(05-24-2020, 03:48 PM)Skorak Wrote: Not having a CD doesn't protect you. Having a CD on a quasi-lawful/unlawful ship makes you not have transport protection anymore.
Ok, If I fly my Zoner (quasi-lawful) Whale (no cd)) under the nose of an Irra, I can do so with no repercussions? So I would be untouchable rules-wise?
But If I fly a Zoner IDed Serenity (equipped with cd) under the nose of the beforementioned evil entity, he/she can fire on my ship with impunity?
My head hurts.
In both cases, the Nomad ID Irra can shoot you because Nomads can treat transports as combat targets anyway.
If we swap out the Nomad with a Corsair in your first example, however, the Corsair must treat you as a transport. In your second example, the Corsair may treat you as though you were not a transport because you have a cruise disruptor mounted on a quasi-lawful ID ship. Thus they may forego a demand and just engage you.
(05-24-2020, 03:48 PM)Skorak Wrote: Not having a CD doesn't protect you. Having a CD on a quasi-lawful/unlawful ship makes you not have transport protection anymore.
Ok, If I fly my Zoner (quasi-lawful) Whale (no cd)) under the nose of an Irra, I can do so with no repercussions? So I would be untouchable rules-wise?
But If I fly a Zoner IDed Serenity (equipped with cd) under the nose of the beforementioned evil entity, he/she can fire on my ship with impunity?
My head hurts.
In both cases, the Nomad ID Irra can shoot you because Nomads can treat transports as combat targets anyway.
If we swap out the Nomad with a Corsair in your first example, however, the Corsair must treat you as a transport. In your second example, the Corsair may treat you as though you were not a transport because you have a cruise disruptor mounted on a quasi-lawful ID ship. Thus they may forego a demand and just engage you.
I suspected as such, but this official clarification is welcome. Thanks!
(05-24-2020, 01:11 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: A good gameplay experience retains players more than a good roleplay experience.
But the point of the game is also to emulate reality. By your logic we shouldnt allow any risks, and that is what actually makes for a good gameplay experience. I can't believe everyone is being made to jump through hoops rule wise to protect a few weak players as usual. It was fine for 10 years. These attitudes continue to water down the potential of this place. If only people with a slight amount of balls had wound up running this server. It wasn't risks to transports that made this place shrink for 7 years, it was the lack of things to do other than mining.
Before you say it drove players away, if only we had issues and scenarios of actual value to draw people online. Maybe if traders had something to trade for other than money, they'd try despite the danger and be able to enjoy it. But we don't do real things here so we cant often advertise that you could to fly to supply a side in a real war or siege, because that rarely happens for some reason. (probably because of the same immature attitudes around this game).
(05-24-2020, 11:14 AM)St.Denis Wrote: Will now make sure that my Freelancer Trade Ships don't have anything mounted in the CD slot.
I have no problem with being pirated, but being destined as an automatic combat target, by some trigger happy people, just doesn't float my boat.
Your bias is exactly what pisses me off about this place. This was fine for years. So you're telling me you vote to uphold this rule to protect yourself from nomads, or the maquis? (which has already been killed by decisions). I dont and probably never will fly as a nomad but It seems like overkill to have ever introduced a rule and then amend it several times, making the whole population leap through hoops remembering whats acceptable or not, all to save a few situations of traders being ambushed by those who have the ID lines. It undoubtedly should have been left alone.
You know there is an old saying about how if you never finish a piece of art, the artist will eventually work past its best point and the piece inevitably becomes ruined. The line should have been drawn on disco so long ago. People are wondering why all of this is necessary, and then you make it perfectly clear, its all so you and people of the same weak attitude can breathe easier! Glad someone can around here, its tough being just a regular member sometimes.
(05-24-2020, 06:58 PM)Binski Wrote: Your bias is exactly what pisses me off about this place. This was fine for years. So you're telling me you vote to uphold this rule to protect yourself from nomads, or the maquis? (which has already been killed by decisions). I dont and probably never will fly as a nomad but It seems like overkill to have ever introduced a rule and then amend it several times, making the whole population leap through hoops remembering whats acceptable or not, all to save a few situations of traders being ambushed by those who have the ID lines. It undoubtedly should have been left alone.
