11-19-2015, 06:31 PM
Firstly, thank you again for replying. Now in order:
That is good to hear, I sure hope that is truth. However I do not get why Hawk is still admin, considering all the bad feedback he got over eternity of him being as admin. Including cases where he failed and did not fixed.
That way of doing it seem a bit inefficient. I mean, needing so many people doing one simple job is kinda odd. What I would advise is allowing one admin to do the sanction, and if the violator thinks that the sanction is not fair, he can ask another admin to review the case. Then you can play a voting game, or perhaps just let other few admins to review the case. What is bad in this idea?
This sanction wasn't blatantly obvious, as the arguments to my sanction were weakly based on guesses. Admins or judges should not view only one side of the conflict, don't you think? I mean, the other side of the story have just as much right to live, unless there is evidence to prove that it doesn't. No?
Firstly I didn't mean myself. I can survive for quite some time on any ship. Probably not do much damage on fighters to fighters... Can do damage to bombers on fighters, unless it's a duel, can damage capital ships I think perhaps even better then some dedicated snub pros. Not because I am better then them at bombers, but because I know better how capital ships and their weapons work. As for capital ships... Well, let's not raise this discussion right now, let's just say that I am average to good on any.
Back to the point, I actually meant new players. The ones that have experience with original Freelancer only. You must agree that fighter PvP is much different on Discovery then it was in original. And it's very noob unfriendly. That's the fault of ballance ofc, but ballance can not be very different with this reengagement rule spread among snubs, won't you agree?
Many or not, I've been with the group that sees no other way of fighting off New York swarm then bringing Sarisas, and they did it like yesterday or something. And it's not only New York, and it's not only about flying capital ships everywhere you want. Those ID rules have flaws much more then that, I just gave the most obvious example. If you want to go through other flaws, I can make it my research.
(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]If this experience is from a few years ago then I can't answer for it. However, all of the mistakes that have been made have been apologised for whilst I've been an Admin. They've also been reversed, ask Impy if you need evidence.
That is good to hear, I sure hope that is truth. However I do not get why Hawk is still admin, considering all the bad feedback he got over eternity of him being as admin. Including cases where he failed and did not fixed.
(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]For a sanction to be processed, the violator needs to have actually broken a rule. All sanctions are voted on by Mods and Admins, if there is a overwhelming majority either way then it will be dealt with accordingly. It's also really fun.
That way of doing it seem a bit inefficient. I mean, needing so many people doing one simple job is kinda odd. What I would advise is allowing one admin to do the sanction, and if the violator thinks that the sanction is not fair, he can ask another admin to review the case. Then you can play a voting game, or perhaps just let other few admins to review the case. What is bad in this idea?
(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]You caught us on a good day, we bump chats to get people to give their opinions. Normally sanctions are filed two or three at a time. Or perhaps this sanction was so blatantly obvious that there was no point in asking people to spend time writing a reason.
This sanction wasn't blatantly obvious, as the arguments to my sanction were weakly based on guesses. Admins or judges should not view only one side of the conflict, don't you think? I mean, the other side of the story have just as much right to live, unless there is evidence to prove that it doesn't. No?
(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately Admins can't help you get better at PvP, sorry.
Firstly I didn't mean myself. I can survive for quite some time on any ship. Probably not do much damage on fighters to fighters... Can do damage to bombers on fighters, unless it's a duel, can damage capital ships I think perhaps even better then some dedicated snub pros. Not because I am better then them at bombers, but because I know better how capital ships and their weapons work. As for capital ships... Well, let's not raise this discussion right now, let's just say that I am average to good on any.
Back to the point, I actually meant new players. The ones that have experience with original Freelancer only. You must agree that fighter PvP is much different on Discovery then it was in original. And it's very noob unfriendly. That's the fault of ballance ofc, but ballance can not be very different with this reengagement rule spread among snubs, won't you agree?
(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]How many Sarrisa's have you seen in New York over the past year or so? I'd say there's been a few times where a lot have been there, but for the most part there hasn't been many. In response to your general point, not just OC BSs in NY, If you have any problems with the ID allowances then feel free to post in the player requests with a good reason why. We're getting on top of the lost forum work slowly, so it shouldn't take as long as it would do normally.
Many or not, I've been with the group that sees no other way of fighting off New York swarm then bringing Sarisas, and they did it like yesterday or something. And it's not only New York, and it's not only about flying capital ships everywhere you want. Those ID rules have flaws much more then that, I just gave the most obvious example. If you want to go through other flaws, I can make it my research.