Policy on 1.0 'Ganking'

[EisenSeele]

The rule clarification is largely about trade ships that are getting issued a reasonable demand from a large group of pirates, and then expecting to be treated to a 'fair duel' by the pirates when they refuse, ending in a VR - After discussion, that was found to be an unrealistic expectation.

What if a group of unlawfuls (say Liberty Rogues) with a decisive skill advantage decides to pirate an outskilled Liberty Navy group? Does that count as exploiting?

It's a bit unrelated to the rationale of the original ruling, but until there's another clarification in policy, the consideration will be:
If an advantaged force of Liberty Rogues wants to 'pirate' a disadvantaged Liberty Navy group rather than trying to attack them outright - they're free to issue a demand that is reasonable per the server rules in order to be left in peace. If the disadvantaged Navy group would like to fight anyway, then they're free to start shooting - the navy PLAYERS are also more than free to talk to the rogue PLAYERS in PMs requesting a balanced fight.

Bottom line is that everyone has an 'out' to avoid certain gank.

So, let me clarify a few things:

1. When you know that the group will never pay you anything due to in-roleplay ideology or personal choice, you now have a free pass to gank them each time until you beat them into submission, and make them pay you every time—or face other consequences.

2. Please provide the reasonable amout, such as a percentage of cargo value, and specify what to ask for from empty traders and combat ships, based on their type.

1. Conviction to never pay pirates means you accept that you're going to get shot at. It's not a 'free pass to gank' so much as you are accepting the consequences of refusing all demands.

2. 'Reasonable amount' as described by the server rules has not changed - it is staff policy not to define a specific amount, as it will result in people just issuing the maximum allowable 'reasonable demand' at every opportunity, but the guideline is that a trader should always be able to get away from a pirate encounter without making a loss in profit.

This makes absolutely no sense. A pirate is pretty much by definition always the aggressor, regardless of how the trader reacts to their demand. I see no reason why the specific instance of piracy should allow an attacker to use excessive force?

This also leads to the comical loophole of people looking for a fight "pirating" an enemy fleet, so they can gank them if they refuse, instead of simply attacking them and having to fight fairly.

Really stupid, this one.

Honestly you'd have been better off just treating blatantly unsporting fighting behavior under 1.0 case by case, without trying to articulate specific scenario subrules.

The issuing of a 'reasonable demand' is seen as the opportunity of an 'out' for avoiding a gank. We're just clarifying that in the usual pirate - trader interaction, if you refuse to pay the pirate, you are going to get what the pirate is threatening you with. If people are going through the trouble to organize doomstacks and going about extorting traders out of reasonable demands to avoid getting ganked, then the trader is getting pirated at a discount as what constitutes a 'reasonable demand' has not changed - and being pirated N separate times by smaller numbers of pirates rather than once by an entire group of players at once will be cheaper.

If we're talking about "pirating" an enemy fleet, that's not exactly what this policy is about - but before this clarification, the options were:
1. The larger group forces an engagement outright but fields an appropriate amount of units so as to avoid ganking - then either the smaller group dies to the fielded units, or the smaller group 'wins' and then gets engaged by another fair number of remaining enemy forces until one side is dead.
OR
2. The smaller group decides to attack anyway.

The addition of the ability for a smaller fleet to just pay to avoid interaction doesn't hurt the smaller group, and the larger group misses out on their ability to exercise option 1. Usually the smaller group is still disadvantaged in option 1 and will be trying to avoid shooting until they are more evenly matched anyway. Again, this is more of an edge case and we'll see how it goes. Keep in mind that all players are free to communicate with the players of opposing sides to arrange for balanced fights.

What an absolutely horrible change. Adding to what Karst said, imagine a giant fleet of Hogosha Samura Liners in Bretonia pirating BAF to join sair side without it being considered a gank. (A certain Werdi did this with one Hogosha liner, lol, imagine 10)

The semi-combat capable trade ships you put in are wholesale useless if this rule is allowed to stand. Bulwark/Longhorn and so on. You might as well fly a 5k or Barge if you are going to get pirated by 6 bombers anyway with no chance of winning or getting away, might as well maximize profit.

