+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 (/showthread.php?tid=98543)
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Ceoran - 05-15-2013
(05-15-2013, 10:10 AM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: GMG in Honshu... it -is- part of the ZoI due to Aomori being there, so that really can't be helped. I bet the KNF and KSP will have something to say about it should it happen, though.
Honshu is Samura ZoI as well, yet Samura may only hit the GMG outside of house space. The same applies to all other corporations that may hit their enemies. Why not impose the same restriction on the GMG? Leaving it as it is allows for Blow&Dock-piracy in front of Kishiro and even KSP bases in the system. And if I'm not mistaken that was the same issue South Shields had.
Also, the GMG may pirate Kruger but Kruger may not pirate the GMG which would somewhat make sense for them to attempt to get some fuel/Helium.
Likewise Samura may pirate Synth but Synth may not pirate Samura, which they maybe should be allowed to balance things out. Maybe even limit it to interdicting each others food shipments to make it more reasonable.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Knjaz - 05-15-2013
(05-15-2013, 12:58 PM)AshHill07 Wrote: <...> But frankly I think its starting to get to the stage where people are just getting fed up with this war in general, I mean this wars been going on for about as long, if not longer, than the actual first world war.
Agree on that, was also the reason of Cali/Penn raids. But unless Rheinland jumps into alliance with Gallia and goes against Bretonia, it doesn't really have that much to do - since in current situation, it can't really allow itself to go versus Gallia.
Liberty players do have Leeds/Mag to fight over, though.
But well, there're worse situations than that, like Kusari, for example.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - White - 05-15-2013
(05-14-2013, 05:18 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: It is a ROLEPLAY server.
=> get rid of all the "May treat as combat target" lines in ALL IDs. Not give even more people that line!
I wonder, did you include Nomad/K'hara ID into that as well?
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AshHill07 - 05-15-2013
(05-15-2013, 01:49 PM)Knjaz Wrote:(05-15-2013, 12:58 PM)AshHill07 Wrote: <...> But frankly I think its starting to get to the stage where people are just getting fed up with this war in general, I mean this wars been going on for about as long, if not longer, than the actual first world war.
Agree on that, was also the reason of Cali/Penn raids. But unless Rheinland jumps into alliance with Gallia and goes against Bretonia, it doesn't really have that much to do - since in current situation, it can't really allow itself to go versus Gallia.
Liberty players do have Leeds/Mag to fight over, though.
But well, there're worse situations than that, like Kusari, for example.
The fights in Leeds and Magellan are very few and far between. I think I've been into Leeds only 3 times since we were cleared entry, twice on Cali and once on my old bomber. The first was to support the [LN] with some RP they were doing, the second was my bomber where we arrived just in time to see the last GRN cap burn 10k away from us, and the 3rd was actually a propper capital on capital engagement where the GRN ships were basically camping the Leeds hole.
By far the most common fights I get into these days is with the [HF] and various indie casts and rogues flying dessies where they probably shouldn't be. Most RNC fights I just avoid since I have a tendency to be ganked by cloaked caps. Personally I enjoyed the fights more pre-cloaks because atleast then the fights were more about tactics and less about whos got the most cloak equipt ships.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Rodnas - 05-15-2013
(05-15-2013, 01:35 PM)Karst Wrote: - Regarding rephacking the Pirate ID to undockable on unlawful bases:
This is problematic for a number of reasons.
Firstly, some unlawful factions (such as Rogues) are known to be very unfriendly toward independent pirates, but others are not and often accept their help.
This would also prevent Pirate ID'd ships from displaying an unlawful IFF - as in, an independent pirate that works primarily for / with unlawful faction x.
And lastly, gameplay reasons. Preventing independent pirates from docking on unlawful bases (as well as lawful ones) basically leaves them with Junker and Zoner bases.
This would mean in most places, they'd have to travel incredibly far between pirating spots and safe bases - not really a good thing for gameplay.
Official factions can already request nodock rephack for Pirate ID; there is no need to implement a blanket no dock for all unlawfuls.
Is that all? I think so.
Being forced to fly around to find a safe haven would be an actual limitation or drawback to the otherwise unchecked, misused and completly out of the window stupid ID
As is, the pirate ID is the go to ID if you want to do anything without drawbacks, from serious contributions to the server and its gameplay to the stupid lolwutty abusing of it. Every ID has drawbacks safe this one!
Also, while the players behind the factions might not want themselves or their buddies being unable to dock on their bases with the pirate ID there is no reason that unaffiliated people are allowed on a supposedly well hidden base of that faction- they are a major source of treachery after all, not to speak of the 0 logic of supporting and sponsoring your competition on your own turf.
And if said independent pirate is so cool with the faction they would let him dock anyways then he can slap the appropriate ID on his ship, too.
=> Independent shady people should stop being lazy and start flying their ships to the already intended shady double dealing factions stations (aka zoners and junkers
)
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - belarusich - 05-15-2013
Hellfire Legion ID
- Cannot leave their ZoI in Cruisers and Battleships.
Zone of Influence: Liberty and systems directly bordering Liberty
I am not member of [HF], but they can fly in Humboldt, Kansas and Vespucci, no?
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Karst - 05-15-2013
(05-15-2013, 02:47 PM)Rodnas Wrote: Being forced to fly around to find a safe haven would be an actual limitation or drawback to the otherwise unchecked, misused and completly out of the window stupid ID
As is, the pirate ID is the go to ID if you want to do anything without drawbacks, from serious contributions to the server and its gameplay to the stupid lolwutty abusing of it. Every ID has drawbacks safe this one!
