+- 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 - AeternusDoleo - 05-16-2013
(05-16-2013, 07:05 AM)Hone Wrote: Your just repeating yourself, what cant you do under "may hunt lawfuls" that you could do under "may treat" lines?Blow up all transports without making a demand. That's why that line is gone except in VERY specific cases. (Nomads - who can't demand cargo or credits, Mercs - who need the kill to claim, and specific cargo types that specific unlawful factions would want to destroy outright).
So yea, gone by intend to make the playing field level. I understand this restricts the Maquis and Xenos a little bit - but the IDs as they are are potential gameplay issues with people throwing a /l1 /l2 *fire torpedoes* style of weak roleplay. Sources of grieving I'm trying to prevent and all that.
RoS ID: I wasn't aware that faction used capital ships still (they're a bit small for it). I'll adjust the ID - a player faction one isn't that big of a problem - abuse of the privilege can bite the faction in the rear.
AI ID: Has less rephacks then the Freelancer ID, so the cargo limitation on it is fair. They are basically nonhuman Freelancers (with a Cruiser and some limitations on said Cruiser). The ID used to not have transport allowance at all, just the AI Cruiser and Drone. Would have been simpler to keep it at that in hindsight...
Automatic unwelcome doesn't mean "can't dock on planet/base xx". AI ID having actual rephacks to house lawfuls would resolve this issue as well, but I'm not sure there's a precedent for that (a law requiring vehicles larger then a fighter to have a pilot would be neat - but again, not yet there). I don't care if it hasn't been used as much like this, given time, it will be. Only a matter of time before we get the first "Trade Drone Inc.", so it is fixed before it becomes a problem.
Henderson: Yea, getting whined at from 30-odd sources tends to erode ones patience. Try and voice your opinion a bit more graceful next time.
Hone: Privateers with Outcasts makes sense. Will change.
About the UC: I need to know what this faction wants to become. Getting the following:
- Mercenaries (Siriuswide)
- Escorts for lawfuls (Siriuswide)
- Black market runners (Gallia)
- Privateers (for Gallia)
- Pirates (Gallic border or even in Gallia)
- Quasilawful traders with full access to GRN bases in the conquered areas
All this combined is a bit much when you compare it to the other Gallic factions. Mercenary isn't a niche that is filled yet in Gallia. But Privateering if you're not even in the Royalist camp anymore? Or access what are basically frontline military bases? Seems a bit off if you ask me. Another issue is that several of these roles require a different ZoI and can't really be combined without opening the use of the ID to some serious loopholes.
If the GJ are more pro-royalist then the UC, then they'd be more suited for the Privateering role. I'll see if something like that can be arranged.
Hone: Police and Navy ships generally don't leave their ZoI. Running convoys is the domain of the trade factions. I see no reason for the BPA to be assigned a Siriuswide escort role. Each house has it's own prisons to drop prisoners off on. Beyond that, contract Bowex (or Gateway) to do it.
About the "Can't dock on" lines (Kruger/Daumann request): Discussed this with the other admins, it's been decided to remove all those lines and handle it through the rephacks instead. Less rulelawyering if the system enforces it and all... If Kruger/Daumann don't have rephacks against eachother, they can dock on eachother's bases. Be aware that the factions will be responsible for handling the fallout from this (Kruger diamond miners from Solarius and the likes will be a legal move as far as server rules are concerned).
Ageira hunts Solar because Solar is the only other faction with access to gate/lane tech. Expensive ripoffs - about twice the size of the Ageira built gates/lanes, but they work
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Tunicle - 05-16-2013
Hello, was wondering about rationale for IDF being partners to GMS and EFL, but not the reverse?
Or for that matter the many trading partners on the trader corp ID's?
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AeternusDoleo - 05-16-2013
Tunicle, I'm not sure what you mean. EFL lists IDF, GMS lists IDF. IDF lists EFL and GMS - it's a shipper/manufacturer and shipper/miner type of deal... The reason for listing them is to give players an understanding on who their closest friends IRP are. It's basically giving new players a rough indication of what the faction does.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Karst - 05-16-2013
(05-16-2013, 08:48 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: About the "Can't dock on" lines (Kruger/Daumann request): Discussed this with the other admins, it's been decided to remove all those lines and handle it through the rephacks instead. Less rulelawyering if the system enforces it and all... If Kruger/Daumann don't have rephacks against eachother, they can dock on eachother's bases. Be aware that the factions will be responsible for handling the fallout from this (Kruger diamond miners from Solarius and the likes will be a legal move as far as server rules are concerned).
I thought the line "Can't dock on X's bases" was merely a reminder for factions that already have / are intended to have rephacks, so that a player doesn't find themselves unable to dock at the end of a long trade route - as there would be no point in having a server rule against something that's totally impossible.
Edit: Just like it would make no sense to have a server rule preventing a docking scenario that could be taken care of by a rep hack.
Regarding the rephacks......I don't think it's a good idea, due to the points in the last post I made on the subject in this thread.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Thyrzul - 05-16-2013
(05-16-2013, 08:48 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: Blow up all transports without making a demand. That's why that line is gone except in VERY specific cases. (Nomads - who can't demand cargo or credits, Mercs - who need the kill to claim, and specific cargo types that specific unlawful factions would want to destroy outright).
