+- 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 - Jack_Henderson - 05-15-2013
(05-15-2013, 01:35 PM)Karst Wrote: - To Jack: You make it sound as if 6.6 is being removed entirely and pirates can generally treat transports as combat targets.
But it's only in very specific cases, cases in which it simply doesn't make sense to issue a demand.
It makes no sense whatsoever for a Blood Dragon to make a demand of a Samura vessel instead of blowing it up.
It is not so much a special case any more as pretty much every faction will likely have their main enemy (that's the main group they encounter bc that is what sparked the conflict) as "can treat your soft targets as combat targets" soon.
For my faction, about 80 % of all piracy encounters are with OC. So it would mean a huge change.
For DHC, I bet 80-90 % of the piracy encounters are Hessians.
If this line gets introduced, every faction should have their part of the "fun" of getting the "Hey, U enemy!" "Die!" kind of "roleplay". Pavel already spelled it out who should have whom as "hardly rp, just pew!".
Will be interesting to see the number of sanctions, QQ and rage because the means of griefing especially the weaker players (still making money on soft transports) have just become so much more effective! Isn't stomping those that cannot really fight back what we are here for? Best with minimal to no rp, to make the point? <sarcasm>
If you do not believe it... ask DHC. They have gone through this for 2 years with Hessians and there are oorp trenches between the players because of it.
I do not think we need this kind of oorp hate between every soft target faction and their "natural enemy".
Gameplay > Lore.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Trail - 05-15-2013
kinda a question I am asking in which I know that the answer will be yes to but I feel the need to be clear on the subject: Previous RP of intelligence factions that deal with specific ships (IE cruiser) only patrolling in house space, doing specific tasks and focussing on specific areas will be able to be SRped out as to not make the RP / Ship History invalid? And how exactly should we see our assets dissapear in an inRP point of view? Or is it completely viable to Use a Navy/Police ID with the tag of lets say =LSF=
Also I agree with Jack. Gameplay should sometimes come over Lore. The examples he points out makes it very easy for RP to get well minimal but also is how player hate is made. And when that happens people might get wreckless and use ooRP means for revenge.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - belarusich - 05-15-2013
Corsairs ID:
- Can treat all GMG, Outcast, Molly and Red Hessian vessels as combat targets.
Where is IMG?
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Jack_Henderson - 05-15-2013
IMG and Sairs do not hate each other passionately.
Following the logic as of now, only your arch enemy gets the "combat target" line.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Karst - 05-15-2013
(05-15-2013, 03:12 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: - 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.
I know it is, but since ID rules can override server rules in other cases, this might be confusing.
Quote: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.
Why? Freelancers can be affiliated with different factions to show they work with or for them, why not pirates?
Some pirate factions are generally friendly towards independent Pirates *cough* GC *cough*, why shouldn't a pirate be able to support a particular faction without being a member?
But eh....
Quote:But again, this is something for another thread and outside the scope of the ID discussions.Fair enough, I digress. I can understand the arguments for this, but I don't support it.
Your other answers pretty much answered my questions, thanks.
(05-15-2013, 03:23 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: It is not so much a special case any more as pretty much every faction will likely have their main enemy (that's the main group they encounter bc that is what sparked the conflict) as "can treat your soft targets as combat targets" soon.
For my faction, about 80 % of all piracy encounters are with OC. So it would mean a huge change.
For DHC, I bet 80-90 % of the piracy encounters are Hessians.
If this line gets introduced, every faction should have their part of the "fun" of getting the "Hey, U enemy!" "Die!" kind of "roleplay". Pavel already spelled it out who should have whom as "hardly rp, just pew!".
Will be interesting to see the number of sanctions, QQ and rage because the means of griefing especially the weaker players (still making money on soft transports) have just become so much more effective! Isn't stomping those that cannot really fight back what we are here for? Best with minimal to no rp, to make the point? <sarcasm>
If you do not believe it... ask DHC. They have gone through this for 2 years with Hessians and there are oorp trenches between the players because of it.
I do not think we need this kind of oorp hate between every soft target faction and their "natural enemy".
Gameplay > Lore.
I was going to mention this but forgot: I agree, it can be problematic for gameplay reasons in some cases, particularly when factions with caps are involved.
DHC-Hessians, like you said, and IMG-Outcasts. I dread the day when Outcast capfleets siege Tau-23 and instaengage every IMG-ID'd ship.
For special cases like that, it could be removed. But I don't agree that it should be removed entirely from all IDs.
