+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: News and Announcements (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 (/showthread.php?tid=151217)
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Rido Rad - 06-22-2017
I believe what "Jack" exhibits is highly justified
Logically pirating trade ships should not commence near lawful bases, those bases are to defend themselves and be able to protect and provide shelter for other lawful.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - sindroms - 06-22-2017
Having escorted you myself and shot you myself many a time, Jack, we both know that a single bomber has no way of pinning down that many transports, especially if they are near bases or lanes and especially if they are being shot at by a gunboat.
What you are doing now is cherrypicking possible scenarios that might happen. I already explained to you the issues that are present with your suggested changes. For example, if a player may return to the system for the purpose of trading, this does not exclude roleplay. This means that after docking and being PVP dead like any other player - snub or cap, the owner of a transport then can start spamming IRP (or barely so) nonsense at the pirate without having to leave the system or actually proceed with the trade - an eqally as trollsome and annoying attitude as you have described from a traders perspective. The stick is laden with poop from both sides, so to speak. You, of course, are more focused on your own, but I highly suggest you view it from the whole instead.
The main issue with the old ruling was that there was no way to -end- an engagement/player interaction between a trader and a pirate. There were also issues with players trying to skirt around the definition of what is a trader and what is a pirate and what is a smuggler, especially when using Official faction IDs that allow all three instances.
The newest change to the rule allows the players to start and, most importantly, have a concrete end to an interaction. That is something that is needed from a gameplay perspective, not necessarily for the comfort of the player involved. You need to figure it out in that case.
Right now there are no ways to satisfy both sides at once, but the least we can do is make sure that the rules are straightforward for all parties involved with the least amount of asterisks and exceptions. The suggestion to reduce the PVP death time would be an alternative, but that alone brings a completely different set of issues, for example.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - MotokoSusu - 06-22-2017
I will point out the Zoner whale is in no way pvp capable unless I want to fire rude comments
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - sindroms - 06-22-2017
A disadvantage for a repwise neutral ID with the cheapest 5ker in the game, I am sure.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - sasapinjic - 06-22-2017
Way i see it, problem here is not a rule, it is like in many other cases when snubs are involved, is Shield running, lone bomber can endlesly move in, snac transport, and move out until its Shield regenerate, then repet cycle, not even need to use any bits.
Solution: limit Shield running by nerfing shield options, only up to 2000 hp shield can be equiped on VHF, and up to 5000 on bombers, also remove ( or nerf them to half of curent) Shield bateries.
Consequences: lone snub cant endleslly attack group of well armed transports anymore or capital ships becouse supresive fire will worn him out, so it had to retreat. It still can pirate solo battletransport without much diference.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Karst - 06-22-2017
(06-22-2017, 07:04 AM)sindroms Wrote: The main issue with the old ruling was that there was no way to -end- an engagement/player interaction between a trader and a pirate.
Yes, there was. Actually killing the trader. That is why you pirate at unguarded gates or on long lanes and not directly outside a lawful base.
That is what ends the engagement in pirate victory.
If the trader reaches the next base, that ends the engagement in trader victory.
Are you suggesting that just because pirates are too lazy to actually pick their piracy spots, they should just win by default the instant they encounter a trader?
You still haven't addressed the fact that this completely discourages traders from encountering pirates. In fact, nobody really seems to have an answer to that.
You haven't given one good reason why a trader shouldn't just instantly dock the moment they see red on scanner, instead of maybe roleplaying and interacting with the hostile.
You have not described a single scenario in which a trader in a combat engagement, using their allegedly oh-so-powerful transport, is actually capable of not ending pvp dead.
You have not mentioned how bad trader behavior, flying around in unarmored 5ks avoiding all interaction, is exactly the behavior that is unaffected, while the type of trader that actually cares about outfitting their ships and enjoys interactions with unlawfuls is the one being punished.
