+- 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. - ryoken - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:Can you explain how my proposal is extremely abusable?
With 2 min time-limit on every manual shield off and not allowing anything to dock/undock while the shield is on?
What exactly you find abusable? If the base owners want to use the shield option- it is up to them no-one makes anyone to do anything really, the second part fixes the loophole.
If the base is under attack and some ship is docked on it is logical to lower the shield if you want out,same logic by the vanilla freelancer- you cannot harm the hull of the ships with shield on, you cannot drop any item out of the shield without lowering the shield. If you have better ideas how to fix this go ahead.
Only owner can lower shields. 10 people docked at a base. None of them have admin rights to it. How do they lower shields? They cannot. THAT is why it will not work. THAT is why you would all have to stop shooting to allow those players to leave base. THAT is the rule we currently have in place, and have had for years. I see no reason to change it now so a select few can pew pew a base.
Now you want to give everyone ability to drop shields on base then that is also very abusable and will never happen. Face it mate. You are wrong. You broke the rules, and now want a way to blow up bases, and punish owners because you dislike the rules we have. Why should we make it harder for base owners, and easier for those who want to blow bases up? Please give me 1 good reason.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Govedo13 - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:2 minutes is too much. It's like saving 200 minutes of firing on a shield without including the regeneration that happens during these 2+ hours. In other words, it's like signing the base's death sentence.Exactly- the only way to stop supplying the base with shield on- this or the command must be removed at all- I am not in favour of removing the command because one CD can trigger the base shield on and the base owner might want to lower it- may be 1 min would be good option too- so the good supplied base takes a lot of DMG but still can survive- the point is not to enable lowering the shield and cloaking transports to dock without severe damage for the base- otherwise in the currnet situation the bases are not killable. AD and Cannon would say if it is technically possible to add undocking protection on the ships undocking from the base or they shall stay grounded if the shield is on- it is up to them.
Make it 10 seconds.
If you have other ideas use the moment- it would be nice if the bases function properly in U6.
Ryoken you clearly have no idea what is the topic and what we discuss.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Guyton - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:Player bases always undock at same location. That location was being shot, so as they undocked, they got shot before they could move 2M's. That violates the rule "If the player respawns in the same system, he/she must leave the system within 10 minutes of his destruction without attacking anyone, except in self-defense. Other players are not allowed to attack one who is leaving."
They did not allow players to leave, as they were all AFK firing with mouse weighed down. So no RP(against rules) and not allowing to leave(against rules) A simple anouncement of "we will stop firing for 1 minute, all ships must leave station at this point" would have saved them the sanctions. But again. AFK players cannot speak can they? IMO there should also be a rule about that as well.
Fact is. They broke the rules, they got sanctioned for it. Now they all pissed, and want to rage because they did not get there way like a toddler who dropped his toy out of reach.
Agreed, follow the rules or face the consequences. AFK firing just sounds distasteful as well for a RP server thus the results.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - ryoken - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:Exactly- the only way to stop supplying the base with shield on- this or the command must be removed at all- I am not in favour of removing the command because one CD can trigger the base shield on and the base owner might want to lower it- may be 1 min would be good option too- so the good supplied base takes a lot of DMG but still can survive- the point is not to enable lowering the shield and cloaking transports to dock without severe damage for the base- otherwise in the currnet situation the bases are not killable. AD and Cannon would say if they can add undocking protection on the ships undocking from the base or they shall stay grounded if the shield is on- it is up to them. If you have other ideas use the moment- it would be nice if the bases function properly in U6.
Ryoken you clearly have no idea what is the topic and what we discuss.
You know what? Your right. I do not understand broken english, and jibberish very well. I do how ever fully understand the rules the way they are written, and fully understand you want an advantage over bases so you can pew them.
This topic is "we broke rules and got punished for it, so now lets find an easy way to screw base owners to" Others here have agreed, but you fail to listen to them. Mods have said it, and you fail to listen to them, even the admins said it, and you failed to listen to them. Yet you claim i do not have any Idea here? Wow pot,kettle,black right over your head. So go on raging and not listening to what many MANY here have said, just because you dis- agree. I am out. Enjoy your rage.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Jack_Henderson - 05-18-2012
I was a witness of that situation. It was ridiculous and the undocking transport was far from innocent, but yeah, Admins have cast their verdict. I am just glad that it was not one of my Novas that scored the final percentage of damage.
