+- 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 - Volksfront - 05-14-2013
(05-14-2013, 05:51 PM)LunaticOnTheGrass Wrote: On behalf of the VWA, which presently represents (to my knowledge) the largest unofficial contingent of Bundschuh players, I would like to bring up the portion of the Bundschuh ID that states:
Quote:- Cannot ally with any lawfuls except with Rheinland lawfuls against Liberty lawfuls.
And ask it to be changed, to:
Quote:- Cannot ally with any lawfuls except with Liberty lawfuls against Rheinland lawfuls.
I highly disagree with this proposal.
The Bundschuh are trying to look like the good guys to Rheinlanders to gain their support. What would the people think if the Bundschuh would be actively helping Libertonians to crush Rheinland borders...
On the other hand its something different that after the Libertonians are gone from Rheinland, the Bundschuh may of course do the cleanup after Rheinland wont be in direct danger of foreign military forces.
The meaning of Bundschuh and Libertonian cooperation is in general all right, because its not really public and especially not in a fighting way.
But anyway, you dont even need to ally with anyone, you simply shoot both...
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - SMGSterlin - 05-14-2013
As 2iC of IC|, I'm pretty much alright with the .87 ID for Interspace Commerce, except for this bit..
Quote:- May dock on Red Hessian and Golden Chrysantemum bases.
- Cannot ally with any unlawfuls except Red Hessians and Golden Chrysantemums against other unlawfuls.
Can we not use lawyers anymore? >_>
EDIT: I also agree with Jack, take out the "combat target" line from each ID. Or at the very least, take it out from pirate ID's against trade factions... We'll end up having a mass influx of people just going around to kill traders to powergame.
Not good.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Thyrzul - 05-14-2013
(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!
Especially roleplay between hostile factions has to be "forced", to take place at all.
Giving out this line just reduces the interaction to: "Hey... Die!" where you had to have a few lines or at least a response up to now.
Tau example:
> IMG can now simply kill OC transports shipping Cardi. Up to now, we tried to intercept, stop, roleplay, etc. Now the rules actually allow for: "Die!" rp.
That's crap.
Sorry for the clarity, but I HATE this line that allows for more pewpew and reduces rp interaction even further. And it is already low, especially between enemy factions.
I'm not sure what your problem is. 5.2 is still in effect and has been for long, with or without those lines in the proposed IDs.
@OP:
Clarifying ZoIs is a good idea, the brief info and specifying arch enemies along with corporate warfare (those so called "may treat as combat targets" lines) are also good ones. Big like for those.
However there are a few things in need correction.
I assume it was the result of copypasta that the name of the Kusari Exiles appeared on the Council ID too. However I do not really understand why the Council weren't listed as possible unlawful allies on the Colonial ID.
So far I found those, if I find more which hasn't been posted yet, I will tell.
@OP:
Clarifying ZoIs is a good idea, the brief info and specifying arch enemies along with corporate warfare (those so called "may treat as combat targets" lines) are also good ones. Big like for those.
However there are a few things in need correction.
I assume it was the result of copypasta that the name of the Kusari Exiles appeared on the Council ID too. However I do not really understand why the Council weren't listed as possible unlawful allies on the Colonial ID.
So far I found those, if I find more which hasn't been posted yet, I will tell.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - TheJarl - 05-14-2013
(05-14-2013, 06:19 PM)Volksfront Wrote:(05-14-2013, 05:51 PM)LunaticOnTheGrass Wrote: On behalf of the VWA, which presently represents (to my knowledge) the largest unofficial contingent of Bundschuh players, I would like to bring up the portion of the Bundschuh ID that states:
Quote:- Cannot ally with any lawfuls except with Rheinland lawfuls against Liberty lawfuls.
And ask it to be changed, to:
Quote:- Cannot ally with any lawfuls except with Liberty lawfuls against Rheinland lawfuls.
I highly disagree with this proposal.
The Bundschuh are trying to look like the good guys to Rheinlanders to gain their support. What would the people think if the Bundschuh would be actively helping Libertonians to crush Rheinland borders...
On the other hand its something different that after the Libertonians are gone from Rheinland, the Bundschuh may of course do the cleanup after Rheinland wont be in direct danger of foreign military forces.
The meaning of Bundschuh and Libertonian cooperation is in general all right, because its not really public and especially not in a fighting way.
But anyway, you dont even need to ally with anyone, you simply shoot both...
