01-26-2013, 09:38 AM
I think we can all agree that less rules is good. Less rules = Less work for admins, easier for new players to understand, less time spent worrying about rules/rulelawyering, and more time enjoying the game. Admins themselves have said it, new players have said it, everyone has said it.
So lets look at the rules, and see if we can find some good solutions for removing some, Here's my ideas, please note that these are all just suggestions, modifiable, Im not even necessarily saying we should institute ALL of them at the same time. removing one rule, may make it preferable to keep another, I'm just giving all the options I see.
3.1 Using coarse language, posting abusive, hateful, racist content in chat, public or private is prohibited under any circumstances. Any kind of flaming, threatening or insulting language directed at other members, factions or server administrators in chat, public or private, is prohibited on server and on forums. RP-related threats are allowed on the server.
Lets face it; Everyone who has access to the internet has seen much worse, sorry parents, but your child is not stopped by your parental controls. Besides, sticks and stones may break my bones but words cant actually hurt you. Seriously, a different combination of type isnt physically hurtful. Sure it can be emotionally hurtful if aimed at you, but when swearing at another CHARACTER INRP, shouldnt that be only as hurtful as (or much less than) shooting at them? I say keep the ban on swearing oorp, but if we allowed swearing inrp, that should alleviate some admin work.
5.2 All attacks must be the result of some form of role play. "Engaging" is not sufficient. An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Being hit with a CD is not considered an attack. If a player is attacked he has a right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking.
This ones a funny one, because it doesnt actually need removing, in fact Id argue against it, just reinterpreting. You'll notice that in the rule it doesnt say anything about talking before an attack, just that it must be the result of RP. Now sanctions for "Silent Attacking" must be one of the most common admin work I see, but couldnt silent attacks BE the result of RP most of the time? Two houses with a formal decleration of war, why would their pilots waste time talking to each other before shooting? Or a pirate/bounty hunter ambush, why tip your target off by telling them you're going to shoot? A lot of time could be saved by allowing silent attacks that are INRP.
5.6 Fleeing from combat and then docking at a station or planet while you are in range of the ship you were fighting counts as PVP death. Transports and freighters are exempt from this rule.
Ah the old fleeing rule, most of us agree its much better since half of it was removed, how could we remove all of it without breaking balance? Well, Id say the simplest way would be to make normal bases like POBs, that is, when shot, they put up a shield and become undockable. That would prevent ships constantly docking and resupplying on a nearby base, as long as the attackers shot a cd at it every minute or so. And if the attackers failed to keep the shield up, thats their own fault, and there'd be no need to sanction peopel for docking and re-engaging.
5.7 A player who was killed in a PvP fight must not enter the system where the fight took place with any of the characters on his/her account(s) until four hours have passed from the time of his/her destruction.
If the player respawns in the same system, he/she must leave the system within 10 minutes of his destruction without attacking anyone, except in self-defense. Other players are not allowed to attack one who is leaving.
5.8 A player who was killed in a PvP fight must not attack the enemy (player or players involved in the death) with any of the characters on his/her account(s) for 4 hours. Self-killing during a PvP fight is counted as a normal PvP death.
The 4 hour death rules, the old classics. Well I'm sure you are sick of this, but we could replace this rule with shiploss on death. No need to have a rule that can be broken, and force admins to spend time on sanctions. If they already get punished by losing their ship. Of course this would require balancing, such as reducing price, and increasing availability, so you wouldnt have to traipse halfway across sirius to replace your stuff.
5.9 Disconnecting from the server in a PvP fight to escape, as well as in any other situation that involves player interaction, is not allowed. If you lose server connection during a player interaction, you should get back in game quickly to continue the interaction, with the other player's permission. If that is not possible, then post on the forums and PM the players involved.
At the moment when someone DCs they stay in space with no shield for a little while, this usually allows the person they DCd against to kill them. If this time could be extended, perhaps ted to hull strength - the higher your hull, the longer you stay floating - and that annoying tendency for DCing players to drift off, making them unhittable was removed, then this rule could be removed too. Now instead of getting sanctioned, people would simply be very vulnerable to being blown up if they DC. Those who say itl make it take too long for them to switch chars, i say either dock, or make the chars you know you will be doing this a lot on, on their own account, so you can just switch accounts. This has got to be one of the most common sanctions, so removing it should free up a lot of time.
6.6 Aggressors are not allowed to destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand, in system or local chat, and allowing sufficient time to respond. Demands may be cargo, credits or an RP demand, such as leaving the system. "Halt" is not a demand. You must say more than this to ask a ship to stop however you may destroy them if they attempt escape.
Sometimes, a pirate just wants to kill you and take all your stuff. Now I generally wouldnt advise attacking a transport without a demand, as you're more likely to be able to cut a deal that benefits you both if you talk to him, but sometimes a silent ambush is the best tactic. And it is INRP. Its not nice, but its INRP for a pirate not to be nice. It's another popular sanction which wastes the admin's time, and a /1 drop all your cargo message has pretty much the same effect anyway. im not saying its preferable to have silent attackers, Im just saying its not worth having a rule against it.
