+- 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 - Jeremy Hunter - 05-14-2013
Alright Aet. I actually was told earlier and my bad for not reading it correctly.
2.) Then what's the point of the LSF's recon cruiser, the stationary one in Ellesmere?
3.) You never answered my question about Order caps. Only the cardi/slaves one.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AshHill07 - 05-14-2013
(05-14-2013, 04:57 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: ; dsy_license_li_n_grp
500552
NAME
Liberty Navy ID
500553
INFOCARD
Liberty Navy
The Liberty Navy are the military of Liberty. They maintain Liberty rule in systems claimed by Liberty and assist in law enforcement. They also patrol the systems bordering Liberty. Liberty is at war with Rheinland.
Pilot carrying this ID is a member of the Liberty Navy who:
- Can engage and destroy any ships within the Alaska system that do not belong to either the LSF or Liberty Navy.
- Can demand contraband, levy fines, and destroy ships if they refuse to comply with contraband demands, refuse to cooperate, or are belonging to a house or organisation at war with Liberty within their Zone of Influence.
- Can escort traders within their Zone of Influence.
- Can hunt pirates, terrorists and military enemies within their Zone of Influence.
- Can defend allied or neutral lawful ships and bases within Zone of Influence
- Cannot participate in unlawful actions except as described above.
- Cannot use any transports with more than 4,300 cargo.
Zone of Influence: Liberty and independent systems directly bordering Liberty
Allowed ships: Fighters, Freighters, Transports, Gunboats, Cruisers, Battleships
Having looked into this in more detail I don't think it will hit us as bad as originally feared. At current only 2 of the SFC|'s logistics fleet of 8 ships are 5kers, both Mastodons, which could probably be replaced without too much effort. The rest of the fleet are all Bisons which would still be allowed under the above ID.
As for the war, I think it might be a good thing to limit it out of Hamburg and Texas if I'm honest. Bering and Hudson are more open systems with more entry points which will limit previous issues of gate camping only to situations where one side has a large ship superiority over the other. Its also making the fights happen in different places which will make them less predictable, and as a direct result less repetitive, which is the main reason I prefer to stay out of these fights these days.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Valeria_Benitez - 05-14-2013
Quote:"May treat as combat target" lines in ALL IDs. Not give even more people that line!
Quote:Get rid of it, and transports end up hiding behind the "must make a demand" rule ("You can't shoot me yet, you've not made a demand. I'mma go on full thruster to the nearest base while you type, k?"), which they often abuse to get away (don't deny it Jack, I've been in convoys with you Tongue). Keep it and you end up with a "Ohai, nau dai." style of roleplay. It's just the side that abuses the mechanic that changes. Which makes me lean towards the "less rules" way. But, I'm open to other player opinions about this.
As a long term player of a pirate faction, I would say - "When in doubt favor the hunted, instead of the hunters". I for one would be glad to watch transports abuse it if it meant just a tiny bit more rp.
I would also like to voice concern on the "may attack/hunt so-and-so outside their ZOI" lines. I do not think that will end well...
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Pavel - 05-14-2013
Quote:It was my understanding that in lore Kruger is leaning towards ALG in an attempt to form a stronger competition against Daumann. Dropping the nodock will cause Kruger diamond miners to start using Solarius for instance - is that what you want? The piracy line I'm indifferent about - but if it goes, it goes completely, for all mining factions - they can use mercenaries instead of doing the dirty themselves then.
Currently there's no rephack between Daumann and kruger at all, no pirate lines, and things work well, I don't see a problem why we would need that. Remember if almost bankrupted kruger tried something with Daumann, the last one would just crush it using its vast influence.
O-11 is mineable, but only by unlawfuls, so I don't see a problem with kruger miners docking at Solarius at all, because it's nonexistant. If you really want to mine diamonds, you make hessian ship. Not saying that situation is normal, oh no. If kruger O11 miners become problem, we'll simply request rephack, but at the moment there's no need for it.
