Rules Revision

[Raekur]

I'd like to point out that the software for managing accounts was made by Korrd, an admin here. So claiming it can't be used is a null point.
Anyway, to solve the battleship problem, howabout one player "donates" their battleship spot to the faction? Rather than having their own battleship, they allow other faction members to use it. Might work.

My point was not about having multiple accounts, it was taking control of an account that you did not create thus do not actually "own". If you cant wipe out Freelancer and then reinstall the game and get the same account, then its not yours. I have 5 accounts and can wipe out freelancer completly and recreate every one of those accounts just by reinstalling freelancer. That is the difference in "ownership" of an account.

Donating a slot - it still could introduce a situation where a player could have access to more then one battleship.
The same logic could be used differently, what if 3 players decided to donate their battleship slot to another player? Then you have 1 player now could have access to 4 battleships. Or how about 3 players "donating" their slots to shared accounts? Same result, 1 player having access to multiple battleships which defeats the 1 battleship per player rule.

If a ship is regulated then it should not be shared because it is circumventing the rule. So sharing anything other then a battleship is fine, sharing a battleship should not be.

[chovynz]

Sharing one Battleship account between appropriate players
would be a lot more easier to monitor than dealing with
4 players with 4 different battleships I would say.

But then I'm just talking out of a hole in my head too.

Anyway. Rules. My suggestions:
5.4 Intentional ramming of any <strike>capital </strike>ship is not allowed in PvP combat or in any other situation.
Be aware that accidents do happen. If an accident happens try to sort it out nicely in private message or gentle roleplay.

6.7 All PvP/RP rules listed <strike>below </strike>anywhere in section 6 are void in the following situations:

- Self-defense - level 30 limit is not active;
- Attacker and defender belong to two NPC factions that are at war (Kusari vs Bretonia, Outcasts vs Corsairs, House vs local pirates) - level 30 limit is active;
- Attacker and defender belong to two <strike>server </strike>player factions that are at war (officially declared) - level 30 limit is active.
- In systems belonging to server factions and in Connecticut - level 30 limit is not active;

6.8 Civilian ID that is given to beginning <strike>freelancers</strike> players allows them to attack:
(maybe we should mention something about non-standard ships as an allowance for attack?)
- For players below level 30: -any player except the [Admin] faction or any player not in a starflier.
- For players between level 30 and 39: -any players of level 30 and above, or any player with a non-Civilian ID.
- For players of level 40 and higher: using Civilian ID is illegal, no PvP allowed.

7.1 Each character is allowed to carry <strike>no more than </strike>up to 99 different items in the cargo hold. Multiple stackable commodities and ammo count as one item. Violation will result in removing items from hold (all excess items or all items without exception).
(What's the reason for the 99 limit? Does this mean I can't buy 250 diamonds? Ah I see. I re-read it and understood that 250 diamonds would be classified as 1 item. Maybe we can reword as above?

I don't quite understand 7.2)
7.2 Each character is allowed to carry no more than (20 same non-stackable items)? in the cargo hold. Violation will result in removing excess items from hold

7.5 Sanctions for violating equipment and cargo rules is an equipment/credit fine. If the offense is repeated, <strike>and player significantly exceeds the limits,</strike> ban up to 30 days can be imposed. Further repeat offending may incure character deletion without warning or compensation.

---

Seek fun and you shall find it. Seek stuff to Q_Q about and you'll find that, too. I choose to have fun.

[Robert.Fitzgerald]

The 7.1/7.2 rules are related to character file corruption, I believe. It means that you should not carry 20 of the same gun, armour, shield etc in your cargo hold.

My suggestions:
5.4 Intentional ramming of any ship is not allowed in PvP combat or in any other situation.
Be aware that accidents do happen. If an accident happens try to sort it out nicely in private message or gentle roleplay.

Ramming fighters should be allowed, what's better than to take both ships out in a big explosion? The rule was implemented to prevent capital ships being rammed to oblivion, as they bounce around according to freelancer physics. It doesn't include fighters as they aren't affected as adversely as capital ships.

---

~Gateway Interstellar~ Gateway)Gibraltar
Gateway Corporate Profile - Gateway Message Dump - Gateway Recruitment - Gateway Faction Feedback

[Ors]

I think that the rule about running from a battle should be changed to "can't enter that system for 1(or 2) hours max".
I feel this will add to the RP in PvP, as in RP, a pilot would prefer to preserve his ship and run from a battle if he finds himself in unrealistic odds or if he is about to lose his ship, something that players do not take into consideration or do because the rule makes it the same thing as blowing up.

