+- 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)
+--- Thread: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 (/showthread.php?tid=145953)
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Ihtyander - 12-04-2016
I dont see potentiall problem in such temporary alliances. But it is needed in such massive battles to be scaled a bit. IF GRN outnumbered, then fight will not be so interesting. It would be good though that GRN get some ALLY in House through RP secret pact Kusari or even Rheinland. That will bring flavour in ship variety on GRN side. So people flying outcasts to Leeds can fly Samura Kusari fighters.
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Shaggy - 12-04-2016
If there is valid inRP reasons for such temporary alliances to be made such as the one in Leeds which both CR and NC where warned for. The roleplay was done via the forums to assist a base that was located inside Bretonia house space. As Bretonia was the ones in charge and told both CR and NC to not shoot each other or there will be consequences. Why would they attack one another? They would not. They would work together for a one time thing while there is presence of the Bretonian forces then business as usual. Not only this but IDs should be seen as ooRP because all they are doing is telling the player a little about the faction lore of that specific ID and then faction rules and restrictions to keep them inside the server rules. This makes no sense as to why they should be used as an inRP identity. But what im trying to say is, that temporary alliances are legally allowed to be made via roleplay on the forums within house space. This also reminds me of the temporary alliance that was made between 5th [LN] CR| and Order| who was all given enough roleplay via the forums and ingame to form a temporary alliance whom where also sanctioned for working in the same group. Not only this but group chat is mostly used for ooRP chatter, to help coordinate fights. Organize people and call targets. There should NOT be a punishmeny for players and official factions whom have justified the temporary alliance via forum rp.
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - TheShooter36 - 12-04-2016
either break the ID and face consequences or break the house's law and face consequences then. Should we really ignore the loads of GRN for the sake of not breaking ID and shoot the lone outcast and make bretonia angry on top pf it? That doesnt make sense.
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Shiki - 12-04-2016
Just don't group up with your main foes. It doesn't make sense and it's good that it isn't allowed rulewise. Not shooting each other in Bretonia doesn't mean that you have to ally and be in one group.
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Antonio - 12-04-2016
Leeds shouldn't be Bretonia at this point anyways. It's almost fully Gallic controlled for over 2 years with 5 out of 6 bases (the 6th being the satellite) belonging to GRN or Gallic corporations. Same goes for Edinburgh, they should both be Gallic Borderworlds instead of Bretonia rule-wise.
On the topic of what can be done about this rule, I never was a fan of the new rules in general and issues like these were bound to happen sooner or later. Personally, I'd just revert the rules to what they were before and expand those with extra clarification, examples, context and explanation about every single one of them. They'd be more complicated, but it's not that big of an issue if we cover everything, and as someone said it before - it's a complicated game, giving it simple rules just doesn't work.
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Thunderer - 12-04-2016
Leeds and Edinburgh are both Bretonia and Gallic Borderworlds by the rules.
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Implosion - 12-04-2016
Adding something along the likes of:
Code:
"May ally with hostile factions to siege, or defend bases only when logical, iRP reasons and negotiations are present in the Role Playing sections of the forums."Because let's face it, not every faction has the manpower or ships to siege a base.
If they don't have the means to take it out, they're only chance is to ask for help.
Sometimes, that help comes in the form of otherwise-hostile 3rd parties.
Enemy of my enemy, right?
For example, the situation with Core| and A/) .
Both faction hate each other's guts, but both of them are at war with the order. Neither could've taken out the base on their own, so why not forget the grudge for a brief moment and focus on the common enemy.
However, despite the fact Core, due to it's evil and manipulative nature, has it's ID set in a way that allows us to use "unlawful" factions to our advantage (and later stab them in the back), we've earned ourselves a warning.
And also, there is a whole other aspect, as mentioned before in this thread.
Sometimes, it just doesn't seem right to join a fight and shoot at , heavily outnumbered by hostile faction #2, hostile faction #1 just because the rules force you to do that.
What I'd rather do in this case is join the loosing side and balance things out, only to stab them in the back when things start shifting in their favor.
That happens almost on a daily basis with the four-way brawls in Delta.
You've 'sairs, Core, Nomads and Order. But obviously, that is not the problem here.
The problem is people will seek unusual enemies in times of need and if there's logic and enough role play behind their actions, the rules shouldn't really restrict them from doing so.
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Shush Muppet - 12-20-2016
Specifically, I think 4.4 would benefit from clarification that players can only carry one ID on their ship at all times. Equipped can too easily be misunderstood to mean 'mounted', thus giving players the false impression that they can carry multiple IDs as long as they only use one at a time.
Now, as far as the restrictions themselves...
I recently took a mini-break from Disco to try some Free-to-Play EVE Online. And you know what? The hands-off approach was startlingly refreshing.
I'm going to be honest. I think the cookie-cutter rules and restrictions for each faction ID stifles creativity and causes unnecessary sanctions that cost us players. Nobody plays Skyrim to be a villager. Everyone wants to be the Dragonborn. Why does Disco try to force players to be villagers?
I get that military, police, and other uber-lawful factions should have codes of conduct. What I don't get is why Freelancers can be sanctioned for flying a 5k transport. Or why Zoners can be sanctioned for docking their Whale in house space. Or why ZOIs are so incredibly strict.
Yeah, I'm talking like an EVE Capsuleer, but I've got to say, coming back here feels like returning to a Catholic boarding school after being to a Fraternity. And you can guess which one feels more fun...
In b4 mandatory "then go back to EVE if it's so much fun" posts.
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Hannibal - 12-20-2016
(12-20-2016, 01:14 PM)Shush Muppet Wrote: . What I don't get is why Freelancers can be sanctioned for flying a 5k transport.
(12-20-2016, 01:14 PM)Shush Muppet Wrote: Or why Zoners can be sanctioned for docking their Whale in house space.
gameplay balance, to put it short: why wold anyone fly anything else then the above?
RE: [Community Input]: Possible changes to 4.4 - Shush Muppet - 12-20-2016
Here's a radical thought.
Do away with Independent faction IDs altogether.
As an Indy you have two choices: Freelancer ID or Pirate ID.
One is lawful and one isn't.
Want to fly a Junker ID? Join the Congress.
Want to fly a Police ID? Join the official player faction.
Want to fly a Military ID'd battleship? Join the official player faction of your choice.
The only catch to this system would require the Freelancer and Pirate IDs to have their ship restrictions lifted. If a Freelancer gets hold of a Rhineland Battleship, tough. They can't be sanctioned. But the Rhineland player faction may freely engage the Freelancer and or FR5 them.
Just a thought.