So, roleplay demands are now against the rules

[Lythrilux]

Can't the bottom line just be that if the pirate ends up destroying the vessel he's a nobhead?

---

[sindroms]

Whenever I used to play pirates from the first time I ever got an unlawful ID, I was shown and taught that damage is okay. Heck, this was when I was still flying with @Reverend Del who would shoot off pods and a turret or two just for the sake of it.

But there was one rule, whatever the demand is, it should not result in the players DEATH. Not DAMAGE.
DAMAGE is repairable. For free if you have a POB within range. No demand pirates make should result in the destruction of the ship OR a monetary loss that would be deemed unreasonable. Now if THAT was a server rule, then we would not be in this situation where blowing off a few turrets is sanctionable, but asking a player hauling an unmounted cap8 to drop their cargo or die is not.

EDIT: I should also note that we are well aware accidents happen. Dawson peeps are more than aware that using a SN to remove turrets is not a good idea, for example. Again, killing a person while doing this is the last thing we need. It should also be noted that during these demands the player is never pirated for cargo or money. It is EITHER cargo, OR money OR equipment. We treat it as a legitimate piracy demand. It is not there for any sort of PVP abuse.

---

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

[Mao]

What the heck is wrong with substituting a thing ingame with a different thing? We do substitute shooting little rocks as mining, even if we can clearly see that it's not how it works in vanilla. How could you even try to think that this is supposed to be a PvP action? The point of PvP is to end up with a blue, how is it supposed to end in a blue when you're not even damaging the enemy's hull? Are you trying to ignore the RP behind it?

Shooting little rocks as a mining substitute is a game mechanic. It's done with special mining arrays. Until you get a game mechanic for taking off a ship's guns any "substitute" that uses guns that are made to deal damage is doing just that: damage. The point of PvP might be ending with a blue but the way to the blue starts with dealing damage.

On a side note: I do think that it should be stated in the rules that damage to components counts as damage to the ship.

[Laura C.]

It was not said that RP demands are not allowed anymore, they just are not allowed to cause damage. We can argue if that is good or bad decision, but lets keep facts straight when we do it.

The facts are that for some reason there is a line on pirate IDs that implies "only credits and cargo", and that said line was used to justify a sanction on an RP demand that I think was completely fair.

Of course a pirate might want to "steal" equipment, it's something I can imagine a Junker doing especially. And how is shooting off five 400k guns worse than demanding 2 million credits?

Fact is that this whole issue is about declaring RP demands which result in ship damage even if target comply as unreasonable, not declaring all RP demands as not allowed. So dramatizing it by suggesting this is about all RP demands is misleading. It is not true despite what thread title says.

By the way, I disagree with that sanction which started all this. It just bothers me to see that drama is based upon wrong facts. If you make drama, at least base it on correct ones.

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[jammi]

What a thoroughly ridiculous decision. Either this needs more admin opinions or the team is horrifyingly out of touch. All this serves to do is penalise creative RP.

[Char Aznable]

What a thoroughly ridiculous decision. Either this needs more admin opinions or the team is horrifyingly out of touch. All this serves to do is penalise creative RP.

Couldn't agree more. Everyone arguing that this is 'abuse' just fails to see the idea behind it.

---

#notmyfrankfurt

[Antonio]

A terrible decision. Apart from agreeing with pretty much everything @Karst said, I'd also like to add that it's sad such a wrong decision came from an admin (or the admin team). Hell, @sindroms even specifically told you to take more time for reviewing the whole incident and you still somehow did it wrong, while 95% of the community tells you otherwise. This thread is a perfect example of it.

I'd also like to note that I'd prefer pirates to remove my turrets over asking 5-10 million credits any day, not just because it generates a fun interaction and a different one than "2milrdai" but also because it's straight out more profitable.

[Jack_Henderson]

Check the last post.
It has been edited.

People need to calm down.
I mean... it was obvious that the goal was not to make piracy stupid... seriously. Disco drama... at its best.

---

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

[Thyrzul]

Unless the victim blows up completely before docking, any damage, done to either hull, external equipment or both, is technically monetary loss, the exact value is the cost of hull repair, used regens or lost equipment, and does not result in the 2 hour death penalty either (EDIT: Of course assuming that the piracy encounter is over though compliance before turning into combat). And then monetary loss is already an expectable result/consequence of piracy encounters by default, else piracy for cash or cargo, the essence of the role, would be forbidden as well. The current concept of "RP demands should not incorporate any damage" is bullcrap and should be reverted to the previous concept of "RP demands should not incorporate certain destruction of the victim", which I've got no idea when or why has been modified.

---

[Zayne Carrick]

Solution is simple, add new rule:
Piracy demands can't include taking any damage to victim's hull, be it taking few shots, losing guns, flying into minefield or in sun corona.
Problem solved, all happy.

What actually worries me is interpretation of

3.3 Aggressors are not allowed to issue further demands during the same encounter after the trade vessel has complied, or destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand, in system or local chat. "Halt" on its own is not a demand

Cause, while "stop, 2milordai" is OK, "stop, lower your shields, 2milordai" is already not OK and can be reported.