(05-15-2013, 03:34 PM)belarusich Wrote: Corsairs ID:
- Can treat all GMG, Outcast, Molly and Red Hessian vessels as combat targets.
Where is IMG?
As far as I know, Corsairs aren't super hostile towards the IMG. Definitely not like they are towards GMG, Outcasts, Mollys, and Hessians.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Rodnas - 05-15-2013
The Outcasts, Mollys and Hessians are on the combat target lsit as they are our direct enemies in war. As for the GMG, personally i see little reason to be on the "must have" so to say. Then again, the GMG is more or less a house(and we treat bretonian and Rheinlandish military and police factions as combat targets, too) and also one of their core systems are directly sitting on all our main smugglying, supply and troop movement areas - also while robbing ore from the IMG is great, robbing H-Fuel from the GMG is even better as we can directly use it....
It is ok to have the GMG on the combat target lsit but not neccessary.
Also: on the Pirate id thing:
Forcing a Pirate ID player to fly for long times causes players to move into factions and using other ids. Players are so lazy about flying that, for example blocking a jumphole, causing 30s more flight time to the intended target caused 90% of all raids on a certain homesystem to stop - the remaining 10 ment serious business.
30 s flight aer enough to steer players in a certain (wanted) direction, imagine what one mighty minute might do!
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Karst - 05-15-2013
I guess I don't agree with the basic principle of pressuring people into factions.
To me this seems contrary to the basic principle of a game called "Freelancer".
Yes, I like flying lawful and semi-lawful freelancers (Freelancer ID) and unlawful freelancers (Pirate ID).
Yes, it's because I like the freedom these IDs bring.
Is this bad? Am I supposed to be ashamed for it?
I really don't like this common attitude that freelancers (and pirates) are supposed to be second-class citizens in the disco world, and that it's "better" to use a faction ID.
Faction IDs get fancy faction ships and weapons, as well as numerous ID privileges. Freelancers and Pirates get, well.....freedom.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AeternusDoleo - 05-15-2013
Then your proposal is to completely restrict Freelancer and Pirate IDs to civilian technology (IE no fancy ships and weapons)? That would also be a drawback, especially where gunboats are concerned. Freelancers and other indy IDs shouldn't be second class, but should have a sufficient drawback so that they don't suck away all the activity from the other IDs.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Asbestos - 05-15-2013
I would like some clarification please, concerning this line that's being added to many faction IDs:
Proposed ID changes Wrote:...
- Can treat all [OTHER FACTION] vessels as combat targets.
...
And how that would work together with the server rules, specifically:
Server Rules Wrote: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.
...
Note: IDs may contain restrictions/allowances which conflict with the rules. In these cases, the ID overrides the rules.
Does this mean a free-pass for factions hostile which each other to shoot down any transport belonging to the opposing faction, without stating a demand? (with regards to 5.2, of course)
Server Rules Wrote: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.
Admin input appreciated, thanks.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Rodnas - 05-15-2013
This is leading away fromm the threads topic - but to me "freelancer" is the name of a single player game and for singleplayer the concept of freelancing and total independence works very well. For multiplayer where each of our actions influences the gaminig experiance of others - in order to stop people who only care about their own fun and give a wet towel about other peoples fun IDs and rules are needed.
So far the generic IDs (ok, not the miner one) have the freedom to change their allegiance with a line of text or if neccessary with as little as a /droprep command. This is absolute freedom of where to go and who to work with and whatever.
Furthermore, generic IDs have the nice possibility to mix and match to cater to their playstyle or simply pick between the (most of the)most powerful options, so they are mechanically superior, too.
The special case of the pirate ID is that it is as easily misused for bad player behaviour, this is a rp server and as is every pirate can simply demand 30-50 mil from anyone without fear of going over the top ruleswise and go and shoot everyone up ( or simply do the former /l1 10 sec of waiting /l2 pew pew combo)
Faction IDs simply add atmosphere to the game, help to orient in the player-player interactions without being prohibitive and at least try to curbstomp the worst offenders.
Summed up: generic IDs offer you absolute freedom of choice even within one gaming session, perfect equipment and are easily misused - while having absolutely no drawback at all. This is unfair to all factionized players who use waht they are given to make the best out of it. Less Freelancer and more Factionlancer is needed if you ask me.
Also- i want to emphatize that by no means all generic id players/chars are bad in any way- there are great ones out there, sadly they have to pay for the misbehaviour of others ( as everyone, too)