+- 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)
+---- Forum: Faction Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+----- Forum: Faction Review and Feedback (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=135)
+------ Forum: Archived Feedback Threads (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=484)
+------ Thread: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 (/showthread.php?tid=147306)
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - HuggieSunrise - 01-27-2017
And now for something completely different.
Its been some time but i think the subject is still a raw one and no one likes it. or likes to deal with it.
Khara has been made exsample that buttcloaking. or decloaking and opening fire on someone's behind isnt.. enjoyed by anyone.
Yet today wesker pointed out it indeed isnt against the rules except Per our ID rule.
I think its time the admins come to a full consensus here as to this harmful tactic. How rage inducing it maybe some folks just accept the every faction with access to a battleship and a cloaking device will just do it with impunity.
I think it needs to stop personally. But if the freedom to be like that is important. Break our chains. Please.
-------------------------
I have ideas. here they are. maybe they're good i dunno
Cloak-engaging ships should be regimented to combat vessels only. This is giving engagement notice while cloaked for ships able to fight back. taking transports and trading ships off the menu for this tactic. Besides if you buttcloak a transport as a battleship.. what the heck are you?
Cloak-Engaging limited to the factions home systems. Making it a legitimate bonus to defence in this case.
Cloak-engaged should only be permitted on days that end in y but not during the full or new moon. - my boss made me write this. i have to take them to lunch now.
thanks for your time.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - sindroms - 01-27-2017
I would rather have that cloaked ships have no energy, much like in cruise speed. That way it eliminates the need for a rule and reinforces the desired effect via game mechanic.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - Wesker - 01-27-2017
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=147416&pid=1861158#pid1861158
I can I please have a logical explanation to why an act that broke no rules and is different to no other instance of buttcloaking is somehow sanctionable?
I was going to log the durango for the nomad event
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - Divine - 01-27-2017
(01-27-2017, 10:28 PM)sindroms Wrote: I would rather have that cloaked ships have no energy, much like in cruise speed. That way it eliminates the need for a rule and reinforces the desired effect via game mechanic.Not just wanting. Make it happen. That's a glorious idea and can even be quite easily explained inRP. Cloak needs the energy, period. Just as with cruise speed. Now get this through a vote and make the dev-team to implement it.
That's your job as admin, do it for once.
//Edit:
Kudos btw for changing the feedback thread to be open without posts going through approval.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - sindroms - 01-27-2017
No, as it falls to the balance team to do that, Divine.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - sindroms - 01-27-2017
(01-27-2017, 10:32 PM)Wesker Wrote: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=147416&pid=1861158#pid1861158
I can I please have a logical explanation to why an act that broke no rules and is different to no other instance of buttcloaking is somehow sanctionable?
I was going to log the durango for the nomad event
Because the vote on a sanction is dependent on a majority. More members of the vote thought that the instance shown within the evidence was harmful for the server gameplay than those who did not.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - Wesker - 01-27-2017
(01-27-2017, 10:41 PM)sindroms Wrote:(01-27-2017, 10:32 PM)Wesker Wrote: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=147416&pid=1861158#pid1861158
I can I please have a logical explanation to why an act that broke no rules and is different to no other instance of buttcloaking is somehow sanctionable?
I was going to log the durango for the nomad event
Because the vote on a sanction is dependent on a majority. More members of the vote thought that the instance shown within the evidence was harmful for the server gameplay than those who did not.
Was there actually anyone who voted in favor of what the rules dictate or is the statement a cover up.
I'd like to think my efforts to justify weren't completely naught.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - Divine - 01-27-2017
(01-27-2017, 10:39 PM)sindroms Wrote: No, as it falls to the balance team to do that, Divine.What? No. Don't throw this off your table by handing it to some other department. You can very well demand the dev-team to implement something that's possible to implement for the sake of enforcing and/or maintaining a rule. For once grow some courage and know your limitations and reaches.
If you request this to be done as admin-team, then it has to be done. It's a nice way of -asking-, meaning it's that or no cloaks anymore.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - sindroms - 01-27-2017
Give me a moment and I will elaborate a bit. I need to fix this thread not auto-approving Faction Leader posts.
EDIT: Also, no. Just ask Antonio what happened when I said that there would be a chance that we were not going to implement changes to the cloak warmup time for Fighters.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread 2.0 - Divine - 01-27-2017
I've an other question though. The Moderator position was over the last years used to determine who has what it takes to function as an Admin. This was lossened with Hannibal just spending some 2+ weeks as Moderator and totally ignored with Sindroms joining the green ranks. The question now is: This is now the usual way of handling this or those two are an exception? If it's the latter, what exactly made those two, especially Sindroms, who despite his video channel and events now sure still holds contacts to those capable of dealing problems to the servers integrity, suitable for this position?
(01-27-2017, 10:52 PM)sindroms Wrote: ....I'd rather like to've you explain here. What's to hide?
EDIT: Also, no. Just ask Antonio what happened when I said that there would be a chance that we were not going to implement changes to the cloak warmup time for Fighters.