+- 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: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? (/showthread.php?tid=123540)
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Alestone - 12-10-2014
(12-10-2014, 01:02 AM)Mímir Wrote: You kinda prove the point - POB's cater for a totally different mentality where people see their game time as "investment" and feel compelled to leave when that is destroyed, as if the POB's somehow hold a real value that is unfairly taken from them. It's easy to see why players get caught up in that illusion, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's a benefit overall that the game points players in that direction as it adds unnecessary and unwanted stress and tension. If POB's weren't here to begin with, these players would approach the game differently, and that would improve interactions as well.
I've noticed that the forums use the word "interaction" when they don't want to say things like abuse or pews. You argue against whatever, but you don't argue for RP. Instead, you argue for interaction when you won't, for whatever reason, admit that what you really mean is "interacting" with another player to their detriment.
As you say, POBs are an investment, specifically, an investment of the player's time and enjoyment. After all, they are here to enjoy themselves, are they not?
The problem that your argument presents is that you want people to make your investment worth while, but you refuse to play tit for tat and make their investment equally worth while. Why would they want to stay on the server when you tell them that you don't care about them and will gleefully throw them under the bus if you think it will be amusing?
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Sava - 12-10-2014
(12-10-2014, 01:02 AM)Mímir Wrote: You kinda prove the point - POB's cater for a totally different mentality where people see their game time as "investment" and feel compelled to leave when that is destroyed, as if the POB's somehow hold a real value that is unfairly taken from them. It's easy to see why players get caught up in that illusion, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's a benefit overall that the game points players in that direction as it adds unnecessary and unwanted stress and tension. If POB's weren't here to begin with, these players would approach the game differently, and that would improve interactions as well.Grinding is a particular type of gameplay that also pleasures players to some extent. Your attitude to it is a bit one-sided.
(12-10-2014, 07:11 AM)Twaddle Wrote: After all, they are here to enjoy themselves, are they not?Yes. But freelancer is intended to put them into a common space with other players, where "space is dangerous" and you can't choose whom to interact with and whom not.
It's a delusion that limiting the circle of contacts can improve your enjoyment. Tested in practice (which included PoBs, ofc) many times.
I can say for sure that many players are being hypocrite when protecting their "investment" of different sorts.
And this is why it causes flames and grudges. For insincerity is hard to cover.
Why not putting this straight: you think that PoB owners, users and suppliers lack tools for protecting themselves, and the existing tools don't correspond with the invested efforts? I am ready to listen to your sincere arguments and provide mine. But you don't go for it because you fear that comunity opinion will not be on your side, no?
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Mímir - 12-10-2014
(12-10-2014, 07:11 AM)Twaddle Wrote: I've noticed that the forums use the word "interaction" when they don't want to say things like abuse or pews. You argue against whatever, but you don't argue for RP. Instead, you argue for interaction when you won't, for whatever reason, admit that what you really mean is "interacting" with another player to their detriment.
As you say, POBs are an investment, specifically, an investment of the player's time and enjoyment. After all, they are here to enjoy themselves, are they not?
The problem that your argument presents is that you want people to make your investment worth while, but you refuse to play tit for tat and make their investment equally worth while. Why would they want to stay on the server when you tell them that you don't care about them and will gleefully throw them under the bus if you think it will be amusing?
Not at all, I do think you are putting words in my mouth. For the first couple of years I played here, I never PVP'ed (I didn't even have a mouse for my laptop and wasn't particularly interested in getting one) and I focused intensely on trading, chat type roleplay and the lawful side in general. 'Interaction' is a great term because it covers PVP, chat and all other types of roleplay that fuels the server, mod and community. So when I argue for more interactions, I am arguing for more roleplay - afterall, how can you play a role if there is no audience to interact with?
I want players to look at game time as exactly that - game time, not work. Not an 'investment'. Logging on and playing and interacting with other people should be enjoyable and a reward in itself. When people enjoy themselves, the quality of interaction goes up, whereas when they see things as a chore, they are more likely to project that negativism on to other people they encounter.
I don't see my time here as an 'investment', I see it as recreation. I am also mildly offended by the tonnes of accusations regarding my alleged behavior, based on my general opinions in a forum post. Stop the assumptions, will you?
@Sava: Grinding wasn't introduced when POB's entered the mod. It's a type of gameplay that has been in Disco since Vanilla.
