Rp though is fleixible and allows for creativity within server set boundaries.
I agree with Scornstar - its a RP stretch that i cant attack a train in my cruiser, there is NO real RP reason for that, you can argue as other players have, as to why would a pirate use or misuse a recourse like that - that is easy to RP around, for example:
He can afford it - He's a successful pirate, he also runs a lucrative smuggling business on the side (Completely in RP especially for Outcasts and Corsairs)
He can - and the greater cargo capacity and fuel capacity allows him to pirate more and stay out longer.
He can ask for a lot more money - he has more mouths to feed.
He can defend himself againts most threats (actually not true when you confront bombers but you get my drfit)
Now - thats just written in a minute without even thinking - but taking the opposite point is almost impossible to argue, unless you want to say that the admins are omnipotent beings who enforce the rule on mortals....
which is more of a stretch? meh - but anyway, PVP to me is way way secondary to RP (and i suck at it anyway!)
' Wrote:I prefer rules to be Rp based, and strictly so.
Rp though is fleixible and allows for creativity within server set boundaries.
I agree with Scornstar - its a RP stretch that i cant attack a train n my cruiser, there is NO real RP reason for that, you can argue as other players have, as to why would a pirate use or misuse a recourse like that - that is easy to RP around, for example:
He can afford it - He's a successful pirate, he also runs a lucrative smuggling business on the side (Completely in especially for Outcasts and Corsairs)
He can - and the greater cargo capacity and fuel capacity allows him to pirate more and stay out longer.
He can ask for a lot more money - he has more mouths to feed.
He can defend himself againts most threats (actually not true when you confront bombers but you get my drfit)
Now - thats just written in a minute without even thinking - but taking the opposite point is almost impossible to argue, unless you want to say that the admins are omnipotent beings who enforce the rule on mortals....
which is more of a stretch? meh - but anyway, PVP to me is way way secondary to RP (and i suck at it anyway!)
I've been going over the rules and the only thing the PvP rules need is some polish, in the main.
4 hour rule: For death this makes perfect RP sense, but it also serves the function of preventing hot-headed folks going in for revenge killing. Without it there'd be no mechanism for punishing those folks who just want to make other folks live's a misery. For fleeing it's not so clear cut in RP, but if you run away from a fight, why would you want to return? You've fled once, to my mind you should be wanting to lay low and avoid whatever it is you fled from. Sure tell your buddies to go deal with it. But you risk your enemy targeting you just to ensure they do the job properly this time, if you return. To my mind that's as good an RP justification as the rule needs. For PvP purposes it prevents folks running to dock and refuelling bots/bats just to prolong a fight. If someone runs off scanner range and returns you cannot proove whether he docked or not.
Cruising in combat rule: This one can become unclear depending on the circumsatnces but it still serves a fundamentally useful purpose. Cruising in combat can and would increase fight times by a huge amount, enough to not make them fun anymore. It is about PvP remaining fun and not being a burden on both parties.
Piracy in anything bigger than a gunboat: I like this rule and I'm not going to advocate it's removal anytime soon, in RP it makes sense why on earth would you pirate in something that can't run? Two fighters and a transport is far more cost effective and efficient. It has the firepower to defend itself, it's not easy prey for a bomber and has the manouevrability to turn tail and flee when the local law brings out the big guns. Which is what pirates should be doing. Pirates shouldn't be after Navy and police kills they should be after loot and cash.
The lawfuls doing it makes sense as well, as the Royal Navy has been known to capture smugglers in it's rather large and overpowered ships. At least compared to the smuggling vessels. Now Pirates asking for contraband according to them, e.g. Artifacts, Cardamine and allied pilots is different and I see no reason to not allow them to seize these things
Those are the rules I see a lot of folks have issue with I hope this helps.
Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.
Personally I think that it should be fine for any pirate to use a capship to pirate or kill a trader, but only within their own space. But the rules don't allow for that, so at the mo all that can be done is to lobby for a rule change. It doesn't affect me either way since I don't fly caps (apart from 1 gunboat).
Any capship present in hostile territory would get targetted by all the local "law enforcement", whoever that might be, and destroyed, or at the very least driven away with extreme prejudice. And there'd be no instant regeneration when blown up. So yes, anyone should be able to fly anything, anywhere, BUT if they do so they should have to buy a new ship, armour, shield, guns, etc etc every time they get destroyed.
Then PVP would truly be subject to RP. Capships would very rarely venture out of their own space. Until that time, certain checks and balances have to be enforced.
