Faction Control of Capital Ships... or...

[tansytansey]

There is no need for this. Capital ships are gonna be restricted enough by the guard IDs in the upcoming 4.85. The server won't fall into chaos between now and then.

---

http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv46/Ni...gcloudscopy.png
Image turned into a URL because it made your sig too tall. -Zuke
|Ashes and Draya's Epic Adventure|Ashes "Nighthawk" Yotaka|Nightfall|Eva Jones|
[5:50:49 PM] JakeSG (William Darkmoor) says: I like you, Ashes. You're more cynical than God.

[swift]

There is no need for this. Capital ships are gonna be restricted enough by the guard IDs in the upcoming 4.85. The server won't fall into chaos between now and then.

Well I hope that will do it, although I don't see how it is that hard to get guard tagged. At least for some factions. For example I can guard tag an IMG in one hour tops..

---

<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">

<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.

</span></span>

<span style="color:#33FFFF">The CFF</span>

<span style="color:#33FF33">CFF Communication Channel and RP Collection</span>

[Kambei]

Well I hope that will do it, although I don't see how it is that hard to get guard tagged. At least for some factions. For example I can guard tag an IMG in one hour tops..

1.5 hour in gunship (hessian)

---

[swift]

So in that reflect, people who powertrade the diamond niobium for the ship + cap VIII armor won't have much difficulty with guard tagging themselves. Although this will maybe help, it won't help that much.

---

<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">

<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.

</span></span>

<span style="color:#33FFFF">The CFF</span>

<span style="color:#33FF33">CFF Communication Channel and RP Collection</span>

[Panzer]

Absolutely.

I'd go for RM's system all the way.

---

[Linkus]

Thank you all for your answers firstly, getting some direct answers is always nice.

Overkill is an issue alright but what I would simply suggest is to meet fire with fire. Every action is met with an equal and opposite reaction.
While it isn't the most efficient solution, it reduces flames in regards to restrictions and does solve this faction/independant issue. However flames between players will increase as more conflict will occur. After all, having a few bombers coming after capital ships is always fun.
All the same, being destroyed is often more of a learning experience than destroying other things so perhaps things would be better overall.


My view in it would be a different way of doing things:
Meet the capital ships with your own firepower.


Your points do make sense however so I'll let it be, good luck in the future with it.

---

Facilitating the rise of robotics since 0 A.D.

[Xoria]

Eppy, you are constantly tossing out straw man arguments to defend your position, as if the only possible options are for factions to either have total control or no persuasive influence whatsoever.

My own faction's behavior over the past year demonstrates the middleground. While I haven't been online every minute that my faction members have been online, I don't think we have ever destroyed a single non player faction member of our npc faction. That is not because we haven't encountered newbies who have no idea how to roleplay. Quite the contrary. We have gone above and beyond to involve them in our own activities, and consequently they naturally gravitate to following our example and wanting to be a part of our activities.

You don't have to boss anyone around to set a good example, nor do you have to have control over someone in order to influence them. Control is just as likely to backfire. Just look at how you react when you perceive that the Administration is making a move against your power. Individual players are apt to react the same way when some other player starts telling them what they must do. People recognize the Administration's authority, but are not likely to recognize yours as anything other than hubris and bullying. The more you attempt to control, the more rebellious you are likely to prompt some people to be; people like me in fact.

Ever since factions implemented the "Ship Registrations" any ship NOT appearing on that list is immediately assumed to be ooRP or a PvP abuser and was usually destroyed the moment a faction member saw them in space. Even when they DID have proper IFF/ID, until recently when it was made clear by Admins that this wont be happening anymore and if it does santions will fly.
the problem comes with the registration threads which make anyone NOT on the list a potential target for harassment or destruction. These registrations should be the other way around, you shouldnt be on that list unless you ARE the target BECAUSE you are oorp or a known pvp abuser.

Snapp points out the root psychological issue. People who have not registered on these lists are automatically assumed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence. The mindset should be exactly opposite to this.

Preventing player factions from prohibiting correctly affiliated members of the same npc faction from purchasing ships of any sort, including from owned guard systems indicates that players are presumed innocent until proven guilty by their bad behavior.

This does not mean that player factions have lost all ability to influence events within their faction's zoi, nor does it mean that player factions cannot influence, persuade, encourage, or uphold roleplaying standards within their zoi.

It would not, for instance, prohibit factions from preventing their ships being sold to members of other factions. Saying that the 101st cannot prevent a properly affiliated Outcast from buying a dreadnought does not mean that the 101st cannot prevent a Liberty Rogue from buying a dreadnought.

On the contrary, by giving someone the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assuming unpleasant things about them, you show them the respect that is due every person, and you place yourself in a much better position to influence them. People log onto a multiplayer server because they want to interact with other players in an enjoyable way. If their first experience with those players once they finally are able to set themselves up in the ship they want to play in is negative as a result of being assumed to be a capship bum, then that influence is severely damaged.