I fail to see how alt+tab cruising for 200k promotes good gameplay or roleplay. It's merely an annoyance for the person that has to do it.
Quote:Also, while the players behind the factions might not want themselves or their buddies being unable to dock on their bases with the pirate ID there is no reason that unaffiliated people are allowed on a supposedly well hidden base of that faction- they are a major source of treachery after all, not to speak of the 0 logic of supporting and sponsoring your competition on your own turf.
And if said independent pirate is so cool with the faction they would let him dock anyways then he can slap the appropriate ID on his ship, too.
=> Independent shady people should stop being lazy and start flying their ships to the already intended shady double dealing factions stations (aka zoners and junkers
Like I said......unlawful factions that do not want pirates docking on their bases can already request a rephack.
There is no reason to implement a blanket rephack preventing Pirate ID'd ships from docking on any unlawful base.
The Pirate ID already has the most restrictive rephacks in the game besides Wilde, Nomads, and SCRA (and rightly so).
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AeternusDoleo - 05-15-2013
Pirate ID means all lawfuls are hostile. I think only factions like the Order and Nomads have stronger rephacks. But even at that, it is the universal unlawful ID. Wouldn't be so bad either if they were locked onto an unlawful IFF...
About ZOI: The whole concept is a bit confusing, if you ask me. What exactly does ZOI actually mean?
Does it mean the faction ID can't leave those systems? In some cases, it obviously does (house police), while in other cases it clearly doesn't (corporate IDs). I don't know if this should be explained on the IDs themselves, but it needs to be clarified somewhere.
It is the main area where the faction operates - and where they have some extra privileges. Most factions can leave their ZoI just fine (for instance, for the purposes of trading) but lose a lot of their privileges when outside of it. IE a Rheinland Military pilot could visit Kusari just fine, but if he meets a Corsair there, he couldn't go chase after it. It'd be improper given that he's not in an area where he's allowed to enforce the Rheinland laws.
If a faction may not leave their ZoI then that will be explicitly noted on the ID. Very few factions have that.
- Freelancers can fly Pilgrim Liner / Ptrain, and Pirates can fly Pilgrim Liners? YES; YES, OH GOD YES.
People wanted the Smuggler ID back. Note that the PTrain is considered an illegal ship in most houses - expect to get shot by lawfuls if you fly one.
- Junker ID: It mentions that they "Cannot participate in unlawful actions within house space, except in Kusari and Gallia." However, it no longer has the line "May engage in piracy". So the way it's worded now, it doesn't allow piracy. So which unlawful actions exactly are permitted? Or is this an oversight?
Oversight. Will fix that.
- DSE and IC ID: Why can they hunt Lane Hackers, but not Rogues or Xenos? Ageira are the Lane Hackers' arch enemy, so it makes sense for them to be able to hunt each other. But as far as I know, Lane Hackers are no more hostile towards DSE and IC than Rogues or Xenos are, and vice versa.
Lane Hackers are after the Lane tech, which is the main source of income for IC, DSE and Ageira. Thus naturally, DSE, IC and Ageira would go after them.
- All corporate IDs: They can defend a base "of the same affiliation", but not an allied base. Would make sense in my opinion if, say, a Bowex ship could defend a BMM base.
That's the police/navy's job. Not the job of other corporations.
- Gaian ID: I suggest changing "Cannot attack Gallic Royal Navy." to "May only attack Gallic Royal Navy in self-defense."
Pointless. You can always retaliate in selfdefense, part of the core server rules.
- Regarding rephacking the Pirate ID to undockable on unlawful bases: This is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, some unlawful factions (such as Rogues) are known to be very unfriendly toward independent pirates, but others are not and often accept their help. This would also prevent Pirate ID'd ships from displaying an unlawful IFF - as in, an independent pirate that works primarily for / with unlawful faction x.
And lastly, gameplay reasons. Preventing independent pirates from docking on unlawful bases (as well as lawful ones) basically leaves them with Junker and Zoner bases. This would mean in most places, they'd have to travel incredibly far between pirating spots and safe bases - not really a good thing for gameplay.
It is not problematic. Indy pirates are competition to pirate factions. Problem is that most actual indy pirates are affiliates of the actual pirate factions, but just use the Pirate ID because it gives them more flexibility. Which in my opinion is just plain misuse of the ID. On the lawful IDs, players who work for a subsidiary of company x use the ID of company x. Why this needs to be any different on the unlawful ID is beyond me. If your main affiliation is with the Outcasts, use the Outcast ID. If your main affiliation is with the Liberty Rogues, use the Rogue ID.
And yea, it would restrict indy pirate movements quite a bit. Which would promote the use of the actual unlawful factions because they'd become a lot more convenient to use in specific areas. But again, this is something for another thread and outside the scope of the ID discussions.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - belarusich - 05-15-2013
Also, why Maquis cant fly Gunboats?
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Echo 7-7 - 05-15-2013
(05-15-2013, 03:14 PM)belarusich Wrote: Also, why Maquis cant fly Gunboats?
Becaus the Maquis ID can treat any lawful trader as a combat target, not just a cargo-piracy target (IE. to prevent Gunboats from insta-killing transports). However, this change was implemented before SNACs got nerfed and GBs got buffed, leaving the Maquis horribly under-equipped to deal with GB-dense enemies.
There is no supporting lore-related reason. They may be terrorists, but they're supported by the Council, which is not short on ships at this point in time.