[RHA] Reputation Adjusted

[LuckyOne]

There is a mechanism to win a defense. Its called kill the enemy until they burn out.

The one and only pob RHA ever defended was at aland, and it was successful against the odds of 40 BAF players coming at once.


Sieges are gritty, and ugly. If you want to be on top, you have to really make the effort.

From where I stand gritty, and ugly is more like boring and tiresome. And where is the attackers effort in all this ? The defenders need to fend off the attackers while simultaneously trying to haul enough repair materials to keep the base from being destroyed. Meanwhile (the only needed) tactic for the attackers is to AFK siege in wee hours of the day when no defenders are online and have a Discord bot inform you when defenders do finally manage to show up.

You take risks of losing it when you make POBs. You have a health bar that constantly reminds you that this thing is temporary and can be killed. Don't act like they aren't meant to be destroyed in the first place. Permanent (real) stations are up to story and system devs, not players.

I sometimes wonder why people don't come to this conclusion. You see health bar, you know it can die all along, and when it dies people become drama queens and play victim cards as if some crime against humanity was committed.

And where are the risks of sieging a POB (especially one that doesn't even have weapon platforms)? At most you stand to lose some of your free time and couple of hours of sleep. No tactics, no calculated retreats, no denying or cutting off enemy reinforcements. And if the enemy yields right away and pays the ransom you invested 10 minutes to get 100 million while the poor guy has to haul crap for a whole day to make up for the loss.

I'm all for sieges being part of the game, but make it a calculated risk for both sides, not just one.

EDIT: and let's try to stick to the topic from now on. There is the POB suggestion thread for a more structured POB balance discussion.

[Lord Chaos]

Attacking a Zoner Base (PoB or other) wilst docking to a Zoner Freeport to replenish = Exploit
Whoever the attackers were:
Stop complaining before someone starts addressing the situation like what it is, (cheating by exploiting a game mechanic error)
You knew you were using a bug to your advantage,
You knew you were attacking a Zoner PoB,
You knew that you were replenishing in a base of the same affiliation,
Therefore you knew you were already acting in the "Grey" area of the rules,
Now you got some mild consequences (I actually believe the Zoners should go to war over this)
Shut it already and stop crying over this small thing, take the punishment for your deeds, (and use Indies and the usual 1 or 2 crapy RP posts between 2 randoms guys)
You used RHA and they getting the focus on this, something to be expected i would say...

---

Freeport 1 Info-card quote
Originally a small abandoned Deep Space Engineering depot left over from the construction of the Omega-3 Trade Lane, Freeport 1 has grown, with new cargo modules and habitation decks being constructed until the station was barely recognisable from the small platform it started out as. Small ships are known to be constructed here, sold to both Freelancers, criminals and other zoners, and although Bretonia has made irritated noises towards the Freeport, they have as yet left it alone, preferring to put up with the annoyance of criminals docking there to the unknown consequences that might otherwise occur by antagonising the largely peaceful Zoner society.

---

I honestly dont know were the notion of Zoners being defenseless came from, seems like no one reads the actual info-cards...

[Sniper]

You see health bar, you know it can die all along, and when it dies people become drama queens and play victim cards as if some crime against humanity was committed.

Your BS has a health bar and you know it can die all along. BUT ships respawn, PoB's don't. That is why besiegers do not become drama queens and play victim cards... No loss.

Only risk to a besieging BS when killed is one hour. Even then you can respawn immediately and go elsewhere.

You are flogging a dead horse here. SHIPS UNFAIRLY can respawn. PoB's cannot.

Change they game play so only an expensive siege platform that is totally destroy-able has the hit power to take down a PoB. A platform that takes hundreds of man-hours and huge financial investment to build and equip that has equal chance of being destroyed as does a PoB and does NOT respawn. You could have different levels of siege machines for greater impact. WIN-WIN

Leave the battle fleets to defend the siege platform.

[Hemlocke]

You sound horribly like Binski. Let's not over complicate this, that would be utterly ridiculous for all the stupid Core 1 bases that pop up outta nowhere almost inside NPC stations with how close they are.

Stop building something that can be destroyed if you don't want it destroyed. simple.

Don't play the game if you don't want to get sh*ttered in pvp.

Don't make POBs more complicated and stupid than they already are. Stop it. Get some help.

[Lord Chaos]

PoBs make traders move around getting mats,
for the construction of the PoB itself,
for the Factory modules production (Jumps, Cloaks, Surveys, Matrix and Docking Modules)
or mined Ores,

So, if you think about it, PoBs might probably have some impact in game play, (given the right placement #StopPoBonminingareas)
sustaining traders and also the pirates with activity.

