' Wrote:Okay, just ... no.
There are no rules about whether or not you are in an engagement or not.
Really?
Quote:5.2 All attacks must be the result of some form of role play. "Engaging" is not sufficient. An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Being hit with a CD is not considered an attack. If a player is attacked he has a right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking.
I highly doubt you can be engaged if you haven't been attacked. Thus the question.
Quote:Do I need to bring out the common sense hammer and smack a few people upside the head?
You can if you want, that won't change anything. I can use common sense all I want, it won't stop what you claim is the way it is from being abused.
Your way leaves it open for anyone and everyone to claim they were 'engaged' even if they couldn't make an attack on a person by server rules. Leaves many people open to punishment because they didn't view it as an engagement because the attacker couldn't actually attack and because they didn't view it as an engagement they didn't view thier docking as a PvP death. Hence when they refuse to leave the system they are breaking server rules and thus can be sanctioned. And yes I do believe that someone could skew the proof enough to trick an admin; its been done before. If the person sanctioned didn't SS everything that happens during EVERY encounter he is boned.
Agmen, you usually explain the rules nicely, and you did the same with this one.
I have an different opinion about fleeing as whole, and I tend to disagree with the current rule. That doesn't mean I don't follow it, I will always follow the server rules. But without those that question there cannot be any progress.
I was chased for 70k by few heavy fighters, one gunboat and intercepted again by one gunboat near the end. If I was flying for another 30k I wouldn't be destroyed. If I manage to flee those opponents via trade lane or a jump hole or dense asteroid field or for example with bigger thruster than they have, I would like to believe that I have every right to continue operating in the system. But I don't. And that is fine.
We come to a problem here when my interpretation of the rule was that they actually need to take down 50% of the shield. And apparently, they don't. Meaning that a light fighter can come up to a capital class ship, engage him once, take down 20% of his shield and make the whole situation an "engagement"
After that the said ship can zoom 4k around the capital, with cruise on, and delay him there, for if the target leaves, it means it's fleeing.
although, that's certainly not true, because rule 0.0 is over that rule, and this would be a balant abuse of the rules. But isn't the situation where bigger ship like gunboat attacks a light fighter and light fighter tends to evade a same thing as the situation above - only reversed?
Again I'm not putting your authority in question, only the purpose of the rule. even if the rule was that you cannot pirate in the same system where a lawful ship exist, I'ld still uphold the rules until they are changed.
' Wrote:I highly doubt you can be engaged if you haven't been attacked. Thus the question.
Actually, you easily can be engaged without actually having your shields drained. Police fighter sees a pirate fighter. Policeman tells the fighter that he's under arrest, pirate starts to run. There was an 'engagement' without any shield draining at all.
Take it one step further. Police actually starts to shoot at the pirate, but only nicks his shields for whatever reason. Pirate still runs away like a coward. He was engaged in a combat, with effectively no shield damage, and STILL must flee / log off / comply with the running rules.
I'm still confused as to how you people managed to get the 50% shield draining attack rule confused with whether or not someone is involved in a combat. How many times have you seen fighters fly around, shoot at each other, and not do enough damage to drain the other guys shields while manuvering enough to let them regnerate.
(11-21-2013, 12:53 PM)Jihadjoe Wrote: Oh god... The end of days... Agmen agreed with me.
' Wrote:Actually, you easily can be engaged without actually having your shields drained. Police fighter sees a pirate fighter. Policeman tells the fighter that he's under arrest, pirate starts to run. There was an 'engagement' without any shield draining at all.
There is the difference. I don't consider that an engagement because there was no combat. I'll agree to disagree and yes, I will follow the rule. Just means I'll have to use rule 0.0 when people 'engage' me and aren't really 'attacking' me but simply abusing the dock/10k flee is a PvP death rule.
Pirate sees transport. Pirate makes an RP demand. Transport manages to catch a trade lane. There was an 'engagement' without combat. By rules the transport can still use the system to trade through. Lets change the transport to a gunboat.
Pirate sees gunboat. Pirate makes an RP demand. Gunboat manages to catch a trade lane. There was an 'engagement' without combat. By the rules the gunboat is now ban from said system for four hours; yet he was clearly either quicker, more skilled, or smarter than the pirate and he is the one ban from the system. How is that fair or inRP? (Yes, this exact thing has happend to me. The gunboat was quicker and managed to jump on the trade lane. 500ms latency meant I didn't stand a chance to actually catch him or defend myself if he was an able pilot.)
