(06-20-2017, 03:54 PM)Karst Wrote: Take a situation I was in a while back, in a CauVIII liner in the Omicrons. I was attacked by a Nomad bomber, but I managed to fend it off pretty well, took minimal damage, and reached my destination easily.
Under the new rules, despite me taking less damage than the pirate and reaching the nearest base easily, I would be pvp dead and they wouldn't. So why would I even bother to use a ship like that, on a dangerous route? I may as well use 5ks on totally safe routes if any encounter results in pvp death anyway.

You people clearly don't understand the basics of transport-piracy mechanics if you don't see the problem here.[/color]

(06-20-2017, 03:54 PM)Karst Wrote:

(06-20-2017, 03:32 PM)Foxglove Wrote: The difference between a trade ship and a snub is superficial at best and people are just used to them being enshrined as something holy, i.e. cannot attack traders unless there is a demand. You are a vulnerable ship and the mere virtue of you being near a base (of which there are many nearby for lawful traders) does not merit the trader being allowed to come back after having docked thus avoiding the encounter (because docking just works too quickly and the bomber would realistically be able to kill the transport while it is moored anyways). Therefore, this is a welcome and a good change that decreases an unwarranted privilege of trade ships.

You just don't get it, do you. Every type of bad trader behavior people have complaints about (which are largely warranted) are encouraged by this change.
I pirate quite a lot and I'm very familiar with them. Traders don't care about their ships, don't care about their armor. Don't roleplay, just silently thrust until they die.
Log off the instant they see something that looks like it might be a pirate in system.
See an unlawful at 15k, instantly turn to dock because they don't want interactions.

I cannot believe that you're actually complaining about traders docking when they see a pirate and in the same breath supporting this rule change, because that is exactly what it encourages.
See, if I was close to base, or in some other situation where I could avoid an unlawful encounter, I previously would be tempted to stay to see how it plays out. Now, I'm encouraged to dock instantly and entirely avoid the encounter because if an unlawful so much as gets into firing range, I'm guaranteed to be pvp dead.
So as a trader, I no longer have any incentive to interact with unlawfuls.

How do you not understand this?

(06-20-2017, 03:37 PM)Sici Wrote: I totally agree with all changes, there's literally no reason why things like CAP8 transports with 12 turrets not should be counted as combatants.

The only reason to use a CauVIII battletrans is because you're expecting combat encounters. Now that any combat encounter will end with you being pvp dead, there's absolutely no reason to use one.

Take a situation I was in a while back, in a CauVIII liner in the Omicrons. I was attacked by a Nomad bomber, but I managed to fend it off pretty well, took minimal damage, and reached my destination easily.
Under the new rules, despite me taking less damage than the pirate and reaching the nearest base easily, I would be pvp dead and they wouldn't. So why would I even bother to use a ship like that, on a dangerous route? I may as well use 5ks on totally safe routes if any encounter results in pvp death anyway.

You people clearly don't understand the basics of transport-piracy mechanics if you don't see the problem here.

(06-20-2017, 03:58 PM)Silver Wrote:

With escorts that bomber would be dead then. But then again, lone CAP 8 Liner in the Omicrons, totally normal to win vs Squid bomber. Totally normal to be in that area without escorts as well.

<3

(06-20-2017, 04:00 PM)Sici Wrote: Or you can also RP with other players and use escorts. Transports are not suppose to be self-reliable and have this easy get away card with some strange rules exceptions.

(06-20-2017, 04:10 PM)Karst Wrote:

(06-20-2017, 03:58 PM)Silver Wrote:

With escorts that bomber would be dead then. But then again, lone CAP 8 Liner in the Omicrons, totally normal to win vs Squid bomber. Totally normal to be in that area without escorts as well.

<3

(06-20-2017, 04:00 PM)Sici Wrote: Or you can also RP with other players and use escorts. Transports are not suppose to be self-reliable and have this easy get away card with some strange rules exceptions.

Oh, you mean like how pirates can get teammates and prevent even well-armored targets from making it to the next base in the first place?
Piracy-trader relations are based on equal numbers. Two pirates against a lone trader should be a guaranteed success. A trader with an escort against a lone pirate should be a guaranteed success.
Drop this stupid argument, please.
I notice how you both completely fail to address the point that traders no longer have any incentive to interact with unlawfuls. You have not given a single reason why traders shouldn't just avoid any unlawful encounter entirely.

On the contrary, your suggestion to "use escorts" - and by extension, use their knowledge to avoid interaction - just reinforces my point.

(06-20-2017, 04:19 PM)Sici Wrote: You implying that absolute majority of traders did not avoid pirates at all costs before that change, which is wrong.

(06-20-2017, 03:37 PM)Sici Wrote: I totally agree with all changes, there's literally no reason why things like CAP8 transports with 12 turrets not should be counted as combatants.

(06-20-2017, 04:29 PM)Sici Wrote: No, Karst, I'm saying this.

(06-20-2017, 03:37 PM)Sici Wrote: I totally agree with all changes, there's literally no reason why things like CAP8 transports with 12 turrets not should be counted as combatants.

Nothing is changing for a trader aside of him being equal with pirate. You can either comply a demand or have enough firepower to deal with pirate.

Quote:transports become more and more pvp capable