You know there is an old saying about how if you never finish a piece of art, the artist will eventually work past its best point and the piece inevitably becomes ruined. The line should have been drawn on disco so long ago. People are wondering why all of this is necessary, and then you make it perfectly clear, its all so you and people of the same weak attitude can breathe easier! Glad someone can around here, its tough being just a regular member sometimes.
I have no idea what you are on about. Maybe you never read things, properly. You appear to have your 'grand' idea of how this Game should be played (which you, at every opportunity, make huge posts about and garner little or no following for) and accuse anybody, who doesn't follow your 'ideal game' idea as being biased. Maybe take time to look in the mirror, when you have a few minutes.
Now down to the crux of your 'wall of text':
If you care to read Post #41, you will see that it states that Nomads can treat Transports as 'Combat Targets'. So, please show me where I am trying to protect my 'precious' Trade Ships.
Now if you care to read Post #20 you will what I was trying to point out. I have made it easier for you by actually quoting for you, so that you don't have to hunt for it:
Quote:You can attack a Shetland in a cruiser only after making a reasonable piracy demand, and they refuse to comply. On the other hand, if you happened across a Corsair Raba with a cruise disruptor mounted, you would be able to treat it as a combat target because the "except transports" line wouldn't apply to the first clause.
The example being used was an OC ID.
What this means simply is that if you are Unlawful or Quasi-Lawful (which Freelancers are) you can be counted as a 'Combat Target'. Now, not all pirates will just shoot you, because they can, but rest assured there will be those that will (because the Rules say they can).
I already said that I had no problem with being pirated, but I do have one with people doing 1/ 2/ and instant explosion on my Freelancer Trade Ships.
I never, in my post, asked/demanded/advocated the Rule to be changed. I just stated that I would remove anything from my CD slots on those particular ships.
I will accept I worded my Post in such a way to highlight the Freelancer ID (Spazzy appeared to pick up on it with his Post). The new Players tend to use Freelancer ID exclusively, until they find their feet, and tend to use the Serenity. If they put something in the wrong slot, there is potential for them to be constantly be attacked as Combat Targets and not Traders (first one needs 2 lines and shots, the second needs a demand before the potential for shooting generally happens).
Hopefully that has made things a bit clearer for you.
As you like 'old sayings' here is another for you:
"You need to learn not to keep flogging a dead horse"
'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are' Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person
remove all rules for a week and see how much people start to respect the rules then while i have my own discressions on things i certainly think a lot of folks think too much of how they want it to be as opposed to how it is lain out!
Guys Raba has no cd slot
And for a good reason, it would be utterly OP for pirating and then hauling cargo from destroyed ships
Also I tested this
and
It's
Simple and straightforward
changes almost nothing - my 5k with freighter shield and no armor died to a snub before anyways
caps have to make demands and give reasonable time, and can't just /1 /2 but the time they do, your cruise engines are charged and you leave with armor
Smuggling in Raba and seeing hopeless Liberty Dreads and Kusari BCs trying to prevent you from running/docking is just so much fun
(05-24-2020, 06:58 PM)Binski Wrote: Your bias is exactly what pisses me off about this place. This was fine for years. So you're telling me you vote to uphold this rule to protect yourself from nomads, or the maquis? (which has already been killed by decisions). I dont and probably never will fly as a nomad but It seems like overkill to have ever introduced a rule and then amend it several times, making the whole population leap through hoops remembering whats acceptable or not, all to save a few situations of traders being ambushed by those who have the ID lines. It undoubtedly should have been left alone.
You know there is an old saying about how if you never finish a piece of art, the artist will eventually work past its best point and the piece inevitably becomes ruined. The line should have been drawn on disco so long ago. People are wondering why all of this is necessary, and then you make it perfectly clear, its all so you and people of the same weak attitude can breathe easier! Glad someone can around here, its tough being just a regular member sometimes.
I have no idea what you are on about. Maybe you never read things, properly. You appear to have your 'grand' idea of how this Game should be played (which you, at every opportunity, make huge posts about and garner little or no following for) and accuse anybody, who doesn't follow your 'ideal game' idea as being biased. Maybe take time to look in the mirror, when you have a few minutes.
