(03-25-2016, 09:02 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2016, 09:00 PM)Toris Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2016, 08:57 PM)Drrobe Wrote: [ -> ]When an ID says "Can attack <INSERT FACTION NAME HERE> anywhere", that includes transports unless otherwise indicated.
So, to make it clear, this line prevails the other line like "can attack unlawfuls except for transports"?
ID overrides the rules, so no.
I actually meant a problem in which we have lines:
- Can attack X anywhere.
- Can engage any ship within ZOI, except (for) transports.
Edit: I reffed to the line "- Can attack X anywhere", not the green text. Sorry for being unclear here.
I don't see why it's such a big deal. It makes perfect sense for some factions to want to be as big male genitals to some other ones as possible. It's logical for Gaians to hurt Planetform as much as they can for instance.
(03-25-2016, 10:06 PM)Protégé Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why it's such a big deal.
Some people doesn't want to be sanctioned for a line, which cannot be enforced onto transports according to the other line. That is why such a clarification is needed.
(03-25-2016, 10:06 PM)Protégé Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why it's such a big deal. It makes perfect sense for some factions to want to be as big male genitals to some other ones as possible. It's logical for Gaians to hurt Planetform as much as they can for instance.
Most likely because trade ships can be destroyed without a demand. I, and I assume many more, thought that transports can only be treated as combat targets if it is explicitly written on ID. It is not the case, as long as transport belongs to the named faction on your ID. It opens room for some malicious "piracy".
(03-25-2016, 09:04 PM)Toris Wrote: [ -> ]I actually meant a problem in which we have lines:
- Can attack X anywhere.
- Can engage any ship within ZOI, except (for) transports.
That one should be obvious, I think. That ID can attack ANY ship in their ZoI, except for transports. But, if said ship is from the X faction, they can attack it anywhere, even transports. Otherwise said ID would be able to attack transports of the X faction outside of their ZoI, but not inside... It makes no sense then.
If that's not the case, clarification is really needed.
I just talked this case with another member. And it either contradicts itself or simply adds new permission, which is more likely scenario.
However, this also opens up factions such as GMG and Core to engage transports that are hostile to their mini-house without demands.
I believe it would be easier to universally apply rule that all trade ship has to be issued a demand. Exception to this would be collecting bounty on such trade ship.
(03-25-2016, 10:23 PM)Doria Wrote: [ -> ]That one should be obvious, (...)
But that's just me. I use logic on a daily basis.
I simply asked, because of the green text which up to this thread stated:
(04-03-2015, 08:41 AM)aerelm Wrote: [ -> ]The "Can attack anywhere" line on some IDs only overwrites the ZoI restrictions, not any of the rules.
Actually. Upon looking closer. Aerelm's statement from 2015 is contradicted by Drrobe's. It's odd how rules change without notice, right?
(03-25-2016, 08:57 PM)Drrobe Wrote: [ -> ]RP is always needed, but with lines like that, you do not need to make a demand. That INCLUDES transports as well, unless the ID states otherwise. You still need to RP and provide engagement notice, but you don't have to make a demand.
Green text time! When an ID says "Can attack <INSERT FACTION NAME HERE> anywhere", that includes transports unless otherwise indicated.
Hogosha ID 1
Hogosha ID 2
Hogosha ID 3
It seems that the Hogosha case goes against that line, since it has to explicit include transports in it's "can attack junkers" line. Understandable, since they have many other lines that affect what they can do inside their zoi, and inside house space (within zoi). The line without the transports remark would leave situation where Junkers
couldn't be attacked, because they were transports.
More clarification and standardization of the rules hierarchy is needed.
Keep in mind, we also have ID lines that say, "Can attack <NAME> anywhere, EXCLUDING transports". So there are 3 varying ID lines regarding this.
1: Can attack <NAME> anywhere, including transports
2: Can attack <NAME> anywhere, excluding transports
3: Can attack <NAME> anywhere.
So Snak3, it's not that rules changed, or that we didn't give notice. It was assumed/accepted by multiple I've spoken with excluding you that the 3rd line means all ships. Which doesn't contradict Aerelm's post, it just means we weren't clear about #3 like we were with the first two.
So my green text was to clarify #3, that it aligns with #1, not #2.
Now before Snak3 or whoever wants my head of the staff's head for this, we are looking at working on updating ID's as many are very outdated and need updating, as we have cases like this where ID's have varying text. When that change will come, who knows. But it is being discussed because I (and we as staff) agree that there are some conflicting lines in ID's that need to be fixed and have universal verbiage.