CR ID irregularity

[Impyness]

So this actually happened awhile ago, but I forgot to bring it up now. Is there any real valid reason for the CR ID to have

- Can attack unlawfuls and quasi-lawfuls in self-defense, to protect an allied or neutral lawful ship, or in defense of a base of the same affiliation, both within and outside of their Zone of Influence.

this line in it? Personally I think inside of their zoi makes a lot more sense. The reason i'm bringing this up is that I have personally witnessed CR carriers and the like escorting traders down in the Omegas and even through Rheinland. I've also seen CR ships simply flying up to and sitting next to pirates waiting for them to actually attack things so that said CR ships can then "defend" them.

I wanted to get feedback on this before sending in a request to have the admins look at this.

Fixed line would probably read

Can attack unlawfuls and quasi-lawfuls in self-defense, to protect an allied or neutral lawful ship, or in defense of a base of the same affiliation, within their Zone of Influence.

---

#Snakded

[Lythrilux]

Maybe keep it for the official ID? Imo IDs with access to caps shouldn't have this line due to reasons mentioned above. Or at least have lines that lock the caps in their ZoI.

---

[Jeremy Hunter]

The spirit of the idea is that we have a close relationship with IMG and would protect them, so being able to defend our allied trade convoys is within reason when outside our ZoI.


........but the abuse...yeah, probably should limit the Indie ID to caps can't leave the ZoI.

---

May you ever walk in the Light, Shizune.

[Lythrilux]

The spirit of the idea is that we have a close relationship with IMG and would protect them, so being able to defend our allied trade convoys is within reason when outside our ZoI.

Every ID actually seriously needs this addressed. Last I heard staff were 'discussing' it but nothing has come of it.

If (i.e) Rogues went on a convoy to Alpa, with Rogue ID'd Transports and and Rogue ID'd and LH ID'd escorts, they'd be screwed if they were attacked.

Why? Because rule/ID-wise unless a Rogue transport is in it's ZoI, ships of the same ID or allied ships on the same convoy as it are not allowed to defend it if it's attacked. So unless OC come along, all those IDs mentioned would be helpless in the Taus. And if the escorts retaliated, they could be sanctioned.

It's really silly.

---

[Jeremy Hunter]

The spirit of the idea is that we have a close relationship with IMG and would protect them, so being able to defend our allied trade convoys is within reason when outside our ZoI.

Every ID actually seriously needs this addressed. Last I heard staff were 'discussing' it but nothing has come of it.

If (i.e) Rogues went on a convoy to Alpa, with Rogue ID'd Transports and and Rogue ID'd and LH ID'd escorts, they'd be screwed if they were attacked.

Why? Because rule/ID-wise unless a Rogue transport is in it's ZoI, ships of the same ID or allied ships on the same convoy as it are not allowed to defend it if it's attacked. So unless OC come along, all those IDs mentioned would be helpless in the Taus. And if the escorts retaliated, they could be sanctioned.

It's really silly.

Exactly. And since the MAX an escort should have is GUNBOATS, limit it there. Official Factions can use Cruisers and up for escorts, because for the heavy RP convoys like refugees or a lot of documents you'd send a friggin fleet.

[Arioch]

A good point. One we'll discuss.

---

[Jeremy Hunter]

A good point. One we'll discuss.

Thanks Finn.

Have a whiskey on us.

[Lythrilux]

Every ID should have lines like this, with lines being removed or tweaked if necessary:

- Can attack lawfuls, unlawfuls and quasi-lawfuls in self-defense, to protect an allied or neutral lawful ship, or in defense of allied or neutral bases (or in defense of a specific ID'd ship like with what Junker and Zoner IDs state).
- Can attack any ship in defense of an allied or friendly ship both within and outside of their ZoI.
- Cannot bring Capital Ships outside of their Zone of Influence.

Meanwhile can we also remove the highly abusable "can attack whatever you like anywhere without a bounty" line from the FL ID?

---

[nOmnomnOm]

Meanwhile can we also remove the highly abusable "can attack whatever you like anywhere without a bounty" line from the FL ID?

Which line is that?

do you mean:

Can attack any ship in self-defense or to protect an friendly or allied ship.

You forget though what it means by this statement. You forget that players were sanctioned by following this rule but admins saying there needs to be a bounty to go along with it.
You forget that Freelancers work alone. NO factions linked to them.
You forget what it means as a freelancer to have a firendly/allied ship. From the start they are neutral and just green to FL IFF. From your actions inRP you then determine this.

How is this to be abused?

---

[Lythrilux]

Can attack any ship in self-defense or to protect an friendly or allied ship.

You forget though what it means by this statement. You forget that players were sanctioned by following this rule but admins saying there needs to be a bounty to go along with it.
You forget that Freelancers work alone. NO factions linked to them.
You forget what it means as a freelancer to have a firendly/allied ship. From the start they are neutral and just green to FL IFF. From your actions inRP you then determine this.

How is this to be abused?

Where is the green statement? As ID overrides the rules that line allows the Freelancer ID, which can adjust it's diplomacy on the fly, to just hop into any pew in Sirius without needing a bounty. Who says they work alone? A Freelancer is independent because they don't have any permenant ties to a specific organization. Due to this they can freely choose who they do and who they do not work with. From ship creation yes they are only green to FL IFF. This can change though,

It's worse when done by groups. You can build entire factions around that single line (Sirius wide open pew ID).

---