That is.... a terrible idea and admins already break up fights from time to time. The point isn't that the time frame of the battle lasts, it's why it is lasting so long.
Examples:
5v5 fight that normally would take 15 minutes to conclude.
5v5 fight lasts one hour, why? Because the pilots are all aces and know how to endurance fight. Completely sane and reasonable.
5v5 fights last one hour, why? Because dips keep respawning and reentering a fight that should have only lasted 15 minutes.
That's why allowing people to reenter a fight they died from is a bad idea.
Well, firstly, at this moment 5v5 lasts at least half an hour, and that's among average skill players. Hell, even I alone can survive whole 20 minutes against all 5 of those players if I'd want to. If you raise it to aces, fights last over an hour.
Also, you didn't read it properly again, because I was talking about reballancing snubs into a quick paced PvP. So that 5v5 would take 15 minutes ONLY if all 10 players are aces.
(11-27-2015, 04:55 PM)Swallow Wrote: Then for less skilled pilots it will be like 1-2 minutes? Or for less skilled vs more skilled? Or for fighter pilot vs capital?
That's why I suggested respawns for snubs only, and 2 hour rule for capital ships. Read the whole post, seriously. Also, let's not touch mixed skill fights for now, because it is not in the subject. I do have a thought about them, but let's stay on some sort of course.
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: It's quite nice to see a breakdown of the rules. I do agree that some do restrict gameplay and it could be said we have too many, but often it's justified. However I feel that the enforcement of some of the rules is overdone. Although no offense Nom whilst it is good you broke these rules down, I agree with Miaou that it's been structured and presented a bit poorly.
Omg ok yes the stucture is poor. Sorry for typing it all in a hurry at night.
Also it didnt start out as a break-down. It is an argument for people that say the rules are not needed... and written in sometimes a sarcastic way.
I do not hide that the thread can be written better... and i have stated and ill state again that I can re-write it better if there is a need for it. Looks like there is from the replies back?
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: Starting with forum rules, the extent of censorship with 1.1 is ridiculous. I can't say c ancer, r ape, s alt or n igga. Those are all legitimate words that could be used inRP in stories, but are all censored into dumb childish words. The very last word is censored in game, and as a mixed race person I just feel that it shows how ignorant and uneducated the staff is that they censor that word. N igga is completely different to that other very naughty word and I am one of the few in this community who understand not only the difference, but how terrible the word is as well. And whilst there are some who don't find swearing pleasant, in a universe where there is prostitution, drugs, slavery and all sorts of other nasty things, I think people need to grow up. We're not a community of 9 year olds. And if we must at least keep some standards to prevent F-spam, can we at least relax things a bit? I remember how Korny got sanctioned for calling someone a b*tch inRP (the word wasn't blocked by the in game swear filter at the time) when it's use was entirely justified - the person he called that was just mad that they lost in a pvp fight moments later and had an axe to grind. In fact, that's my biggest issue with rule 1.1. I feel that many times people just use 1.1 to lash out at people via the rules when they are unable to in any other way. It would be nice if those sorts of reports could stop. In regards to politics though... eh I wouldn't want DiscoGC to become /pol/.
we are not a sommunity of 9-year-olds but seriously you can find examples of everyone mostly acting like a 9-year-old.
Cussing is not allowed.
those words you wrote provide triggers.
The rules are there to stop things from happening.
you argument I see is basically what people use to report others for... this is different than what the argument is here about well.. keeping things to a standard civilty.
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: At first I was very cautious with 1.2 because I thought the admins would just unjustly use it as a means to punish players they didn't like, but over time as the admin team got better and more competent the way they've handled that rule has improved. Unfortunately there's loads of toxicity on Disco behind the scenes that the admins never see - and they either can never do anything about that because the players are very smart about causing harm within the scope of the rules, or the staff cannot do anything about it because they don't see it unfold in front of their eyes and it's very 'behind the scenes' and hard to tackle as the evidence might not always be conclusive (or found on the forums or the server).
1.2 is simply written to stop trolling and keeping the peace...
And yeah... some people are very smart in hiding their 1.2s that doesn't mean 1.2 should be ignored.
but sure.
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: 1.3 - 1.7 are completely fair and are enforced adequately. Same applies for 2.1 and 2.2. I think the size limit on signatures for 2.3 is really dumb, as I'm pretty sure that no one (or at least the vast majority) of people here are not using a Dial-Up connection. 2.4 is a great rule, though as Nom said people sometimes commit things just as worse with other dumb memes like RWBY where one or two people will shout at the top of their forum lungs that it's the greatest thing ever whilst everyone else is wanting them to shut up about it because they've made it beyond annoying with their continuous spamming. 2.5 is fair play.
in all honesty there should be a rule against spamming the same content over and over, regardless of where it is even in flood.
it's the #1 way to bring down a thread that you hate.
But yeah i agree here
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: Moving onto server rules, I feel like the section before rule 1.0 about the admins should be extended to all the staff. There are times when the Moderators have done questionable things, and same even applies for the Dev team. As with my big paragraph on forum 1.1, I feel that server 1.1 should be addressed in the same way.