Yikes, bro.

If piracy is used to jump in on an already ongoing fight with the intention of having the demand being lost in the chaos so that they can engage by default, we'll know - and treat it as PVP baiting, just like how we treat Murms that would fly about in Liberty hoping to "self defense" other people to death.

As for your issues with Bulwark/Longhorn trading - if your trader encounters six bombers (when the stars align and half of the server pop is gunning for you), it absolutely makes sense to just pay the pirate to get away, and not assume that pirates will completely violate all roleplay sense and give you a sporting chance by having only one out of six bombers come after you. It'll still give you a hell of a leg up if you encounter a solo cargo pirate in a frigate/battletransport/non-grouse light transport though.

---

FEEDBACK

[Karst]

This makes absolutely no sense. A pirate is pretty much by definition always the aggressor, regardless of how the trader reacts to their demand. I see no reason why the specific instance of piracy should allow an attacker to use excessive force?

This also leads to the comical loophole of people looking for a fight "pirating" an enemy fleet, so they can gank them if they refuse, instead of simply attacking them and having to fight fairly.

Really stupid, this one.

Honestly you'd have been better off just treating blatantly unsporting fighting behavior under 1.0 case by case, without trying to articulate specific scenario subrules.

The issuing of a 'reasonable demand' is seen as the opportunity of an 'out' for avoiding a gank. We're just clarifying that in the usual pirate - trader interaction, if you refuse to pay the pirate, you are going to get what the pirate is threatening you with. If people are going through the trouble to organize doomstacks and going about extorting traders out of reasonable demands to avoid getting ganked, then the trader is getting pirated at a discount as what constitutes a 'reasonable demand' has not changed - and being pirated N separate times by smaller numbers of pirates rather than once by an entire group of players at once will be cheaper.

If we're talking about "pirating" an enemy fleet, that's not exactly what this policy is about - but before this clarification, the options were:
1. The larger group forces an engagement outright but fields an appropriate amount of units so as to avoid ganking - then either the smaller group dies to the fielded units, or the smaller group 'wins' and then gets engaged by another fair number of remaining enemy forces until one side is dead.
OR
2. The smaller group decides to attack anyway.

The addition of the ability for a smaller fleet to just pay to avoid interaction doesn't hurt the smaller group, and the larger group misses out on their ability to exercise option 1. Usually the smaller group is still disadvantaged in option 1 and will be trying to avoid shooting until they are more evenly matched anyway. Again, this is more of an edge case and we'll see how it goes. Keep in mind that all players are free to communicate with the players of opposing sides to arrange for balanced fights.

I don't think you understand the implications of this weird exception rule.
If you're being pirated, obviously you're defending yourself. You can han_shot_first the pirates and if a convoy is pirated by a smaller number of pirates, they don't have to hold back some of their numbers to fight the pirates. They're the ones under attack.
But apparently now, the pirates are also the defenders, and you've created a scenario that because the mechanic of piracy is used, all fairplay is off the table because both side are "facing aggro"?

Like imagine a group of I don't know, Outcasts v Sairs, and it's an uneven matchup. They're all doing their "We see enemy" "Prepare your weapons" etc, and when the fight breaks out, the participants have to use reasonable force.
However, the moment somebody says "u must leave system" and the other side presumably doesn't, that's out the window. The weaker side, expecting and ready for a fair fight, can either not have the fight at all, or get hammered into oblivion because the stronger side invoked the "piracy clause". Do you see how awkward that is?

But all the above aside, what I really don't understand is what the point of this is even supposed to be. Without this exception, you're still perfectly within your rights to use sufficient force to ensure a piracy target is destroyed. What possible scenario is there that just absolutely requires pirates to be permitted to obliterate rather than just kill a noncomplying target? What is the benefit of that supposed to be?

Please just leave it at the perfectly good rule 1.0. Any attempt at....whatever this is is just going to cause more trouble and loopholes than it prevents.

