(03-05-2013, 10:27 PM)Hasteric Wrote: That'd mean that the players who killed them would have to log on again just to tell them to leave. Not too awesome.
Which classifies as powergaming to me.
I see no problem.
I agree with this.
If the player group (#A) is only logging on to prevent a player (#B) who is actually playing the game constantly from being in an area, then vacating the area themselves(#A Leaving the area), then all they've amounted to is making that system have one less player for area interaction.
Lawfuls will have to stick around and play as their chars instead of answering emergency chats en'mass then vacating the area once again.
I would personnaly speak of "land control" ( or space ) , and certainly not about lawfull or unlawfull.
Let's get back to the "paddy" 's example stated above :
Do you find acceptable or not, that when Paddy did jump into the P-trans name differently from his/her "paddy"'s char could be reengaged by the same HMS-BretsOwnDub', five minuts later in the same system?
Do you think that "paddy" 's P-Trans should be named "paddy's trans", instead of "BucketOfGold" for the sake of an odd rule ( name that is far less sexy, isn't it ) ?
You talked about "sticking around", yet, paddy was still here, even if his ship was different, and just havin' that different name did make paddy subject to reengagement.
Therefore, i find this rule broken.
(03-06-2013, 11:09 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: What exactly is the problem?
The example that sparked the discussion was that someone protects ships, shoots the pirate, then logs off. So the pirate could come back.
How about you simply tell the pirate that you shot in green: "Good fight. Please do not come back to harrass the people I protected. Feel free to come back to rp, but no piracy."
I mean... just talk to each other.
And... I don't think it is okay for the pirate that was killed to turn up as the "undead pirate, 2nd attempt" once the victorious defender logged off. From a roleplay pov, the attacker has been destroyed, the danger has been cleared.
But... as I said: just tell him and it is no problem.
Well, i still do see many problems so let's get back to Dublin and Paddy :
-PlayerA "paddy" killed playerB "HMS-BretsOwnDub'" , then fell upon a BMM thief and shot him down, leaving gold floating in space.
Meanwhile PlayerC "Brian" another Molly, is pirating in Leeds
"Paddy" PM "Brian" : "hey lad, i'm sittin' on a ton o'gol', do you have a P-trans so we could salvage some ?"
"Brain" answer that he doesn't have a P-trans.
So "Paddy" says, "so do you mind keeping the gold while i'm going back to Arry and jump in my own P-trans"
"Brian" agreed to keep the gold while "paddy" is flying back to Arrenmore.
PlayerA logs out his/her char "paddy" and logs in the P-trans "BucketOfGold" even still piloted by "Paddy" inrp.
The P-trans flies to the field.
PlayerB logs in HMS-BretsOwnDub' and goes "Molly DAI !"( as "paddy" is no longer in system, and "Brian" wasn't involved in the first fight ), even if both chars knows that this ship was destroyed in Dublin five minuts ago.
And he could be worse, cause PlayerD ( you know the one who was mining and shot by "paddy" PlayerA ) could log his Bhunter char "MollyHunter" and could also re-enter Dublin et engage PlayerA and B ( playerA because his/her char has different name, and player B because he wasn't involved in the first fight ).
In the previous rule, neither PlayerC or D could re-enter the same system, nor re-engage the same player ( now you can as long as the char names are differents )
I hope thoses example are clear enough why i find this rule totally breaking the "landcontrol" thing.
