• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Discovery General News and Announcements
« Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 46 Next »
Rule Addition

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (2): 1 2 Next »
Rule Addition
Offline St.Denis
07-30-2019, 02:13 PM,
#1
Member
Posts: 100,607
Threads: 1,347
Joined: Dec 2011

As from the time of the posting of this Announcement, Rule 4.6 will now come in to effect:

Quote:4.6 Players may defend allied ships or ships of the same affiliation within their Zone of Influence, and may always act in self-defense when fired upon regardless of any normal restrictions.

'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
Reply  
Offline pillow
07-30-2019, 04:13 PM,
#2
Probation
Posts: 1,564
Threads: 27
Joined: May 2014
Staff roles:
Balance Developer

I could've sworn this has been a thing since the dawn of time. Wtf? What was the previous 4.6?
Reply  
Offline St.Denis
07-30-2019, 04:15 PM,
#3
Member
Posts: 100,607
Threads: 1,347
Joined: Dec 2011

It is an addition, not a rewrite.

It is something that you will find on most IDs and it is clarifying it as a Rule.

'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
Reply  
Offline Loken
07-30-2019, 04:24 PM,
#4
Phantom of Roussillon
Posts: 2,202
Threads: 80
Joined: Jun 2010

(07-30-2019, 04:13 PM)Pillow Wrote: I could've sworn this has been a thing since the dawn of time. Wtf? What was the previous 4.6?

This is an addition, not a change. Self-defence is on most IDs but since the debacle with the GC- sanction a couple of months ago a lot of people have been requesting elaborate and confusing self-defence lines on their faction IDs in a panic. People want to be able to defend allies everywhere, which can't happen for obvious reasons. We'd have Bretonia raiding Gamma with Outcasts, or Blood Dragons attacking LSF in Kansas alongside the Order. The reason for restricting defending ships of the same affiliation is to discourage groups of players going out of their ZoI and baiting attackers.

The intent is to standardize and clarify who can defend what and where, unless their ID makes an exception to the above. Rather than applying 157 band aids (and counting) to different IDs that have to be replaced 157 times if anything is changed.

Defending escorted transports is still possible and mentioned in the Zone of Influence section of the rules. before someone brings that one up.

[Image: NVY3f0y.png]
Reply  
Offline pillow
07-30-2019, 04:31 PM,
#5
Probation
Posts: 1,564
Threads: 27
Joined: May 2014
Staff roles:
Balance Developer

Oh I get it. Cool beans. Thanks for clarifying.
Reply  
Offline Immortality23
07-30-2019, 05:18 PM,
#6
Member
Posts: 489
Threads: 75
Joined: Sep 2011

10/10 change. Much needed.
Reply  
Offline kerfy
07-30-2019, 06:31 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-30-2019, 07:06 PM by kerfy.)
#7
Imperial Provisioner
Posts: 194
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2017

"and may always act in self-defense when fired upon regardless of any normal restrictions."------ This part here is a bit off, as far as the wording goes.. would it not be better if you used "may act in self-defense when fired upon regardless of any restrictions." .. seems bit less "wordy" no ?
Reply  
Offline Spectre
07-30-2019, 06:36 PM,
#8
CR
Posts: 2,305
Threads: 345
Joined: Jul 2013

Solid addition.
Only suggestion would be to amend rule 4.4.

Quote:4.4 Every char must have only one type of ID equipped and they must play to that ID. Ship and equipment infocards which specify their use on a specific ID or specific ship must only be used on that ID or ship. In all other cases where these restrictions and allowances conflict with the server rules, the ID overrides the rules except as described in 4.5 and 4.6
If anything, it gives the rule a defense when subject to 4.4.

#BringBackTheCommonwealth
[Image: mHWFxPI.png]
=CR=------*L|------TFP)
[Image: UuJsIzJ.png]--.--[Image: JBFuYKi.png]---.-[Image: PdU2YZD.png]

A plurality is not a majority, and a majority is not everybody.

Spec's RP Consortium
V-3X | CV-Montu | Fort Murray
Unum pro Omnibus, Omnes pro Uno

Your signature grew too big, I helped downscale it. ~Vex
Your adjustment grew too big, I helped downscale it. ~Spectre
Reply  
Offline Mark_Brown
07-30-2019, 07:26 PM,
#9
Innovative Evacuee
Posts: 694
Threads: 79
Joined: Jun 2010

(07-30-2019, 06:36 PM)Spectre Wrote: Solid addition.
Only suggestion would be to amend rule 4.4.

Quote:4.4 Every char must have only one type of ID equipped and they must play to that ID. Ship and equipment infocards which specify their use on a specific ID or specific ship must only be used on that ID or ship. In all other cases where these restrictions and allowances conflict with the server rules, the ID overrides the rules except as described in 4.5 and 4.6
If anything, it gives the rule a defense when subject to 4.4.

Solid rule change GM's. However Spectre has a point not to be taken lightly.

Worthy suggestion.

Just my 2cents

Bellck.

[Image: Final_Sig_US_2_blue_ship.png]
[Image: THsCLuA.png][Image: fnPLZH6.png][Image: 26PSva8.png][Image: RALsZal.png]
Reply  
Offline Mark_Brown
07-30-2019, 07:32 PM,
#10
Innovative Evacuee
Posts: 694
Threads: 79
Joined: Jun 2010

Enquiry, does this mean now that our Department of Security in Universal can no longer defend our transports OUTSIDE our ZOI?

Self Defence is allowed of course, but have you ever tried to defend yourself as a mastodon?

When does, allowing our fighters to intercept on coming pirates?

Thanks

Bellck/Mark_Brown USI 2ic

[Image: Final_Sig_US_2_blue_ship.png]
[Image: THsCLuA.png][Image: fnPLZH6.png][Image: 26PSva8.png][Image: RALsZal.png]
Reply  
Pages (2): 1 2 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode