Jump to content

NQ: Could you please clearly clarify what is allowed and what is not?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, W1zard said:

Okay, NQ released 1.23 patch to block the ability for someone to stop their ship via going log off.
Let's assume I am flying towards pvp zone at 30k and I see someone at radar, probably pirates. I will log off while still in safe zone to stop my ship there.
If pirates then step on my ship so it will restore it's speed and will fly out to pvp zone, will this be an exploit? And if it will, who's exploit it will be, mine for stopping my ship via log out, or pirates for dragging my ship to pvp zone?

IMHO this is not an exploit from either side, It's a game INTENDED mechanics.

If the pirates encounter a ship in the pvp zone and the owner is 100% responsible for it being there. Then it's with in the rules. 

 

If the pirates find the ship outside the pvp zone. Then its against the rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This will allow for easy ban bait when I offer free taxi and log out 500m before the safe zone with passengers on board and they "transport" my ship by regular game mechanics outside of the safezone a

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?

IMO the bigger issue here is what sort of game do you want?  Do you want to have a game where people log on and have space adventures in a risky environment where  unexpected things happen, people do

Posted Images

People keep bringing up this hypothetical scenario where a ship is heading out of the safe zone.

 

But as far as i know the ship was flown to a station in between Alioth and the sanctuary moon, where they landed on what they thought was a landing pad.  And logged off assuming their ship was safely docked in the safe zone.

 

The player wanted the ship to stay in the safe zone.  The devs designed the game intending for the ship to stay in the safe zone.

 

The only reason the ship ended up outside the safe zone is because a player intentionally went looking for a ship that was vulnerable to a specific bug, and then exploited that bug so they could steal the ship.

 

The whole "parenting" debate is just pedantry anyway because the NQ post mentions using "similar bugs/tools" to move a ship outside the safe zone too.

 

  • 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. A fix has been rolled out that will address the ability to parent constructs together via the maneuver tool. As we have not previously clarified this point, we will not retroactively punish this abuse, as of this moment forward abusing similar bugs/tools to replicate this maneuver in its current state can result in disciplinary actions on an account. [Not Allowed]

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems fairly clear cut from the quote directly above and NQ-Decard's comment on discord pretty much corroborating the above that intentionally causing the destruction of ships parked in the safe zone is verboten regardless of the method employed to "transport" them out...

Although the bit (emphasis mine):  as of this moment forward abusing similar bugs/tools to replicate this maneuver in its current state
could pedantically be interpreted to mean that once the state of the game changes, this would no longer be against the rules!  or, even more pedantically, a few moments later this momentarily relevant statement is no longer canon. 

You can basically "pedant" your way out of pretty much anything, which is why 1) we can't have nice things and (2) why EULAs etc are 100 pages long, just to avoid this pedantry.


Edge cases are where it's most interesting, though.

From the above, like in the real world, it seems that even if the action wasn't intentional, the onus is on the interloper to not cause damage....
Let's say a player jumps innocently onto a ship parked next to but not directly touching a space station and the ship starts to sloooowly drift towards the planet, but at that exact time, the player gets a call from their gf/bf/sf and forgets about the game for an hour or two... only to come back and realised they have respawned on their Res Node.  As it turns out, they have caused the other player's ship to inadvertently crash.

If the crashed player complained, because the ship crashed near a base and the core was replaced, it would be really hard for the first player to prove their lack of intent....

Hyper theoretical edge cases are the most fun, to be sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

The only reason the ship ended up outside the safe zone is because a player intentionally went looking for a ship that was vulnerable to a specific bug, and then exploited that bug so they could steal the ship.

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.

 

3 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

The whole "parenting" debate is just pedantry anyway because the NQ post mentions using "similar bugs/tools" to move a ship outside the safe zone too.

  • 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. A fix has been rolled out that will address the ability to parent constructs together via the maneuver tool. As we have not previously clarified this point, we will not retroactively punish this abuse, as of this moment forward abusing similar bugs/tools to replicate this maneuver in its current state can result in disciplinary actions on an account. [Not Allowed]

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Then log a ticket, this is a user/player discussion forum, not a NQ helpline

Those questions are very relevant and can shed some light to how we are intended to play this emergent sandbox game. Therefore it should be public, having it in private ticket makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree @XKentX .. the point is that if you do not want answers from the community, you should not ask them here..

