Admin clarification needed: "may treat as combat target"

[jammi]

You saying once upon a time ago Gaian's had to demand money from Planetform, BD had to demand money from Samura, Hessiens had to demand money from Daumann, in spite of lore having been showing for years that they attack these groups for more idealisitic reasons and only recently they bagan doing otherwise because we added that line?

someone forgot Disco history

No, I'm remembering perfectly. All those factions have always had to issue a piracy demand before initiating combat. Always. Combat exception lines were written into the IDs either during .86 launch or one of the autoupdates - I forget which.

All that has changed recently is the addition of Hessian cruisers uncloaking next to Daumann mining ships, typing /l1, /l2 and opening fire and killing them instantly. Previously, this would have resulted in all of their guns falling off and their bank account springing a leak. Apparently, this is now approved and condoned behaviour.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Pavel]

Once again, I speak here from an ooRP, gameplay perspective, obviously inRP it all will keep happening all the time, odin NPCs killing Humpback NPCs etc, but it's nothing funny when your lone stork caught by 3 just decloaked cruisers is being blasted and your LF scout knows he can do nothing to save you. Rheinland (largely Daumann by meaning this, as Kruger's Dresden field is almost exhausted) is the sole producer of Diamonds in Sirius, inRP that Diamonds are Daumann's mining specialisation, gameplay-wise "may treat", especially now when caps can attack transports, makes Omega-11 impossible to mine in as Daumann during GMT peak hours. So we have mining system not used by lawful mining corporation, what lowers activity of that faction, pirate activity, and navy activity.

(...)
All that has changed recently is the addition of Hessian cruisers uncloaking next to Daumann mining ships, typing /l1, /l2 and opening fire and killing them instantly. Previously, this would have resulted in all of their guns falling off and their bank account springing a leak. Apparently, this is now approved and condoned behaviour.

That's EXACTLY what happens. In that situation it's a miracle DHC managed to be one of the more active factions.

[Veygaar]

I'm pretty sure "may treat as combat target" means that you can.... "treat them as a combat target."

Is English that hard?

---

Veygaar for Admin Moderator 2013!!!

[Pavel]

I'm pretty sure "may treat as combat target" means that you can.... "treat them as a combat target."

Is English that hard?

That's why I started this topic:

(...)
What is correlation between "may treat" and rule 6.6 ?

[Oystein Baadsvik]

Better yet, could just do away with the line altogether and force players to actually get imaginative. Also prevents set-message instagibbing of miners and transports, which can only be beneficial.

I definately think that "may treat as combat targets" line should stay. Disco is much more realistic now that pirates come destroy said factions without making demands, and that certain other factions can do the same. If anything a few more IDs need to have it included in a couple of circumstances.

"may treat as combat target" is one of the things that sets different pirate and trade factions apart making them more unique and much more interesting. Without it there's little difference between any pirate factions except what areas of space you find them in and the size of the official faction. These unique properties make it more interesting for both those flying as them and those against. For example if a Daumann craft is in Rheinland and they see a unioner, then no sweat, I can just LWB more thanthe average greedy pirate. Makes more RP sence and in my opinion improves gameplay.

Set messaging and killing instantly is a problem but as it is in any other case. I really think that the set messages should be removed entirely. With the rare exception of someone spamming a codename sale in system chat, the only use I have seen or can even think of for set messages, is to send engagement message without having to waste time typing it. If someone would explain another use for them that would be interesting.

Jammi, when someone issues demands they can be equally unimaginitive, 2Mil or Die is the new Disco catchphrase. Removing "may treat as combat target" will not force players to get more imaginative, however removing set messages system might do.

EDIT: Although I do understand how your example of the cloaking next to the miners is a problem. The problem with mining is that you stay in one area of space for a very long period of time and players will know exactly where you are, with a Tag advertising your presence it is even harder. Perhaps there should be some sort or excempt from miners then. I don't know how it would be done, but that is a single example where it does indeed backfire and significantly harm gameplay.

---

[Pavel]

@ Oystein

This is that kind of realism which kills activity, and fun from the game (well, at least for one side).

[SummerMcLovin]

Set messaging and killing instantly is a problem but as it is in any other case. I really think that the set messages should be removed entirely. With the rare exception of someone spamming a codename sale in system chat, the only use I have seen or can even think of for set messages, is to send engagement message without having to waste time typing it. If someone would explain another use for them that would be interesting.

It can be useful for choosing targets, giving permissions and calling for regens. Limiting it to group chat would be better than removing it entirely.

---

Kingdom of Bretonia
Colonial Republic
Independent Miners Guild
Ex-Admin

[Oystein Baadsvik]

@ Oystein

This is that kind of realism which kills activity, and fun from the game (well, at least for one side).

Which bit of my post are you refering to? The whole thing? I don't see how removing set messages would do either of the above, and as for allowing the "may treat as combat target" I argue that (with the exception of targetting stationary miners admittadly) it makes the game much more fun (and yes for both sides). It is an RP server afterall so "Realism" is the whole point.

---

[Pavel]

I refer to that part about "may treat". This is game. It isn't fun for side which hasn't even slightest chance to run/win against big guns, if it keeps happening constantly. Make Daumann character with Daumann or DHC in name and try to interact with non-official hessian. I assure you, you have 90% chances it won't be anything other than "die daumann". Recently this is more pvp than RP server, and "may treat" is one of the very reasons why. Admin/dev approach lately was focused on keeping people interested in the game and gaining new players, not on an RP, POBs,cloaks, jumpdrives, caps attacking transports, even restoring hegenon's old, bigger cargo hold, so you'll soon see people shipping ore in an almost stationary mining platforms. Realism? In a game where pirates, social self-outcasts living on the edge of civilisation and small, loose miners' organisations fly warships?

So here I come, with valid point about gameplay and activity problem caused by "may treat".

[Jack_Henderson]

I only see the "irply this has to be like this" argument, which is a valid one, yet not the most important at least in my book.

This is a roleplay server.

Fact is: We are difting towards a "less rp, easy & fast pew", and thus away from what the server should be like.

Fact is: IDs that open cheap targets (transports, miners) as /l1 targets condone lolwut behaviour, even reward lolwut behaviour (because he will get the blue if he does the /l1 cruiser gank mercilessly enough, almost 100 %)

Fact is: This is not good for the general roleplay interaction. And roleplay interaction is what I am here for.

Therefore: Every ID, even if confronted with their enemy, should have a right to at least say a line and hope to have an influence on the outcome without pewing. Especially ships that are hopeless in pvp (like the mentioned factions' transports, miner) should have the right to at least get to type anything before they are toasted.

Don't tell me, it is a problem for a Hessian to make a demand that would let him pew the DHC miner.

Roleplay is also creativity.
Lolwuts should not be given the easy permission to drag the rp niveau of the server further down the drain.

Therefore:
> the ID line "may treat as combat target" may be totally realistic
> BUT: not conducive to the game.

Therefore: Delete it. Make people actually "ROLEPLAY" and not "PEW-Play".

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!