Topic: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)  (Read 13710 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2004, 09:22:52 pm »
It is very simple, if he can't maintain speed and fight he should leave.

So your saying that if a ship is too damaged to go fast and fight that they should have the common decency to get off the map and save you the trouble of killing them?

Offline Dizzy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6179
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2004, 09:26:29 pm »
Let's all hold hexx down and tickle him till he pees in his pants...

Offline Hexx

  • Sexy Shoeless Lyran God Of War
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6058
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2004, 09:48:48 pm »
It is very simple, if he can't maintain speed and fight he should leave.

So your saying that if a ship is too damaged to go fast and fight that they should have the common decency to get off the map and save you the trouble of killing them?

OK that's kinda an odd response but...

Actually I'd prefer it if they SD.
That way I waste as little as time as possible.

If the ship is too damaged to go fast and fight chances are he can't castle either.
Again (and I'm trying to ask this with small, one syllable words here)
Why is it a valid tactic to fly so slow and pump so much shield reinforcement into shields that a ship can't realy crack it, but not OK to put that energy into speed
and make the other guy fight your battle?

Again- I'm not saying one or the other has to leave, I'm asking if it's a legitimate tactic. And NOT wasting the other guys time.

Grim seems to say "No"- but no real reason given (and admits it's personal choice)
T00l seems to say "No", no actual reason given <- Im really starting to feel he doesn't like me, probably why he keeps blowing me up all the time.
I *think* Corbo is arguing No, because the ship might lose if it flies fast.
Wanderer seems to be arguing "No" because if you can't break a castle you should leave.
Green- I'm putting in the Yes column, just because I know he feels bad about killing me on WCH


Anyways -still looking for a decent, valid, interesting reason why it's considered OK to fly slow and make them come to you, but ridiculous
to ask someone to speed up and fight you.



Courageously Protesting "Lyran Pelt Day"

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2004, 10:17:04 pm »
Quote
Why is it a valid tactic to fly so slow and pump so much shield reinforcement into shields that a ship can't realy crack it, but not OK to put that energy into speed and make the other guy fight your battle?

If I understand your question correctly you answered it yourself. It is about forcing your opponent to fight your battle not his. Why would I want to fly fast and give you a chance to blow down my shields when I can "fly so slow and pump so much shield reinforcement into shields that a ship can't realy crack it" and beat you because you don't know what to do about a good OL overrun opportunity when you see it.

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2004, 10:17:54 pm »
Quote
...by flying at spd 3-8 and castling, without a chance to catch me, the castler is wasting my time as well.

I completely disagree.  By castling, your opponent is forcing you to either engage and break his castle or leave.

Seems pretty simple to me.  If you don't have the moxie to break the castle, then you should leave.  That's the way I have always interpreted it.


By maintaining speed I'm forcing my opponent to either speed up and engage or leave.
It is very simple, if he can't maintain speed and fight he should leave.

Um, think about that one for a sec.  You may want to re-word it.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2004, 10:31:24 pm »
I'll ask you a question.

As an ISC pilot, I'm usually in a much stronger positon by starcastling instead of going at speed.

In doing so, I'm setting myself up for a 1/2 hour to hour + battle.  It'll take my PPDs that long to sand down shields at range 20-30.

Meanwhile, you're going to tell me, probably demand of me, to give up my strength in order to attack you in a "timely" manner?

If you're that impatient, why don't you give up your strength in order to force me to engage you on terms more to your liking... ie, castle yourself...

Although someone like my ISC ship will probably enjoy your sudden choice to castle and start pegging you with some plasma... :D

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline Green

  • I'm not a
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3004
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2004, 10:41:20 pm »
By castling, your opponent is forcing you to either engage and break his castle or leave.

And by maintaining speed, your opponent is forcing you to either speed up and engage or leave.

What is the difference?

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2004, 10:53:29 pm »
Well, realistically, if he is sitting there doing nothing and you are flying around out of range (your's and his) doing nothing, you are both hosers  :P. I will usually pick up speed to close the distance and then recamp when they begin their attack run. Eventually they run out of map and have to choose between me and the line.