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Alestone - 12-10-2014
(12-10-2014, 08:06 AM)Sava Wrote: Why not putting this straight: you think that PoB owners, users and suppliers lack tools for protecting themselves, and the existing tools don't correspond with the invested efforts? I am ready to listen to your sincere arguments and provide mine. But you don't go for it because you fear that comunity opinion will not be on your side, no?
I made my position clear with my original question. The escalation in the thread was done by other people.
To reiterate, however, I believe that the ability to "turn on" a base's shields to prevent a player from docking represents an exploit abuse. Clarifying, with the rules makers, whether that position is valid was ALL that this thread was originally concerned about.
Mimir, a bit of pot and kettle, asking not to have your position intrepretted, but doing it to others yourself.
In closing, don't put words in my mouth about my position and motives, and I won't embarrass you by pointing out the gaping holes in your "logic".
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Mímir - 12-10-2014
Why would anyone be embarassed? If you have corrections, go ahead an enlighten me - it's the only way for opinions and points of view to change. I'm not overly concerned with who is right and wrong, but rather with what is right and wrong.
Regarding the pot and kettle, true, I did address "most basesuppliers", but there's a difference between doing that and saying "You, Twaddle, OORP'ly supply your base while being quiet". I hope you can understand and respect that difference.
You accuse me of really just wanting to "interact with other players to their detriment" and "gleefully throw [other players] under the bus if [I] think it will be amusing", and I do think that is quite out of line. You don't know the first thing about me or my conduct on the server.
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Binski - 12-10-2014
Just for the record, I have a base, and I still think its OK to CD one to prevent a ship you've issued a demand to stop from docking. I help out on other bases, and just because of that I don't let it sway me to take the side of a base owner without question. In the end we all cherish our bases (our work really) and would never question having our shield come active at the first sign of trouble. Wanting your cleared ships to be able to dock through the shield once its active is oorp under these circumstances (since it is that important to people these days). So its the same argument as always, that you shouldn't even be bothering with a base on your own unless you know what you're doing, since its always been a 'group' oriented activity, its always possible to have someone else log, with a ship on the base, to lower it long enough to let ships dock. Basically it just means docking on a base under these conditions ought to take more than one person to accomplish. Sorta like mining and escorting. Those of you claiming exploit still can't explain how it is so. You want your shields to raise to aggressors automatically but want your ships to pass through like its not there if they try docking while it takes a CD. And also for the record, even if you only fire 1 shot from one gun it does the same thing, yet would that be considered 'attacking' the base? Even when its superficial in nature? Come on.
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Sava - 12-10-2014
(12-10-2014, 03:59 PM)Twaddle Wrote: I made my position clear with my original question. The escalation in the thread was done by other people.My post was directed more to those people.
Your position is clear to me.
Regarding the exploits - there are many of them, and they are an essential part of the game (CDs tracking cloaked ships, insta and slowdocks, docking invincibility, for instance).
This particular "exploit" allows attackers to force PoB users to interaction.
I'd rather discuss whether or not PoB should provide ultimate shelter for it's users. That, however, also rises the weapon platforms question.
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Alestone - 12-12-2014
(12-10-2014, 06:12 PM)Sava Wrote: This particular "exploit" allows attackers to force PoB users to interaction.
I am curious, would you support an exploit that allowed someone else to just shut down your ship's shields? That is, after all, the converse of the position you are supporting; to wit, that your opponent has more control over your equipment than you do.
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Bojangles - 12-12-2014
Why is docking on an NPC base to escape "interaction" the biggest deal ever and docking on a PoB to escape "interaction" fine?
RE: Is shooting a POB to prevent docking a violation? - Sava - 12-13-2014
(12-12-2014, 06:35 PM)Twaddle Wrote: I am curious, would you support an exploit that allowed someone else to just shut down your ship's shields? That is, after all, the converse of the position you are supporting; to wit, that your opponent has more control over your equipment than you do.I'm trying to have a substantive discussion. You begin sophistry. Seems like the matter really touches you. U MAD BRO?
(12-12-2014, 09:10 PM)Bojangles Wrote: Why is docking on an NPC base to escape "interaction" the biggest deal ever and docking on a PoB to escape "interaction" fine?NPC bases locations are defined by the game/mod developers with balance, lore and gameplay in mind. While, obviously, most POB owners rather try to just bend the local balance to their own benefits (I'm not saying it's bad, it's just a statement of fact).
Not to mention that NPC bases don't have such deadly weapons.
Simply, the regular bases and the POBs are completely different things, so it's logical to approach them differently.