+- 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: Saddened by the rule 5.6 (/showthread.php?tid=97690)
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - Sava - 04-26-2013
Maybe we just make a rule that prohibits to start a pvp without mutual agreement eh?
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - dodike - 04-26-2013
(04-26-2013, 04:57 PM)SMGSterlin Wrote: The only way this rule would get changed, is if they buffed transports to a point where they stood a better chance against pirates, even in capitals.Not going to change the fundamental issue which is requirement for transports to dock to fulfill their role (trading). Unless transports become fast and nimble enough to hunt down and destroy lighter crafts preventing them from docking just by their presence.
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - CaptainAlamo - 04-26-2013
I never understood the rule that any dock counts as a player death. I know the obvious argument is that is is an unfair advantage to dock and reload then undock and continue fighting, but to me that is the point of bases, as safe port to operate out of. For instance, if you travel into enemy territory and attack members of a faction near their own base, shouldn't it be at your own risk that they use that base to service their ships in combat? Otherwise there is no tact to taking extra care near your enemies bases or territory, for instance, like waiting outside of the immediate base zone, or trying to attack ships on route to a destination, and waiting for them to get into deep space. If you attack someone in their territory it should be on your own liability to deal with the consequences of it. I also always wondered if docking on a ship in battle counts as docking/player death as well? As far as I'm concerned, if you attack someone at their base, and they use that tactical advantage to 'win' then they win. Thats why you might want to work harder to get capital ships, or build large groups to stage surprise attacks, so, you would have to kill those players to get them counted as dead, and fight harder if they managed to dock and restock, which is, the danger you face when launching attacks in your enemy's territory. That way if an attack fails, you can always withdraw. The same advantage would work for you in your own territory or base area as well. Once you're dead the same rules apply, you just have to use greater skill to blast someone BEFORE they get to dock. Also, if you are chasing a ship, even a cap ship, and they manage to hold out long enough to dock, the hunters may face the risk of becoming the 'hunted' as they failed to stop the ship before reaching a port safe to it. If they're both able to dock, keep fighting until destruction is achieved, or stay docked, ceding victory to your pursuer. I understand this rule will not likely change, but I think it would make gameplay more interesting. Just my 2 cents.
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - Zelot - 04-26-2013
(04-26-2013, 06:36 PM)Sava Wrote: Piracy isn't the issue.
When some dude in transport is hanging around the station, there is no way someone can make him leave.
You can kill the snub or warship (rule-wise) but the transport is invincible. wtf?
Edit: that was my point from the start. The rule doesn't protect cargo haulers from being robbed by any type of ship, it's only protecting base hugging dudes in transports from being kicked from the system. And that's wrong.
Why is that such a problem that we need to change the rules?
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - Moberg - 04-26-2013
(04-26-2013, 06:36 PM)Sava Wrote: Piracy isn't the issue.
When some dude in transport is hanging around the station, there is no way someone can make him leave.
You can kill the snub or warship (rule-wise) but the transport is invincible. wtf?
Edit: that was my point from the start. The rule doesn't protect cargo haulers from being robbed by any type of ship, it's only protecting base hugging dudes in transports from being kicked from the system. And that's wrong.
In the following scenario:
1. Transport shoots you.
2. Transport is almost dead, docks, refills, repairs
3. Tranport undocks.
4. Return to 1.
Then I think it is possible that you can ask the admins to 1.2 the player.
Quote:1.2 Server administrators will impose sanctions on players for violating server rules and for any actions that harm server gameplay.
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - Sava - 04-26-2013
Damn, you sneaky....
As i said, what if transport isn't attacking anything and the player just wants to get rid of it?
Why do transports have privileges over other ships?
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - Moberg - 04-26-2013
Same thing, then. If you think that a returning (maybe even roleplaying) transport harms server gameplay, try to get the admins to 1.2 it. *shrugs*
You can also leave them alone and look for more favorable encounters, maybe something that doesn't give easy blue messages.
I think that the rule is important because as explained earlier, transports lack the methods on how to deal with players that only mean harm to than. They're not able to withstand as much fire as a capital ship, and can't dodge the enemy shots even nearly as good as a snub. The only ways with them to properly deal with people is docking or talking. The latter is nearly impossible when the enemy (a.k.a. 90% of pirates you encounter) just want an easy blue message.
So there's only docking left. And now you want to punish that aswell?
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - dodike - 04-26-2013
(04-26-2013, 09:08 PM)Sava Wrote: Damn, you sneaky....Lure it out?
As i said, what if transport isn't attacking anything and the player just wants to get rid of it?
Why do transports have privileges over other ships?
How is that different from people sitting on a station and talking in system chat? Should that be addressed too?
It seems the problem isn't the rules but your perception.
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - Sava - 04-26-2013
Quote:How is that different from people sitting on a station and talking in system chat? Should that be addressed too?That player sees what's happening around and can read and type in local chat.
Apart from that, isn't it obvious that the discussed exception only adds confusion and doesn't solve any problems?
RE: Saddened by the rule 5.6 - dodike - 04-26-2013
See, you would gladly fix what's only few people perceive as a problem by causing lot more of them with much higher potential for abuse and unjustice.
You sir have a natural talent for politics.
Edit: Perhaps the current state is not perfectly just but the alternative is far worse.