|
Post by Caesar on Oct 28, 2007 11:46:00 GMT
In my opinion there should be some changes to the server rules to create more roleplay and more gameplay [glow=red,2,300]1.[/glow] At this time there is absolutly no gameplay at all for pirates. The things that pirates do is tax and kill people for money. Taxing is not allowed and killing someone doesnt give you any money at the moment. I have 2 solutions for this problem: * Allow taxing till a maximum of for example 500k * Activate the killing people for money thing again. The last is not possible according to several admins because people will abuse it, I also have 2 solutions for this: * Add a 3 death rule, meaning if you kill someone in the same system 3 times he has to leaf the system for an hour on that character. (this doesnt include pvp deaths and event deaths) * Also another 3 death rule but less drastic, Kill someone 3 times and then you ghave to leaf him/her alone for an hour. This will attract pirate clans too, At the moment pirates have no bussiness on this server.
|
|
-=|STORM|=-
Full Member
??? ... everyone will be washed away, drowning in the hell that we made ... ??
Posts: 108
|
Post by -=|STORM|=- on Oct 28, 2007 11:54:21 GMT
I like the rules as they are. My opinion is: No point to change it. Except maybe the part with taxing. You could put that pirates can tax ppl with rank 50 or more or something like that.
|
|
Grizz
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by Grizz on Oct 28, 2007 13:02:46 GMT
I like the rules as they are. My opinion is: No point to change it. Except maybe the part with taxing. You could put that pirates can tax ppl with rank 50 or more or something like that. I can hardly see Taxing being a path to riches for pirates .. I can see it being a path to no where ... seems some just dont know how to "pirate" .. but the only way taxing would work for a pirate is if it was against a lesser ship and or opponent... I'd rather dump my load and feed it to the NPC's and say yeah kill me 3 times then run along ..if caught in a lesser ship and those with evenly matched ships and experience ? are hardly going to say "ok heres the cash" now are they ... it looks more like a gripe over not being able to get rich quick than over game play ... a complaint over low looting ability .. well who goes to a swimming pool to steal water with an egg cup? I agree with Freya I like the rules as they are, maybe the "Pirates" need to get a little more creative ?
|
|
-=|STORM|=-
Full Member
??? ... everyone will be washed away, drowning in the hell that we made ... ??
Posts: 108
|
Post by -=|STORM|=- on Oct 28, 2007 13:23:29 GMT
and those with evenly matched ships and experience ? are hardly going to say "ok heres the cash" now are they ... nah... I would just say kiss my a** ;D
|
|
|
Post by >3MAJ<>Red_Sonya< on Oct 28, 2007 14:18:59 GMT
Well maybe the ammount when pirate kill a trader could be raised for a bit ( to separate it from "eagle kill train" issue / ammount of money he gets from it ) ? For trains maybe even 500 k , AT 200 k and so on ... or maybe proportional to the ammount of cash they made by trading or cargo they carry ?
|
|
|
Post by Elatan on Oct 28, 2007 14:53:08 GMT
Yep, I think this is a good idea, Sonya. Taxing is not the thing I would like for pirates, too. Good would be a killing bonus, but not only for the trader role, because most AT's are Freelancers, but are also trading on the server. I would bound the bonus to the cargo the ships are carrying. That would make it unatractive to attack low level ships, or even to attack eagles. So it would make pirates to do, what pirates should do
|
|
|
Post by Caesar on Oct 28, 2007 17:42:53 GMT
Roleplay.I would love to see more actual roleplay (RP) take place on EU, however our attempts to introduce this previously have encountered many difficulties. One of the main problems we had was that many players felt they were being "forced" into roleplay, whether they wanted to be a part of it or not. This thinking was mostly caused by the introduction of death costs, which were deducted from one player and awarded to the opponent. Different rates were applied, depending on the role(s) of the 2 combatants... it was not always the killer who received the credits btw, sometimes the deduction was made from the killer and paid to the player who died. Should we make a concerted effort to encourage RP on EU we would, therefore, need to include an "opt out role" as such... fortunately this already exists in the name of the game. We would then need to agree what roles to offer. I felt that we offered a good range previously with Pirate, Police, Trader and Hunter roles (Nomad was introduced later), there were also "subsidiary" roles available for players who could be employed by one of the main roles, i.e. Traders could employ Escorts, Pirates could employ Buccaneers etc. This meant it was possible for a player who used the Freelancer role to join in for a while, and then revert back to original (non)role afterwards. The next problem we would have to cover would be what do these roles actually mean, and what would be the significance of taking on such a role? I tend to agree with the stricter side of RP myself, i.e. a player's chosen role should be played properly. This means that if a player wants to be considered a Pirate, he should have a reputation sheet to match that role... hostile to the "Good Guy" Factions and friendly to the "Bad Guy" Factions. Similarly a player who wanted to be Police would have the reverse of this. Those roles are pretty easy to infer what reps should apply; some more thought would need to be given to the reputations applied to Hunters and Traders, however, as there are