+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Improve Presentation of Discovery's Rules (/showthread.php?tid=158145)
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - Karlotta - 05-19-2018
Started adding some of the uncategorized rules to the appropriate categories in server and forum rules.
The uncategorized rules about visible/invisible commodities seem to be out of date, and admin comment on whether they're still in effect would be greatly appreciated.
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - Jansen - 06-16-2018
This looks pretty good overall. The structure is good and it should be pretty understandable (especially for new people).
A few things that seem to be strange at the moment:
2.2 A character/ship must use one single ID and follow the permissions and restrictions of ID, ship, and equipment infocards.
This makes little sense, there are no hard-coded restrictions in infocards and this problem has been taken care of with technerfs. If people are not supposed to use something with their ID, then the technerf makes sure that they wont enjoy doing it all that much in most situations.
Bastille is a system that imprisons rule breakers until they agree to obey server rules.
Not necessarily until they agree, this can just be removed.
Dealing more damage to a Player Owned Base (POB) than needed to prevent a ship from docking must be preceded by forum roleplay
How is 'more damage than needed to prevent a ship from docking' defined?
6.7 Storing POB crew on a ship in order to reduce consumption.
Would this really count as cheating?
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - SnakThree - 06-16-2018
(06-16-2018, 01:42 PM)Jansen Wrote: This makes little sense, there are no hard-coded restrictions in infocards and this problem has been taken care of with technerfs. If people are not supposed to use something with their ID, then the technerf makes sure that they wont enjoy doing it all that much in most situations.
Zoner Whale instantly comes to mind.
Also, people got sanctioned for flying Nomad ships on non-nomad IDs, so techchart itself is not the only regulatory system.
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - Karlotta - 06-18-2018
(06-16-2018, 01:42 PM)Jansen Wrote: This looks pretty good overall. The structure is good and it should be pretty understandable (especially for new people).
A few things that seem to be strange at the moment:
Thank you for taking the time to read it and for suggesting improvements.
(06-16-2018, 01:42 PM)Jansen Wrote: 2.2 A character/ship must use one single ID and follow the permissions and restrictions of ID, ship, and equipment infocards.
This makes little sense, there are no hard-coded restrictions in infocards and this problem has been taken care of with technerfs. If people are not supposed to use something with their ID, then the technerf makes sure that they wont enjoy doing it all that much in most situations.
I didnt know this either before someone told me, but the infocards of nomad morph (possibly some guns too, not sure) and zoner whale have lines that say they can only be used with certain IDs. Also Order caps have restrictions on what systems they can visit, although that's written in the ID and not the ship infocards. I haven't heard anything to the contrar, so I'm assuming those lines are still valid.
This is basically a version of thos current rule:
4.4 Every char must have only one type of ID equipped and they must play to that ID. Ship and equipment infocards which specify their use on a specific ID or specific ship must only be used on that ID or ship. In all other cases where these restrictions and allowances conflict with the server rules, the ID overrides the rules except as described in 4.5
Just using less words to say the same thing.
(06-16-2018, 01:42 PM)Jansen Wrote: Bastille is a system that imprisons rule breakers until they agree to obey server rules.
Not necessarily until they agree, this can just be removed.
The current admin policy seems to be to stick people in bastille until they at least say they will obey rules. (the dont have to admit to breaking them tho as far as I know)
The line is there to help people understand why they are in bastille. Possibly there is already text in Bastille that explains why, but I havent been to bastille in a very long time so I dont know if there is.
(06-16-2018, 01:42 PM)Jansen Wrote: Dealing more damage to a Player Owned Base (POB) than needed to prevent a ship from docking must be preceded by forum roleplay
How is 'more damage than needed to prevent a ship from docking' defined?
I'll define it more closely in the spoiler to that rule. Since people may also accidentally hit a POB while someone is hugging it, I'll also rephrase it to "more damage than is necessary to prevent a nearby ship from taking refuge in or near the base".
(06-16-2018, 01:42 PM)Jansen Wrote: 6.7 Storing POB crew on a ship in order to reduce consumption.
Would this really count as cheating?
Although it was widespread to do it over the years as I was told, there was an admin announcement said that it was an exploit and forbidden some moths ago. So I added it.
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - Karlotta - 07-05-2018
Added a sentence to rules about inactivity wipe.
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - E X O D I T E - 07-05-2018
You should say more words about 2.2, to be honest.
* E X O D I T E said, before logging his Storta off whilst chasing a Xeno Relics smuggler and logging a LABC in-RPly flown by the same character to catch him.
EDIT: If your character is attached to a faction, they should stick to that faction. If you fly more than one faction's caps without a really good reason, you're just asking for trouble.
EDIT EDIT: DiscoveryGC has a zero-tolerance policy towards cheating. A few noteworthy examples of cheating and exploit abuse, all of which are detectable by the server-side anticheat, are:
6.1 Modifying your Discovery Freelancer installation, using third-party tools, or abusing glitches/bugs in order to gain advantages over other players.
6.2 Running the game with framerates above 155fps. Computers running uncapped framerate must use a third party program to limit the FPS to below 155.
6.3 Using cruise disruptors or missiles in order to track a ship that has successfully cloaked.
6.4 Intentionally ramming a capital ship in order to ''flip'' it or ''catapult'' your ship away from it.
6.5 Suicide trading and intentionally self/team-killing during Combat-Event-Plugin battles in order to prevent the opponent from scoring points.
6.6 Connecting to the server with more than one character at a time (Multiboxing). Players sharing a network connection may not engage in trading/mining at the same time.
6.7 Storing POB crew on a ship in order to reduce consumption.
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - Karlotta - 07-08-2018
Thank you for raising the issue, but I'm not sure the wording you choose would be a good way to handle it. It's kind of already covered by the 1.1 no metagaming and 1.2 no hassling rule. "really good reason" is kind of subjective, and I've seen several people RP their chars as "under cover" in different factions and not sure it should be forbidden generally either (although subjectively I thought the guy doing it was being pretty lame at that moment). Although what you describe is kind of a think you see noobs do a lot so it should maybe be mentioned somehow. I'll think about it a bit more and maybe someone else has an idea for the wording.
Will add something about the ability to detect cheaters automatically as a deterrent.
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - Karlotta - 06-11-2019
Quote:Demands should be reasonable and only one monetary or cargo demand can be issued during each piracy interaction.
Given some recent drama and possible misunderstandings on the spirit of this rule, I wonder if rewording (or changing, depending on the correct interpretation) as such would be better:
Demands should be reasonable, and players who complied must be given the possibility to escape before new demands can be issued.
The current wording also doesn't include role play demands, so people could interpret that as role play demands being either invalid or anything-goes.
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - SnakThree - 06-11-2019
Rule is fine. People revenge-sanctioning someone is not. ID line should be made into "Can engage in piracy"
RE: Rule-savvy individuals (especially admins) please comment - Karlotta - 06-11-2019
The current wording doesn't prohibit people from making up a new role play demand every time someone complies.