Controlling NPC to attack hostiles.

[Muleo]

an abuse idea that I get is say a junker or whatever is mouthing off at the navy infront of manhattan

both the ship in question and say the LN are RP'ing it out

a low level indie navy comes up and issues the attack on the junker as a lib dreadnaught patrol flies by, and then docks on manhattan

Hmm that actually makes sense...
I guess one way to fix that would be to make another function which cancels out the /attack, say.. /neutral
So if an idiot indy /attacks said junker, the LN can easily /neutral him to cancel it out.

Another limitation could be to limit it to every.. 30 minutes? to prevent 1 guy from spamming it.

[Reverend Del]

You challenge me, eh? Nice way to go about business.

Let's start with my own recent proclamation as Liberty Rogue Leader forbidding GBs and larger, or in fact anything non-LR docking on Alcatraz. Suddenly that becomes enforceable with a command, when the general consesus was that it shouldn't be enforced.

Player A gets pirated by player B, Player A then decides that Player B's trader won't get to dock on his intended station next time Player B is trading.

Player C is a pissed off lawful, he decides to make up any RP excuse he can find to make the local bases hostile to anyone trying to land.

Player D has a friend Player E, Player D wants to kill a pirate that's run away, Player E logs onto his pirate of the same faction and makes the base hostile. Ergo the pirate has to flee further, doing it at the right time means that the pirate dies.

Hasving a command that can be abused in any number of creative and amusing fashions would require us to have even more rules against it's abuse. Which, I may point out, has been something complained of as late.

It's simpler not to have the system in the first place.

---

Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.

[Muleo]

Let's start with my own recent proclamation as Liberty Rogue Leader forbidding GBs and larger, or in fact anything non-LR docking on Alcatraz. Suddenly that becomes enforceable with a command, when the general consesus was that it shouldn't be enforced.

It doesn't work on your own factioned players, ie Rogues cant make Rogues hostile to Rogues.

Player A gets pirated by player B, Player A then decides that Player B's trader won't get to dock on his intended station next time Player B is trading.

It's not a .setrep, its more like forcing the victim to fire a CD at your npc, it's only temporary, and when a person F1s/docks/undocks it all resets.

Player C is a pissed off lawful, he decides to make up any RP excuse he can find to make the local bases hostile to anyone trying to land.

Like I said in the previous post, make it time dependent like the /renameme function so someone can't spam it.

Player D has a friend Player E, Player D wants to kill a pirate that's run away, Player E logs onto his pirate of the same faction and makes the base hostile. Ergo the pirate has to flee further, doing it at the right time means that the pirate dies.

It's distance dependent, 1. you need to be able to select him on radar, and 2. you need to be within 3k so that's quite hard to do. and back to the first point, you can't use it on your own faction

[kikatsu]

if this was EVER implemented, and they use the neutral command as you say, I think there could be glitches

the attack is given by a navy ship infront of manhattan, Navy, LPI, Ageira, Universal, Interspace, DSE and who knows what else responds to the hostile player and attacks them too

If you reset the Navy to neutral, would they just not go straight back to hostile when seeing that their allies are reacting violently towards the offender?

basically

navy=hostile....navy-> makes allies hostile... navy=neutral.... navy-> hostile (due to relations to LPI and companies)

[Reverend Del]

I can't do it on other Rogues, fine but I can do it to all Hackers, and Outcasts.

You're thinking very small. +Imagine you are a vindictive bastard, now stalk said player using that command every time he tries to dock.

What if the player making the rep undocks from the base the pirate is hostile to.

I can come up with those of the top of my head. Folks are finding new and creative ways to break the same rules time and time again. Let's not give them more opportunities.


Add to that a very selfish reason for wanting this command never even contemplated again. First few weeks of this command could easily make half the Admin team quit through overwork.

"He abused the command"
x 30

"I was about to type the command when..."
x 30

I would use impolite words regarding that workload but I have to have standards.

---

Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.