Now down to the crux of your 'wall of text':
If you care to read Post #41, you will see that it states that Nomads can treat Transports as 'Combat Targets'. So, please show me where I am trying to protect my 'precious' Trade Ships.
Now if you care to read Post #20 you will what I was trying to point out. I have made it easier for you by actually quoting for you, so that you don't have to hunt for it:
Quote:You can attack a Shetland in a cruiser only after making a reasonable piracy demand, and they refuse to comply. On the other hand, if you happened across a Corsair Raba with a cruise disruptor mounted, you would be able to treat it as a combat target because the "except transports" line wouldn't apply to the first clause.
The example being used was an OC ID.
What this means simply is that if you are Unlawful or Quasi-Lawful (which Freelancers are) you can be counted as a 'Combat Target'. Now, not all pirates will just shoot you, because they can, but rest assured there will be those that will (because the Rules say they can).
I already said that I had no problem with being pirated, but I do have one with people doing 1/ 2/ and instant explosion on my Freelancer Trade Ships.
I never, in my post, asked/demanded/advocated the Rule to be changed. I just stated that I would remove anything from my CD slots on those particular ships.
I will accept I worded my Post in such a way to highlight the Freelancer ID (Spazzy appeared to pick up on it with his Post). The new Players tend to use Freelancer ID exclusively, until they find their feet, and tend to use the Serenity. If they put something in the wrong slot, there is potential for them to be constantly be attacked as Combat Targets and not Traders (first one needs 2 lines and shots, the second needs a demand before the potential for shooting generally happens).
Hopefully that has made things a bit clearer for you.
As you like 'old sayings' here is another for you:
"You need to learn not to keep flogging a dead horse"
Yeah I wonder what opinions we'd churn up if the majority weren't terrified of the staff, over having more options and doing more with the physical game. The staff says no, everyone falls in line. I doubt its 100% out of agreement with you.
But you're right, I am confused which is what I was trying to underscore, as there was nothing wrong with it the way it was. All of this what can and cant go on over the need for a few exceptions? And its all to avoid what should have been an instant backtrack on a bad decision.
I didn't kill the dead horse I flog, you guys did, and you keep it dead artificially. Let it get up and we'll see where it takes us.
So Nomads can attack transports regardless of designation, ok...but if they dont have anything in their CD slot, its not a transport? So this is aimed at other ID's that could treat tranports as combat targets? Starting to get how this is all useless except for a small amount of circumstances? As far as I'm concerned, it was useless to bother introducing a rule at all.
So if you can ditch your CD you are protected from being a combat target? That sounds like adding a layer of protection to me.
(05-24-2020, 07:11 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:
(05-24-2020, 06:58 PM)Binski Wrote: But the point of the game is also to emulate reality.
Ahh yes, the cherry picking begins! I'm gonna stop you right there. This place suffers from the worst case of cognitive dissonance ever. All games emulate reality. You probably don't want to think too hard on this or it could become mental quicksand in an instant.
So before we cherry pick what parts of disco we consider a numbers only game and what is an immersion RP game, lets think about it again. Because if you argue that this as a game doesn't need to worry about realistic variables determined by actual existence, why do we care about the things we do? Why are people so worried about losing a real in-game war or siege, if its just a game with bearing on reality?
Its the same for those who think they're avoiding simulation here, when social simulation is exactly what this place revolves around by default. Accept it. Yet for some reason, players just exert force to draw the line where they prefer it be, and hide behind it. So it becomes a balance, and when someone wants to go a bit further with immersion than someone else (with more power), they get to stop you.
So its cool, I know that because of that cognitive dissonance, I get mad, people will get mad at my frustration, since they're too scared to ask for more.
4.6 Players may defend allied ships within their Zone of Influence, and may always act in self-defense or to defend ships of the same affiliation anywhere, regardless of any normal restrictions.
If the player you are defending of the same affiliation is fighting transports, can you bypass the "must make a demand" crap that would prohibit unlawful players from outright attacking in defense?
(05-24-2020, 01:03 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: There is nothing fun about being transport and in a situation where your only gameplay option is to die. That does not create a good game.
There is nothing fun about having to bypass 20 rules condoms to have normal sex with a transport hot girl if you don't care about buying plan b the next morning.