Topic: Tie Up Rule  (Read 3510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Surn

  • Guest
Tie Up Rule
« on: April 12, 2004, 10:02:09 pm »
lately on several MODS there has been discussion of Rules that are simply designed to give one race an advantage or take away a races advantage.

For example, "Cloak Rule"
No player may cloak for more than 4 minutes.  
This rule is completely designed to defeat Romulans. If they dont decloak when you tell them too, its accusation time.
As a Romulan Pilot, it is my perogative to cloak until there is an opportunity to fight in my advantage. Usually, no always, I am outnumbered on server and in battle, and my cloak is my main weapon.

The cloak rule began when Myself and another pilot name Tamalak defeated Kilogg and Watertiger. They were both 1/2 hull, and forced me out of the sector, but hadnt scratched the paint on Tamalak. They had an ai on thier team so they all sat in a corner and began complaining that Tamalak wasnt decloaking within range of all three ships. They didnt look around the map, or break formation to find him, and believed that they deserved to win. Eventually they began telling him in battlechat that it was illegal to cloak for more than 4 minutes. There was no such rule on the server, as I informed Tamalak. He remained patient and eventually ran both Dogs out of the yard by blasting one to submission and terrifying the other into retreat.  Thus began the quest to have a "cloak rule."

The arguments for the cloak rule basically come down to, I dont want to have to wait for a cloaker to get on my tailpipe and blow a new hole in my rear and 4 minutes are long enough to cloak and recharge. It does not in any way address the fact that anticloak tactics have evolved to give cloakers a harder time getting a good shot.

Further on each server that is debating the cloak rule, my posts are deleted before anyone can see the other side of the story.

Well, if wasting time in a game is suddenly an issue, then we should consider a TIE UP rule as a community.

TIE UPS are when players attack with no intention of combat. It is completely dishonorable and frustrates players to the point that they quit playing the game. Somehow we have all accpeted this as PART OF THE GAME, but it is much more aggregious than a cloaker waiting to get a good shot.

Lets look at how TIE UPS ruin the game. :

First, players spend hours getting enough cash for a good ship and a base to place. Most servers require oa from a base to be able to scan or attack. TIE UPS are used to prevent players from defending thier bases, despite the HOURS of time and effort invested in them.

Second, players spend hours or days getting a good pvp ship and FINALLY finding a resonably even match to play. HOURS UPON HOURS are wasted by players who finally get a chance to fight, but are TIED UP by some little FF so that they cannot participate in a meaningful engagement.

Finally, TIE UPS are used to circumvent other rules. On some mods there are rules that say only 4 players may attack a base or planet. This is designed to allow 1 defender to defend his territory. Frankly, defenders should have first right as they would already be in position before any attack. TIE UPS are used to prevent any player from entering the defense and therefor circumvent the rules.

Lets start a real discussion about this tactic. We are losing players and as a community it is a problem for all of us. Many of you have spent alot of time developing mods and leagues and webpages. Maybe you could spend a few moments to consider why this game is losing long term dedicated players.

Bonk

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2004, 10:30:24 pm »
Load up OP, log on RDSL and all your problems are solved! (re: cloak rules... - no warp either). Nothing bigger than a CA is available in the yards to be purchased. Larger ships are assigned. Or are we talking about a BBs all around for everybody kind of game?  

Re: "Tie-Ups" - In the absence of a disengagement rule - if your opponent will not fight just fly off the map and move on to your next mission - simple. EDIT: or alt out and tell him why...

Oh, and any DN class ship should be escorted, which avoids this problem entirely.

I guess the hint I'm dropping here is that we seem to be gaining players in SFC2.  
« Last Edit: April 12, 2004, 10:40:37 pm by Bonk »

Age

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2004, 02:20:29 am »
Quote:

lately on several MODS there has been discussion of Rules that are simply designed to give one race an advantage or take away a races advantage.

For example, "Cloak Rule"
No player may cloak for more than 4 minutes.  
This rule is completely designed to defeat Romulans. If they dont decloak when you tell them too, its accusation time.
As a Romulan Pilot, it is my perogative to cloak until there is an opportunity to fight in my advantage. Usually, no always, I am outnumbered on server and in battle, and my cloak is my main weapon.

The cloak rule began when Myself and another pilot name Tamalak defeated Kilogg and Watertiger. They were both 1/2 hull, and forced me out of the sector, but hadnt scratched the paint on Tamalak. They had an ai on thier team so they all sat in a corner and began complaining that Tamalak wasnt decloaking within range of all three ships. They didnt look around the map, or break formation to find him, and believed that they deserved to win. Eventually they began telling him in battlechat that it was illegal to cloak for more than 4 minutes. There was no such rule on the server, as I informed Tamalak. He remained patient and eventually ran both Dogs out of the yard by blasting one to submission and terrifying the other into retreat.  Thus began the quest to have a "cloak rule."

The arguments for the cloak rule basically come down to, I dont want to have to wait for a cloaker to get on my tailpipe and blow a new hole in my rear and 4 minutes are long enough to cloak and recharge. It does not in any way address the fact that anticloak tactics have evolved to give cloakers a harder time getting a good shot.

