Topic: SGO4 Rules.. "clarifications"

[Hexx]

OK thought I'd post this here as not to clutter up Dizzy's thread

- For upgrading ships ,i.e. DN->DNG->DNH are cps used or BP's?
  if it's CP's (as I assume it is) are the "only 1/2 of CP's spent on a certain ship" rules applicable?
ie- I can't use 4CP's to build 4 of the same kind of ship. Can I use 4 cps to upgrade 4 of the same kind of ship on the same cycle?


- Bounties- not trying to start a debate, but might it not be better to only use bounties in weelk #2 and #3? I'd hate to assign
a bounty on say Blade and Frey, tehn find out they weren't planning on playing until the super-cheese showed up. Or that one of them decided
to fly a CL. Or even assign bounties on Day2 of the server after we know who's flying what ships.

[Dizzy]

its pretty clear its 4x ships, not 4 upgrades. so ur ok there.

bounties... read the whole thing. your answer is at the bottom.

[FPF-Wanderer]

Next clarification, concering the ship building schedule:

It is listed thus; -The server starts in year 2271 and runs at a pace of 2 game years every three days.

So, you want the first round of builds before the server kicks off (Noon EST Saturday), and this will cover the ships with FYA 2271-72 or earlier;  the second round of builds posted before Noon EST Tueday, covering ships with FYA 2273-74 or earlier; the 3rd round posted before Noon EST Friday, covering ships with FYA 2275-76 or earlier; etc, etc...

Sound correct?

Also, concerning the ISC;  originally it was posted that the ISC could not advance more than two hexes into Alliance/Coalition territory.  This has been changed?  They can advance as far as they like, as long as the Equal Pacification clause is followed?

[Dizzy]

Yes, and the ISC rules have been clarified.

[Hexx]

Next clarification, concering the ship building schedule:

It is listed thus; -The server starts in year 2271 and runs at a pace of 2 game years every three days.

So, you want the first round of builds before the server kicks off (Noon EST Saturday), and this will cover the ships with FYA 2271-72 or earlier;  the second round of builds posted before Noon EST Tueday, covering ships with FYA 2273-74 or earlier; the 3rd round posted before Noon EST Friday, covering ships with FYA 2275-76 or earlier; etc, etc...

Sound correct?

Also, concerning the ISC;  originally it was posted that the ISC could not advance more than two hexes into Alliance/Coalition territory.  This has been changed?  They can advance as far as they like, as long as the Equal Pacification clause is followed?

Whoops
So just to make absolutely 100% that I'm not screwing this up
First round builds can be 2271 or 72 ships
Second round can be 2273 or 74 etc?

[Dizzy]

Yessa. So for the 71 builds, a ship that comes out in 72 will be bought early.

[762_XC]

Hydran: No more than 50% Hellbores fighters.

You forgot to mention heavy fighters, and which ships can carry them, and how many, and how they don't count against the 50% hellbore rule.

X-fighters too.

Also, which ship refits are free, and which cost a CP?

[Dizzy]

Did you read th whole thing?

Hydran: No more than 50% Hellbores fighters.
50% Max ST-H (Helebore) fighters. 
Ships with only one squad may use ST-H fighters.
Stinger X fighters are ONLY allowed on X-ships
Heavy Stinger fighters replace PFs. 
Heavy Fighters are only allowed on the following ships in these numbers:
H-DWLh   2
H-sAPAh   2
H-sBARh   2
H-sCHAh   2
H-sCHCh   2
H-sIRCh   2
H-sIRFh   2
H-sMKIh   2
H-cOVh   2
H-cOM    4
H-sTHRh   2
H-cLGE+h 2
H-cIDh    4
H-cDNWf   2
H-cDNMf   2
H-cREGh   2
H-cMNRh   2

I'd like not to repost it... it can be taken out of context.

neway, ship refits will be posted soon and everything that has a lower case 's' costs 1 CP. It's all in the thread.

