Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4

[EisenSeele]

Suicides in pvp literally doesn't matter because you get the blue anyway??

Different case however if they dive to avoid interaction

They do matter in that it's just deliberately throwing a fight (if you're already engaged). If that's because you as a player don't want to give the satisfaction of letting a fight pay off, that's just unsporting behavior when there's literally nothing else to be gained from it.

---

FEEDBACK

[Weapon]

It's hard to make a "hardline" rule regarding this because how characters face death is as varied as there are attitudes towards dying (that is to say, a lot).

Why? We maintain hardline rules regarding other many highly subjective matters, including how they would face roleplay situations, primarily through 2.0 and 2.1. I really want to provide examples, but I keep blanking or defaulting to ancient history. Still, 2.0 says you must roleplay in a manner befitting the ID. I don't know, what if my character is in the Navy but has a soft spot for the Xenos, so he happens to routinely ally with them against everyone else during combat despite his obligation to engage them? Is that something we allow to play out with roleplay consequences these days, or? This is a genuine question, not a strawman, I'm in slightly uncharted waters here.

Is a buttmad capwhore flying into the sun because the PLAYER is furious about getting nibbled to death by snubs a sensible and believable action? I don't think so.
Is a Corsair elder seething impotently on his burning flagship in a doomed last stand against a hopelessly large Outcast fleet flying into the sun to avoid the ultimate insult of being captured alive a sensible and believable action? Definitely more than the first one.

Will the incensed individual continue his behavior while masking it in a few well enough written lines of roleplay? Certainly.

That's why my stance is to accept the behavior or prohibit it, rather than handing them a shield.

[EisenSeele]

Why? We maintain hardline rules regarding other many highly subjective matters, including how they would face roleplay situations, primarily through 2.0 and 2.1. I really want to provide examples, but I keep blanking or defaulting to ancient history. Still, 2.0 says you must roleplay in a manner befitting the ID. I don't know, what if my character is in the Navy but has a soft spot for the Xenos, so he happens to routinely ally with them against everyone else during combat despite his obligation to engage them? Is that something we allow to play out with roleplay consequences these days, or? This is a genuine question, not a strawman, I'm in slightly uncharted waters here.

ID's have hard limitations on POSITIVE rights (things like being able to engage X or fly Y in system Z) - but do not force obligations on anyone. Characters are free to use this flexibility as part of their character development - so your Navy pilot with Xeno sympathies MAY engage Xenos, but are not OBLIGATED to engage all every Xeno they come across. If your character and a Xeno come across something like an Outcast battleship, you're both free to shoot at the sniffer and not shoot one another (though grouping would be oorp). We want to encourage roleplay and character development, while still maintaining a degree of predictability and standards - this approach is what we think is the way to go for now.

Will the incensed individual continue his behavior while masking it in a few well enough written lines of roleplay? Certainly.
That's why my stance is to accept the behavior or prohibit it, rather than handing them a shield.

If there's situations where otherwise toxic behavior is justifiable, sensible, and good roleplay, we want to keep the possibility open. Questions of degree like this can only really be understood when enough examples of both acceptable and unacceptable instances have ocurred to give precedent. It sucks to have so much 'vibe' in a rule, but the degree of freedom players get when people 'get it' is something I hope will pay off.

---

FEEDBACK

[Reeves]

(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.

---

[Weapon]

ID's have hard limitations on POSITIVE rights (things like being able to engage X or fly Y in system Z) - but do not force obligations on anyone. Characters are free to use this flexibility as part of their character development - so your Navy pilot with Xeno sympathies MAY engage Xenos, but are not OBLIGATED to engage all every Xeno they come across. If your character and a Xeno come across something like an Outcast battleship, you're both free to shoot at the sniffer and not shoot one another (though grouping would be oorp). We want to encourage roleplay and character development, while still maintaining a degree of predictability and standards - this approach is what we think is the way to go for now.

Yeah it was a bit difficult for me to come up with an example of a positive/active rule violation due to the way ZoI and ally rules have been relaxed over the years without it being something too outlandish to take seriously. My point is that if somebody makes a case to do something against the rules whether they're acting in good or bad faith, the historical precedent has been to enforce the rule equally regardless of roleplay justification because there's a sort of standard, a meta, to the way you want/wanted things to work for your roleplay environment. I'm not admonishing that, I'm entirely in the favor of the way that things have been relaxed.

However, now you're looking to apply that to combat interactions in the form of enforced fairness (which, under competent supervision, is something this place has desperately needed for a very long time.) Not only is that enforcement itself inherently artificial, it's anathema to subjectivity because when you make it subjective (the stakes thing also applies here with regards to the story bit), you're handing bad actors a free pass. I realize I'm kind of eating my words here with my initial post where I said we should stop thinking about RP and PvP as two separate entities, but roleplay with guns and roleplay with words do require different approaches in how they're handled, to some extent.

[-Rax-]

I can't really see a major change regarding roleplay and interactions in the server. I think this should work perfectly fine, as in, back in the days we used to have a higher RP understanding and imo the game was cooler to play. On the other hand I think we kind of forced this situation to happen. We give caps to newbies, everyone has big money, factions don't have ranks, guns and codes are pmuch accessible for a major group, pirates "don't really exist at least as they were before", pob sieges, weird storyline jumps and so on.
Encouraging people to get back at older standards, when we don't have many references from the past (as in, players that used to play the game aren't logging anymore) won't be an easy task. But I'm looking forward to that.

---

[Eternal.Journey]

Miner detected in mining field

Killing the hegemon.

Great idea. Well done! /s

---

[EisenSeele]

Let's keep feedback strictly to relevant actionable points and/or questions - we'll be going through comments here for consideration in what makes it into the server rules and making more work by sifting through shitposts is not my idea of a fun time.

---

FEEDBACK

[Chronicron]

I guess we've reached the new bottom line if this has to exist.

---

[Lemon]

Are we finally getting rid of the voters dislike you don't be a dick rule with these add-ons?