+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Rule clarification (/showthread.php?tid=5524)
Rule clarification - Juan_Arquero - 01-16-2008
' Wrote:yeah ok - but keep in a little on topic! I really want to know about this rule discrepancy, its a big wet blanket on my RP!Be careful what you wish for, because you just may get it...
If you want to stop the hordes of tourists being taken to Crete by unscrupulous traders, then get a gunboat or something smaller.
If you want to use something larger than a gunboat, then find another use for it like one of the following:
- Defend Omicron Gamma from Outcasts and other enemies of the Corsairs, but not traders;
- Attack Outcasts and other enemies of the Corsairs, but not traders.
The above is a ton of water for your already wet blanket (which got soaking wet, because you're a whining crybaby).:(
Rule clarification - Laowai - 01-16-2008
' Wrote:If you want to stop the hordes of tourists being taken to Crete by unscrupulous traders, then get a gunboat or something smaller.
Don't expect the server rules to be changed, so you can PWN traders in Omicron Gamma when they show up with passengers.
The above is a ton of water for your already wet blanket (which got soaking wet, because you're a whining crybaby).:(
nice mature response to what was i believe a reasonable question.
and i still want to understand WHY lawfuls can do it but pirates can't.
And it isn't so i can "pwn" anybody... if you actually read my previous post I'm actually NOT looking for an excuse to PVP - I'm not going to go hunting down traders willy nilly.
What i am looking for is a clear and concise understanding of this, what i believe, is a ruling that allows one group of players to do one thing, but forbids another group to do the same. IS that actually written down somewhere... and if so... why?
I'm not looking to flame anyone, nor have arguments with anyone - i realise i am still relatively new to this server, and that many players who have been here a long time, and probably some admins as well - are quite cynical about people's motives, "oh he just is a PVP whore looking for a reason" and granted, you probably have had cause to feel that way
But take a step back for a second and allow for the fact that not everyone is coming here looking for a fight.
I came to this server precisely because it said "ROLE PLAY" server - and it seems like seriously inconsistent roleplay to allow such a double standard in a rule. Why were criminals allowed cap ships in the game at all if one of their uses is restricted - and if it's to balance the fact that lawfuls have them, why then instigate a rule that in effect unbalances their use for only one type of player?
Rule clarification - satanic mechanic - 01-16-2008
' Wrote:a capital ship cannot destroy you - as it is forbidden by the rule ( so it would be a serverrule violation ) - BUT... if the corsair Battleship denied you docking you could not dock and sell them either ( if you did, it would be a violation to the roleplay of the server ) - just cause you can, doesn t mean you are allowed to.
soo - if it was only you and a sole battleship at crete, you would get away with your life and the knowledge of various spanish swear words .... ( and with a cargohold full of unhappy passengers, cause you cannot deliver them where you promised them to go ) .
It's a difficult situation to be sure, but Jinx has the feel for it.
In RP terms, all the battleship has to do is request the trader turns around and leaves the system, this is well with in RP, if the trader fails to comply, the battleship can't engage (realisticly it would be launching its fighter wings, it seems our shipyards have forgotten how to construct launch bays, and all of our pilots are on leave, damn).
Once the battleship has made its position known, for the trader to stay in RP, they have to comply, because in RP there is a very real possibility that at any moment the battleship will launch hordes of screaming fighters to dispense unlawful justice, ignoring because you know it can't is just plain metagaming if you ask me.
Metagaming, munchkinism, OORP, power gaming, BAD!
</high horse>
Rule clarification - Fellow Hoodlum - 01-16-2008
Laowai, your choice to be a pirate, and the rules differ slightly for them in this circumstance, as it would come
under the 'pirating with a battleship' title, so you cannot do it.
Either have fighter backup, or police with a gunboat. The rules are there, please work with them, not around.
Hoodlum
Rule clarification - Laowai - 01-16-2008
' Wrote:Laowai, your choice to be a pirate, and the rules differ slightly for them in this circumstance, as it would come
under the 'pirating with a battleship' title, so you cannot do it.
Either have fighter backup, or police with a gunboat. The rules are there, please work with them, not around.
Hoodlum
ok... it seems a double standard to me - . As i said, i wasn't trying to work around the rules, it just seemed odd to me that cops can use cap ships on trade ships, but pirates can't. What i suspected that happened was that the rules were drafted, with the best of intentions, but without seeing this eventuality ie. that a pirate would want to intercept a cargo, not tax it... and thus creating a disparity....but rules are rules, so ok, I'll stick by 'em.
anyway... end of discussion.
saving up for a gunboat:)
Rule clarification - Fellow Hoodlum - 01-16-2008
Why should the rules be the same for the 'bad guys' ? The name implies you don't get the same consideration.
Like I said, your roleplay choice to be as you are. The rules were drafted with this in mind, not with parity.
