+- 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: Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules (/showthread.php?tid=11673)
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - n00bl3t - 08-30-2008
I haven't read the thread.
Regardless, if it is against the rules it'd be nice to see something written down saying so.
If a trader does it to my pirating characters I'd give up and go RP somewhere else. If I was the trader I'd jump and run, and if I got caught I'd pay the reasonable tax the pirate places before me.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Xoria - 08-30-2008
' Wrote:It surprises me that you imply having a different opinion than you do on this issue equals a refusal or inability to think.
' Wrote:Pirating is already hard enough today, with all those completely unrealistic rules against pirates (like that "Don't shoot traders unless you have asked them for cargo, you may not shoot them when you told them to stop and they don't cooperate"-nonsense);Right there are two perfect illustrations of what I said.
I made a specific and explicit statement and Akumabito doesn't even begin to understand it.
Nathrael has no doubt read the specific server rules about piracy, and he still thinks that something is prohibited when it is explicitly allowed.
Numerous sanctions are made against behavior that are not specifically prohibited by the rules. In my sanctions I provide rules which usually do not prohibit the specific behavior that is being sanctioned. Instead they at best illustrate a principle which the player violated, but rarely do players violate them in the specific way that the rule states.
OORP activities are a good example. There is not a single rule that explicitly prohibits a Corsair from docking with an Outcast base, nor a rule that prohibits a Liberty Rogue from pirating in New York with a friendly reputation with the Liberty Police faction. However they both violate principles found in the rules, and are sanctioned accordingly. They are both also protested against by people who don't think there is anything wrong with it. And so are the rules against cursing and insulting.
That said, Igiss can write the rules to be as specific or as general as he wants them to be. Some already provide specific examples of prohibited behavior as an illustration of the most common violations, while many are vague, general principles.
The point is not that X or Y should or should not be a specific rule. The point is that it ultimately makes no difference either way, because for each and every correct behavior there are an infinite number of incorrect behaviors that are directly related to it. If the most common incorrect behavior is specifically prohibited, that does not mean that all of the rest are allowed. If a parent tells a child not to hit his brother, and then the child hits his sister, does that mean the child has done nothing wrong because he wasn't specifically told that he couldn't hit his sister? Of course not.
No amount of rules is a sufficient substitute for an active conscience and careful thought prior to behavior. If someone responsibly exercises both and is still wrong, that's the price we all pay for living in a fallen world, and another page of rules doesn't change that.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - n00bl3t - 08-30-2008
In other words, don't ping-pong.
It shows bad RP, as traders wouldn't risk their cargo or their lives (hopefully not in that order) to "jump" through a potentially unstable wormhole.
(If only I had green text.)
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - chopper - 08-30-2008
Hm, if I am not mistaken, this is covered with the rules.
Of course, only in certain situations.
Say, if a pirate shoots him, he jumps, he shouldn't jump back. He fled from that system.
I know that traders are somehow protected from this rule, but it's only when they finish a run or die or something.
But if for example pirate chases a trader and is some 7k behind, trader jumps and as soon as he reaches new system jumps back to confuse the enemy, he shouldn't be sanctioned.
Jumping repeatedly is an abuse, since transport shield is huge to take it down in a moment.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - El Nino - 08-30-2008
' Wrote:Actually I think you'll find that people pilot more for the RP then for the blowing up of trains....
Yes, Blowing up anyone isn't much fun, uless the engagement is up with proper RP then, well, it's much much better... Adv. Trains really are not fun to blow up in a gunboat, when I do it, it's becouse the damn powertrader won't even negotiate...
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Baltar - 08-30-2008
' Wrote:well, but it is a tactic that leave the chasing player with little chance ( and so hardly any fun ) - how fast you "zone" over depends on your computer speed and your connection. - so if the trader has a good connection and a fast computer he can easily evade any pirate ( unless the pirate is teamed up of course )
but it leaves one thing... its unfair. and an exploit of the game ... especially when we keep in mind what orillion said...
bigger ships are at a high risk to be damaged when travelling through jumpholes, so in RP, they d do it as little as possible. - a transport captain that hopped back and forth would be acting sort of ooRP ( when you re looking at a rule ) ... but really, its simply not fair to do.
Gee ... this sounds a lot like the fighter who can thruster in and out of combat ... to as far away from a gunboat as he chooses. The gunboat is frustrated because he can't do anything about it. As much as I hate this "tactic" ... you cannot really pick and choose which "tactic" is ok and which isn't.
Unfair? Tell me what in this game IS fair ...
' Wrote:Well Akuma, now that the sanction has been given we should regard it as a precedent to follow.
Also it has been that way for quite some time. It is exploiting the game engine for you gain. Not exactly sporting, and has been punished before now.