@ScornStar and Laowai - Yes it is an RP stretch that you can't attack a train in your cruiser, you'll get no argument from me there, but how happy would you be to have to go and buy a new ship every time you were destroyed? One of my characters does that. That's why he flies a fighter.
' Wrote:Well, it's not only a pvp thing which prevents cruisers and above from pirating, it's also a roleplay device. Why would a pirate cruiser, designed and built to take out other pirates and lawful response fleets, be wasting its time, energy/fuel to run after a trader? The pirates can just send their fighters off against that, which: a) aren't as imposing and dangerous to the lawfuls as a cruiser and b) aren't expensive to operate.
Why do many act like the bigger the ship the crapper the gas milage?
With naval ships the opisite is true. Bigger equals better power production, while smaller equals refuel requirements.
And when does cost stop law enforcement from sending helocopters to chase reckless drivers who refuse to pull over?
Or stop a tank from fireing on a SINGLE sniper position to help pinned infantry out?
Or a criuse missle for an assasination?
Or a 500 pound bomb dropped from a F 15 to take out a mortar position?
Sometimes cost takes a back seat to success.
Plus this is the future if our submarines can run for 20 years with out refuel, why would we believe that the criusers now get worse gas mileage than anything we use today?
Every player docks frequently enough to get refueled and not worry about it.
My question is what is a ship with no bathrooms kithchens or sleeping quarters doing operateing out in the far reaches of space for long time periods far from Capital ships, planets, tradelanes, or any sort of refuel point?
The answer is the PVP rules were balanced against a Robotech loveing focus group who love flying by the seat of your pants action and wanted capital ships in the back ground giveing them more explosive and satisfying targets.
The NPCs who are every bit apart of this game as we, seem to not have any problem fielding HUNDREDS of capital ships, i think one successful player could fund one and make enough money/goods of of pirateing to feed/pay his crew. What they dont have in pay they have in fresh female hostages. heck if they have to they can make thier own trader debris field and take what they need as they need it, until the bomber fleets come.
Cant take those liberties in a bomber. In fact an equal PVP rule to the criusers cant pirate is Bombers should not pirate.
Why would you take a bomber, clearly designed to kill caps and go pirate with it? You wont be able to do anything but mass murder if they dont pay. A criuser can at least beam tons of cargo up and stick around for ALOT longer.
Before anyone says "take a transport and have it on stand by." Those likely burn the same if not more fuel than the criusers. Compair transport ships from real life and you'll find they tend to have more tork to hual heavy loads and less milage than a destroyer.
Why would a pirate care about fairness? If they cared, they would be lawful. In most cases unless RPed as a aberent sort most unlawfuls are by default miscretant. Meaning selfish and violant. Meaning they might pirate a rhino in thier Dreadnaught because they can, at no risk, easy money.
Now easy money times 100 and you have profit. The bigger your ship the more BHG battleships that have to come kill you, since responce to gunboats now is battleships.
Plus the cap battles that would result might be fun, considering the houses seldom launch caps and if they do they are on guard duty next to a planet. The place fighters should be.
The USA for example we send our carriers our to patrol the oceans and leave our patrol boats state side.
Because carriers are more efficient and better equiped for a greater veriety of things, unlike fighters.
but we have it Bass Ackwards here. I think this reversal of role was placed for PVP fairness.
Fairness is the realm of competitve games like unreal tournement, or counter strike, or a PVP server.
RPers take thier positions and play thier role. I just hate haveing to say I cant buy a criuser to pirate because I'll suddenly not be able to as I watch fat trains roll on by with no fear. (RP? I think not)
Mean while Lawfuls can stop and destroy smugglers. (lawful pirateing)
So the fuel arguement is nil. The sporting argument is nil.
' Wrote:@ScornStar and Laowai - Yes it is an RP stretch that you can't attack a train in your cruiser, you'll get no argument from me there, but how happy would you be to have to go and buy a new ship every time you were destroyed? One of my characters does that. That's why he flies a fighter.
Kudos to you for taking the RP that far - Whenever my capship is killed (which is usually every time i take it into combat) i usually RP that it was "Crippled but salvageable" - which i consider perfectly reasonable. That being said, i usually do apply a little of what you're talking about - that ship will keep a low profile for a few days, maybe RP some engine tests (and failures) etc etc - i do this for myself as much as anything else, it helps keep a bit of the story in my own head going.
