Author |
Message |
Denux
Team:
Main: Denux
Level: 4 Class:
None
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:15 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
vampire2948 wrote: Btw. Your red dot is covered by the regular kits in the center of the galaxy. /sigh Maybe there's 20 kits sitting on top of the assault kit. But the diagram does not show that so it's rather irrelevant to the given example. If there are many kits in the galaxy center, that means fewer kits providing aerial coverage (as I already stated). Thus, there will still be space to deploy given assault kit out of base ranges. I also see 0 problem with adding new tactics as well as removing exploits at the same time.
_________________ Master Chief: a true hero.
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:40 pm |
|
|
sleepysnagrund
Member
Team:
Main: Bobby Bobbs
Level: 2142 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:44 am
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
How about if bases count as objects you can lay within' 15K of. So defenders cannot possibly cover all of the available space since you can always lay withing 15K of one of their bases?
|
Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:07 pm |
|
|
Chaosking3
Team:
Main: Spatzz
Level: 2402 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:40 am
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Simply give base kits 40 billion vis if you so desire. Making a limit for how far a legit attacker can place kits in order to stop exploiting is a bit silly. All you have to do is come down on exploiting harder and folks will stop.
Who cares if they make excuses, it is obvious if they are doing it. If you see a middle eastern man in a US airport with a carry on that is making a ticking noise do you search him? Yes, because it is bloody obvious
_________________
JeffL wrote: Come have sex with me in space, my lord
|
Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:57 pm |
|
|
ross.c
Team:
Main: KILL EM ALL 2
Level: 2223 Class:
Berserker
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:04 am
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
sleepysnagrund wrote: How about if bases count as objects you can lay within' 15K of. So defenders cannot possibly cover all of the available space since you can always lay withing 15K of one of their bases? Chaosking3 wrote: Simply give base kits 40 billion vis if you so desire. Making a limit for how far a legit attacker can place kits in order to stop exploiting is a bit silly. All you have to do is come down on exploiting harder and folks will stop.
Who cares if they make excuses, it is obvious if they are doing it. If you see a middle eastern man in a US airport with a carry on that is making a ticking noise do you search him? Yes, because it is bloody obvious best idea's tbh then the attackers can still attack but defenders cant hide there kits.
_________________ KILL EM ALL
|
Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:53 pm |
|
|
Denux
Team:
Main: Denux
Level: 4 Class:
None
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:15 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Chaosking3 wrote: Simply give base kits 40 billion vis if you so desire. Making a limit for how far a legit attacker can place kits in order to stop exploiting is a bit silly. All you have to do is come down on exploiting harder and folks will stop. This prevents the creation of stealthier bases via bana equipment and still allows people to fly out a few dozen million and spam kits. The point of this system should be to prevent exploiting and the unnecessary waste of time needed to deal with tickets of the sort.
_________________ Master Chief: a true hero.
|
Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:33 pm |
|
|
Chaosking3
Team:
Main: Spatzz
Level: 2402 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:40 am
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Again, simply punish exploiters much more harshly then is already done. No one will risk doing that if it means a 2 week ban on all their accounts
_________________
JeffL wrote: Come have sex with me in space, my lord
|
Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:48 pm |
|
|
Cyrillicov
Team:
Main: Buktop Cyrillicov
Level: 1152 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:33 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Chaosking3 wrote: Again, simply punish exploiters much more harshly then is already done. No one will risk doing that if it means a 2 week ban on all their accounts Several issues with this: 1. The admins want to move away from manually enforced rules, which is what the current situation is, that's why they're proposing hard-coded rules that remove the possibility/practicality of actions generally deemed to be exploiting. This is why this thread exists, telling them to judge people more harshly does not improve anything nor does it contribute. 2. Hard-coded rules are preferable because there are always issues when people are punished for "exploiting". Rarely, if ever, are there true cut-and-dried cases of exploiting a certain rule, and those cases are traditionally dealt with harshly. The problem comes when people try to adapt to situations and follow rules, but rely on non-traditional mechanics that are not allowable in every circumstance. 3. Determining what accounts are "all their accounts" is also an issue in cases, as the SS community has cultivated a practice of keeping old accounts around, as either team-use accounts or multi-use accounts. There are many ways one could determine who owns what account, but short of limiting how many accounts can be owned per player (another hassle in and of itself) you may end up punishing people that were not involved in an exploit, except for being on the same team as the culprit. So yes, while the idea of the admins being much more prone to banning and harsher on their interpretations of the rules sounds like it would fix a problem, the SS administration is understaffed (i.e., can't be everywhere), and implementing such a policy would likely drive away customers and create more problems than they would fix. Hard-coded rules are what allow strategies and events like BvB to occur (much like the change from "we'll 'ban' people who drop low-tech kits in an attack to fill up slots" policy to the hard-coded "destroyed kits do not take up base slots in a galaxy"). Telling the admins not to come up with hard-coded rules means you want to exploit the system how you see fit (that is, case by case).
