Forums » Suggestions
Increase allowed 'foreign' standing for UIT players to +650
If I'm not mistaken, Serco and Itan both only 'protect' a ship if it has local standing of admired (+601) or better*. Since 1.8.278, foreign nationals can only have standing of +600 with a foreign major nation. This means that UIT traders are never protected in Serco/Itani space.
Proposal: Increase max Serco/Itan standing for UIT nationals to 650 (or 700).
Alternative: Decrease max standing for protection in Serco/Itan nation space to 'respected'
UIT can still not buy valks or proms, but now they can work up to a trusted standing with one of the two nations and play their role as neutral traders making profit by supplying either side in the war.
From balance perspective, I think UIT can use a small boost since they don't have top-tier military ships, and this helps them in their trader role.
From an RP perspective, I think it makes sense that Serco/Itan would protect a neutral trader who has made major contributions to that nation in the past.
*) I'm not actually totally sure and can't find it anywhere. If this is not the case, just call me a noob and move on.
Proposal: Increase max Serco/Itan standing for UIT nationals to 650 (or 700).
Alternative: Decrease max standing for protection in Serco/Itan nation space to 'respected'
UIT can still not buy valks or proms, but now they can work up to a trusted standing with one of the two nations and play their role as neutral traders making profit by supplying either side in the war.
From balance perspective, I think UIT can use a small boost since they don't have top-tier military ships, and this helps them in their trader role.
From an RP perspective, I think it makes sense that Serco/Itan would protect a neutral trader who has made major contributions to that nation in the past.
*) I'm not actually totally sure and can't find it anywhere. If this is not the case, just call me a noob and move on.
No.
I would prefer if factions offered nominal protection at respect status. Also, UIT should do the same for Itani and Serco players. Not as much protection as an admired or POS national gets, but enough to serve as a soft deterent.
Also, I would like to see subfaction bias towards either Serco or Itani have a dynamic relationship to players standing with those factions and the Nation Standing. But first, allied UIT subfactions should by some dynamic be affected by a players UIT standing. KOS UIT, a player should not have admire or better Axia or TPG.
Also, I would like to see subfaction bias towards either Serco or Itani have a dynamic relationship to players standing with those factions and the Nation Standing. But first, allied UIT subfactions should by some dynamic be affected by a players UIT standing. KOS UIT, a player should not have admire or better Axia or TPG.
-1 Nah. It makes sense that you're protected at home. You go someplace else and walk down the wrong dark alley and you're liable to lose a kidney. Space is finally dangerous again.
@ARF, I think you are overestimating the effect of my proposal. A UIT trader doing business in Itani space would still have to pass greyspace to reach blue. Also, before getting protection the trader needs to put significant effort in reaching Itani standing, at the cost of becoming Serco hated. I think this is a nice tradeoff that allows UIT traders to play a role they are IMHO supposed to have.
Also, the wrong dark alley is unmonitored space. The new situation is more like: if you travel to a foreign country, everyone is allowed to shoot you in broad daylight because who cares about foreigners?
Also, the wrong dark alley is unmonitored space. The new situation is more like: if you travel to a foreign country, everyone is allowed to shoot you in broad daylight because who cares about foreigners?
No. From an RP perspective there is no reason for this...
The UIT are not warriors and sell to their enemies... thus are without honor. The Serco have no reason to respect them and as the UIT are numerous (read as easily replaced) the Serco have no reason to protect them.
The UIT are war profiteers who sell weapons to both sides thus perpetuating the war. As the Itani are a pacifistic and spiritual race they have no reason to respect or protect the UIT.
If the UIT want added protection in Serco or Itani space, get some escorts.
The UIT are not warriors and sell to their enemies... thus are without honor. The Serco have no reason to respect them and as the UIT are numerous (read as easily replaced) the Serco have no reason to protect them.
The UIT are war profiteers who sell weapons to both sides thus perpetuating the war. As the Itani are a pacifistic and spiritual race they have no reason to respect or protect the UIT.
If the UIT want added protection in Serco or Itani space, get some escorts.
+! Make UIT able to get +900 serco or Itani. And let and serco or ITani get +700 UIT. UIT should be treated differently cause they aren't at war. And traders in both nations should feel safe in UIT space.
-1
Besides the penalty for killing admired people, there is now the 24-hour temp-kos for killing three ships within a week. This even applies for killing disliked ships. It is sufficient.
VO 1.8.273-274:
- Killing 3 players in a 7-day period, within a single faction's Guarded space, will result in that faction placing Temp KoS status on the killer for 24 hours. Exceptions are made for killing players of Hated or lower standing with the local faction, and active duels. This only impacts Guarded regions (ie, station sectors). Corvus stations ignore all kills and are not affected by this change.
Besides the penalty for killing admired people, there is now the 24-hour temp-kos for killing three ships within a week. This even applies for killing disliked ships. It is sufficient.
VO 1.8.273-274:
- Killing 3 players in a 7-day period, within a single faction's Guarded space, will result in that faction placing Temp KoS status on the killer for 24 hours. Exceptions are made for killing players of Hated or lower standing with the local faction, and active duels. This only impacts Guarded regions (ie, station sectors). Corvus stations ignore all kills and are not affected by this change.
-1 without a significant downside
And traders in both nations should feel safe in UIT space.
Maybe they should, but someone who has high enough Itani or Serco standing to fly valks or proms is not a trader and should not be allowed to roam roughly 2/3 of space while protected.
