Jump to content

Sawafa

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sawafa

  1. If this game will survive the current crisis and will gain a lot of players... there easily (and I'm sure it will!) can happen such situation. Some novian has just installed and launched the game. He finishes all starting tutorials... There is the usage of surrogate pods at the end of tutorial. So, if novian will chose some random destination VR that will be a moving ship towards PvP zone... He will unintentionally bring some ship to the PvP zone where this ship could be pew-pewed by any random player... Well, "good" mechanics, nothing to say. By the way... Even in EvE you're not completely safe in safe zone, if I know right. Why not let players to use game mechanics as intended and allow to transfer the ships into the PvP zone with using only game mechanics and not some bugs like bumping or whatever? If you want 100% to be sure your ship will stay still while you're offline - park it on space static core and you're in safe! No one will be able to steal your ship. Just rename "Safe zone" into "PvP Free zone" and that's all! There will be no PvP in PvP-free zone, but the usage of the normal game mechanics (and not bugs!) will be allowed.
  2. The only thing left without attention is hostile action in safe zone that didn't result in ship being moved towards pvp zone: burying, claiming the territory while 3rd person is mining there (and it is unclaimed), crashing the ships from space to the planet because of gravity force and so on. Are those acceptable actions or are they considered griefing/exploiting? And I am asking here about actions aimed on 3rd party constructs... not something like dick-building or whatever of those kind. Also, I (and many other) would be very happy if your common sense about safe zone would be updated in the rules. Thanks!
  3. If NQ wants to prevent stealing ships from safe zone by using normal game mechanics I see 2 possible solutions: a) the good one. The game mechanic should be changed in such a way that stealing such ships become impossible. Like such changes should be applied: a.1) the ship speed should be restored only when someone enters the seat and not when someone steps on the ship; a.2) The usage of maneuver tool should be nerfed. Maneuver tool should fail with error when target's speed is more than 20 km/h (or target stays steel with stored speed). This will prevent stopping the fast moving ship immediately. a.3) Build mode should be disabled when ship is moving (or stays steel with stored speed) faster than 20 km/h. This will prevent disassembling the ship while it stays still with stored speed. Also this will prevent the killing of elements of the ship when the ship is attacked in normal PvP. These steps may be altered in some way, but the main idea here is to change the game mechanic in such a way that it simply will not allow to proceed with unwanted actions. b) not very good one Not desired behavior should be CLEARLY stated in the rules in a such way, that it doesn't allow multiple interpretation. The rules should not necessary be very detailed, like the long list in initial message in this topic, but they should clearly declare what is and what is not acceptable to do in safe zones. This should cover not only the cases when ship is stolen to PvP zone, but also the cases when ship is buried on free or owned territory / exploded as the result of collision with the planet and so on.
  4. > Moving third party constructs without the RDMS being provided to do so. If this is what NQ responded on your report (ticket?) than it should be also in the rules. As how one can get to know about it? Also, why not specify a little bit more detailing? Is there any RDMS rule that allows activating normal physics when stepping on the ship? If no (and in curently state there is no such rule in RDMS), how could one provide the right to allow or disallow such action? In this case is stepping on the ship regulated by the text quoted? If no, rules should be more specific.
  5. No. First of all this topic is initially not about some specific case you're speaking about, but rather what mechanics are allowed to use and what not and what should be in the rules. To answer quoted part I will say next: player was not looking to a ship vulnerable to any bug. There are many ships in space bug free that start to move when you jump on it. If you want to discuss that specific case - there is another topic about it in the forum. And I understand the green quoted part as like similar bugs like some actions that involve some manipulations with some tool, it could be maneuver tool, or some movement of your bigger ship, or anything else that results in target dynamic ship being parented to the attacker ship that will be able to transport the 3rd party ship where you want, including PvP zone (you have the words there "to replicate this maneuver in its current state" - how this could be interpreted wrong at all?). This is common sense of what "similar bugs/tools" is for " Intentionally parenting any construct...". So, just a simple jumping on the ship doesn't use any parenting mechanics at all. No any 3rd action other then jumping. Also, the Parenting Ships - Dragged to PVP Space rule was introduced right in the moment of time when some people (I do not know who exactly, but I know there were such players in the game) who were parenting 3rd party ships exactly with described (in quoted rule) mechanic. This rule clearly states what it is about - about parenting one ship to another without permission of the owner, even in it's title - Parenting Ships. So, how is this rule broken by not parenting the ship I do not understand. If NQ doesn't want any hostile actions be applied to 3rd party ships in safe zone this should be clearly specified in the rules. The list of 10 issues in my initial message is there exactly because of this - the rule about hostile actions is missing in the rules, there is only rule about one specific hostile action - parenting the ships. So, NQ, please update your rules set to actual one. @Elias Villd As you have maybe the closest contact with NQs, could you please help to sort this thing out with them? This issue really should be fixed, as in it's current state it allows multiple interpretation by different people as is seen from all the situation and discussions.