How to solve?
> It has already partly been solved: 4h transport ban after pvp death
=> no danger that the same stupid transport will come in again and repeat his game
=> no need to keep him pinned down by pvping him all the time
=> no need for the transport to undock and provoke sanction material
=> no need for QQ and rage.
> Plus: disable the /shield off command or: Keep shields down for a real painful amount of time.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - ProwlerPC - 05-18-2012
There is a common sense reason why we don't gather a group of Battelships, point our reticles at the mooring point of a planet and stick our coffee cup on the right mouse button. Why didn't you guys fire at a different spot of the base or from a different angle other then the very specific spot below the base where ships appear?
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Govedo13 - 05-18-2012
ProwerPC- read the first post you would get why-who what- no way to kill cloaked suppliers without shooting at the docking point- simple as that. I cannot see what cups have to do with it- especially with bunch of enemy ships shooting around. It would be nice if people read the first post and the topic at all before posting non-sense.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - ProwlerPC - 05-18-2012
One can argue that one can't get smugglers if you don't fire on the mooring of Crete. The docking zone is pretty clearly covered in the rules. Although, yes, appears to be a game mechanic issue but common sense wouldn't mean that rules can be ignored out of frustration due to a mechanic. It happened and I'm sure it'll pass on in memory. I certainly wish the mechanic issue came to the table without a bunch of heads on the chopping block as that was entirely avoidable, cloaks or not. The base probably woulda still stood for the time being but no one woulda been sanctioned and the mechanic could be addressed. Please be mindfull of the rules and follow them until it gets hammered out. New toys and all.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Daedric - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:Can you explain how my proposal is extremely abusable?
I don't know. I guess if I wanted to harass another player I could shoot the player base they just docked to. Then they can't do anything with that ship. I can continue to do this to keep that ship locked down.
I mean, you claim to have logic and you couldn't figure that out yourself? Jeez.
' Wrote:Indeed it does not- so it is also logical not to be able to undock as well with shield on.
This was the proposal I was referring to, the one we were talking about. Changing the subject is a rather funny way of avoiding that you put your foot in mouth.
Dodlike's proposal to merely apply the same invulnerability is more sound.
Also if you're going to argue that ships cannot be damaged while their shields are on as one of your 'points' I'm going to ask why you aren't up in arms regarding the fact that bases take damage with their shields up.
Base related sanction discussion and rules. - Curios - 05-18-2012
' Wrote:If you got screens? send them in for a sanction. Pretty plain and simple. But you did not. They did. Now maybe you are right, and they broke that rule. That does not make it ok for you to break a rule to. Only thing you can do is file a report like they did. Even admins will tell you that. I can break 50 rules a day, but if no one reports me? well i broke no rules, and do not get punished. Pretty simple right?
Also your gun/murderer scenario? Where i am from if you shot that "murderer" before he comitted the crime? You would go to jail, as your reason would just be you thought he was a murderer. Even real life laws suck at times mate.
Funny colors, adds weight for the words for sure. And logic I see in this riddance is plain simple: If there is no evidence then there is no sanctions. Without evidence no one would care.
Might be like that, however, you didn't rad the thread so you missed the post where I was saying I was not present on any of the conflict's sides. So emotions in this response of yours are quiet out of place.
I'm curious about the situation, I'm interested in finding the trues. However seems you're just interested to post in green around here. I'd say, from what I see here, Govedo is trying to make sure this situation will never happen again and the actions of both sides will be taken into account. Not only one side. Everything have it's reasons behind it, so there was a reason to murder transports. And there was a reason for those transports to keep undocking into warzone.
My example seems to be hard to understand. So I will explain in. We've got a judges and all the courts for a reason. If everything could be simply figured by the written rules\laws we shouldn't had that whole structure in the first place.
Anyway, your point of view was considered. Rules are made to be followed, but actions are usually judged over reviewing the whole situation.
My point is simple: Shooting transports = bad, abusing game mechanics is also bad.