Topic: 11 & 12 none contentious ?

[Gook]

11. Disengagement rule in place

12. No Alt/F4 out to save ship

Next couple on the list. Seem non contentious to me but lets see.

[C-Los]

IMHO.....I always thought the "Disengagement Rule" cut down on the PvP...

I remember the Battles fought long ago w/o the rule, made it harder for a race to take a hex, instead all you have to do is kill or run off the enemy and the hex is all yours, buy the time they can come back you have it raised to the max.

Lots of fun in the long ago battles, trying my best in a lite against a Heavy or a DN....LOL

OH WELL.....(The good old days !)

 

[Cleaven]

The Disengagement Rule.

Brought satisfaction to those who would chase around a weaker ship for an hour, only to see him run off when he ran out of "consumables". I can see how those who are frequently run off would feel dissappointed in not being allowed to get back in there and be run off again without waiting for a while.

This rule finished all my arguments about small ships tuned for AI missions. Either they stand and die, or they don't come back. I see no need to justify why a captain should be forced to withdraw from a hex other than that it adds balance to the game.

It should be simpler though. Should the time limit be the same for dying as running? Ambush missions which only draft one ship from one side are an issue. Otherwise if you get run off no matter if outnumbered or whatever, you have disengaged and should vacate the area.

[Bonk]

I'm with C-Los.  I usually can't afford to be a nutter so I cannot have any effect on significant territory anymore, I have to run willy nilly all over the map to find PvP matches.

And no I'm not the type to hold up a DN with a frigate in an hour long mission - we have a rule against that no? I either give him a whack and run away/die or just run away.

I am against the disengagement rule.

Big ships are to protect space, small ships are for taking it.   (I may add more to this)

here's more: if you lose repeatedly you get knocked down in ships and lose PP, (the disengagement rule is effectively built in but in a slower way...) you end up in a freighter and have no effect at all.  I'd rather be allowed to try than be continually relegated to insignificant areas because I don't have a DN.

Heres some more: the disengagement rule decreases the amount of PvP play on a server, it encourages AI battles (yawn). Not the reverse as advertised.

Brought satisfaction to those who would chase around a weaker ship for an hour, only to see him run off when he ran out of "consumables". I can see how those who are frequently run off would feel dissappointed in not being allowed to get back in there and be run off again without waiting for a while.

This rule finished all my arguments about small ships tuned for AI missions. Either they stand and die, or they don't come back. I see no need to justify why a captain should be forced to withdraw from a hex other than that it adds balance to the game.

So everyone should be in a DN?

[el-Karnak]

Disengagement rule save Dyna2.  Without it the game would have died a silent death a long time ago cuz most players and techies would abandon the game.  Not to mention the Mirak would be subject to a continual flame roasts 24/7 due to their superior hex flipping ability. So, the Mirak players would run too.  It happened big time with some GFL Mirak players 2 years ago. They got sick of all the "hex flipping" flames and moved on to other games.

I guess if like playing on stock dynas with stock missions then not having the disengagement rule is for you.

[Corbomite]

I would never play on any server without the Disengagement Rule. IMO it is the single best idea that has been implemented the whole time this game has been out.

[Bonk]

How come nobody ends up in freighters anymore like used to happen? It was funny, as long as it wasn't me, though I recall having to dig out of that hole once or twice...

The hex flipping issues would be irrelevant if the game werent always set up to be a PP banking race... ack!

I guess you see it one way or the other... I know the camp in favour of the disengagement rule will win so I guess I must resign myself to a game of PP banking to buy that all important big ship...

I thought it was PvP we wanted... not endless AI battles to bank PP...

[Bonk]

Doesn't anybody see how to prevent a small ship from tying up a larger one without a disengagement rule? I personally think a lot of dyna strategies have been lost or forgotten over the last year or two...

[Kroma BaSyl]

I thought it was PvP we wanted... not endless AI battles to bank PP...

