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.
(03-11-2025, 10:27 AM)monmarfori Wrote: 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.
(03-11-2025, 11:15 AM)Soban Wrote: 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.
(03-11-2025, 11:18 AM)Karst Wrote: 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.
(03-11-2025, 11:25 AM)Culbrelai Wrote: 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.
