I do not think player-run organisations that are not subject to any deadlines, reasonable timely responses/SLAs, should have the power to charge players nearly as much as it costs to even make the ship purely not to get shot and FR3'd.
Why should I pay a tax to an inactive veteran who does not even pay attention to the game and community for over a week at a time in order to not get nodock'd from an entire region of space?
I will also echo Seapanda's sentiment - if you lose to a longhorn or bulwark in a cruiser, you are not a reasonable cruiser player.
(10-28-2024, 06:57 PM)Karst Wrote: It's hard to make definitive statements on this transitional period, when governments are understandably confused as to how to handle these admittedly far more capable ships.
Once transports in general upgrade to similar level, obviously you can't have blanket restrictions on the class, but at least in theory, it's not crazy for now to expect people to fill out a simple form, which would then presumably be granted.
The issue is with the actual granting of licenses, something the staff supervised government chats were supposed to keep an eye on. I mean just look at something like the Rheinland Extraordinary Equipment Registry, a system in which restricted equipment is de facto banned in all but name, with an endless string of "denied" even for friendly entities like Bounty Hunters asking for the most modest of things.
Licenses are generally speaking supposed to be a little RP formality for friendlies asking for reasonable things. If government players approach them not from "they should be allowed to have this if they ask for it" but "why should they have this?" perspective, they're going to be a problem.
Laws are there for a reason. Exemptions should never be granted "because i would like one". It doesnt work that way iRL, it doesnt work that way logically, and it shouldnt work that way in disco.
We are ROLEPLAYING, meaning here, we shall act as if we were doing this as a iRL job. Otherwise whats the point. Just toss the roleplay out and do what you want. Engage silently. Shoot whomever. Just play how you want. But i know you yourself would bemoan such a situation more then anyone, because you know what a mess it would turn into.
As for the transports themselves, perhaps some further transparency and patch notes in the intention of transports going forward would make people less inclined to restrict them right away. But god forbid transparency.
(10-28-2024, 07:57 PM)Barrier Wrote: So to weigh in from the POV of Rheingov. (Separate hat from being a Dev in this case)
To me, the cut-off is pretty simple. If a ship can challenge a reasonable cruiser player in the course of an INRP contraband scan stop, it must be restricted. And I don't mean run away (which for example a freighter can easily do). I mean take on the cruiser in combat and force it to retreat.
I would ask you what reasonable government would allow anyone to operate anything like that without a license? E.g. imagine if in the current world, anyone could just legally buy a tank and drive it on a highway. I understand that we're dealing with a game world, but that to me is the point of govs. If you want to "gameify" such a dynamic, then remove all laws that ban ship classes.
Arguably, such a move would indeed increase activity, as it would force lawfuls to log more people to challenge an unwelcome corporation. For example, if a DSE convoy is allowed to fly Cruisers (disregard ID lines for a sec) to support its Light Arms hauling, RFP/RM/MND would probably need to log upwards of five people to be able to enforce its laws. But is this a reasonable INRP situation? I currently don't think so. After all, we could just do away with all ID restrictions as that would probably increase player numbers too, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.
Now for the second part, about licenses. Let's move past the length of review for these, because that's a separate problem.
[rant]
Rheingov has a pretty simple decision making process for requests: how much RP was invested in making the request? And, is the request reasonable within a house which is essentially a police state? Note the order of the decision making - if barely any rp was invested, the app is not considered further. If rp was invested, the app is considered within the general context of current house policy.
So if you are salty about your license app getting denied, first ask yourself: did you contact RFP, RM, or MND with your request? Did you attempt to have them make the app on your behalf because it would be beneficial for those factions, or to the military benefit of Rheinland? Alternatively, did you contact DHC or Kruger to ensure that you're not competing with their operations? Did you provide them with a reason why your request would be beneficial to those factions, or to the economic benefit of Rheinland?
