05-23-2020, 04:43 PM
A number of server rules have been changed. Please see below:
Please post any questions or feedback in this thread.
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Rule 1.6 - Acceptable names on the serverAdditional clarity has been added to rule 1.6, relating to names used on the server. The rule previously read as follows:
The rule now extends to names of characters, ships, factions / clans and stations (Player Owned Bases). This also confirms that it is not allowed to use non-English standard letters in a name, as this will prevent many users from being able to properly communicate with or use FLHook commands in respect of that character. Rule 1.6 will now read as follows:
Quote:1.6 Character names must be inRoleplay and the use of excessive symbols, profanity, country tags, memes, pop-culture references as player characters is not allowed. For guidelines, look here
The rule now extends to names of characters, ships, factions / clans and stations (Player Owned Bases). This also confirms that it is not allowed to use non-English standard letters in a name, as this will prevent many users from being able to properly communicate with or use FLHook commands in respect of that character. Rule 1.6 will now read as follows:
Quote:1.6 Character, faction, ship and station names must be roleplay appropriate and easily readable. The use of profanity, country tags, memes, pop-culture references, non-English letters or excess symbols is not allowed. For examples, look here.
Additionally, an amendment has been made to rule 4.5, relating to engagement rights and Nomad IDs. The rule previously read as follows:
This rule has previously been clarified to confirm that it was only applicable within a character's zone of influence. Unfortunately this is not always obvious on a plain reading of the text. Rule 4.5 will now read as follows:
As an example, this would mean a DSE ship could proactively attack any Nomad or Wild ID within its defined Zone of Influence. If that same ship was in the Omicrons, it could not proactively initiate a fight against the Nomads. If the ship happened across an ongoing fight against the Nomads in the Omicrons, it could join in to assist without any problems.
Quote:4.5 Nomads are allowed to be engaged by all non-nomad IDs regardless of engagement rights except for the Neutral and Recruit IDs.
This rule has previously been clarified to confirm that it was only applicable within a character's zone of influence. Unfortunately this is not always obvious on a plain reading of the text. Rule 4.5 will now read as follows:
Quote:4.5 All IDs can attack Nomads and Wild within their own Zone of Influence. All IDs may attack Nomads to protect others while outside of their Zone of Influence, regardless of normal restrictions.
As an example, this would mean a DSE ship could proactively attack any Nomad or Wild ID within its defined Zone of Influence. If that same ship was in the Omicrons, it could not proactively initiate a fight against the Nomads. If the ship happened across an ongoing fight against the Nomads in the Omicrons, it could join in to assist without any problems.
A small amendment has been added to rule 4.6, which now reads as follows:
This is intended to allow convoys of the same affiliation to defend one another when operating outside of ZOI. A clause has also been added to advise that abusing self-defence allowances by 'baiting' hostile ships will be treated as abuse and metagaming.
This is typically characterised as players going to areas outside of their ZOI where they do not have engagement rights, and acting provocatively in the knowledge that this will inevitably result in them being attacked by other players. This is clearly an attempt to circumvent ID restrictions.
Quote:4.6 Players may defend allied ships within their Zone of Influence, and may always act in self-defense or to defend ships of the same affiliation anywhere, regardless of any normal restrictions. 'Baiting' hostile ships into attacking you outside of your Zone of Influence is considered to be abuse intended to bypass ID restrictions and will be treated as metagaming.
This is intended to allow convoys of the same affiliation to defend one another when operating outside of ZOI. A clause has also been added to advise that abusing self-defence allowances by 'baiting' hostile ships will be treated as abuse and metagaming.
This is typically characterised as players going to areas outside of their ZOI where they do not have engagement rights, and acting provocatively in the knowledge that this will inevitably result in them being attacked by other players. This is clearly an attempt to circumvent ID restrictions.
Finally, after extensive internal discussion it has been decided to amend rule 4.7, which currently prohibits cruisers and above attacking transports. The rule previously read as follows:
The prohibition on cruisers and battleships attacking transports has been removed. Rule 4.7 will now read as follows:
This wording preserves the relevant Transport exemptions carved out by 4.7.2. These changes are intended to reduce the complexity of the rules and prevent arbitrary barriers to organic gameplay.
Quote:4.7.1 Cruisers and Battleships may not attack transports except in the following situations:4.7.2 Additionally, transports meeting any of the above criteria are exempt from specific protections granted by an attacking player’s ID.
- Players attacking transports in self defense.
- In defense of allied ships that were engaged by a hostile transport.
- Hostile unlawful or quasi-lawful transports armed with cruise disruptors.
Abuse of the immunity granted by rule 4.7.1 may be treated as metagaming.
The prohibition on cruisers and battleships attacking transports has been removed. Rule 4.7 will now read as follows:
Quote:4.7 Unlawful and quasi-lawful Transports mounting equipment in a Cruise Disruptor slot are not counted as Transports for the purposes of ID attack lines.
This wording preserves the relevant Transport exemptions carved out by 4.7.2. These changes are intended to reduce the complexity of the rules and prevent arbitrary barriers to organic gameplay.
Please post any questions or feedback in this thread.