PvP town and Banning Permissions, Does it cross the line?

Discussion in 'Player Owned Towns' started by Sold and gone, Sep 20, 2015.

?

Do you like pvp towns to have banning permissions?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. I do not care

Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,786
    Likes Received:
    8,324
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Im of the belief that saying "they can't affordto support a function tthey put in game" is a rather poor a rguement. Dont put it in game then.
     
  2. DarkStarr

    DarkStarr Executive Producer SOTA Developer

    Messages:
    6,692
    Likes Received:
    45,560
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Gender:
    Male
    Again PoT owners having control over who lives in their town has always been the plan that we have communicated clearly from the beginning. I understand not agreeing with it. What I don't understand is acting like this is a new revelation.
     
  3. Wagram

    Wagram Avatar

    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hello Everyone,

    A few weeks ago I posted the below to the Dev+ forums and it was pointed out to me that it would be good to post it to everyone so here you go:

    Since joining the team in July I continue to be amazed by the level of support and interaction we are getting from the community. We are now living in a time in the game industry where the community can directly decide what products they want via crowd funding and community interactions like these forums. We are part of a bold experiment where we operate at a level of transparency that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Those of you who were around might remember that during the earliest days of Ultima Online we did some of this when we, the development team, ran our own website (and it was filled with Llamas!).

    That transparency comes with a price. It means that we will share ideas that may change, or may not work. It means we need to have a trust with each other that it is all right for us to share without being locked into a promise that we might not be able to (or should not) keep. One of my favorite mantras is: "The only constant is change."

    The flip side of this is a quote from Otto Von Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." In other words the act of creation can appear to be messy and unappealing. I actually believe that act of creation is awesome to behold as long as you keep yourself open to change and you do not lock yourself into any particular idea.

    In all these discussions I want us all to respect each other and remember we are all on the same side here. We want a great game at the end of this.

    Rock On,
    Darkstarr (aka Starr Long)


    I actually believe that act of creation is awesome to behold as long as you keep yourself open to change and you do not lock yourself into any particular idea.

    I think the eviction ruling left in the Hands of POT owners is one that needs to be looked at again taking into account the rest of the player base now and in the future after release.
     
  4. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,786
    Likes Received:
    8,324
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Im not acting like it is a new decision.

    I am questioning why you would impliment it however...did you not think people would question it?
     
  5. Aartemis

    Aartemis Avatar

    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Please do not ever change this. We paid for these towns and have the right to have who we want living there without question. Towns that evict people for no reason will get a bad enough reputation. There is no need for the developers to step in to change it. I suppose if a notice is needed, 7 days would suffice. 30 days in Gamer time is forever.
     
  6. Drocis the Devious

    Drocis the Devious Avatar

    Messages:
    18,188
    Likes Received:
    35,440
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it's reasonable to give POT owners the OPTION to use a set time frame (that can't be changed until the time is up). But I don't think it should be required. Like you said, the POT owners will have a reputation to maintain.
     
    Lord Baldrith, cartodude and mbomber like this.
  7. Selene

    Selene Avatar

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    11,697
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Serpents Watch Brewery!!
    Honestly, I think this is really a non-issue. You do not have to live in a POT. If you choose to live in one and are evicted, you do not lose any of your items. It is MUCH easier for word to get around about which POT owners are bad landlords than trying to keep track of every PLAYER to note if they are worth having in your town for AT LEAST 30 days. I will live in a POT, which I chose after talking with the owner and other people who plan to live there. I did my homework, and I do not foresee ever having a problem with living there.
     
  8. Satan Himself

    Satan Himself Avatar

    Messages:
    2,702
    Likes Received:
    12,806
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Highly inconsistent giving full power to evict residents from a POT but not to ban players occupying a PvP POT. I understand they are somewhat different scenarios but from a property rights perspective these two decisions are directly at odds with one another. Port got the former right, and the latter wrong, after waffling on the issue. :( Just saying.
     
    Xandra7 and mbomber like this.
  9. Godfrey

    Godfrey Avatar

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Colorado
    That's great. More power to them.

    Now just give those of s who will never participate in a POT in any way, shape, or form the ability to hide them on the overhead map. There are far too any enter buttons popping up while exploring and I certainly don't want to see something I have no intention of using. It's just annoying.
     
    mbomber, wagram and agra like this.
  10. WrathPhoenix

    WrathPhoenix Avatar

    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not mod power. Players bought the land, they have power over what they do with the land. I am slightly offended at you going around painting player owned town owners as if any and all of us will just go about and evict on a whim.

    If you own a LOT and you have someone on the permissions for that LOT, you ALSO have the ability to remove people from that permissions list any time you want IE evict them. This is NOT a special power to player owned town owners this is a power that ALL players be they lot owners or town owners will have. Just town owners have the ability to evict lots vs. individuals.

    If a player owned town owner evicts someone with no cause or reason, like in any social situation they will quickly find people less likely to go and live in their towns. The townships are what you make it and yes we player owned town owners often take our duties as a town owner VERY seriously. Many towns have become centerpieces of the existing community events and try to maintain atmosphere and community for everyone - often to their own detriment. I have yet to experience a story where I have heard of even a single player owned town evicting someone yet.

