+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: News and Announcements (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 (/showthread.php?tid=207913)
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - TheSauron - 05-24-2025
I feel like a much simplier solution to the problem is to allow these 'combat' transports to carry on with the trade route like normal transports can. As capable as they are, docking on a base is their win condition regardless of how many guns they carry. It'd be a little silly to punish them for achieving their objective.
On another, ignored, note:
(05-22-2025, 04:24 PM)TheSauron Wrote:(05-21-2025, 10:57 AM)TheSauron Wrote: I would appreciate it if you guys could enumerate the gameplay benefits of every transport at 3.6k or below getting 5v1'd by pirates for the crime of carrying cargo that makes money. This ain't it, and I'm saying this as a staunch advocate of nuking transport PvP protections. Let them be engaged, sure, they're capable of self defense. But why pair it with yet another ganking exemption? Why does John Serenity not deserve to have fun in a pirate encounter just cause he's doing a cargo run?
There was a conversation about this in Discogen, and I'd like to repeat my point from there: stripping fairplay protections from ships simply doing what they're supposed to (carrying cargo in this case) is unhinged. There is no gameplay benefit in allowing pirates to gang up on a guy just because there are """"""stakes"""""" involved. The fairplay exemption for transports should be limited to the transport's escorts and reactive defenders, and only for however long it takes to ensure the transport's safety.
There is no reason for pirates to be allowed to gank a transport, and there's no reason for escorts to be allowed to gank pirates once they're peeled off the transport.
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - Reeves - 05-24-2025
(05-21-2025, 09:13 AM)Reeves Wrote:(05-21-2025, 08:56 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: (though grouping would be oorp)
Do you mean to say it's prohibited for the factions in that example to be grouped together when fighting common enemies? If so I'd have to point out that's more than a little silly.
???
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - EisenSeele - 05-26-2025
(05-24-2025, 01:48 PM)Reeves Wrote:(05-21-2025, 09:13 AM)Reeves Wrote:(05-21-2025, 08:56 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: (though grouping would be oorp)
Do you mean to say it's prohibited for the factions in that example to be grouped together when fighting common enemies? If so I'd have to point out that's more than a little silly.
???
It's a long standing policy that hostile factions are not permitted to group up - yes, it's a bit arbitrary given that people are free to coordinate on discord or other methods, but there are tangible benefits such as proximity decloak being disabled and auto DM acceptance that come from grouping.
This isn't really within the scope of the rule change discussion, so I'd ask that it be posed as a separate request so as to not invite more out-of-scope discussion for this thread.
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - Reeves - 05-26-2025
(05-26-2025, 02:16 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: It's a long standing policy that hostile factions are not permitted to group up - yes
No it isn't. It's never been enforced and has never been explicitly stated as against the rules. It /used/ to be part of your ID that you couldn't "ally" with x, y , or z but was then removed in one of the previous ID reworks outright. Which made it permissible. Now you're saying we can't do it anymore?
Why?
Why should I not have the token luxury of being able to point out what the group target is if we're all going to be on the same side anyway?
And regardless it's something you mentioned here so I'm bringing it up here rather than elsewhere.
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - Frostpfote - 05-26-2025
(05-24-2025, 12:17 PM)TheKusari Wrote:
.
.Hmm, I have a problem here:
Code:The following ships have been reclassified as frigates and are thus not subject to transport and liner class protection:
Pelican, Gull, Grouse, Bumblebee, Albatross, Mammoth, BWAT, Percheron, Longhorn, Bulwark.
The following ships are clearly not transports but don’t exactly have a class definition:
Amaterasu
Rationale: The listed ships are capable of engaging in combat to a degree that is not consistent with larger transports. Future plans for transport rebalancing will aim to remove rules-based protection for game mechanics based capabilities in the style of the newer Longhorn and Bulwark class haulers.
So you're basing this ruling on PVP and not roleplay? Why not classify ships as being used offensively or not? I don't understand this. Are we expected to understand this particular ruling in a way where under roleplay circumstances we're exempt from this rule?I'd hate to get one of my members sanctioned under Starfliers if they immediately continue a trade run after combat docking in a Longhorn. Because the 1 hour death would apply in this circumstance. Under roleplay, the ship was not used offensively, rather just evasively (as much as one can in a Longhorn) to survive until combat dock.
- Fly an unarmed Longhorn with 3,600 Gold
- Get pirated
- I tell Pirate no
- They initiate combat
- They deshield me and do some damage
- I combat dock
Though the ship, even if we do ignore weapons, is likely defined as a Frigate in this proposed ruleset due to it's boosted HP over the Serenity.