@Kalhmera i am BMF Usually its our bases they kill lmao (and no, i dont fly in 365 Pfactions , im from the old times)

[Groshyr]

Then why no POBs in New London are filled with ore?

[Champ]

This is not a player base thread, there are threads for that. Got a solution to suggest? You can do that here.

Errant, off-topic, floody posts, will from this point, this being the third damned warning, be met with repercussions.

Now that I can put down the fire extinguisher briefly...

@Venkman, I'm not going to repeat myself about how this is not an FR5.

@pulha, there are many different backgrounds. If roleplay isn't on the forums, we probably don't know about it. Seeing as you're here, I'd encourage your faction to continue with whatever course of action you had intended. If that is ignorant silence though, perhaps bringing some of what was reportedly done in the background forward, into the light, is ideal. Also, with the exception of in a very limited, non-canon sense, GMs don't exist in roleplay, or the ID would be very strange.

---

[Hokan]

[RHA] has had their reputation adjusted with respect to Zoners.

What had happened was:

This is not a sanction for a rule violation. But, the faction did en masse break the documented roleplay laws of the Zoners of Freeport whichever-it-is, and not even a little one, but the big and very old NFZ one. The one that meant that some Freeports had fields put around them to tell players they were entering an NFZ. And it just doesn't quite seem right that nothing happens when the Freeport was used as a base, and the laws broken, in pursuit of the destruction of a POB that aligned itself with that station. So with that in mind, the Zoners are mad at you. How long will this be the case? For a while. Is it permanent? Definitely not. Does it have any bearing on or indication of future canon story lines, events or diplomacy? Absolutely not. I'm hoping you'll see this as a logical, roleplay-preserving step, rather than taking offence to it. The alternative is that there are no consequences for it, which seems lacking.

---

Discovery Server & Forums Rules | Before You Post Here

---

This isn't a sanction relating to a violation of the rules. It is an adjustment that has been made to try to increase congruity in roleplay. Nobody has to feel bad about this happening. Feedback is absolutely welcome, so long as it is civil. Yes, I am demanding civility, because this is a space game and I made a single faction which is quite impotent NPC-wise angry with you. If you PM staff or post in this thread and you are not directly involved, you are consenting to be subjected to the reprisal of my choice which may involve in game repercussions up to a ban. Blaming members of your immediate family, neighbors, friends, pets, and assorted Orcs, Trolls and any other legendary creatures may result in the use of GM Right #CTE 750AE

Apologies if you have already answered this.

If I am not mistaken, is this action running contradictory to one of the Game-Masters obligations?

-- Game Masters are obliged:
1. To develop and safeguard the health of the Discovery Freelancer community, official server, and forums.

2. To be fair and treat all players equally, independent of their level and faction alignment.

3. Not to mix server roleplaying with server administration in any way.

4. Not to ignore any cases of server rules violations that are reported.

I ask this because, you specifically have ruled out a rule violation in your aforementioned post, and the rules as they exist now, specifically 0.0 are meant as a catch all for GMs enacting obligation number 1 and 2. If this action is taken because of GM obligation 1 or 2, then it ought to be a rule violation of 0.0. Except, you ruled that out.

You did however mention something I would presume to be the strongest argument for it, exploiting the game state due to a NPC faction not being able to react properly.

I would hope that, as a member of the command of an official faction, you can understand that your faction violating the well-established rules of a space station in its immediate vicinity, then docking and resupplying on it without consequence, all while attacking an adjacent establishment affiliated with the very same station, at best is incongruous, and at worst is an exploitation of game mechanics (being that NPCs can't adapt their roleplay).

This is not being used for the justification for this action by GMs, if it was it could be covered as a rule violation.
Because this is not a rule violation, using the In-RP Zoner laws breaking as justification, like this specific action is being taken, is acting outside of your obligations.

Is this intentional?

[Champ]

I am not involved in the roleplay around the Freeport involved, nor Zoners broadly, nor am I involved with the destroyed player base, or indeed the [RHA]. To my knowledge, none of the GMs involved in the decision are, either. We recuse ourselves and abstain from discussion when we are involved in the factions at play, where practical, to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest.

Mixing roleplay with server administration is when GMs might approve their own SRP, or use access privileges to advantage themselves somehow, like repsheet modification on their characters - abuse of power stuff. I do not believe that this obligation has been violated. Suggesting that there is some absolute separation as there should be for church and state neglects that there is an intersection of adminstration and roleplay at large, because this is a roleplay server. Considerations for the roleplay involved in situations must be considered when making decisions. That analysis and judgement at the intersection of the server's roleplay and server administration is how SRPs, player requests, faction requests and most things are assessed. Every GM is also a player, with characters and roleplay, and obviously we cannot exclude people from being GMs on that basis.