I have seen though that admins regulate the mods and devs in things... so ye. I suppose... but the mods and devs should not be taken also at the same level as an admin.
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: 1.2 is a good rule and players have the means to justify if the disconnect wasn't their fault via Dii's thread. I feel that the rule could be expanded upon though, to describe a specific example. 1.3 is clear at least until the very last bit about the ID overriding the rules. Non-pirate IDs are confusing when it comes to rule 3.3 as by rule 3.3 an (e.g) Core ID can't blow up a trade ship without a demand. However it's ID doesn't say it needs to, therefore you could consider that by 1.3 you don't need to make a demand before you blow up a trade vessel.
1.2 should have some buffer for new people sure....
1.3 ok...? No no.... when the ID states that YOU CAN DO IT then you can do it. If the ID doesnt state that you can do it or not then DONT ASSUME :|
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: Rule 2.1 is fine, same for 2.2. 2.3 has me on the fence as we've had examples in the past of names that are completely fair inRP but the admins have still come down on them. Oh well, I don't really know how to make that rule any clearer anyway.
2.3 for names? I suppose you can find some exceptions where opinions are based on buy yeah.
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: 3.0 and 3.1 are fine. I have my issues with 3.2. I feel that 3.2 punishes the roleplayer unfairly and only really implements measures to curb PvP habits, which don't matter that much as you can find PvP in other systems or Conn. Allow me to explain. A PvP heads into NY and sees 10 potential targets to shoot at. Say the majority of these are RPers. The PvPer shoots another PvP and wins the fight - he'll gain pleasure from an enjoyable battle. He then fights an RPer and the RPer loses. The RPer didn't log on to fight, but was more hopeful for roleplay encounters. In a system that, at the time, had 8 other players remaining, the RPer has just missed out on 8 potential RP encounters - 8 potential stories - and will have to go to another system, perhaps less active and less interesting, to find some RP. The PvPer later dies to an LNS cap, but he can just go to another system for PvP or head to conn. I think we should decrease the time that players are pvp dead for. An hour would perhaps be more fitting. 3,3 is fine. 3.4 is also fine. 3.5 in itself is a nice rule but doesn't necessarily do it's job; however I hope the new POB system will be implemented soon and will remedy this.
no... i disagree to decrease the time EVEN MORE. 2 hours is already enough and you can do SO MUCH other things besides going to that system...
Keep in mind that there are other situations that 1 hour would be worse than 2 hours...
though i understand that RPers can be hurt... RPers are not given a green card to fly around and never die either anyway.
The argument you have stated shows some truth... but there is also exaggeration in the outcome of harm that RPers get?
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: 4.0 to 4.2 are fine. The bits about <29s and cheating are fine. The POB rules still have not covered what non-House factions are allowed to do in regards to POBs outside of house space. The bounty hunting rules are also fine.
okay
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: The Faction rules section needs to be updated with Perks as well as the Hardship programme.
okay
(11-27-2015, 04:27 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: As one final statement though, I think it'd be great if the staff compiled all the 'Green Statements' (where the admins make an official statement that impacts the server meaningfully as to how the players are allowed to act) in one post in the rules thread. There are some statements which are extremely important and should be there for everyone to educate themselves on.
yea sure
Basically though lyth... what you took from this thread is that i am arguing to change the rules.
I am not doing that.
I am explaining that they are needed and if taken out then we will be in a bad spot to survive.
(11-27-2015, 04:37 PM)Timmy Wrote: Kinda proved the point that that some people don't read whole post before answering it.
Also you that THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR ... okay whatever. not gonna even bother...
Edit: Actually I am
SERIOUSLY IF THIS THREAD WILL CONTINUE TO GET REPLIES ABOUT SNUB RE-BALLANCING or other non-related stuff THEN TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE OR I'M GONNA LOCK IT.
Please dont go off topic.
The argument stated is that if the rules are taken away then we are in a mess and that the amount of rules are needed.
I'm overstepping the smaller stuff to outline the main point. The point is...respawning is a bad idea, that rule was made because they know it's a bad idea.Devs already changed a lot of things to invoke a shorter battle, but no matter what aces will find a way to buy time.
If you get a battle of complete idiots together they can last just as long as an ace battle. The example was an example, and extracted from a battle I was in and noted the time it took to conclude. Fighters, bombers, gunships, caps, hoodlums, all smaller details that are mute for the primary purpose of 3.2. It's unfair to the players who owned their enemy.
Of course, now that you've trapped me into a rabbits trail, if a trader kills a pirate, why should that pirate be allowed to attack him again, in the same system? Or do you wanna micromanage this change to the rule that already blankets entire section of crap situations that people find themselves in.
(11-27-2015, 04:55 PM)Swallow Wrote: Then for less skilled pilots it will be like 1-2 minutes? Or for less skilled vs more skilled? Or for fighter pilot vs capital?
no....
For a number of reasons such as privalaging the weak and keeping them weak becasue they can respawn with others cant.
![[Image: CrlBx.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/CrlBx.gif)
