I take issue with the whole idea of there being a seperate set of rules for lawfuls or unlawfuls.
I see absoutely no reason mentioned here or really anywhere why lawful caps deserve rules written to allow them to do something unlawfuls can't.
All I seem to be getting is "Beacuse they're lawful", and frankly I don't think that's enough of a reason for them to get a special exemption.
gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|
I'm with Bindo on this one. I see no reason for lawfuls to get any special exemption that isn't also there for unlawfuls.
eg Molly Scylla comes across a group of BMM miners in Dublin. Molly demands miners drop the ore they've mined snd get the hell out of Dublin. If the miners refuse, or prevaricate, then the Molly should be able to vapourise them.
Or the afore mentioned Scylla runs into a corsair P Trans. Very valid target for the Scylla as far as I'm concerned.
Cruisers and above should never be allowed to demand credits though.
Aye, this idea is incredibly lame and sort of gives the impression that piracy is an unwanted element on the server. You really got to think about what you are doing...
What happens if a OC transport smuggling cardi gets stopped by a BPA) liner right next to his buddy in a Storta?
To make one set of rules for players playing one role, and another for people playing another will just cause more problems than it will fix. This is the first time I see something like this in Disco, and words cannot describe how misguided this idea is.
Also, don't forget it is very easy to counter a pirate in a transport - it's called bombers, and traders have a habit of telling just how overly effective these things are against transports...
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.
Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.
' Wrote:Aye, this idea is incredibly lame and sort of gives the impression that piracy is an unwanted element on the server. You really got to think about what you are doing...
It's not an unwanted element, it's a combat activity. COMBAT.
Do you really see absolutely no difference between combat and non-combat activities?
So you're using transports as combat vessels to give your pirate an advantage in piracy over, say, gunboat - in terms of the amount of cash you're able to pirate from the guy (3000 ore equals 30 millions, on average), 20k from the selling point, and are very unhappy that your vessels are being treated as combat ones?
Well, I have another proposition, as an alternative to dropping 6.7 rule.
Remove Cruise Disruptors from ALL transports, drop firepower and instead increase armor of all battle-transports (including Liners, Ptranses, etc.).
In short - make it sub-optimal to use all kinds of transport vessels as for all kinds of offensive operations, especially in solo.
Imo, would solve the issue as well.
' 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.
You'll have to increase speed quite alot.
EK'ing battleships with basic missiles, working together with LF?
You can't cut it across that axis. If "space is dangerous", undocking should be a "combat activity". Lawfuls "pirate" unlawfuls transports in transports and liners quite often. Is that not "combat activity" in your book?
' Wrote:You can't cut it across that axis. If "space is dangerous", undocking should be a "combat activity". Lawfuls "pirate" unlawfuls transports in transports and liners quite often. Is that not "combat activity" in your book?
' Wrote:So pirates should feel free to use capitals to shoot Shires and Bisons, then.
' Wrote:If/when those Shires and Bisons are hunting down smugglers/pirates, and not moving goods around? imho, same category as piracy, should be a valid target.
Would you be so kind to read previous posts, next time? So I won't need to do mindless double-posting.
EDIT: and that definitely should be reflected in the rule changes. (although I indeed don't see too much lawfull transports trying to hunt down smugglers/pirates, but if the problem exists, it should be treated on same level as piracy acts)
Well if you'd read my posts too, you would see my problem lies in treating one side differently than the other, and not generally in caps shooting transports on a level playing field.
' Wrote:Well if you'd read my posts too, you would see my problem lies in treating one side differently than the other, and not generally in caps shooting transports on a level playing field.
/smugness off
I think it's connected to the fact that the amount of unlawfull battletransports that engage in piracy, especially PTranses and Liners, significantly exceeds the amount of lawfull pirate-hunting battletrasnports. (but yes, I do not think that the rule should affect pirates only)
But there's a problem - how to distinguish combat activity initiated by transport from combat activity not initiated by transport? Especially when you have 2 battletransports on the field.
imho, that's one of the reason why current proposed rule change only allows to engage transports that are caught "issuing a demand", and not actually shooting someone (kinda illogical, but at same time a significant improvement over what it was before)
EDIT: that means capital ship still won't be able to engage you if he didn't see you issuing a demand to the trader. That also means pirates, most likely, won't be too confident when trying to pirate someone in front of battleship.