+- 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: Base related sanction discussion and rules. (/showthread.php?tid=80517)
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - RedEclipse - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:I'm in favor of disabling manual shield shutdown.Sounds reasonable. Really, simpler solution to solve this problem.
' Wrote:Negative ghostrider. That's useful when you accidentally shoot your own base, or if you want to bring in supplies to a base while it's being attacked. The better answer is: if you're repeatedly undocking from a player base under attack, do so at your own risk.It will raise another problem for admins, it's hard to prove. SS non-stop, video? No way.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Stygian - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:I'm in favor of disabling manual shield shutdown.
+1 to that. Just have it so the shields go down by themselves after 3-5 minutes.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Curios - 05-18-2012
Yes, yeees, more, please, more base related rage.
But well, I was expecting it to come one day that bases will be abused. Like any other thing around. Even rules, and sanctions.
I guess the logic can't be applied to the Discovery since the Administration tends to go towards encouraging the abuse of game mechanics\sanction system\rules\whatever.
Why I said "to encourage the abuse"? Because when people are not punished for doing so it's encourages them, and other people, to keep doing it in future. We all see the sanctions being applied on those who disagree with someone.
You got own opinion? You're troll sir, go be banned. This is for sure a good way of actions. But when the real abuse happens - it's good and must be protected, encouraged because it, for sure, will have a good impact on the game and on the player's behavior in that game.
Applauds.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Charos - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:I'm in favor of disabling manual shield shutdown.
Yes please, make it so that shields won't go down if base is under fire.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Daedric - 05-18-2012
Can't say I know anymore than the next as I only know what has been said in this thread and in the sanction thread. My opinion is the guys who got sanctioned are lucky I'm not an admin. I'd have pushed for some type of ban for what you guys did. I can understand one or two times killing the guys as they undocked. 15? That is plain malicious.
I don't want to hear any crying about the transports trying to cruise up to the base and dock either. Instead of all of you afk firing on your battleships some of you should have been patrolling the area with CDs to prevent them from getting near the base to begin with.
As for the cloaking issue - make it so turning off the shield deactivates it for a few minutes. That way turning it of is extremely dangerous.
' Wrote:Surprised the bulk of those transport captains did not also get sanctioned for behaving outside of RP. Wading through capital fire trusting on good old "may not shoot transports before demand" to keep you safe, is abusing server rules to gain an advantage in a fight.
I'm in favor of disabling manual shield shutdown.
Sure wading threw capital ship fire to save your home in your transport (or to escape) is soooo out of role play. I guess the Rebel Alliance was oorp when they sent transports through a capital ship blockade in Star Wars eh.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Govedo13 - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:I'd have pushed for some type of ban for what you guys did. I can understand one or two times killing the guys as they undocked. 15?It is matter of maths actually- sadly most people cannot count- you tell me what happens if 10 battleships with output of like 1 000 000 DPS per second shoot at one spot and if transport continue to appear to be at that spot intentionally? Same spot camped by the cloaked shield abusers?
It is nice how the people cannot see the big picture here.
I am not saying that it is good thing that they got shot, I am also sure that with 20 ships some shoot them intentionally as well but in general if the transports undocks and dies in 2 seconds before the attackers stop to shoot the base it is his own fault, and they wanted to die in order to provide life shield to the cloaked suppliers so they intentionally died.
And you obviously have idea about how bases works since you re-wrote the tutorial -do tell me is it ok to you to have bases supplied under siege when the shield is on?
The shield is so strong exactly because during the siege base cannot be supplied if you don't abuse the game mechanics or Cannon added no docking on activated shield just for fun?
In general I would say Curious said it on the best possible way I cannot explain it better.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - dodike - 05-18-2012
I don't know. From the description it seems that those transports flew deliberately into a line of fire. Onlookers are a fair game.
Would be a different story if they were targeted but I'm not sure this is the case.
Also isn't possible to add protection to vessels undocking from a player base?
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - William Frederick Cody - 05-18-2012
Why the hell you call it "abuse"? Shouldn't it be also possible, to break a siege?
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - ryoken - 05-18-2012
Well i agree with Zelot here. Base shooters got off easy. If you attack a base, and weigh down your mouse and go AFK? Well to freaking bad. Anything that gets killed by those AFK ships without proper demands has the right to file reports as you broke the rules. Even if they flew infront of you? you can say move or dai atleast, and you would be ok, but nothing was said, over and over and over. So all attackers broke many rules, and should have got nailed alot harder then they did for it.
As another person above stated "if i was admin" I would have fined each 100mil per kill. When cash ran out? start taking away gear. When gear ran out, start reducing ship in size until just a starflee.
I have said it in the past. The admins today, are 10times less harsh then they wer 3-5 years ago. As a result i am seeing a whole lot more repeat offenders, because they know they can get what ever they lose back in a few days of mining.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - dodike - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:Why the hell you call it "abuse"? Shouldn't it be also possible, to break a siege?It should be possible by other means than sending countless ships directly in the fire for slaughter and then reporting the attackers for shooting at the base.