| Author |
repeated shipyard spawing. |
Fatal Command (CO)
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1158
From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
|  Posted: 2005-01-27 15:26
now...after reading.....rereading....and then reading the RoC again,I have a question Admins/Mods/Players.
acording to the RoC,which says plainly;
Using "shortcuts" and game "quirks" to gain unfair advantage is frowned upon.
While not technically against the rules, such actions nevertheless are unsportsmanlike and unfair to other participants who are playing fair and not using them. Generally, repeated and blatant offenders may draw warnings (as well as more severe actions) from game officials. Examples of such behavior: disconnecting from the game to avoid battle or other loss of prestige; mounting an offensive on the area surrounding the enemy spawn point in Scenario Game Instances ("gate-camping").
now the sentence I want to draw attention to is...
Examples of such behavior: disconnecting from the game to avoid battle or other loss of prestige
now...IF I log..I am avoiding a loss of prestige and therefore breaking the RoC.IF I SD then I LOSE pres but am within the rules and hopefully will inflict some damage to the enemy so that others may have the chance to destroy said enemy.BUT...IF I go IN AND OUT of ShipYard repeatedly to keep from dying once I reach a dangerouly low level of hull/armor thats OK?
my question is ...
just exactly WHAT is the difference in logging and SY respawning repeatedly as BOTH have the same goal/objective/result?
hope you get it figured out.I know what I think about it,but as just another player,what I think doesnt matter.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2005-01-27 15:52
We've had this debate in staff before. Here's more or less where we came out.
This is, of course, a touchy subject, and it can be very difficult to define at what point someone is simply using the shipyard, and at what point they are abusing it. However, we admit that there are certainly some uses that are abuses. As such, moderators are empowered to judge the situation on its merits and act as they see necessary to ensure a fun gaming environment for all.
What this boils down to is: If a mod thinks a player is misusing the shipyards, they are encouraged to act as they see fit within the situation.
Given some of the problems inherant in the situation, though - like the mod being on the opposite team, and thus seeming to act out of bias in order to further their goals - it is not a very commonly acted upon offense.
If you do see such behavior, repeatedly to the point of excess, you can request moderator intervention. Keep in mind, though, that given the high amounts of interpretation necessary, it may not work out as you'd like.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2005-01-27 15:58
It's like the offside rule in soccer. Not easy to explain, but once you know it then you know what is allowed.
The shipyards intended us is to enable rapid transportation of players to different area. So pretty much any other actions using the shipyard could be considered exploits. Some examples below:-
Using a shipyard to spawn multiple stations and open more than one wormhole, thus bypassing the inbuilt wormhole timer on the WH device.
- It might be possible to fix this by tieing a wormhole to a specific player as well as device. So that any attempt to open more would result in failure. But for now this has to be policed manually.
Using a shipyard to spawn a bomber, ramming a planet with the ship and bombs then getting another bomber and doing the same repeatedly.
- Doing this you are bypassing several ingame features. The necessity of being reloaded is one. The second is the need to manually fly to a shipyard to get a replacement vessel. Generally performing this once or twice in a row is accepted. More comes under unsportmanly behaviour.
Repeated use of a shipyard to spawn ships for the sole purpose of self destructing under enemy players.
- Self destruct is intended to be used as a final recourse to cause the enemy more damage than you before you die. Or just for the sole purpose of denying your enemy the kill. Before shipyards were introduced this was balanced pretty effectively as you were unable to constantly spawn new ships in one location. I personally think that players who self destruct should have a timer on being able to respawn. Between 30 or 60 seconds would be reasonable. This would represent the unwillingness of your faction to allow you to pilot more ships. Possibly introducing a personal aklignment towards planets inidicating how willing they are to allow you to spawn new ships there.
You have to look at how the game is intended to be played and whether or not people are playing the game systems rather than the game itself. Naturally the specifics are going to be somewhat hazy and rely on a certain level of judgement in most cases.
[ This Message was edited by: Drafell Moraxi on 2005-01-27 16:05 ]
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Coeus {NCX-Charger}
Admiral, I can't read,
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: February 16, 2004
Posts: 3635
From: South Philly
| Posted: 2005-01-27 17:43
Personally, I think the higher-ups need to take a hard line on blatant & intended abuse of the in-game systems - such as SY abusing, bomber respawning/kamikazing & all the rest. The only negative repricussion that I can forsee is mods taking the newfound hardline to extremes to negatively hurt a faction, which can possibly be solved by calling in a mod from the 3rd faction available.
