+- 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: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. (/showthread.php?tid=107858)
Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - Makc_RU - 11-26-2013
Quote:3.4 Fleeing from combat and then docking at a station or planet while you are in range of the ship you were fighting counts as PvP death. Trade vessels are exempt from this rule.
This rule needs to be changed or amended. There is a loophole in this rule, which people starting to use. A good example is cloaked ship, whispering that they followed you to the base and saw you dock, so as a result you are dead, they have screens and you need to leave the system.
How can a person know that he can't land, if the enemy ship is cloaked? Let's say a person flew away from the battle to land on another station, there are nobody around , clear to land. Suddenly there is a message: I saw you land, you are dead, leave the system. That doesn't look justified.
What is a person leaves the battle, jumps 2-3 lanes away or even to another system, giving that JGs are near, tries to land and the same problem occurs?
I think the 3.4 rule needs to say something like:
"Landing on base, while uncloaked enemy ships are visible counts as PVP death." If an enemy ship wants to deny the other player his/her ability to land on a base and repair/resupply, then the cloaked ship must be visible on radar.
Also, there should be a set distance when a player can not dock. What if one player doesn't have the 25k range radar and the other person does. We have a problem here, one player can not see another one before landing. And even though he/she knows the rules, there is no way he/she can make sure that there is nobody around.
I think if a player is 14-15k away from another player, there is no way the chaser can catch the runner. It would be safe to assume that landing is safe.
I realize it is hard to come up with a decision that would accommodate both sides, but clarification is certainly needed.
RE: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - AshHill07 - 11-26-2013
I think it was clarified somewhere ... I'm gunna have to go forum digging now arn't I ... urgh. Brb.
RE: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - Jack_Henderson - 11-26-2013
Cloaked counts as not even being there, I remember something along this line.
RE: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - Makc_RU - 11-26-2013
Ah, sweet. Because in the rules in doesn't state that. I guess we all can breathe a little easier now.
RE: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - AshHill07 - 11-26-2013
I can't find it ... gah.
Pretty sure that if they're cloaked then it doesn't count simply because its not possible for the docking player to know if they're actually there or not. Ofcourse scanners have changed since then so I'm not sure if the status would have changed, but I think you get docking messages from 14k regardless of scanner type.
Something in green would be helpful, both regarding Makc's post and clarification on the transmition range of docking messages.
RE: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - Govedo13 - 11-26-2013
Cloaked ships are visiable on screnshots in reports, however the BS scanner/Splyglass scanner users cannot be detected that way allowing them to abuse the rule at will.
This is indeed the thing that need fixing.
RE: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - Makc_RU - 11-26-2013
Govedo, how are the cloaked ships visible on screenshots? I don't get it...explain plz.
RE: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - Tankman - 11-26-2013
(11-26-2013, 12:41 AM)Govedo13 Wrote: ...however the BS scanner/Splyglass scanner users cannot be detected that way allowing them to abuse the rule at will.Solution: Make only one scanner type.
(11-26-2013, 12:27 AM)Makc_RU Wrote: Ah, sweet. Because in the rules in doesn't state that. I guess we all can breathe a little easier now.Unwritten rules are worst rules :|
RE: Clarification/Rule amendment needed. - Makc_RU - 11-27-2013
I wonder how long will it take for the rule to be amended.