---

[TheSauron]

The rule clarification is largely about trade ships that are getting issued a reasonable demand from a large group of pirates, and then expecting to be treated to a 'fair duel' by the pirates when they refuse, ending in a VR - After discussion, that was found to be an unrealistic expectation.

Why is this an unreasonable expectation by trade ships, but not by combat ships? Do you really think battlecruiser-sized semi-gunboats are the class that deserves to be "legally" ganked? Why do you even find the need for a legal loophole to gank people to exist?

1. Conviction to never pay pirates means you accept that you're going to get shot at. It's not a 'free pass to gank' so much as you are accepting the consequences of refusing all demands.

"Playing to your ID now allows people to gank you." Amazing.

The issuing of a 'reasonable demand' is seen as the opportunity of an 'out' for avoiding a gank.

What? No, really. What? The opportunity to avoid getting ganked to shit was the implementation and enforcement of the 1.0 rule. Why are you now allowing the threat of ganking to be used as leverage? Is there something I'm missing here, or missed about the original intent behind 1.0?

not assume that pirates will completely violate all roleplay sense

I'll be sure to have this handy next time we have the terrorists vs transports talk.

---

One MD Admiral

[Steven.Hiller]

I have used a simple solution,

You get pirates that do fair demands then you get the ass that try to pirate you 1 000 000 credits while you carrying water between 2 bases same system no way in hell will that be even anywhere a percentage of your profit any system.

I always thought fair price +/- would be like miners ,
Miners on average charge clients 10% of the total sales price to ore closest buy point if they guy want to cross half the universe to get better price for ore it would be transports pilot own choice but miners price normally around the same figure regardless where you ship the ore too which normally was up to 10% of the closest buy point if ore were baught in at 100$ for 1 ore the miner would normally charge 10$ for one ore.

Sometimes transports paid bonuses to miners for good faith or tnx for special mining request but that was totally spontanious.

i treated pirates the same the ones asking reasonable amount of $$$ for cargo and not extortionist traders i sometimes give bit extra for being nice but if the guy is a dick and ask you 1 000 000 $ for a load you make 50 000 profit on i jettison the cargo
shoot it to pieces tell him to go catch a fish and die with dignity

After effect if i see that pirate again online i log off that ship or log somewhere else in space and if it is a nuisance "dick" waiting for you every time same system same jump hole on every single time you cross it i log off for a week or two and tell FL see u when I'm in the mood for your bull $%^& again.

The only language "dicks" and "trolls" understand is 0% activity good luck hunting empty space.

---

DiD YoU CoMe To B@rg@iN

[Lusitano]

in one hand you are saying to not gank, and next you are saying go ahead!!

may i ask you what is a reasonable demand? mainly the cargo one, because i was once demanded 1/2 of my cargo ...didn't gave it but escaped. yesterday two players with two very big ships wanted to know about my cargo .... managed to escape before the damand!

[Sombs]

may i ask you what is a reasonable demand?

For piracy, my rule of thumb is:

20.000 from any ship
30.000 from an empty 5k
40.000 from a FOW 5k
50.000 from any other 5k
75.000 from a barge
150.000 from a filled barge

In terms of cargo:

Always only as much as you can carry at the moment of piracy. If you can carry all, good for you. Never expect a transport player to stay waiting until a potential friend of yours arrives to pick up the rest, that's just being a dick to the pirated player.


Lawful players intercepting contraband can demand all and levy a fine on top of that.


When in doubt, rather ask for less than more, regardless of your roleplay justification. Lenient demands are always better for everyone involved than drama, feedback threads and sanctionlancing.

---

---

Uncharted System Stories: 18 | 32 | 34 | 37 | 38 | 85

Templates: Character | Transmissions

Alternative Soundtracks

---

[Soban]

Always only as much as you can carry at the moment of piracy. If you can carry all, good for you. Never expect a transport player to stay waiting until a potential friend of yours arrives to pick up the rest, that's just being a dick to the pirated player.

Hmm this contradict EisenSeele

but the guideline is that a trader should always be able to get away from a pirate encounter without making a loss in profit.

