Banning/Permissions Control List for Owners/Co-Owners

We did find some middle ground with this suggestion. It was suggested by Roper Docholiday as well. Also Tahru has said he could handle this, and at the beginning we where polar opposites hehe. We did find some middle ground.

 

I agree with the OP. As the owner of a Village, I think it would be inappropriate to deny access to a scene to anyone. People have such control of their houses. There is no need for a second layer of the same.

 

Tahru was the original poster and has soften his views a bit. And I have also come to the middle more. We are trying to compromise

 

This doesn't alter my position. I don't believe such controls are necessary or desirable, and they're certainly not in the development plan for launch.

 

Ok then. Many things have not been planned and implemented along this rollercoaster. Thank god for devs that listen to the community. All we can do is put out our ideas and let them review them. we can however do a lot of debating which they can review and see the views of both sides of the argument.

 

Still I think its like buying a car.

Would you buy a car, and pay thousands of dollar's for it, to be told that you can't lock the door's? So that every hood rat in the neighborhood get's to take a ride in it without you'r consent. They don't have to make the payments, they don't have to keep fuel in it. Hell they don't even have to wash it when there done. Because you was under the impression that the car would have features to protect you'r investment from the risk of being depreciated by others.

We have already verified many times that it clearly states "OWN" we have all concluded that there should be "protection of investment for said OWNER" and yet there are still many here who feel that they should be entitled to it even if the owner doesn't want them there for one reason or another.

I think it's pretty clear to picture that even if you offer a different instance to the town that doesn't have the PoT owner in it. They could still, if not easier cause depreciation to the town by flaming and damaging the town reputation. Start rumor's in an attempt to steal guild member's. Heck they could spam advertisement's for good's in another town..... Any list of things in a attempt to diminish said PoT. And just because you put them in another instance of the town than the owner, does not protect that owner from the examples listed above. Unless it put said person into a solo mode and had the instance all to them self "and even then they would complain because no one is there to effect with whatever wrong doing they were up to the first time around" And think just a few minutes and I am sure we could make page after page on this thread of just more examples of how this would put the PoT at risk of such attack's. And I am sorry if this anger's some of you here but in that PoT owner's town it should be him/her that we cater to in this scenario as they are the owner's of said town. And what ever entitlement you feel you have over that is just wrong, you can go buy your own PoT if you want a town to do what ever it is that, that owner didn't want you there doing.

Now I have agreed, and still do, that having a bunch of towns that you can't go in on the map would take away from the game, and be very annoying to say the least. But I still stand by my idea that if a OWNER does not want someone there they should not be, for what ever reason. And that the PoT simply not appear on the map to them.

I also think that if its a guild PoT and you want it private, I think it should be but doing so would exclude it from event's ingame events or event's involving any pvp. And if there is such a thing as a pvp guild status such as "at war with" none of it's members should be able to be ban-able during something like "guild wars." So as the PoT owner can't give his guild a un-fair advantage. And what I mean by all of this is if you have GUILD PoT strickly for pvp but you don't want just anyone there you could set a enemy guild to "at war status" and anyone in that guild and that guild alone could enter with out fear of any of it's member's being ban-able. So as RP and guild war's could be carried out easily with out any worry of interference, or unfair advantage.

So in a nut shell this solves worries for RP interference. It solves interference to Guild Wars. And as long as it's set to private no events can occur here. It solves town markers that you can see but can't go in "without having to spend alot more time and money in" to make new material to add for the sake of depth. It simply makes it invisible to those that are un-wanted. But to do so makes it off limits to in-game events. And as for Public PoT I think that it's only fair that they should be able to get rid of trouble makers or undesirables on a player by player basis. But still the town would only be invisible to them so as they wont miss it while they wander around in game.

Sorry if you don't think this is compromise enough but when something say's you own it! By god you should OWN it" and I hope these ideas might help for the discussion at hand, but you have to understand. This subject of PoT's is one that involves the most money invested in alot of cases. And one that can be a deal breaker for future PoT owner's if we can't give them the ownership they deserve.

