+- 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: Engagment Rule Issue (/showthread.php?tid=10617)
Engagment Rule Issue - RickJames - 07-22-2008
So if the rules are read very carefully players with House Police/Military ID's can only attack others under the following conditions.
A Pirate.
A faction the Police/Military is at war with.
Carrying contraband and refuses to drop it.
Self defense.
In a player owned system of the Police/Military.
Biggest issue with me at the moment is Alaska Z21. Unless they meet one of those conditions there is really nothing the LSF/LN can do if the player is say a House Corp , a Zoner, a BHG member, a Merc, Bretonian, Kusari, even a Rheinland ship would be outside the rule since Liberty has not actually declared war on them yet.
It makes giving orders kind of pointless.
In most Houses if your asked to Halt and do not comply there are repercussion. But with the rule as it is....not much one can do. Long as the player is not a pirate, at war with me, has contraband, or attacks me...absolutely nothing I can do about it.
This also means all the player groups trying to manage their capships owned by Indies is illegal. If I have an Outcast Dread and Outcast ID and do not attack Outcasts or their allies, there is nothing the RoS or 101st can legally do about it. Attacking me would be against the rules.
They can not really declare war on me since I am in their faction.
Same with the 522nd. They carry LN ID. Long as the 522 does not attack LN or its allies. No liberty forces can attack them. And if the 522nd attacked LN or its Allies they would be rule breaking also.
It's just all kind of crazy.
Is this really how it is supposed to be?
I think that both persons RP should have much more of a bearing on PVP then the rules mention.
Houses should be able to enforce their secure areas from everyone not just their deadliest enemies.
Factions should be able to restrict and punish others of their faction for iresponsible actions and ship usage.
But at the moment those things appear to be against the rules.
Engagment Rule Issue - Jinx - 07-23-2008
well - you must not simply open fire anyway . - so if its about zone 21 - a lot of it is down to RP. - a serious roleplayer does not use that gate unless he is LSF or Navy anyway. no other faction has the abilities to pass the gate... fly in alaska ... yes - but not pass the alaska gate, - not without a serious reason AND a fully staged RP event.
so, those passing just to do some smuggling or hunting are ooRP, no matter who it is. - report them, ... really, its one of the most protected gates in the game - and really only those two factions have access, not even the hackers can use the gate - and the order / nomads need an event to pass it - they shouldn t use it for a regular / common hunting / ambush.
zoners shouldn t use it at all - and shouldn t really be in alaska, BHG should rather stick to hunting nomads but not pass zone - 21, the navy should only use alaska in an event, too - but at least can use the gate. - LSF can pass - especially when they get their ID, they must.
now - the rules..... the system is indeed not owned by anyone - and a player must not engage ( kos ) anyone .... but with appropriate RP before, he might engage - if the reasons are really down to RP and not to an urge to patronize someone or to simply fight.
kusari / rheinland ships would be engaged anyway. ( and i d wonder how they know about alaska at all ) - pirates should take the omega route or the tohoku route ( only lazy players take alaska if its for passing ) besides... no pirate knows about alaska - or knows more then the rumor that it might exist. - the hackers might know more ( guesswork ) - but they have no business there. the order are no pirates - and they live on the other side anyway.
but yes - the rules say so - and thats correct.. it prevents mindless pvp.
Engagment Rule Issue - RParade - 07-23-2008
On the example of Outcasts, that's a little inaccurate.
Outcasts are pirates who're raised in a civilization of drug trade, slavery, and war. Like many other unlawful factions, it is within bounds for an Outcast to attack other Outcasts. Just because you're wearing a Rogue, Lane Hacker, or Outcast tag that isn't to say that you'd be "immune" to these factions. All of them tend to be doublecrossing pirates, and seriously wouldn't think twice about killing you regardless of your origins if you gave them reason to do so. In some cases they probably wouldn't even need a reason, honestly.
As for the original topic, yeah. The PvP rules do need a little clarity in that department.
Engagment Rule Issue - Rudo - 07-23-2008
RE: ALASKA
![[Image: CG516_full.jpg]](http://karenskorner.netbrary/CG516_full.jpg)
I don't get what's so difficult to understand about this.
Engagment Rule Issue - kingvaillant - 07-23-2008
I love that picture XD
Neway, back on topic.
What I propose is:
Quote:6.7 All PvP/RP rules listed below in section 6 are void in the following situations:
- Self-defense - level 30 limit is not active;
- Attacker and defender belong to two NPC factions that are at war (Kusari vs Bretonia, Outcasts vs Corsairs, House vs local pirates) - level 30 limit is active;
- Attacker and defender belong to two server factions that are at war (officially declared) - level 30 limit is active.
- In systems belonging to server factions and in Connecticut - level 30 limit is not active;
6.14 Owners of Military/Police IDs have a right to attack:
- Pirates
- Traders ships carrying smuggled goods and refusing to drop them
-ADDEDPilots refusing to obey the laws established by the official factions ADDED(PS: also valid for ANY official factions, BHG, OC, etc)
Engagment Rule Issue - Stucuk - 07-23-2008
Admins arn't going to sanction Factions for RPing properly and not letting people get into Alaska. There also unlikley to sanction any Faction for upholding established laws in there area, unless the factions request is rearly OORP. So i don't see the need for any rule changes.
Engagment Rule Issue - Dab - 07-23-2008
' Wrote:6.14 Owners of Military/Police IDs have a right to attack:The bolded parts are what I added.. These should cover anything that should legitimately be allowed.
- Pirates
- Traders ships carrying smuggled goods and refusing to drop them
- Factions at war with the faction the ID belongs to
- On a justifiable RP basis
This would give the LN the ability to shoot violators in Zone-21 or Alaska.
Official factions would have the right to shoot indie capships that refuse to authorize their ships with the faction.
Faction role plays, such as civil wars. Like the 522nd vs LN.
Engagment Rule Issue - Stucuk - 07-23-2008
Quote:Official factions would have the right to shoot indie capships that refuse to authorize their ships with the faction.
Imo if someone can RP when a faction asks questions on how they got the capship then i don't see any problem. Its only people who can't RP that are a problem, and u can find a RP reason to kill them (Like they are not recognised by the military and will be considered a renegade ship).
Engagment Rule Issue - RickJames - 07-23-2008
' Wrote:The bolded parts are what I added.. These should cover anything that should legitimately be allowed.
This would give the LN the ability to shoot violators in Zone-21 or Alaska.
Official factions would have the right to shoot indie capships that refuse to authorize their ships with the faction.
Faction role plays, such as civil wars. Like the 522nd vs LN.
//Signed