' Wrote:There is a common sense reason why we don't gather a group of Battelships, point our reticles at the mooring point of a planet and stick our coffee cup on the right mouse button. Why didn't you guys fire at a different spot of the base or from a different angle other then the very specific spot below the base where ships appear?
It's very simple.
They didn't fire "at a different spot of the base from a different angle" because "they wanted to prevent the base from getting supplied by cloaked transports".
Something like "we don't care, kill the base at all costs, shoot the transports so they won't supply it".
Oh, and that rage about "the game mechanics"...
You guys sound funny. Really.
You know that those who have the evidence are right, not those who are ACTUALLY right. (I am not saying you were right in this incident; but that's how everything here is done.)
And now you are raging because someone was "abusing the game mechanics" without any evidence...
I am sure you don't have it because you are posting here. Otherwise, you would just fill a report.
Also, Govedo, if you think that current base shield system is not... Let's say, "valid", post here instead of creating another Q_Q-rage thread.
Quote:Undocking transports from same quickdock trying to die in order to fill sanction report or waiting for the attacking party to stop shooting and distracting them on the quickdock in order to resupply the base again with cloaked ships. Before the resupply the base was on 39% and was loosing 1% health each 2 minutes and it would be killed without resupply.
Wait... What? Transports trying to... "Die"? "In order to fill sanction report"? Aren't you joking?
I guess transports are supposed to supply the base, not to stand at place and wait for attackers to shoot it "in order to fill a sanction report".
And yes, I was there. And I've seen everything very well.
Might I just add that cloaked transports who supplied base, then undocked, died and then asked to leave might have had intention to give cloak to other transports to do the same over and over again? Not to count renaming possibility.
And that would be harming the gameplay by abusing rules to one's benefit.
I don't see the reasons why transport wanted to leave the system instead of logging more combat ships to counter the siege. Well, I see one, to force others into breaking rules and causing harm that way.
Also, how did thsoe guys asked to leave the system? System, local, /fm or private messages?
Because local chat while in station will be visible 100k below center of the system, where the ship is registered to be while docked.
I don't want to take any side, but this smells fishy.
ALRIGHT! I HAVE COME TO A GRAND CONCLUSIVE WIN/WIN SCENARIO!
FIRST
Transports supplying a base are not *coughs* trading.
They are SUPPLYING.
SECOND
One of the rules I am too lazy to copy/paste is "transports trading can go back to the system they are trading through or to."
LASTLY
Common sense, I believe the transports broke the rules, BUT, and this is a very BIG but, the ships firing on them also broke the rules.
BOTH sides broke the rules MULTIPLE times, so many times I feel nauseous just thinking about it.
Transports continued to come back to the system to SUPPLY it, not to TRADE to it (they are not trading, they are supplying, all should agree with me on that matter.)
SO, the rules are rules, but the transports also deserve a sanction for the... lack of intelligence or knowledge of the rules.
UNLESS the [A]dmin change or add that supplying ships can re-enter the system, transports supplying the base are just as guilty.
BAM! FINALLY!
Hope you enjoyed yet another rant of mine, and I also hope the [A]dmin re-consider the sanctions of the transport, thus making this Discovery government legitimately and unbiasedly politically correct for the sake of the Discovery server and forums together.
I will just add this to make the above post invalid:
' Wrote:Effective from the time of this post, the following rules have been updated. This is a trial for the next few weeks and may be changed further or possibly reverted.
The transport exception has been removed from rule 5.7.
Posts: 6,134
Threads: 310
Joined: Aug 2007
Staff roles: Story Dev Economy Dev
That alteration was reverted. Also, how do you prove when a transport is supplying? You have to kill the transport before it docks in order to maintain a siege. In the case of a base in a public location such as King's Cross, how do you prove they were supplying, as opposed to just passing by? You have an RP justification to shoot (maintaining a perimeter around the base) but not a rule basis for locking them out of the system, because you can't actually prove anything.
It is the same thread I quoted from... <_<
When jammi said that alteration was reverted that means something went back how it was before the change and I can't find any admin notice about that kind of stuff.
' Wrote:It is the same thread I quoted from... <_<
When jammi said that alteration was reverted that means something went back how it was before the change and I can't find any admin notice about that kind of stuff.
I was just meaning to link what you quoted from, mate!
No harm done, just tryin' to help others find the thread once it disappears in all the other new posts.