Quote:I'm open to suggestions, but keep in mind that ALL corporate IDs follow largely the same lines, and Daumann will be no exception. That's how things are kept fair between the corporate factions. Feel free to post a rewritten suggestion.
Yeah I noticed general pattern, I'll simply come up with something of our own, will send suggestion on skype/PM in few days, when I have more time.
Quote:Yes, corporations (primarily convoy escorts) should be able to preemptively attack unlawfuls at will within their own houses. Lawfuls allowed to shoot unlawfuls on their own turf, and vice-versa. DSE, Ageira and Interspace have a bone to pick with the Lane Hackers, so they should be able to go after those anywhere.
Good decision, I like it.
Btw, you forgot about GMG in the OC "may treat" line, and about Kishiro in BD/GC "may treat". Dragons don't like Kishiro because they didn't make promised changes after long period of Samura rule, they didn't restore monarchy with Hideyoshi dynasty. GC consider them no different than opressive Samura because they didn't introduce matriarchy, Chrysanthemums consider changes in the Kusari policy and society under new Kishiro leadership to be only cosmetic; in fact Kusari society still is opressive for women and man-centric.
Also, looks like Hacker ID lacks DSE in "may treat". Hackers target business concerning jumpgates and tradelanes.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - belarusich - 05-14-2013
Also, what will do people who own now cruisers and battlecruisers with LSF/MND/Kempetei/BIS ID? Sanction them after release of 4.87 ? =/
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AshHill07 - 05-14-2013
(05-14-2013, 08:56 PM)belarusich Wrote: Also, what will do people who own now cruisers and battlecruisers with LSF/MND/Kempetei/BIS ID? Sanction them after release of 4.87 ? =/
Well if it stays that way logic says change the ID or change the ship, not just sit around until 4.87 and get sanctioned for it you'll probably come off a lot worse.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Thyrzul - 05-14-2013
I would like to request the extension of Council ZoI to Roussillon (duh), Baffin and Coronado due to diplomatic ties with the TAZ and the CR.
Regarding our ID:
- Can demand contraband, levy fines, and destroy ships if they refuse to comply with contraband demands, refuse to cooperate or are belonging to a house or organisation at war with the Council within their Zone of Influence.
- Can escort traders within their Zone of Influence.
- Can hunt pirates, terrorists and military enemies within their Zone of Influence.
- Can defend allied or neutral lawful ships and bases within Zone of Influence
I do not intend to enforce the first line within Baffin or Coronado, nor would like to see anybody else flying a Council IDd vessel doing so without the consent of TAZ or CR, respectively, but I assume they wouldn't mind us enforcing the other three lines. In any case this would cause diplomatic issues, I would like to have it solved inRP. Any comments on it by the relevant factions are welcome.
Regarding our ID:
- Can demand contraband, levy fines, and destroy ships if they refuse to comply with contraband demands, refuse to cooperate or are belonging to a house or organisation at war with the Council within their Zone of Influence.
- Can escort traders within their Zone of Influence.
- Can hunt pirates, terrorists and military enemies within their Zone of Influence.
- Can defend allied or neutral lawful ships and bases within Zone of Influence
I do not intend to enforce the first line within Baffin or Coronado, nor would like to see anybody else flying a Council IDd vessel doing so without the consent of TAZ or CR, respectively, but I assume they wouldn't mind us enforcing the other three lines. In any case this would cause diplomatic issues, I would like to have it solved inRP. Any comments on it by the relevant factions are welcome.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Jack_Henderson - 05-14-2013
(05-14-2013, 08:03 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote:Quote:Get rid of all the "May treat as combat target" lines in ALL IDs. Not give even more people that line!Get rid of it, and transports end up hiding behind the "must make a demand" rule ("You can't shoot me yet, you've not made a demand. I'mma go on full thruster to the nearest base while you type, k?"), which they often abuse to get away (don't deny it Jack, I've been in convoys with you). Keep it and you end up with a "Ohai, nau dai." style of roleplay. It's just the side that abuses the mechanic that changes. Which makes me lean towards the "less rules" way. But, I'm open to other player opinions about this.
