Government Roleplay And Transport Rework Feedback

[Ashyur]

To be honest, why is it so important for lawfuls to be able to destroy a smuggler’s ship? Multiple smuggling offenses could easily be met with an FR3 with the appropriate evidence.

you have a limit of how many violation reports you can fill in x time, why should you need admin help to stop a player in 1-2 months after an in-game interaction happens?

If I don't want to wait that long, I should be able to stop a player with a fighter or bomber because I can't fly capital ships on my police ID. How can I do that?
(nodock is something we asked for a long time...)


You started to buff the traders so they could no longer be popped by a fighter or bomber in every scenario. Most pirates started to either fly caps (OC & Corsairs) or just not log in anymore because it's not effective on their ID to combat it. Now you try to buff traders so they can fight caps, but that means lawful or unlawful can no longer play their role. What's left to do in the game anymore? Just trade???

freelancer is a game that doesn't benefit from every ship class being able to fight any other player they meet, the economy should not be balanced either because we don't have the numbers, instead be used as a tool to bring players together, and have fun interacting, you have failed because balance is not what the games and the community needs to survive (at 20 players it is surviving, isn't it ?)

[Lord Helmchen]

Also, the Fear that I have is that we soon need Licenses for Traders because the weapons they have can Smoke Navy Fighters and Bombers and even Gunboats in Combat and can even escape from Cruisers when they do a Combat Dock.

And while I am a Trader Pilot I have to say that I would love to have an Orbital Spa and Cruise Q-Ship or a Battleliner similar to the Amaterasu. But i also believe that they should be Balanced and not Rival Real Naval vessels.

---

---

Orbital Spa and Cruise

---

<> Information <> Recruitment <> Bounty Board <>

[Amba]

You started to buff the traders so they could no longer be popped by a fighter or bomber in every scenario. Most pirates started to either fly caps (OC & Corsairs) or just not log in anymore because it's not effective on their ID to combat it. Now you try to buff traders so they can fight caps, but that means lawful or unlawful can no longer play their role. What's left to do in the game anymore? Just trade???
[/color]

Personally the reason I started playing my unlawfuls less is I'd always get counter-logged by 2-3x the number of lawfuls and ganked to shit and the player count usually being too low leading to piracy being just sitting for 20 mins at a time waiting for a hit. At least unlawful sell points for commodities aren't atrocious these days

[Seapanda]

You started to buff the traders so they could no longer be popped by a fighter or bomber in every scenario. Most pirates started to either fly caps (OC & Corsairs) or just not log in anymore because it's not effective on their ID to combat it. Now you try to buff traders so they can fight caps, but that means lawful or unlawful can no longer play their role. What's left to do in the game anymore? Just trade???
[/color]

Personally the reason I started playing my unlawfuls less is I'd always get counter-logged by 2-3x the number of lawfuls and ganked to shit and the player count usually being too low leading to piracy being just sitting for 20 mins at a time waiting for a hit. At least unlawful sell points for commodities aren't atrocious these days

Let's just all join Auxo lol

I'd love playing more unlawfuls/pirates, but outside of DTR, it's somewhat difficult to find people to just do random pve/pvp stuff that isn't outright raiding.

[Prysin]

@Petitioner I get what you're saying, but I'd think anyone driving an APC to work would raise some massive news-worthy eyebrows. In any case, my overall point still stands: if the Bulwark shouldn't be restricted, then no Cruiser should be either.

As @Lord Caedus said, it wouldn't really raise any eyebrows if the driver was at risk of getting carjacked, having their work supplies or valuable cargo stolen, getting murdered on live TV for propagandistic purposes, and having their life insurance policies voided due to some quirk of their corporate contract (all of which applies to any corporate employee who operates in space infested by groups like, to use your own example, the Unioners). In fact it's pretty normal under those circumstances (see the "Commercial Demand" section of this article). Police state or no, Rheinland, like every other house, has a major problem with not only piracy but domestic and international terrorism, and as such the use of almost-military-grade vehicles like frigates, the Longhorn, and the Bulwark is indisputably completely appropriate for civilian actors when civilian actors IRL in similar conditions use actually-military-grade vehicles for the same purpose.

Once again, if you disagree, tell [RM] to log and start patrolling the lanes. Otherwise, you (here meaning Rheingov) are effectively just indiscriminately griefing traders and should be treated like a griefer (ie, told to not do that by the staff team).

all those issues, can be dealt with by.... hiring a escort or two.

but imagine sharing profits with someone. Dear god, imagine the blasphemy.