Meaningful PvP, that actually counts for something is the part you are missing. Killing or driving off a DD classed hex flipper in a strategically important hex, only to have them come right back and attempt to run under you is foolish and was killing the D2. Before the disengagement rule, PvP was practically meaningless.

[Bonk]

I thought it was PvP we wanted... not endless AI battles to bank PP...

Meaningful PvP, that actually counts for something is the part you are missing. Killing or driving off a DD classed hex flipper in a strategically important hex, only to have them come right back and attempt to run under you is foolish and was killing the D2. Before the disengagement rule, PvP was practically meaningless.

So now PvP is only available and meaningful for nutters or those in assigned ships? Not acceptable.

Easy to prevent missions being run over the big ship:
Have him back up a hex, send in two small ships to defend, the big ship watches for the pesky enemy small ship to go into mission with the smaller defenders then returns to the hex to scare off any others that come along or to face any large ships that come along. SIMPLE! Think, people, think...

I can only accept the disengagement rule on a server if there is a "slot" like was used in RDSL.

[Bonk]

You also assume that any players in small ships are arseholes with no honour that will tie up a large ship in mission without engaging it... we had a rule against that. What happened to it? (not to mention I find it somewhat offensive)

here's the old SFC2.net rule:

When in a mission, fight or leave. Do not lead your opponents around the map wasting their time. There are many good run and chase strategies but staying in the map with no intentions of fighting is not one of them.

[Bonk]

Disengagement rule save Dyna2.  Without it the game would have died a silent death a long time ago cuz most players and techies would abandon the game.  Not to mention the Mirak would be subject to a continual flame roasts 24/7 due to their superior hex flipping ability. So, the Mirak players would run too.  It happened big time with some GFL Mirak players 2 years ago. They got sick of all the "hex flipping" flames and moved on to other games.

I guess if like playing on stock dynas with stock missions then not having the disengagement rule is for you.

So why do we have fewer players now?

[Capt Jeff]

I for one think we are better off with it then without it,  but the rule is not perfect and has it's faults.


Say you are a skilled player, and have the PP and ship  to go with it.  You get into a damn nice fight, but you just get edged out and have to retreat.  You just KNOW you could of did better, but you'll never know as you can't fight them again for x amount of time.   You log off because if you can't be where the action is, then why play....

I hate adding rules, but what about something like this?

"If you disengage from a battle in PvP, you have the right to immediately ask for a rematch.  If you lose again, the disengagement rule applies.  If you win, it doesn't"

This way, the rule is still working the way it was intended.  The person trying to fly quick missions in a little ship will not challenge the rule.  

[C-Los]

I always did my best in PvP w/o the rule, mostly got blown up...I didn't always come back in right away with another Frig either.

I'm sure the rule will stay, was only giving MHO, and recalling the good times...

After all the servers w/o the rule..."Great Ones" I might add, I didn't see the game going by the way side. The rule was implemented to slow the munchers basicly and they said increased PvP....I just don't see it !  

Just my opinion, I will play no-matter what, because I get enjoyment from doing so !    

[Capt Jeff]

What is meaningful PvP Kroma?

I know some people caught in a D5D, NCD, DF that can't PvP to save their life.  Their only purpose is to run fast missions and flip hexes.   I also know people in the same ships that can give people in larger ships a real go at it.

[Kroma BaSyl]

So now PvP is only available and meaningful for nutters or those in assigned ships? Not acceptable.

Sorry Bonk, but I don't see how you can draw this conclusion. I have neither played nutter hours nor been assigned a ship and have benefited from the disengagement rule in that my PvP in inexpensive and unrestricted ships has been meaningful.

Yes if the hex is being guarded by an enemy DN you need to get a wingman to unseat him, as it should be. You are also not allowed the benefit of trying to get lucky and draw an AI only mission under him even if he has previously forced you to disengage or has killed you in that hex, which is alos as it should be. There is now a real consiquence to losing in PvP, as the lose of PP has never had much effect as ships are to cheap and PP to easy to come by to ever serve as much of a deterent.