Not true on many counts.
1) You have not flown convoys with me for a LONG time.
2) Attackers CAN shoot you BEFORE they make a demand. There is nothing like that exploit you mentioned. They cannot destroy you. So they do not even lose a second if they choose to.
3) If you do not stop in your transport but thrust away (as you descibed), the attacker can kill you anyway without a demand. See the rule change.
Multiple mistakes in that argument of yours, sorry.
Rule 6.6 is important.
It guarantees a small chance of a non-pvp solution for the traget that has no chance in pvp anyway.
It also guaratees something like a "minimum roleplay", in which you can actually say at least one sentence.
Try not to think about well armored convoys, teamspeak backed, with scouts, etc... they can deal with it.
Think about the solo indie trying to mine in T23 on IMG, or OC BWT beginner that smuggles Cardi, or DHC miner in O11, or GMG miner ... they will all get this famous line of rp a lot:
"You are my enemy"
"Die!"
And you see that these are mainly the players that...
> ...still need the money to participate on equal terms with the others
> ...are still hurt when they lose money.
> ...should learn roleplay and not frustration tolerance and where the respawn button is
This is not a good call.
Let's not reduce the quality of interaction even further.
I seriously request this line to be dropped from all IDs.
Beloved pirates if you want to pew, you already know how to do it.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - Lobster - 05-14-2013
If BDM cruiser-spam is the issue, please just put a line in all the intel IDs saying that cruisers are restricted to the omicrons and edge worlds for exploration. I strongly protest leaving them out all-together.
The reason for removing cruisers, to balance the ZoI with ship choice, is a fallacy. The BDM and the LSF are the only active intel factions. This is due to their members and leadership, not just the ID. It is also only a fluke that the BDM is more active then the RM at the moment. This is due to RM leadership and members, again. BIS and Kempeti are dead while their navies thrive. The attractiveness of the ID isnt an issue.
Seriously though, I am fine with banning intel factions using cruisers for piracy. It is the omicrons and beyond that concern me.
RE: Proposal: ID changes for 4.87 - AeternusDoleo - 05-14-2013
Quote:1.) I didn't see a clause in the GRN ID that allowed us to attack anyone at war with us. Did I just misread something? I just wanna make sure it's clarified.Read the first line a bit closer
Quote:2..) Intel Factions losing cruisers. That doesn't really make sense? Or was the line just accidentally left out? Some Intel Factions (Like the =LSF=) Use one or two cruisers, and it would be a shame to lose such things that have been a part of the faction for a long time.There's no reason for those to have cruisers in my opinion. Not if their license to hit foreign shipping is Siriuswide. The wider your ZoI and things to do, the smaller your arsenal. That's how I tried to balance the attractiveness of each ID. Besides, how the hell are you covert in a warship when a foreign nation catches on. That's not something your government can explain away...
Quote:3.) The Order's caps still restricted to the Omicrons. Is there any reason for that to really continue? It's just useless at this point.
3b.) Also, adding cardimine and slaves to our contraband list? Hurting the Outcast Trade hurts the Outcasts, no? So like...please?
Order is anti-Nomad, not anti-Outcast. Stick to your role in the game. Plenty of other factions that are stomping on the Outcasts already... Cardi and Slaves aren't Nomad tech, and Order isn't the Omicron Police.
Quote:4.) Where's the SCRA ID :|Good question. I didn't find that ID in the infocard source file. It might be one of the overridden player faction IDs. Expect it to be similar to the Coalition one, but with a wider ZoI.
