Rules: Freighters and Transports as Combat Ships - 2.9, 3.4 & 2.8

[jammi]

Currently the rules read as follows:

2.9 - The following definitions apply to all IDs:

• "Combat Ship" - Fighters, Bombers, Bustards, Capital Ships; Freighters or Transports carrying equipment in a Cruise Disruptor slot and using an ID or affiliation that is considered hostile by your ID); or Bounty Services (being paid to attack a target or assist in a fight).
  
  
• "Trade Ship" - Freighters and transports except as described under Combat Ships.

3.4 - Transports mounting equipment in a Cruise Disruptor slot are not counted as Transports for the purposes of ID engagement lines.

Apparently in the next patch, the mining system is being overhauled so only a single mining array needs to be mounted in the cruise disruptor slot (rather than multiples taking up weapon slots).

This sounds very cool and good, but it did then occur to me that mining transports would automatically become combat ships simply by equipping the gear they need to do their job. Not so cool - unless that was intended - in which case fair enough.

This prompted some lively discussion on the community discord that raised some other issues with the rules as currently written. This largely revolved around the fact that mounting qualifying equipment means a transport stops being trade ship completely and instead counts solely as a combat ship. This has strange interactions with the pirate ID, which reads as follows:

- Can engage in piracy against Trade Ships.

- Can engage in piracy against Combat Ships outside of House Space.

Basically, if a pirate comes across transport in House Space and they have a cruise disruptor mounted, the pirate is prohibited from issuing a piracy demand because it is technically a combat ship. Very bad and uncool.

As another strange oversight(?), these rules also don't apply properly to freighters. For starters, freighters don't have a 'cruise disruptor' slot in the way transports do, they use a 'fighter special weapon' slot. Now this may just look like silly semantic splitting of hairs, but 3.4 goes on to specify only transports, despite 2.9 having already set out a definition of Trade Ships including freighters that could have been used.

Some suggested changes:

2.9 - The following definitions apply to all IDs:

• "Combat Ship" - Fighters, Bustards, Capital Ships; Freighters or Transports as described under 3.4, when using an ID or affiliation that is hostile to your ID; ships carrying out Bounty Services (being paid to attack a target or assist in a fight).
  
  
• "Trade Ship" - Freighters and transports.

3.4 - Trade Ships mounting equipment (except Mining Arrays) in a Cruise Disruptor / Special Fighter Equipment slot can also be treated as Combat Ships for the purposes of ID engagement lines.

In-game warning:


A Trade Ship mounting this equipment can also be treated as a Combat Ship.

Consequences: Miners are treated the same way as innocent traders. There's no longer a weird limbo situation about armed transports in House space. Freighters are consistently covered by the rules. The change in name for equipment slots is accounted for.

As an aside, I don't know what the section about Bounty Services is intended to do in the Combat Ship definition. Maybe that can be deleted outright? I've hazarded a guess that it was supposed to mean any ship carrying out a bounty service is counted as a combat ship.

BONUS WHINE

2.8 - All IDs can:

• Claim rewards for kills within their Zone of Influence on bounty boards.

The wording makes it explicitly clear that this only permits claiming kills, and does not grant any engagement rights. Due to that, it's puzzling that this is restricted to ZoI.

If you are already having to rely on an independent engagement clause (provided by your ID, self-defence, etc), why should you be prevented from claiming a legitimate kill because you are out of ZoI?

Perfect example is a corporate escort being attacked by pirates while defending their convoy. They're near their destination so they're outside ZoI, but killing the pirate in self-defence is perfectly legitimate. If they're registered on a local claims board, why not turn it in?

If the concern is people going outside ZoI and acting as the world's least efficient bounty hunter by 'baiting' people into attacking them, that was previously always addressed as a PvP violation as abusive behaviour anyway.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Sally]

Mostly agreed with this, adding infocard warnings to all fighter special equipment is the most logical approach.

The wording makes it explicitly clear that this only permits claiming kills, and does not grant any engagement rights. Due to that, it's puzzling that this is restricted to ZoI.

If you are already having to rely on an independent engagement clause (provided by your ID, self-defence, etc), why should you be prevented from claiming a legitimate kill because you are out of ZoI?

Perfect example is a corporate escort being attacked by pirates while defending their convoy. They're near their destination so they're outside ZoI, but killing the pirate in self-defence is perfectly legitimate. If they're registered on a local claims board, why not turn it in?

If the concern is people going outside ZoI and acting as the world's least efficient bounty hunter by 'baiting' people into attacking them, that was previously always addressed as a PvP violation as abusive behaviour anyway.

100% agreed, I thought of the same thing when I was re-reading rules months ago, bounty rules sure need some rewriting/rework.

I suggest you file a player request to address this, I did so with a few busted IDs and the staff approved the requests.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200194
Time left: (Permanent)

[Antonio]

Agree with everything written. Sensible and to the point.

---

SNAC Montage Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Thruster SNAC

[Tunicle]

Noted

---