Further on each server that is debating the cloak rule, my posts are deleted before anyone can see the other side of the story.

Well, if wasting time in a game is suddenly an issue, then we should consider a TIE UP rule as a community.

TIE UPS are when players attack with no intention of combat. It is completely dishonorable and frustrates players to the point that they quit playing the game. Somehow we have all accpeted this as PART OF THE GAME, but it is much more aggregious than a cloaker waiting to get a good shot.

Lets look at how TIE UPS ruin the game. :

First, players spend hours getting enough cash for a good ship and a base to place. Most servers require oa from a base to be able to scan or attack. TIE UPS are used to prevent players from defending thier bases, despite the HOURS of time and effort invested in them.

Second, players spend hours or days getting a good pvp ship and FINALLY finding a resonably even match to play. HOURS UPON HOURS are wasted by players who finally get a chance to fight, but are TIED UP by some little FF so that they cannot participate in a meaningful engagement.

Finally, TIE UPS are used to circumvent other rules. On some mods there are rules that say only 4 players may attack a base or planet. This is designed to allow 1 defender to defend his territory. Frankly, defenders should have first right as they would already be in position before any attack. TIE UPS are used to prevent any player from entering the defense and therefor circumvent the rules.

Lets start a real discussion about this tactic. We are losing players and as a community it is a problem for all of us. Many of you have spent alot of time developing mods and leagues and webpages. Maybe you could spend a few moments to consider why this game is losing long term dedicated players.  


I would assume you are talking about STC.3 with out a time how do keep time of it?  

Age

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2004, 02:24:49 am »
Quote:

Load up OP, log on RDSL and all your problems are solved! (re: cloak rules... - no warp either). Nothing bigger than a CA is available in the yards to be purchased. Larger ships are assigned. Or are we talking about a BBs all around for everybody kind of game?  

Re: "Tie-Ups" - In the absence of a disengagement rule - if your opponent will not fight just fly off the map and move on to your next mission - simple. EDIT: or alt out and tell him why...

Oh, and any DN class ship should be escorted, which avoids this problem entirely.

I guess the hint I'm dropping here is that we seem to be gaining players in SFC2.  


What was the disengagement rule?If your ship is badly damaged and you are out of spare parts you can't disengage from the sector?  

Bonk

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2004, 06:30:51 am »
Disengagement rule (roughly): If you are destroyed in a hex you may not return for X turns, if you disengage from a hex you are not allowed to return to that hex for X + Y turns.  

NannerSlug

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2004, 09:56:01 am »
surn, i would look for a server that does not have those kinds of rules which you might not like. i can understand your frustration, but in the end, each server is a person's idea of fun. whether or not you agree with it it - depends on whether or not you participate.

relax and have fun elsewhere if the server in question is stressing you out.

Surn

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2004, 10:09:00 am »
I appreciate your thoughtful responses to this idea. I am talking about SFC3.

I would add only this one additional thought.

This new "Cloak Rule" is really just a specific implementation of a "Tie Up" rule.  Engaging an opponent without the intention of combat is a TiE UP.

How can there be a "Cloak Rule" without a "TIE UP" Rule? How can such TIE UPS be so aggregious when done by cloak, but acceptable in other circumstances?

Age

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2004, 11:01:37 am »
      How long does this last for or many turns and how long does it take to make turn and how do you know when it will be over.  

DH123

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2004, 11:02:04 am »
Nanner's is correct, take it up with the server admin.   Each admin can pretty much do whatever the heck he wants (look at J'inn, he'l do anything for the right bribe) and there is no real "standard" for the community.

Now the deleting of your posts with an opinion that is contrary to the admin's is just plain wrong.   Admins should be open to feedback and criticism (except about G-Racks and Magic Photons which are always a good thing  ).  
« Last Edit: April 13, 2004, 11:04:33 am by DH123 »

762

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2004, 12:15:15 pm »
Did anybody else think this thread was about something completely different?

Bonk

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2004, 02:31:28 pm »
It depends on the server Age, but turns are usually 10 minutes, and currently on RDSL the rule is stay out for six turns (1 hour) if you disengaged or stay out of the hex three turns if you were destroyed. It varies a bit from server to server if used but the RDSL implementation is pretty standard.  

Age

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2004, 06:48:05 pm »
    Well at least I will get break out of the deal but an hour I might get a little rusty by then.Disengagment 30mins.I guess I guess I could get something to eat or go the head can I still watch all of you.What if my ship is destroyed wil a get smaller one for replacement and be sent back to starbase.What do you start off with in D2 is it like the single player campaign where you start in a Frig. and get 50 PP?I am sill a single player but I am going to get on D2 in the fall.I need my own ISP server as I am using shared one right now aswell I need to do a few thing to my computer.  

Bonk

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2004, 11:08:01 pm »
If I get destroyed or chased off I usually just move over a hex or two for a while or find another strategic area to attack. (you don't have to log off or stay out of action, the disengagement rule only applies to the hex you lost in) If there is enough people on the server you won't have any trouble finding a match in another hex.