So it's friday, and I'm exhausted from work, and hence a bit confused about what's up and down and left and right... err... right now.
The '50% shield' rule is obviously in place for people still typing out their RP to know when it is about time to lift pen from paper and start to dance. What confuses me is the sudden outburst of power from the mighty pen!
So, say I run into a pirate pirating someone, and upon my demand to have him stop doing his foul business with the nice tradesman, he runs away. Meaning, he must cease his pirating in a system for four hours? This is by the rules?
Perhaps I'm confused by the wording in the rule
Quote:5.6 Fleeing in combat counts as a PVP death.
I've always figured PVP as when the words stop and the chaos of combat reign. Oh well...
My characters on Disco: [LN]-Andy.Doggett, The.Flying.Betty, Russ.Dalton, Harald.Treutiger
Quote:Actually, you easily can be engaged without actually having your shields drained. Police fighter sees a pirate fighter. Policeman tells the fighter that he's under arrest, pirate starts to run. There was an 'engagement' without any shield draining at all.
Take it one step further. Police actually starts to shoot at the pirate, but only nicks his shields for whatever reason. Pirate still runs away like a coward. He was engaged in a combat, with effectively no shield damage, and STILL must flee / log off / comply with the running rules.
That reminds me of a "shooting" games in my childhood when we were running around with sticks in our hands and yelling at each other "I shot you! - No you didn''t! - I killed you! - No, i evaded!".
Seriously, what a hell? It fails both at common sense and the rules at the same time. It's like saying "Halt" to someone cruising 5K away and thinking that it's an engagement. I hope some admin will finally shine with some light on that matter.
' Wrote:That reminds me of a "shooting" games in my childhood when we were running around with sticks in our hands and yelling at each other "I shot you! - No you didn''t! - I killed you! - No, i evaded!".
Seriously, what a hell? It fails both at common sense and the rules at the same time. It's like saying "Halt" to someone cruising 5K away and thinking that it's an engagement. I hope some admin will finally shine with some light on that matter.
Agmen is an admin, actually.
Which is what has me very confused.
The rules state quite clearly that an attack is the draining of 50% of the shields- if one party does this to the other, both are considered "engaged". CDs don't count, why would words? I was under the impression (I do believe I got this cleared up during 4.84, actually) that if a pirate kills a non-compliant trader, and then makes a demand of the trader when they come back, the trader is not allowed to open fire until they've actually begun fullblown PvP (that is, the trader has lost 50% of their shields). To me this makes sense, and by logical extension would indicate that words are not sufficient to call it an "engagement".
For the record, there is no such thing as an engagement notice in the rules. The relevant rule requires prior RP before shooting starts. Not an "engaging" at the end of ten minutes banter.
There being no such thing as an engagement notice in rules terms, it would be quite unreasonable to expect that one would signify an engagement by the rules. Since you don't actually have to give one and all that. How do you know someone is actually fighting you? As they don't have to say "I'm fighting you now", that can't be it. The only thing in the rules that says "I'm fighting you now" is when they're taking more than potshots at you.
I'd finish my train of thought but I'm late for class.
Quote:5.2 All attacks must be the result of some form of role play. "Engaging" is not sufficient. An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Being hit with a CD is not considered an attack. If a player is attacked he has a right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking.
The rule is made for determining whether or not an attack was in RP, it doesn't apply to everything. If someone drains your shield below 50% without any RP, he has broken a rule. That's all this rule is for. The end.
If you're already in RP and he engages you, whether he does any damage to you or not, you have been attacked and are in combat.
Quote:5.2 All attacks must be the result of some form of role play. "Engaging" is not sufficient. An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Being hit with a CD is not considered an attack. If a player is attacked he has a right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking.
Quote:If you're already in RP and he engages you, whether he does any damage to you or not, you have been attacked and are in combat.
Per 5.2 an attack is defined as any hostile action that drains your shield to less tahn 50%. So by that he HAS to damage you in order for you to be 'attacked.' You are claiming that no damage has to be done while the rule clearly states there has to be at least 50% shield damage.
In order for you to attack you must RP. Once you RP if you want to attack you can do so if RP warrants it. However 5.2 dictates that you haven't attacked until you remove 50% of your targets shields. So if you only remove 20% you haven't attacked them. Why is it that you are claiming otherwise?
Edit: To sound less arseholish. Sorry, long day at work.