So yea, gone by intend to make the playing field level. I understand this restricts the Maquis and Xenos a little bit - but the IDs as they are are potential gameplay issues with people throwing a /l1 /l2 *fire torpedoes* style of weak roleplay. Sources of grieving I'm trying to prevent and all that.
That is frankly not the issue of the ID, rather of the player abusing it. Going in for the pew after few lines can be done with any ID actually, it's not hard to PVP without any significant RP and get away with not breaking 6.6. It's been done before, and it will be done in the future. Again, it's not the weapon what kills, it's the man who kills with the weapon. The issue is not the ID, but how the players use it. And you can't really change such mentality with server rules and ID restrictions.
(Maybe a general rollover on the majority of the in-game population with a mass 1.2 would solve that, but the community is dying already, so I bet you wouldn't want to "massacre" 80 percent of the server population off of DiscoGC 24/7.)
Making the playing field level, you say? By killing factions? It's barely a "little bit" of restriction if you take the very essence of terrorist factions: the ability to terrorize. With this, these groups will become pointless and even more unpopular than they are now. Who would want to join an unlawful faction which can basically do the same as the rest with less toys/space/allies/etc? By your proposals, even the Pirate ID is better than the Xeno one.
(Maybe a general rollover on the majority of the in-game population with a mass 1.2 would solve that, but the community is dying already, so I bet you wouldn't want to "massacre" 80 percent of the server population off of DiscoGC 24/7.)
Making the playing field level, you say? By killing factions? It's barely a "little bit" of restriction if you take the very essence of terrorist factions: the ability to terrorize. With this, these groups will become pointless and even more unpopular than they are now. Who would want to join an unlawful faction which can basically do the same as the rest with less toys/space/allies/etc? By your proposals, even the Pirate ID is better than the Xeno one.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AeternusDoleo - 05-16-2013
True. But again, that can't be helped. Opening up on players with a oneliner before they even have a chance to respond, on traders that cannot defend themselves in combat, is not something we should be promoting. I'm all for allowing terrorist factions more freedom to blast open transports, but the problem is that that turns the server into a big PVP fest rather then the roleplay server it is intended to be. And opens up those factions for OORP gripes - it has happened.
I know you can't fix that problem with server rules and IDs entirely, but you can help not make it worse.
If you see an alternative solution that tackles both these problems, I'm all ears.
All the Intelligence factions get their Cruisers back with an engagement limit, Ivan and Reaper worked their magic then.
The BAF now have all of the Taus as their ZoI? Wow...
Go forth and kicketh Gallic arse. Gallia has all of Bretonia, seems fair Bretonia gets the nearest adjacent region involved in that war as well. Doesn't mean they'll likely be very effective there since they've got nowhere to dock.
For The Council's ID, I think non-allied would be more appropriate. Not even sure if "unallied" is a word Tongue
Check.
GMG have added ZoI in Alpha, Frankfurt and Tohoku (and had Eta and Lambda before)? That's rather a lot.
And the Hessians have Gamma. This was discussed in Admin Central - the basic thought behind it is that Alpha raids and Gamma raids do generate activity for the Outcasts and Corsairs respectively. And that banning them effectively terminates activity in those systems.
IMG still haven't got Artifacts added to their ID again, but if that means we aren't being freely engaged by Corsairs then ok. Battletransports as biggest at last, thank you. Still really don't need Battleships though... Also in line with Daumann and Kruger being limited to "reasonable Omegas", IMG should also be limited to those they have a base in again - so perhaps "Taus except 29 42, 65 and 63" as it is easier than "Orkney, Roussillon, Baffin, Tau-31, Tau-44, Tau-39, Tau-37 and Tau-23"
General rule of thumb is "wherever your NPCs are, plus one system". For the IMG that ends up being pretty much all of the Taus, so just lumping that all together seemed a good idea. Still, with Rishiri and Nagano being considered part of the Tau cluster (bordering Gallia and Kusari, connected to the rest of the Taus) might be a good idea to limit it explicitly. Why would they be interested in interdicting artifact smugglers? Lore suggests they've in the past even tried to mine artifacts themselves before getting a big Corsair boot in their rears. IMG's nature is heavily opposed to slavery, corporate or otherwise, so that explains slaves. Cardi... I'm not even sure on. It's borderline - chemical enslavement. Second opinions welcome - I'm not entirely impartial when it comes to the IMG ID.
Hogosha, Chrysanthemums and Blood Dragons in Lyonnais through the new supergate, nice. Would it not also make sense to give Maquis, Brigands, UC and/or GJ ZoI in Rishiri as well?
Rishiri is considered a Tau system (Gallic/Kusari borderworlds are considered Taus).
Hessians come with a lot less murdersauce, this I like. Even moreso that they leave the northern borders of Rheinland (and near Sigmas) to the other unlawful factions. Theta being added is good as I said, and we'll see how the Gamma raids go. Jorms opening up on Artifact smugglers as they come out of Crete might get a bit crazy though.
