Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3

[Shiki]

Of course I never wasn't pirated Karst, that' lethal argument.

I actually wonder what is this all about, traders will be there regardless. And real problem that there is no pirates because piracy is a waste. Yet, in any thread there will be powertrading people asking to buff transports more and generally do everything so the last pirate will stop playing. If you are seeking for the problem and arguing, Karst, you should really reconsider your point of view and forumkrieg in other direction.

---

[Emperor Tekagi]

Of course I never wasn't pirated Karst, that' lethal argument.

I actually wonder what is this all about, traders will be there regardless. And real problem that there is no pirates because piracy is a waste. Yet, in any thread there will be powertrading people asking to buff transports more and generally do everything so the last pirate will stop playing. If you are seeking for the problem and arguing, Karst, you should really reconsider your point of view and forumkrieg in other direction.

I will just add two "quotes":

Before the change: Pirates were like: "They almost all have armors, btrans etc. and then just dock and be able to continue without even paying attention to me shortly after dock, so why should I even pirate?"

After the change: Pirates are: "Oh yes, now they atleast have to wait a bit.. oh wait, I still didn't gain anything from this change! They still run for bases and I got nothing from it as they just bluntly ignore me with their armored transports"

Don't take them too serious but I am pretty sure quite a lot of pirates have similar thoughts.
Claiming that people do not use armored transports is wrong by the way. Many, many found out that a cau5 or hau4 already helps a hell lot.

[Karst]

It's incredibly ironic that you accuse me of that, since in 90% of the pirate-trader debates over the past seven years, I've been on the pirate side of the argument. Should tell you something about the current discussions.

The worst traders of all, the unarmored, silent 5ks that avoid interaction and roleplay, are completely unaffected. You haven't addressed that.
You haven't addressed the massive trolling potential I brought up in the beginning of this. You haven't addressed the issue of traders being encouraged to avoid interaction.

You haven't really addressed anything at all, other than complaining about traders.

Before the change: Pirates were like: "They almost all have armors, btrans etc. and then just dock and be able to continue without even paying attention to me shortly after dock, so why should I even pirate?"

After the change: Pirates are: "Oh yes, now they atleast have to wait a bit.. oh wait, I still didn't gain anything from this change! They still run for bases and I got nothing from it as they just bluntly ignore me with their armored transports"

Don't take them too serious but I am pretty sure quite a lot of pirates have similar thoughts.
Claiming that people do not use armored transports is wrong by the way. Many, many found out that a cau5 or hau4 already helps a hell lot.

What an absurd argument. Not only is it completely false that most traders use btranses/small transports/armor, almost none of them do. But also, what exactly are you trying to say? That the traders that spend the money and cargo on armor or smaller ships should just fail to avoid pvp death anyway?

---

[Shiki]

Of course I never wasn't pirated Karst, that' lethal argument.

I actually wonder what is this all about, traders will be there regardless. And real problem that there is no pirates because piracy is a waste. Yet, in any thread there will be powertrading people asking to buff transports more and generally do everything so the last pirate will stop playing. If you are seeking for the problem and arguing, Karst, you should really reconsider your point of view and forumkrieg in other direction.

I will just add two "quotes":

Before the change: Pirates were like: "They almost all have armors, btrans etc. and then just dock and be able to continue without even paying attention to me shortly after dock, so why should I even pirate?"

After the change: Pirates are: "Oh yes, now they atleast have to wait a bit.. oh wait, I still didn't gain anything from this change! They still run for bases and I got nothing from it as they just bluntly ignore me with their armored transports"

Don't take them too serious but I am pretty sure quite a lot of pirates have similar thoughts.
Claiming that people do not use armored transports is wrong by the way. Many, many found out that a cau5 or hau4 already helps a hell lot.

I was talking overall, piracy should have a general overhaul.

@Karst
You telling me that good trader is a person who running into a pirate, then to escape and dock? Give me a break.

---

[Aumont]

This gone far enough.
First: There's no rule anymore stating that half the shields constitute as an attack. An attack does constitute as an attack.
Second: With this change of the rules was a very important and the, besides shooting the pirate down, only win-condition a trader had eliminated. That be making it savely to a docking spot after getting shot at.
There's no lose-scenario for the pirate anymore, as long they can successfully CD a ship and opening fire after a demand.
Trader dies - trader is pvp-dead (which he was before this change in this case too). >> Pirate wins, though doesn't gain credits.
Trader docks - trader is pvp-dead. >> Pirate wins, though doesn't gain credits.
Trader pays - trader isn't pvp-dead but still lost the encounter >> Pirate wins, and got his credits.

The intend behind this change is understood and a good one, the implementation isn't going to cut it. It benefits pirates in every possible way and eliminates the only win-condition traders had besides shooting down the pirate, which already was very unlikely.

-Div

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=151485
Time left: (Permanent)

[Toris (Old Account)]

Essentially what this means is that any piracy encounter automatically ends in the pvp death of the transoprt.

Untrue. It's up to the trader to come up with roleplaying the negotiations, pay up or to be destroyed. If the latter happens - in 99.9% of the cases it is fault of the stubborn trader.

If trader doesn't want to fulfill the reasonable demand (without any attempt to negotiate, mind me), it is not my obligation to be soft on him. Such a behaviour would be very OORP. I roleplay a damn pirate, not a candy seller.

[Karst]

Untrue. It's up to the trader to come up with roleplaying the negotiations, pay up or to be destroyed. If the latter happens - in 99.9% of the cases it is fault of the stubborn trader.

If you're saying that traders should either pay or be destroyed in a piracy situation, you are also saying that all traders should be flying armorless pure 5ks, since there's literally no reason to use anything else if those are the two possible options.

---

[Goldberg]

Essentially what this means is that any piracy encounter automatically ends in the pvp death of the transoprt.

Untrue. It's up to the trader to come up with roleplaying the negotiations, pay up or to be destroyed. If the latter happens - in 99.9% of the cases it is fault of the stubborn trader.

If trader doesn't want to pay the logical demand, it's not my obligation to be soft on him. I roleplay a damn pirate, not a candy seller.

Not completly true, I already had encounters with factions and indies that just wanted me dead, even if I said: I would pay them if they leave me alone, they still killed me.

Some people just wanna see how your ship explodes and how funny it is to waste your time

---

[sasapinjic]

Good trader use battletransport , greedy(and mostly silent) trader use armorles 5K one, they both dock if they see strong pirate , but BT one will not dock from oponent it has chance to win, it will RP and try to chase him off.

---

Spoiler

welcome to Loberty
^ where you can get Freelancer ISO , in emergency

These two spoilers were too big so now they're both one ~Champ

[Toris (Old Account)]

If you're saying that traders should either pay or be destroyed in a piracy situation[quote]

I never stated that. Reread my statement again, then try to discuss. Hint: negotiations.

[quote]Not completly true, I already had encounters with factions and indies that just wanted me dead, even if I said: I would pay them if they leave me alone, they still killed me.

Was it Xeno ID? If it was Xeno ID - or a terrorist faction KOS-ing the certain faction - their RP is to destroy every single non-Libertonian trader or take their cargo. If it was e.g. Rogue ID trying to kill your transport, then it's a rule violation since all but VERY few unlawfuls cannot kill transports on sight.

---

This little bird went to sleep forever. So long.
Thank you for everything.