There should be a line stating that if you have one offensive weapon mounted, you are considered a combat ship. Unarmed = not a combat ship. A consideration there must be at least addressed.
.
.
I'd also ask for staff to respond to that. Starfliers cannot arm their ships per ID line. Does that still mean that our transport lose this protection purely because they're below a certain amount of cargo? Adding "armed vessels" somewhere in the rules would be nice, otherwise these ships are literally just cannonfodder.
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - Sombs - 05-26-2025
(05-26-2025, 04:34 PM)Frostpfote Wrote: I'd also ask for staff to respond to that. Starfliers cannot arm their ships per ID line. Does that still mean that our transport lose this protection purely because they're below a certain amount of cargo? Adding "armed vessels" somewhere in the rules would be nice, otherwise these ships are literally just cannonfodder.
The decision to fly unarmed is one Starfliers actively made for themselves. If we added a line that only armed vessels may be targeted this way, people would just fly around unarmed and use that as protection. I'm sure Starfliers don't expect to be treated special just because they choose not to use weapons.
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - Wesker - 05-26-2025
(05-26-2025, 04:05 PM)Reeves Wrote:(05-26-2025, 02:16 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: It's a long standing policy that hostile factions are not permitted to group up - yes
No it isn't. It's never been enforced
It got me banned homie hahahahahaha.
Reading through this discussion it pretty much reminds me of a post I made in an earlier thread regarding a rule change. The more you amend the rules to nitpick scenarios and keep people on their toes, the worse the outcome, and the more instances the instances of lobbying to get a point across or a "desicion" made.
The best you can do in regards to the topic of "don't be an asshole" (which to me is what this thread ultimately summarizes) is to interpret this yourselves as admins on a report by report basis. You're working with human beings, let players behave like human beings, if they need to be reminded not to be an ass - it should be pretty black and white. Throughout the lifetime of this mod instances of people behaving like dicks (subtley or otherwise) has been very very blatant to everyone. There are pvpers who (occasionally or frequently) need to pull back on the throttle and quit baiting fights, sieging pobs, overwhelming others, etc. But there are ALSO the roleplay oriented players who need to take a breath, realize not everything is personal, and acknowledge that pvp is an integral part of the game (and that it might even help to practice and learn yourself). The two aspects of the game have to coexist for the game to exist, putting out more rules like this draws a much more definitive line between the two which I think wont be healthy for the game in the long term.
Piracy reduced to zero when piracy rules were put in place to draw lines, the more you wander down this path, the greater the consequences imo. I understand you all mean well, but please take this task upon yourselves on a case by case basis and don't constantly rewrite the standard. Sometimes taking a step BACKWARDS is helpful in the long term to solve the underlying issue(s).
Hope everything goes over well.
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - rwx - 05-26-2025
(05-26-2025, 04:05 PM)Reeves Wrote:(05-26-2025, 02:16 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: It's a long standing policy that hostile factions are not permitted to group up - yes
No it isn't. It's never been enforced and has never been explicitly stated as against the rules.
It has been explicitly stated here.
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - Reeves - 05-27-2025
(05-26-2025, 10:42 PM)rwx Wrote:(05-26-2025, 04:05 PM)Reeves Wrote:(05-26-2025, 02:16 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: It's a long standing policy that hostile factions are not permitted to group up - yes
No it isn't. It's never been enforced and has never been explicitly stated as against the rules.
It has been explicitly stated here.
The only thing this tells me is that you can't trust the administration to have a consistent stance on anything. In the one rework they remove the line from all IDs and open up the possibility to group with hostiles under exceptional circumstances. It's not like doing this is any major thing either. You already see people making strange but temporary alliances without any consequences.
I guess I shouldn't have expected much from another installment of the highly convoluted clarification thread series.
RE: Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 - rwx - 05-27-2025
(05-27-2025, 08:11 AM)Reeves Wrote: The only thing this tells me is that you can't trust the administration to have a consistent stance on anything. In the one rework they remove the line from all IDs and open up the possibility to group with hostiles under exceptional circumstances. It's not like doing this is any major thing either. You already see people making strange but temporary alliances without any consequences.
I guess I shouldn't have expected much from another installment of the highly convoluted clarification thread series.
That is your interpretation. From my point of view, the grouping with hostilities is out of character. Since grouping means the other person(s) in the group are considered as ally (rulewise), it would overcomplicate things, if a person is an enemy and an ally at the same time. It is therefore, so I think, redundant to prohibit it by ID lines. The possibility to group with hostiles under exceptional circumstances remains unaffected by the clarification post.
Situationally, tactical, or as you called 'temporary', agreements between hostile factions are still possible without grouping.
You just have to rely on local chat to coordinate the two groups.