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2004, 11:21:02 pm »
The difference is, Green, that one combatant is facing towards his opponent (i.e. engaging) while one is facing away (i.e. not engaging).

Speed is irrelevant. It's clear who is choosing to engage and who is not.

el-Karnak

  • Guest
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2004, 11:51:16 pm »
Now everyone understands why Taldren put in missions timers for SFC3 where on the D3 dyna the mission ends if no shots are fired after 10 minutes.  :)

Offline WarSears

  • <MEAN FACE> @ Nail
  • Hot and Spicy
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 355
  • Gender: Male
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2004, 12:24:47 am »
The difference is, Green, that one combatant is facing towards his opponent (i.e. engaging) while one is facing away (i.e. not engaging).

Speed is irrelevant. It's clear who is choosing to engage and who is not.

I couldn't disagre with you more I can fly between range 15 and 20 and fire dizzy at you all day and I'm still engaging. Tell me one good reason I should have to fight the way you want.
War-Sears
Klingon Black Fleet



762_XC

  • Guest
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2004, 12:50:08 am »
Are you doing damage at that range? If so, good for you, good fight.

If not, get off the map and stop wasting someone's time.

You fight whatever way you want to, as long as you're fighting. The definition of "fighting" in this case is doing damage and having the potential of winning.

If you can't do that get off the board.

Fight or leave. It's that simple.

Offline Hexx

  • Sexy Shoeless Lyran God Of War
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6058
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2004, 07:47:00 am »
Are you doing damage at that range? If so, good for you, good fight.

If not, get off the map and stop wasting someone's time.

You fight whatever way you want to, as long as you're fighting. The definition of "fighting" in this case is doing damage and having the potential of winning.

If you can't do that get off the board.

Fight or leave. It's that simple.


Hmmm
I'll assume that's an convulted way of saying I can circle the castler at range long as I'm popping off a few dizzies.
Cool.
Courageously Protesting "Lyran Pelt Day"

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2004, 09:05:01 am »
If you can't even crack a shield then you're not engaging.

The only reason you should be on the map is if you intend to do damage. If you're only there to tie someone up you're breaking the rules.

Offline Green

  • I'm not a
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3004
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2004, 09:28:06 am »
Well, realistically, if he is sitting there doing nothing and you are flying around out of range (your's and his) doing nothing, you are both hosers  :P. I will usually pick up speed to close the distance and then recamp when they begin their attack run. Eventually they run out of map and have to choose between me and the line.
I agree.

The difference is, Green, that one combatant is facing towards his opponent (i.e. engaging) while one is facing away (i.e. not engaging).

Speed is irrelevant. It's clear who is choosing to engage and who is not.
I don't completely agree.  Only because you have made the assumption that one of them isn't facing - and firing - at their opponent.  If one player is flying a slow castling plasma ship and the other one has hellbores ... the HB player is going to want to keep a nice 15+ range, at speed, and plink away.

Offline Firehawk

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Gender: Male
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2004, 09:40:08 am »
Yeah but that argument goes both ways also.  The return fire is not cracking my shield either and don't give me the "I am moving faster so it is I who should engage" argument, as long as I am firing I am engaging.  I don't have a problem with people castling but don't expect me to play your game and charge right in to get blasted.  If you castle then I am going to plink at you at range 10-20(even if it has no chance of penetrating your shield at that range) until you get bored and speed up or make a mistake and give me an opening and if that takes 3 hours then so be it.  You know where the border is also.

