A pillar of society would never break the laws of the land. Even the violating the NFZ should demote a POS pilot back to admired. Like trust, it should be hard to earn and easy to lose.

With POS being easy to lose, additional benefits of having it could be added.

This makes since. +1

This has been implemented today, in 1.8.548. PoS players who break NFZ regulations are dropped to Admire, after TempKoS expires.

No. Please revert this, it is a terrible change. TEMP KoS should be just that, TEMPORARY.

Perhaps you would like to explain in game play terms why this is a terrible change?

If you were greit friends with a guy down the street, then one day he just shot your dog out of no where, even when you eventually calmed down, you wouldn't be as close to him as before, right? Rather extreme example, but... since *normal* explanations of the same topic seem to not be strong enough...

This was a realism change that may negatively affect the game for a small subset of players, but I think its been obvious that the "safety gradient" of VO is moving outward now that the game is beginning to expand, based on previous updates and stuff the devs have said.

Violating the NFZ can happen extremely easily, even by accident. It makes no sense to attach a permanent consequence to it. Grinding the last few standing points to get to PoS is time-consuming and not fun, those of us who do it are extremely conscious about standing-related matters and careful to avoid doing things that permanently affect standing, always weighing the benefits of the decision against the cost of grinding those points again. If I'm going to lose standing for just violating the NFZ, I'll kill a lot more players in guarded space because anyone I shoot at once I'm shooting to kill.

A common scenario that could occur (indeed has happened to me many times), is a player shoots at me in the NFZ and in an effort to defend myself I end up hitting another player or npc and get tempkos. That's already a pretty terrible situation for me, as I wasn't trying to attack anyone else besides who I'm defending myself from. I understand there's not really a good way to make that part work differently without allowing for exploits. There is no need, however, to have additional punishment tacked on for those of us who care enough about the tiny benefits of being POS to spend the extra time grinding for it.

There are already sufficient permanent consequences for destroying players/npcs in monitored and guarded space. MAYBE this would be ok to have in capital stations or systems, the core of "safe" space, where even shooting something once is grounds for permanent punishment, but outside of that it doesn't add anything to the game, it only serves to punish people who grind for POS. Pillar of Society is already hard to gain and easy to lose. I just don't see the benefit of this change, and it has tons of drawbacks.

@Luxen: that's why you lose 300-1000 standing points for killing admired or Pillar of Society players in monitored space. Keyword: *killing*. Even death in this game is not that big of a deal most of the time, let alone a couple of points of damage.

Just because a change only affects a small subset of players doesn't mean it's okay. This change doesn't benefit anyone, as you note it's simply a "realism" change that negatively impacts players. I don't understand why we're making changes that hurt players without any upside just to be more realistic, I could point to a thousand things that are unrealistic about VO but make it better game.

I'm perfectly fine with the safety gradient, which is why it doesn't make sense to me that this is a blanket change; apply it in capital stations or capital systems, but not in other systems, and *certainly* not in greyspace.

This sounds like a common sense change Watch were you shoot, if you do hurt someone in an NFZ there should be a bigger hit. The NFZ is the law no matter if your literally the CEO of the faction or a neutral. If you attack in a No Fire Zone and your POS you will be dropped to Admire period.

Besides from the RP aspect of this the game play argument I don't see. When I was reading @Hawkfeather's response it reminded me of this thread not too long ago

https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/37003#420293 I hate to bring in different threads but the -1 reasons had a general theme of "Don't shoot the defenses, Your responsible for your own gun fire and so on. So I quote "Is a player shoots at me in the nfz and in an effort to defend myself I end up hitting another player or npc and get tempkos." - Hawkfeather

I don't buy that argument Your responsible for your fire. just "Just don’t shoot the station defenses" -Hawkfeather (linked thread)

So.... "just don't shoot the surrounding NPCs/Players? In this case?

If I fire a gun randomly and it happens to hurt a person there will be consequences! Watch your fire. Especially if you choose to fight back and your fire hurts more people then your going to be liable.