Quote:Speaking as leader of XA, we actually like freelancer shippers that are Libertonian moreso than the Liberty corporations with the exception of USI who we would gladly bear children with. Also, you forgot to add Bombers to the allowed ships, unless that was intentional.Bombers are considered Fighters, they're on none of the IDs. Just as Liners are considered Transports, and Battlecruisers/Destroyers are Cruisers. Keeps things somewhat simpler. As for who you like on XA - There's no way to tell by ID if a Freelancer is roleplaying a Liberty character or a foreign one. Figured this was the next best thing. If you can thing of a better wording, feel free to suggest it.
Quote:In 4.87 Kusari found itself having no wars with other Houses which rendered the opportunity to harass any other House useless. I believe this line needs a different wording to avoid such issues in the future. Let's say:Good idea on the line between quotes there. It is what I meant it to say, but your wording is a lot better. That can go on all lawful IDs with a similar line. As for the area of operations: Most factions get more allowances in their main area of operations (for the house intelligence organisations that means acting as Military inside their house space, and the ability to act as Privateers outside it).
"Houses and organizations considered hostile by Kusari."
Same for the other Houses.
That applies to all IDs. Dealing with players is more fun than dealing with rules limitations. Also, increase zones of operations, people don't love to be locked inbetween the walls.
Quote:Get rid of all the "May treat as combat target" lines in ALL IDs. Not give even more people that line!Get rid of it, and transports end up hiding behind the "must make a demand" rule ("You can't shoot me yet, you've not made a demand. I'mma go on full thruster to the nearest base while you type, k?"), which they often abuse to get away (don't deny it Jack, I've been in convoys with you
). Keep it and you end up with a "Ohai, nau dai." style of roleplay. It's just the side that abuses the mechanic that changes. Which makes me lean towards the "less rules" way. But, I'm open to other player opinions about this.Quote:I suggest dropping Kruger/Daumann from no-dock/piracy list, yes inRP Daumann and Krugers are competitors, what doesn't change fact factions may be interested in cooperation, especially against hessians or IMG, as even Disco history shows as I heard. Currently Kruger and Daumann IDs aren't rephacked to each other, and it allows flexible diplomacy in the gameplay.It was my understanding that in lore Kruger is leaning towards ALG in an attempt to form a stronger competition against Daumann. Dropping the nodock will cause Kruger diamond miners to start using Solarius for instance - is that what you want? The piracy line I'm indifferent about - but if it goes, it goes completely, for all mining factions - they can use mercenaries instead of doing the dirty themselves then.
Quote:EDIT: Right, we would also like to have our own ID description written and submitted by us.I'm open to suggestions, but keep in mind that ALL corporate IDs follow largely the same lines, and Daumann will be no exception. That's how things are kept fair between the corporate factions. Feel free to post a rewritten suggestion.
Quote:LSF ID Wrote:- Can hunt Military pilots of houses Liberty is at war with within and outside their Zone of Influence.That is the intent. But I admit the wording isn't very good. Maybe "Can hunt Police and Military ships of houses and organisations considered hostile..." is a better way to put this. It also fixes:
Do Police and Intelligence faction pilots of hostile Houses fall under this as well? Because I think it would make sense.
Quote:Order ID Wrote:- Can hunt Wild, Nomad, Outcasts, BHG, Core, LSF, MND, Kempeitai and BIS.
It would make sense if the intelligence factions could retaliate and hunt the Order everywhere, I guess.
Quote:Any Intelligence Faction ID Wrote:Allowed ships: Fighters, Freighters, Transports, GunboatsReason for this is the freedom put on the ID, in conjunction with groups of MULTIPLE cruisers doing cargo piracy WAY outside their primary ZoI that has been observed in game. The intelligence ID isn't a siriuswide license to take a capital fleet anywhere. Of course, it's possible to SRP specific ships to serve specific functions - I could very well see the occasional cruiser or carrier serving as a launchpoint for specific missions. Just not for muscle - intelligence services don't generally rely on muscle, but surgical strikes (or hired muscle).
