An "extended default" would change behavior of existing ships. And that is what should be avoided. This is a matter for the shipsdesigner. I think a pirate-victim-roles.plist, would complicate things to much for the average script writer and it will not be used to often. By just adding a key "isTrader" or better "isMerchantman" you give at least new created ships the possibility to have a good reaction on pirates. Most external ships are added in a role of trader and those are already found and hunted by pirates. Only a few ships are added with a script in a private role.Commdr. McLane wrote:As all existing OXPs containing possible pirate-victims would have to be changed--and that is most likely not going to happen--I'd vote for an "extended default", containing all the existing ships. (Of course somebody would have to look into all their shipdata to find out whether they already have the role "trader" or not.)
I don't see a problem with ships having multiple roles. If the ship has both roles of "trader" and "pirate" than it is just a fault of the ship designer if he also sets the attribute "isMerchantsman". IsMerchantsman is better as it designates better the relation with the command "scanForNearestMerchantmen".Ahruman wrote:Having thunk about it, an is_trader flag won’t work because of the whole ships-can-have-multiple-roles thing.
Now it is up to the shipsdesigner if the ship is mend to be hunted by pirates and behave like any other trader.
Any ship with primary role "trader" or with "isMerchantsman" will be hunted by pirates. And this is a straightforward solution that is likely to be adapted by scriptwriters and shipdesigners.