Can we have a full rundown of the clean slate changes please?

[ReaperFett]

I dont want to trawl through 6 pages. Can I see a summary please :)

[Varlon Konrad]

To put it plainly, it got rid of fleet accounting.

[Alec Lafeyette]

And fleet roleplaying now shares with most other roleplaying the only rules of common sense and fairness.

[Jeseth Cloak]

I have a question concerning this new rule implementation. If a group with a fleet is attacked, can they refuse to accept the attack and ignore the attacker? Or do they have a certain time limit to respond with a retaliation or defense before they are considered to have lost the fleet engagement?

[TheHolo.Net]

I’m not positive, but I think that any group can choose to ignore a fleet RP if they so choose. We have basically made the fleet rules follow the guidelines of the standard RP rules from what I recall.

God Mode
Maiming
Permission

[Jeseth Cloak]

Hmm... Well, the reason I asked is because it seems to be a bit unfair for a group to have a fleet, and then greedily keep their planets without having to ever put any effort into it. That would fall under god moding in a way, if you think about it... If they own the planet and the planet is attacked, they can't just win by default, can they?

[Marcus Telcontar]

If said group has no wish to fight, then you dont have a choice. No one can be forced into a fight and because you cant actually hold more than one or two planets, there really isnt a point when there is gazillions of other rocks in a galaxy.

[Jeseth Cloak]

What do you mean when you say "because you cant actually hold more than one or two planets?"

[Marcus Telcontar]

Just that - no group can hold lots of planets. All you can have is what is dictacted by common sense.

[Jeseth Cloak]

But what if a group is very large? For example, the NR holds a large number of planets. If they are attacked, can they simply refuse to reply and win by default? That is in a way god moding, because groups that have no fleets have a special rule that pertains to them stating that they can't be attacked or conquered. Large groups with large fleets have no such rule.

It wouldn‘t be fair, I would think, to take and not give. If a group wants to go out and conquer planets, then they should have to respond to an attack within a set time to avoid forfeiting one of their many holdings. This makes common sense reign supreme, because if a group doesn’t actually defend what they have, then they lose it. As opposed to large fleet showing up, and then just saying, “hmm... no one’s here to try to stop us. Let’s all just go home and come back when they decide to fight.”

[Marcus Telcontar]

Do they?

The NR is NPC'ed mainly. It just exists as a galatic government. It officially is ... just that.

Basically the rule is, you can NOT be forced into anything. That applys in all roleplaying. And simply because no one has huge planet lists - thats right no one, all any group now has is a few planets if that - whats the problem? Pick somethign else. If a group doesnt want a particular fight, well it is totally up to you to negotiate it.

And there ARE no large fleets allowed. You can only have what common sense and fairplay allows. There are no longer 100 ISD fleets. The whole ball game was changed to reflect the common rules and protocols of regular roleplaying. If you want a fight, you communicate and negotiate first.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Originally posted by Marcus Q'Dunn
And there ARE no large fleets allowed.
Fleet size has nothing to do with this, really... Common sense could allow for a fleet with 100 ISDs if someone took the time and effort to actually roleplay the creation of it, and the conquest of the many planets it would take to support them all. That's not what my question pertains to, though.

My question is: Why is a group with a fleet and more than one planet allowed the luxury of simply refusing to defend themselves and winning automatically? They are not "forced" to respond, but by not defending themselves IC they should also lose the planet (or ship) that is being attacked.

[Marcus Telcontar]

See above answer. You can not be forced in roleplaying you dont want . If you, as the attacker dont negotiate and communicate with your target first, the target has every right to tell you to naf off. The same as ANY other roleplay. Key - Negotiate and communicate first

[Pierce Tondry]

Jeseth: What you're neglecting is that the theory works both ways. If you go up against the NR and they don't want to fight, yes, they win be default. If the NR goes up against you and you don't want to fight, yes, you win by default. It is in the interests of both sides to negotiate over engagement ideas to permit someone to actually get anywhere.

[Sanis Prent]

Or think of it in terms of RPing as others do, whether they are Jedi, Sith, etc. Both sides have to commit in order to participate in a RP.

[TheHolo.Net]

With the clean slate change we are trying to attempt to move away from the competitve nature fleet RPs have had in the past and move things in a more cooperative role playing experiance where there are no winners and losers. This is a game for fun, not to win or lose.

[Jeseth Cloak]

I see all of your points, and I'm not arguing that this is about winning or losing (because it's not), but my point is this: It's unfair to simply say "I was here first, so you can never have this!" That is the attitude that the "post or win by default" option seems to be encouraging, especially among longer standing role-players who occasionally become less and less accepting of the possibility that their characters can fail at anything.

Communication between role-players works, but there are many instances when people will not be rational or fair to one another. This rule (while intending to promote fairness) tends to work against fairness and common sense. I'm not suggesting that a barrage of logistics be drawn up, only that the possibility be considered of there being a basic set of specific rules instead of one vague one.

For example, in a role-play between two characters nothing stops Jeseth from grabbing Anbira's lightsaber and stealing it (except maybe Anbira's fist). Why does this have to be any different between two fleets? If a fleet attacks another fleet's planet, then the defender should either post and protect their planet to the best of their ability, or simply forfeit their holding. It's very fair and logically, isn't it?

This doesn't stop a role-player from contacting another role-player and saying "Please don't take that particular planet, because right now I need to use it for some role-plays, would you mind attempting to attack another one?" Or saying, "my character has a very deep attachment to that planet and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to take it." The only thing it does prevent is a group or individual character from saying, "Now I have a way to assure that I can never ever lose."

Does all of that make sense? I was trying my best to give clear examples, as I know I can sometimes be a bit sketchy and abstract with the way I talk.

[Sean Piett]

If the NR is primarily NPC'd, then there's no reason a person couldn't fight an NPC opponent. Just like they do in the planetary takeovers that aren't group versus group.