Hoodlum
Rule clarification - Jinx - 01-16-2008
lets put it very simple now why a lawful battleship CAN attack a trader and a pirate cannot.
in simple terms, a defender can use any force available to stop an aggressor.
an attacker however can only use limited power - which is not a roleplay issue, but a gamebalance one.
how comes that a lawful can go for a trader then?
- the lawful is the defender. ( yes, thats correct ) if a trader with cardamine or other contrabant approaches the lawfuls borders, the lawful is defending his territory against that trader. that trader is indeed "attacking" the territory of the lawful - which in conclusion means, the lawful can launch anything needed to stop the aggressor. ( however - not over his own borders - or at least should not, and the lawful should of course not encourage traders to smuggle, so he has something to shoot )
how comes a pirate cannot do that very same?
- the trader with legal goods ( and sadly for the pirate, it is upon the lawfuls to say whats legal and whats not, while its only upon the pirates to say what is needed and whats not ) approaching the border of the pirate is NOT attacking the pirates homelands. - and that is where its a bit unfair, cause the pirate is not supposed to have an equivalent law. that means, he cannot "defend" himself against a law, cause only houses have official laws. the pirates have laws of themselves which are upheld at least as much as house laws, but they are not "official". so the trader is not in violation of an "official" law.
if stopped by a pirate, the trader is considered the defender - instead of the attacker, and that means that the pirate in question is taking up the role of the attackers, which means - he cannot use anything bigger than a gunboat.
come to that - it makes little difference. like i said, if the docking right is denied by a pirate - no matter if playerfaction or individual ( with good reason ! and not just random cause you feel like it ) - then the trader MUST NOT dock. if he does ... i would consider it an ATTACK and the battleship can indeed fire upon a tradeship ( but i would make sure to get proof of it, cause some nasty players like to lure ppl into traps like that and report )
however the last point would be upon an admin to approve - its just my feeling.
Rule clarification - Laowai - 01-16-2008
well...
im not really gonna fire on a trade ship - because the general view of it seems to be, that a pirate in a cruiser can't. I'm not gonna violate server rules to fulfill my own roleplay. - people.... i will state my opinion, but i ain't gonna make trouble in game.
To me...It doesn't make role play sense, and I do believe it's unfair, it is stacked towards a lawful character, and hoodlum has essentially stated this fact. Don't know why, don't agree with it. But will just deal with it and just get on playing the game
that being said... if any trader runs the gauntlet on this saying "haha cap ships can't shoot me" so help me i will print screen and report a RP violation so fast it will make your impervious little heads spin....
Jinx - you make really good points, and while i do see where you're coming from in terms of "official" laws, i don't agree with it in terms of RP. Pirate law is the barrel of a gun - which means, if a corsair says you can't bring passengers, it doesn't matter what liberty/brettonia/rheinland law says, they will stop you bringing passengers, and if you do not heed their warnings, and leave, their guns will be judge and jury - as it is now, there is a rule that actually does not allow pirates to use all their options to do that.
I'm only using the TBH corsair rule (no passengers) as an example because my char in a cap ship that is effected by this rule is a corsair - but as it is, this rule would apply to anyone considered unlawful, and no factions cap ships can engage a trader. The traders on the server have a huge get out of jail free card.
The exceptions are xenos and phantoms - (which the rules state CAN engage traders while in cap ships, im not sure why they can and others cant, i'd love to know why, in RP terms, this disparity exists, because to me, it makes NO sense but anyway.....)
@ Hoodlum and other admins - i hope you don't get the wrong idea by my discussing this here - and you can trust that i will obey the rules in game, regardless of my personal views (which, i will do)
But, i would hope that a discussion on this can ensue that might allow for a liberalisation of certain rules, perhaps in the next version of discovery:). The community has been around a lot longer than i have, and all you guys have contributed time into making this the great game that it is!
See you all in there:)
Rule clarification - tfmachad - 01-16-2008
' Wrote:lets put it very simple now why a lawful battleship CAN attack a trader and a pirate cannot.Well, Jinx. I strongly disagree with you on that one, unless I'm misinterpreting what you wrote.
in simple terms, a defender can use any force available to stop an aggressor.
an attacker however can only use limited power - which is not a roleplay issue, but a gamebalance one.
...
how comes a pirate cannot do that very same?
- the trader with legal goods ( and sadly for the pirate, it is upon the lawfuls to say whats legal and whats not, while its only upon the pirates to say what is needed and whats not ) approaching the border of the pirate is NOT attacking the pirates homelands. - and that is where its a bit unfair, cause the pirate is not supposed to have an equivalent law. that means, he cannot "defend" himself against a law, cause only houses have official laws. the pirates have laws of themselves which are upheld at least as much as house laws, but they are not "official". so the trader is not in violation of an "official" law.
if stopped by a pirate, the trader is considered the defender - instead of the attacker, and that means that the pirate in question is taking up the role of the attackers, which means - he cannot use anything bigger than a gunboat.