Easy to prevent missions being run over the big ship:
Have him back up a hex, send in two small ships to defend, the big ship watches for the pesky enemy small ship to go into mission with the smaller defenders then returns to the hex to scare off any others that come along or to face any large ships that come along.

Your suggestion is simply not that easy and it depends on timing and unreliable drafting.

Even though it isn't perfect, I fail to see how the disengagement rule ruins the game for casual players (since I have been one over the last several servers). It's benefits clearly outweight any minor issues it introduces.

Luckily as you point out the camp in favor of the rule seems to be winning out, which is mainly because the majority of players and admins see it as more beneficial than detrimental to game play. As to having to reside yourself to PP farming for a big ship, I would also disagree and incourage you to look me up when you are online. If we are allied I would be happy to wing with you in cheap ships and give those nutters some hell.

Kroma,

PS, another thing that I think would alliviate some of the minor issues with the rule and casual players, would be to loosen up the restrictions on FM assignments. Allowing RMs to hand the FM slot out more freely, and at a momments notice. Maybe remove the VCs from them as well. (you could still have PvP VCs, just that the FM ship isn't worth anymore than any other ship kill). This would allow more casual players a chance behind the wheel of the big ships.

[Bonk]

Good suggestion Jeff, I like it.

Like C-Los, I'll play anyway because I like the game. If I have to run all over the map to find PvP then so be it. (similarly I will not repeatedly engage a DN in a frigate just to be a pain in the ass, you won't make any frieinds that way... I prefer to show honour and good humour in battle so others will want to fight more battles against me...)

Not all non-nutters are arseholes. Or are we by definition? That is the impression I get here. Because I have a small ship does that mean I'll be cheesy, cheap and a cheater?

[Kroma BaSyl]

You also assume that any players in small ships are arseholes with no honour that will tie up a large ship in mission without engaging it... we had a rule against that. What happened to it? (not to mention I find it somewhat offensive)

here's the old SFC2.net rule:

When in a mission, fight or leave. Do not lead your opponents around the map wasting their time. There are many good run and chase strategies but staying in the map with no intentions of fighting is not one of them.

I have never assumed any such thing. You are confusing the issue of running someone around the map without engaging, with returning to the same hex you just got driven out of in the hope of getting lucky with an AI only mission, since you just learned that you couldn't beat the player guarding it. When I have seen this happen the player wasn't an arsehole leading me around, he was honorable and either flew straight off the map or straight in for a fight, but in both cases my PvP encounter was meaningless as he was back in the hex with in moments. Sometimes I picked him up again and sometimes I didn't. Eventually the times he didn't pick me up ladded up to me losing the hex, even though I had the strongest force (ie. ship/pilot skill) in the hex. I lost the hex to AI battles, and my PvP battles were rendered meaningless.

[Bonk]

Yes if the hex is being guarded by an enemy DN you need to get a wingman to unseat him, as it should be. You are also not allowed the benefit of trying to get lucky and draw an AI only mission under him even if he has previously forced you to disengage or has killed you in that hex, which is alos as it should be. There is now a real consiquence to losing in PvP, as the lose of PP has never had much effect as ships are to cheap and PP to easy to come by to ever serve as much of a deterent.

The problem there is that ships aren't cheap by my standards (when you have to play for 2-3 days to be able to afford another). The punishment of losing your ship should be enough... If you keep coming back then you'll just end up in a freighter with nowhere to go...

What is stopping smaller defending ships from running defensive missions over their DN guard?

What often happens, as I see it is the larger ship comes in to an area of an enemy offensive, bans a player from the hex and leaves it, then moves to the next important hex to ban more players from it. The rule is not being used as intended.

I think if a player has to leave a hex for an hour, then the victor has to stay in that same hex for an hour, to avoid this abuse of the rule.

[Kroma BaSyl]

So why do we have fewer players now?

Because it is a 4 year old game.