PoT's and perception of over power.

You're absolutely right, Rune... Governors have the ability to be dicks. The question is, why would anyone spend $1000+ dollars for the privilege of being a **** until such time as people figure out you're a **** and quit having anything to do with you?

Someone earlier in this thread stated that the rules of a player owned town be known to any that consider moving there. I agree with the sentiment. The rules for Dawn's Keep are simple... Wheaton's Law... Don't be a ****.

 

Your right they shouldn't be dicks.

The idea here is to stop them from having the power to be big dicks(this is going bad).

I think the idea of minor bans and house lot leases with options to renew/terminate etc do a very good job of making these places viable for everyone. It also stops a problem before it becomes a problem.

 

Why would they be dicks? There are somewhere slightly north of 200 Governors... there are a number pf people who govern multiple town. You have to determine the RoI on the development required... What percentage of Governor do you believe might be a problem and abuse their power and violate Wheaton's Law?

How much development time to implement what you want?

What about my right/need to evict someone who is violating Wheaton's Law in my town when he's locked into a game enforced contract that I cannot violate? What about the effect of that on my town and the non-**** residents thereof?

Which do you think has a higher probabilty of being a problem? Some small number of heavily invested Governors, or some number of 100,000+ (Hopefully) Avatars?

 

Since you quoted me in your post, and say my argument is belittling, I will respond.

I also would be upset at the prospect of having nowhere to go.

It is my honest-to-goodness belief, however, that this plight is a worst-case scenario which will never materialize.

I do think that what you describe could, indeed happen, if the Devs simply release the game and forget about it. However, they have repeated over and over again that Episode I will remain a work in progress, and that even after release they will still be adding functionality and content. For this reason, I feel confident that they will "put back all those PRTs" or take other measures to make sure that every player with a deed will find a spot in an NPC town if they don't want to live in a POT. If they want to, the Devs can patch the game and make 500 PRTs appear overnight, and I believe that is what they will do if it becomes necessary.

It all comes down to a question of faith and assumptions. I choose to assume that the Devs will keep their promise that players will not have to live in a POT. Others choose to assume that the Devs will not keep their promise. There is no right or wrong, only time will tell.

 

That's been all covered before now.

You have minibans, and then a longer ban that has to be reviewed by Port.

The unfortunate part is once they added towns into the game the development part is now part and parcel...you can't just throw a half implemented item into game and say hey here it is next.

Any instance where someone is breaking the rules of your town should and could be reviewed by Port to remove him, if he is acting against the ToS especially.

The effect of even one person abusing this is enough to say, "hey, this shouldn't happen ever." I have no idea how many will do it, no one does. With control we know how many will though, and that's none.

I didn't open the door for PoT's to be in game, but now that it's open we need to do them right. I think the last few pages have come pretty close to what right would be.

We have to assume the game will be successful and there will be clamoring for Lots after release. Like it or not, home owning is a big factor in this game. People will want it and there will be mass requests if this gets popular. Even if you say players will not have to live in a PoT's, which in itself a hard to accept prospects with the outlook of towns at the moment, that doesn't take away the fact that their should be some controls put in place to limit what in my mind could be a potential game hurting instance. Not saying anyone is doing it, but why leave that door open to let someone?

 

LOL. This thread has now 'jumped the shark.'

But what about this: When the POT banning occurs, the town gets flagged as PVP enabled on some short timer? This would enable the governor and ejectee to duke out any final disagreement over the banning so that there is closure. And it would allow the membership of the town to show their support for their governor or not in the decision, by deciding to join in the PVP for or against the governor for the decision. This would allow everyone to vote with their sword, vs. vote with their feet.

 

Not going to go there at all....that would be a whole nother thread.

 

So, now in addition to the development cost to implement controls over 200 heavily invested people who have the power to be dicks but no identified reason to be while there are myriad disincentives, you'd saddle Portalarium with an ongoing live -support cost to police the actions of 200 heavily invested people who have the power to be dicks.

What's the SLA on big brother responding to my request to have a **** removed from Dawn's Keep? Why should I have to wait to remove a **** from my town?

 

So do I, which is why I applaud Portalarium's delegation of such control to someone who is in position to apply it quickly as required in fluid, dynamic situations.

 

I love this idea. Has the potential for roleplaying assassins and scoundrels and in the end everyone gets stabbed at one point or another and problem solved.

 

The problem is forcing a choice between participating in PvP and suffering a **** to remain in my town.
I suck at PvP... I have no desire to not-suck at PvP... You would cede control of my town for which I paid $2000 to some **** that happens to be good at PvP?

 

Nah, wouldn't want your town. You can keep that. I didn't mean taking things. Other than lives.
I thought bad words aren't allowed?

 

You're being too literal... If I have to win trial by combat to evict someone from my town for which I paid $2000, and I suck t PvP, who actually controls the town? Me, or the PvP (presumed, else I wouldn't have reason to evict him) ****.

What is the effect of not being able to evict **** from my own town on my town and the other residents?

Why should I need to have the approval of any external source to do with as I will with mine own property?

 

You're a bit jumpy. I said I like the idea of roleplaying a scoundrel/assassain and killing the person/s involved in a flagged dispute. I didn't say I'd take your precious $2000. I make an honest living in real life surprisingly.. some even go as far
as to say noble, thank you very much. Not everyone that is into PvP is a ****, you may want to remove that name calling before Tarzan or w/e that mod's name is sees that.

 

First, thank you for your service.

Second. Your real life nobility has no effect on me in-game. The only character that maters to me in-game is your in-game character. If your in-game character is a scoundrel then to me you are a scoundrel as that is the only aspect of you with which I have any experience.

Third. Taking my example of PvP player who I wish to evict because he's a ****, and concluding that I think all PvP players are dicks is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

 

Well, all I said was I like an idea someone has regarding PoTs because it presented ideas to things I'd like to see. I liked it. That's what matters.

 

It is not land that will be rare in SotA, but deeds. If you are evicted from a POT, you will still have your deed. You can use that to claim land (which is plentiful) somewhere else. Apparently this is the opposite to the way it was in UO (which I never played) so that may be causing some confusion.

 

Yes, I do.

I expect them to be responsible for how people behave on their game and to ensure they follow the ToS. You don't have to wait to ban him quickly as we have discussed....but to get long term banning is another issue.

As for evicting, don't allow a person to have a lot in your town with a rental agreement if you don't think you can trust him. If he does become a problem petition Port to break said agreement because he broke ToS, not because you suddenly don't want to be his friend anymore.

 

I disagree with your position in every conceivable manner.

 

Ok, that's your prerogative...can't argue that.

Something tells me you haven't read the ideas of the last few pages.