Quote:... so they request rules for protection rather than letting things play out via roleplay and accepting the consequences as other players decide. Some corps have a lot to hide so they quietly counterattack. Some lack security, but greased the right palms and are pals with the authorities, so some base administrators have been notified to refuse access to the competitors. Maybe one house's stance is to let free trade (and piracy) reign and another's is to guard what few resources they have by favoring their own corporations. Personally? I'd work it out and try to see what kind of fun events/encounters we could cook up, but it's ultimately up to the players involved to decide how they want to lead, maintain their image and cultivate relationships, not assume they'd automatically pass or fail. I'm for things happening naturally, rather than railroading an interaction by making one of many equally believable decisions result in sanctions.
Hi Zed. I don't disagree with anything you said there. I just think all of that could/should happen without the axe of an FR5 also hanging over a faction's head, or at least certainly as a very very very very very very very last resort.....as in..."you're literally almost as bad as Bass Hunters in your in-game choices and should probably be kicked from the server, but we'll do this first" kinda thing. These things could all be done in-game via the player-player interactions, and not simply by making planets and stations non-dockable to a ship or group. As I also said, this new /nodock command may help make the FR5 not even needed in a lot of these cases, and PoBs can already prevent players/groups from docking with their lists.
Quote: Take it easy. I wasn't calling you out specifically, ...
No, that's fine. I wasn't taking it as a personal negative. Just providing my own example/experience of how you can actually disassociate oorp and inRP relationships. It's cool.
