Posted by: Density
« on: December 11, 2021, 09:20:19 PM »I'm not opposed to a clarification, I'm opposed to calling it an exception and to singling out stabilized JPs; players may still assume there might be more to stabilized JPs than they are being told. I would phrase it something like:There is clearly a lot of confusion around jump shock so I don't see why some clarification about not-necessarily-intuitive scenarios would be a bad thing.At any rate, perhaps we should update http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg113856#msg113856. It should mention stabilized jump points at least.
Why? There are no special rules to how jump shock works for when a transit is done via stabilized JPs as opposed to any other method.
Most AARs describe jump shock affecting the crew. The wiki says it's a "sensor distortion effect" so I guess the fact that jump drives are affected changed with C#?
If you read the exact wording, the 1.0 post says that jump shock affects the ship, which leads to the following train of thought: ship is affected by jump shock, jump shock disables jump engines, therefore ship can't transit jump points.
The exception (1.13 and earlier): it can transit a stabilised jump points because those don't require jump engines to transit.
In 1.13 and earlier, ships affected by jump shock can transit jump points when a non-shocked method is available, such as a stabilized jump point or another jump engine (i.e. a jump tender).
and even that isn't perfect because it doesn't really get into the non-intuitiveness of the current rules, which boils down to: a jump engine can be disabled from shock without being used, and a jump engine can be used without suffering shock.
Anyway, yeah, another good thing about the change is that it'll be more intuitive and much easier to explain.