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. Wagram

    Wagram Avatar

    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know that its in the post you quoted, I asked about placing in a POT does it state eviction for not paying the extra POT owners TAX, or they have a grievance with you or not.
     
  2. Duke William of Serenite

    Duke William of Serenite Avatar

    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    4,429
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Grunvald
    Yes it does state that you can be booted at any time when you place your house
     
  3. smack

    smack Avatar

    Messages:
    7,077
    Likes Received:
    15,288
    Trophy Points:
    153
    As you all know, I have always been against POT bans as they are specifically implemented as scene-wide bans which exploit invisible walls via scene instancing mechanics. I have instead lobbied for many other types of in-game tools, such as physical town walls and gates, which operate like house doors with locks.

    That being said, I agree that POT owners should be able to evict players from their POT. It's not a scene-wide ban. You simply lose your claim on the property lot within the POT.

    However, I also agree that this discussion is worth having to explore some issues that in my opinion have not been fully thought through, especially in light of The Land Rush.

    With that said, I feel that options should be given to POT owners and players, such as rental agreements. POT owners can utilize them if they wish, and they can determine their length. Players have the choice of living in a POT that has one or not. Over time, the community at large (both players and POT owners) will determine which is the more popular or utilized option.

    While POT owners paid for the land rights, I feel that it's at least worth discussing how we can also better serve the player base so they aren't left without a home. They also paid dearly for their right to live somewhere in the game. A POT owner can pay as little as $750 for a Holdfast, and some players have bought City lots for $1050 or more if Dukes/LotMs choose to live in the POT.

    So while everyone can argue POT owners paid for the land rights, let's have a bit more sympathy for players that may have paid just as much (add-on store and pledges) to find a place to live in the game. I believe the community is above the whole "don't like it, don't live there" attitude that's been flung around.

    Just because they made the mistake of choosing a POT rather than an NPC town shouldn't punish them for life given The Land Rush. Where will they go if evicted, if land has been said by the devs that it will be rare over time?

    In an ideal world, there would be some due process and tools in-game to manage that aspect. But let's not ignore that this is not a valid concern and one that also has real money value on both sides.
     
    redfish and rune_74 like this.
  4. Xandra7

    Xandra7 Avatar

    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Female
    The consequences of selling to a fraction percentage of players this much power and control, over what is it a few 10,000s other players that are desperate to own a house in game, is very troubling.

    If game controlled lots are not the rare item that we currently believe, then there is no problem, however if folks are forced into PoTs by making them the only option when all game controlled ones are occupied, then I kinda see it as a game created caste system.

    Not every PoT owner is going to enrich SoTA and the experience of many, and it does not sit right with me that many players will have as only option a home which they can not even call their own, the sword of Damocles hangs over it.
     
    cobran, wagram and rune_74 like this.
  5. Satan Himself

    Satan Himself Avatar

    Messages:
    2,702
    Likes Received:
    12,806
    Trophy Points:
    165
    What's preferable is to allow property owners have discretion in both instances. Just watch the abuse these PvP POT owners will have to endure.
     
    Duchess Fionwyn likes this.
  6. Duke William of Serenite

    Duke William of Serenite Avatar

    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    4,429
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Grunvald
    No game content will be inside pots, ignore them.
     
    agra likes this.
  7. E n v y

    E n v y Avatar

    Messages:
    4,641
    Likes Received:
    12,961
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    Whole purpose of a PoT was that the owner could decide who could and couldn't live there.

    With no ability to evict then the entire purpose of a PoT is compromised.
     
  8. Earl Atogrim von Draken

    Earl Atogrim von Draken Avatar

    Messages:
    6,331
    Likes Received:
    12,109
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    No.
     
    Womby and Duchess Fionwyn like this.
  9. Mystic

    Mystic Avatar

    Messages:
    965
    Likes Received:
    2,139
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Thread is closed for review. This is the third thread we've had to close in the past two days with the same topic. Please do not open another one.
     
    Duke Raas, Jatvardur, Umbrae and 2 others like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.