' Wrote:It's not a problem, it just removes a layer of credibility to the RP, and thus can be said to be "poorer RP".
Anyways this is totally off-topic, sorry about that.
I don't see how is that so. Casual crew does not send transmission to local area. There are people responsible for communication systems, and there is person who is commanding capital ship as well as communicating with others.
And yes. End of discussion on this subject.
' Wrote:I find it silly that half of the crew is on the comm channel when captain is speaking unless you roleplay a reality TV show happening on warship.
' Wrote:I find it silly that half of the crew is on the comm channel when captain is speaking unless you roleplay a reality TV show happening on warship.
That's not what I meant to imply, and yes sometimes people will RP a lot of useless info that nobody in their right mind would air on an open frequency (like internal communication between two officers of no relevance to the other player partaking in the RP), but in real life terms (yes yes those cannot be used etc. etc.) if a ship hails a battleship on the seas, it wont go straight to the captain. There's officers for that, relaying communication to the relevant people. Also the way a capship goes about business would be slightly different than what a snub would - HMS Prince of Wales was not disposable in the same way as a spitfire fighter. That's what I meant.
Well, i dont like the new rule. An Cruiser against a trasnporter its just , okay lets say its impossible to escape from an cruiser with a p-liner/p-transporter even with more thruster speed (Gunboats should get the same or higher thruster speed ergo).
Once a Zoner cruiser (Fearless) attacked my prison liner without Rp, etc. (more typical lolwut). My Prisonliner (better known as The.Flying.Dutchman|RR) got an Cau 7 and an Cloaking Device. I wasnt able to escape. And he just had basic turrents mixed with some Zoner turrets and one LM.
I fail to see how it will / should help the balance (90% of the Cap-Pilots will just attack on sight with 2-3 lines Engagement).
I think it would be good if there will be an cap-driver license given by the official factions.
Maybe an extra mountable paper which gives you the possibility to buy your own Cap-Ship
' Wrote:It's not a problem, it just removes a layer of credibility to the RP, and thus can be said to be "poorer RP".
Anyways this is totally off-topic, sorry about that.
We have Fleet Admirals flying in Fighters on the Frontline. And doing it 95% of the time.
Tell me more about "<strike>proper</strike> poorer RP".
Ontopic: Imo, the wording should be changed to reflect also lawful demands towards unlawful players.
And, changes to 6.6 rule to prevent demands in PM.
Quote:6.6 Aggressors are not allowed to destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand and allowing sufficient time to respond. Demands may be cargo, credits or an RP demand, such as leaving the system. Demands must be made in system or local channel. "Halt" is not a demand.
6.7 Attacking freighters and transports or demanding cargo or credits from the same is not allowed for cruisers and battleships.
Exceptions to this rule are:
a) Official faction tagged house ships in their respective house space or guard system ONLY.
b) Terrorist, Nomad, Wild, Phantom ID players;
c) LSF or Liberty Navy Guard IFF vessels operating within Zone 21 or Alaska;
d) Order Guard IFF vessels operating within Alaska or Omicron Minor;
e) Blood Dragon Guard IFF vessels within Chugoku;
f) Corsair Guard IFF vessels within Omicron Gamma;
g) Outcast Guard IFF vessels within Omicron Alpha;
h) Special OP players within the guidelines of their approved RP.
i) Pirates in house space caught issuing a demand.
j) Combatants of enemy factions caught in hostilities towards civilian or military craft
Traders whom are attacked in these areas may be pursued and destroyed beyond them.
' Wrote:Bob, you know my take, dump the rule entirely. Little buff to transport speed and we're golden. Couple this with a change in the exemption rules for traders and suddenly we have fun times ahead.
Oh look, this is exactly what a good deal of us veteran players have said in multiple threads regarding the trader exception and 6.7. This please.
' Wrote:Bob, you know my take, dump the rule entirely. Little buff to transport speed and we're golden. Couple this with a change in the exemption rules for traders and suddenly we have fun times ahead.
I agree with Del.
At the same time, I'm not sure where he came up with it, but Daedric had a nice quote early on.
Quote:6.7 Acts of piracy are not permitted in cruisers and battleships. Acts of piracy are defined as demands of cargo or credits or assisting in the acts of piracy.
That would allow you to change things to:
6.7 Acts of piracy are not permitted in cruisers and battleships. Acts of piracy are defined as demands of cargo or credits or assisting in the acts of piracy. Cruisers and battleships are otherwise allowed to engage transports under these circumstances:
A: Enemy ID'd transports in YOUR house space are fair game.
B: Ships engaged in the act of pirating are fair game.
C: Official faction ships in their guard systems
D: Terrorist, Nomad, Wild, Phantom ID players
E - I: Usual special faction rules stuff.
Sub a takes care of Gallic transports in Bretonia, for example, or Liberty ID'd transports in New Berlin. That also means that Rheinland battleships can't go into Texas and shoot up transports - it's not their house space.
Sub b takes care of ANYONE that's pirating, regardless of whether they're a Rogue in P-Trans in New York or an indy pirate in Gamma.
(11-21-2013, 12:53 PM)Jihadjoe Wrote: Oh god... The end of days... Agmen agreed with me.