+- 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: Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules (/showthread.php?tid=11673)
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - tfmachad - 08-29-2008
' Wrote:I think the issue with it is that it is both annoying in the extreme, and a method of avoiding playing the game without the penalty assosciated with engaging cruise or docking with a base or dying.As much as it is using thrusters to fly in circles around a hostile and avoid fire. Still, this is done everyday in the game and it's called evading, not exploiting. I'm pretty sure the person trying to aim is pretty darn annoyed by not being able to land his/her shots on the other vessel.
Sometimes you're not prepared to win a fight, even if in a perfect theoretical scenario you should (bomber vs. transport in open space). A pirate working alone, even in a VHF, has a good chance of winning, but the circumstances count a lot (proximity to an eligible base for the transport, if there are asteroids, the level and number of the hostile NPCs). Pirating in pairs (even if just with the support of a LF) will make things absurdly easier. If you can't get around with cornering a transport (in this case having a ship at each side of the jump hole), you're the one to blame for not preparing yourself accordingly (pirating far from a jump hole or having a partner).
If you do have a partner and you're each at a side of the jump hole, let the transport ping pong at its heart's content until it tires, then pirate/blast it to bits.
' Wrote:It perhaps isn't against rules, but it's so irritating that I'd expect it to become sanctionable any minute.I had this tactics used against me a number of times and even if I was annoyed to hell by it, I always blamed myself for my own shortcomings.
Anyone using it as trader vs pirate I presonally consider despicable.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Akumabito - 08-29-2008
The issue I have with the sanction is that this tactic is not mentioned as illegal in the rules, therefore it should get nothing more than a warning until it is added to the rules, if it is decided that it should be illegal.
Saying it is "just like an F1" is bogus, it's a dismissal based on anything but fact.
Is it a cheap exploit tactic? Yes, but so is quick docking, so is using cruise to catch up speed, so is trading bots and bats in combat, etc...
If something is made illegal and sanctioned it should be done on more of a process than some admins bias, and it should actually have a rule against it in place.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - jpo - 08-29-2008
' Wrote:well, but it is a tactic that leave the chasing player with little chance ( and so hardly any fun ) - how fast you "zone" over depends on your computer speed and your connection. - so if the trader has a good connection and a fast computer he can easily evade any pirate ( unless the pirate is teamed up of course )
but it leaves one thing... its unfair. and an exploit of the game ... especially when we keep in mind what orillion said...
bigger ships are at a high risk to be damaged when travelling through jumpholes, so in RP, they d do it as little as possible. - a transport captain that hopped back and forth would be acting sort of ooRP ( when you re looking at a rule ) ... but really, its simply not fair to do.
How do you figure thats oorp? I dont understand... certain death vs possible death, you would choose possible death every time unless you were suicidal.
' Wrote:Well Akuma, now that the sanction has been given we should regard it as a precedent to follow.
Also it has been that way for quite some time. It is exploiting the game engine for you gain. Not exactly sporting, and has been punished before now.
Im sorry but if doing something once is not an exploit doing it 100 times is not an exploit unless doing something 100 times changes the mechanics of the game.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Spear - 08-29-2008
Worm hole spam is low in my opinion, it's been sanctioned before and will be sanctioned again.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - worldstrider - 08-29-2008
Part of the tactics here are pirates planning their attacks so they aren't right by jumpholes.
And here is the other "abuse"...
You intentionally pirate by a jump hole knowing its "against the rules" for emerging freighters to turn back.
Then they have no chance. So whats more "unfair"? Now we have yet another "rule" that opens up a whole new form of abuse.
Its a "don't abuse common sense" thing, not an exploit.
If someone runs back and forth over and over and over--understood and agreed. To doge back and back again? A practical tactic on some occasions. Naval convoys do it all the time..its called "zig zagging".
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Jinx - 08-29-2008
@jpo:
i figure its ooRP as certain death is not really the alternative. - when a pirate attacks, he makes a demand, - only if that demand is not met, its ( almost ) certain death. ( and rediculously high demands are against the rules, too and have also been sanctioned before ) - so the alternative is not certain death to the pirate opposed to certain death cause the wormhole effect tears your transport apart. - but its more paying up and survive 100% against having your ship torn apart in the wormhole ( again, the later one is only a RP element )
i do however agree with akumabito that a sanction is too much as it is indeed not mentioned in the rules - and it is as good a tactic or as low as slingshooting or yes - quickdocking. ... its an exploit of game mechanics, and for that - it hardly matter if the exploit requires skills ( slingshooting ) or no skills - cause and exploit is and stays only that .... an exploit.
now, since slingshooting is not sanctioned, nor is quickdocking - its a bit funny that jumphole spamming is. - after all, it takes 2 players to do it - one that jumps back and forth, and another one that follows - and that means ... follows back and forth. instead of waiting on the side that the trader would have to pop out if he wanted to proceed his route.
so, yes - a warning would have been the reasonable thing to do, even if we know that it HAS been sanctioned before. - a punishment is too much, but thats not our decision, is it?
