Rules Change Discussion 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4

[Luke.]

I do think if there's going to be any further change, to be a tightening up of the rule that dictates the minimum interaction needed though. If somebody responds to a /1 in a non-hostile fashion or seems open to an actual conversation, then I think this should be a signal that you may not immediately open fire following the /2. Personally. Make people entertain the idea of a compromise or de-escalation and encourage monetary loss (which again, would be the potentially the same cost or even more than being blown up by that point. Funny how that works). If the defendant is unwilling, then free game. Food for thought.

Again I think the problem comes down to the ominous 2.1 rule, rather than transport being delegated as combat ships. I'll quote my first idea above to have it in the same place.

I think it is fine for risk to be associated with trading. Stated that in my earlier post, especially if you're trading goods outlawed by surrounding factions or travelling through hostile space. Expecting to be left alone or kindness to come your way is...delusional, to be blunt.

However it is not fine to allow people to not state any demands or converse in any even remotely meaningful way before opening fire. Again I don't think PvP-exclusive players will do this, since fighting in or against a transport isn't particularly engaging anyway, but the root problem is the minimum requirement. Another idea could be to have a separate rule regarding traders to any other scenario. Require proper RP to be present toward traders for the sake of good piracy-related interaction (and possible combat upon refusal or pugnacious behaviour), but leave it as it is toward other combat-capable ship classes that are obviously not trading.

---