Topic: AoTK II Rules!!

[SkyFlyer]

Um, you pulled the disengagment rule? Think that might be triming a bit too far?

I agree, keep the disengagement rule and add no disengagement allowed if not adjacent to allied or neutral hex.

X2

[Kroma BaSyl]

  Kroma and Hexx have access there so start lobbying for a vote change over there.   

I won't lobby you to change your vote. I have stated my opinion of it. If the rule is in I will play, if it isn't I won't waste my time as I suspect the majority of players won't bother either.

[el-Karnak]

  Kroma and Hexx have access there so start lobbying for a vote change over there.   

I won't lobby you to change your vote. I have stated my opinion of it. If the rule is in I will play, if it isn't I won't waste my time as I suspect the majority of players won't bother either.

x3.

No disengagement rule is a dyna killer and will negate any hard work put in the dyna by all techies.

[Hexx]

Blah blah blah

1) - Kreug will vote for the disengagement rule, I've winged with him enough and gotten him killed
      while winging with him to hear about his opinion on everything

2)- Chuut (while of dubious ethical and intellectual nature-the boy does fly kzin) didn't say try and change his mind
     He said post yer thoughts in the Kitty forum and that he will go with the majority (Kroma's done this, anyone else pls post there)

3)  Uhmm, had a third point a second ago. 
   

[GDA-Agave]

Taking out the disengagement rule would be a mistake.   It's not like you're run out of the hex permanently.   It's just gives the PvP winning side a time reprieve from their enemies while they take or reinforce a hex.

Now, a possible compromise would be to reduce the time penality for disengaging.   It seems it has become a common penality of aprox. 1 hour for disengaging.    Cut it in half maybe, but please do not remove it.   That would be a mistake in my opinion.

[Braxton_RIP]

Taking out the disengagement rule would be a mistake.   It's not like you're run out of the hex permanently.   It's just gives the PvP winning side a time reprieve from their enemies while they take or reinforce a hex.

Now, a possible compromise would be to reduce the time penality for disengaging.   It seems it has become a common penality of aprox. 1 hour for disengaging.    Cut it in half maybe, but please do not remove it.   That would be a mistake in my opinion.

This brings up another interesting question.  If you get banned from a hex, is it just that account, or is it all you accounts?

[Hexx]

It's the player banned from the hex, not the account.

[KAT J'inn]

Rule Page updated based on RM input.


SERVER STARTS SATURDAY . . .  HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, and PEOPLEWARE Dependant

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Make inclusion of the disengagement rule unanimous, my group has spoken on the Kitty forums and I endorse their wishes 100% without any reservations for this server.  As Rm I put my wishes secondary to that of my team.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Oh and J'inn please add that a LOS is needed for base placement if this is the case (I assume it is) for clarification.

Also is LOS needed for taking a planet or is any planet neutral or enemy a potential deepstrike objective.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

5) PF/FIGHTER CNC:

Die Hard???

Still waiting on this one.

[Hexx]

Peopleware?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Peopleware?

Yeah how many cabin boys Kroma wears out if he doesn't have enough to last him J'inn and Die Hard will be forced into hiding and be unable to run the server.

[Mazeppa]

It was ATOK 1 that made it perfectly clear that a disengagement rule was necessary or the dyna would die. Leaving it out would be a major mistake. It is probably the one critical rule to any server, all other rules are window dressing. Without it there is abolutely no reason to PvP, which quite frankly is the only reason I would bother to play anymore.

I agree with Miss Samsonite.

[FPF-DieHard]

5) PF/FIGHTER CNC:

Die Hard???

Still waiting on this one.

it's going to be very simple, like Fed Gatling retsritions, H-Heavy fighter restrictions, and the PF CnC will be the same as the GW series.

Hell no decent fighters will be out the first week anyway so we can start without it 

I'll write something up tonight after we get the 2263 test up and running.

[Marikar]

Server will start on Saturday.  whoot great.   Oh fiddle hang on thets the start of the summer holiday and I'm taking the Family to Norfolk for 2 weeks at the start of August.

[KAT J'inn]

RULES UPDATED!!!


Chuuts Disengagement Modification put in.   

Very close to casting them in stone.   Last call for Bitching!!!  I mean input.

[Braxton_RIP]

RULES UPDATED!!!


Chuuts Disengagement Modification put in.   

Very close to casting them in stone.   Last call for Bitching!!!  I mean input.

How about the "I.W.I.N." rule?  At any time the Alliance may say " I win" and they instantly win 

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

RULES UPDATED!!!


Chuuts Disengagement Modification put in.   

Very close to casting them in stone.   Last call for Bitching!!!  I mean input.

Still waiting for a reply on these issuess that  I previously asked about.

Oh and J'inn please add that a LOS is needed for base placement if this is the case (I assume it is) for clarification.

Also is LOS needed for taking a planet or is any planet neutral or enemy a potential deepstrike objective

[KAT J'inn]

Oh and J'inn please add that a LOS is needed for base placement if this is the case (I assume it is) for clarification.

Also is LOS needed for taking a planet or is any planet neutral or enemy a potential deepstrike objective

For the first one I'm thinking no.   If you put it in an unsecure place it won't last long anyways so it seems like it doesn't matter.

For the second one I'm thinking no also.   You need the LOS for the VCs to matter anyways.  So deepstrike away, you still have to build and hold a bridge eventually.


Again, trying to avoid rules if at all possible.