Presume that someone new is "innocent", and let their bad behavior convince you of their "guilt". This approach strips you of no options, and in fact preserves options that can be more responsibly applied later rather than sooner, and with more knowledge about the facts of the situation.

If someone proves themselves to be "guilty" of abusively lousy roleplaying, then they can still be dealt with.

Player factions preventing ship purchases (and you can't really prevent it anyway from any practical standpoint) is not the only way to curb abuse. Curb the abuse when it actually happens instead of assuming that every new person who shows up is an abuser. The Administration prohibiting the first does not automatically prohibit the latter.

If someone new buys their capship without interference from the player faction and acts responsibly, then they are not alienated by the player faction's "thus sayeth the player faction". If they later act badly, then the player faction can still act against them in the same way that some are arguing they should act against them from the moment they undock.

The ability for players and factions to influence other players is actually enhanced by initial restraint, and no power to promote a better roleplaying environment is lost.

To put it more simply, when applied to large samples, optimism triumphs over cynicism. It's a fundamental rule of the universe taught in many different fields : you tend to find what you expect you'll find.

This promotes a more stable, responsible, and enjoyable server environment for everyone.

---

Check out my
Trade Development Blog
for all the latest news on Nerfs and Final Nails, or to request trade changes.

An Interactive Tour of OSC Routes  | POB Supplies

[Eppy]

Overkill is an issue alright but what I would simply suggest is to meet fire with fire. Every action is met with an equal and opposite reaction.
While it isn't the most efficient solution, it reduces flames in regards to restrictions and does solve this faction/independant issue. However flames between players will increase as more conflict will occur. After all, having a few bombers coming after capital ships is always fun.
All the same, being destroyed is often more of a learning experience than destroying other things so perhaps things would be better overall.

We tried the whole 'Fire with Fire' thing as part of the original cap registration. We got eaten alive in the public spotlight, and it caused more problems than it was worth (an entire bloody faction of Outcast Capship thieves).

First sentence pretty much calls everyone who disagrees with Eppy an idiot. Surprisingly, this has been seen before.

It then continues to create an empathy with the audience by relating independents to cap-whores, supported by flimsy evidence about OC Destroyers going on raids. (Mine still is not registered and no complaints about PVP-whoring yet.)

Abusive, horrible monsters? No. Abusers of power? Yes. It has been seen in the past, from you Eppy. (You pay 100 million to me to fly this ship or I PVP-whore you. Awesome RP.)

Actually, no, I was just directing that at Ryoken. Blanketing went out of style, and as tempting as it is sometimes I make a point not to consciously do it.

Explain to me how the hell I'm relating Independents in their entirety to capwhoring? All I'm saying is that the indie population is where most of the capwhorage happens, seeing as Factions get publicly shredded if they, god forbid, take a Battleship on a raid (Haven't done it myself in, eh, probably a bloody year), and that new players who don't understand the RP system almost universally are independents. Capwhores are mostly independents, but independents are not mostly capwhores. Insert Annoying Two-Column Proof Here.

Ooh! I'm going to PvP whore you! Aww. Poor n00bl3t. The ESS destroyer isn't registered and nobody does a damn thing about it because it doesn't fly. I have NEVER seen this ship, none of my pilots have reported doing so, and I doubt I ever will.

As for the Hundred-Million-For-A-Dreadnought, the idea was to attach a larger RP pricetag to a very, very expensive and difficult product to manufacture, for which In-RP my faction is responsible. I saw it as essentially the same as taxing somebody for passage (and it wasn't so much an attempt to line our pockets as to sow up the holes in our pockets, because we were broke as hell), but my compatriots largely thought it was a bad idea, and in retrospect it was. That's why the Outcast nation is run by a council system, not a series of conflicting autocracies. It allows a fairly good failsafe against over-the-top measures like the original Outcast cap registration, which was, to be fair, extremely enthusiastic. By which I mean overkill in the extreme.

EDIT:

You don't have to boss anyone around to set a good example, nor do you have to have control over someone in order to influence them. Control is just as likely to backfire. Just look at how you react when you perceive that the Administration is making a move against your power. Individual players are apt to react the same way when some other player starts telling them what they must do. People recognize the Administration's authority, but are not likely to recognize yours as anything other than hubris and bullying. The more you attempt to control, the more rebellious you are likely to prompt some people to be; people like me in fact.

Parlez-vous francias?

We don't assume anything of the sort. We politely ask people to register when we first notice a cap that's not on the list. After all, these people are generally new, half of them haven't even registered on the forums. We don't 'bully' people anymore. We politely ask. Then we politely ask again. Then we politely ask again. Then we ask not so politely. Then we ask pretty nastily. THEN we order and get the Doomfleet on. Then, after all the asking politely and not-so-politely they STILL refuse to cooperate, we start shooting. We WILL stop shooting if they agree. The objective is to help teach these players how to RP here to maintain a healthy server community, not give Mallorca rings (as pretty as that would be).