It seems that the cruisers were excluded from the list. I can see the intent here (the IDs have become a bit more flexible and clear; plus, it'd prevent House Intelligence cruisers roaming around hostile space and cargo-pirating hostile corporations). Of course, it'd be sad to lose access to the ships we've had for a while (like =LSF=Mount.Iliamna, which has existed for as long as I can remember).
Hmm... maybe waiving the "cannot ally with any unlawfuls..." might be a good idea on those. Allows them to go down and dirty with hired unlawful muscle.
Quote:"Can hunt pirates and terrorists within their Zone of Influence."Yes, corporations (primarily convoy escorts) should be able to preemptively attack unlawfuls at will within their own houses. Lawfuls allowed to shoot unlawfuls on their own turf, and vice-versa. DSE, Ageira and Interspace have a bone to pick with the Lane Hackers, so they should be able to go after those anywhere.
So what this is saying is that the corporation fighters can hunt any pirates in their zoi, rather like the navy and police can? This sure does make defending our convoys, mining groups and space easier. But was this definately intentional? Also I see prexisting lines for killing fighters is now slightly changed. For example the DSE ID has the above line, which it didn't before and still has the
"Can hunt Lane Hackers outside their Zone of Influence."
I suppose this is too clarify that we can hunt these enemies anywhere as before?
Quote:Rogue Zone of Influence: Liberty and independent systems directly bordering Liberty, ShikokuHonestly? I don't think so. It was a nice experiment for a while, but it really doesn't make much sense for LIBERTY rogues to go park their Barghest in New Tokyo. None of the natives are particulary friendly to them there... not even the GC.
Shouldn't New Tokyo be in the zoi (without cruisers)
EDIT: Also the Rogue ID misses out Humbolt (and Kansas?) which it currently does anyways.
Good call on Kansas and Humboldt. Will fix that.
Quote:Brigand Zone of Influence: Gallia, Gallic Borderworlds, TausKyushu, yes. New Tokyo, not so much. Again, not that many friendly natives, so no way to base yourself out of anywhere in New Tokyo. KNF is in peacetime, and rebuilding, so Kusari military strength is on the rise.
shouldn't they have Kyushu and New Tokyo? Due to this.
Quote: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:Good call. Will do this. Incidentally, the Bundies distinguish themselves by being allowed RheinMil equipment as I recall...
"- Cannot ally with any lawfuls except with Rheinland lawfuls against Liberty lawfuls."
And ask it to be changed, to:
"- Cannot ally with any lawfuls except with Liberty lawfuls against Rheinland lawfuls."
My reasons for that request involve the pre-4.86 backstory written by Igiss; for the Bundschuh...
Quote:I am curious about the BHG going after lawful and unlawful targets now, but I am guessing that is just them being able to go after Gallia or something.If they abuse this, the Houses themselves will kick them out. But they are mercenaries, they follow the money. Agmen indicated they were intending to go after Gallia, so yea, that's the primary reason the "can shoot lawfuls if bountied" is on there. How the BHG official faction intends to keep their indies in check on this, is their perogative (one that I suppose will involve Buckshot negotiations).
Quote:Couldn't help but notice the cargo limitations on Naval ID's are back, is this a hint of things to come or just an oversight?All Naval IDs allow their house's armed transport, but not the 5K Supertrain. Those remain the perogative of the house haulers. Naval IDs are not trader IDs.
Quote:how about a list of allies under ZOI or allowed ships. I realize that the allies section might change over time but for some factions (corsairs for example) it is kind of a big deal, as there are certain factions they should not pirate. obviously official factions dont really need it but the indies do and im sure it will stop a lot of headaches besides any allies list changes can always be modified through server commands right? Or is that only for minor changes?IDs can be updated at runtime, yes, but we prefer not to do that. Given the rapid changes in diplomacy on many factions, posting a list of Allies and Enemies on the ID isn't really viable. I've tried to put the main ones in the description, but that's about it.