Just because there has been a sanction on this jump hole bouncing does not mean its a precedence. There are numerous sanctions for shield running ... but nobody is recognizing this as a "precedence." Lets stop throwing in double standards here. I don't like either tactic, but we MUST be consistent here. If one "tactic" is ok ... so must the other one.
' Wrote:I have to say that I'm curious about this one too. Not that it is a tactic that I'd adopt, but people have evaded me using it on both jump holes and jump gates numerous times and I've never felt "cheated" upon.
It's like chasing someone around a pillar. If you can't outrun the person you're chasing you're bound to run in circles until someone tires. It's test of patience imposed by the one evading, but considering it cheating is extreme.
I reckon there's more to it than what has been exposed in the sanction thread.
EDIT:
How is that "exploiting" the game engine, considering you're not using anything other than a pretty straightforward and valid game aspect (not some obscure bug)? What is it that you gain, considering the person chasing has all means to follow suit? How is it unsporting, if you're as much trapped in the maneuver as the guy trying to catch you?
EDIT2:
If it's a transport being chased by a fighter, ain't it much faster to turn around in a fighter than it is in a transport, so you can re-enter the jump hole you've just left?
Not everyone is familiar with a certain exploit with jump holes. There's a certain way that if you hit F1 while you are in mid jump, your ship is propelled some 20k+ beyond the jump hole on the other side. Yes ... I've seen this done ... you jump behind them and they are nowhere to be found ... you check LR scanners and they are in the same system you are and laughing at you being so far away from them. So YES ... there is a jump hole exploit. But this is an exploit you cannot capture in a screen shot. I'm not even sure admins can track it in the logs. Oh ... and you don't have to ping pong to get this exploit to work.
As much as I hate this tactic ... I have used it. Situation I was in ... gunboat vs 6 capships, bombers and fighters in Rheinland. This happened a long time ago. I was attempting to escape the RM in a Rogue GB with food from Gran Canaria bound for Buffalo Base. Thought I'd lose them by taking the back route through the Braunschweig system. they caught up with me and CD'd me after I jumped through. So I jumped back to NB and found 2 of the 3 capships and a fighter/bomber chose to park themselves at the jump hole ... so I jumped back to Braunschweig ... noticed the other capship and a couple fighter/bombers parked on that side of the jump hole. I was in a no win situation ... could not run since they'd CD me and destroy me. Keep in mind there was no letting me "live" ... they were in a blood lust to destroy my vessel. I was no trader who was getting taxed. Long story short ... I was ping ponging because I could not get away and guns were blazing. <-- Is this ok or not ok? Its a "tactic" for survival and very much within RP to stay alive ... BUT ... a very frustrating situation for them since they could not destroy me ... yet on the other hand ... it was a bit frustrating for me since the jump hole was being camped on both sides.
EDIT: In this situation I was ping ponging the jump hole ... never hit F1 ... I think I eventually thrustered away since I could never get to cruise. At least not until they ran out of CD's ... which is what I think happened cause eventually I got to cruise and departed. Like I said ... happened a long time ago.
Just a bit of perspective from what I've experienced.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - Vero - 08-30-2008
I dont agree with sanctioning people for this as it is not obvious to me that the PLAYER is doing something wrong.
What I see is a CHARACTER using a possible means of escape that is fully within RP.
If that somehow goes against common sense then it appears Xorias common sense is superior to mine because I dont see it.
My attempts to get resolution of this issue are obviously not going anywhere so this is my last request on the topic:
For the sake of those such as me whose thinking has not attained this higher state can we please have a rule to state the obvious so that this sort of thing wont happen again?
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - jimmy Patterson - 08-30-2008
' Wrote:It perhaps isn't against rules, but it's so irritating that I'd expect it to become sanctionable any minute.s oyour saying let em get taxxed personally id risk ship damage than feed a pirate allthough jims a mechanic so thats probly why
Anyone using it as trader vs pirate I presonally consider despicable.
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - AdamantineFist - 08-30-2008
' Wrote:I dont agree with sanctioning people for this as it is not obvious to me that the PLAYER is doing something wrong.I agree with you here, Vero. If we're going to sanction it, we need to put it in the rules. This isn't even remotely covered by the rules, so a new player could easily make this mistake without realizing it was against the rules. It's unfair to the people involved.
What I see is a CHARACTER using a possible means of escape that is fully within RP.
If that somehow goes against common sense then it appears Xorias common sense is superior to mine because I dont see it.
My attempts to get resolution of this issue are obviously not going anywhere so this is my last request on the topic:
For the sake of those such as me whose thinking has not attained this higher state can we please have a rule to state the obvious so that this sort of thing wont happen again?
Jump hole "abuse" is not against the rules - chopper - 08-30-2008
As I said, I think it's covered with the rules. If you were attacked, and you jumped, you simply can't return to that previous system.
That's how it should work, by the rules.