But I definitely do agree with GenRic. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Yes ... the hypocrisy.
1. I disagree with you on a point.
2. You tell me to "shut up."
3. I respond with confusion as to why you told me to "shut up."
4. You continue to insult me.
At what point will you debate me on the actual issue? And an apology for telling me to "shut up" might just prove to me that you are truly interested in a civil discussion.
3. I respond with confusion as to why you told me to "shut up."
4. You continue to insult me.
At what point will you debate me on the actual issue? And an apology for telling me to "shut up" might just prove to me that you are truly interested in a civil discussion.
I think you took this the wrong way. But can we get back to the topic? You whining about civility and "insults" is becoming rather detrimental to this conversation.
Let's fix the rule and moan about me later, alright?
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
' Wrote:I think you took this the wrong way. But can we get back to the topic? You whining about civility and "insults" is becoming rather detrimental to this conversation.
Let's fix the rule and moan about me later, alright?
You continually talking down to me makes it VERY difficult to converse with you. Had you not told me to "shut up" ... we'd be enjoying this discussion rather than going on about civility. So ... wanna blame someone for off topic discussions ... point the fingers at yourself. All you gotta do is treat me with a bit of respect ... don't degenerate a discussion by getting personal with me when I was simply disagreeing with an idea. I make every effort NOT to degenerate a discussion with personal attacks. I only attack ideas, theories, etc.
So, what should we do about those unbalanced bounties against pirates? Is there any way we might go about solving that issue?
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
' Wrote:So, what should we do about those unbalanced bounties against pirates? Is there any way we might go about solving that issue?
First ... one bounty = one hit. Too many bounties out there have clauses that allow bounty hunters to hit the same pirate multiple times (sometimes indefinite hits). Similar to the multiple hits a pirate does with traders. If a trader doesn't wanna get hit multiple times by the same pirate ... that trader better not be posting any multiple hits on the pirate.
Second ... bounties should be in proportion to the loss the trader experiences. If a pirate demands 2 mil ... the trader could easily post a bounty on that pirate for 4 mil with nobody objecting. If a pirate demands 500k ... the trader would be going a bit overboard by posting a 50 mil bounty on that pirate.
Third ... bounties need to be posted on a pirate that's actually pirated that trader. Nothing annoys me more than a trader that posts a generic bounty on all pirates. If my pirate sticks to the Sigma systems and you've never been to the Sigmas and you've never encountered me ... but you post a bounty on me or on pirates in general that eventually get me hunted down ... you're going overboard. My pirate is selective in who he pirate, under what circumstances ... and in many cases it really depends on what the cargo is. My pirate takes great offense to any trade vessel moving prisoners, military equipment and pilots friendly to pirates. So any trade vessel carrying said cargo would be required to release all prisoners and drop all military equipment instead of cash.
' Wrote:First ... one bounty = one hit. Too many bounties out there have clauses that allow bounty hunters to hit the same pirate multiple times (sometimes indefinite hits). Similar to the multiple hits a pirate does with traders. If a trader doesn't wanna get hit multiple times by the same pirate ... that trader better not be posting any multiple hits on the pirate.
Second ... bounties should be in proportion to the loss the trader experiences. If a pirate demands 2 mil ... the trader could easily post a bounty on that pirate for 4 mil with nobody objecting. If a pirate demands 500k ... the trader would be going a bit overboard by posting a 50 mil bounty on that pirate.
Third ... bounties need to be posted on a pirate that's actually pirated that trader. Nothing annoys me more than a trader that posts a generic bounty on all pirates. If my pirate sticks to the Sigma systems and you've never been to the Sigmas and you've never encountered me ... but you post a bounty on me or on pirates in general that eventually get me hunted down ... you're going overboard. My pirate is selective in who he pirate, under what circumstances ... and in many cases it really depends on what the cargo is. My pirate takes great offense to any trade vessel moving prisoners, military equipment and pilots friendly to pirates. So any trade vessel carrying said cargo would be required to release all prisoners and drop all military equipment instead of cash.
I can agree with the First and Third, but the second can be given a range. Sometimes it's used as an insult against the pirate to make a bounty of X value. Rather than equal value, perhaps we'd go with no more than N over the amount that was taken.
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
Oh do me a lemon - get a room you two, there's clearly some serious sexual tension going on there.
Keep it on topic or take it elsewhere. I came back to the thread hoping that some comments might have been made on the subject, and find that in 6 posts the only worthwhile comment was an agreement that pirates shouldn't be limited in how much they can ask for.
So far, we have sort-of agreed the following:
Quote:Rule: Customs & Piracy
x.1 - Players may attack their target if the initial 'halt' command is repeatedly ignored, but may not destroy the target before an RP demand is made.
Most people seem to agree that the pirate should be allowed to open fire, the disagreement here seems to lie in what is reasonable. Like demands, I wouldn't have this as a hard and fast rule - I would recommend either using the PvP rule of half shields or entirely removing shields. That would mean the rule would read:
x.1 - Players may attack their target and drain their shields if the initial 'halt' command is repeatedly ignored but may not destroy the target or deal significant hull damage before and RP demand is made.
