Rules revisions, my thoughts and suggestions

[Exsiled_one]

5.6 If a player engages cruise engine or docks with a station, jump gate, or trade lane during a PvP fight, this player has fled the fight. The fleeing player must leave the system and may not re-enter the system where the fight took place with any of the characters on his/her account(s) while the enemy (player or players involved in the fight) remain in the system until four hours have passed from the time the fight ended.
Using cruise engines to catch up with those capable of thrusting at higher speed than you is not allowed. Trade lanes may be used to pursue or catch up to other ships under any circumstances, even if the other ship has not yet fled as described above.
The fleeing player can fight in self-defense if attacked again while attempting to leave the system after fleeing.


Here's the issues and questions I've got.

1. Engaging cruise engines should be a sign of fleeing away. But should fleeing away really be the same as death? It shouldn't be so, and fleeing ships should be allowed to enter the same system again in next 5 or 10 minutes, enough for the "victor" to restock himself as well. This way, terrorists, guerrilla and others could get a chance to strike with haste, make enough commotion and kill one ship, thrusting away from the combat after that / using tradelane or jumping to another system to setup an ambush there again. In every scenario rogues should be outnumbered by the lawful faction ships, especially if there's a trade convoy.

Why would I revamp this rule?
- It would offer more interaction with pirates and lawfuls, more usage of light vessels because they can strike fast and thrust away fast enough. But most importantly, this rule would open up the path to another awesome rule.

[xy ship has died due the decommission]or whatever. Intentional killing, intentional deaths after combat, that follow the one thing. They respawn and fly out of the base undamaged. This should be outlawed. If you die, by yourself or by hand of every other player (unless, ofcourse, duel is in question - but we'll come to that as well), you should be inactive with that character for next 4 hours.

What would this new rule accomplish?
- It would accomplish few things, few very useful things. First of all, guerrilla tactics would be more applied against the other enemy factions and there would be an increase in number of fighter ships. From one side and from another side. It would increase the value of the capital ship, but it would increase their weakness as well, and forcing people to dock damaged, unless they want to be inactive for 4 hours, would make them think twice about fights they're getting into.
Basically to sum it up, death should be separated from fleeing or tactical retreat.


5.7 A player who was killed in a PvP fight must not enter the system where the fight took place with any of the characters on his/her account(s) until four hours have passed from the time of his/her destruction.

If the player respawns in the same system, he/she must leave the system within 10 minutes of his destruction without engaging anyone, except in self-defense. Other players are not allowed to attack one who is leaving.

- Now some people misunderstood this rule, so I just want to clear it up for some people, if I'm wrong, then consider this explanation as a rule change suggestion as well.
When traders die because they carried contraband or refused to pay tax to the pirate / lawful, and undock at same system, they have no right to pick up new cargo, unless they want to get pirated again. Abusing the rule of right to leave the sytem for 10 minutes also means carrying that other part of the rule (not retuning for 4 hours) and i'm sure no trader would want that. Know your rights as a trader, but know the drawbacks of the rules that are protecting you.


6.6 PvP combat is allowed only on roleplay basis. The pilot who is attacking must scan for an ID prior to the attack. Relying on general reputation status (red/neutral/green) without scanning for the ID is not allowed.

- There's an issue with this rule. Spotting a navy gunboat in Corsair space, I have taken a shot of cruise disruptor to slow him down so I can scan him. Here's the trick that's been balancing trough "allowed / unallowed" part of the rules. The Cruise Distruptor.
I am sure no admin would sanction a player who fired an CD on a enemy affiliated ship before scanning his his ID. But then again, firing a CD in any other situation is considered to be engaging the PVP and there's been issues of abusing this as well. In my opinion, people need to be more careful about what affiliation they have on their ships. Especially with /droprep around now.


6.19 Pirates have a right to deal as much damage as they see fit before or after demanding money from a trader ship, but killing trader ship before demanding money or cargo is not allowed. "Halt" is not a demand that justifies destroying a trader.

- this rule always leaves the bitter taste in trader's mouth. Usually leading to the situation where trader fires back and signs his own death threat. It is being abused. I have heard about people actually doing the hard damage on intention so the trader fights back or gets pissed. It creates tension and hatred. Perhaps only lowering the trader's shield would do the trick?
Also, "halt" is certainly not a demand, but "cut your engines [xy] and prepare to be boarded, if you cooperate this will all end up fast" should be an demand.
- When I type "drop 2000 of your cargo or die" after that, i feel that my rp has been crippled. Alot.

Also: Engagement notices.
- This has already been talked around and we know what it means, but since you're reading about the rules here i might remind you about this as well.
The "attacking without engagement rule" does apply to everyone. But that does not, and never meant that you have to write "engaging" every time you attack someone. You have to notify it somehow, and rp has to lead to that, but the actual word "engaging" does not have to be mentioned at all. There was also a topic of "gazillion things to say instead of engaging", I suggest someone digs it up and people read on it a bit. It will broaden your rp spectre to more than "engaeigneg!1"


If you feel different, please tell me where am i wrong about this. Keep it civil.

---

<span style="color:#33CC00">I AM GIVING AWAY MONEY TO CREATIVE MINDS*</span>

[Vrouw]

I agree with all of these changes, but in regards to 6.19.. Most people -can't- type that much because almost every single trader I encounter tries to run as soon as they jump out of the lane and see someone hostile. I don't even get a chance to say anything but "Cut your engines!"

[Exsiled_one]

It is kinda why you can have /setmsg there, for easier interaction.
You can either /t it to the guy or use it with #t to actually say out his name. Thanks for replying man, because you can either care or not care about rules at all. Being indifferent and not giving anything to the server gives you no right to complain later.


