Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3

[Jack_Henderson]

What you are doing now is cherrypicking possible scenarios that might happen.

Sorry, but respectfully I have to say that you are wrong. This happened yesterday.
And the event that Mushy described also happened exactly that way.
I was present in both (and no, none of the incidents were staged).

I already explained to you the issues that are present with your suggested changes. For example, if a player may return to the system for the purpose of trading, this does not exclude roleplay.

You did not explain that to me. You are likely mixing discussions up.
However, I do not see why a trader who made it to base safely (and therefore was not pvp-dead under the old rules) should not be allowed to speak. I have a few ideas, however.

This means that after docking and being PVP dead like any other player - snub or cap, the owner of a transport then can start spamming IRP (or barely so) nonsense at the pirate without having to leave the system or actually proceed with the trade - an eqally as trollsome and annoying attitude as you have described from a traders perspective. The stick is laden with poop from both sides, so to speak. You, of course, are more focused on your own, but I highly suggest you view it from the whole instead.

Wait. This is not comparable at all (or I misunderstand the statement) :

1. The trader cannot continue to play his ship after he made it to base. If he wants to leave the system, he has to be empty. So he has to sell his cargo at the base he fled to (makes zero sense irply, and likely there is no selling point for his goods). Or alternatively: He can log off and stay docked for 2 hours with his cargo until he is not pvp-dead any more. This option ends his gaming session likely. It for sure ends participation in cooperative gameplay like convoys and group activity, of which we need more and not less! Therefore, it should not be made harder to get it done, and easier to sabotage such activity that is conducive to the server.
   
2. The pirate can just go to the next system and do exactly the same. His gaming experience is not ended by pvp death!
   

So how is that fair?
How is that good for gameplay, especially as traders are the backbone of trader-pirate-lawful interaction?

The main issue with the old ruling was that there was no way to -end- an engagement/player interaction between a trader and a pirate.

I do not understand why an "end" is so important. I can only think about situations in which one side cannot accept losing and making a big fuss about it. But trolling and oorp, as well as rule lawyering are covered clearly by the rules.

Solving it by making the transport player the loser in any given case of an interaction however is not the way to create a definitive end to an interaction. It is however the way to create a lot less interaction and breed a lot more bitterness.

There were also issues with players trying to skirt around the definition of what is a trader and what is a pirate and what is a smuggler, especially when using Official faction IDs that allow all three instances.

Then the rules need to be worded clearer. We once had a rule version that had it absolutely clearly nailed down before it was shortened and explained to death and obscurity in the separation of rules and explanation.

"A transport or freighter that is trading at the moment of engagement is not pvp-dead when it manages to dock at a base while in range of the attacker."

So only the "transport/freighter that is currently trading" is exempt, not the smuggler (who knows his risk and takes it), not the pirate flying a pvp-transport or freighter to pirate. Also an empty trigger-happy transport who goes into a fight on his own is not protected from pvp death. And none of them should be protected, except the "trading trade ship".

Right now there are no ways to satisfy both sides at once, but the least we can do is make sure that the rules are straightforward for all parties involved with the least amount of asterisks and exceptions. The suggestion to reduce the PVP death time would be an alternative, but that alone brings a completely different set of issues, for example.

Pvp death time reduction is a bad idea. There are sometimes fights that last longer than 1 hour easily. Re-engaging then would be a bad thing and would create a lot more trouble. It also does not solve the problem that pvp-death makes cooperative activity collapse so easily.

I have a hard time understanding how an unnecessary change that is so universally detrimental to gameplay could pass.

There is literally no one except the Admins who profit from this change. There are tons of players whose gameplay is really harmed by this change because they will be unable to do what they want to do on the game as compared to the past.

1. Think about the newbies who still need to grind and who do not have 100 ships. They literally can just log off.
   
2. Think about the few groups that still provide cooperative flights with roleplay and how much harder this has just become.
   
3. Think about all those bitter players who are out to cause damage and how they love this change (I can quote you the best of, if interested, but not publically)
   

The frustration moments for a huge majority that includes our most important players (the new guys) will be more frequent, pvp-death times for many will appear more often and get into the way of playing and enjoying the game, more players will just log off after interactions that can only be bad if you were caught on a trader. All of this... on a great but dying game.

Why?

It harms a huge number of players while catering to the needs of a very small minority. I can only see those profiteers from this rule change:

1. Admins who want to have clearer rules. But you will get a lot more bitterness and toxicity instead.
   
2. Some bittervet hardcore pvpers who love to see harsher punishment for pvp death. Easy for them to say, as they never fly transports any more, and almost never die in pvp.
   
3. Trolls and destructive players, who want to see their actions being disruptive and have maximized effect on the other side.

All of these groups will harm their own experience because this rule change will breed a lot more bitternesss (more conflict, more sanctions for Admins) and less pvp (fewer players want to take the risk to be blocked out of what they actually wanted to do on a game they wanted to play because it is fun).

I can just plead to rethink the rule change.

Thank you for reading it.

Jack