+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Pirates/Engagement rules (/showthread.php?tid=95823)
RE: Pirates/Engagement rules - lIceColon - 03-23-2013
(03-21-2013, 06:30 PM)Karst Wrote:(02-17-2012, 10:03 PM)Agmen of Eladesor Wrote: "Hey, Mr. Transport, you're blocking the space lanes and being a hazard to general navigation. Move your ship out of the way."
That's a valid and in-RP demand, regardless of WHO makes it. You're not pirating them, are you? You're role-playing with them - and you've screen shotted that you role played, right?
So then the Freelancer/Junker/concerned citizen then makes a role-play comment like, "I'm detecting no life signs on board your ship, #t. We are detecting unsafe levels of radiation. Is there anyone who can respond, before we have to destroy your ship as being unsafe and a hazard to the general good?"
You can ALWAYS find an in-RP reason to blow someone up if you're willing to work at it. The big thing is that you give the person that's AFK enough time to finish going pee or getting his coke - and if after a reasonable amount of time of you RP'ing with no response - typically 3 - 4 minutes or so - then vaporize him.
Um Halt shot/killed/blew up a guy last month for parking in a 'no parking zone' literally right outside of Erie. The guy was in a CSV, but he coulda been above level 30 (halt forgot to check). Halt RP'ed a whole 5 minutes before he decided to light that dude on fire. Now it makes no sense why the CSV afk'ed there when there were literally 3 bases in the immediate vicinity where it coulda docked, and halt thought his shooting was justified besides lolwuts need to learn to not idle the hard way, and obviously nobody's reported me yet, and I'm not asking for a sanction, but is this considered violation of the engagement rule of no shooting level 30 or belows unless in self defense?
(03-21-2013, 08:18 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:(03-21-2013, 08:13 PM)Ursus Wrote: The rule is for protecting transports, not an engagement priv
Yeah, the indie ID needs an enagement privallege.
I have to wait for lawfuls to shoot me first before I can shoot back (When they are military etc.)
What if all the lawful did was state "this is a warning shot", then shoot a warning shot?
RE: Pirates/Engagement rules - Zapp - 03-25-2013
(03-21-2013, 08:18 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:(03-21-2013, 08:13 PM)Ursus Wrote: The rule is for protecting transports, not an engagement priv
Yeah, the indie ID needs an enagement privallege.
I have to wait for lawfuls to shoot me first before I can shoot back (When they are military etc.)
Actually, no. It doesn't need any engagement privileges. I think the last thing the Management™ wants is a bunch of independent pirates running around blowing stuff up with no provocation. The Pirate ID is there to pirate. That's it. That's all the ID allows for. You can pirate and act in self-defense.
The second you add "Can engage..." you better be prepared for some serious problems in the way of swarms of independent pirates. I was talking about this last night with someone else, and I couldn't come up with a convoluted enough "Can engage" clause for the ID to avoid "PVP abuse."
Maybe "Can engage in self-defense or in the defense of allies" -- but then who's an ally? Someone you're working with? Lawfuls? Then you'd have to put "Cannot ally with lawfuls" or "Can only ally with unlawfuls" (better, because that precludes allying with Zoners and other semi-lawfuls).
It can only get complicated. I think the minimalist approach in the current ID form is acceptable.
Perspective: a solid 1/3 of my ships (since I only have three) is a Pirate ID'd gunboat.