(12-22-2016, 03:06 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: The group function is not inRP, ...
And yet people flying ships hostile to each other get sanctioned for grouping.
Didn't know that, but can you show me the sanction thread about that? I have the feeling it's less about grouping with hostiles rather than fighting in a group together with hostiles against other hostiles. I can't remember to have seen any ID line or server rule that forbids you to use the group function with potential hostile people. I'd use it for talks, if not the green chat.
Also, instead of trying to nerf cloakers - and those attempts happen often - why don't people invest into Cloak Disruptors when they don't want cloakers around. There is so much potential in renting a Anti-Cloak-capital for secret meetings. You even can configure yourself how far your talking range should be, by selecting a smaller scanner. The range of your own sentences is just as far as your scanner range goes, so even if the cloaked ship is 15k away and has battleship scanners, they can't listen to you.
If you want to conspire, do it right and don't blame other people for, well, having prepared to shadow someone.
Edit: And don't come with "Sure, I invest in anti-cloak-things for one thing" - people also have to invest into cloaks. Some of them even into better cloaks, be it a faction perk or an SRP.
[TBH] and [101st] grouped up to find the GMG| in the Sigmas ... because we were just a few people and had a huge area to scout. Obviously, even without any interaction between any of the grouped ships and the Gas Miners, this grouping up alone was reason enough for a sanction: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=136452
//Edit:
(12-22-2016, 03:19 PM)Engel Wrote: I can understand that consequences are hard to face, but as far as I see the evindece was collected and roleplay around it was done.
Metagaming and powergaming are really nice ways to RP, indeed.
//Edit: Back to the topic. Collecting intel on cloaked ships shouldn't be legal with the rules, just as it already isn't for the lawful forces.
Posts: 3,574
Threads: 107
Joined: May 2012
Staff roles: Balance Dev
(12-22-2016, 03:24 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: why don't people invest into Cloak Disruptors when they don't want cloakers around.
Because they are in an awful state. They're expensive, they require a ship slot, and they're entirely useless for roughly 99.99% of your playtime. Much unlike cloaks which you can use whenever and wherever you want for the exact same slot.
(12-22-2016, 03:28 PM)Divine Wrote: [TBH] and [101st] grouped up to find the GMG| in the Sigmas ... because we were just a few people and had a huge area to scout. Obviously, even without any interaction between any of the grouped ships and the Gas Miners, this grouping up alone was reason enough for a sanction: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=136452
I see. Thank you for digging that out. That's really a weird sanction. However, I'd still open up a group chat or PM-chat with a red target if there is secret things to talk about. I think that's a thing that, if that would get sanctioned, I'd heavily argue with the admins. Grouping for talk and grouping for fight are two different things.
(12-22-2016, 03:31 PM)Foxglove Wrote: Yeah, because you grouped two hostile factions for the sole purpose of finding hostiles and not for doing RP. You just proved Sombra's case, Divine.
And you don't know the context of that grouping, which came out of the Sairs inviting us to a test of skill. We flew all the way from Gamma up to the Sigmas, ungrouped, to find us something we could shoot in alternating takes. The only and sole reason this grouping was done, was for convenience.
If hostile grouping for convenience isn't allowed, then no grouping of hostile forces is.
(12-22-2016, 03:24 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: Also, instead of trying to nerf cloakers - and those attempts happen often - why don't people invest into Cloak Disruptors when they don't want cloakers around. There is so much potential in renting a Anti-Cloak-capital for secret meetings. You even can configure yourself how far your talking range should be, by selecting a smaller scanner. The range of your own sentences is just as far as your scanner range goes, so even if the cloaked ship is 15k away and has battleship scanners, they can't listen to you.
If you want to conspire, do it right and don't blame other people for, well, having prepared to shadow someone.
Edit: And don't come with "Sure, I invest in anti-cloak-things for one thing" - people also have to invest into cloaks. Some of them even into better cloaks, be it a faction perk or an SRP.
Maybe they changed but my experience when I tried them was that cloak disruptors are quite useless because the cloaked person must behave totally stupid and come close to you and there is no reason to do it when you just want listen to someone´s talk. What are current ranges?
(12-22-2016, 03:28 PM)Divine Wrote: //Edit: Back to the topic. Collecting intel on cloaked ships shouldn't be legal with the rules, just as it already isn't for the lawful forces.
Just for the record, in Sovereign House Space systems it is, just in all others isn´t.
(12-22-2016, 03:32 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: ...with a red target...
That's the next thing in that FRs intel gathering. I show as hostile to the cloaked ship, which was an Oracle -and- the very same character as the one who did make the post for the CID. Though I do fly OC-Guard IFF, this still means the ship wasn't friendly with the OC, bc a single bribe gets the Guard-IFF to neutral.
Raises the question how a character, who is supposed to be the same character, can suddenly have its original affiliation change so much, when the Oracles and NC aren't supposed to be that much different?
[11.12.2016 17:43:15] Skorak: It's not like she's in one faction pretending to be something else.
[11.12.2016 17:43:55] Skorak: The factions don't even have conflicting origins or interests.
[11.12.2016 17:46:35] Skorak: They are both the same person!
[11.12.2016 17:46:51] Skorak: In two different organisations.
[12.12.2016 00:52:46] Skorak: Like your IFF matters at all.
[12.12.2016 00:54:07] Skorak: I'd not care about a bribe either.
[12.12.2016 00:54:12] Skorak: I get my ID, it fixes the rep.
[12.12.2016 00:54:13] Skorak: Done.
[12.12.2016 00:54:35] Skorak: I don't give a damn about my repsheet.
[12.12.2016 00:54:51] Divine: but if you want to play a char that's also your CID char, as in Foxglove's case, then I'd at least expect it to be allied or friendly at least to the OC
[12.12.2016 00:55:25] Divine: if it's the same character, it -should- be friendly to the OC
[12.12.2016 00:55:25] Skorak: He has multiple ships?
[12.12.2016 00:55:32] Divine: same char, you told me.
[12.12.2016 00:55:39] Skorak: Uhm yeah?
[12.12.2016 00:55:47] Divine: same char, other ship. still this one rep should be always staying.
[12.12.2016 00:55:48] Skorak: It's both Mercante.
[12.12.2016 00:56:13] Skorak: Yeah because anyone would bother keeping the rep between multiple ships synced.
//Edit: So IFFs don't matter, chars can be freely in multiple groups for convenience, your original chars rep is merely a guideline and stalking people on cloaked ships to not have to bother with interaction or being acted upon is solid, valid RP.
Seriously. Hiding behind a cloak to escape a RP-interaction.
//Edit:
(12-22-2016, 03:38 PM)Engel Wrote: As I said it's hard to face, but it's better to keep some diginity after all and not spread obvious nonsense.
There used to be a rule against double-factioning a char bc it's too close to meta.
![[Image: maYSx8o.png]](https://i.imgur.com/maYSx8o.png)
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
as Skorak said