A rule covering ganking would be nearly impossible to codify, and impossible to implement.
Of course, you can always come up with a RP reason to prevent such harm of gameplay, up to and including all players involved turning on the uninvited guests...perhaps they aren't responding to hails because of mental illness and need to be neutralised...
' Wrote:A rule covering ganking would be nearly impossible to codify, and impossible to implement.
Of course, you can always come up with a RP reason to prevent such harm of gameplay, up to and including all players involved turning on the uninvited guests...perhaps they aren't responding to hails because of mental illness and need to be neutralised...
My personal favourite is this:
Quote:One of the fundamental values of Liberty is 'Freedom of the press'. Unfortunately, the misguided media have a tendency to glorify minorities as 'martyrs', valiantly fighting to the death, few against many. Civil unrest is often soon to follow.
Well I don't think there needs to be a specific blanket rule on this, Athenian.
But the 1.2 rule is there for a reason, I think.
And I guess that stuff would have to be judged on a case by case basis when it comes to that rule, because it's kind of vague.
But it's a good thing.
"Damages server gameplay."
Doesn't this do it?
<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">
<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
' Wrote:Don't tell anyone, but the Hunters have actually helped the Keepers kill a Corsair or two before. Of course, it wasn't intentional. The Corsairs decided to fire on us and we fired back, then for whatever reason the Keepers had they switched agendas from us to them and fired on it too. Or something like that.
Keep it hushed, 'kay?
One of them had Artifacts aboard:)
@ Swift : Its the same story again. 'Who decides what damages server roleplay?'. One side'd be happy, the other pissed off. Sides switch, one side pissed, other happy. Now the other side fills in the report.
The idea is somewhat good, just a matter of working it out.
It depends on whether or not players overpowering an enemy is regarded as disruptive of gameplay. Sometimes, it is entirely appropriate. If the players involved weren't breaking any actual rules (as it satnds, if you fly the right ship with the correct ID and utter your few words of roleplay, you can chew up enemies like they are going out of fashion) then it hardly seems fair to have administrators impose sanctions, considering how many rules the players involved have not broken.
As players we can shape gameplay as we see fit, and the advantage of knowing your in-game enemies as players outside of the game is that you can come to an understanding as to how things will be dealt with in game. I generally believe that some improvisation in game can deal with these things a little more effectively, and more importantly, more immediately.
And when that fails? What then?
Because it is not like I just waltzed in here and made this thread.
I tried to achieve it, in-RP, for around 20 minutes.
And all I got were "No."
Some were understanding, like a particular Order gunboat, and disengaged. Those people I approve of.
But some just carried on their merry way.
Now I ain't some gung ho fair play activist. I don't think we need to have constant fully equal fights, but at least some form of measure, a line not to be crossed, would be nice.
Over 7-8 capital ships on three fighters? I think that crosses it, cleanly.
I was actually glad to be heavily outnumbered at times. But only when I stood some theoretical chance.
I don't mind say.. 5 fighters on my fighter. But I do mind a battleship on my fighter, because I have no way to defeat it, whatever I do.
As for the, who decides on it? Well the administrators of the server, I'd guess? Certainly not me. Certainly not "you". Because "we" can be biased at times, no point denying it.
I'd just like to ask. Hypothetically of course, because I neither remember any names nor have I taken any screenshots.
Purely inquisitive.
Had there been a case of what I described, evidence was conclusive, even attempts at trying to bring order to it screenshot, would the admins find it worthy of a warning at least?
<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">
<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
I suppose you could do a "test" rule violation report.
Alternatively, locate said players and show them what happens when you disrupt a military operation/cause damage with friendly fire/disobey orders/destroy valuable specimens etc. Keep showing them how unhappy you are. Bring some friends with you and let them see how it feels.
' Wrote:I suppose you could do a "test" rule violation report.
Alternatively, locate said players and show them what happens when you disrupt a military operation/cause damage with friendly fire/disobey orders/destroy valuable specimens etc. Keep showing them how unhappy you are. Bring some friends with you and let them see how it feels.
Wisdom, he has it.
Formerly known as LPI Police Chief Hull O'Brien.
Creator of Sgt. V. Price, 207th Precinct out of Chula Vista Station
Well I suppose I can get over it/Try other means of solving it. But anyways, what I know is that I don't want to sit around and watch it happen day after day.
Would the Corsair Elders, or official factions of any other NPC faction which might pull stunts like this, be in a position to levy punishment to said people if they deem it fitting?
I don't know what, really, but something, at least.
This is the part when I'd normally start talking about possibilities of removing ship privileges to abusers, but we've been down that road a million times and it always degraded into flames/died.
<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">
<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
alatino Linotype">
![[Image: harlequincopy.png]](http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb305/Dlunar/harlequincopy.png)