If you answer no to any of the above, please tell me why your app should be accepted? Why should a House government give you what you're asking when you've made no inroads into becoming a known entity within the House? Why should you get the benefit of your request while providing no benefits (or even active competition or security concerns) to existing House factions?
[/rant]
Take Bristol for example. If they do the bare minimum of describing how Bering is still being developed, and they can export their industrial output in Bulwarks because they're always in danger of Unioner raids, etc., they will be granted the license. After all, they are already a known entity - note their exemption for hauling Milsal. Take a look at the recent approval of the OS&C Amaterasu. Can you generate this type of RP (edit: just the comm, not the event) before submitting your application? If not, why do you deserve the license?
Finally, as long as I am in gov, I will always argue against monetary licenses for anything besides POBs. That's not to say that you can't pay say DHC to build you x ship, and get a license for it that way. But I hope that we will never charge people credits for approving their license. Only RP.
Oh my i am Honored to be Considerd to be Good Enough at RP to have Gained such License for my Faction.
(10-28-2024, 07:57 PM)Barrier Wrote: To me, the cut-off is pretty simple. If a ship can challenge a reasonable cruiser player in the course of an INRP contraband scan stop, it must be restricted. And I don't mean run away (which for example a freighter can easily do). I mean take on the cruiser in combat and force it to retreat.
Can you please provide complete testing data where a Bulwark and a Longhorn bested a reasonable cruiser player? The only combat experience I can provide for my Bulwark is how he was utterly ass blasted by 3 npc snubs the other day.
Note that the Longhorn is not in consideration for me, only the Bulwark. I'm simply comparing its stats to a Rheinland Cruiser.
Bulwark: 1231650 hull, 750 bats, 4500000 power, 32500 recharge, 12.18 angular speed,
Donau: 920000 hull, 1180 bats, 706000 power, 45375 recharge, 18.53 angular speed.
On paper, the Donau is outclassed, except for speed, which seems less relevant due to the Bulwark being the defender (as it wants to proceed to the next lane or even cruise away).
And yes, I would be interested in seeing a Donau vs Bulwark duel. But until the Bulwark is the consistent loser, I'll follow the stats and restrict it.
Well wouldnt then the Obvious Solution be to eithet Nerf the Bulwark or to Buf the Donau?
(10-28-2024, 07:57 PM)Barrier Wrote: To me, the cut-off is pretty simple. If a ship can challenge a reasonable cruiser player in the course of an INRP contraband scan stop, it must be restricted. And I don't mean run away (which for example a freighter can easily do). I mean take on the cruiser in combat and force it to retreat.
Can you please provide complete testing data where a Bulwark and a Longhorn bested a reasonable cruiser player? The only combat experience I can provide for my Bulwark is how he was utterly ass blasted by 3 npc snubs the other day.
Note that the Longhorn is not in consideration for me, only the Bulwark. I'm simply comparing its stats to a Rheinland Cruiser.
Bulwark: 1231650 hull, 750 bats, 4500000 power, 32500 recharge, 12.18 angular speed,
Donau: 920000 hull, 1180 bats, 706000 power, 45375 recharge, 18.53 angular speed.
On paper, the Donau is outclassed, except for speed, which seems less relevant due to the Bulwark being the defender (as it wants to proceed to the next lane or even cruise away).
And yes, I would be interested in seeing a Donau vs Bulwark duel. But until the Bulwark is the consistent loser, I'll follow the stats and restrict it.
Well wouldnt then the Obvious Solution be to eithet Nerf the Bulwark or to Buf the Donau?
The obvious solution is to nerf the Donau and buff the Bulwark. Thus Bulwark players don't need to care about Rheinland police players, knowing full well that they cannot be stopped. Thus roleplay can be had on their terms, and not on the terms of house laws.
Posts: 3,345
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2012
Staff roles: Balance Dev
(10-28-2024, 08:38 PM)Prysin Wrote: The obvious solution is to nerf the Donau and buff the Bulwark. Thus Bulwark players don't need to care about Rheinland police players, knowing full well that they cannot be stopped. Thus roleplay can be had on their terms, and not on the terms of house laws.