The biggest problem here is the time involved. If someone spawns a station, uses it till its nearly dead, SY & gets a new one three or four times, by the time its noticed as abuse and a mod is called to the scene 1) the situation may have resolved itself, though not before the SY abuser takes full advantage of the instant-stations, 2) the SY abuser notices that hes drawn attention to himself & stops, either for the night or until he is sure no mods are watching, 3) the battle has moved on, possibly due to the fresh firepower that is readily available every so often.
One of the best ideas that I remember seeing a while back is this: You can't take a damaged ship into the SY - if it has hull damage you cannot use the shipyard. Armor/shields are another issue (esp shields, they take forever to regen & if you just modded and want to SY the ship to go somewhere else....). This makes it quite easy to swap between ships, but not in a combat zone.
Another, possibly more feasable idea, is that any shipyard planet that is blockaded by enemy ships is unable to spawn 1 of 2 things: 1) Any ships at all, from garage or from planetary resources 2) New ships.
I urge the mods & admins to consider these, but I don't know if they can be incorporated into the current version, if anything is planned for 483, or anything else about that.
The hard-line issue however is something that I think should be opened up for public interpritation.
_________________
Darkspace: Twilight
|
Starfist
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 22, 2003
Posts: 574
| Posted: 2005-01-27 17:51
i think the main sy abuse is:
haveing a player sit at a sy planet, while you go on the offensive and attack the ships at the sy planet get them down to 15% hull and the ship dissapears, only to see the player reappear again in a ship at 100% hull a few secs later, this is also done in stations quite often at sy planets.
to me this is abuse of the sy, as the player has avoided being killed by his opponants and thus has no lose of pretige.
it also gets quite frustrating to hammer on a station, while takeing lots of damage yourself from planet defence, and get the stations hull down only to see it disappear into the sy and a new one come out, thus stopping the offence which was started in order to take the planet.
i know players want to defend their planets and stop it from being taken, but come on be a sport about it, take your death like a man/girl and take the loss like the rest of us.
_________________
|
Fatal Command (CO)
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1158
From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2005-01-27 18:38
well.....I have a possible solution to the problem as well.Only question is........can it be done.Its a neat simple solution.
If you scrap a ship that is damaged you LOSE pres. for example;
An AD death is worth X amount of pres(using this as it is what I usually pilot) we will say that X is 20 pres.IF you take an AD at 5% hull into a SY and scrap it then you LOSE 95% of the percentage of pres the AD death or 19 pres. a ship at 100 % if scrapped would be 0 pres lost as it was not damaged.
using a formula of this nature by and in of itself would limit a lot of scrapping as the scrapper would lose more pres by repeated SY scrapping than the offensive player would lose trying to kill them.
well...my idea....but as I said.......can it be done....dont know....not a coder.
Faustus?
_________________
|
kenetiks
Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: November 21, 2001
Posts: 1130
From: Bandcamp
| Posted: 2005-01-27 19:23
That was actually implimented at one time. I don't know about now as I haven't played in awhile. But used to when the modding thing got out of hand that F implimented penalties for gating a ship after stripping it or a ship with damaged or destroyed systems as a penalty for gate fixing as opposed to getting your ship repaired. I have no idea if these systems are still in affect.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-01-27 19:52
Quote:
|
On 2005-01-27 17:43, Coeus wrote:
One of the best ideas that I remember seeing a while back is this: You can't take a damaged ship into the SY - if it has hull damage you cannot use the shipyard. Armor/shields are another issue (esp shields, they take forever to regen & if you just modded and want to SY the ship to go somewhere else....). This makes it quite easy to swap between ships, but not in a combat zone.
|
|
The problem is a ShipYard is used for Repair and Construction, it would defy the purpose of being able to dock with a shipyard, and making it repair in orbit just brings into play more chances for abuse. I think the timer idea is best, an inteligent punishment system, a bit of both of these systems (from Drafell aswell).
Say...
Played gets out an AC, bombs and kamakazi's. The planet picks up on this (easily set by the ship having an ID and the planet having an ID), and doesnt let the user bring out another one after the second/third. Aswell as this you could have the detector so that the shipyard wont let you bring out 3 new ships. Say an abuser brings out a station, 5% hull, swap out, and again 5% hull swap out. Because the station ID belongs to the same planet, it detects that your a possible abuser of the system, and so says. "You already have a ship of that type available, either spawn it, or another ship". If it detects you keep doing the same thing with other ships, it wont allow you to spawn because of your attitude towards the ships (they arnt worth anything).
_________________
|
JRE
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 14, 2003
Posts: 570
| Posted: 2005-01-27 21:14
Make the resourse supply a bit more realistic. Or make a cap on the amount of resourses a planet can have so multiple ships cannot be created at a sy in a short period of time and also being there is an "enemy blockade" created when enemy ships are nearby stopping resourse trade could possibly help to solve the sy abuse. I didnt read 100% of all the posts so if this has already been mentioned, sry.