If we make the time a player can't enter a system after fleeing from a fight significantly lower, it will make more players do the realistic thing here, causing better RP, wich is what we are all about here.

[wrathkin]

What about traders allowed to re-take the route where they were just destroyed - I can't see it at all. Where is that rule anyway? Is there such a rule? If there is, I want it dead. DEAD I SAY!

---

John Johnson - Master of Synth.Foods-Convoy|049
Hans Adler - Synth Foods escort wing

Sebastian Wrath - Zoner in a Temporary Autonomous Zone ([TAZ]Punchin'Seb)

[Raekur]

Wrathkin, the reason that traders are not included is because if the trader is killed and still wants to continue on the same route then chances are he will be killed again. The trader is accepting the risk of losing more money in the attempt to complete the same run over again. A combat vessel loses less money then a trader would by being killed (a trader can lose over 2 million where even a battleship costs less then 1 million to resupply after destruction). If a trader is killed and the pirate remains in the same place then the trader should hire escorts to get him through the same area that he was killed in.

[AdamantineFist]

Dont share battleships then. Reason, which player "owns" the battleship?
Sharing a battleship would create a situation where either 1 player would have access to 2 battleships or create a situation where all players who have accessed that account with the battleship are prevented from having their own personal one. I would guess that ownership is traced by IP address, so sharing one could in fact hurt you more then help since that 1 battleship would be the only one that the entire group could use because actual ownership is argumental.

I don't agree with this. The Battleship(s) of a faction is an important symbol, and may need to be used while the owner is away, unable to play, etc. It's important that it be usable by multiple people.

What about traders allowed to re-take the route where they were just destroyed - I can't see it at all. Where is that rule anyway? Is there such a rule? If there is, I want it dead. DEAD I SAY!

Although I personally am not against this "unwritten" rule, I say that if we are going to keep it, then at least add it to the rules so there are no misunderstandings.

Oh, and I would prefer allowing Phantoms and owners of the Terrorist ID to still be able to attack traders in cruisers and above. It makes them much more scary. And it's cool. Also, isn't the whole point of the Phantoms to bring down the houses? And bringing down the houses would probably necessitate disrupting trading. Once they actually get their new battleship, I want to be able to have my trader cower in fear at the sight of it, and flee screaming as it attempt (probably successfully, as well) to kill me.

---

[sovereign]

Oh, and I would prefer allowing Phantoms and owners of the Terrorist ID to still be able to attack traders in cruisers and above. It makes them much more scary. And it's cool. Also, isn't the whole point of the Phantoms to bring down the houses? And bringing down the houses would probably necessitate disrupting trading. Once they actually get their new battleship, I want to be able to have my trader cower in fear at the sight of it, and flee screaming as it attempt (probably successfully, as well) to kill me.

And someone needs to be able to clean out S-13 every once in awhile, I might add. That is, unless you want Wilde to spam Scorpions... which we won't...

---

[Raekur]

So based on Adamantine Fist's position then it would be acceptable to create 3 shared accounts for a clan each with a battleship so that all 3 would be available in addition to any personal ones that faction members may have. Creating shared accounts and putting battleships on it is very easy and since its not owned by a person but a faction then there is no limit to the number of battleships that could be created in this fashion. Are you beginning to see where this would lead. I guess the rule could ba changed to allow for either 1 battlehip for each individual account or if a shared account is used then no other battleships are allowed to that faction since the shared one is more accessible then individual accounts. Or get rid of the rule entirely since a shared account bypasses it anyway.

Simple way to do it, if a faction wants to make sure that there is a battleship available, get off your lazy butts and build more.

[sovereign]

Realize that if a faction abuses this, battleship goes *poof* and the faction either A) loses official status if they're official or B) gets thrown in Bastille if they aren't, or possibly both.

Methinks its fine. There are issues with shared accounts here and there (one person died on TBH cruiser, next person picks it up and tries to defend Crete- accidental re-engagement, sanction, better organization as a result), but if there are major issues then people get thrown in Bastille. I say trust, but emphasize what happens to those who abuse trust.

---