This would have been my response to Kusari's recurring fees had they stayed in place. The minor issues that you're overlooking are:
It is a little absurd for a corporation to deliberately violate House laws to ship some gold to said House, and to then jump a Bustard full of escorts to a Bulwark to blow a Kusari Destroyer or two to bits. I like my roleplay and gameplay to make a modicum of sense, even if this scenario sounds very funny to me.
FR3s exist. This relationship isn't exactly symmetrical. The people who have to pay the money have to do so under threat of getting outlawed by an entire House, which as a corporation (which ships like these are for) isn't exactly desirable.
As for balance testing: the Bulwark and Longhorn were both balance tested against Cruisers in PvP more than any other matchup. They're designed to lose in the long term, but be threatening enough (by virtue of the huge capacity cores they have) to not just be charged mindlessly at and blasted out of the sky in seconds. It's possible that Cruisers' strong shield boosts currently let them close the gap in the most unga bunga of ways again, and we'll address that if needed.
We're hoping to move away from BC Main Batteries as the "Get off me" option and instead give transports their own brand of exceptionally powerful (against warships) turrets with higher efficiencies but lower range. Keeping Cruisers and Gunboats in check then allows us to keep Transports' other stats (shield strength, armor, etc.) lower so that fighters, bombers, freighters and small transports can realistically be used for piracy. Due to the long range of BC Main Batteries we currently would have to make the Longhorn capable of 1v1ing Battleships just so we can keep Cruisers from destroying them in seconds. It's a stopgap of sorts.
(10-28-2024, 08:27 PM)Prysin Wrote: Laws are there for a reason. Exemptions should never be granted "because i would like one". It doesnt work that way iRL, it doesnt work that way logically, and it shouldnt work that way in disco.
We are ROLEPLAYING, meaning here, we shall act as if we were doing this as a iRL job. Otherwise whats the point. Just toss the roleplay out and do what you want. Engage silently. Shoot whomever. Just play how you want. But i know you yourself would bemoan such a situation more then anyone, because you know what a mess it would turn into.
As for the transports themselves, perhaps some further transparency and patch notes in the intention of transports going forward would make people less inclined to restrict them right away. But god forbid transparency.
Yeah okay here's the thing though.
This isn't iRL, and this isn't a job. It's a game.
The point of playing government bureaucrats isn't to blanket deny everything that is asked for with the stunningly amazing RP of "we see no need to grant this" because "that's what they'd do IRL", it's to engage with other players.
If a government just blanket denies every such request, you know what will happen? Those characters just aren't going to visit that house. It's not like they can readily unmount and put into storage their cloak or whatever that Rheinland doesn't deem necessary literally every time they fly into or out of their jurisdiction.
They'll just be like, okay, fuck these guys, guess I'll play somewhere else, followed by house players whining about how their house is inactive. Their takeaway isn't going to be "WOW it's so great how these people play bureaucrats who suck!!"
(10-28-2024, 08:38 PM)Prysin Wrote: The obvious solution is to nerf the Donau and buff the Bulwark. Thus Bulwark players don't need to care about Rheinland police players, knowing full well that they cannot be stopped. Thus roleplay can be had on their terms, and not on the terms of house laws.
This would have been my response to Kusari's recurring fees had they stayed in place. The minor issues that you're overlooking are:
It is a little absurd for a corporation to deliberately violate House laws to ship some gold to said House, and to then jump a Bustard full of escorts to a Bulwark to blow a Kusari Destroyer or two to bits. I like my roleplay and gameplay to make a modicum of sense, even if this scenario sounds very funny to me.
FR3s exist. This relationship isn't exactly symmetrical. The people who have to pay the money have to do so under threat of getting outlawed by an entire House, which as a corporation (which ships like these are for) isn't exactly desirable.