many ideas as to what these roles could/should mean. One further consideration we need to take into account is the effect of reps on Trade Lanes (TLs). Players who took on a "Bad Guy" Role would often find themselves at a disadvantage due to the variance in firepower of the TL's Turrets. Taxing or Death Costs?I need to start my reply to this by stating that I have always been against Taxing being allowed on EU, and have never found anything that has changed my thoughts on this matter. I will happily go into the reasons for my opinion regarding this subject at another time, if you wish, for now I would prefer to discuss the other items raised by your post. Although I am against Taxing, I firmly believe that it should be possible for a roleplayer to gain some form of income from players using opposing roles.You should note, however, that I have never believed that this should be their sole source of income... RPers should be prepared to make credits the "standard" way too, i.e. missions, trading etc. As previously mentioned we attempted to cover this with the introduction of death costs, which were deducted from one player and paid to the other. As also mentioned, it was not necessarily the "winner" who was paid, the kill had to be considered "legal" or the payments would be reversed. What this meant was that if a Pirate killed a Police or Trader RPer (or vice versa), this was considered a legal kill and the winner was paid credits by the loser. If an "illegal" kill was made, however, e.g. Police killed Police, then it was the loser who was paid by the winner. No Death Costs were incurred when a Freelancer was involved. Overall I think we had got this part right... the only problem found here was when 2 players wanted to PvP outside RP, but their roles meant that "penalties" would be applied. Personally I thought it would be easy for the players to keep track of who killed who, and they could have "balanced the books" afterwards. Apparently this was not the case though, so we introduced the /duel option which would cancel any death costs incurred by RP PvP. The main issue here is how the death costs should be calculated. These need to be seen to be "fair", however many people have different ideas of what that means. Our attempt to base death costs on a player's rank/level did not work due to the fact that many players then chose to deliberately keep this low by "storing" their credits on other chars... politeness prevents me from saying what I thought of them. Similarly attempts to have costs based on differing ships and equipment used by the opposing players, usually based on the maximum weapon class a ship could mount, did not work as planned either. A further "flaw" in our calculations was the surmise that players would make credits by looting ammunition dropped by the player killed. A full load of Cannonball and Hornet Missiles, plus Ripper Mines and Adv. Counter Measures is worth about 800k in total, however when both players are often using the same weapon configuration all that happens is the winner gets to replace ammunition he expended rather than make any real profit. Things improve a little when slightly different configs are used by the opposing players, e.g. 1 player uses Screamer Mines instead of Rippers, or a Wasp instead of a Hornet, but the fact remains that the theoretical profit from looting proves to be a lot less in reality. Personally I think we should discontinue player looting, and revert to the original settings where players did not lose ammunition when they died. This would also mean that ammunition would be charged at full price in DM System. Death Costs should then be calculated as a percentage of the value of the player's ship and equipment, regardless of rank/level. My own main char ([EFS]Caesar) has a net value of $718,041 in ship and equipment... Item | | Value | Eagle | | 404,000 | Tizona Del Cid | | 36,144 | Salamanca MkII | | 36,144 | Nomad Energy Blaster | | 4,338 | Cannonball Missile Launcher | | 36,144 | Nomad Energy Blaster | | 4,338 | Nomad Energy Blaster | | 4,338 | Salamanca Turret | | 36,144 | Hornet Cruise Disruptor | | 16,843 | Ripper Mine Launcher | | 43,374 | Adv. Countermeasure Dropper | | 750 | Adv. Brigandine Shield | | 93,684 | Adv. Thruster | | 1,800 |
N.B. Amounts shown are resale prices, not cost prices. ...If I were to be charged 25% of this as a death cost payable to my opponent, it would be $179,510. Personally I feel that is a fair death cost to pay; I am not able to manipulate it in any way, except by reducing the equipment mounted on my ship, which would in turn lessen my fighting ability and increase the chances of my dying. I would need to make further calculations to see how this would impact on Traders, but for that I feel a smaller percentage of the ship and equipment value should be payable (deducted from Trader), to which a percentage of the cost price of the cargo carried should be added. This 2nd amount would not be deducted from the Trader, who would already have paid the full cost of the cargo. I would also need to confirm with Eagle how easily the server can calculate these costs (shouldn't be too much of a problem), and how much work would be required for such a scheme to be implemented (possibly more of a concern atm). Hunter has noted that the potential for abuse of any death costs is a concern to the Admins, which is correct. Personally I am not too keen on the 1st suggested solution, however I think the 2nd one has possibilities. Sadly it is unlikely that we could rely on a voluntary implementation of such a method, but it may be possible for the server to keep track of such things... something I will again need to discuss with Eagle.