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Akumabito - 08-29-2008
Nothing to see here folks
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Jinx - 08-29-2008
thats a bit silly to just quote what i said - without a comment.... don t you think? - especially when its just one post above yours:D
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Akumabito - 08-29-2008
' Wrote:a punishment is too much, but thats not our decision, is it?
It is our decision, although not directly. It's our decision whether we have admins that are fair across the board, or admins that play favorites.
In this case admins are not being fair across the board, and they should be held accountable for it the same way they hold other people accountable.
There should be a real, structured appeal process in these cases, when requested, and the post in which the sanction was decided should be made public at the victims request.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Dab - 08-29-2008
' Wrote:You intentionally pirate by a jump hole knowing its "against the rules" for emerging freighters to turn back.Its not against the rules for them to turn back. It is however, for them to turn back. Take the JH back to where they came, then go back to where you were, then go back to where they came, then back to where you were, then back to where they came, get it? I've had a Bs| do that about 12 times before.. What I did, informed DBoy (it was months ago, when he was still in charge and when they were more active) and he had a word with him. Now sit there and tell me it isn't annoying when someone jumps back and forth 12 times so that his shield can recharge. And guess what.. We had 2 bombers, one on each side. We did the tactic Gronath suggested. Did it stop him? No. He saw one of us, turned around, and jumped right back. We were literially stuck in a stalemate, as their shield goes invulnerable when they get into jump mode. This is what traders do. Its exploiting a game mechanic. Thrusting around to dodge isn't exploiting a game mechanic, its using that game mechanic for what it was made for. Thruster was meant to help you dodge fire. Jump holes were made for travel, NOT made for someone to use to stay invincible till the enemy gives up. Its exploiting the game, through and through.
And pirate in mid-system instead of by a JH? It can work, occasionally. But if there are no TLs, the trader sees you at 14km away.. All he has to do is turn back, or turn to go around you, and you'll never catch anything. Or he'll F1 as soon as he sees you and log off before you can take his shield to 50% to say he F1d. As he was never in fight. People have tried it to me 20 times in the past month. I drop shield, screenshot, and I also yell halt as soon as I see them. Screenshot all of that and its obvious he was F1ing out of piracy. Then I sit and wait for him to come back and drop his shield immediately, then pirate him. If he F1s again, he is screwed.
Furthermore, there are systems like Hokkaido. Due to the nebulas and everything, a ship will pop on scanners at 14km. After that, they stop moving. You cruise up to them, they are sitting still. After 3 minutes of waiting, they will just accelerate at roughly 4,000m/s and pop off the scanners immediately. Its the nebulas and everything giving ship lag. You'll see them in front of you, but usually they are already out of range. About 80% of the time, this happens. Its game glitches, not server or personal connection either, so there is no one to blame. You simply have to set up at a jump hole and get them there, or you'll never even get a chance to pirate them.
But according to you, since we HAVE to do that, they can just jump back and forth indefinitely, meaning piracy is worthless and cannot be done. This is against the rules, and for the good of the server, it has to be. It doesn't have to be in the rules to be sanctionable. Its common sense and a obvious exploitation of game mechanics to disregard RP. What were to happen if 3 bombers are fighting a battleship. That battleship is out of batts and loses its shield. He jumps through the JH everytime his shield falls. He is invincible, can still hurt the bombers when he gets his shield back, but they will never be able to hit his hull. Should those bombers simply have to give up because he is next to a jump hole? If so, pvp will disappear, as no one will ever win anything. They'll just get angered by game machanic flaws and exploitation of them.
If you guys are so mad about it being sanctionable, but not on the rules list, perhaps we should add to the rules; "Exploiting game mechanics to disregard RP responsibilities can be sanctioned." Admins cannot, will not, and won't ever be able to, have a rule for every possible thing someone could do wrong. This is a big glaring example. Admins need to have a bit of leniency for these types of situations, and have the right to sanction people for something they do wrong, even if it isn't clearly outlined in the rules. That, or we can spend 6 months putting together the most elaborate rule system ever made, so more people can complain about the number of rules, and not read them. Thereby increasing the amount of rule breaking, the sanctions that must be issued to deal with it, and general disregard. Oh, and the need for more admins to enforce those rules.