What you start in on D2 servers depends on the server settings. Most D2 servers have you starting in a destroyer or light cruiser, but not all. Usually starting pp is in the 500 to 1000 range or much higher for "fun" or test servers. Hopefully you can get off ICS and set up to play so you can see how a lot of these server rules come about for yourself!

Anyway, we're kinda going off topic for Surn's thread here (but not entirely...)  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by Bonk »

Age

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2004, 02:03:38 am »
    Thanks Bonk.What to youmean about ICS?  

ActiveX

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2004, 06:51:21 am »
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes...

Corbomite

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2004, 09:04:46 am »
Quote:

    Thanks Bonk.What to youmean about ICS?  





ICS = Internet Connection Sharing

Age

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2004, 11:12:15 am »
    Thanks Corbomite.  

Dash Jones

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2004, 02:14:49 pm »
Personally, as someone who likes to play Roms...

I say take that rule and throw it out the window.

It's only acceptable IF

Feds cannot have quantums and cannot have a shield type over 10.

Klinks can only have two weapons facing forward.

Borg are restricted to pyramids.

Each race has strengths and weaknesses, and to restrict one so drastically...is rather absurd.

I can understand frustration if a being is not engaging period...but four minutes as a max time of cloaking, is just stupid.  Perhaps there should be a max time for a Fed not to turn...so if they have a Sovereign they have to face forward for 4 minutes or their cheating?

I mean, talk about ridiculous.

Surn

  • Guest
Tie Up Rule
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2004, 10:02:09 pm »
lately on several MODS there has been discussion of Rules that are simply designed to give one race an advantage or take away a races advantage.

For example, "Cloak Rule"
No player may cloak for more than 4 minutes.  
This rule is completely designed to defeat Romulans. If they dont decloak when you tell them too, its accusation time.
As a Romulan Pilot, it is my perogative to cloak until there is an opportunity to fight in my advantage. Usually, no always, I am outnumbered on server and in battle, and my cloak is my main weapon.

The cloak rule began when Myself and another pilot name Tamalak defeated Kilogg and Watertiger. They were both 1/2 hull, and forced me out of the sector, but hadnt scratched the paint on Tamalak. They had an ai on thier team so they all sat in a corner and began complaining that Tamalak wasnt decloaking within range of all three ships. They didnt look around the map, or break formation to find him, and believed that they deserved to win. Eventually they began telling him in battlechat that it was illegal to cloak for more than 4 minutes. There was no such rule on the server, as I informed Tamalak. He remained patient and eventually ran both Dogs out of the yard by blasting one to submission and terrifying the other into retreat.  Thus began the quest to have a "cloak rule."

The arguments for the cloak rule basically come down to, I dont want to have to wait for a cloaker to get on my tailpipe and blow a new hole in my rear and 4 minutes are long enough to cloak and recharge. It does not in any way address the fact that anticloak tactics have evolved to give cloakers a harder time getting a good shot.

Further on each server that is debating the cloak rule, my posts are deleted before anyone can see the other side of the story.

Well, if wasting time in a game is suddenly an issue, then we should consider a TIE UP rule as a community.

TIE UPS are when players attack with no intention of combat. It is completely dishonorable and frustrates players to the point that they quit playing the game. Somehow we have all accpeted this as PART OF THE GAME, but it is much more aggregious than a cloaker waiting to get a good shot.

Lets look at how TIE UPS ruin the game. :

First, players spend hours getting enough cash for a good ship and a base to place. Most servers require oa from a base to be able to scan or attack. TIE UPS are used to prevent players from defending thier bases, despite the HOURS of time and effort invested in them.

Second, players spend hours or days getting a good pvp ship and FINALLY finding a resonably even match to play. HOURS UPON HOURS are wasted by players who finally get a chance to fight, but are TIED UP by some little FF so that they cannot participate in a meaningful engagement.

Finally, TIE UPS are used to circumvent other rules. On some mods there are rules that say only 4 players may attack a base or planet. This is designed to allow 1 defender to defend his territory. Frankly, defenders should have first right as they would already be in position before any attack. TIE UPS are used to prevent any player from entering the defense and therefor circumvent the rules.

Lets start a real discussion about this tactic. We are losing players and as a community it is a problem for all of us. Many of you have spent alot of time developing mods and leagues and webpages. Maybe you could spend a few moments to consider why this game is losing long term dedicated players.

Bonk

  • Guest
Re: Tie Up Rule
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2004, 10:30:24 pm »
Load up OP, log on RDSL and all your problems are solved! (re: cloak rules... - no warp either). Nothing bigger than a CA is available in the yards to be purchased. Larger ships are assigned. Or are we talking about a BBs all around for everybody kind of game?  

Re: "Tie-Ups" - In the absence of a disengagement rule - if your opponent will not fight just fly off the map and move on to your next mission - simple. EDIT: or alt out and tell him why...

Oh, and any DN class ship should be escorted, which avoids this problem entirely.

I guess the hint I'm dropping here is that we seem to be gaining players in SFC2.  
« Last Edit: April 12, 2004, 10:40:37 pm by Bonk »