|
|
|
Post by Eagle on Oct 28, 2007 20:07:40 GMT
Dont forget that there allready is a thing called piracy bonus which applies to apirate killing a trader. This is a significant credit bonus paid on top of the death cost one allready receives from all players. So as far as pirating agaisnt traders goes... we allready have a decent system in place [edit] I'm ofcourse talking about the Trader role, not just anyone flying a freighter or hauling cargo in any other way. [/edit]
|
|
|
Post by Ariea on Oct 28, 2007 20:17:02 GMT
As you said Eagle, but it's probably a fact that majority of peeps flying freighters use the Freelancer role (for whatever reason that may be). Hi, the Bountyhunter role (not available at Eagle Utopia at the moment) is the only one to get money for killing other people, the Pirate role is another one. Pirates earn money with looting ammo and goods of the players they killed.. I dont agree with that because normally pirates earn money taxing people in there terretory, but this is not possible because of the taxing rule. First to say, I'd never allow anyone to tax me and always did and always will avoid these kind of pirates or oppose them, even if I lose. More of a problem here is though that all systems are owned already via the System Ownership, and I doubt that any clan owning a system would like to see pirates taxing in their systems - pirates would just cause themselves more problems. So much for the territory idea. The main issue here is how the death costs should be calculated. These need to be seen to be "fair", however many people have different ideas of what that means. Our attempt to base death costs on a player's rank/level did not work due to the fact that many players then chose to deliberately keep this low by "storing" their credits on other chars... politeness prevents me from saying what I thought of them. Similarly attempts to have costs based on differing ships and equipment used by the opposing players, usually based on the maximum weapon class a ship could mount, did not work as planned either. Not to forget the new bank account now which let's peeps store away credits even more easier (though for a little fee). Personally I think we should discontinue player looting, and revert to the original settings where players did not lose ammunition when they died. This would also mean that ammunition would be charged at full price in DM System. Death Costs should then be calculated as a percentage of the value of the player's ship and equipment, regardless of rank/level. My own main char ([EFS]Caesar) has a net value of $718,041 in ship and equipment... Item | | Value | Eagle | | 404,000 | Tizona Del Cid | | 36,144 | Salamanca MkII | | 36,144 | Nomad Energy Blaster | | 4,338 | Cannonball Missile Launcher | | 36,144 | Nomad Energy Blaster | | 4,338 | Nomad Energy Blaster | | 4,338 | Salamanca Turret | | 36,144 | Hornet Cruise Disruptor | | 16,843 | Ripper Mine Launcher | | 43,374 | Adv. Countermeasure Dropper | | 750 | Adv. Brigandine Shield | | 93,684 | Adv. Thruster | | 1,800 |
N.B. Amounts shown are resale prices, not cost prices. ...If I were to be charged 25% of this as a death cost payable to my opponent, it would be $179,510. Personally I feel that is a fair death cost to pay; I am not able to manipulate it in any way, except by reducing the equipment mounted on my ship, which would in turn lessen my fighting ability and increase the chances of my dying. I would need to make further calculations to see how this would impact on Traders, but for that I feel a smaller percentage of the ship and equipment value should be payable (deducted from Trader), to which a percentage of the cost price of the cargo carried should be added. This 2nd amount would not be deducted from the Trader, who would already have paid the full cost of the cargo. This idea sounds pretty nice to me, and I would probably like to see it included for a testing once.
|
|
|
Post by Eagle on Oct 28, 2007 20:38:23 GMT
RP support on EU atm is primarilly a reputation thing, we took out the death cost once we implemented a new scheme so the cost part is gone now which is ashame. I'd like to see this be brought back to live and also to prevent players from banking all their credits or even trading it if that gets them below a certain limit (say between 10 and 50 million?), this should ensure there's enough credits that can be transfered in case of a death and at the same time allow anything over that limit to be banked or transfered.