As for balance testing: the Bulwark and Longhorn were both balance tested against Cruisers in PvP more than any other matchup. They're designed to lose in the long term, but be threatening enough (by virtue of the huge capacity cores they have) to not just be charged mindlessly at and blasted out of the sky in seconds. It's possible that Cruisers' strong shield boosts currently let them close the gap in the most unga bunga of ways again, and we'll address that if needed.
We're hoping to move away from BC Main Batteries as the "Get off me" option and instead give transports their own brand of exceptionally powerful (against warships) turrets with higher efficiencies but lower range. Keeping Cruisers and Gunboats in check then allows us to keep Transports' other stats (shield strength, armor, etc.) lower so that fighters, bombers, freighters and small transports can realistically be used for piracy. Due to the long range of BC Main Batteries we currently would have to make the Longhorn capable of 1v1ing Battleships just so we can keep Cruisers from destroying them in seconds. It's a stopgap of sorts.
so the TL;DR is:
You guys are mad, because you shipped a beta-test sample of transport rework without telling people publicly that was what you were doing. And then players reacted by restricting the ships, as they didn't know this was the intention and it was only a test.....
So this whole ordeal would likely been able to avoid or at least mitigate with some transparency and or waiting to drop something until it was ready....
Bustard and Amaterasu were already regulated, they were made for freelancers and corps to have something big and powerful that isnt a SRP cap..... Nobody cared. Literally nobody cared about it. New transport with similar stats/capacity drops - gets regulated same way. Everyone loses their minds.
As you would say.... "That's a skill issue".
(10-28-2024, 08:55 PM)Karst Wrote:
(10-28-2024, 08:27 PM)Prysin Wrote: Laws are there for a reason. Exemptions should never be granted "because i would like one". It doesnt work that way iRL, it doesnt work that way logically, and it shouldnt work that way in disco.
We are ROLEPLAYING, meaning here, we shall act as if we were doing this as a iRL job. Otherwise whats the point. Just toss the roleplay out and do what you want. Engage silently. Shoot whomever. Just play how you want. But i know you yourself would bemoan such a situation more then anyone, because you know what a mess it would turn into.
As for the transports themselves, perhaps some further transparency and patch notes in the intention of transports going forward would make people less inclined to restrict them right away. But god forbid transparency.
Yeah okay here's the thing though.
This isn't iRL, and this isn't a job. It's a game.
The point of playing government bureaucrats isn't to blanket deny everything that is asked for with the stunningly amazing RP of "we see no need to grant this" because "that's what they'd do IRL", it's to engage with other players.
If a government just blanket denies every such request, you know what will happen? Those characters just aren't going to visit that house. It's not like they can readily unmount and put into storage their cloak or whatever that Rheinland doesn't deem necessary literally every time they fly into or out of their jurisdiction.
They'll just be like, okay, fuck these guys, guess I'll play somewhere else, followed by house players whining about how their house is inactive. Their takeaway isn't going to be "WOW it's so great how these people play bureaucrats who suck!!"
And that goes for ships equally.
(10-28-2024, 08:55 PM)Karst Wrote:
(10-28-2024, 08:27 PM)Prysin Wrote: Laws are there for a reason. Exemptions should never be granted "because i would like one". It doesnt work that way iRL, it doesnt work that way logically, and it shouldnt work that way in disco.
We are ROLEPLAYING, meaning here, we shall act as if we were doing this as a iRL job. Otherwise whats the point. Just toss the roleplay out and do what you want. Engage silently. Shoot whomever. Just play how you want. But i know you yourself would bemoan such a situation more then anyone, because you know what a mess it would turn into.
As for the transports themselves, perhaps some further transparency and patch notes in the intention of transports going forward would make people less inclined to restrict them right away. But god forbid transparency.
Yeah okay here's the thing though.
This isn't iRL, and this isn't a job. It's a game.
The point of playing government bureaucrats isn't to blanket deny everything that is asked for with the stunningly amazing RP of "we see no need to grant this" because "that's what they'd do IRL", it's to engage with other players.