 

I spent thousands of dollars on a car and now some bent out of shape guy at the dealership has locked me out of the front side passenger door. He claims he owns the door, and it's his right to lock it! I've sent out a request to the manufacturer to see about having all doors unlocked so I can fully enjoy my purchase.

 

one could look at it that way I suppose. Or you could look at it like a house/lot deed. In a house now that you own, you can kick people out of it if you do not want them in it. You can rent out rooms in it for gold or what not. Try to picture a player town as a large house, with a bunch of rooms in it, that you are letting people stay in. If some one is wrecking your house you want to throw em out. In the pledge rewards it says you own a rent free lot deed. In the player town purchase area it says you own a town, or a whole scene actually and pre launch tax free. After launch you have to pay tax on lot deeds and player towns. If you are going to pay tax on a player town you should be able to have a say in who comes and goes. So you could look at it the same, when you enter the hex you are entering a home, that some one owns.

 

I understand the original analogy, and the rooms for rent in a large house analogy... I just don't subscribe to either. I could just as easily make statements that I'm a 2x LOTM pledger, and no other player should be allowed to remove me from content because of my status. This is a game not a house or a car. There is arguably not even any actual ownership of anything aside from the game itself. Content should be available to all who purchased, regardless of how much money was put in. No compromise.

 

It is a game, and it is property. You may not have to subscribe to it, but it is a real scenario. They are almost exactly the same in principle. The wording is the same for both items. If you do not want to see the picture you can close your eyes to it, but that does not mean its not there You can argue that the property does not have value and you do not have ownership but I think you will find many people are gambling on that it does and want to make a healthy profit off of these items. If you sold your lot deed in real life, does portalarium get the profit, or the person who sold the deed? If you sold your account, does portalarium get the profit, or does the person who owned the account? I do think you own these things, even if they are virtual and they are in a game, they are arguably your items.

In addition, comparing owning housing to claiming some one elses property is an apples and oranges argument. If you are lord of the manor x 2 you should not expect anyone to squat in your house without permission. You are making the statement that you can force your way into some one elses dwelling.

 

People that did not read pages 1-30 are just going to keep resetting the conversation at square one.

It certainly was in the plans, it was altered once already though. No point repeating myself over and over, though i will if the opposing argument does XD

 

I guess that's the problem with analogies -- they don't always work in your favor, or mine for that matter My point, which I bet you already picked up on, has more to do with perceived value and game play experience and less about true property ownership. The analogy of spending thousands of dollars and owning a house with rooms, or a car, and being able to control entry doesn't work for me because it assumes real life scenarios apply to my game experience.

Clearly not everyone places the same value in POTs. This was my point about (hypothetically) being a 2x LotM pledger. I can just as easily claim I don't value traditional rules about property ownership, and instead value my ability to be able to see all game content. Also pulling from the analogy, because I've spent so much money my idea should therefore trump all the filthy peasants

I don't like this line of thinking that I spent x dollars I deserve y special treatment. I'm guessing you probably feel it's not special treatment, but fundamental to 'owning' virtual property, but in any case... I don't care how much money people have invested in POTs. I don't think owners should be able to exclude players from content as large as POTs. You might say that we already have precedence for banning players from content because of how lots will be implemented. My thoughts on this: since lot ownership is more obtainable to all players it's not a big deal (in my mind) to allow banning at this level. POTs are different, they are larger, they are the aggregation of many players, many many more players own lots than ever will own towns. There is potential for a select few to ruin the game experience of many others. I just don't think the ability to exclude players from content should be put into the hands of players.

Ok philosophical ramblings aside, I think most of us like Docholiday's idea, or some variation of it. I just wonder if technically Portalarium can dynamically move someone into another instance where it appears seamless. Hopefully! It would kind of suck to be booted out to a loading screen while a new instance is found.