Phew, now Im going to bed, what do you think?
So lets look at the rules, and see if we can find some good solutions for removing some, Here's my ideas, please note that these are all just suggestions, modifiable, Im not even necessarily saying we should institute ALL of them at the same time. removing one rule, may make it preferable to keep another, I'm just giving all the options I see.
3.1 Using coarse language, posting abusive, hateful, racist content in chat, public or private is prohibited under any circumstances. Any kind of flaming, threatening or insulting language directed at other members, factions or server administrators in chat, public or private, is prohibited on server and on forums. RP-related threats are allowed on the server.
Lets face it; Everyone who has access to the internet has seen much worse, sorry parents, but your child is not stopped by your parental controls. Besides, sticks and stones may break my bones but words cant actually hurt you. Seriously, a different combination of type isnt physically hurtful. Sure it can be emotionally hurtful if aimed at you, but when swearing at another CHARACTER INRP, shouldnt that be only as hurtful as (or much less than) shooting at them? I say keep the ban on swearing oorp, but if we allowed swearing inrp, that should alleviate some admin work.
5.2 All attacks must be the result of some form of role play. "Engaging" is not sufficient. An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Being hit with a CD is not considered an attack. If a player is attacked he has a right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking.
This ones a funny one, because it doesnt actually need removing, in fact Id argue against it, just reinterpreting. You'll notice that in the rule it doesnt say anything about talking before an attack, just that it must be the result of RP. Now sanctions for "Silent Attacking" must be one of the most common admin work I see, but couldnt silent attacks BE the result of RP most of the time? Two houses with a formal decleration of war, why would their pilots waste time talking to each other before shooting? Or a pirate/bounty hunter ambush, why tip your target off by telling them you're going to shoot? A lot of time could be saved by allowing silent attacks that are INRP.
5.6 Fleeing from combat and then docking at a station or planet while you are in range of the ship you were fighting counts as PVP death. Transports and freighters are exempt from this rule.
Ah the old fleeing rule, most of us agree its much better since half of it was removed, how could we remove all of it without breaking balance? Well, Id say the simplest way would be to make normal bases like POBs, that is, when shot, they put up a shield and become undockable. That would prevent ships constantly docking and resupplying on a nearby base, as long as the attackers shot a cd at it every minute or so. And if the attackers failed to keep the shield up, thats their own fault, and there'd be no need to sanction peopel for docking and re-engaging.
5.7 A player who was killed in a PvP fight must not enter the system where the fight took place with any of the characters on his/her account(s) until four hours have passed from the time of his/her destruction.
If the player respawns in the same system, he/she must leave the system within 10 minutes of his destruction without attacking anyone, except in self-defense. Other players are not allowed to attack one who is leaving.
5.8 A player who was killed in a PvP fight must not attack the enemy (player or players involved in the death) with any of the characters on his/her account(s) for 4 hours. Self-killing during a PvP fight is counted as a normal PvP death.
The 4 hour death rules, the old classics. Well I'm sure you are sick of this, but we could replace this rule with shiploss on death. No need to have a rule that can be broken, and force admins to spend time on sanctions. If they already get punished by losing their ship. Of course this would require balancing, such as reducing price, and increasing availability, so you wouldnt have to traipse halfway across sirius to replace your stuff.
5.9 Disconnecting from the server in a PvP fight to escape, as well as in any other situation that involves player interaction, is not allowed. If you lose server connection during a player interaction, you should get back in game quickly to continue the interaction, with the other player's permission. If that is not possible, then post on the forums and PM the players involved.
At the moment when someone DCs they stay in space with no shield for a little while, this usually allows the person they DCd against to kill them. If this time could be extended, perhaps ted to hull strength - the higher your hull, the longer you stay floating - and that annoying tendency for DCing players to drift off, making them unhittable was removed, then this rule could be removed too. Now instead of getting sanctioned, people would simply be very vulnerable to being blown up if they DC. Those who say itl make it take too long for them to switch chars, i say either dock, or make the chars you know you will be doing this a lot on, on their own account, so you can just switch accounts. This has got to be one of the most common sanctions, so removing it should free up a lot of time.
6.6 Aggressors are not allowed to destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand, in system or local chat, and allowing sufficient time to respond. Demands may be cargo, credits or an RP demand, such as leaving the system. "Halt" is not a demand. You must say more than this to ask a ship to stop however you may destroy them if they attempt escape.
Sometimes, a pirate just wants to kill you and take all your stuff. Now I generally wouldnt advise attacking a transport without a demand, as you're more likely to be able to cut a deal that benefits you both if you talk to him, but sometimes a silent ambush is the best tactic. And it is INRP. Its not nice, but its INRP for a pirate not to be nice. It's another popular sanction which wastes the admin's time, and a /1 drop all your cargo message has pretty much the same effect anyway. im not saying its preferable to have silent attackers, Im just saying its not worth having a rule against it.
Phew, now Im going to bed, what do you think?