband quest could be a daily or weekly quest. I'm not a fan of dailies in the WoW sense because they were the only way to make money, but it won't be in SotA, and certain quests need to be repeatable. I do not think this quest will help a person's virtue much though. I think quests like this will be very popular for people doing the quest and for those who want to hunt those who do this quest. I hope they don't use levels to segregate the players who do the quest and those who are able to find them, because running something like this across the world shouldn't be easy especially if the reward is good. It should be very difficult, and if the reward is good this quest needs to be watched like a hawk to prevent inflation due to people finding exploits to complete this quest easier than it should be

 

I respect you point of view. But the argument you seem to making is that money buys immunity. You call it a tool, and it can be one for sure. A hammer can build a house and crack someone's head open too.

 

I see the point you are making also, and you would like to make it seem to be on a huge scale of players that would be banned. I think it would be on a minimal scale of players. Heck, Just make the ban long enough so a person could get the name out to all the people in the town to put that person on a block ignore list, that way the filter could work and you would never see them again anyway. The need is there for this to be immediate in theory though as to stop people from harassing, not letting them ruin things, then have a gm show up.

Edit: This would not work on a major scale though it would work for the residents of the town. If you are putting on a play and a griefer shows up, and is griefing, you would not be able to see it but some of your audience that is not a resident of the town would be able to see it. So back to the ban again lol.

 

We are really not arguing at all really. I totally get and respect why many people want powers to improve things so they can maintain the peace in their town and how a few feel entitled to them regardless because that is what they thought they paid for. On the same token, I also see how some people perceive those that do not want the ban as potential greifers (maybe some are).

Make no mistake, I am against the ban solely because I think it is bad for the game as a whole. However, there is always room for compromise. And it would be a lot more digestible to me if those with the special powers (POT or not) take responsibility for it, even if that responsibility is just in-game reputation.

 

Ok how about this, when a person is put under a ban, a gm is automatically paged for review of the situation. This would be in the best for both parties as a gm could review each ban. I would still say that the ban should be in effect until the gm can review it. That would minimize the potential for abuse. Would you agree to this?

 

Sure I would. That would be a much greater compromise than I would have expected actually.

 

Aye, I dont know why this had not been thought of yet haha. In additon, we don't know the number of town owners, just the number of towns sold. Many of the owners have multiple towns. So we know the number is less than 100 at the moment. The demand for gm action would be minimal for responding to these because what is the likeliness of multiple banning reports coming in to review. If the game has 100k plus players less than 100 is minimal

 

This is slightly off topic, but having endured all the debates in this thread and the ones spawned from it, I have actually softened my opinion on LOT access permissions. But you can still expect me to push for door locks over invisible walls.

 

13 yr old dictators? rofl. Highly unlikely, but if so, why should anyone care? If some 13 yr old manages to get $750 or $5000, and is willing to give it to Portalarium so he/she can be a dictator in one tiny area of an online game, why should I care? If I don't like that town, I just won't go there. It doesn't get any more simple than that. Honestly people. All these specious arguments of why someone shouldn't have the right to "own" their Player "Owned" Town they've paid big money for just boggles my mind.

No matter how much logic some are trying to apply to this, others are just determined to continue lobbying for no ban abilities. I just have to ask myself why that is. Why is it so important that someone be able to go where they're not wanted if there is nothing there for them, no game content, zero, zip, nada? And why in the world should anyone spend that much money and then everyone in the game has rights to it? That's just stupid. I can tell you this, if I had that much money to spend on pixels, I sure as hell wouldn't spend it on something like this if I would not have the right to kick anyone the hell out that I so choose for any reason I choose. I can think of any number of better things to spend money on.

Guess I'm through trying to talk any sense in this argument, so I'm out of here.

This is for anyone who doesn't understand my comment above

Specious:
adj. adjective

1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious.
   a specious argument.
2. Deceptively appealing.

 

Uhmm, your rant is misplaced. If you actually read the posts, you would see I was simply suggesting that people with power should take responsibility and put there in-game persona on it. It is just honoring thy name. Anyone that is not willing to put their name on their action really doesn't deserve to have it.

I will be proud to have my COA labeled on my POT. It would be a great source of honor and self pride.

 

Ok, I know I said I'm out of here, and this will (probably, lol) be my last post on the subject. I will simply invite you to re-read your own OP for this thread.

 

Fair enough... but I can be swayed by other perspectives and indeed have softened my point of view a great deal since these threads started.

 

That sounds like my original post a ban kicks them to a different instance and flags a gm to review the game tapes so to speak if the ban was warrented then then they can or won't get a warning from port or whoever for breack of tos. If the owner banned without cause then they would be subject to breach of tos and be warned whatever. Ban last 24 hours 12 who cares hell make it the next day (in game per novia time)