(12-02-2016, 03:11 PM)sindroms Wrote: My comment on treating a POB as a player was an oversimplification. If because of that you do not understand what was being said, I apologize. Instead of ''treating the POB as a player'', I should have said that we have to ''treat the POB as a part of the engagement'' that was taking place.
Any sanction of this nature is discussed and voted on by multiple people and considering the original report was made a month ago, you can see why it took so very long to process this report. I met up with Venkman on teamspeak later and answered his and others questions regarding why this sanction was processed as it was and what prompted us to treat the POB as a part of an engagement, much like a ''player'', so to speak.
What we had to work with were logs of the encounter, which showed that the person who reported the reengagement was close enough to the siege group to not only give an engagement notice, but also to be responded to by multiple of the sieging players - the siege group was within range. Since Venkman's ship was destroyed by the base after this engagement notice and the responses were given, he had become a part of the engagement during that timespan.
When it comes to processing such reports, we chose to treat the whole siege group as a single engagement, given that the engagement notice, answers and the first death of the sanctioned ship against the base happened within the timespan of a few minutes, followed by other deaths from the same group.
The issue here is that we simply cannot treat the death of a siege participant, especially when there is an ongoing battle involved with his group, as nothing else but a PVP death when his death was, as they themselves admitted, due to the very POB that they were laying siege against. Huge-scale fights are a pain to process during a sanction report. If you die in some way during such incidents, please play it safe. We as the team can not ignore or not-process any report that is slung our way because it is too hard to make out. In the end a decision is something we need to make and in this case it was a standard reengagement fine and the loss of guns. Even Venk himself stated in TS that he sees why this was processed as it was and that the loss of guns aren't a big deal. You seem to be, again, the only one in outrage over a problematic situation we personally also have no joy for, and just for the sake of being outraged.
EDIT: As for the reason for this thread, since you gave a clarification in the post above this one - the POB Siege rules and mechanics are being reworked. The work is WIP but it will be in before the ID rewrite in one form or another. (As in, either the change to rules or the change to mechanics)
Spazzy, I was there two and was close to die to a platforms several times and it could happen to me, and since I'm poor, unlike venk, that would be quite painfully. I just want to make sure that if I'm following the rules, I won't get sanctioned. It's very simple and I just to be rules stated as I wrote many times in OP post. Rules are a thing that we all working with and when admins in particular are making something that isn't written and that isn't something that everyone's agree, it's causing some drama. I still have no clue about the 'Heavy decision' and such things. Community shall play withint the rules, including the admins, add new rules and it's all good. I don't have an issue with the admin team or personally with someone's here, good to hear that it's gonna be public soon and people will be aware of it.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure that 90% of the defenders were dead, maybe a few ships were close to jumpgates, trying to catch people who were flying to restock.
(12-02-2016, 03:22 PM)Sanja Wrote: Spazzy, I was there two and was close to die to a platforms several times and it could happen to me, and since I'm poor, unlike venk, that would be quite painfully. I just want to make sure that if I'm following the rules, I won't get sanctioned. It's very simple and I just to be rules stated as I wrote many times in OP post. Rules are a thing that we all working with and when admins in particular are making something that isn't written and that isn't something that everyone's agree, it's causing some drama. I still have no clue about the 'Heavy decision' and such things. Community shall play withint the rules, including the admins, add new rules and it's all good. I don't have an issue with the admin team or personally with someone's here, good to hear that it's gonna be public soon and people will be aware of it.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure that 90% of the defenders were dead, maybe a few ships were close to jumpgates, trying to catch people who were flying to restock.
Quote:4.1 If you die whilst in a PVP situation, in any form, that character/ship does not re-enter the same system for 2 hours and the Player, on any of their ships, cannot reengage the aggressors on any character for 2 hours. You are allowed a grace period of 5 minutes to leave the system with an empty cargo hold and you are safe from further attack during this grace period within that system. If the attacker(s) log off, you may re-enter the system you died in
+ - If you are in PVP with someone, but an NPC kills you, you were still in a PVP match. Your death still counts as a PVP death LINK TO RULES CLARIFICATION THREAD
Shiki, that is still no excuse. Even if there is one defender left, you must follow the engagement rules that are specified in both the rules thread and further elaborated on in the clarification thread.
The rules are not perfect. They will never be. , but if you are unsure about -anything-, please double check with us and we will try to figure out any grey areas if there are any.
Also, thank you for reminding me that we need to finally update the clarification thread for the last few questions.
Party on the gates was not engaged against the main group. They came later (after initial group of defenders died) and engaged a single targets in ~30-40k from an actual siege. According to venk there was no screens in the evidence, so I'm not sure if they actually have a proof that venk have died in the same system with them (blue message). Because as I said, group at the gates came more later, and I'm not sure if they even were in the system when venk died.
If the reengagement took place when other players were present, the correct way of processing that report would be as... a reengagement, no different than dying to an NPC base during a brawl around one of those. I am utterly clueless as to why the administration would decide to write a paragraph long post in which POBs are claimed to count as people when this is - going by the only concrete info you had, true or false - a standard example of reengaging during combat.
Like.. I'm really curious as to what the team's thought's were on doing that instead of just processing it like any other reengagement report.
(12-02-2016, 04:40 PM)Durandal Wrote: If the reengagement took place when other players were present, the correct way of processing that report would be as... a reengagement, no different than dying to an NPC base during a brawl around one of those. I am utterly clueless as to why the administration would decide to write a paragraph long post in which POBs are claimed to count as people when this is - going by the only concrete info you had, true or false - a standard example of reengaging during combat.
Like.. I'm really curious as to what the team's thought's were on doing that instead of just processing it like any other reengagement report.
Point is, there wasn't a fight and system was empty most of them time. If saction is relying on logs, there is a really high chance that the evidence from somewhere in Stuttgart, while siege was in Omega-7. I'm asking if there is a fact that reported player was at least at the same system when venk died, not even about them being engaged, which wasn't the case.
We are going to doublecheck on this, actually, just in case. The few screenshots that were provided say that the death happened 1:20 min after the screenshots were taken and said shots are in the same system with the whole (read- multiple full radar windows of contacts) siege participants in range.
--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------
(12-02-2016, 04:51 PM)sindroms Wrote: We are going to doublecheck on this, actually, just in case. The few screenshots that were provided say that the death happened 1:20 min after the screenshots were taken and said shots are in the same system with the whole (read- multiple full radar windows of contacts) siege participants in range.
Oh, that could be, they had a cloaking transport that was moving platforms, but this thing was not ever engaged in any fight.
No, the screenshot maker and the person who reported and gave the engagement notice that many people replied to was uncloaked and claimed one of the kills that happened after Venk died. Just to clarify.
--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------