[Green]

I got a good laugh out of the Hexx Clause you placed in the rules. 

In addition, each side will be allowed to announce a protection order for one of their captains granting only this person immunity from a bounty for one bounty cycle, as their empire has made extensive efforts to protect this Captains and his or her identity.

[762_XC]

Didn't see that. Thankee.

[GDA-Agave]

Hey Diz,

Just thought you might want to fill in the 'x' and the 'y' now since you're posting all the rules.

Disengagement/Destruction Rule:


If you are forced to Disengage in a PvP match, then you are banned from the hex you either took the mission in or were drafted in for 'x' number of turns. If your ship was destroyed then you are banned from that hex for 'y' number of turns.

Just thought I'd mention it.


Agave

[Dizzy]

Turns run 6 minutes. So I'm either thinking 10 for destruction and 20 turns for disengagement which would be an hour and then two hours. Or 5 and 10 turns which are 30mins and then 1 hour...

What do you all think? I think two hours is too long.

[762_XC]

I don't. There's still plenty o targets to hit if you get chased out.

10 and 20.

[Dizzy]

I'm thinking 5 and 15. that's 30 mins for getting killed and an hour and thirty mins for disengaging. the latter I think will be acceptable to everyone, but some may not like the 30 min ban for getting killed as it seems short. But consider this, every ship is worth a VC. And you got the DV shift too. I think it's weighted appropriately.

[Mog]

If every player ship is worth VPs then why not do away with the time penalty for those killed?

[GDA-Agave]

Might I interject that I think 10 turns should be the largest penalty for disengaging.   I mean, if turns are 6 minutes long, that's an hour you've been cleared off the hex.   Think about the player that spends maybe 3 to 4 hours max at one time on the server.    25-33% of his time has been taken away from participating in a large battle over something vital.  While an hour may be a speedbump for the nutters, that's a big penalty for others.

Also, let me add this.   I also believe that the penalty for being destroyed or disengaging should be the same.   I've never understood why a player who had been destroyed gets a break.    Ok, sure, he lost his ship.   That in itself is a penalty, EXCEPT for the nutter who can buy lots more ships.   Doesn't this promote a 'kamikaze' type mentality.   I've seen this happen several times during GW servers, and I'm not fond of it.   Sure, it is a type of tactic, if his fellow pilots can grab the often wounded victor before he leaves the hex, but how often does this really work?

And finally.   I have always thought the death/disengagement rule is all about (1) overwhelming an opponent so that you can take a planet/base/etc without much interference, and (2) promoting a player to fight his best over tactically important sites.   If you raise the disengagement penalty to more than 10 turns, the attacking pilots would really only have to runoff the defenders ONCE before focusing on the planet/base/etc.    Is that what we really want??  To actually REDUCE the amount of PvP around important sites!!   What about those empires that don't have as many pilots to bring to bear?   Aren't we putting them at MORE of a disadvantage now?  I know it's a mute point if the defenders can continually be successful, but even the best of us have our bad missions. (me flying with Dizzy for example,  )  Isn't an hour long enough??

So, to conclude my rambling.   I would like to see the death/disengagement rule penatly to be 5/10 turns (30/60 minutes), or a flat 10 turns penalty.   That to me is plenty.

Just my humble thoughts,

Agave

[Dizzy]

I agree with Agave. 5/10. And mog has a very good point. Why have a penalty for dying when u lose VC's for doing so? Mb just for getting run off...?

[762_XC]

I think with that short amount of time the Disengagement Rule doesn't have the effect it should. The DR is supposed to strike a balance between hex flippers and PvP and on previous servers it has strongly favored flippers.

Let's try 10/20. That's only a 10 minute difference from what it was on Storm Season 2.

P.S. Making them the same would reduce the amount of PvP. You want to encourage people to stay and fight, not taco bell if they think they don't have an advantage. Longer penalties do that.

[Dizzy]

5/15.

[762_XC]

9/18.