I also think this problem would be negated if we finally changed the PVP death exemption for transports. There is nothing to lose for transports when they decide to dock. This is why people wind up in these situations, as when you try to pirate someone within close range of a base, even 15-20k, they will turn back and try to make it! I've ran into too many silent guys too that just bail for the base without saying a word. Even when its an NPC base that's in range. They wouldn't so quickly make that choice if they actually faced consequences for docking to flee. Its not about forcing interaction, its about not giving that person a quick and easy out. It allows these players to totally ignore the other if they want, unless the pirate gets within CD range of the base first. Most times people would let them dock if it counted as a death. You either pay, or have to stay docked, or, if you're good or in the right situation, can try to escape altogether and dock out of sight. So they'd still have the option to dock, no 'forced' interaction, but they also face the price of not paying off a pirate, who has every right to take it out of a player's time, if they can't get credits. I pirated a guy the other day who actually expected me to just fly away when he got docked on a gas miner (which i thought was no longer possible but w/e). his argument was 'you can't just expect me to let you kill me' and my was in turn 'you can't just expect me to let you go for nothing'. All to save 3 mil from a full load of platinum. Docking to bail should have its consequences. Again, if that were the case, people might not care about CD'ing base since they know they deterred the other player, which is equal to pvp death. I don't want to keep the player lingering, as a pirate, I want to get the victory, either payment OR kill, however that can be achieved. When you can't get either because transports just dock without saying a word and will try to wait you out, it kills interaction regardless.
(12-12-2014, 06:35 PM)Twaddle Wrote: I am curious, would you support an exploit that allowed someone else to just shut down your ship's shields? That is, after all, the converse of the position you are supporting; to wit, that your opponent has more control over your equipment than you do.
I'm trying to have a substantive discussion. You begin sophistry. Seems like the matter really touches you. U MAD BRO?
Wow, what a masterful piece of trolling. You add nothing to the discussion, accuse me of something, and resort to false endearments. I must be winning the argument.
To answer your question, being mad at someone who lacks the courage of his convictions is like being mad at water for being wet; it is something to be aware of, but not something to waste emotional investment on.
You consistently reverse your position when you are losing, you take things out of context so often I wonder if YOU, much less anyone else, know what you are saying from day to day and you seem to pick fights for the joy of starting "things". Having watched you do whatever it takes to get what you want makes me pity you, nothing more.
As to my "sophistry", I stand by the original question. After all, the entire opposing argument is that an obvious exploit is acceptable because it allows someone to force "interaction", not RP. Accepting that position, I am simply trying to establish when and where the hammer will fall for taking advantage of things to my benefit. If one exploit is legal and another is not, I want to know how and why the determination was made that way.
I have a own playerbase too and with it sometimes the shields are activated so no one can not dock. It makes sense that when the station is under fire it will go in defence mode and protect itself. Ofcourse during this closing the docking abilities for everyone. I think every base should have this computer stations too. It would be great for law people to prevent people to dock who they disallow to dock. For pirates to give more time to roleplay, instead of rushing it because they know or expect incomming help from the defender.
Dude, I just said that your post was obviously sophistic.
It's the usual symptom when person stops thinking and starts reflexing.
And your last answer just proves my assumption.
If it pleases you to think you have gotten under my skin, then, by all means, delude yourself further.
Since you don't seem to have anything worthwhile to say, I'll even send you a bit of money in game to pay you for acting the court jester. I presume you want it sent to Bandito?
*Sighs* wasn't this supposed to be a Constructive topic not a "Point fingers at each other" topic
[14.03.2021 12:15:25] BRR!-Buckfast: How about 10 millon pal!
[14.03.2021 12:15:37] BRR!-Buckfast: Your Majesty The Rich Director!
[14.03.2021 12:15:45] Gateway|-GSX-Triebfeder: Thats more like it
[14.03.2021 12:15:56] Gateway|-GSX-Triebfeder: Very Well you may have the Honour of my credits
(12-09-2014, 10:10 PM)Moveit56 Wrote: Docking Prevention has been a subject which has come up a few times. Quite frankly, the largest stopper on that one, is someone who will be willing to make a FLHook addition for it. (Of course along with working out the details) Alley is already stretched thin.
As for terms with a Playerbase, I wouldn't say shooting it to prevent a dock is a bad thing. Game mechanic stopping any other option right there.
Unless it was an allied unit.. A solution on a fix to make this mechanic make sense is more than a single sentience.
My apologies, Gyro, I will take this as gospel and let it go.
I sometimes get carried away with playing with the trolls, a bad habit of mine form when I am on shooters like Battlefield: Heroes and Combat Arms.
On Discovery server RP is one of many components of the gameplay. For me it's necessary, but I don't put it on the first place.
And I'm not alone here.
And yet many try to justify their own egoistic preferences, speculating on the concept of RP ("It's a ROLEPLAY server, so X"), when even it's role in disco is perceived differently by players.
I know one undeniable truth: gameplay fun is the alpha and omega of the successful mod. Not RP as YOU see it.
On the topic:
I stick to the point that forbidding something is a desperate solution which should be applied when other methods fail. I think, POBs are quite powerful tools right now, and adding more restrictions for attackers wouldn't add any good to the server atmosphere. IMHO, it's not the first time when people in search of safe heavens and protection from space dangers can harm the environment. For different challenges compose the very point of the game, and such things usually take them away.
And don't pull the RP card. Seriously.
One of your latest posts:
(12-13-2014, 05:43 PM)Twaddle Wrote: [....]
You consistently reverse your position when you are losing, you take things out of context so often I wonder if YOU, much less anyone else, know what you are saying from day to day and you seem to pick fights for the joy of starting "things". Having watched you do whatever it takes to get what you want makes me pity you, nothing more.
As to my "sophistry", I stand by the original question. After all, the entire opposing argument is that an obvious exploit is acceptable because it allows someone to force "interaction", not RP. Accepting that position, I am simply trying to establish when and where the hammer will fall for taking advantage of things to my benefit. If one exploit is legal and another is not, I want to know how and why the determination was made that way.
You see? We're still at the same place.
When "zoner" mentality (no offense to normal zoner players) faces danger for it's pixel ship, it immediately tries to find a rule protection, or image the threat as something OORP. Hypocrisy. Sorry, but I came across this on Disco so many times that it's like an open book for me.
My guess is that you lack self-confidence when playing the game. Learn to PvP or visit a psychotherapist, that might help.
who just invis'd my post in here. what the hell. i'll just say it again then shall i??
considering that an "attack" on a station can only be successful with like 4-8 battleships attacking a station with anything less than a single battleship should not be considered an attack.
![[Image: G38aJ6J.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/G38aJ6J.jpg)
![[Image: 120px-BhgLogo.png]](https://discoverygc.com/wiki/images/thumb/7/7c/BhgLogo.png/120px-BhgLogo.png)
![[Image: 120px-LH_Logo.png]](https://discoverygc.com/wiki/images/thumb/7/7b/LH_Logo.png/120px-LH_Logo.png){kind=logo}
![[Image: GfLI0VH.png]](https://i.imgur.com/GfLI0VH.png)
![[Image: RKaqSve.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RKaqSve.png)