Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5

[Durandal]

Okay, except that there are four pages of people saying make it disappear. Let's.

[Greylock]

The mining part comes with a Trade Ship turning up at a Mining Field, and a few seconds later the Miner turns up, fills the Trade Ship and then logs off until the next time the Trade ship turns up. Very suspicious.

*slinks back into the discord that exists for that very reason*

---

[St.Denis]

The mining part comes with a Trade Ship turning up at a Mining Field, and a few seconds later the Miner turns up, fills the Trade Ship and then logs off until the next time the Trade ship turns up. Very suspicious.

*slinks back into the discord that exists for that very reason*

And I am sure we are talking about the same IP.

I find it fairly unlikely that people, on the same IP, are using Discord to get their Family Member, Friend, Cat, Dog or anything else to log a Mining Ship.

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[Thyrzul]

Okay, except that there are four pages of people saying make it disappear. Let's.

Are you suggesting popularity to be the primary factor when designing rules and regulations?

---

[Greylock]

The mining part comes with a Trade Ship turning up at a Mining Field, and a few seconds later the Miner turns up, fills the Trade Ship and then logs off until the next time the Trade ship turns up. Very suspicious.

*slinks back into the discord that exists for that very reason*

And I am sure we are talking about the same IP.

I find it fairly unlikely that people, on the same IP, are using Discord to get their Family Member, Friend, Cat, Dog or anything else to log a Mining Ship.

I know, just making a joke.

But yes, I think we should remove this part of the rule.

---

[Durandal]

Okay, except that there are four pages of people saying make it disappear. Let's.

Are you suggesting popularity to be the primary factor when designing rules and regulations?

I'm suggesting it out of necessity. If there are a large number of people attesting that this rule is keeping others from playing, then I want to see it go. There's always the option of a compromise, where people are required to submit evidence of being, well, two separate people. I've considered doing such with my roommate before.

[Hunor]

5.5 Connecting to the server with more than one character at a time (Multiboxing). Players who share a network connection and play together must not engage in trading/mining while doing so.

I'd like to propose the removal of the bolded part of rule 5.5. Once upon a time it may have made sense but for some time now we've had flatmates, couples and entire families play this game and are unable to play together because of it. Given the declining population of the game I believe we should revoke this sub-rule to allow for both more potential interaction on the server and to encourage people to recruit by local word of mouth.

Discuss.

It's a logical step, especially for the future.

---

[Binski]

If the biggest risk of abuse is a multiboxer who logs a mining fighter only to fill a larger vessel, or for a 2nd person to jump on that miner only for those times to help out the main player, then perhaps what we also need are larger transports with faster mining rates. Yes, I know why its been the way it has all this time, I know that it was made and left this way to encourage group interactivity. So, when it does and those people using the same IP want to mine for each other, is that really a problem? If it would be ok to have a second guy jump on to fill his friend, does it really matter if someone multiboxes to fill themselves? Probably not at this point.

Just a point on irony though, you only ever see that problem with ore/gas mining. Junkers have the Salvager, and you know, you never see a smaller miner filling them up, never see them log a little miner for a fill that then disappears. Pretty much says, all mining factions need the equivalent of a Salvager, and we can pretty much ditch the need for party mining at this point. The hurtle, like the sally, comes in the price of the transport vs cargo size. The Salvager didn't kill scrap mining, or mining for non mining capable traders. Junkers still find themselves mining for non Junker customers all the time, and they take care of themselves at the same time.

Back in the day when there would be large Junker convoys to Alpha, everyone would help fill each other, and for non junker traders, someone would whip out a mining ship to speed things up. Their use would still not be completely side lined.

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############

[Lythrilux]

People who get away with running two instances of Disco at once to trade are really no problem or threat to the server as a whole. They'll either get blown up, or they slip up and show very obvious multi-boxer behaviour. Before the bolded bit was added, rule 5.5 was fine.

---

[Karlotta]

then perhaps what we also need are larger transports with faster mining rates.

This. Give the trader the ability to mine a little wail waiting to be filled. Mitigates the multiboxing problem, and prevents afk haulers a little.

That should be part of a larger mining revamp, together with making mining simpler, more accessible for noobs, more centralized, and more equal bonus among factions for the same ores.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)