+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Curious situation (/showthread.php?tid=11264)
Curious situation - ryoken - 08-19-2008
LOL That is such bull. The cruiser cannot fire on a trader, unless fired on first, and drop's his sheild's 50%. No matter what the situation is. As said by jinx. I can use my BS to escort a trader, and blow a bomber to crap if he try's to pirate, but a cruiser still cannot come in and engage the trader's. Fire on the BS? sure go for it, but trader is still imune to cruiser fire.
Curious situation - El Nino - 08-19-2008
An even more curious situation happend to me... there were only 5 i kid you not 5 people in NY...
Curious situation - n00bl3t - 08-19-2008
' Wrote:I must disagree with the greater majority here, the cruiser in this instance was not in the wrong.
As you stated yourself the combat had already begun between you, the RT and the corsair bomber. Now you called for help which brought the second LL over. The bomber pilot is in his rights to call reinforcements even if the said reinforcement is a cruiser.
The cruiser pilot assisted in a fight not in the pirating. You were subsiquently destroyed but not questioned again for money. The people who are claiming for a ban need to reread the rules because it clearly states that cruisers and up cannot be used for only pirating, they may be used as back up when things go to heck.
The problem is that when people think of cruisers in the situation they always think the trader isn't shooting back. The traders were firing back and therefore give up their 'pvp immunity'. The second a trader lights up they give up those rights and are fair game to anyone.
*Looks at characters in sig.*
Curious situation - n00bl3t - 08-19-2008
' Wrote:An even more curious situation happend to me... there were only 5 i kid you not 5 people in NY...
I've got an SS with one-two.
Edit: Double post. Apologies.
Curious situation - Akumabito - 08-19-2008
In this situation a sanction probably simply depends on the biases of the admin who sees it, on whether he is friends with one person involved or if one is a faction and one is not, but it's obvious this could have been a pvp situation where the cruiser was justified in returning fire if the cruiser's shields were taken to 50% before he took the LL's shields down 50% if you go strictly by the rules.
Curious situation - pchwang - 08-19-2008
Quote:In this situation a sanction probably simply depends on the biases of the admin who sees it, on whether he is friends with one person involved or if one is a faction and one is not, but it's obvious this could have been a pvp situation where the cruiser was justified in returning fire if the cruiser's shields were taken to 50% before he took the LL's shields down 50% if you go strictly by the rules.Akumb. The admin's decisions are not biased by who the perpetrator is, but what the action is. If you're so disgusted by Discovery's administration team, do us a favor and leave. Otherwise, leave that quip out and mature up.
Quote:6.19 Pirates and terrorists have a right to deal as much damage as they see fit before or after demanding money from a trader ship, but killing trader ship before demanding money or cargo is not allowed. Attacking traders or demanding cargo is not allowed for cruisers and battleships, unless cruisers and battleship belong to Terrorist ID or Phantom ID owner.
The cruiser has clearly violated the rules and deserves to be sanctioned. Regardless of PvP, a cruiser or battleship CANNOT attack a trader.
Contraindications of this include:
1) If the Traders dropped the cruiser/battleship's shields to 50% or less. This would be self-defense.
2) If there was a planned RP event that involved a cruiser opening fire on a transport.
In this situation, however, neither of these things happened.
And if anyone wishes to argue that a liner is not a trader...read the rules.
Curious situation - Akumabito - 08-19-2008
' Wrote:Akumb. The admin's decisions are not biased by who the perpetrator is, but what the action is.
I know differently.
' Wrote:1) If the Traders dropped the cruiser/battleship's shields to 50% or less. This would be self-defense.
2) If there was a planned RP event that involved a cruiser opening fire on a transport.
In this situation, however, neither of these things happened.
Actually we don't know what really happened and have only heard one side. If the liners dropped the cruisers shields down to 50% before the cruiser dropped a liners shield down 50% then it was legal, by the rules.
Also, if one of the trader team rammed the cruiser he would be allowed to respond to the attack and destroy the liners.
Also technically the cruisers actions were within RP, the cruiser wasn't pirating, it probably wasn't anywhere near the vessel that was pirating when the pirating took place and the pirating was over and pvp started by the time the cruiser got involved, so the pvp rules should apply and the pirating restriction should not apply.
Curious situation - Cap_Death - 08-20-2008
Well I was proven bluntly wrong, my deepest apologies for my rant on the topic... I'll just go sit in my little corner now...
But I'll have you know that my cruiser rarely see's the light of day, all the cap bh's have dissappeared... Or should I say the darkness of space... >_>