OH COME ON, ITS THE RULES PEOPLE =)
No opinion whatsoever? even that I'm wrong?

---

<span style="color:#33CC00">I AM GIVING AWAY MONEY TO CREATIVE MINDS*</span>

[Quorg]

You make some good points, Ivan.

However, I would still consider CDing a legitimate reason to begin firing back in self-defense.

---

ATTENTION SMUGGLERS
The Midnight Express: A Slaver <strike>who doesn't completely realize what he's doing.</strike> (video)

Quorg, you're officially a moron.

...mongs like Quorg being like a malignant little cancer...

Way to be useless, Quorg.

[Weepig]

I think the bit about the 5.6 rule, your point 1, could lead to long old battles between people. With people cruising off and coming back time and time again until they eventually won. In a pirate vs lawful situation i could see that happening. Constant guerilla attacks until the pirates win eventually. Though as you point out, this would lead to more engagement between the two. I just dont know if everyone will prefere it.

Good point on the 6.6 rule though. I see lots of Police tagged ships that arent police characters and i cant be bothered to explain to every single one of them how to get the rep they want.

Your views on the Engagement notice i agree with. I dislike intensley when pirates just say "Halt" in system chat and not even mention who it is they want to halt. Even more when they start shooting me for not knowing it was actually me they were talking to.

Maybe you could draw up a basic list of /setmsgs commands for pirates, as a guide of some sort?

[Aoyagi]

5.6 I think better would be to make "dead" ship unable to dock from station. That would be the easiest way I guess. Also, I would make it be docked in the nearest neutral/friendly base, which would be more...realistic and even helpful sometimes. Also, people would stop using death as instant teleport. Or, the ship would be docked in a chosen station. Like stone of recall in WoW or whatever is that thing called. Plus, the bigger ship, the bigger repair (inability to undock) time... I miss something like this, when I kill a trader who dares to oppose and like a 5 minutes later he comes to that lane again heading the same destination?? Drives me crazy. Plus I was thinking about some more death penalization...credits or something. Like Level * 10.000 or something. Too bad that credit amount can't go minus.

Also, I have no idea why I can't catch up with some small ship on cruise speed...

5.7

When traders die because they carried contraband or refused to pay tax to the pirate / lawful, and undock at same system, they have no right to pick up new cargo

Been there, horrible.

6.6 Yes, people are lazy to make their rep correct.

6.7 Luckily, I've never met someone who'd do a damage to my trader, except once in Stuttgart, where some jerks were pirating with bad IFF and near the battleship there. I mean "short range" near.
But I guess pirates should not damage the hull of ships they are going to pirate...

About engagement notice, I think there -always- should be "engaging" or any equal word (attacking, opening fire, taking on #t , etc etc)

[pipboy]

Some great ideas there Ivan, I especially love the idea of having a penalty for suicides. I can't stand it when I've done a lot of damage to a trader, or enemy and they get away only to see them sun dive 5 min later.

In the old days pirates did have to give an engagement notice, the problem was that traders would instantly flee leaving the pirate there typing his RP. The allowing a pirate to damage the trader first made traders much more cooperative.

---

[Quorg]

Pirates still have to give an engagement notice, buddy.

They just have to also demand something before killing the trader.

And there's a darn good reason that traders are exempted from the four-hour rule.

---

ATTENTION SMUGGLERS
The Midnight Express: A Slaver <strike>who doesn't completely realize what he's doing.</strike> (video)

Quorg, you're officially a moron.

...mongs like Quorg being like a malignant little cancer...

Way to be useless, Quorg.

[SigCorps]

I agree with the fleeing part but maybe we give it a 30 minute to 1hr penalty instead of 4. I agree that death should be separate from fleeing. I also like that if you die that character stays parked for 4 hours. That gives a death more teeth, but does not hurt too much. Yeah it will suck having to park a character for 4 hours, but it will make folks think twice about entering fights. Now of course this would not apply to traders. I agree that if the trader wants to make an other run through the same system that they were just killed in....well that's on them. I am not sure about the no buying cargo is they respawn in the same system. I still think that is on them. So the 4 hr rule would apply only to fighter and capship combat.

Now the debate about CDing being an attack. That one goes back and forth. I think if your a pirate CDing a trader, it is not necessarily an attack but a way to begin interaction. Now if your CDing a fighter, well that's different. But since you have to scan a person before you engage, CD's should not be considered an attack.

As for being allowed to deal as much damage before making a demand. I agree this is being abused. If I am stopped and I loose 50% of my shield...well that's not too bad. but if you start doing hull damage I will fight back. That kills any chance at RP.

I could see that a few warning shots could be fired before a demand is made, but not dealing as much damage as you want without destroying the trader

An engagement notice is not that hard to do. With the /setmsg command a generic one can be set up and then all you have to do is hit 4 buttons. If you include #t in that command it will include the name of your target, who you would have in your sights anyhow

Edit:

Also, I have no idea why I can't catch up with some small ship on cruise speed...

That leads to situations where cap ships use cruise speed to catch up to thrusting fighters.Which would end very badly for the fighter. So this rule allows the fighters to flee from combat. Now you can engage cruise after your opponent has to chase them, but not before.

---

Formerly Sam Nichols, creator of OSI

[Aoyagi]

Yeah, I mean we are talking here about rules and that's for those who know them and know how to RP... Any moron who would chase a fighter in battleship would deserve a butt kick. I like Kent's (whoever was in there that time) "Why would we go there, that is a waste of fuel" after some trader wanted him to chase one pirate...

Edit : (!!!) Err...the 4 hour rules doesn't apply on traders?!