+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+---- Forum: Faction Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+---- Thread: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's (/showthread.php?tid=135010)
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Jack_Henderson - 01-15-2016
(01-15-2016, 07:25 AM)Thyrzul Wrote: So you harbour criminals and are mad at police for asking you out on it, really?
Oh, I know this line so well from IMG bases.
Dozens of times. Always the same:
"Why you harbor the criminal!!!"
No? I don't?
A player who I have no control over used my base in my absence, likely to get away from an encounter he would lose. Thereby he angered a lawful player.
The base owner also has no control over the NPC bases because of game mechanics. Everybody better than -0.55 can - in the meaning of "is able to" - dock.
So... totally, the owner is responsible and not the player that docked there even though he should not have in the given situation. <sarcasm>
So people should definitely direct their roleplay at the "harbouring faction", and not at the person who actually attacked/docked/caused it. <sarcasm>
Quote:How hard it has to be to properly police your own stations
Easy answer: Impossible.
It is impossible by gameplay limitations.
Semi-lawful factions have friends that should not dock at a few of your bases, but definitely should be able to dock at some other bases. Gameplay mechanics are not capable of giving a faction a chance to say: "ID X is allowed to use Base Y, but not Base Z".
Quote: I'm pretty sure LPI, LN and LSF inRP have their means to take out Rochester if it becomes too much of an issue
Always this threat.
You do realize that the person who made the mistake is not the one who you threaten with game-changing consequences.
And I'll not even talk about what the disappearance of quasi-lawful bases because of "bad dockings" would mean for gameplay.
Quote:[...]educate your unlawful compatriots, and you won't ever have a problem with police anymore.
Impossible.
Have been trying it for years in Taus.
Sisyphos is more successful.
And you are talking about NY. So... forget it. It's totally unrealistic.
Quote:[...]there are roleplaying consequences for roleplaying actions.
I agree with the statement.
However: should an action of nameless indy X have consequences for official faction Y who was not even in the scene, had no say and has no control over the NPC base gameplay-wise?
Quote:Damn right Liberty and any other lawfuls are going to ask you to FR5 outlaws docking on your bases
Yes. It is incredibly annoying to do the FR5 rp (you have the work, even though you have no gain and you had nothing to do with it), but it's somewhat logical.
I find it overdone for indie messy-dockings, though.
Just ignore these if they are not outrageously badly done?
Why spend time on forcing some unwanted, useless roleplay without any consequences if you could use the time to have fun?
Quote:or fine you for it, or just shoot you outright.
So someone who had nothing to do with the situation, who cannot influence the outcome can be fined, made red or shot?
You realize that - if I e.g. do not like Junkers for some reason - such a person could create indies, cause 20 of these situations, and screw over official factions that would face dire consequences without any way of influencing it?
Quote:[...] calmly wave something like this off going "sure sure, we'll take care of it.." and then offer some sort of service as compensation for the lawfuls to turn a blind eye.
Good call there. It would create positive rp.
As a semi-lawful NPC base owner with dozens of similar cases over the last years, I can just add that it sucks the fun out of the game if the solution is demanded in a pistol-to-the-head way, which however seems to be the norm. It immediately makes the situation feel like... "Great. I am being screwed over for someone else's mistake" oorp reaction.
Quote:asking for admin protection on the forums and asking people to turn a blind eye to you so as to maintain the quasi lawful status you had in vanilla rather than trying to uphold it through your own actions.
I agree that the "admin, please protect!" way is uncool.
It normally comes to the mind when the consequences that the innocent faction is faced with seem harsher than its players are willing to accept (for the fact that they had no say, nor any way of influencing this outcome at all). Therefore, I think it is at least understandable that there is an unwillingness to take the blame and suffer the negative fallout for the bad actions of others.
However, opponents of this quasi-lawful status also have to keep in mind that there is literally no means to keep these messy dockings from happening, and consequently address these messy situations calmly. Gun-to-the-head "do it or we make you red and shoot you out" kind of roleplay sucks really really hard for the receiving faction.
tldr; summary: Keep in mind that the base owner faction has no chance to keep these situations from appearing and that they are actually not the ones responsible for creating the mess. However, everybody seems to find it natural that they have to deal with them, pay the price and live with the consequences. That's somewhat wrong.
