' Wrote:Yup. But if they were firing on edges of base(which i have done with dread in past) and not the docking/undocking point, and if they were there and not AFK with mouse weighed down, and if they just RP'd. NONE of this would have happened.
I really see that nothing needs to be changed, other then the "BASE MUST DIE, KILL AT ALL COSTS" mentallity.
PS. Just to add a point. Well shooting a base in Yorktown. We had a transport pop out, we all stopped firing, and told it to be gone, and had some bombers chase it away, then continued firing. So how hard is it really? Allso as stated. We fired at edges, not docking/undocking point. With shields they cannot dock, so why bother.

' Wrote:With shields they cannot dock, so why bother.

' Wrote:aha


sure?


Really?
Ok now go to read the first post.

' Wrote: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.

' Wrote:Many of "you" came back after getting killed by a weapon platform. Should it be considered PvP death if, as you say, it is a combat zone and bystanders are fair game?

' Wrote:Its not a matter of math. From what I can tell from that thread - the victim told you he was wanting to leave the system and you continued to fire on the dock point.

You broke the rules. Doesn't matter if a cloaked ship was sitting there or not. The guy asks to leave; by the rules you are required to let him leave.

The big picture is you purposefully violated the rules. You try to justify that by saying another person was abusing part of the system. Doesn't matter if they were. You don't get to violate the rules, even if they are abusing the system.

You can claim he was intentionally dying all you want. Doesn't mean it is true. That is just your opinion on the matter.

If you read my posts throughly you'll find the answer to your question regarding supplying a base under siege with a shield up. I will comment that I don't think it is a smart idea to remove the ability to manually turn it on and off. I think that a base owner should have the choice to lower the shields in hopes of having emergency supplies dropped off. I think that choice should come with great risk though.

' Wrote:Well, lets say you're on the street, and you've got a gun. A real one. It's legal. You have it registered in local police.

The laws are forbidding you from killing anyone. That's a law. That's a rule. You shouldn't kill people.

However you see the scene, not far from you. A murder is about to shoot down the woman! You don't know her nor you know the killer. However he's surely breaking the rules. The laws. They are set in stone and you're law abiding citizen have to decide between the not breaking the rules and thus leaving another human to the death and between breaking a rules yourself by shooting the scum down. Religion say don't kill, laws say don't kill. Moral rights, sometimes, say as well - don't kill.

But rules are dependable. That's why it's always good to review the situation.

"Yeas they did something bad, but you broke rules"

"So you're to be shot"

I see the intelligence abilities being below low, or someone just lazy to apply logic and investigate the case.

' Wrote:Ahh, your lovely rules.

Okay, I'll toss some in, just for you since you're going so hot out of them.

1.2 Server administrators will impose sanctions on players for violating server rules and for any actions that harm server gameplay.

Nothing is perfect.
That includes the rules, the game we're playing, many many things. We're not perfect as well.

That's why doing something, which was supposed to be unreal, is a rule 1.2 violation. Gameplay was harmed. Seriously or not, but it was. System had a gap, loophole, bug.

However the actions of parties involved shouldn't be reviewed separately, since they are just a parts of one bigger event. They are connected.

As rules are not perfect and don't match all the situations we have to review the whole picture.

That's what was my example for, shame you didn't got it.