But why would a person. who chooses to work real hard for POS just wan't to throw it away? for what? a kill? It honestly would benefit the POS person to die and have the aggressor take the huge rep hit. Rather then possibly loose all the hard work? The logical thinking makes me question. Why would you get POS just to attack someone or an NPC and loose it even accidentally (coming back to that thread about how you should be responsible for your own fire)

Frankly the reasons to revert this change are weak. It comes to the core aspects of "watch were you shoot" "watch your fire" and "your responsible for what you hurt and shoot" We shouldn't disconnect these concepts. This patch simply reinforces these concepts the community has held in other threads.

If you want to increase the benefits of POS the OP has even indicated this and you can feel free to start a new thread on that topic.

apply it in capital stations or capital systems, but not in other systems, and *certainly* not in greyspace.

It's a conceptual idea, where if you want to be granted the best possible reputation, you should also be on your best possible behaviour.

Whether you're in nation or grayspace is irrelevant. All a given faction cares about is whether you're creating problems for them. It's their station, their trade convoys and such that are at-risk from NFZ violations, it doesn't matter where it's located.

In general, the concept of the NFZ has always been that people should not be "defending" themselves anyway. We enabled some limited self-defense possibilities, but as people regularly discover, it's highly risky to "defend" yourself under those circumstances, as there tends to be unintended collateral damage with stray fire.

As others have said, the concept of PoS could also be attached to added benefits; but I haven't seen any reason to remove this new ramification, from the above stated arguments.

@death456 the thread you linked is irrelevant, because that thread was asking for removal of *temporary* consequences, while this change affects *permanent* consequences. You shouldn't have to be a pacifist to be Pillar of Society. Setting aside all arguments that this is a game and not reality and thus rules that might apply in reality shouldn't necessarily apply here, being Pillar of Society with a given faction should cause them to be *more* lenient; why does it make sense that a player that's neutral with a faction loses nothing permanently by violating the NFZ, but a player that's ostensibly reached the highest level of reputation is punished significantly?

I'm absolutely fine with players being liable for who they *kill* in monitored space. I'm also not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for players violating the NFZ, especially repeatedly. Maybe you lose PoS after 5 times violating the NFZ, for example. I'm simply saying that TempKoS is sufficient and you don't have to create additional penalties.

@incarnate You claim you haven't seen any reason to remove the change, which is a poor way to phrase it because I gave concrete reasons to remove it you just don't think they're good enough to do so. I would like to hear a reason *for* this change other than "realism". Because it's a change that does nothing but negatively impact players. NPCs are NPCs, I don't know why we should care so much about making them act how humans would act when they already act so differently from humans for very good reasons.

If you're going to attach added benefits to PoS, you should do that first so this change actually makes an impact beyond saying "**** you" to players that spend the time to care about the mechanics of your game. Making changes to the game that impact players negatively without upside is just bad game design.

Separately, saying that people should not be defending themselves in the NFZ is ludicrous. I don't know why you put quotes around the word defend; there are a lot of times where being able to defend (yes, *defend*) yourself in the NFZ is critical to avoiding death, especially in a capital ship. As a player who is usually playing the attacking role, I would still strongly advocate for the defender's ability to freely respond when being attacked without having to worry about even TempKoS let alone permanent faction loss. I understand that potential exploits exist and that it's important that the game not allow those, but saying "just don't defend yourself" isn't really a solution. I imagine you're going to say this is somewhat off-topic and should be its own thread, but it *is* directly relevant to the point at hand and I'm responding to what you said here.

tl;dr: realism isn't always good; moving forward with a change that negatively impacts players without upside should at least have good gameplay reasons. I haven't seen any good gameplay reason to keep this new ramification, and I'd like to make it clear that as one of the very few players this has any effect on I absolutely hate this change and would like it removed or at least sufficiently justified.

Update: If this change literally means you lose 1 faction point to +999, I've massively overblown it and I apologize. Still an annoying change but it's minor enough to not matter. Sorry for making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm still against permanent consequences for infractions that don't involve destroying something, but there's no reason to discuss that more here unless such punishments are implemented in a more significant fashion.

Update: If this change literally means you lose 1 faction point to +999, I've massively overblown it and I apologize. Still an annoying change but it's minor enough to not matter. Sorry for making a mountain out of a molehill.

Yes. Anyway, we'll give it a try and see how it goes.