' Wrote:No, the change was the whole "you cant attack someone without a forum-posted bounty" crap that came up months ago. I honestly dont think that the normal BHG ID should require a posted bounty, as players with that ID are now restricted to gunboat and lower craft types. The issue in 4.84 was that BHG players would go around wtfpwning lonely pirates with battleships, that isnt a problem now.
That "crap" was an Admin notice. It's in rule 6.15. I'm proposing making the rules and ID less confusing. Either a BHG ID player can attack unlawfuls everywhere without a forum-posted bounty or he can't - but either way, the ID should reflect the situation.
' Wrote:Posting forum bounty rule will signifficantly decrease the BHG's member list... At least thats what i would think, btw tenacity, you need to be on xfire more.
What I said above. The current situation is that there has to be.
' Wrote:Uhh...Hunters (non-core) still shouldn't be initiating an engagement unless there is monetary rewards for doing so. The issue isn't to prevent cap-whores, but to reflect the RP status, or?...
It was originally introduced because of mercenaries, believe it or not. The fact that it has a knock-on effect on BHG players was incidental.
' Wrote:but why disclude situations of in-game payment for bounties at the time?
As an example, say a trader is passing through the magellan system from bretonia to liberty. He gets pirated by a lane hacker, and there's a bounty hunter at freeport 4. Why should the bounty hunter not be able to take payment from the trader to kill the hacker, or at least run him off?
Because it ends up being abused, I imagine.
Whatever about allowing that freedom for the regular BHG ID, there is no way it can be in the Core ID.