_________________
|
AdmBito
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: October 04, 2002
Posts: 1249
From: Its hard out here for a pimp
| Posted: 2005-01-28 00:26
One of the problems with kicking someone for shipyard abuse is the fact that we, or should I say I, tend not to notice things unless they directly affect me, i.e. someone abusing the shipyard directly in front of my face, impeding me in the MV.
Of course, this causes another problem: if I kick or ban or merely warn someone for abuse, I look like a sore loser. Granted, I hate losing, and while I've always said I'm a player first, mod second, this is a point where I have to draw the line. I personally wouldn't abuse my powers for gain in-game, and I'm sure the other mods wouldn't. But with me banning a K'luth or UGTO player, it would look very much like that. Dilemma.
There are also so many different interpretations of SY abuse that having a clear cut definition of it is difficult. If you (player base) could write a rule, how would you word it? Thats a tough one. One player/mod/admin has a different idea than the next usually.
Bito
_________________
Puppies gotta die, too.
|
Fatal Command (CO)
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1158
From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2005-01-28 03:30
well...it seems simple enough to me....IF YOU LOG while fighting.....thans against RoC...doesnt say once...twice....repeatedly.....says LOG......no S on it.SO......its the same with a SY,POPPING in and out is logging.as you are NOT coming back in original ship.now...IF you change class of ship,then I cant say anything,but to repeatedly pull out station after station after station only to SY it at 5-10 hull....then THAT is the same as logging....period ........end of conversation.....and controversy.
_________________
|
Tael
2nd Rear Admiral
Palestar
Joined: July 03, 2002
Posts: 3695
From: San Francisco Bay Area
| Posted: 2005-01-28 03:56
Well one thing we are considering heavily is increasing the blockade radius around a planet. Thus instead of being in orbit or 200gu to blockade a planet, any enemy ship within 500 to 1000gu may be considered blockaded.
So what you ask? Well the current consensus will be that any shipyard located on a blockaded planet will not permit you to spawn from it.
Thus no more running into the shipyard 30 times to get fresh ships.
_________________
|
Puddle Jumper
Cadet
Joined: December 14, 2004
Posts: 81
| Posted: 2005-01-28 04:37
The more restrictions you add the more people will leave.
Yes I see your points with the SY's but it seems you guys/gals are just wanting to create new rules and ways to restrict users. I thought DS wanted more users not less?
I still say scrap the SYs and go back to the old Jumpgate System.
_________________
|
Beast
Cadet
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: May 27, 2002
Posts: 345
From: Wouldnt you like to know
| Posted: 2005-01-28 05:44
I fully Agree the SY while it seemed a good idea has turned out tobe more of a Nightmare!!!!
Good Idea Bad results Kill it!!!!
It,s done 2 things
1 turned the MV into a Mini FA I.E. no traveling necessery in space!!! Um somthing sound wrong here??
2. It,s Given the Staff and Dev one more sensless thing to deal with that isnt needed to begin with. HEADACHE!!!!!! Anyone??
Now the good things that would come out of getting rid of it. 
1. Guess what! you actually gotta travel in space!! "Back to Reality!!!!""
2. Would allow for planets to have better defences provided you increased build limit to 42. Whoah this planet is gonna be a pain to cap Dont lose your ShiP on the Way In!!!!! Hints at the Transport pilots. Team Play Ringing any Bells???
3. Last but not least no more posts like this one!!!!!!!!
_________________
|
BackAlley
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: September 24, 2002
Posts: 203
From: Pittsburgh,Pa. USA
| Posted: 2005-01-28 11:18
Quote:
|
On 2005-01-28 05:44, Beast wrote:
I fully Agree the SY while it seemed a good idea has turned out tobe more of a Nightmare!!!!
Good Idea Bad results Kill it!!!!
It,s done 2 things
1 turned the MV into a Mini FA I.E. no traveling necessery in space!!! Um somthing sound wrong here??
2. It,s Given the Staff and Dev one more sensless thing to deal with that isnt needed to begin with. HEADACHE!!!!!! Anyone??
Now the good things that would come out of getting rid of it.
1. Guess what! you actually gotta travel in space!! "Back to Reality!!!!""
2. Would allow for planets to have better defences provided you increased build limit to 42. Whoah this planet is gonna be a pain to cap Dont lose your ShiP on the Way In!!!!! Hints at the Transport pilots. Team Play Ringing any Bells???
3. Last but not least no more posts like this one!!!!!!!!
|
|
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
