Isn't this thread based on the same stuff my thread was about?
Spazzy stop stealing my posts. 8|
Still, Admins need to rewrite the rules. The Majority of the rules center around IDs, which now that IDs are OORP (and non-existant in the RP world) the rules are contradictory.
Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts... perhaps the fear of a loss of power.
As far as I'm concerned, an IFF-less ship, should be regarded with suspicion, distrust, and even hostility if their ship, equipment, or actions warrant such a response.
In a real world situation, an aircraft of military type flying without an IFF Transponder would be immediately shot down upon detection, if it refused to identify itself, comply with orders given to it, or respond to radio communications.
It shouldn't be any different here, and that IS one real world scenario that it DOES make sense to apply here inRP. I would even argue that House Governments should move to make it a violation of House Law, for a ship to fly without a "discernable IFF Transponder Code".
(11-15-2013, 08:00 AM)Sarawr!? Wrote: As far as I'm concerned, an IFF-less ship, should be regarded with suspicion, distrust, and even hostility if their ship, equipment, or actions warrant such a response.
In a real world situation, an aircraft of military type flying without an IFF Transponder would be immediately shot down upon detection, if it refused to identify itself, comply with orders given to it, or respond to radio communications.
It shouldn't be any different here, and that IS one real world scenario that it DOES make sense to apply here inRP. I would even argue that House Governments should move to make it a violation of House Law, for a ship to fly without a "discernable IFF Transponder Code".
Maybe it'll be wise then to give Freelancer IFF as default for faction-less restarts? Also FLHook the droprep for Freelancer IFF to 0 credit cost. So you're starting with Freelancer IFF anyway and then, if you want, you can droprep your Freelancer reputation free of charge.
Ok, on the general topic:
ID was always OORP thing, just it was not mentioned officially so it was treated basing on the case. Bounty boards always were stating that Pirate IDed player have to be found doing unlawful activities for him to be open for bounty claim. No idea how it's now - I'm no longer hunting on the board, but it was that way when I did.
The rules needs revision, yes. I was saying it as well so just going to repeat myself one more time. Rules are too simplified so it makes up for uncertain situations (same goes for unspecified faction lores that provokes the huge meta\power gaming from certain groups or individuals, the real RP background for factions is fogging out in the clouds of uncertainty). There is a lot of rules that are bringing to much entropy into the game and thus everyone end up confused (I'm talking about the techchart as well here).
The solution? Rules needs revision. Rules are a part of the gameplay, they are building the basis around the possible scenarios and the way the interactions are going is relying on the good rule-set. If the rules are messed up then the game is going to be messed up as well.
(11-15-2013, 08:28 AM)Curios Wrote: Maybe it'll be wise then to give Freelancer IFF as default for faction-less restarts? Also FLHook the droprep for Freelancer IFF to 0 credit cost. So you're starting with Freelancer IFF anyway and then, if you want, you can droprep your Freelancer reputation free of charge.
That's an excellent idea, that or creating a "Civilian IFF" that would act as the default IFF for new players until they change it according to whatever it is they want.
Also yes, the rules could potentially do with minor revisions or clarifications in the case of situations like the one pointed out in the original post.
![[Image: KUoTN2f.png]](https://i.imgur.com/KUoTN2f.png)
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
![[Image: CHI4y9i.png]](https://i.imgur.com/CHI4y9i.png)
![[Image: bhglogo.png]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ff494/Ilya_Gorunov/bhglogo.png)