(08-28-2019, 09:05 AM)SnakThree Wrote: What about cases when hostile is uncloaking. Or comes via jump gate. Or via trade lanes. Rule is fine as it is. Of you are incapable of following this simple rule then perhaps you need to rethink what you are doing here.
That’s what I’m saying that there are cases, they were everywhere, in war or piracy. And these points must be prescribed separately in the rules so that there is strict compliance.
We have this:
3.6 Attacking without Roleplay. Players must be given reasonable time to react to hostilities.
Covers all cases. Just drop a few sentences and give at least ten seconds before engaging targets.
It is so easy I don't understand how some people can't understand it.
Ok, 2 seconds is enough for me to react to the enemy message and dodge. And there are people who need 60 seconds to react. I have to find out from them how much time he needs for a reaction?
If new players are constantly getting themselves in Bastille, that means we actually have steady stream of new players. And some part of them just does not bother to read rules. And once they get themselves in Bastille they get to know rules. And then can carry on without breaking same rules next time.
#Decktare
Attacking without roleplay is against the server rules.
Roleplay is pretending to play the role of a character you imagine and interacting in various ways with the environment and other players.
Player versus player may or may not be part of a roleplay interaction but is not the same as a roleplay interaction.
The rules are fine as they are and do not need expanding to cover every single possibility. That will just lead people to claiming their actions were in accordance with the rules because their specific actions were not covered specifically. Until you are ending up with a rulebook that is several pages long.
I personally do not understand why this is such a problem. Why not popping out a few lines and then start your shooting, if you must. It is in my opinion the same as with the ongoing discussion about the preset messages and what defines "reasonable time to respond".
If people would stop for a moment just thinking about their kill and give the other player a chance to enjoy the interaction too, everyone will surely have more fun playing.
(08-28-2019, 12:20 PM)Decktare Wrote: That's why we don't have new players, they are in Bastilia.
New Players are put in Bastille as punishment for a first offence. All they generally need to do is post in the Sanction Thread and tell us that they have read and understood the Rules. This gets them to read the Rules. Well if they don't, then they can't complain when they start losing things the next time. I think it is better than removing their credits/gear for the first offence.
'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
I am starting to think that people who do not give reasonable time before engagement are so bad at PvP that they want to get few cheapshots or even fast kill just to make themselves feel better. Maybe that's the motivation why these proponents of rule change are striving for?
(08-28-2019, 12:28 PM)SnakThree Wrote: I am starting to think that people who do not give reasonable time before engagement are so bad at PvP that they want to get few cheapshots or even fast kill just to make themselves feel better. Maybe that's the motivation why these proponents of rule change are striving for?
Or the second option is to give yourself a chance to win against a larger number of opponents.
(08-28-2019, 12:28 PM)SnakThree Wrote: I am starting to think that people who do not give reasonable time before engagement are so bad at PvP that they want to get few cheapshots or even fast kill just to make themselves feel better. Maybe that's the motivation why these proponents of rule change are striving for?
Or the second option is to give yourself a chance to win against a larger number of opponents.
Hello Bretonia with 10 caps vs 2.
Maybe you should just play by the rules which in most cases are fine and clear.
Your reasoning and argumentation has very little factual basis to be considered.
Is ten seconds too much to give enemy a chance to prepare for an engagement? Seems decent sportsmanship forced by the rules this way.
- The same rules apply for everyone regardless of whether you're a warring faction or not, or things would get way too complicated. There are multiple possiblities in which PvP could start and be justified other than "red on scanner", and the rule is partially there to stop people from abusing all sorts of IFF/ID mechanics to launch surprise attacks faster than anyone could react. Some people (me among them) have suggested that war zones (now called "contested territory") should also have lowered RP requirements on top of lowered pvp death duration, but this has the potential to cause even more confusion with people who don't know by heart yet all 10 pages of rules and unwritten rules and how they have been interpreted in the past.