Snapp points out the root psychological issue. People who have not registered on these lists are automatically assumed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence. The mindset should be exactly opposite to this.

No. They're not. Already covered this.

This does not mean that player factions have lost all ability to influence events within their faction's zoi, nor does it mean that player factions cannot influence, persuade, encourage, or uphold roleplaying standards within their zoi.

But it's not our system anymore. Hello, Omicron-85, classified military installation. We opened most of it to Outcast ships, figured hell, give them the benefit of the doubt, but they're still asked to keep away from Corsica, as that IS the classified military installation. The Outcast ID doesn't represent one thing, like the Liberty Navy ID and similar-it covers a whole range of RPs, from simple pirate to cardi smuggler to Maltese Navy. The simple civilian pirates don't need to be and shouldn't be in Omi-85; neither do the Cardi smugglers.

On the contrary, by giving someone the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assuming unpleasant things about them, you show them the respect that is due every person, and you place yourself in a much better position to influence them. People log onto a multiplayer server because they want to interact with other players in an enjoyable way. If their first experience with those players once they finally are able to set themselves up in the ship they want to play in is negative as a result of being assumed to be a capship bum, then that influence is severely damaged.

For the love of god, we DO give them the benefit of the doubt. We assume they haven't seen the forums and hence the cap register, hence the whole 'Politely Asking' phases of cap registration. If they already know how to RP on Disco, great! They make a two sentence post and keep right on going. If they don't, they're introduced to a whole new aspect of the game, and given guidelines in that thread on how they should act when RPing a capship. We don't stop them from getting the ship unless they blatantly refuse to register. We are not out to blow them up. We are not evil tyrants bent on oppressing the indies. Why is that so hard for people to understand? You assume "OMGREGULATIONSBAD" and try to lynch us.

Presume that someone new is "innocent", and let their bad behavior convince you of their "guilt". This approach strips you of no options, and in fact preserves options that can be more responsibly applied later rather than sooner, and with more knowledge about the facts of the situation.

We do. I'm glad we're in agreement.

If someone proves themselves to be "guilty" of abusively lousy roleplaying, then they can still be dealt with.

Player factions preventing ship purchases (and you can't really prevent it anyway from any practical standpoint) is not the only way to curb abuse. Curb the abuse when it actually happens instead of assuming that every new person who shows up is an abuser. The Administration prohibiting the first does not automatically prohibit the latter.

By Admins. And how often does that happen? Those four Destroyers that kept running into Gamma haven't been sanctioned, but we all agree that that was incredibly unfair and bad RP. If I reported all the 'abusively lousy roleplaying' I saw you'd have twice the number of vio reports stacked up at the end of the day.

We do curb the abuse when it actually happens. If we see a ship that hasn't been registered, we politely ask. Then we politely ask again. Then we...haven't we been through this before?

If someone new buys their capship without interference from the player faction and acts responsibly, then they are not alienated by the player faction's "thus sayeth the player faction". If they later act badly, then the player faction can still act against them in the same way that some are arguing they should act against them from the moment they undock.

The ability for players and factions to influence other players is actually enhanced by initial restraint, and no power to promote a better roleplaying environment is lost.

We've been over this, too.

This is true. This is why we show initial restraint. Hello, world.

To put it more simply, when applied to large samples, optimism triumphs over cynicism. It's a fundamental rule of the universe taught in many different fields : you tend to find what you expect you'll find.

This promotes a more stable, responsible, and enjoyable server environment for everyone.

So cap registration is inherently cynical? I don't get it.:mellow:

...I'm glad we're...in agreement...?

EDITII: Gaaaaah too many quotes. COndensing.

---

Quick comment - we thought that Panzer was the Leader, Swift. -Agmen

Which Dreadnought was that?

One of your nine.

[Linkus]

We tried the whole 'Fire with Fire' thing as part of the original cap registration

I don't mean shooting down your own NPC faction members.
I mean if a Navy Battlecruiser comes flying in and attacks things, the things fight back with bombers etc.

---

Facilitating the rise of robotics since 0 A.D.

[Eppy]

I don't mean shooting down your own NPC faction members.
I mean if a Navy Battlecruiser comes flying in and attacks things, the things fight back with bombers etc.

Oh, we just throw whatever's handy back at them. If the Dreadnought's on, we use the Dreadnought. If the fighters and bombers are on, we use those. If both are on, we use both. So on and so forth. We don't go hunting for these guys unless it's a Dreadnought (which we don't want anybody seeing). If they're out of Outcast space that's good enough for us.

---

Quick comment - we thought that Panzer was the Leader, Swift. -Agmen

Which Dreadnought was that?

One of your nine.