I'll +1 this if and only if getting >+600 UIT is mutually exclusive with the Serco/Itani standing needed for Proms/Valks. And from an RP standpoint that makes sense: you don't give your most sensitive military hardware to someone on great terms with an amoral middleman who sells to you and your mortal enemy with equal zeal.
For UIT, however, I don't see a problem with them being able to get protected status across the board. Getting that should require giving up any Serco or Itani military connections, but that's already the case for UIT as I understand it. It should also require the protection afforded being less than that given to a UIT who has chosen a side (i.e., weak protection for UIT in both Serco and Itani space vs. no protection for a UIT in Itani but stronger protection in Serco).
And traders in both nations should feel safe in UIT space.
Maybe they should, but someone who has high enough Itani or Serco standing to fly valks or proms is not a trader and should not be allowed to roam roughly 2/3 of space while protected.
I'll +1 this if and only if getting >+600 UIT is mutually exclusive with the Serco/Itani standing needed for Proms/Valks. And from an RP standpoint that makes sense: you don't give your most sensitive military hardware to someone on great terms with an amoral middleman who sells to you and your mortal enemy with equal zeal.
For UIT, however, I don't see a problem with them being able to get protected status across the board. Getting that should require giving up any Serco or Itani military connections, but that's already the case for UIT as I understand it. It should also require the protection afforded being less than that given to a UIT who has chosen a side (i.e., weak protection for UIT in both Serco and Itani space vs. no protection for a UIT in Itani but stronger protection in Serco).
-1
No.....for the first time ever that I can recall, players have no expectation of safety in another nation. Trading finally has risk unless you stay at home. Privateering is finally officially endorsed by game mechanics. We're on our way to something good.
"We're on our way to something good."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAKUVU3grhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAKUVU3grhE
Absolutely not vanatteveldt, what the hell man.
Since UIT players gain standing with Serco or Itani at a cost of negative standing with the other, I think a light degree of protection is merited in the interest of the safety of an economic resource. For Serco & Itani in UIT space, the same protection light protection should be extended in the interest of keeping the war out of monitored space.
I would suggest as an alternative to an admired or better national losing standing, that they incur a progressive fine that escalates over the course of a week from 10,000 cr to 1,000,000cr per kill. This should revolve rather than follow a fixed week pattern. The national player would recieve no faction penalty.
For a non national killing another non national, a small faction penalty would apply.
I would suggest as an alternative to an admired or better national losing standing, that they incur a progressive fine that escalates over the course of a week from 10,000 cr to 1,000,000cr per kill. This should revolve rather than follow a fixed week pattern. The national player would recieve no faction penalty.
For a non national killing another non national, a small faction penalty would apply.
"for Serco & Itani in UIT space, the same protection light protection should be extended in the interest of keeping the war out of monitored space. "
I disagree. Offering protection (outside the NFZ) actually means getting involved in the war, not keeping the war out. If I were the Serco military, a UIT guard shooting a Serco fighter because he attacked a smurf in UIT territory would be a casus belli.
Also, not offering protection means more scrap to collect and repairs to sell, What is not to like about that :-)
I disagree. Offering protection (outside the NFZ) actually means getting involved in the war, not keeping the war out. If I were the Serco military, a UIT guard shooting a Serco fighter because he attacked a smurf in UIT territory would be a casus belli.
Also, not offering protection means more scrap to collect and repairs to sell, What is not to like about that :-)
-1 to admire-level protection, but adding a smaller faction hit for killing respected characters would be cool. Foreigners initiating hostilities now lose protection, so this would be the small deterrent to non-stop murdering every peaceful foreigner who steps foot in your space.
I would like to see UIT balanced to mutual 201's in the serco-Itani scale, because I still believe that 2 enemies can respect a true neutral party, but really I just want to be able to dock with tridents on hive missions everywhere :)
I would like to see UIT balanced to mutual 201's in the serco-Itani scale, because I still believe that 2 enemies can respect a true neutral party, but really I just want to be able to dock with tridents on hive missions everywhere :)
Players initiating hostilities only lose protection from their victim retaliating. It would still be impossible to come to the aid of a third party without standing loss.
+1 to docking with mission tridents!
Just get yourself hit by the crossfire first, before you start helping.
While I am not changing my stance, I do want to say that I strongly disagree with vanatteveldt's reasoning. There is a difference between neutral territory and a no-man's land (e.g. Greyspace). Within a no-man's land, a neutral party should never interfere in a conflict. Within neutral territory, however, parties who are neutral to the owner of the territory but hostile to each other should never initiate conflict with each other, if they are even permitted entry at all. If they do initiate conflict, they are violating their neutrality with the neutral party. It is very much within the neutral party's rights to forbid this and to punish any who violate it.
While I am not changing my stance, I do want to say that I strongly disagree with vanatteveldt's reasoning. There is a difference between neutral territory and a no-man's land (e.g. Greyspace). Within a no-man's land, a neutral party should never interfere in a conflict. Within neutral territory, however, parties who are neutral to the owner of the territory but hostile to each other should never initiate conflict with each other, if they are even permitted entry at all. If they do initiate conflict, they are violating their neutrality with the neutral party. It is very much within the neutral party's rights to forbid this and to punish any who violate it.
I'm a UIT trader aka Bandar Koots and I goes where I please. The meditating hippies don't like me but don't hate me enough to kill me. If ya get whacked buy another ship and move on. Protection...wtf is that? I buy protection when and where I need it..