[Muleo]

if this was EVER implemented, and they use the neutral command as you say, I think there could be glitches

the attack is given by a navy ship infront of manhattan, Navy, LPI, Ageira, Universal, Interspace, DSE and who knows what else responds to the hostile player and attacks them too

If you reset the Navy to neutral, would they just not go straight back to hostile when seeing that their allies are reacting violently towards the offender?

basically

navy=hostile....navy-> makes allies hostile... navy=neutral.... navy-> hostile (due to relations to LPI and companies)

Hmm yeah that could be a problem, I'm not 100% sure how NPC diplomacy aggro works on Freelancer, so I'd have to leave that to someone with more knowledge than me to answer.

I can't do it on other Rogues, fine but I can do it to all Hackers, and Outcasts.

To be honest, I don't see why not. If Hackers and Outcasts dock on Alcatraz in caps does LR attack them for breaking the rule? If so, why not set the NPCs loose on them too?

You're thinking very small. +Imagine you are a vindictive bastard, now stalk said player using that command every time he tries to dock.

What if the player making the rep undocks from the base the pirate is hostile to.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean there, could you specify further?

Add to that a very selfish reason for wanting this command never even contemplated again. First few weeks of this command could easily make half the Admin team quit through overwork.
"He abused the command"
x 30
"I was about to type the command when..."
x 30
I would use impolite words regarding that workload but I have to have standards.

Yea that's the main obstacle here.. If it becomes too abused/complained about, then it'll just have to be gotten rid of. But I'm hoping the majority of people aren't idiots, and see this function as more good than bad to the server and just enjoy it. One can always hope.

[kikatsu]

It looks like we are probably going to just have to trust people to properly fix their reputations

(we are totally doomed)

[Armageddon]

I can see the good and bad sides of such a system.

YAY:

It stops people making themselves neutral to you so they can shoot you
Stops people who shouldnt dock on your base from doing so.
Gives a tactical advantage to people being in your system.

NAY:

Exploitable as shown previously
May have problems when multiple allied factions are involved as mentioned previously

Overall:

If the exploitability is taken out of it i would be a happy to use this command in battle.

[Reverend Del]

Mule, something which can be abused will be abused. Cynicism aside, good faith doesn't hold much water here.

The core community can be trusted, there's no argument, in the main, but a good 60% of our server population doesn't frequent these boards even after they get a sanction (if they ever do). It's some of those I worry about.

As for expanding on the comcept of stalking the player. I wait for Player B to undock on his trade route. I check his cargo and figure out where it's going. I log my char at his intended destination and when he comes to dock, I concoct some RP excuse to deny him the right to dock. Every base he tries I can have a disposable char ready to do the same trick again and again. In short I am abusing the system and so long as I'm using seperate FAM accounts I can do it to a less savvy person ad infinitum.

And pirate E in this case is a Rogue, the pirate being chased is a hacker. I can make the Rogue base hostile to the player as soon as he enters the apropriate range. If I'm really mean I'll do it just before he docks. Because that's how evil I am.

---

Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.

[Muleo]

As for expanding on the comcept of stalking the player. I wait for Player B to undock on his trade route. I check his cargo and figure out where it's going. I log my char at his intended destination and when he comes to dock, I concoct some RP excuse to deny him the right to dock. Every base he tries I can have a disposable char ready to do the same trick again and again. In short I am abusing the system and so long as I'm using seperate FAM accounts I can do it to a less savvy person ad infinitum.

Well he would only be able to do that if he had a proper RP reason to do it, much like how LN can't shoot a smuggler if he doesn't have contraband at the time they catch him, if you don't have definite proof, you can't kill or /attack a player. Any abuse would be reported, and sanctioned. Hopefully cases like this should be few and far between, if any happen at all..

I still think it's at least worth a shot though. It's an awesome tool which lets NPC be useful, and prevent quite a lot of oorp situations. The rules/sanctions regarding people docking on (should be) hostile bases, people attacking/pirating without being hostile to NPC, would all be null and void since players can force NPC/bases to attack someone. If the community does prove to be more stupid than smart, the function would really easily be disabled. If the bad outweighs the good, it's gone. So no harm done there.

And pirate E in this case is a Rogue, the pirate being chased is a hacker. I can make the Rogue base hostile to the player as soon as he enters the apropriate range. If I'm really mean I'll do it just before he docks. Because that's how evil I am.

I don't see anything wrong with that though:PIn RP a Rogue should be able to deny docking rights and order all Rogues to attack even an ally who's breaking the rogue headboss's orders right?