 

You may need something in the offhand to compliment the 2 hander lol

 

Well, this scenario already exists in this game. People have bought and paid for items that you would consider immersion breaking in order to fund the game development. If you do not pledge lotm you will not ever be able to get a castle. If you do not pledge duke you will never be able to get a keep. Many people will not be able to have the titles in purple or blue, which might break immersion. Again, this is an incentive to fund the game development. You have a house that can keep others out of it, and does that break the others immersion for not being able to go into it? A player owned town has no content other than housing and a few npc buildings. Now, furthermore you keep hinting that mass people would be banned and that a few individuals would benefit. How is this so? You would only be banned if you did something wrong, and where griefing the town owner or some how spoiling town events. I like the idea, and you should also, that every time some one gets a ban put on him/her, that a gm is paged and can sort it, this would minimize the exploitation potential of it. This tool is needed, and if it is implemented correctly, there will be hardly any exploitation, just upset griefers that cannot grief you anymore. If they are genuinely wronged, they can take it up with a gm.

I do not believe, as you stated I probably would not, that this is any special treatment. I am a firm believer in property rights, even if you might not be. This is not special treatment because it is in fact a purchase you made, that allows you to own your scene and give money to for development. At least it keeps some one hired longer and employed longer while doing this work. The add on store did not state that you just own the lots in the scene, it states that you own the entire scene. Immersion breaking or not, that is a fact, not an emotion. Copied again from the player town store:

"Player Owned Crossroads Village

Have you ever wanted to own an entire scene? Now you can! A Crossroads Village is the size of one of the larger wooded player villages in the Hidden Vale. (and then some!)"

 

Says you... The most fair and just POT owner in all of Novia.

Content you haven't considered: vendors, homes, mazes, bars, events.

Don't like the idea. Judgement and sentencing has already taken place by the time GM is involved. Might like the idea if POT owners first pages GM.

To me, ownership in this case does not imply the right/privilege to ban players from entry, anymore than ownership implies that Portalarium is responsible for maintaining or transferring my virtual property in the event SotA ceases to exist.

 

My goodness are we all still here?

There are two different views as to what constitutes "content".. Portalarium created content.. and player created content which relies on Portalarium content. When we say a player owned town has no additional content we're thinking about what we are provided with in the game and how it relates to the story. In the technical sense it's true.. there is no unique content in a player owned town that players can't see somewhere else.. as players must use Portalarium content to build said town.

Just clarifying for anyone not making that distinction.

 

I have considered them, and its a risk you take if you choose to be a griefer. One should consider his actions I guess. Also almost all of these, except events, are on private lots, and you could be banned from them also. The events is exactly my reason for what the need for a player town ban is.

You do not have to like it, and thats ok Not everyone likes everything. We all have emotional arguments but they don't usually hold water. The Gm will be paged regardless, so it should be in favor of the person being griefed and not the person who is griefing. The GM will sort it later.

This is your opinion of course. I am using logic and existing facts for my logic. you have a tax free lot, and you have a tax free town. Pretty much the same thing there. You have a bunch of rooms in a house, you have a bunch of lots in a town. Again, same thing. The streets are hallways. The entrance is the door. All of these tie together in a logical factor. This is not emotion based. I am not trying to downplay you or anything, I am just debating you I do not hold any title above or below anyone or any other player. I just like to use facts, not emotions to argue with.

 

Not sure if you're implying that my argument is somehow based on, or being fueled by, emotion. It's not. Nor am I attempting to appeal to emotion in my argument. The conclusion you've reached is based on the assumption that POTs should behave like lots. I don't subscribe to this. I mentioned some thoughts on how they are different in an earlier post. In any case, whether your assumption will prove to be right (or prove to persuade the dev team) is yet to be seen. As it stands, from my view, it looks to be a hopeful if not incorrect assumption. Last I heard private POTs were taken off the table, and I suspect this is/was also based on the same reason.

Maybe the dev team will start answering some of these burning questions...

 

And do not think I do not enjoy debating with you. It is nice when we can have point/counterpoint arguments. *salutes*

 

Owned: "To acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power, dominion, etc. "