That being said - and i'd say this in answer to Del - I cannot see any RP reason that is not easily dismissable as to why a pirate cannot pirate in a cap ship - see my previous thread, i listed 4, that was just quickly. Granted, attacking a train when you're in a Cruiser IS overkill... but so is attacking a cruiser with 7 bombers.
In Rp, a pirate in a cruiser will see a target of opportunity and either choose to take it or not - and i believe they should have that right. Is it open to abuse? most definitly, but so are many things on this server (the nerfing of caps and the sheer dominance of supernovas for example) but thats why we have admins, and responsible players.
Being a manager myself, i know its an unfortunate reality that rules usually have to aim at the lowest common denominator - so we have to make a rule that says you cant pirate in a cap ship because.. well, idiots will come on and just fly around blowing up traders right?
Possibly - but it happens now anyway, with bombers and gunboats, who do the job just as easily, limiting it to gunboat size is quite token given the punishment bombers and gunboats can dish out. So this is where PVP rules would kick in i would say - Yes... pirate in your cap, but don't abuse it, because THAT is sanctionable.
Still - thats just my personal views. On another note - the unlawfuls in cap ships stopping "contraband" in trade ships that i did a poll on a while ago - I did actually send Igiss the Data and asked that it be ammended... wait and see on that one i guess.
Unnerf the caps and let them be used to thier fullest IE: criuse and make the same rebuy rule and you dont have to worry about those bombers killing you. It's only the criuse rule that makes the Capitals a target now.
The capitals dont need a buff they need to be unchained. The capital ships are supposed to be there as area control craft, but people want to nerf cap missle more, nerf cap guns, Nerf cap engagment rights, nerf cap regens. If we had compairable anti fighter weapons on our caps now in game to those we have in real life, nothing short of a squadron would even get close.
Doesnt it seem scewed that fighter class vessels can regen more, fly faster, hit harder, and have more allowable play scenarios than capital ship pilots? If these limitations existed in real life we would have no capital ships we'd just send our rubber assault rafts to enemy shores with there uber cannons that do more than the battle ship Missouri's 16" main guns.
The rules surrounding capital ships are neither fair or realistic.
But as is most factions shun capitals for bombers as they are the ubercraft with the biggest bang and the hardest to hit.
There are rules which are made purely for fairness, and quite a lot of the pvp rules are simply that. To promote fairness on the server. Although it is a roleplaying server, I don't really think people would like it if EVERY rule was based purely on roleplay only.
How many people would really play here if when you died, you had to either a) delete your character or b) start again from scratch? Sure, it's fine in RP, but it would just be so tedious that it'd drive people away. I surely wouldn't play if I had to work every time I was destroyed...
There is space for both rules which are based on roleplay, and those on fairness. I believe that unlawful faction capital ships - factionised, as outcasts/corsairs/mollies/hessians etc all have certain target enemies and commodities - should be able to destroy "contraband" that passes through their space. I believe that the bounty hunter id should be restricted, RP wise. However, i also believe that underlevels should be nutured and protected by pvp rules, as in roleplay they are still viable targets.
People haven't complained about the underlevels rule here, they have only focused on capital ships and unlawful-lawful imbalances. If you say one type of rule (ie pvp) is wrong, then the rest of therules in that category are under attack also - unless the complaint is not about the type of rule, but its targets.
Edit: as far as I understand, capital ships are only in this state because of the actions of the server in the past. While it might have an "epic" feel to see capitals blowing up everything left-right and centre, Freelancer is a fighter game whether you like it or not. I myself would rather it to be an Armoured Transport game personally, but I deal with what I am given. I've not been destroyed by swarms of oorp bombers nor capitals yet, but it doesn't matter to me.
Plus, certain real-life situations do not apply in freelancer. It doesn't matter if a nowadays Battleship can waste fighter craft coming at it, in the Freelancer universe, their weakness is bombers and small craft (campaign for example).
Rules that exist for playability are fine like no underlevel killing. Being able to respawn. Death = 4 hour system ban.
But not allowing a capital ships to be used by players who like them and Rp capital ship captain is hardly takeing the leap to perma death.
If perma death existed then think about the feelings towards caps then if bomber pilots get mad at haveing to face capitals that may come in responce to another being attacked?
Perma death is not a good reason to hold back Capital ships, its a different issue. However if caps were truely cap worthy then I'd say sure but it would be the strike craft pilots loseing out. As they would have to hope enough like minded people were playing to help them. As is now they need only one partner.
Most of us can get at least one partner to fly with.