The reputation bit could probably altered if we can increase death cost for opposing roles, perhaps even dropped all together. Drop reputation restrictions you say?? Well yes... as long as we can guarantee certain roles can't dock certain bases... like no police on pirate bases and vice versa. Might even lock out jumpholes to traders, and certain gates to pirates.
|
|
Grizz
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by Grizz on Oct 28, 2007 20:54:06 GMT
The reputation bit could probably altered if we can increase death cost for opposing roles, perhaps even dropped all together. hmm I would not like to see the different reps dropped from roles, half the fun as a pirate is the "outlaw" status and endless battles to get from A to B, after all is that not what role play is ? what next ? neutral Nads ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by >3MAJ<>Red_Sonya< on Oct 29, 2007 14:22:21 GMT
Specially cause of this maybe death cost should be calculated on the bases of cargo he carries also . Maybe even in all amount of that cargo . Cause that what pirates do : kill and take the loot / cargo . IMO changing rep wont make thing in this metter so much better .
|
|
|
Post by >3MAJ<>Cveki< on Oct 29, 2007 16:26:43 GMT
The reputation bit could probably altered if we can increase death cost for opposing roles, perhaps even dropped all together. hmm I would not like to see the different reps dropped from roles, half the fun as a pirate is the "outlaw" status and endless battles to get from A to B, after all is that not what role play is ? what next ? neutral Nads ? ;D Also agree here! For now - to pirate became a pirate, need to be a trader and also be pirated by them . As long as bank account exist and /sendcash command (dont flame, please ) no way they can reach the effort and cost of stuff needed achieving what they do! That is my though, even if I wasnt been in their skin. ;D Also would like to make them somehow tempted (is that word?) or attractive to do their job. BTW, all u here can be that beside other . Login out... END
|
|
|
Post by >3MAJ<>Anubis< on Oct 29, 2007 18:00:16 GMT
I would just like an explanation why taxing is not allowed
|
|
|
Post by $[xXx]$Niflheim on Oct 31, 2007 3:33:27 GMT
i like the idea of taxing but only problem i see some one taxing you then killing you after they sent the money there no true protection from that if it dose happen
(Also only pirate roles should be able to get away with taxing so freelansers that have protection from the npcs cant do it)
|
|
|
Post by Xardas on Oct 31, 2007 11:11:24 GMT
I would just like an explanation why taxing is not allowed server rule #3: "Offensive and/or abusive behavior is not tolerated on this server." And taxing is abusive behavior. We are discussing about some "tweaks" to the current RP system to make it all more interesting to the players. Once this is done, believe me, pirates will be more tempted to hunt traders, traders to hire escorts and police to hunt pirates...as a certain peep would put it : "...patience grasshopper..." ;D X
|
|
|
Post by Cheetah on Oct 31, 2007 14:47:50 GMT
server rule #3: "Offensive and/or abusive behavior is not tolerated on this server." And taxing is abusive behavior. X I disagree here with you...I don't think its abusive....Its role playing. A few years ago we didn't had the rule about not allowing taxing.....but ppl "abuse" it by killing ppl over and over again....And that is abusive behavior...not the taxing imo. Like Xardas said the admins are talking about the taxing at this point...It could take some time before we have any answers. But suggestion are always welcome
|
|
|
Post by >3MAJ<>Red_Sonya< on Oct 31, 2007 15:23:13 GMT
maybe with allowing taxing , you can also make a rule about killing pilots ( 3 or even 5 kill per person / or in system ) after which he cant be attacked any more by same person Of course , this doesnt solve problem with "groupe" taxing , cause then it all goes up to 6 / 10 kill ( 2 of them ) - minimum . Maybe problem is that we can change rules , but peeps not . There will be always 1 "smart" guy who would harrass someone . But brighter side of this is that other rp would be realy more activated ( escorts , police etc )
|
|
|
Post by Xardas on Oct 31, 2007 16:23:06 GMT
I disagree here with you...I don't think its abusive....Its role playing. A few years ago we didn't had the rule about not allowing taxing.....but ppl "abuse" it by killing ppl over and over again....And that is abusive behavior...not the taxing imo. Well, you are right...technically speaking taxing is not abuse, but in practice it leads to abuse in the way you explained it...i just skipped the explanation part and said the end result. Instead of taxing leads to abuse, i said taxing is abuse. Anyway, we agree that taxing leaves to big a window for speculation on what is abuse and what isnt, and there are "those kind of players" that will always try to push the boundaries to the limits and say stuff like "hey, taxing is allowed here, im not braking any server rules by killing you 100 times until you quit the game and leave the server"... After we do the RP "tweaking", I am sure that peeps will be too busy by actually hunting traders/pirates/police to make $ instead of bullying them by taxing... X
|
|
|
Post by >3MAJ<>alpha-com< ~BARON~ on Oct 31, 2007 19:04:53 GMT
it seems the future will be very very interesting!
|
|