(10-29-2024, 07:05 PM)Antonio Wrote:

(10-28-2024, 07:57 PM)Barrier Wrote: To me, the cut-off is pretty simple. If a ship can challenge a reasonable cruiser player in the course of an INRP contraband scan stop, it must be restricted. And I don't mean run away (which for example a freighter can easily do). I mean take on the cruiser in combat and force it to retreat.

Are you going to continue restricting every transport that gets reworked, even after majority of them get the same treatment? Just because a ship on paper has high firepower, it doesn't mean the ship is actually good. You didn't restrict the Hegemon or the Barge, why? Likely because those are smaller threats than a single gunboat, which are also legal. Despite the Hegemon having massive guns and hull, it still is a non threat. The same goes for the reworked transports. They all have purposefully-designed drawbacks so that they are not going to be a bigger threat than a competent gunboat player. Not only is it not sustainable as more transports get reworked, it doesn't have proper PvP backing either.

(10-28-2024, 07:57 PM)Barrier Wrote: Rheingov has a pretty simple decision making process for requests: how much RP was invested in making the request? And, is the request reasonable within a house which is essentially a police state? Note the order of the decision making - if barely any rp was invested, the app is not considered further. If rp was invested, the app is considered within the general context of current house policy.
So if you are salty about your license app getting denied, first ask yourself: did you contact RFP, RM, or MND with your request? Did you attempt to have them make the app on your behalf because it would be beneficial for those factions, or to the military benefit of Rheinland? Alternatively, did you contact DHC or Kruger to ensure that you're not competing with their operations? Did you provide them with a reason why your request would be beneficial to those factions, or to the economic benefit of Rheinland?
If you answer no to any of the above, please tell me why your app should be accepted? Why should a House government give you what you're asking when you've made no inroads into becoming a known entity within the House? Why should you get the benefit of your request while providing no benefits (or even active competition or security concerns) to existing House factions?

(10-28-2024, 08:27 PM)Prysin Wrote: Laws are there for a reason. Exemptions should never be granted "because i would like one". It doesnt work that way iRL, it doesnt work that way logically, and it shouldnt work that way in disco.

We are ROLEPLAYING, meaning here, we shall act as if we were doing this as a iRL job. Otherwise whats the point. Just toss the roleplay out and do what you want. Engage silently. Shoot whomever. Just play how you want. But i know you yourself would bemoan such a situation more then anyone, because you know what a mess it would turn into.

As for the transports themselves, perhaps some further transparency and patch notes in the intention of transports going forward would make people less inclined to restrict them right away. But god forbid transparency.

You're both missing the point that has been brought up a few times already - this isn't real life. We make gameplay concessions that "break" real life/roleplay immersion on a daily basis, literally everywhere.

To name a few:

• We pretend characters are not dead upon ship destruction, and can show up in the same place with the same ship an hour later even if it's a battleship, despite being "immersion breaking" and devoid of real life logic.
  
• 20 Jormungandrs shooting New Berlin's docking ring doesn't mean that Rheinland is doomed, or that Hessians are stronger than Rheinland inRP. Player assets are irrelevant in lore, because open use makes them non-canon.
  
• Scale of bases, solars, ships fit depending on our need. We pretend Ouray is hidden inRP despite being 10k from lanes. Or Kagoshima not even trying to hide itself inside the dust field in Kyushu. Why doesn't Kusari just come and blow it up? Are they stupid? Planet and sun sizes are laughable. The O-41 neutron star might just be the only properly-scaled solar in the whole game. It wouldn't make sense in real life, yet we accept the gameplay concessions.
  
• You can't blow up any ship at will, and you have to type two lines of RP before shooting. Why? Why can't a pirate just silently blow up a hostile transport? In real life nothing would stop them from doing so. And they have to type lines on top of that? Doesn't make sense in real life.
  

Let's imagine we took just the first point seriously for a second. As "real life" and "realistic" as possible. The entire game would be different if characters and ships could permanently die. It's logical, right? Yet because it's a game we don't do it. We don't do any of the points I mentioned, and many more I'm sure you could find. The point being, roleplay and immersion can only justify so much before stepping out of the game bubble and realizing it's not real life, it's not fully logical, nor does it have to be. This doesn't mean you have to overthink every roleplay decision and overreact by saying "what's the point of roleplay if we're not fully logical like in real life?", it ain't deeper than thinking of the other side when making decisions, the one you're roleplaying with, which would go a long way. In roleplay via forum text comms, no different than fighting them in PvP, or talking to them in-game.

(10-29-2024, 07:05 PM)Antonio Wrote: You're both missing the point that has been brought up a few times already - this isn't real life. We make gameplay concessions that "break" real life/roleplay immersion on a daily basis, literally everywhere.

(10-29-2024, 08:18 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: Alright new proposal: if you die in the game you die in real life

(10-29-2024, 04:11 PM)Seapanda Wrote: Let's just all join Auxo lol

(10-29-2024, 07:40 PM)Barrier Wrote: What it sounds like you're saying now is that the whole concept of gov licenses should be sacrificed as a gameplay concession. Because yes, I plan on restricting any ship that can threaten what I consider to be a reasonable military response - 1 cruiser (notice how the Longhorn wasn't restricted, but the Bulwark was). But if you say that this is unreasonable, then where do you draw the line?