+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Rule 6.7 (/showthread.php?tid=62249)
Rule 6.7 - Python 72 - 06-28-2011
I thus propose rule along these lines.
"Lawful forces (with correct ID/IFF) may engage transports, liners or freighters in their OWN space if said transport is engaged in illegal activities"
Rule 6.7 - Hielor - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:My vote goes for Hielor's point.Well, unreasonable demands are already kind of covered under 0.0 anyway...
Although yet again abuse could occur, when Transport is given unreasonable demand by Cruiser, so transport says no. Then Cruiser is 'justified' in attacking, and can take cargo.
' Wrote:i change that to:I don't see how that prevents the scenario I described of a cruiser hanging out with pirates shooting the trader after the trader shoots back at the (non-cruiser) pirates.
""k) Transports/Freighters who engaged you or a allied/friendly vessels in sight can be shot..""
RP demand/piracy = engage
soo.....
/edit: fixd bad grammar
Rule 6.7 - Zelot - 06-28-2011
I happen to think that, while not perfect, the rules we have in regards to cap ships are just about as good as they are going to get. Remember, these arent in-rp rules, rules by definition are oorp and are intended to provide oorp protection to players.
Rule 6.7 - Hielor - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:I happen to think that, while not perfect, the rules we have in regards to cap ships are just about as good as they are going to get. Remember, these arent in-rp rules, rules by definition are oorp and are intended to provide oorp protection to players.I agree, but the problem here is that the spirit of the rule is to protect traders from being pirated by cruisers/battleships, but pirates are essentially abusing that protection to do whatever they want right in front of capships that are helpless to do anything about the piracy happening right in front of them.
Rule 6.7 - Govedo13 - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:I agree, but the problem here is that the spirit of the rule is to protect traders from being pirated by cruisers/battleships, but pirates are essentially abusing that protection to do whatever they want right in front of capships that are helpless to do anything about the piracy happening right in front of them.This is not entirely true.
1.Capships can give their regens to the transport. Any transport with more then 1000 bots and bats and au8 should be able to survive long enough to dock to the nearest base if it is attacked only by other transport.
2. You can put your capital ship between the fleeing trader and the attacking transport in order to absorb damage.
3. Capships belonging to official factions can shoot the transport in their home space.
You cannot change the rule like proposed because it will be one-sided only. If you are really against this rule you should be prepared to be robbed by pirate cruisers. What Zelot said- the rule is there to protect the players from themselves. My suggestion before you post here is to use search- this topic is discussed one million times,no point to say the same stuff over and over again.
Rule 6.7 - Zelot - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:I agree, but the problem here is that the spirit of the rule is to protect traders from being pirated by cruisers/battleships, but pirates are essentially abusing that protection to do whatever they want right in front of capships that are helpless to do anything about the piracy happening right in front of them.
I don't think the spirit of this rule is focused on one side or the other of the lawful divide, I think the spirit of the rule is about the balance of ships in the game. If a change in these rules were to be discussed, I would ask that any change be put off till 4.86 when there could be a rebalanced of weapons that would allow transports a chance against a cap. Although this is a very big amount of work to do, and I wouldn't want to put off the development schedule of 4.86 for this, when we can just as easily go with the rules we have in place, which has the downside of being a rule, which will always chafe from time to time, but has the upside of requiring absolutely no development time to implement. As it stands, weapons and ships are balanced in the game currently with this rule in mind.
Rule 6.7 - Kharon - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:+ add to all IDs which can have caps:
"Cannot escort traders in a Capital ship"[/b][/size]
This is no good. I have seen some RP-events (convoys) that could not be with this.
Additionaly:
Why make it so complicated? Simply add:
j) Any vessel used for piracy may be attacked by anyone not allied.*
*(
#1 This makes real Pirate ID`s "Vogelfrei" as they always have been infact in real History.**
#2 This also includes (other) Pirates pirating (them) Pirates, as was very common tru history.**
#3 This also implies/includes semi-legal states (like Hogoshwa)**
**(Dont mix "Pirates" with "Privateers under a Letter of marque", thouse where infact always "semi-lawful" Mercenary/Bountyhunters atleast for one "house" and they where not allowed to pirate "anyone")
)
Rule 6.7 - Xenosaga - 06-28-2011
j) sounds just and should be implemented
However k) can be abused, hard:
"Oh that guy shot back at my pirating buddy? Let's Mortar him!!1"
Rule 6.7 - Lunaphase - 06-28-2011
I for one never saw the nessesity of the lawfuls not being able to respond to ships caught in the act of piracy. Or smuggling for that matter. If you get caught by a thrusterless ship that you can see 18k out, in the case of battleships, or 12k out, in the case of cruisers, your smuggling really sucks.
I for one am sick of pirate transports being immune to capital interdiction, and not just becuase of house space, but do you have any idea how annoying it is as a zoner player to have some idiot ptrans breaking NFZ right next to a juggy yet the juggy cant do anything? The rule is frankly, stupid. Caps shouldent pirate, but they should be able to engage those who are caught pirating or otherwise making a nusance of themselves to a faction.
To those who say "oh but then pirates should be able to..." No. A capital warship is meant to respond to heavy armed threats. The ptrans counts, its basically a gunship with a cargo hold. Pirates however, dont have ships enough to waste on pirating with their heavys.
Perhaps if the pirate crowd could stop whining like 8 year olds who wont take a nap, and act in RP, the rule would make sense. But currently there is so many pirates that act like idiots that i feel revoking the protection from caps for ships being a pain in the ass, would be satisfying.
Rule 6.7 - SnakThree - 06-28-2011
1.1
1.2
6.10
There rules should be enforced when piracy is attempted while being overwhelmed by the opposite side. After few idiotic piracy attempts near Capital Ships while in "defenceless" transport players might become more aware of roleplay immersion.
We can't give responsibility to players as it will be abused in any way they'll find. Just like now rules get abused to gain personal advantage whether it concerns ego, pixel money, vampiristic fun, "I win" or other crap in this video game.