So the trader pirated should still be allowed to have profit or the pirate can ask the whole cargo if they can haul it?

[Eternal.Journey]

From my understanding, a pirate that has cargospace for 3.6k cargo, can pirate 3.6k cargo off you. A group of pirates that are 3x 3.6kers and 3x frigates of 2.9k can in effect pirate 19.5k cargo off of various traders/Barge pilots. That imo has never been in question.

What is in question, is why it is now a viable thing to now broadly state that an unlawful group can piracy demand a Lawful group, with huge numbers, and now be allowed to just full dump on them regardless.

Side A: Lawful. Side B: Unlawful

Side A has 10 players. Side B has 25 players.

Fleet fight was organised for Side A and Side B to fight, but Side B have too many in ordinary circumstances to fight with everyone at their disposal.

Side B now issue a piracy demand. Side B either get their demand fulfilled or get to dumpster the fleet of 10 ships.

This was originally not an issue because for the most part, people would balance and sit people out, because nobody really paid any attention to the fact that these piracy lines weren't really an aimed thing. This "Clarification" now highlights this as an easily viable "I can Gank you because you refused my piracy demand". Id like to say i agree with giving pirates some leniency, but you are going to have to be more explicit on your ruling with it. Simply allowing it to be a gank based on a single half hearted "gimme 100k per person to give you a fair fight" thats then subsequently refused because while 100k aint that much for a warship, it shouldnt be that one pirate faction should be able to extort another for simply bringing twice to three times as many people as they would ordinarily. Granted, this was always possible in the grand scheme of things, but it is now been made blatantly obvious to quite a few of the community, on a wide scale that this is the Likely Outcome. It is now a basis for Giving Ganks out. You may as well have written in the rules: "Demand first, never have to bother with fairplay with your enemies".

This isnt just concerning Unlawfuls though, is it? Anyone can demand something from a hostile that they have kill lines on. That was clarified before, so you can be looking at a whole host of other Grey Areas created by this issue because it will be taken to mean that anyone that you can blue for existing, you can pirate, or gank.

---

[Perfect Gentleman]

I even wonder how this rule will be used for nefarious purposes. Like, guys, we have planned raids going on here instead of random battles where abusing this rule would be appropriate. Otherwise, pretty much any big fight between factions is accompanied by pre-balancing of the sides. There are exceptions, of course, but that's a one-in-ten case.

And let's say there comes a time when this rule goes into effect, that is, we see it in practice. Whether it's malicious intent or compliance with everything “in the spirit of the rules” (a reference to the essence of 1.0), how will you be able to tell the difference? How will you be able to prove to the pirate side that they... Well... Assholes?

And how can you prove to the other side that the pirate side aren't assholes and have done everything solely to comply with the spirit of 1.0? I don't get it. It's an unnecessary burden on the Administration team.

The current rules on gank are quite acceptable. But this innovation - is it really worth it? So far I have not seen a single positive feedback anywhere, in any chat. I think it would be a higher priority to establish piracy norms where demand-mount is actually acceptable and fair to both sides. I mean, this problem is a few years old: a lot of people have gotten sanctioned simply for demanding more, because there are no clear limits anywhere, and even I don't always know if what I did was fair or not.

Now imagine that a third of the people on the server completely don't realize this.

It might be worth working in that particular direction, in establishing... “Limits” of pirate requirements and certain frameworks? We need this one officially.

---

Discovery is a server of dreams.
And I'm a big dreamer.

[Jayenbee]

Look at all of these rules lawyers using a framework that has been set out as to whether or not you're engaging in sanctionable conduct pulling out reasons as to why the framework lets them engage in sanctionable conduct.

[redacted], but it seems to me that most people here are just trying to find an excuse to abuse, hiding it under a veil of virtue signalling.

Let’s drop trying to use insults. Constructive criticism is more then welcomed, however insulting people for calmly speaking their mind is not the way

Vlaicone(Ted)

---

When contending with a monster, you'd be wise to give the devil his due.