+- 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: attacking /engagement (/showthread.php?tid=19029)
attacking /engagement - Malcolm_Reynalds - 04-09-2009
I was reading a thread about cruise disruptors counting as attacking
I thought, why not expand the definitions in regards of PvP
slightly reword a few rules.
Quote:6.21 <strike>Attacking</strike> engaging without <strike>an engagement</strike> notice is not allowed. All <strike>attacks</strike> engagements must be preceded with some form of RP, regardless of NPC faction diplomacy.
Quote:5.2 If a player is <strike>attacked*</strike> engaged*, he has a right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking. There are no restrictions for self-defense.
Quote:6.6 PvP combat is allowed only on roleplay basis. The pilot who is attacking must scan for an ID prior to the <strike>attack</strike> engagement. Relying on general reputation status (red/neutral/green) without scanning for the ID is not allowed.
and make a definition for: "engagement" in addition to "attack"
"attack" would still be defined in section 5 "draining shields to 50% or lower, hull damage, or when a Cruise Disruptor is fired. Intentional ramming of any large ship is also considered an attack.
Add:"engaged/engagement" The continued firing after an "attack".
Those rules and definitions should allow for "warning shots" or single CD's. Even though both can or will be considered an "attack", neither would violate 6.21 as it would now refer to "engagement" and not "attack".
It should also eventually put a stop to single CD "self defense" claims to void the PvP rules and claims of not given notice before getting CD'd.
attacking /engagement - Quorg - 04-09-2009
A CD should continue to be considered an attack. You don't CD someone unless you plan on potentially destroying them.
attacking /engagement - Weedalot - 04-09-2009
' Wrote:A CD should continue to be considered an attack. You don't CD someone unless you plan on potentially destroying them.really now? So when you CD someone to scan his hold because he is not stopping meaning you will 100% Destroy him? That is just wrong i hope you do not act like that.
attacking /engagement - Quorg - 04-09-2009
' Wrote:really now? So when you CD someone to scan his hold because he is not stopping meaning you will 100% Destroy him? That is just wrong i hope you do not act like that.
Nope, that's not what I said.
attacking /engagement - Doc Holliday - 04-09-2009
' Wrote:A CD should continue to be considered an attack. You don't CD someone unless you plan on potentially destroying them.I think not. If you are in Baffin, refuse to stop or answer my hails then I will CD you.....more than once if you try to run again. I WON'T open fire on you unless you really ask for it.
attacking /engagement - Asgardian - 04-09-2009
' Wrote:A CD should continue to be considered an attack. You don't CD someone unless you plan on potentially destroying them."Plan on potentially destroying them"? - Isn't that like pondering about thinking about attacking?
I don't think CDing should be considered an attack at all, its used by House police and such to stop traders who are uncompliant. I think the rules are getting a shake-up anyhow with the new Beta and all.
attacking /engagement - JakeSG - 04-09-2009
Sane people know the difference between stopping somebody so you can actually get two words out and opening fire without a word simply for being red. Jackasses will still try to report you for it, and they're the ones who need to have the difference beaten into their skull. Thankfully, the Admins know the difference too. Really, they's lovely fellers.
attacking /engagement - johnpeter - 04-09-2009
I think that it should not count as a attack. Unless you CD after they have dropped out of cruise.
attacking /engagement - Quorg - 04-09-2009
' Wrote:I think that it should not count as a attack. Unless you CD after they have dropped out of cruise.
With the line of logic that some are presenting, you can CD someone constantly until you are out of CD's and it won't count as an engagement.
That's craaaaaaaaaaaaaazy :wacko:
I can't even count the number of times a trigger-happy donut-eater spammed me with CD's long after I've dropped out of cruise.
If you blow out my tires when I'm minding my own business, you'd better be ready for what's coming.
attacking /engagement - cmfalconer - 04-09-2009
Just think about the circumstances in which someone would use a cruise disruptor. These are the intended uses, anti-missle/mine spam is NOT an intended use.
1) A police/military/do-gooder-in-general CD's a suspicious transport. For whatever reason this transport is suspicious, it doesn't matter. The act of CD-ing the transport starts the encounter. This can either end in one of two general ways; guns or no guns. Guns start firing from either party and it's an engagement which the act of Cruise Disruption started. ie if the CD wasn't fired, the trader would have gotten away.
2) A pirate/terrorist/bad-man-in-general CD's a trader (usually) with intent to pillage and pirate. This encounter can end usually in two ways. Either the pirate gets paid and the lawful entity (usually trader) is sent on their merry way, or guns start firing from either entity (RP or no RP) and it's an engagement. Same as above, it wouldn't have started w/o the CD
2a) If said pirate is disrupting a tradelane, but does not have CD's, they are considered bad pirates BECAUSE they don't have CD's to initiate the encounter.
3) A do-gooder and a baddie meet in space. One part CD's the other as they're passing instead of letting them go...and encounter is initiated by the CD.
How are any of these NOT an engagements? The rule is fuzzy on this issue as if you do NOT fire your CD w/o some form of RP, the target gets away...BUT if you take the letter instead of the spirit (read: no common sense), then yes, you're technically breaking a rule by CD'ing before RP'ing.
Or have I got it wrong?