 

The problem here is that all the definitions of what parenting may mean here are what players think it means (or does not mean). NQ has yet to weigh in on this as usual and probably won't. From that perspective sure, asking for a response from NQ is fine and if that was intended by OP then I digress.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I reported the event in question that started this when it happened.  

 

The below are not allowed.

If you figure out how to do any of these you should report it with a focus of how NQ can recreate and verify.

If you do not report the existence of any of the below and use any of them for a nefarious purpose all your accounts should be banned. 

 

  • Transporting matter beyond the maximum linked container range in a near instant fashion.
     
  • Moving third party constructs without the RDMS being provided to do so.
     
  • Creating items/elements/parts in a way that does not consume the appropriate amount of materials.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, I see there is some confusion about the rules.

 

To clarify, the safe zone is intended to be a safe zone.
If a construct is inside the safe zone, and you do not have the appropriate rights to use it, then leave it alone. If you bring (through any mechanic) bring the construct outside of the safe zone to destroy/capture it, you will get into trouble. It's that simple.

Pushing, Manoeuvring, Bumping, Docking, or in any other way moving a construct that does not belong to you, or you do not have the rights for into pvp space is against the rules.

It's just common sense, the safe zone is intended to be a safe zone. Period.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion on the topic. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NQ-Deckard said:

Hello everyone, I see there is some confusion about the rules.

 

To clarify, the safe zone is intended to be a safe zone.
If a construct is inside the safe zone, and you do not have the appropriate rights to use it, then leave it alone. If you bring (through any mechanic) bring the construct outside of the safe zone to destroy/capture it, you will get into trouble. It's that simple.

Pushing, Manoeuvring, Bumping, Docking, or in any other way moving a construct that does not belong to you, or you do not have the rights for into pvp space is against the rules.

It's just common sense, the safe zone is intended to be a safe zone. Period.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion on the topic. :)

jumping?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2021 at 4:29 AM, XKentX said:

Those questions are very relevant and can shed some light to how we are intended to play this emergent sandbox game. Therefore it should be public, having it in private ticket makes no sense.

This statement is an oxymoron... how do you play in a sandbox? However the hell you want! It's a sandbox :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will allow for easy ban bait when I offer free taxi and log out 500m before the safe zone with passengers on board and they "transport" my ship by regular game mechanics outside of the safezone and they or someone else captures it. Yes safe zone is supposed to be safe (from PVP, not mistakes!) but as there is a perfect counter for any kind of theft (docking to space cores), everything else is pure negligence and wasnt be covered by the safe zone (before), because this opens every door to more issues. Especially considering other game mechanics and situations which allow transition between safe zone and PVP space will be affected by the changed situation. So since the safe zone is now completely safe from any responsibility and negligence logically (and by common sense) I wonder: Does that also mean any kind of roleplay/ingame scamming is forbidden in the safe zone? Any kind of miner slavery? Any kind of luring people into the pvp zone? RDMS theft protected? etc. etc. This opens a lot of questions for me here, since these things would make the safe zone incredibly unsafe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, carijay766 said:

This will allow for easy ban bait when I offer free taxi and log out 500m before the safe zone with passengers on board and they "transport" my ship by regular game mechanics outside of the safezone and they or someone else captures it. Yes safe zone is supposed to be safe but as there is a perfect counter for any kind of theft (docking to space cores) other game mechanics which allow transition between safe zone and PVP space to prevent vague or unclear situation and exactly that kind of theft. Does that also mean any kind of roleplay/ingame scamming is forbidden in the safe zone? Any kind of miner slavery? Any kind of luring people into the pvp zone? etc. etc. This opens a lot of questions for me here.

yup.... ez ban bait.