---

DHC Discord

[Culbrelai]

Escorts are not realistic. They were barely realistic when it was 255/255. It's a boring job that has significant opportunity costs, in that you could be trading yourself and making much more money. So the transport buffs are good and these house bans need to straight up not be allowed. Banning the recurring payments is a good start. Bustard should be allowed to be banned though since that's actually a viable capital ship (see Antonio soloing a Sarissa)

---

#NotMySNAC

[Ashyur]

Escorts are not realistic. They were barely realistic when it was 255/255. It's a boring job that has significant opportunity costs, in that you could be trading yourself and making much more money. So the transport buffs are good and these house bans need to straight up not be allowed. Banning the recurring payments is a good start. Bustard should be allowed to be banned though since that's actually a viable capital ship (see Antonio soloing a Sarissa)

that's just Antonio he's good in anything with a turret steer I bet ?

yes, at 20 players finding escorts it's impossible, especially since traders are trying to do as much profit with as little risk as possible (which this new rework gives )

[Antonio]

To me, the cut-off is pretty simple. If a ship can challenge a reasonable cruiser player in the course of an INRP contraband scan stop, it must be restricted. And I don't mean run away (which for example a freighter can easily do). I mean take on the cruiser in combat and force it to retreat.

Are you going to continue restricting every transport that gets reworked, even after majority of them get the same treatment? Just because a ship on paper has high firepower, it doesn't mean the ship is actually good. You didn't restrict the Hegemon or the Barge, why? Likely because those are smaller threats than a single gunboat, which are also legal. Despite the Hegemon having massive guns and hull, it still is a non threat. The same goes for the reworked transports. They all have purposefully-designed drawbacks so that they are not going to be a bigger threat than a competent gunboat player. Not only is it not sustainable as more transports get reworked, it doesn't have proper PvP backing either.

Rheingov has a pretty simple decision making process for requests: how much RP was invested in making the request? And, is the request reasonable within a house which is essentially a police state? Note the order of the decision making - if barely any rp was invested, the app is not considered further. If rp was invested, the app is considered within the general context of current house policy.
So if you are salty about your license app getting denied, first ask yourself: did you contact RFP, RM, or MND with your request? Did you attempt to have them make the app on your behalf because it would be beneficial for those factions, or to the military benefit of Rheinland? Alternatively, did you contact DHC or Kruger to ensure that you're not competing with their operations? Did you provide them with a reason why your request would be beneficial to those factions, or to the economic benefit of Rheinland?
If you answer no to any of the above, please tell me why your app should be accepted? Why should a House government give you what you're asking when you've made no inroads into becoming a known entity within the House? Why should you get the benefit of your request while providing no benefits (or even active competition or security concerns) to existing House factions?

Laws are there for a reason. Exemptions should never be granted "because i would like one". It doesnt work that way iRL, it doesnt work that way logically, and it shouldnt work that way in disco.

We are ROLEPLAYING, meaning here, we shall act as if we were doing this as a iRL job. Otherwise whats the point. Just toss the roleplay out and do what you want. Engage silently. Shoot whomever. Just play how you want. But i know you yourself would bemoan such a situation more then anyone, because you know what a mess it would turn into.

As for the transports themselves, perhaps some further transparency and patch notes in the intention of transports going forward would make people less inclined to restrict them right away. But god forbid transparency.

You're both missing the point that has been brought up a few times already - this isn't real life. We make gameplay concessions that "break" real life/roleplay immersion on a daily basis, literally everywhere.

To name a few:

• We pretend characters are not dead upon ship destruction, and can show up in the same place with the same ship an hour later even if it's a battleship, despite being "immersion breaking" and devoid of real life logic.
  
• 20 Jormungandrs shooting New Berlin's docking ring doesn't mean that Rheinland is doomed, or that Hessians are stronger than Rheinland inRP. Player assets are irrelevant in lore, because open use makes them non-canon.
  
• Scale of bases, solars, ships fit depending on our need. We pretend Ouray is hidden inRP despite being 10k from lanes. Or Kagoshima not even trying to hide itself inside the dust field in Kyushu. Why doesn't Kusari just come and blow it up? Are they stupid? Planet and sun sizes are laughable. The O-41 neutron star might just be the only properly-scaled solar in the whole game. It wouldn't make sense in real life, yet we accept the gameplay concessions.
  
• You can't blow up any ship at will, and you have to type two lines of RP before shooting. Why? Why can't a pirate just silently blow up a hostile transport? In real life nothing would stop them from doing so. And they have to type lines on top of that? Doesn't make sense in real life.
  

