'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are' Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person
(09-07-2020, 11:43 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: It does seem like a grey though. Removing base defenders, even though you aren't explicitly sieging the base, is still technically attacking the base in some capacity. At the least, it's undermining its defences, which are meant to be warding off the siegers.
No it is not. There is no rule outlining this because there is not and cannot be any rule entailing who the defenders are. You don’t register factions to “defend” a base, you just show up and shoot the factions attacking the base.
During the 300 spartan defense of falster station in omega-3 aland drama - core (who was no on the siege list) showed up to shoot RHA and IMG (self proclaimed defenders) alongside BAF (attackers). Even a certain AI player came to its defense.
I'm not saying there should be or needs to be a rule on who is defending. Rather, it's a grey area because if you're attacking the people trying to defend the POB you are potentially inadvertently contributing to the siege. If you are only shooting the defenders and not all parties present, then it seems like in one form or another you are partaking in the overall siege, rather than just looking for PvP. The Aland case now that it's brought to mind also seems like a grey area as well.
(09-07-2020, 11:43 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: It does seem like a grey though. Removing base defenders, even though you aren't explicitly sieging the base, is still technically attacking the base in some capacity. At the least, it's undermining its defences, which are meant to be warding off the siegers.
No it is not. There is no rule outlining this because there is not and cannot be any rule entailing who the defenders are. You don’t register factions to “defend” a base, you just show up and shoot the factions attacking the base.
During the 300 spartan defense of falster station in omega-3 aland drama - core (who was no on the siege list) showed up to shoot RHA and IMG (self proclaimed defenders) alongside BAF (attackers). Even a certain AI player came to its defense.
I'm not saying there should be or needs to be a rule on who is defending. Rather, it's a grey area because if you're attacking the people trying to defend the POB you are potentially inadvertently contributing to the siege. If you are only shooting the defenders and not all parties present, then it seems like in one form or another you are partaking in the overall siege, rather than just looking for PvP. The Aland case now that it's brought to mind also seems like a grey area as well.
It’s a grey area both ways, random factions not affiliated with the base showing up solely to kill the attackers is also inadvertently contributing to the siege in the opposite manner.
This is how sieges have always turned up. Sieges always bring out the worst in players/factions.
(09-07-2020, 11:43 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: It does seem like a grey though. Removing base defenders, even though you aren't explicitly sieging the base, is still technically attacking the base in some capacity. At the least, it's undermining its defences, which are meant to be warding off the siegers.
No it is not. There is no rule outlining this because there is not and cannot be any rule entailing who the defenders are. You don’t register factions to “defend” a base, you just show up and shoot the factions attacking the base.
During the 300 spartan defense of falster station in omega-3 aland drama - core (who was no on the siege list) showed up to shoot RHA and IMG (self proclaimed defenders) alongside BAF (attackers). Even a certain AI player came to its defense.
I'm not saying there should be or needs to be a rule on who is defending. Rather, it's a grey area because if you're attacking the people trying to defend the POB you are potentially inadvertently contributing to the siege. If you are only shooting the defenders and not all parties present, then it seems like in one form or another you are partaking in the overall siege, rather than just looking for PvP. The Aland case now that it's brought to mind also seems like a grey area as well.
It’s a grey area both ways, random factions not affiliated with the base showing up solely to kill the attackers is also inadvertently contributing to the siege in the opposite manner.
This is how sieges have always turned up. Sieges always bring out the worst in players/factions.
At the same time though, siegers have nothing to lose other than their pride and a blue message.
(09-07-2020, 11:43 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: It does seem like a grey though. Removing base defenders, even though you aren't explicitly sieging the base, is still technically attacking the base in some capacity. At the least, it's undermining its defences, which are meant to be warding off the siegers.
No it is not. There is no rule outlining this because there is not and cannot be any rule entailing who the defenders are. You don’t register factions to “defend” a base, you just show up and shoot the factions attacking the base.
During the 300 spartan defense of falster station in omega-3 aland drama - core (who was no on the siege list) showed up to shoot RHA and IMG (self proclaimed defenders) alongside BAF (attackers). Even a certain AI player came to its defense.
I'm not saying there should be or needs to be a rule on who is defending. Rather, it's a grey area because if you're attacking the people trying to defend the POB you are potentially inadvertently contributing to the siege. If you are only shooting the defenders and not all parties present, then it seems like in one form or another you are partaking in the overall siege, rather than just looking for PvP. The Aland case now that it's brought to mind also seems like a grey area as well.
I do think there might have been a few occasions where Order shot at gammu alone and allied with corsairs - that I would call dubious. I have no evidence of that though, when we were defending with A.I. in the fights we won we had Auxesia with us - and well if we group with them Order is free to engage let's face it.
At least in 100% fights that A.I. won there were nomads or Auxesia either grouped with them, or ignoring each other and shooting sairs+order primarily
(with nomad fleets because we had to - just gotta shoot caps first in fights... and when we wanted to turn on AUX...they either left or were dead in the fleet fights we were in. I was shooting at them in Nomad ships at least )
It's quite amusing how you went that salty mode and forgot about "//" to exist at all, turning inRP local into ooRP zone
Lemon has a point. For once I have to agree with him
(Freelancer here)
You are the most edgy, weirdo person I ever seen in this game lmao. I dont know what you are trying to achieve in this game, trying to get attention or filling your ego by exploiting rules to harm this community.
I was trying both rp and Inrp as Freelancer to find another solution so that sh**fest would stop, and owner's effort wouldnt go to waste.
About also the siege battles, even you outnumbered us there were some factions joined the fight to kill Corsairs not assist in siege defense. At the end there were 15 people on attackers side and I gave up defending and started Rping to profit both factions. I done this before the last siege and at the last moments but seems our medium sized community gets another -2 players?
(09-07-2020, 03:18 PM)Groshyr Wrote: What Lemon said. You start to RP only when its too late
Might be worth pointing out that siegers who are determined to blow up a pob tend to move the goalposts to when "too late" is to anywhere they want. I've had someone tell me "its too late to rp now" a few weeks after their faction had their zoi altered to include the location of my pob and made a declaration without contacting me first. Send them a com to please not blow up the pob based on seeing the declaration thread and you'll get accused of metagaming, send them a com after they made the first irp move to siege and its "too late now". I know you're going to reply with something on the level of "just git gud" or "it's a ROLEPLAY server everything I do is strictly dictated by ROLEPLAY" or "delete pobs" like you guys always do.
Bottom line is that pob drama is not going to get fixed by complaining to the never ending stream of individuals who siege one or several pobs. The only way drama will be mitigated is when staff and community manage to sit down together and agree on how the rules, laws, and guidelines will be improved so drama happens less. Sadly, most of the people in key positions either don't even understand the concept of dialectic and creating consensus or lack the maturity to have a rational conversation.
Instead of working with plugin itself let's protect all with the rules, so powertraders can do anything they want and BOPs to be constructed anywhere without a reason, just for lulz
![[Image: Lythrilux.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Lythrilux.gif)