Also, I find it funny that nobody except Antonio has responded to this:
(06-20-2017, 04:36 PM)sasapinjic Wrote: I LOL on this this, transport have never become more and more pvp capable, they are same as alwais, it is just that pirates get used to pirate armorles and weponless traders, so when they find one with CAU and standard transport weapons, they get ilusions transport get some mayor buf.
He's completely right, you know. The last major buffs transports got were the thrust speed changes and weapons buffs of I believe early 4.87, many years ago.
The only buffs since have been making the heavy shield viable, and the EMP flak, which are pretty minor changes all things considered.
In fact it's more the opposite, as most heavier transports got nerfed quite heavily.
Not only that, but since that time fighter and bomber weapons got huge improvements.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Yber - 06-22-2017
(06-21-2017, 09:39 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote:Quote:Go ingame, gather evidence about issues if there are any and present them to us.
Spazzy told me to collect negative experience with the new rule. Here is another one (in addition to what Mushy described 2 posts above):
A single light bomber now attacks a 7 ship armored convoy (6 traders, 1 gunboat) 20 k from base with "drop all cargo" demand - clearly looking for a fight.
Of course he has zero chance to score a kill in the given situation.
He of course knows that he cannot be killed by the transports (too slow in chase, no CDs) by going evasive after snaccing a few shields to make sure he "rulewise attacked" most of them. Was pretty clear to see.
So... I have the strong suspicion that "killing anybody" this was never the intention. The real threat in such a situation that makes zero sense is: If one of the transports had docked, he would have been pvp-dead for 2 hours. As this was in Tau 23, this would have meant that all transports that dock would be locked out of any cooperative teamplay (e.g. a mining session) for 2 hours because of an attack that can only be described as senseless. Being locked out of T23 for 2 hours means you miss the complete action of a day because we never play longer as a team. It means minus one player who likes roleplay, who likes to be part of a team and to play with others on Disco.
=> The new rule encourages "troll" attacks with ships that transports cannot kill, even if those attackers cannot score a kill themselves. You just have to stay in range after the initial attack to "win" as the attacker. Once the transport has docked, he is out.
=> The new rule gets into the way of cooperative gameplay because it makes groups who have to coordinate (where people have to wait sometimes) easy target for such attacks and therefore harms group play.
=> Groups like that have to reduce the risk of having members shot out, and therefore are forced to log off vulnerable ships or dock on sight when red show. That kills interactions where there used to be interaction in the past.
=> Also it is unrealistic if lawful bases do not provide protection any more. In the past, you could talk to reds when you were close to the friendly base. There was roleplay. If they opened up on you, you docked and nothing happened rulewise. And that's what it should be again. Sitting at a friendly base should offer protection, not mean "you are dead" because someone managed to shoot you before you could dock.
If you want screens and chatlogs of the messy "can't dock!" "Don't dock, or pvp dead!", I can provide that.
if you have 7 ships online is it really that hard to have 1 or 2 be escorts?
lel
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Backo - 06-22-2017
(06-22-2017, 07:59 AM)sasapinjic Wrote: Solution: limit Shield running by nerfing shield options, only up to 2000 hp shield can be equiped on VHF, and up to 5000 on bombers, also remove ( or nerf them to half of curent) Shield bateries.
We should also limit thrust speed to 140m/s while we're at it! I'm sick and tired when they are able to run away from my cruiser!
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Shiki - 06-22-2017
Bombers could also have triple powercore nerf, so they won't able to fire this harmful SNAC thing.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - sasapinjic - 06-22-2017
No trolling post please , nobody ask those things .
It make sense in RL/game/movie that fighters have weak/no armor/shield but have great speed, evasion and in bomber case , firepower , it don't make sense to be invincible .
Otherwise , Empire for example , will not build Death Star , it will build freaking "one fighter kills all" Tie Fighter !
Also , this is my suggestion of POSSIBLE solution to balance things . If you have better idea , post it , if not at least don't troll ones who have idea . Or post in Flood , thats right place for post that can make people entertained , but have no meaning .