It looks like discussion has died down, which we are interpreting as people being more or less done with voicing their comments on the proposed rules. We'll keep this thread open until tomorrow and then close it for internal discussion before implimentation.
(05-26-2025, 06:23 PM)Sombs Wrote: The decision to fly unarmed is one Starfliers actively made for themselves. If we added a line that only armed vessels may be targeted this way, people would just fly around unarmed and use that as protection. I'm sure Starfliers don't expect to be treated special just because they choose not to use weapons.
I'll have to stop you right there. This goes out to everyone - stop assuming I want or expect preferential treatment because of the faction I run. I hate it. Fucking stop it.
Onto my response:
Protections already exist via ship class, or classification, or whatever wording is most appropriate here. It's a roleplay server with PVP turned on, not the other way around. Mentioning this, asking to discuss clauses for those who decide to run with no weapons for RP reasons doesn't seem like that far of a stretch. I'm only bringing this up as I'd like to have it slightly addressed as to what the possible prospective outcomes can be here. It's a discussion after all.
Just to be 100% sure, as we use a lot of those ship: Longhorn, Bulwark and hegemon, even If used defensively, they lose the combat if they dock?
Because as I see in an example about the longhorn "can give a solid fight to attackers while thrusting to the nearest base." So it's still intended to not win fight but survive to the nearest base and dock to just lose ?
I'm fine with any decision, it's just to keep our player up-to-date if that pass.
(06-07-2025, 10:04 AM)TheKusari Wrote: I'll have to stop you right there.
You might want to re-read what I wrote.
In general, we've gotten to a point where people merely look at the rules and forget for what reason these rules exist.
This is a roleplay server - this means, the moment a ship undocks from a station, it becomes a viable target. Regardless of ship class, loadout, ID, IFF, there is always someone who can kill you and has a legitimate motivation to do so. The rules the greens have established are in place to regulate people and prevent them from just saying "Well, my character's RP is that he hates everyone and wants to kill them, that's it". Simply because there would be no fun to log into the game as regular person that doesn't want to do that. We want to have people log into the game, and prevent people from going on killing sprees for illegitimate motivations.
Now, to some people, this is really just a game. They don't care too much about the roleplay aspect, or actually don't see the issue with "Well, my character's RP is that he hates everyone and wants to kill them, that's it" as character motivation. In terms of immersion, killling someone at random or for the pettiest reasons is not something a reasonable to do. Simply because nobody wants to have that done to themselves, either. Ask yourself, how many times did you leave your house and killed someone iRL? Ideally, zero times. How many times did you feel the honest desire to get killed by someone for no or stupid reasons? Ideally, zero times.
Again, some people obviously don't think that way in this simulated roleplay environment, because there is no harm to them, no consequences for unreasonable behavior. It is a game. As such, these rules have to be made, and upheld. We have people who just want to play their everyday life in Discovery, and they should be able to do it.
However, space is dangerous. Ideally, we have a balance where all ships have a considerable survivability in regular situations. Obviously, we don't. Whales have no weapons, Barges are giant sitting ducks, a single tiny puny fighter can CD and pin down a battleship for ages, some people pirate in bombers or destroyers that can take out the pirated ship in a blink. Space is dangerous - so any reasonable person would take measures to not get killed that easily.
People who choose to fly a Barge make an active decision to do so. People who choose to fly a Whale make an active decision to do so. People who don't buy bots and bats make the active decision to do so. The Starfliers also actively made the decision to not use weapons. There is absolutely zero reason to protect people who choose to make a few millions credits more per hour over the choice of flying a ship that has an actual chance at surviving a hostile encounter. And yes, that extends to people who have gotten used to their protections to use big, fragile ships to maintain their precious PoBs alone on their own instead of hiring others or asking friends to help. The escort business for random freelancers and bounty hunters has completely died down because haulers don't even think about hiring protection and despite there being enough haulers in the game at any time, aforementioned freelancers and bounty hunters know they will most likely just get ignored. Sitting at a traffic zone for hours only to get ignored while haulers and PoB owners make millions and yell the loudest in the rare instances where they got pirated or shot down could not be more of a painfully obvious symptom of a broken rule system paired with broken balance.
