So now PvP rules are working on PvE interactions is something new to me.
(12-02-2016, 09:07 AM)sindroms Wrote: When it comes to base siege reports, we treat the base itself as a ''player'' who you are attacking.
I am not even going to say that it's bad when people being sanctioned for the rules that are not actually written and being chaotically dumped right into the saction thread post-factum. It's probably a bit logical that if player is not dying to a player, then it was not a player versus player death and the situation as the whole is not falling under PvP rules. It's completely justified to take players battleship equipment for it.
It looks like an outrage over common sense. Because it's simple, we have a PvP rules, PvP is asuming at least two players fighting each other and only in this case rules are working. For instance we have a person punching a tree, person is being arrested for punching other person. Despite the fact that there is no line in countries law that people and trees are equal in some situations.
Write new rules in PoB section or a new PvE rules and stop pulling nonsense out of nowhere. Only justification that I see is ID line "Can defend players and bases" which somehow means that Bases == Players. This line means exactly this, that player can defend bases, nothing more. In the same way I can build a construction "Can defend players and bases" means that during the siege players are becoming PvE objects and PvP rules aren't working, because we treat player as the base itself. Exactly the same level of justification. "Player can defend bases, сonsequently bases are player" is a nonsense logical construction of the kind "Today I drink some apple juice, сonsequently the grass is red."
I suggest to work on the rules at this point and at least revert Venk's sanction.
If attacking player get knocked off from base defence turrets, then he is not killed by NPC, but from turret which are built by human players and `left` to defend automatically base when they are not present in `their name`. So that player has to obey pvp rule and not enter system for x hours, as it was killed by other player regularly ship to ship.
That is meaning of this, according to my understanding.
No wind is favourable for those ships who dont know their final destination
(12-02-2016, 02:40 PM)Ihtyander Wrote: If attacking player get knocked off from base defence turrets, then he is not killed by NPC, but from turret which are built by human players and `left` to defend automatically base when they are not present in `their name`. So that player has to obey pvp rule and not enter system for x hours, as it was killed by other player regularly ship to ship.
That is meaning of this, according to my understanding.
Player is creating an environment that is hostile to his enemies, yes. It's still doesn't mean that environment is becoming a player. Not even going to mention that in Discovery PvP is coming with engagment notice and plantforms are never making one.
(12-02-2016, 02:40 PM)Ihtyander Wrote: If attacking player get knocked off from base defence turrets, then he is not killed by NPC, but from turret which are built by human players and `left` to defend automatically base when they are not present in `their name`. So that player has to obey pvp rule and not enter system for x hours, as it was killed by other player regularly ship to ship.
That is meaning of this, according to my understanding.
+1 for that
it makes sense, and also logical and should be implemented and added to the primary rules of POBs
(12-02-2016, 02:40 PM)Ihtyander Wrote: If attacking player get knocked off from base defence turrets, then he is not killed by NPC, but from turret which are built by human players and `left` to defend automatically base when they are not present in `their name`. So that player has to obey pvp rule and not enter system for x hours, as it was killed by other player regularly ship to ship.
That is meaning of this, according to my understanding.
+1 for that
it makes sense, and also logical and should be implemented and added to the primary rules of POBs
Point of this thread is to set it up and prevent sactioning of people for unexisting rules.
The only logical intent of a processing a report like this - and defying stare decisis as usual - is the idea that people could hypothetically could come back and keep shooting a base over and over again until it dies even if they die to its platforms.
The flaw in that logic which anybody with half a braincell can process is that if you have enough people to actually damage a base, then nobody in that siege party (at least in any meaningful ship class) is going to die to the weapon platforms. It simply doesn't happen.
If that is somehow what did happen in this scenario, and Venk managed to die during a proper siege and then came back to shoot the thing, which is... uhh.. pretty embarrassing for Venkman, then yes, he should be sanctioned. But that is the kind of thing that needs to be handled based on the particular situation, not have a brand new absurdity of the month invented for it.
Seeing things like sanctions based on unprecedented and unwritten 'rules' is quickly becoming the order if the day, and no, we're (and oh christ, please do not throw that "YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE" garbage back in my face. I'm speaking for more than just myself, but not the entire server, so don't use that one and try to put words in my mouth) not taking it very seriously at this point.
(12-02-2016, 02:40 PM)Ihtyander Wrote: If attacking player get knocked off from base defence turrets, then he is not killed by NPC, but from turret which are built by human players and `left` to defend automatically base when they are not present in `their name`. So that player has to obey pvp rule and not enter system for x hours, as it was killed by other player regularly ship to ship.
That is meaning of this, according to my understanding.
+1 for that
it makes sense, and also logical and should be implemented and added to the primary rules of POBs
Point of this thread is to set it up and prevent sactioning of people for unexisting rules.
That is why i posted that it should be added to the rules.
I would also add if you may allow me, to not punish any player until this rule is added on the list of written rules
Venkman or others, i am not referring to anyone in particular.
Would be quite interesting to see bases get Bastilled. In all seriousness, in my opinion, if there are no players present/left alive on the defending side during a siege, I don't think PvP rules should apply for those remaining on the attacking side. Yes the station defenses are there to provide the base with cover in the name of the owner, but they are not players, they cannot call for backup, send messages, call for help, or do anything that makes players, players.
My comment on treating a POB as a player was an oversimplification. If because of that you do not understand what was being said, I apologize. Instead of ''treating the POB as a player'', I should have said that we have to ''treat the POB as a part of the engagement'' that was taking place.
Any sanction of this nature is discussed and voted on by multiple people and considering the original report was made a month ago, you can see why it took so very long to process this report. I met up with Venkman on teamspeak later and answered his and others questions regarding why this sanction was processed as it was and what prompted us to treat the POB as a part of an engagement, much like a ''player'', so to speak.
What we had to work with were logs of the encounter, which showed that the person who reported the reengagement was close enough to the siege group to not only give an engagement notice, but also to be responded to by multiple of the sieging players - the siege group was within range. Since Venkman's ship was destroyed by the base after this engagement notice and the responses were given, he had become a part of the engagement during that timespan.
When it comes to processing such reports, we chose to treat the whole siege group as a single engagement, given that the engagement notice, answers and the first death of the sanctioned ship against the base happened within the timespan of a few minutes, followed by other deaths from the same group.
The issue here is that we simply cannot treat the death of a siege participant, especially when there is an ongoing battle involved with his group, as nothing else but a PVP death when his death was, as they themselves admitted, due to the very POB that they were laying siege against. Huge-scale fights are a pain to process during a sanction report. If you die in some way during such incidents, please play it safe. We as the team can not ignore or not-process any report that is slung our way because it is too hard to make out. In the end a decision is something we need to make and in this case it was a standard reengagement fine and the loss of guns. Even Venk himself stated in TS that he sees why this was processed as it was and that the loss of guns aren't a big deal. You seem to be, again, the only one in outrage over a problematic situation we personally also have no joy for, and just for the sake of being outraged.
EDIT: As for the reason for this thread, since you gave a clarification in the post above this one - the POB Siege rules and mechanics are being reworked. The work is WIP but it will be in before the ID rewrite in one form or another. (As in, either the change to rules or the change to mechanics)
--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------