Quote:Why was the cargo limit put down? That won't make it easier for us, but also "AI's are fully selfaware and autonomous, and not under the control of any other faction.", that is not right. There are many factionless AIs, but also factions. Like the Consensus.AIs are not a trader faction. They are therefor on par with Freelancers when it comes to trading, which means 3600 cargo limitation. The Consensus I believe is an AI faction. I can clarify this to "of any human faction." It is meant to prevent the "Bleep. Bounty Hunter Automated Unit 443, now receiving Corsair target. Firing." style of roleplay. Which is not AI behaviour since there's no intelligence behind that, just automation. AIs are fully sentient and unshackled, and should be roleplayed as such.
Nothing prevents players from playing a shackled automated unit on another ID. SCRA had one for quite a while, CERES or something I believe.
Quote:- Can attack pirates, terrorists and lawfuls in self-defense, to protect an allied or neutral ship, or in defense of Zoner bases.Good point - the Zoners having caps and being neutral to virtually anyone proves to be a bloody nightmare yet again. To prevent abuse it'll have to be tuned down to "... to protect another Zoner ship..."
I wonder myself what allies? (only Order and GMG if i am not mistaken.) also the neutral ships. Like? all other non rephacked? I would change it back that like you could do in the past only defend your own. As i see how it goes already in the omicrons this only provokes 1 order and a huge zoner cap fleet. the order attacks BHG or nomad and a whole group shoots. If thats the case then well. Zoners are indeed a militairy force from the next version.
But that doesn't even give them the ability to cover supply ships heading for their freeports, other then their own.
Quote:Sorry to bother, but may I ask why the Core cannot hunt Nomads, Wilde and Order everywhere in Sirius like Order does? Core also fight the Nomad threat, even if their goals are not so noble.Good point. That proposed ID needs some tuning, Core and Order need the same playing field where hunting Nommies is concerned.
Order is understandable, but Wilde and Nomads? Though, now that I think, Order is free to hunt Core, why are we not allowed to do the same?
Quote: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.Double whoopsie. I'll fix those.
============================================
Quote:On behalf of the AI Consensus, the largest AI faction, I want to ask you to change the cargo limitation on the AI ID 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.Oopsie on the grammar issue. Will fix.
And also I want to notify you of the grammar mistake you did.
- Cannot not attack transports and freighters, except in selfdefense.
On the Liner: SRP would be the best way to go about it. It is an unique ship with a specific role - although I'm confused as to why a nonhuman faction would need a human luxuary passenger transport. For carrier purposes the Prison Liner or Pilgrim Liner works just as well.
On the Akegatas: AI ID has NO ZoI limitations and NO rephacks to lawful or unlawful bases. It is a neutral-to-all open ID for traders. Unless that changes, I do not believe they deserve more then the Freelancer ID.
Quote: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.No, instead we get swathes of Hessian Battleships in Sigma-13 and Cambridge (sarcasm intended). Or Legates in New Tokyo. Or Kusari Dreads in Colorado. Specifying the ZoI clearly on the ID prevents these excesses, and also allows us to change the ZoI for specific events (if Liberty starts to help Bretonia out, the LN ID could be expanded to include Bretonia for instance).
Quote:Council's first line hasn't been changed, being copied from the Kusari Exiles ID.Copied what needs fixing and will be fixed.
MND line is copied from LSF
Mollys with a Y
Chrysanthemums with a TH
Kishiro can actively hunt BD and GC, instead of Hogosha outside their influence?
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.
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?
Unioners lose Texas from their ZoI?
Outcasts have no ZoI in Gallia, not even Lorraine where they have a base?
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.
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.
BMM only have Omega-3, could they (and Bowex) have O-49 added too, for Gran Canaria/Planet Sydney RP?
Quote:Also GC can no longer dock on IC bases, that's shame.What gave you that idea? If not covered by rephack, dock at will. It doesn't need to be on the ID anymore.