- The sanction that made you start this discussion is, imo, more a result of crappy radar and chat mechanics, an overall playstyle, community dynamics, peer pressure, and confirmation bias, than the actual letter of the rule. Your group kept engaging in certain types of behavior that are absolutely common and the norm in most multiplayer games, but which happen to be frowned on by many people here. I personally don't mind it and have seen much worse behavior than yours coming from other people who had an army of sycophants supporting them, because they held a certain amount of power and were "good" at RP, at least in those people's opinions. But you're easy to pick on because you're viewed as outsiders and most of you don't speak english well enough to defend youselves or make friends with english speakers. It's not because you speak russian, it's because most of you don't speak english well. You're not the first person or group this happened to. I may point out you're not imune to group think and confirmation bias amplified by language barriers either. For example in the log you posted, the person was telling you that you were not seen as being welcomING in pvp, meaning that you were not being nice to other people in PvP (he didnt say you are not welcomE). But you prefered to understand it the other way around.
- That being said, it used to be an unwritten rule that when in a group, not everyone was required to RP before shooting, because no one can keep track of who started shooting who first and who said what to who while they were in range. I often still refrain from saying more than the minimum required when in a large group, because with multiple people talking there tends to be more text spammed on the screen than anyone has time to actually read, and more text just means more attempted actually useful communication will be drowned out. I don't know if that unwritten rule actually changed, or if GMs were simply getting so much hate for not sanctioning you for "not enough rp" (some of which I saw coming from several players) that they thought they had to do something about it.
- People here should be more tolerant of players who don't fit into their personal view of "excellence", and ask themselves if their expressed outrage at 1 instead of 2 lines and 8 instead if 10 seconds is actually justified because it made a real difference, or if it's rather just something you can use to get back at someone because they blew you up or didn't show enough admiration for your accounts of fascinating bio of your character that you unleash upon everyone you meet.
(08-28-2019, 07:39 AM)Decktare Wrote: Let’s say I’m a completely new player and read the rules, where there are no words about 10 seconds, give the opponent a chance to react, etc. Do I have to reread the entire forum before play?
Yeah, rules definately need to be polished up. Maybe like so.
(08-28-2019, 12:28 PM)SnakThree Wrote: I am starting to think that people who do not give reasonable time before engagement are so bad at PvP that they want to get few cheapshots or even fast kill just to make themselves feel better. Maybe that's the motivation why these proponents of rule change are striving for?
Or the second option is to give yourself a chance to win against a larger number of opponents.
Hello Bretonia with 10 caps vs 2.
So this is the actual reason why it is so hard to type a few lines before engaging. Here's the thing, if you give respect you get respect. There's only a few factions that gank without any care for the other side and bretonia is not one of them. In fact, me and a few other Baf members have been consistently switching to your side during fights to balance the numbers.
Trying to get in a few cheapshots by minimising the time you give your opponent to respond is not only incredibly low, but it also damages the rp aspect of this server to the core.
I know what I type sounds harsh but I am not trying to put you or your friends off the game. Its confusing, especially when coming from other games where quick response means everything, to understand that disco gets better when you work with your opponent instead of against. You don't need to have a conversation with your enemy, have it with your crew or other ships in your fleet. Engage with mutual consensus, for mutual benefit.
(08-28-2019, 01:20 PM)Madvillain Wrote: Here's the thing, if you give respect you get respect.
...
Engage with mutual consensus, for mutual benefit.
The thing is, the consensus of what is "respect", which seems to exist in parts of discoveryGC, is not really compatible with the sort of consensus that could be achieved with people who aren't part of a certain kind of sub-group that has similar skills and preferences.
For example, there are people who genuinely and unironically believe that flying around in a group of 3 snub aces looking for easy prey, then letting one among them beat the crap out of their victim while the other 2 IRP make fun of the victim's lack of skill, is the mark of good sportsmanship, because the other 2 only engage if the victim tries to survive by fleeing. At the same time they genuinely and unironically think that attacking 1 bombers and 1 vhf in a battleship, after the 2 snubs blew up half a dozen traders, is a "gank" by the battleship and not by the snubs, even though the snubs could have just left.
On the other hand, you have people who see knowing how to avoid situations where you get outnumbered as part of the game, just like knowing how to dodge, aim, and rp, and who don't screem bloody murder everytime something doesnt end up as duel where the side that spent the most time in conn wins.
You want consensus with someone outside your group, you're going to have to achieve it with them, not only with those closest to you.
Setting up unrealistically high standards (which coincidentally give you an advantage from skill, language, experience, and connections most of the time) and then feeling justified to unleash hell on anyone who violates them, makes things worse not better.