  6. > Also, you're defending this, why? No, piracy in any of it's kind is not the source of my income. Even not close to 1% of it The only my reason is having strong definitely rules, that doesn't allow different interpretation by other players like what is "parenting constructs". I like to do some piracy-like things, I like to benefit normal game mechanics in doing more piracy/salvaging. But if it is officially forbidden by rules - I will not do it. If it is not - than I will not understand if NQ will take any action against the one, who did something that is not forbidden. That is why rules should be clearly enough.
  7. I agree what Deckard says is good enough. But this is written in Discord, not in official rules. Just update the official rules, and than it will be OK. More over, this was said AFTER the action was done.
  8. No, not a right statement. I will be happy with the rule something like "killing ships left in safe zone is crime/exploit including any possible way even allowed by normal game mechanics/physics" but they say only about parenting. Also, this rule doesn't cover other cases, like burying constructs/crashing ships on the planet... This also could be included in more general easy rule. But this should be clearly stated by NQ, while for now there is no such statement.
  9. From the rules: Parenting Ships - Dragged to PVP Space: This is a hot topic and one we wish to be very clear on. Intentionally parenting any construct without permission of the owner is not intended for game play. Why does NQ speak about specific issue - parenting -, and not general intentional moving/transferring the other player's construction to the pvp zone without braking the game physics lows or using some other bug(s)?
  10. > Trasporting any player or construct without that player/owner permission, is being hostile. And I want to hear such kind of statement from developers as official statement.
  11. Last issues I would like to clarify: What is official position about burying other people dynamic constructs on unclaimed tiles? Is it acceptable action or is it also exploit? And if the tile is claimed by me, can I bury (cover with earth) alien ship? Is it acceptable action or exploit? Let's assume I found some ship staying on unclaimed territory. If I will claim the territory and bury the ship immediately after claiming the tile - is it acceptable action or is it exploit? I will add all these questions to the initial message.
  12. > common sense says that, if it is in the safe zone to begin with, it should be considered untouchable. My (and others) common sense says, that NQ wants to implement somekind of realistic physics which doesn't allow constructs to stop in space when pilot exits the game. In that case the construct should continue to float/move where it was moving. If NQ would had enough server power the movement of such constructions would be calculated serverside and all constructions left in such state in space would be in moving state forever or while they hit some obstacle or will be hit by some player in PvP zone, as they would eventually ended there. I see this is the main intention - let the ordinary classical dynamics work as it is expected. In this case your statement is meaningless. So, I do not see what is bad to help game physics do it's work by NOT USING any exploit. The other case - steal constructs by using some bugs like some manipulation with maneuver tool. This is completely different thing, and I am against it and never used it! You see, your common sense and my common sense are different. And these are not only between me and you. Many other people from both sides are involved. So, NQ, please make a decision to stop all these talks.
  13. In my opinion - no. By parenting always was meant parenting between two constructs, not a construct vs player. You had enough arguments on this side in discord conversation, RDMS rights. I am also sure, more than 50% of players think the same - parenting is the issue involving constructs only, not players. You see, you and me (and other players too!) have different understanding what parenting is. And both of us are 100% sure that his opinion is correct one. Who will be the оudge? That is why we need exact clarifications from NQ.
  14. > Parenting is both between constructs and between a construct and a player I want to hear this from official NQ representative, not from any other player.