I expected this response. I realize that the current Bundschuh playerbase has several different opinions on the matter. However, it does seem reasonable to me as it is actually official lore. Admitted it was controversial and I think I opposed it back then myself. Still it wasn't changed as far as I know and in the VWA it was simply decided that we could try and actually make use of it by trying to side with Liberty. However lore and ID currently don't match. I realize why, but at the very least I think the Bundies should have the option to go both ways since there is no official faction to make a decision on the official course of the faction.
As for the reasoning behind siding with them. The Rheinland media won't portray us as heroes anyway, after many generations of propaganda it just won't work so easily anymore. Liberty can therefore be seen either as genuinely having good intentions (whether the players see it that way doesn't matter, our chars might) or simply as a useful lil' thing. If Liberty wins they could very well decide to give power to the Bundschuh if they consider us as an ally. For them it would mean supporting a new more friendly government instead of grabbing power themselves which would cause a lot of unrest. For us, it would be a way to fight the government.
So I think it should either leave the decision to the player or state that we can side with Liberty.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Jack_Henderson - 05-14-2013
(05-14-2013, 06:29 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: [color=#FFFFFF][align=justify]I'm not sure what your problem is. 5.2 is still in effect and has been for long, with or without those lines in the proposed IDs.
Because it kills the 6.6 rule.
Quote: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.
Up to now, an easy target always had the right to at least get some roleplay.
Some roleplay is defined as "a possibility to say something at least".
Now you can reduce the interaction that actually was good sometimes to
"You are enemy" "You die".
That's what roleplay should be like! We want more of it!
Compare it to what the rules enforced up to now:
IMG to OC Cardi BWT: "Stop it! You are carrying contraband"
BWT: "Okay okay! Don't shoot. Can we find a solution?"
IMG: "You can drop it or we escort you to the Freeport and you unload it there."
... etc...
This actually happened.
Will it happen with "May treat as combat targets?". No.
Why? No one is forced any more to rp, risk that he gets away, risk that he gets close enough to base to make it... so why even care?
Just... "You enemy". "You die". RP done. Pew.
That's my problem with this line.
It sucks.
It has no right to exist in a roleplay game.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Occam Razor - 05-14-2013
(05-14-2013, 05:00 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: ; dsy_license_helghastOn behalf of the AI Consensus, the largest AI faction, I want to ask you to change
501405
NAME
Artificial Intelligence ID
501406
INFOCARD
Artifical Intelligence ID
The AI ID signifies the character an Artificial Intelligence. Most AI's descend from Planet Gammu, where environmental conditions caused human settlement to fail, leaving only sentient machines behind, who then continued to evolve. AI's are fully selfaware and autonomous, and not under the control of any other faction.
Vessels carrying this ID are controlled by an Artificial Intelligence, who :
- Can attack pirates, terrorists and lawfuls in self-defense or in defense of another AI ship.
- Can actively hunt pirates, terrorists and lawfuls in systems that do not contain a jumpgate.
- Cannot not attack transports and freighters, except in selfdefense.
- Cannot use any transports with more than 3,600 cargo.
- Cannot participate in unlawful actions except as described above.
Allowed ships: Fighters, Freighters, Transports, Gunboats, AI Cruiser
(05-14-2013, 05:00 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: - Cannot use any transports with more than 3,600 cargo.either back to
(05-14-2013, 05:00 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: - Cannot use any transports with more than 4,200 cargo.or at least to
(05-14-2013, 05:00 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: - Cannot use any transports with more than 4,000 cargo.because we have already some ships either got with RP from Samura (4 Akegatas), or for example the Deliverance Carrier (Renzu Liner), and it would be kinda sad to have to drop them all after working to get them.
And also I want to notify you of the grammar mistake you did.
(05-14-2013, 05:00 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: - Cannot not attack transports and freighters, except in selfdefense.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Blodo - 05-14-2013
I don't like the ZoI line in each of the IDs. Instead, we should go with the tried and true "every system your NPCs are in + 1 adjacent". This means that all the factions that are losing access to large swathes of systems with this proposal, don't actually lose such access and don't have to sit in their home systems unable to interact with their enemies because of invisible barriers. Prime example: removal of Texas-Hamburg raiding.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - bloogaL - 05-14-2013
Outcast ID Wrote:- Cannot use any transports with more than 3,600 cargo, except for the Pilgrim Liner and Pirate Train.
Because cardamine smuggling is in desperate need of a nerf, right?
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Redon - 05-14-2013
(05-14-2013, 05:00 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: Pilot carrying this ID is a member of the Outcasts/Corsairs/various criminal factions who:
- Cannot use any transports with more than 3,600 cargo, except for the Pilgrim Liner and Pirate Train.
Why?
To beat down on "criminal powertrading"? Or as a change alongside large buffs for smuggling routes? I don't think so.
Edit: I also liked the funny LPI ID more.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - SummerMcLovin - 05-14-2013
Nice to see things being shared early, let's have a look at all the things I've noticed:
Exiles getting Kyushu should be interesting.
Council's first line hasn't been changed, being copied from the Kusari Exiles ID.
Intelligence factions being limited only to their houses? Seems a tad strange, although the Cruisers aren't so important.
MND line is copied from LSF
Mollys with a Y
Chrysanthemums with a TH
Corporations can now hunt pirates openly, alongside their house forces?
Kishiro can actively hunt BD and GC, instead of Hogosha outside their influence?
DSE hunts Lane Hackers actively, not Xenos or Rogues (whoever their main enemy would be)?
Cryer can hunt rogues now? And I guess Stabiline is a new commodity for them.
Kruger and Daumann have ALL the Omegas in their ZoI?
Absolutely no difference between IDF, EFL and Solar IDs except that the latter doesn't have the Borderworlds. Shouldn't it have something similar to the Ageira ID?
IMG cannot demand Artifacts any more, and has an unnecessary "at war with" line. Maybe we can restart that Rheinland conflict... I was also under the impression that we'd be restricted to 4,200 cargo space and be losing Battleships, since at present we'd remain the overpowered ID compared to the house corps.
Zoner can now dock on all IMG bases? Seems a bit strange but at least there aren't any sell points that I know of, at least their caps are still off. The restricted allying line is ok I think. "May defend neutral ships" seems rather catch-all for a Zoner though
Long-standing Molly RP of NAPing with Gallia seems to be ignored. With BAF against Corsairs is nice though (and still goes on occasionally).
Gaians cannot stop Planetform operations in California, nor OS&C ones elsewhere?
Privateers cannot pirate Rheinlanders and Freelancers trading with Gallia?
LWB ID can attack anything related to Synth Foods and their products anywhere, but FA can only do it in their ZoI?
I see Hessian have lost the Omicrons and Cambridge from their ZoI, but now have the far north of Rheinland added. So now it is exactly the Bundschuh ID plus Omegas, caps and combat targets.
Unioners lose Texas from their ZoI?
Gallic Junker ID has been 'normalised', good to see. Unione Corse is also rather a nice one now.
Maquis terrorism line has been expanded out to the Taus, I forsee Basilisk grieving squads going around.
Brigands could do with Kyushu added (as mentioned).
Outcasts have no ZoI in Gallia, not even Lorraine where they have (had?) a base?
Order at war with house intelligences, and a couple of added systems seems pretty interesting.
I like that "affiliated with" has been made more clear with most IDs, but the Coalition one seems to have been left vague.
RoS ID doesn't restrict them to their ZoI any more, but they also can't escort any lawfuls as they wished to.
That new AI ID seems rather interesting to put it lightly. Occam caught the double negative.
Freelancer ID could do with "be hired to defend" other ships, instead of just jumping in as it is now. Same with Miner - and both of them go with the ZoI as being neutral to everyone.
Don't really see a need for the Pirate ID to gain the added cargo ships, would be better to keep it as a perk for those with a more limited ZoI.
The Colonial one I like, as it actually is what I thought I'd have to ask for when this was released. Namely, Magellan in the ZoI and escorting Bretonian (or allied/neutral in this case) transports. One thing I've noticed though is that Baffin has been dropped from the ID, could that be re-added to assist one of our best allies, the TAZ?
Thyrzul, I think the Council are classified as Gallic, military faction (where Colonials are independent, lawful, military).
Last but not least, we now have all ships (that our techperms work with) available, not just Colonial ones? If that was intentional, that is just the best news ever
![[Image: emoticon-00157-sun.gif]](http://www.skype-emoticons.com/images/emoticon-00157-sun.gif)
As for the Bundschuh ID, perhaps even leaving it as simply "cannot ally with any lawfuls". Both sides have a point about not being portrayed as supporting Liberty, but also not gaining anything (after several failed attempts) by supporting Rheinland. Just wade in and shoot both without grouping.
And Vrabcek, we all know it's you there. No need to hide.
Edit: Just had it pointed out to me that the IMG now have ALL the Omegas and Taus, rather than just those where they have a base. So much for balancing us...
BMM only have Omega-3, could they (and Bowex) have O-49 added too, for Gran Canaria/Planet Sydney RP?
Forgot to comment on the combat lines, but pretty much what Jack said (with less vehemence).