Tabris Wrote:A reason why Officials tend to send these is mostly spite. They are angry their blue got away from them and want to make things annoying for the person in question, if they have to bully another faction to do it than so be it. All hail the allmighty Blue.
This subject has been brought up time and time again, it's unlikely to change unless a majority of factions/admins can agree this behaviour is harmful to gameplay/roleplay.
And this.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Wesker - 01-15-2016
Reasons why I avoid Liberty unless people need my help there.
But really, I don't see the issue with current FR5's after all you could just stage your attacks from buffalo, also if you know your going to die anyways why would you combat dock and pay the repair bill? I'd prefer to just go out fighting.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Antonio - 01-15-2016
Jack, a Congress ship was present during the incident yesterday and he didn't do anything except watch, and later leave.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Mephistoles - 01-15-2016
I have had indies dock in front of me on Rochester many times. Never attempted to do anything about it, I personally view it as pointless unless they are known and repeat offenders.
However, an official faction member docked in front of me yesterday, and because of the responsibility such a tag carries, I did report them to LPI. That's the difference, in my view. Junkers should be annoyed at the unlawfuls docking on their base to avoid lawful pursuit and causing the problem in the first place, not the lawfuls following up with legitimate, RP consequences.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - WesternPeregrine - 01-15-2016
Cant the junkers and the outcast groups agree to not allow outcast capital ships on junker bases inside houses, and issue a player request for a no dock restriction mechanic to be applied to the Indie oc id? Just like zoner I'd can't dock on many house bases, oc Indie I'd can't dock on junker bases with ships larger than x.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Skorak - 01-15-2016
(01-15-2016, 02:34 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: outcast groups agree to not allow outcast capital ships
The Orange Treaty
Such a thing exists. But these guys don't RP. So it is a bit bad. But I also don't really want to ignore everything that happens just because I believe it is not RP. Then I might also miss the stuff that I just evaluated wrongly.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Lythrilux - 01-15-2016
Via FLHook it's possible to prevent certain ship classes from docking on certain bases. Could apply something like that to Rochester.
I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have an infocard on these bases with the Junker Base Laws at least.
Also the no-dock plugin LPI have could be useful for Junkers.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Texas Red - 01-15-2016
(01-15-2016, 02:34 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: Cant the junkers and the outcast groups agree to not allow outcast capital ships on junker bases inside houses, and issue a player request for a no dock restriction mechanic to be applied to the Indie oc id? Just like zoner I'd can't dock on many house bases, oc Indie I'd can't dock on junker bases with ships larger than x.
Theres genuinely no reason an Outcast cap should be in Liberty in the first place. The second they lose Rochester, they dock on a Rogue base. The second they lose those bases, they go to Kepler or Bering. This entire situation is why I shoot Outcasts that fly anything gunboat or larger. As a Rogue, we dont need them on our turf, stealing and killing. They belong in the Omicrons shooting Corsairs.
I have suggested an ID line that prevents Outcast caps from going to Liberty before. I have no idea if it was ever considered. It needs to stop, and the distance between Gamma+Alpha fixed, now that theres occasionally some Corsairs around. Spark up the old rivalry.
I'll keep shooting Rochester Ranseurs and kicking them out until they get the message.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Laura C. - 01-15-2016
(01-15-2016, 02:42 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have an infocard on these bases with the Junker Base Laws at least.Or in form of commodity, like server rules.
(01-15-2016, 02:42 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: Also the no-dock plugin LPI have could be useful for Junkers.I don´t think this would make bigger difference when majority of times incidents happen when no official faction members are around. And admins will hardly give nodock to any indies.
RE: Liberty forcing Junker fr5's - Skorak - 01-15-2016
(01-15-2016, 02:53 PM)Texas.Red Wrote: they dock on a Rogue base. The second they lose those bases, they go to Kepler or Bering.
Which would be way better. Then they don't just spawn behind Manhattan and the stations are all quite far away from Trade Lanes so they can't do hit and run maneuvers with Battleships.