Generally speaking, fix the game mechanics. Written rules are going to be broken, there will never be enough case-by-case manpower in order to judge these things. Game mechanics should dictate what is feasible and what is not. Otherwise the devs are fighting their own sanbox because of broken mechanics to the point where the sandbox is not a sandbox anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The safe zone was never declared as mistake free zone (before). It was purely declared as zone with no PVP and that was it. Everyone knows knew if youre in whatever way negligent you have to bear the consequences, safe zone or pvp zone. This is still a sandbox game right?

 

Quote

Generally speaking, fix the game mechanics. Written rules are going to be broken, there will never be enough case-by-case manpower in order to judge these things. Game mechanics should dictate what is feasible and what is not. Otherwise the devs are fighting their own sanbox because of broken mechanics to the point where the sandbox is not a sandbox anymore.

 

For this situation there is also a very clear game mechanic: Its called space core docking, its common knowledge that this is was the way to protect your constructs in space in the safe zone. Its a perfect way to regulate the mechanic and theft, just like RDMS. Negligent about your RDMS? Bear the consequences. Leave your construct floating in space? Bear the consequences. - At least in the past, but now as has been clarified any kind of action that would put you in an unsafe situation (per definition bearing consequences of your actions) in the safe zone is deemed illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:

Hello everyone, I see there is some confusion about the rules.

 

To clarify, the safe zone is intended to be a safe zone.
If a construct is inside the safe zone, and you do not have the appropriate rights to use it, then leave it alone. If you bring (through any mechanic) bring the construct outside of the safe zone to destroy/capture it, you will get into trouble. It's that simple.

Pushing, Manoeuvring, Bumping, Docking, or in any other way moving a construct that does not belong to you, or you do not have the rights for into pvp space is against the rules.

It's just common sense, the safe zone is intended to be a safe zone. Period.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion on the topic. :)

There was no "Pushing, Manoeuvring, Bumping, Docking, or in any other way moving a construct that does not belong to you" involved. At ALL.
Ship moved by itself via INTENDED game mechanics (that was added specifically to avoid stopping undocked ships via logout) of restoring speed. Counstruct moved itself out of safe zone, not the pirates.

 

57 minutes ago, AlexRingess said:

Is that not enough clear ?

No, not enough clear, because there is no "moving a counstruct" involved.
If you are jumping in a train that goes with some velocity you do not move that train by jumping on it. It's the train who moves you

 

UPD: If ships leaved in safe zone should stay there, then just rollback that mechanics which restores construct speed

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:

Hello everyone, I see there is some confusion about the rules.

 

To clarify, the safe zone is intended to be a safe zone.
If a construct is inside the safe zone, and you do not have the appropriate rights to use it, then leave it alone. If you bring (through any mechanic) bring the construct outside of the safe zone to destroy/capture it, you will get into trouble. It's that simple.

Pushing, Manoeuvring, Bumping, Docking, or in any other way moving a construct that does not belong to you, or you do not have the rights for into pvp space is against the rules.

It's just common sense, the safe zone is intended to be a safe zone. Period.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion on the topic. :)

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, W1zard said:

No, not enough clear, because there is no "moving a counstruct" involved.
If you are jumping in a train that goes with some velocity you do not move that train by jumping on it. It's the train who moves you

 

 

If you jump onto a ship with the purpose of moving it so yes, it's enough clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AlexRingess said:

If you jump onto a ship with the purpose of moving it so yes, it's enough clear.

If you jump on a moving a train with the purpose of moving it, are you moving the train?
Will we ban now for purpose others think we have, or for the actual actions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, W1zard said:

If you jump on a moving a train with the purpose of moving it, are you moving the train?
Will we ban now for purpose others think we have, or for the actual actions?

Its not quite correct its a theoretically moving train that is stopped due to server limitations, not due to game mechanics, and picks up movement as soon as you jump on it. Which would make it pick up the initial movement and thats within the intended game mechanics.

So theyre in a somewhat quantum state of existence when not rendered, moving but also staying in place.

But again the much more crucial part here is that the safe some was declared a responsiblity free zone and that the safe in safe zone has to be interpreted literally as its common sense. Even if this was due to covering up some favoritism, we now have to work from here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...