Breaking the emergency glass and bringing out 0.0 for this would be unwarranted and extreme, given that I do not believe there was such a malice or intentional circumvention of the rules, and that in my view, a punishment in accordance with 0.0 would have been excessive. I reject your assertion that this action is otherwise acting outside of our obligations, which I would quote here if you had not already provided them. Further;

Fair play, a level head and consideration for others are paramount. The rules are not a sword or shield to be used for or against someone, but to ensure that the server environment has structure and allows everyone to have fun.

---

[Hokan]

NOTE: Whenever I say 'you' I'm referring to the GM team. Not you specifically Champ

I am not involved in the roleplay around the Freeport involved, nor Zoners broadly, nor am I involved with the destroyed player base, or indeed the [RHA]. To my knowledge, none of the GMs involved in the decision are, either. We recuse ourselves and abstain from discussion when we are involved in the factions at play, where practical, to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest.

I believed that to be the case, but I wasn't trying to make that accusation.

Mixing roleplay with server administration is when GMs might approve their own SRP, or use access privileges to advantage themselves somehow, like repsheet modification on their characters - abuse of power stuff. I do not believe that this obligation has been violated.

While I see what angle you are coming from here, specifically with the repsheets as it relates to this situation. All changes of this nature that I have observed have been through OF player requests for that change, sometimes even mutual requests for the change. If the GMs take action following instruction of player/story requests, then this would be the function of server administration. This particular case, as you even said yourself is not one of those circumstances. As no OF instruction was given.

@Kalhmera that is correct, this is not an FR5. This was not an action sponsored by any Zoner factions, so your diplomacy with them, as normally negotiated between player factions, is not at play. Official factions are not the be-all and end-all of what is reasonable.

This is not a sanction for a rule violation. But, the faction did en masse break the documented roleplay laws of the Zoners of Freeport whichever-it-is, and not even a little one, but the big and very old NFZ one. The one that meant that some Freeports had fields put around them to tell players they were entering an NFZ. And it just doesn't quite seem right that nothing happens when the Freeport was used as a base, and the laws broken, in pursuit of the destruction of a POB that aligned itself with that station. So with that in mind, the Zoners are mad at you. How long will this be the case? For a while. Is it permanent? Definitely not. Does it have any bearing on or indication of future canon story lines, events or diplomacy? Absolutely not. I'm hoping you'll see this as a logical, roleplay-preserving step, rather than taking offence to it. The alternative is that there are no consequences for it, which seems lacking.

If this is not requested by the Zoners, nor RHA. Then this isn't a conventional function of administration. It is GMs enforcing RP consequences based on their own volition as they are doing it without direction to do so. Which is an area I believe obligation 3 may have been supposed to cover, since it can become highly abuse-able once this Pandora's box is opened.

I'll post the obligation again, for those who may be doing the injustice of skimming the conversation.
3. Not to mix server roleplaying with server administration in any way.

Suggesting that there is some absolute separation as there should be for church and state neglects that there is an intersection of adminstration and roleplay at large, because this is a roleplay server. Considerations for the roleplay involved in situations must be considered when making decisions. That analysis and judgement at the intersection of the server's roleplay and server administration is how SRPs, player requests, faction requests and most things are assessed. Every GM is also a player, with characters and roleplay, and obviously we cannot exclude people from being GMs on that basis.

This administration you are referring to here, is the actions you undertake as GMs a result of various player made requests. In that sense, you're being directed by players to make a decision on a requested change. The players here are wanting you to facilitate their own roleplay. In this case, you're cutting out the player element in the function of administration, and instead taking it upon yourself to enforce consequences of roleplay. As I highlighted in bold in one of the previous quotes.

Breaking the emergency glass and bringing out 0.0 for this would be unwarranted and extreme, given that I do not believe there was such a malice or intentional circumvention of the rules, and that in my view, a punishment in accordance with 0.0 would have been excessive. I reject your assertion that this action is otherwise acting outside of our obligations, which I would quote here if you had not already provided them.

This is interestingly what I believed to be the actual reason for this action is. You didn't want to be heavy handed, but believed something ought to happen. However, in the effort to seek a consequence I believe you may have inadvertently crossed into territory that the GMs weren't not supposed to be in. I hope what I've said so far is clear enough for you to understand my point.