[netburnr]

Because if there is an auto+defense in all sectors then there is less of a reason to spend money on defense.

[Jump]

So who ever said there was an auto+defense in all sectors? Have I missed a quote in an interview or a post by NetDevil?

[Wild_Bill]

Tritian and GrimGriz you both make good points. IF there are enough "protectors' either PC or NPC then the miners/haulers don't NEED super uber protection. Cruise ships and cargo ships in RL don't have hardly any defense, but then again the pirates in RL are not nearly so well armed (Thank God!) as in Jumpgate Classic/Jumpgate Evolution and the "protectors" in general are VERY dedicated.

In theory miners/haulers would not/should not be heavily armed or armored simply because they are there to mine ore or transport goods and every kilo of armor, weapons, ammo or missiles is another kilo not dedicated to cargo. In most of the Sci-Fi I've read, you have haulers, miners, and the jack-of-all-trades type (independant traders/explorers) who do a little of everything; then there are the faction armed forces, warriors and outlaws/pirates. The haulers/miners are nearly always painted as being helpless, but no one in Jumpgate Classic is going to be satisfied being a helpless victim and thus our current scenario. Jumpgate being Jumpgate, we need armor/weapons for miners/haulers simply because there will always be SOME danger to face and never enough protectors PC or NPC.

In Jumpgate Classic there are simply not enough players to adequately protect the miners/haulers. All who've trod the non-combat path are well familar with the feeling. The overall percentage of pirates in Jumpgate Classic has also been felt heavily. If you've got 30 people on line and even 3 of them are pirates, the odds of the 20 people who are flying non-combat ships facing personal danger is very high, especially without protectors. If we are talking hundreds or thousands of players on-line, the pirate/outlaw presence (and the preceived personal danger) won't be (IMO) that horrible.

We'll just have to see.

I'd thought originally that station sectors should be heavily patrolled (either by mission or AI), with faction space becoming less and less patroled out to unreg or hostile faction boundaries. Possibly combat patrols on the boundaries. Then I got to remembering some of the big fights at OP or Wake or even Quantar Core (long time ago for me) and I realized that heavy patrols by AI would seriously interfere with that experience.

I don't know how or if ND will handle these issues. You have to keep the new people safe; the game needs to value and guard the producers of wealth and commerce but there MUST be room for the PvP and even outlaw/pirate RP as well. I'd still like areas of greater protection/safety for those who absolutely want to avoid hostile interactions or need above-average protection, but I think their experience would be very unsatisfactory in the long run. We play games for fun, excitement and to challenge ourselves against others. Hiding in a "safe zone" simply won't provide that. Nor should there be a place where anyone can try to completely protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. Understand I still don't LIKE the pirate/outlaw/griefer RP, but I admit the validity and value of it to the game overall. It needs to be playable for all involved.

[Eraser55]

pls dont mix griefer and pirate.

first there is no such thing as griefer RP, and if someone claims that there is, then they are retarted. If you dont understand the difference between a Pirate an Outlaw and a Griefer then you should not talk about it and should start asking questions or google..

Your statements just show how you view players who play more aggressivly then others. And you label them all as griefers. thats simply wrong.

[GrimGriz]

A rose by any other name....

but still, there's no real point in rehashing the old debate. Let's focus on the positive....if you get griefed in your solrain hauler account in Jumpgate Evolution, and you can log on quant mining account without having to pay an extra $14.95 a month!

[Tritian]

I believe it's possible to have a good experience hauling without having a ship thats invulnerable to all possible player interaction. We had it back in the earlier days of Jumpgate when we had more players and no ridiculous Freighters, however it wasn't taken to the extreme i'd prefer.

Turrets are definately not the answer, no matter what type of specific hard-on GrimGriz has for them. The answer is making the risk worth the reward, and providing variable risk vs reward based on where the hauler is hauling.

Hauling deep within faction space should be realitively safe, but low in reward. Hauling between factions should be a lot more profitable but dangerous. Hauling to/from unreg stations should be the highest amount of profit vs risk.

Tows should be made TARGETS, not protected thru hardcoded mechanics such as uber AI drones or massive amounts of offensive capability.

Another major problem with hauling in Jumpgate was that the risks were not very well defined, and thus haulers got all upset when they were blown up. The risks should be made clear to any would-be tow pilot before they take the missions. Death in Jumpgate is inevitable, whether you fly a tow or a fighter.