|
Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:09 pm |
|
|
Markoz
Team:
Main: Pure Evil
Level: 2837 Class:
Shield Monkey
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:20 am Location: UK > Wales > Bin+ computer with boardband :p
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
*gives a cookie* to Cyrillicov
/Signed - Want this to happen, 30k max distance base deployment in-game rule
_________________
|
Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:34 pm |
|
|
aeljuga
Team:
Main: ahileus
Level: 3088 Class:
Berserker
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:06 am
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Put it at 12,5 k. It will be more funnier to bvb.
_________________ ahileus
|
Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:47 am |
|
|
JeffL
Site Admin / Dev Team
Team:
Main: Jeff_L
Level: 1028 Class:
Sniper
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:21 am Location: Santa Clara, CA
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
This is being added in the patch on Friday. All bases must be placed with 30k distance of a planet, moon, sun or wormhole. After this goes in, there will be no manually enforced rules about placing bases far away.
Edit:
This is now available for testing on test2.starsonata.com
_________________ For support, please create a support ticket here and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
|
Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:22 am |
|
|
mitchell.haigh
Team:
Main: Laptop Boy
Level: 2982 Class:
Gunner
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:16 am Location: Australia
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Can we have patch notes for the changes to everything pl0x?
_________________
|
Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:05 am |
|
|
Griffin
Team:
Main: Stabberz
Level: 2153 Class:
Gunner
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:55 am
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
/me deploys a kit 15k out then tractors it to 50k out.
_________________
Blue Dwarf wrote: In space, no one can hear you cha cha cha.
|
Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:25 pm |
|
|
Battlecruiser23
over 9000!
Team:
Main: Ghost Commander
Level: 1138 Class:
Berserker
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:36 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
It'd take you hell of a long time if LC has SD's hounding you
_________________ Axis Industries
|
Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:30 pm |
|
|
goett
Team:
Main: goett
Level: 2157 Class:
Shield Monkey
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:36 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Cyrillicov wrote: Chaosking3 wrote: Again, simply punish exploiters much more harshly then is already done. No one will risk doing that if it means a 2 week ban on all their accounts Several issues with this: 1. The admins want to move away from manually enforced rules, which is what the current situation is, that's why they're proposing hard-coded rules that remove the possibility/practicality of actions generally deemed to be exploiting. This is why this thread exists, telling them to judge people more harshly does not improve anything nor does it contribute. 2. Hard-coded rules are preferable because there are always issues when people are punished for "exploiting". Rarely, if ever, are there true cut-and-dried cases of exploiting a certain rule, and those cases are traditionally dealt with harshly. The problem comes when people try to adapt to situations and follow rules, but rely on non-traditional mechanics that are not allowable in every circumstance. 3. Determining what accounts are "all their accounts" is also an issue in cases, as the SS community has cultivated a practice of keeping old accounts around, as either team-use accounts or multi-use accounts. There are many ways one could determine who owns what account, but short of limiting how many accounts can be owned per player (another hassle in and of itself) you may end up punishing people that were not involved in an exploit, except for being on the same team as the culprit. So yes, while the idea of the admins being much more prone to banning and harsher on their interpretations of the rules sounds like it would fix a problem, the SS administration is understaffed (i.e., can't be everywhere), and implementing such a policy would likely drive away customers and create more problems than they would fix. Hard-coded rules are what allow strategies and events like BvB to occur (much like the change from "we'll 'ban' people who drop low-tech kits in an attack to fill up slots" policy to the hard-coded "destroyed kits do not take up base slots in a galaxy"). Telling the admins not to come up with hard-coded rules means you want to exploit the system how you see fit (that is, case by case). there are no written rules, just implied ones. everything is ambiguous and confusing as it always will probably be. hard coded this sounds like a large waste of time if the bases aren't coded in as objects. btw church think he was talking about low vis super hard to see bases (which do exist) in your own system. take you 20 minutes to tow a base to 100k (completely afk btw). abuse will continue IF i'm reading the new hardcoded rules correctly. just sounds like now no one will be following up on complaints. is there going to be interim enforcement? at least til we can determine if there is possible abuse?
|
Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:51 pm |
|
|
|