Quote:x.2 - Non compliance with x.1 can be assumed after the demand is repeated at least three times and the target has had a reasonable chance to respond.
I think it best that this remains as "reasonable" as opposed to a specific time constraint, as different encounters come with their own time constraints and it would render certain areas very difficult for traders and others very difficult for pirates. Admins can then decide in cases where someone feels hard done by one way or another if the time allotted was indeed "reasonable".
Quote:x.3 - If the player chooses to exercise their right to fire in x.1 the target may retaliate without engaging in RP.
Self explanatory. See PvP engagement rules if you don't understand why draining someone's shields would allow them to freely attack you.
Quote:x.4 - Players can only be stopped by the same individual once every three minutes.
Some people suggest doing this by cargo, but in truth this could be abused - an example would be a cargo collection from a station with only one exit (LD-14 for example, if a BMM pilot were to stay in RP they could not leave via the Edinburgh jump hole): The pirate could sit a few jumps down the lane and repeatedly pirate the individual without breaking the dock camping rules, and the trader would be helpless to avoid them. This would very much be classified as bad form and there is a valid argument that this should be covered by the pirate code, but that seems unnecessary - if we have a time constraint on this it allows the trader a window of opportunity to escape without preventing the possibility for the pirate of pursuing their target. As such, I would retain this in it's original form.
Quote:x.5 - If the target escapes without engaging in RP, the pirate/customs agent is exempt from x.4
Pretty simple - if you don't play by the rules, the pirate doesn't have to either. To clarify, this would mean that if the trader doesn't roleplay then the pirate can kill them again, and again, and again, and again...
' Wrote:I can agree with the First and Third, but the second can be given a range. Sometimes it's used as an insult against the pirate to make a bounty of X value. Rather than equal value, perhaps we'd go with no more than N over the amount that was taken.
My point is not to get strict with limits. Posting a bounty for double what the pirate demanded is perfectly acceptable. If I demand 10 mil and you post a bounty for 20 mil ... no problem ... heck even a bounty of 50 mil might be ok for a 10 mil piracy demand. But when I only ask for 500k and the trader posts a 50 mil bounty ... the trader obviously has no ground to stand on when he says "you're demanding too much" ... "I'm a simple poor trader who has very little space in my cargo hold to trade with" ... "you're making it impossible for me to make any money." That kind of response from a trader just nullifies any discussion about pirates asking too much.
True ... a pirate demanding 2 mil from a freighter is a bit much ... but a transport is a different story. Transports can afford as much as 10 mil ... especially those who are level 80. Any crying about a demand being too high from a level 80 transport goes on deaf ears. On the other hand, a freighter has a legitimate complaint.
And this goes for lawful navy folks stopping smugglers and such. Sure ... the lawfuls should demand these smugglers drop all their cargo ... but that's it. Too often these lawfuls get greedy and impose "fines" for transporting the illegal goods. That's like a pirate demanding the trader's cargo AND credits. Sorry ... one or the other but not both.
Quote:And this goes for lawful navy folks stopping smugglers and such. Sure ... the lawfuls should demand these smugglers drop all their cargo ... but that's it. Too often these lawfuls get greedy and impose "fines" for transporting the illegal goods. That's like a pirate demanding the trader's cargo AND credits. Sorry ... one or the other but not both.
In my experience when you're dealing with customs it's either:
a) Drop the cargo and leave faction space
b) Be escorted to a police base (to sell your cargo) and pay a fine
I agree that demanding both is just plain dumb
Quote:Transports can afford as much as 10 mil ... especially those who are level 80.
I disagree with this. I don't think a single pirate encounter's credit demand should exceed the the initial cost price of the cargo - that limits it to about 6 mil. I wouldn't dream of trying to get a rule added to make this a strict rule, but it's just OORP to leave the transport pilot with zero profit, as this will discourage them to continue running the route you pirate on.
' Wrote:I disagree with this. I don't think a single pirate encounter's credit demand should exceed the the initial cost price of the cargo - that limits it to about 6 mil. I wouldn't dream of trying to get a rule added to make this a strict rule, but it's just OORP to leave the transport pilot with zero profit, as this will discourage them to continue running the route you pirate on.
Considering the pirate has no clue how much you've paid for the cargo ... and knowing that the cargo is worth far more when you sell it ... I'd have to disagree with you on the demand limit idea. And it is not OORP to leave a trader with zero profit. The pirate is not out to help you get rich ... a pirate's role play is to himself rich. But ... I will say this. The more money you make, the more money you can afford to pay the pirate. So ... if you make 10 mil in a single trip, you can surely afford to pay 10% to the pirate (a simple 1 mil). But by my experience I see way too many not even willing to give up 500k. This is what really offends me. Traders travel back and forth (endlessly) across pirate infested space (knowingly and willingly) and expect NOT to get pirated ... and then push for rules limiting what a pirate can demand. Its absurd. If anything is OORP its the trader that thinks a pirate is there to help him get rich ... and the trader that plows through hostile space expecting a free pass.
