+- 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 - Traxit - 06-20-2017
so go rp in a different system, i think new york is already too cliché and boring
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Karst - 06-20-2017
(06-20-2017, 12:50 PM)Silver Wrote:#Escorts4Life
<3
Doesn't address this problem for like....so many reasons.
One, the primary point of escorts is to scout for potential danger, since it's essentially impossible for any individual escort ship to fully counter potential pirates. A fighter escort won't touch a pirate gunboat or cruiser, a gunboat escort will struggle to ward off bombers, etc.
Under previous rules, if you got the heads-up that there was a pirate in the way, you could still choose to fight them with your escort. But since you now have to rely on your escort not only assisting you in reaching the next base but actually completely getting rid of the pirate, that's pretty much not an option anymore. Even if you have a perfect situation where your escort is, say, a light bomber and you're facing a heavy bomber, you're still taking a risk because even if you know you can make it to the next base, now you also need to make it to the next base and have the pirate not be in the vicinity anymore.
So, guess what that'll encourage? People see a pirate or a potential pirate, whether it's through an escort or through vigilant player list watching, and will simply avoid the interaction.
Why would anybody risk interacting with a pirate when they have an incredibly high chance of ending up pvp dead even if they win the encounter?
And what does that in turn encourage? Well, if you're going to try your hardest to never interact with the pirate anyway, you may as well ditch your battletransport and Cau armor and fly around in Gallia on an unarmored 5k.
The behavior that this change rewards is exactly the behavior we want less of. Congratulations, you really thought this one through.
(06-20-2017, 09:48 AM)sindroms Wrote: Or not get engaged in the first place.
Edit: I should also point out the deep, deep irony of Spazzy pointing out exactly this issue, probably without realizing that he's pretty much saying "well don't encounter pirates then".
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - DragonRider - 06-20-2017
[...]
4.3 Docking during combat with hostiles in docking message range (15k) counts as PvP Death.
Should be changed to "attacker weapon range" (or double/triple). I still think 15k is judicious .
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Freeport7 - 06-20-2017
Good change for the 4.1
Bad change for 4.3 regarding transports. - this will surely help grievers grieve.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Haste - 06-20-2017
I'm with Karst on the transport changes. Removing the "win condition" of a trader doesn't make the game any better. I get that it saves the staff the hassle of dealing with players who argue their pirating pirate transport should be exempt from PvP death, but that minor reduction in administrative workload doesn't warrant the negatives of giving transports zero counterplay to piracy.
If people feel that transports have it too easy because of transport buffs, that's a balance (team) issue and I'd rather you approach me than try to adjust the rules to compensate.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Xalrok - 06-20-2017
I agree with what Karst and Haste said. I make a habit of scanning traders that pass me to see what kind of defences they have and many of them don't even upgrade their scanners, while the highest AU I've seen on a random indie trader was a HAU IV. It also seems to me that many complaints about transports being too powerful come from pirates who are annoyed that not all transports are helpless 5ks.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Foxglove - 06-20-2017
The difference between a trade ship and a snub is superficial at best and people are just used to them being enshrined as something holy, i.e. cannot attack traders unless there is a demand. You are a vulnerable ship and the mere virtue of you being near a base (of which there are many nearby for lawful traders) does not merit the trader being allowed to come back after having docked thus avoiding the encounter (because docking just works too quickly and the bomber would realistically be able to kill the transport while it is moored anyways). Therefore, this is a welcome and a good change that decreases an unwarranted privilege of trade ships.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Shiki - 06-20-2017
I totally agree with all changes, there's literally no reason why things like CAP8 transports with 12 turrets not should be counted as combatants.
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Laura C. - 06-20-2017
Am I blind or rules does not contain anymore definition of "combat situation" or "PvP situation" or engagement in general? Because if this is a case, this is not really improvement, especially regarding escaping traders and "docking during combat" what can be interpreted in different ways...
RE: Admin Notice: Changes to server rule 4.1 and 4.3 - Karst - 06-20-2017
(06-20-2017, 03:32 PM)Foxglove Wrote: The difference between a trade ship and a snub is superficial at best and people are just used to them being enshrined as something holy, i.e. cannot attack traders unless there is a demand. You are a vulnerable ship and the mere virtue of you being near a base (of which there are many nearby for lawful traders) does not merit the trader being allowed to come back after having docked thus avoiding the encounter (because docking just works too quickly and the bomber would realistically be able to kill the transport while it is moored anyways). Therefore, this is a welcome and a good change that decreases an unwarranted privilege of trade ships.
You just don't get it, do you. Every type of bad trader behavior people have complaints about (which are largely warranted) are encouraged by this change.
I pirate quite a lot and I'm very familiar with them. Traders don't care about their ships, don't care about their armor. Don't roleplay, just silently thrust until they die.
Log off the instant they see something that looks like it might be a pirate in system.
See an unlawful at 15k, instantly turn to dock because they don't want interactions.
I cannot believe that you're actually complaining about traders docking when they see a pirate and in the same breath supporting this rule change, because that is exactly what it encourages.
See, if I was close to base, or in some other situation where I could avoid an unlawful encounter, I previously would be tempted to stay to see how it plays out. Now, I'm encouraged to dock instantly and entirely avoid the encounter because if an unlawful so much as gets into firing range, I'm guaranteed to be pvp dead.
So as a trader, I no longer have any incentive to interact with unlawfuls.
How do you not understand this?
(06-20-2017, 03:37 PM)Sici Wrote: I totally agree with all changes, there's literally no reason why things like CAP8 transports with 12 turrets not should be counted as combatants.
The only reason to use a CauVIII battletrans is because you're expecting combat encounters. Now that any combat encounter will end with you being pvp dead, there's absolutely no reason to use one.
Take a situation I was in a while back, in a CauVIII liner in the Omicrons. I was attacked by a Nomad bomber, but I managed to fend it off pretty well, took minimal damage, and reached my destination easily.
Under the new rules, despite me taking less damage than the pirate and reaching the nearest base easily, I would be pvp dead and they wouldn't. So why would I even bother to use a ship like that, on a dangerous route? I may as well use 5ks on totally safe routes if any encounter results in pvp death anyway.
You people clearly don't understand the basics of transport-piracy mechanics if you don't see the problem here.