Discussed in admin central. North Rheinland is Unioner/Bundy turf. South Rheinland is Hessian/LWB turf. Roughly. And Jorms hanging around Crete will have to deal with frequent dread patrols.
LWB and Unioners now get all tech-permed Cruisers instead of just the RPC? If the techchart is similar next version, 75% Vidars and Scyllas alongside 90% Praefects and 100% RPCs would be quite the Unioner fleet. Maybe LWB will get 75% on Stortas or something
It does allow for some flexibility in that regard. Was basically done to standardise a bit. I'm sure a Unioner Praefect would be very appreciated by the Hessians...
Unioners being out of the Omegas and given extra Liberty ZoI is also a good step.
Unioners... Omegas...? Wat...? Anyway, that's mainly for stomping on (and being stomped on by) Xenos
Still love that Bundschuh allying line, but would it be possible to have their ZoI extended a bit for the Liberty-Rheinland war lines? Just New Hampshire would be fitting actually. We do have Cloppenburg in Bremen to be one system away as well.
Bremen is a Rheinland system. So Hampshire is one system away from Rheinland, it's included.
The Maquis get GBs now, but are effectively Gallic Brigands without credit demands or Kyushu ZoI. The Xenos lose out on the line but don't get anything other than a couple of systems added to their ID to make up for it.
Yes. I'm finding it difficult to find a balance between these factions tendency to just blow ships up, and prevent grievers from taking these IDs just to go for easy blue messages with no demand and therefor no roleplay, just an engagement notification.
The Outcast and Corsair IDs also look better, although the ZoI still appears unbalanced towards the Outcasts. Perhaps give them a limit to northern Bretonia (say Dublin, Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds). Limiting Rheinland for Corsairs seems to say rather a lot about the Hessians' effectiveness, especially if they throw themselves into Dresden. Adding Hamburg where there is(/will continue to be?) a Unioner base too.
Outcast ZoI is a bit bigger yes. That's just how the game was made. Can't be helped. Both the Outcast and Corsair ZoI are very large though, plenty of diversity on both IDs.
Core/Order balance is quite interesting, with the Core getting a few 'BHG' lines for escorting and acting like Omicrons police over the anti-intelligence of the Order. The Order could do with a cargo limit though.
Considering everyone who shoots the Order, I'm not sure that's neccesary. But the same holds true for most unlawful IDs. Main reason to NOT allow 5K transies on those is to make it a bit easier for the lawful factions to maintain bases - leaving unlawfuls with the PTrain as their main means of supplying player bases. It's not just trading anymore that is affected by the cargo limit.
Reaver ID: "-Cannot ally with any unlawfuls." Eh, what?
Whoops. Copypasta failure from the BHG ID.
Black Sails haven't been de-combat targeted, and they still have the full ZoI.
Fixed
OSI can defend neutral ships (which is everyone except Rheinland for now). Could make sense as they are more of a corporate group now, but just making sure. Better watch out for those firecrackers...
Neutral -transports-. IE if they're in convoy with another group, they can protect their convoy mates. They can't join in a snub brawl or something similar.
SCRA ID can now create their own "Red is dead" targets. Lose out on Liberty raids, capitalism shall go on undauntedly then.
Nothing new there. SCRA diplomacy is... more whimsical then the Sacred Chao.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Thyrzul - 05-16-2013
(05-16-2013, 10:25 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: True. But again, that can't be helped. Opening up on players with a oneliner before they even have a chance to respond, on traders that cannot defend themselves in combat, is not something we should be promoting. I'm all for allowing terrorist factions more freedom to blast open transports, but the problem is that that turns the server into a big PVP fest rather then the roleplay server it is intended to be. And opens up those factions for OORP gripes - it has happened.
I know you can't fix that problem with server rules and IDs entirely, but you can help not make it worse.
I've never heard or read any rants or complains about Maquis or Xenos doing massive, annoying PVP fests disruptive to server gameplay. In fact the most whining regarding PVP battles I've ever heard/read were around LNS/RNC indies' Texas brawls, and generally around the war between Liberty and Rheinland. But if you could point me towards any thread on the forums, or anything else promoting the notion that these two factions(Xenos and Maquis), despite their technological, territorial and ideological limitations, pose such a danger to the "roleplay" of the server to a degree like nothing else, I would be very glad.
And you know, keeping things as they used to be is actually a way to help things not get worse.
And you know, keeping things as they used to be is actually a way to help things not get worse.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Valeria_Benitez - 05-16-2013
Quote:And Jorms hanging around Crete will have to deal with frequent dread patrols.
I have kinda been keeping an eye on those to see if they worked but I am sad to say that the cap patrols (if they appear) are usually destroyed within moments when hostile caps are present.
Still, cap patrols are better than nothing.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - GrnRaptor - 05-17-2013
Also, what happened to LPI being able to take bribes? Isn't possible corruption one of the things that separates them from every other police force ID?
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AeternusDoleo - 05-17-2013
May demand contraband. May levy fines. Those two lines offer enough freedom to play corruption while still not being able to start to "fine" fullon lawful transports.