If a government just blanket denies every such request, you know what will happen? Those characters just aren't going to visit that house. It's not like they can readily unmount and put into storage their cloak or whatever that Rheinland doesn't deem necessary literally every time they fly into or out of their jurisdiction.
They'll just be like, okay, fuck these guys, guess I'll play somewhere else, followed by house players whining about how their house is inactive. Their takeaway isn't going to be "WOW it's so great how these people play bureaucrats who suck!!"
And that goes for ships equally.
Yeah, that's part of roleplay. Sometime you meet someone that is dedicated to their roleplay. Though luck. If you don't enjoy roleplaying, maybe don't play on a roleplaying server.
If you want a license, maybe try to argue why its beneficial for the house to grant it to you, not why its beneficial to you. We know its beneficial to you, otherwise you wouldn't need to ask for a permit, because you wouldn't use it.
(10-28-2024, 08:38 PM)Prysin Wrote: The obvious solution is to nerf the Donau and buff the Bulwark. Thus Bulwark players don't need to care about Rheinland police players, knowing full well that they cannot be stopped. Thus roleplay can be had on their terms, and not on the terms of house laws.
This would have been my response to Kusari's recurring fees had they stayed in place. The minor issues that you're overlooking are:
It is a little absurd for a corporation to deliberately violate House laws to ship some gold to said House, and to then jump a Bustard full of escorts to a Bulwark to blow a Kusari Destroyer or two to bits. I like my roleplay and gameplay to make a modicum of sense, even if this scenario sounds very funny to me.
FR3s exist. This relationship isn't exactly symmetrical. The people who have to pay the money have to do so under threat of getting outlawed by an entire House, which as a corporation (which ships like these are for) isn't exactly desirable.
As for balance testing: the Bulwark and Longhorn were both balance tested against Cruisers in PvP more than any other matchup. They're designed to lose in the long term, but be threatening enough (by virtue of the huge capacity cores they have) to not just be charged mindlessly at and blasted out of the sky in seconds. It's possible that Cruisers' strong shield boosts currently let them close the gap in the most unga bunga of ways again, and we'll address that if needed.
We're hoping to move away from BC Main Batteries as the "Get off me" option and instead give transports their own brand of exceptionally powerful (against warships) turrets with higher efficiencies but lower range. Keeping Cruisers and Gunboats in check then allows us to keep Transports' other stats (shield strength, armor, etc.) lower so that fighters, bombers, freighters and small transports can realistically be used for piracy. Due to the long range of BC Main Batteries we currently would have to make the Longhorn capable of 1v1ing Battleships just so we can keep Cruisers from destroying them in seconds. It's a stopgap of sorts.
so the TL;DR is:
You guys are mad, because you shipped a beta-test sample of transport rework without telling people publicly that was what you were doing. And then players reacted by restricting the ships, as they didn't know this was the intention and it was only a test.....
So this whole ordeal would likely been able to avoid or at least mitigate with some transparency and or waiting to drop something until it was ready....
Bustard and Amaterasu were already regulated, they were made for freelancers and corps to have something big and powerful that isnt a SRP cap..... Nobody cared. Literally nobody cared about it. New transport with similar stats/capacity drops - gets regulated same way. Everyone loses their minds.
As you would say.... "That's a skill issue".
Yes people lose their mind over because the carelessness of the Houses screwed an entire faction over (and everyone else). All for the sake of mimicking the idiocy of real life bureaucracy and governments instead of just playing the game.
It's a heavily armoured transport that a lawful faction has full control over. If people were so hung up on the accuracy of RP, what sense does it make for Bristol to do anything unlawful in house space, to warrant such a ban.
![[Image: Ramkerawr.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Ramkerawr.gif)
![[Image: v1zVWKX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/v1zVWKX.png)
![[Image: cdSeFev.png]](http://i.imgur.com/cdSeFev.png)
![[Image: jWv1kDa.png]](https://i.imgur.com/jWv1kDa.png)