[Liet]

I liked being helpless in my tow if caught in a bad situation, one where I couldn't 7 FF my way to deepspace in terror (making tows slower than fighters was a very bad idea, btw). It made me rely on other tools, like diplomacy, careful route-plotting, asking friends to escort me, etc. I found it also helps moderate a real pirate RP. If you're reasonable about the amounts you ask for, people respect you and don't kill you on sight in a tow.

Basically, I liked the dangerous feeling, and I knew I ran the risk of dying due to my RP every time I launched in a tow.

Don't know why we're rehashing this. Combat ships are combat ships, cargo ships are not.

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by Liet

Don't know why we're rehashing this. Combat ships are combat ships, cargo ships are not.

Because making players second-class citizens because of their chosen playstyle is wrong, and people like you and tritian are scared they'll take your helpless victims away.

We'll see what they do. I'm of the opinion that making players defenseless is a terrible mistake, one they should have learned from in Jumpgate Classic. You disagree. Neither of us is likely to change our minds, I'm very comfortable letting it rest. It was something that bothered me about this article and so I brought it up when discussing the article.

[Sephiroth]

Well, I'm going to have to agree with Jump that the dude who wrote the article is just making up a bunch of stuff to fill some space, however, if some of what he said is correct you can be pretty sure that Jumpgate will be ruined! Oh well, at least I'll save the monthly fee!

[Wild_Bill]

Eraser, my response to you would be "Balrog" and "The Borg" as examples of griefer RP. You couldn't buy them off, period. No P.O.D.s; no NAPS. They saw you and they tried to take you out. They would attack anyone weaker than themselves (and frequently stronger as well in the case of Balrog, but the strong attacking the stronger is not my point).

I grew up reading Walter Scott, Edgar Rice Burroughs and others with the philosophy of the strong protecting the weak; noble warriors protected the peasants and wicked nobles and robbers attacked them; Sherrif's and Marshalls kept the thieves and outlaws from preying on the citizens. The cops chased the robbers and muderers. Only cowards attacked the weak or helpless.That's the viewpoint I bring to this game and how I see others. Warriors attack other warriors; pirates/outlaws/griefers attack the weak and defenseless. Has absolutely nothing to do with aggressiveness.

[Eraser55]

Originally Posted by Wild_Bill

Eraser, my response to you would be "Balrog" and "The Borg" as examples of griefer RP. You couldn't buy them off, period. No P.O.D.s; no NAPS. They saw you and they tried to take you out. They would attack anyone weaker than themselves (and frequently stronger as well in the case of Balrog, but the strong attacking the stronger is not my point).

Warriors attack other warriors; pirates/outlaws/griefers attack the weak and defenseless. Has absolutely nothing to do with aggressiveness.

Griefers differ from typical players in that they do not play the game in order to achieve objectives defined by the game world. Instead, they seek to harass other players, causing grief.[3] In particular, they may use tools such as stalking, hurling insults, and exploiting unintended game mechanics.[3] Griefing as a gaming play style is not simply any action that may be considered morally incorrect. Though the staff of each online game defines griefing in a manner that best fits their game, certain criteria must be met for an action to be considered griefing. An act of griefing involves the following three types of actions to be considered grief play:[4]

• The unfair use or abuse of a game mechanic that was not intended by the game's developers.
• The inability of the victim to exact some means of retribution beyond utilizing similar unintended game mechanics.
• The intended purpose of an act of griefing must be to negatively impact the game play of another person.

An act of griefing usually meets all these types of criteria as well as any game specific criteria set by the developers of the game.

I copied this from Wiki, because it explains well enough what griefing is. I dont know about Balrog and Borg. But from what you explained that does not qualify for being a griefer. The game mechanics allow people to kill anyone anytime. Noone is forced to make naps or be bought off.

A pirate, an outlaw and other types or rp such as mercs are imo legal roleplay well within what this game allows. So when someone mixes griefer with pirate I tend to react as you almoust label pirates as cheaters. But maybe you didnt know that..

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by Eraser55

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer#_note-1"]

• The unfair use or abuse of a game mechanic that was not intended by the game's developers.
• The inability of the victim to exact some means of retribution beyond utilizing similar unintended game mechanics.
• The intended purpose of an act of griefing must be to negatively impact the game play of another person.
  

[/i]

And, here's the definition of how "pirates" in jumpgate work:

• The inability of the victim to exact some means of retribution beyond utilizing similar game mechanics.
• The intended purpose of an act of "interaction" must be to negatively impact the game play of another person.