Here is a situation that I encounterd on gw2.  I am in a L-CWLP vs a H-PAL.  The paladin is more than capable of destroying  me without having to castle but the pilot chooses to do so anyway.  He is going speed three with full overloads doesn't fire a shot at me because I am not stupid enough to charge into overloaded range.  I am making range 10 passes firing my disruptors and phasers but he never returns fire because I am out of overloaded range so since he in not firing he should concede and leave because he refuses to engage, but he accuses me of wasting his time even though he never fired a shot or launched his fighters.  After about 30 min of this he finally got pissed enough that he sped up and did battle.  He did eventually kill me but I made him do it on my terms not his.  Only a stupid commander plays to the enemies strenghs.
Firehawk of the Romulan SPQR

Offline Laflin

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2004, 09:55:25 am »
I can see Firehawk's point, especially since he used the Lyrans in his example.  With no real long range heavy weapons or tracking weapons, the Lyrans almost always have to fly running battles.  The same can be said for the Klinks.  Just as I wouldn't expect a plasma or photon ship to engage at high speed, conversely I wouldn't expect a dogfighter to slow down and trade blows in a fight he can't win.  It seems to me that pilot discretion is the biggest factor in leaving or not - if it appears you can't win, is it worth the time to stick around, especially if others are running missions under you?

Offline madelf

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2004, 10:14:18 am »
Castling
Some like it, some hate it.
Some of us are simply StarCastling twats

In any event (without flames... although we havent had any kinda flamewar in like... forever)

Most servers have an interesting little rule that says you must engage, you can't fly around the map wasting the other guys time.
Basis of the rule is you must fight (as I understand it)

Now on GW..uhmm..3 I thin it was I flew against a few pilots that castled, some completely outgunned my ship, some didn't.
The ship I was in was not suited (imho) to breaking a castle.
So I refused to engage. I flew around outside their weapon range until they sped up a bit (15+) where I proceeded to attack, they'd usually slow back down to 3-8, and I'd fly out of their range again.
rinse & repeat.
A few laughed it off, one or two got kinda upset that *I* was refusing to enage them

I'm not trying to accuse anyone or say they were wrong and I was right, but if (read "when") this situation occurse again, who's in the right? The guy who refuse to fight a castler, or the guy that flies at spd 3 -8 pouring everything he can into shileds etc?

I Love to see a guy castle on me, unless he's in a DN vs my little droner (that's just silly).

Offline Hexx

  • Sexy Shoeless Lyran God Of War
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 6058
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2004, 10:16:11 am »
Yeah , but you're kinda weird anyway so..
Courageously Protesting "Lyran Pelt Day"

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: OK Rules interpretation needed (well it might be)
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2004, 10:37:56 am »
Yeah but that argument goes both ways also.  The return fire is not cracking my shield either and don't give me the "I am moving faster so it is I who should engage" argument, as long as I am firing I am engaging.  I don't have a problem with people castling but don't expect me to play your game and charge right in to get blasted.  If you castle then I am going to plink at you at range 10-20(even if it has no chance of penetrating your shield at that range) until you get bored and speed up or make a mistake and give me an opening and if that takes 3 hours then so be it.  You know where the border is also.

Here is a situation that I encounterd on gw2.  I am in a L-CWLP vs a H-PAL.  The paladin is more than capable of destroying  me without having to castle but the pilot chooses to do so anyway.  He is going speed three with full overloads doesn't fire a shot at me because I am not stupid enough to charge into overloaded range.  I am making range 10 passes firing my disruptors and phasers but he never returns fire because I am out of overloaded range so since he in not firing he should concede and leave because he refuses to engage, but he accuses me of wasting his time even though he never fired a shot or launched his fighters.  After about 30 min of this he finally got pissed enough that he sped up and did battle.  He did eventually kill me but I made him do it on my terms not his.  Only a stupid commander plays to the enemies strenghs.

The H-PAL is a perfect example of a ship that has no choice BUT to castle. The thing simply cannot move with weapons armed.

I have nothing against sabre dancing. It's a tactic, just like castling. At range 10 you might have a chance of success even. If you are doing damage, great. If you are not, you're wasting someone's time.

My biggest issue is with someone in a smaller ship who chooses to tie up a dreadnought by staying at range 30 and plinking away. That is NOT a valid tactic, as he has no hopes of winning.

If you can't break the castle, get off the map. With a dreadnought vs a war cruiser, what do you expect?

"Waiting out the castle" is simply a fancy way of saying "refusing to engage".