    If you own land, you should be able to choose who does what with that land and evict them if you wish. If you share a home with someone, you should be allowed to evict them and kick them out and remove them off of your permissions list if you so choose.

    It has always been this way, it has always been communicated to us that this was the intention of the features, and it should always stay this way.

    If you do not like this possibility, then do not move into a player owned town. No one is forcing you to.

    End of discussion.
     
  11. Lord Andernut

    Lord Andernut Avatar

    Messages:
    3,340
    Likes Received:
    10,087
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Britannian Market
    Does it matter why Portalarium chose to do this or whether people would question it? It's implemented it.

    If you don't like the power the owner has of their town - I would suggest not settling in one, for pretty much the same reason I would not settle in a POT if I did not trust the owner. Settling in a town that another player has control over, is trusting that player not to abuse their power, or at least trusting them not to use their power in a way that negatively impacts you.

    For this reason I will most likely settle an NPC town. Some people have paid to own their own scene in the game, and they have certain powers over that scene. Deeds let you claim a lot, but when NPC lots are full, as we expect they one day may be, then you're probably going to then wait for someone selling their deed and lot location and then buy them as a package. Location location location right?

    In this case you'll be looking for an NPC location, not a POT location. I bet we will see a website eventually pop-up that players list reviews of towns. If they were evicted "unfairly" then they can leave feedback. Yes, this will invite smearing and such, but this doesn't really hurt those looking to settle but the POT owners who want people to settle there.

    AS LONG as it is clear to players settling in a scene that is owned by a player (POT) that you can be evicted by the owner, this is a non-issue. Because I never have to enter a POT if I don't want to, nor settle in one. I can play the game without ever entering into the custom scene that another person paid to have in the game and craft their own story (or build their own business or live in like a hermit).

    They bought the scene, the scene came with certain powers over that scene. It is what it is, and what's done is done. You either are protecting the tenants or the owner, in this case they are protecting those who made the investment. If a total to0l comes and settles in your town or their account is hijacked and they put up desert buildings in your druid's retreat - then you can boot them out of your town.
     
  12. Aartemis

    Aartemis Avatar

    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    I mean, while designing the new layout for Bastion's Point Village Proper, I had to evict some people to move the lots. Now, most of them were guild members so they got it, but other were not. I found them on the Forums, wrote them a nice letter explaining what was happening and invited them back to re-select a lot when the changes were made.

    Point is, I felt horrible none-the-less. The action of having to do so just re-solidified my conviction that once the game goes live I will NEVER change the layout of the village. I just cannot do that people. I could never imagine just booting a player from our town because we "felt" like it. I think you will find most of the established and well defined PoT's will be the same way.

    It's just like running a store, sure you can CHOOSE to do a lot of things because you CAN, but doing so will harm your reputation beyond repair and put you out of business. So it will be with Player Towns. Do your homework and I am sure things will be fine.
     
  13. agra

    agra Avatar

    Messages:
    1,501
    Likes Received:
    3,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO? They'll change their mind on this "you can't ban someone from a PvP POT" decision, again. It's a long way until launch, and permitting toxic behavior unchecked isn't gonna fly. Just a few more determined jerks, and the light will penetrate the darkness. :)
     
    Budner likes this.
  14. WrathPhoenix

    WrathPhoenix Avatar

    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I honestly don't understand this mentality either but my buddies who are PVPers all rally against being able to ban in a PVP town.
     
  15. Godfrey

    Godfrey Avatar

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Colorado
    There's a difference. In the latter, the potiental for abuse is much higher. People could easily use bans in PvP scenarios to bypass the effects or consequences of PvP.
     
  16. agra

    agra Avatar

    Messages:
    1,501
    Likes Received:
    3,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's preferable?
    Leaving the hex PvP enabled by removing a single toxic element, or permitting a single individual to force the owner to unflag the entire hex?
     
    Alley Oop, Budner and mbomber like this.
  17. Duke William of Serenite

    Duke William of Serenite Avatar

    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    4,429
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Grunvald
    You already said you have zero intentions of entering pots. Why not create a post so you can have them hidden. That is perfectly doable.
    They never had intentions of supporting this function? Player are the ones who police it.
     
    mbomber and agra like this.
  18. Weins201

    Weins201 Avatar

    Messages:
    7,121
    Likes Received:
    10,958
    Trophy Points:
    153
    You get a warning when you place in a POT it is clear as day, plainly worded on a gump warning that tells you exactly what you can expect. Please stop reading into things, or looking for grey area loop holes.

    DS has answered you very, VERY clearly. there really should NOT be any more discussion or posts made about this.

    POT owners have rights and they are there, clearly explained, and out in the open. Nothing is hidden, nothing is grey, nothing is underhanded.

    Players who get banned, get banned and can go live somewhere else if they can find anyone who will let them live there. Most likely they are the type of players NO ONE wants around so they can wander the world alone.
     
  19. Wagram

    Wagram Avatar

    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does it say you can be evicted by the POT owner at any time even if game tax as been paid. I wouldn't know about POT's as not a place I will want see (on the Map) never mind visit or live in.
     
  20. Duke William of Serenite

    Duke William of Serenite Avatar

    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    4,429
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Grunvald
    You can be evicted at an NPC town too if taxes are unpaid. That is something that happens automatically. This is only for people using deeds that are not pledge deeds. AKA bought in the add on store.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.