  15. Considering the recent event with Elias Villd and the discussion in discord, NQ could you please clarify where exploiting starts? Could you please reply in details on each of the issues listed below? Could you please clearly clarify what is allowed from specified activity and what is not? Thank you a lot! All described issues below don't use any additional tools (like maneuver tool or any other tool) or constructs. All of them involve only player movement in atmo and/or space with only standard game physics involved. 1) Is it allowed for someone to jump on a ship (Dynamic Construct) while ship has no its pilot nearby? Is it considered exploit or not? Let's assume pilot of the ship logged out while moving or not being docked to some static construct. This resulted in speed "stored" in the ship. So, when someone will jump on such ship he will restore (with curent game mechanics) the ship's speed instantly. 2) Is such action - restoring the ship's speed after jumping on the ship - allowed? Is it considered exploit or not? Let's assume after restoring the speed ship is moving towards nearest planet. So, if someone will continue to stay on the ship the ship will eventually fall into the planet and explode. 3.1) Is such action - staying on the ship while it is falling on the planet - allowed? Is it considered exploit or not? Let's assume after restoring the speed ship is moving in some random direction that finally ends in PvP zone. So, if someone will continue to stay on the ship the ship will eventually be moved BY ITSELF into PvP zone. 3.2) Is such action - staying on the ship while it is travelling without the pilot towards PvP zone - allowed? Is it considered exploit or not? In all above issues ship is moving by itself, only general game physics is involved. Not a single tool/exploiting technic is used. Could you please clarify about spying issues. No any exploit is involved, only standard game physics: 4) Is it allowed to jump to the ship and go to log off? So it will be possible to be a spy on the ship. Is having spy on the enemy ship allowed or not? Is it considered exploit or not? 4.1) If after log in into the game the spy finds itself on the ship in space and that ship is moving by itself into PvP zone without pilot - is it allowed to be on such ship? Is it allowed to wait in such case while the ship will reach PvP zone? 4.2) The same as above, but ship is falling on the planet. Is it allowed or not to continue to stay on the ship? What about if spy will bring with him some additional weight in inventory that will pull down the flying ship or will not allow the ship to lift off? 5) Is it allowed to jump to the someone's ship with some weight in the inventory? Is it exploit or not? 5.1) The same as 5) but do log out after jumping on the ship. So, ship could have additional weight. Is this allowed or not? Is it considered exploit or not? 6) During normal fly in atmo: can pilot of one ship disturb the flight of another ship? I mean can one ship be controlled in such a way that it will end in collision with another ship? Is it considered exploit or not? I am speaking about flying in atmo/safe zone here. 7) There is some bug in game while parenting bigger dynamic core to the smaller one. The resulted couple could gain some free speed in some situations. Is it allowed to use this parenting issue for cheaper transportation of your own constructs? 7.1) If someone jumps on such couple of dynamic constructs in space (the case when such couple of constructs doesn't below to the jumper), and it will result in this couple moving towards PvP zone - is it allowed action or not? Can player continue to sit on the construction or should it jump out from it immediately? Is it considered exploit or not? Some normal PvP related issues: While normal PvP session with guns and pew pew - if pilot of one ship will log out his ship will lose it's speed resulting in brake from 30k kmh (or any other value) to 0 kmh instantly. When pilot will log in, the ship will restore its speed - 5%. Is it allowed to use such mechanic to interfere PvP atacker pursuit of the target? Is it considered exploit or not? 8.1) Is it considered exploit or not to stop killed ship (the one which has gray marker) with maneuver tool even if the attacked ship has "stored" speed? 9) Finally, could you please clarify what is "Parenting Ships" from your article here: https://support.dualthegame.com/hc/en-us/articles/360016890940-Clarification-Regarding-Bug-Exploits-and-Griefing By parenting, is it considered parenting between constructs only OR between construct and player (Can player be parented to construct?) is also considered parenting? Is construct transferring to PvP zone with one of the methods described above considered "Parenting" and is also forbidden? Is it, finally, exploit or not? Last issues I would like to clarify: 10) What is official position about burying other people dynamic constructs on unclaimed tiles? Is it acceptable action or is it also exploit? 10.1) And if the tile is claimed by me, can I bury (cover with earth) alien ship? Is it acceptable action or exploit? 10.2) Let's assume I found some ship staying on unclaimed territory. If I will claim the territory and bury the ship immediately after claiming the tile - is it acceptable action or is it exploit? I will be very thankful for clearly answers on all of these 1) - 9) issues, just to clarify the rules of the game and of what is allowed and what is not.
  16. If you live on Lacobus, than what does you stop from coming to Lacobus market? If someone produced any item on Lacobus, what does stop him from making the sell order on any Lacobus market? How will player markets help here? You have Aphelia's markets on planet, why not to use them? Introducing (replacing, as you suggest) player markets will introduce massive decentralization... I am not sure if it will be good move for now from Novaquark. Maybe later, but not now.
  17. In my vision, the global pvp problem curently is slow-performance PvP mechanic. If you really want to PvP you will find it in game. BUT! Current PvP mechanic doesn't allow to produce damage that was intended to produce by attacker ship design. The ship has 2 gunner seats full with Cannons, yes, they fire... But you will see 90% of misses! Why? Because the target ship can't calculate damage in time. Just open your internet traffic statistics and you will see pikes up to 100 megabits of internet traffic, and this is for target' ship, not attacker. But for normal PvP you need multiple attacker ships, not single one, and what to do if the game/target can't even calculate/download damage from single ship? I think this is the main reason why NQ doesn't do further development of PvP. The game just lacks good enough PvP damage calculation right now.
  18. Old and new Scanner results have different spell: "Scanner result" vs "Scanner Result".
×
×
  • Create New...