Quote:Obviously, I dont agree with limiting intel factions to gunboats and below. We in the BDM have a lot of roleplay invested in cruisers exporting the omicrons . It would make no sense to do that in a snub who's range would be extremely defecent, unable to reach the omicrons. I am sure our friends BIS, LSF, and Kempeti would only be adversely affected by such restrictions as well.That is not an intelligence operation, but a fullblown military expedition. That is something that -should- be handled by the RM, not the MND. If you need a baseship, SRP an Elbe for that purpose. Perfectly valid to have one of those on the MND.
Quote:Okay, what I like:Check.
Killing all the things in Alaska that don't belong. This has been in RP law for a long time, though there's been some issue about whether or not Alaska fell under the "Guard System" rules or not. This makes it clear that if they're not welcome they die. Can we add being within the Zone 21 minefield explicitly as well?
Quote:Things I don't like:And the purpose of Universal Shipping as a house shipper is what exactly? No. Military should not get the full package on transports. House Militaries should contract out those supply runs to the house shippers. If that's not possible due to security concerns, then logistics get more complicated.
That last line about transports. That kind of kills at least one shared LLS Mastodon, and I know the SFC| have some Tankers as well they use for supplying Melbourne. Can we either drop this line or switch it up to support using Liberty Civilian Transports if it's over that limit?
Keep in mind that an official faction can use an FR5 to increase the rep of specific characters as well (IE if you need to have specific USI ships have positive LN Guard rep, that'd be available through FR5).
Quote:Things I'd add:I'm not sure that's on the table yet. But if that happens/will happen, an on-the-fly adjustment to the ID can be done to expand the ZoI and to-shoot list.
With things going as they go in .87, I'm not certain the Rheinland portion will be as entirely relevant anymore, but it'll be good to still have that option. Still, it's pretty much ingame RP at this point that Liberty is at war with Gallia in aid of Bretonia. Can we have that included in the infocard and perhaps expand the ZoI to portions of Bretonia relevant to the war?
Quote:General note:I was thinking of that myself earlier. With the jump gates between Hamburg and Bering/Hudson blown big ships won't be able to get across anymore anyway, which should focus the cap war in New Hampshire. There's no need to push all the way into Texas or Hamburg anymore, at least, not yet.
I just realized that the "Can hunt pirates, terrorists and military enemies within their Zone of Influence." line seems to restrict attacking military enemies to border systems only. I.E. Lib ships can't enter Hamburg to shoot RM ships and vice versa for them into Texas. Should military targets be a separate line entirely given the nature of war? I suggest this as a matter of military IDs in general.
Quote:2.) Then what's the point of the LSF's recon cruiser, the stationary one in Ellesmere?Eyecandy? The thing isn't flyable anyway.
Quote:3.) You never answered my question about Order caps. Only the cardi/slaves one.If the Order wants to use battleboats siriuswide, Order| can request a player ID just like the K'Hara faction. So that the faction can be held accountable for inappropriate use of that privilege.
Quote:Btw, you forgot about GMG in the OC "may treat" line, and about Kishiro in BD/GC "may treat". Dragons don't like Kishiro because they didn't make promised changes after long period of Samura rule, they didn't restore monarchy with Hideyoshi dynasty. GC consider them no different than opressive Samura because they didn't introduce matriarchy, Chrysanthemums consider changes in the Kusari policy and society under new Kishiro leadership to be only cosmetic; in fact Kusari society still is opressive for women and man-centric.
Also, looks like Hacker ID lacks DSE in "may treat". Hackers target business concerning jumpgates and tradelanes.
Some good points.
Quote:(various complaints about systems not included in the ZoI
I guess I'm going to have to post a map of what's what in the next mod version. Rousillion and Baffin are considered Tau systems. Saar and Cayman are considered an Omega systems. Tau-117 is renamed to Drake but becomes an Independent world (between Bretonia and Liberty more then between Liberty and Kusari). I'll grab that map I made and will draw some colors to show what's what.