Let's imagine we took just the first point seriously for a second. As "real life" and "realistic" as possible. The entire game would be different if characters and ships could permanently die. It's logical, right? Yet because it's a game we don't do it. We don't do any of the points I mentioned, and many more I'm sure you could find. The point being, roleplay and immersion can only justify so much before stepping out of the game bubble and realizing it's not real life, it's not fully logical, nor does it have to be. This doesn't mean you have to overthink every roleplay decision and overreact by saying "what's the point of roleplay if we're not fully logical like in real life?", it ain't deeper than thinking of the other side when making decisions, the one you're roleplaying with, which would go a long way. In roleplay via forum text comms, no different than fighting them in PvP, or talking to them in-game.

---

SNAC Montage Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Thruster SNAC

[Barrier]

You're both missing the point that has been brought up a few times already - this isn't real life. We make gameplay concessions that "break" real life/roleplay immersion on a daily basis, literally everywhere.

To name a few:

• We pretend characters are not dead upon ship destruction, and can show up in the same place with the same ship an hour later even if it's a battleship, despite being "immersion breaking" and devoid of real life logic.
  
• 20 Jormungandrs shooting New Berlin's docking ring doesn't mean that Rheinland is doomed, or that Hessians are stronger than Rheinland inRP. Player assets are irrelevant in lore, because open use makes them non-canon.
  
• Scale of bases, solars, ships fit depending on our need. We pretend Ouray is hidden inRP despite being 10k from lanes. Or Kagoshima not even trying to hide itself inside the dust field in Kyushu. Why doesn't Kusari just come and blow it up? Are they stupid? Planet and sun sizes are laughable. The O-41 neutron star might just be the only properly-scaled solar in the whole game. It wouldn't make sense in real life, yet we accept the gameplay concessions.
  
• You can't blow up any ship at will, and you have to type two lines of RP before shooting. Why? Why can't a pirate just silently blow up a hostile transport? In real life nothing would stop them from doing so. And they have to type lines on top of that? Doesn't make sense in real life.
  

Let's imagine we took just the first point seriously for a second. As "real life" and "realistic" as possible. The entire game would be different if characters and ships could permanently die. It's logical, right? Yet because it's a game we don't do it. We don't do any of the points I mentioned, and many more I'm sure you could find. The point being, roleplay and immersion can only justify so much before stepping out of the game bubble and realizing it's not real life, it's not fully logical, nor does it have to be. This doesn't mean you have to overthink every roleplay decision and overreact by saying "what's the point of roleplay if we're not fully logical like in real life?", it ain't deeper than thinking of the other side when making decisions, the one you're roleplaying with, which would go a long way. In roleplay via forum text comms, no different than fighting them in PvP, or talking to them in-game.

I understand very well that concessions need to be made. But the discussion here is where to draw the line. The best analogy I have for this is the SRP - you put in a big RP investment, and you get a big benefit in terms of your preferred gameplay.
With gov licenses, you put in the minimum amount of RP besides the application itself (e.g. a single comm to a Rheinland faction), and you get the gameplay benefit you're going for. In most cases, this benefit is barely significant, as 9/10 times you could do what you wanted without the license, by playing on another ID or using a different ship on your current id.

What it sounds like you're saying now is that the whole concept of gov licenses should be sacrificed as a gameplay concession. Because yes, I plan on restricting any ship that can threaten what I consider to be a reasonable military response - 1 cruiser (notice how the Longhorn wasn't restricted, but the Bulwark was). But if you say that this is unreasonable, then where do you draw the line?

What if I'm a junker who RPs as a arms dealer, and would like to haul weapons everywhere. Why should I have to fill out an app for that? Why can't I just peacefully trade my weapons through the houses?
Or I'm a Freelancer who likes exploring. Why am I not allowed in Thuringia? Isn't filling out an app to be able to enter restricted space impinging on my preferred gameplay?

Licenses to me are part of the INRP world, same as IDs. So if you gameify their acquisition, then you devalue the world. Would you do away with SRPs? If not, why not? Why is the cut-off for what we gameify right here, with these ships, and not say the Bustard or the Amaterasu? To me the whole point behind restricting anything behind "RP cost" is to encourage people to actually work towards something INRP, and do it well. Because yes, other type of RP is possible if people were to acquire any ship or weapon combo they wanted, but would its quality hold up?

I'm not claiming I have the right answer to the above, but this is a decision staff need to make about these licenses. And for now, I'll lean towards the more "gatekeepey" side of RP requirements, as there's plenty you can do without in the game without investing that effort.

[Valdorel]

Intrigued by the proposed reworks, agree that banning civiilian-use-focused transports en-masse would be silly.

More importantly though, just wanted to leave a +1 for the cool level of communication and between staff and the community on this.