The rules should provide fairness and provide a level of reasonable immersion. Instead, they are protecting people who barely manage to write more than "hi" in lowercase, make millions of credits per hour and use ChatGPT in the rare case they notice the comm they got that makes demands. Fly a fragile ship? Your own fault. You are taking a risk you need to think about. We have heavily armored transports, incredibly capable freighters, plenty of people that are almost always available on Discord waiting for literally anything to happen worth logging, and that includes escort pilots, scouts and haulers. There are people who sit on billions of credits, cry at the loss of a few millions but have nothing they want to spend credits on. And most people play this game for years, some for decades, and they all should know better.
(06-07-2025, 10:45 AM)Sombs Wrote: There is absolutely zero reason to protect people who choose to make a few millions credits more per hour over the choice of flying a ship that has an actual chance at surviving a hostile encounter.
This sentence specifically is the closest thing that really touches on the discussion I wanted. I agree that either everyone has a protection or no one does. As it stands there are protections and the niche parts is what I wanted to really talk about.
I've said my part. Hoping the staff can review and see what comes out of it.
(06-07-2025, 10:42 AM)Soban Wrote: Just to be 100% sure, as we use a lot of those ship: Longhorn, Bulwark and hegemon, even If used defensively, they lose the combat if they dock?
Because as I see in an example about the longhorn "can give a solid fight to attackers while thrusting to the nearest base." So it's still intended to not win fight but survive to the nearest base and dock to just lose ?
I'm fine with any decision, it's just to keep our player up-to-date if that pass.
As the proposal is right now, the Pelican, Gull, Grouse, Bumblebee, Albatross, Mammoth, BWAT, Percheron, Longhorn, Bulwark, and Amaterasu would have their transport protections revoked - these ships, either through deliberate balancing or by nature of their ship stats, are combat capable enough to not need it. The Hegemon isn't on this list - it's not exactly the same as the others in terms of survivability and offensive potential
You should still consider giving these ships some clause that allows them to continue on with their trade run if they dock. All ships primarily meant for moving cargo have docking as their win condition, they're not actually gonna be killing their attackers in an even fight. They cannot be penalized for accomplishing what they're meant to do.
Posts: 892
Threads: 73
Joined: May 2020
Staff roles: Story Developer
Traders are meant to dock in a combat situation. Neither of these ships is as viable as true combat ships. This proposal will only achieve one thing: traders in these ships won't be motivated to "risk it"; instead, they will avoid possible pirate encounters altogether. I think people in these ships should be encouraged to take risks if they have been balanced the way they were, not punished.
This new ruleset won't tackle the problems that have been mentioned in the discussion. If AFK traders or silent powertraders are what this is supposed to address, then please address the ships that these people actually use. Like the zoner whale that these people have been using as their vehicle of choice for a long time.
I do not like that it's implied that people who have billions care about the loss of a few millions (I suppose that was before the economy change, currently having billions is WAY different to what it was before). I don't care about being shot down in my gull because it loses me a couple thousand credits - I care that I would have been better off flying a larger ship that then gets roleplay protection, AND could have made more credits. Nobody really uses these smaller transports unless they're actively looking for combat, new players that are progressing through them, or people who use them for roleplay sake.
As Erremnart said, this will only change that people using these ships to trade/rp will avoid pirates even more in most cases. And those using them as makeshift gunboats will get themselves into combat just how they have before, no benefit gained. We all know that space is dangerous, but seemingly not as many people remember that this is a roleplay server with PVP. Taking away advantages from engaging with roleplay (in this case, the safety from being shot if you engage in roleplay with the pirate) won't help counteract this shifting movement.
Sure, some of those transports are decently capable of defending themselves, but not including the Hegemon - a ship that has literally been used as a battlecruiser substitute during PVP encounters, is not it.