...
From a rule standpoint I believe Laowai has got his answer. No destroying of traders by unlawfuls with anything bigger than a gunboat. Simple as that.
From an RP standpoint, though, his questioning makes sense and I agree with him. The groups we call unlawfuls can and make their own rules inside their zones of influence as they please and there's no telling those laws aren't 'official' as you put it as long as the so called lawfuls can't or won't go there to enforce otherwise. If those rulings are moral/imoral, good/evil is a different thing. Practically speaking, a rule or a law for that matter is valid if it's generally accepted and enforced. The House rules probably mean nothing in Crete or Malta and sure aren't enforced there. Not to mention even between the Houses there's no absolute law standardization.
It's a matter of perspective really. Remember both lawfuls and unlawfuls see friendlies and hostiles as green and red respectively.
The way I see it, the real strange and questionable thing is traders utterly disregarding the risk they'll be facing taking non-acceptable cargo to those regions. Considering that if they are caught there they won't be arrested and trialled, but simply killed. So, doing it must really compensate those risks, but if it does, it also makes no sense from an RP standpoint. Why would these people pay so much to go to a place where there's famine?
I can understand a Mexican paying a lot to be smuggled in to the US, but not the other way around. Unless they are considered criminals in the place they are and won't be seen as such in the place they are going to. But as far as the commodity goes, that's not the case.
Unfortunately, as far as the practicality of solving this goes, changing the established rules is a bad option, since it's certain that people would loophole this up and down. "Oh, this trader tried to enter Gamma with stuff we don't like and I followed him all the way to Alaska in my Osiris. I wanted to teach him a lesson and never again take that to Crete," and so on.
So they're down to enforcing their rules through RP. It's got to be a good exercise, really.
Rule clarification - Jinx - 01-16-2008
yes - but i was more or less thinking of caribean pirates for that matter. most of those outlaws had a strong code of law - but still they wouldn t be considered to be following any law at all, cause freedom was one of the very important points of a pirate. ( in reality - they might have followed even stricter rules than a lawful citizen )
from a roleplaying point of view - it makes no sense anyway not to use a battleship for pirating a trader. it just makes no sense to go out with a battleship to pirate - but if a battleship on a journey to its destination happens to meet a juicy and fat trader - there is no reason the battleship wouldn t take the traders goods.
now - if a battleship happens to be in the orbit of a planet, its homeplanet and a trader approaches with goods that could damage the planet - it makes perfect sense for a pirate BB to take that trader down - no doubt about that.
what i tried is to squeeze the roleplay into the rules we have. so i try to consider the rules based on official house laws. while pirate factions don t have "real" laws. of course that is not true, but it helps. the point of view is - that a pirate is allways the aggressor, no matter what he does - he is sort of born with that stigma. while a house law enforcer is born as a defender. if both act accordingly to their laws, the pirate is allways attacking, even if he is in fact defending. ( its unfair from a roleplaying point of view - but explains the rules about the unfairness of lawfuls being allowed to use large capital ships - while its not allowed for pirates. )
with that in mind - a trader approaching crete with a hold full of passengers - or worse, cardamine... is allways defending, while the pirate is allways attacking, - since attacking with a capital ship is not allowed, he cannot shoot the trader.
it also means taht a smuggler approaching a lawful planet is allways attacking ( provided he has contrabant, if he has not, he is not a smuggler, but a trader ) so the defender can launch big ships.
when you try to look upon it from a neutral point of view - then a pirates territory is the same like a house territory - and so the pirate faction would enforce its laws with the same rights as the lawfuls. the only difference there is - that in a house fleet, everyone is supposed to follow every rule the same, while in a pirate faction - there "might" be a rather lax interpretation of rules - ( but thats only subjective, - a lawful would think of a pirate to be unLAWful, while a pirate will think of a lawful as ... well LAWful )
--- all that is just meant as an attempt to describe the unfairness of pirates not being allowed to stop a trader in their homelands --- i wouldn t try to defend the rule as such, cause it makes no sense.
but it makes little difference anyway - like i said, a battleship may break the rules when it shoots the trader - but the trader must not dock when the docking rights are denied either.
actually, its a bit like lawfuls - a lawful "should" not be as trigger happy as they use to be. a lawful should much rather try to escort a smuggler out of their territory instead of blowing them up. ( problem is that its not practical to do that ) but if a lawful tells a smuggler not to dock somewhere, the smuggler must not dockthere either. ( same rights for pirates and lawfuls ) - shooting down someone should be the very last option. its more profitable to make the trader keep on trading - but with good that are actually needed instead of blowing the trader up.