Topic: New Server Rules Ideas

[Hexx]

Well just having watched Ottawa slap Toronto around I'm in a good mood
came up with some new (well actually old, I just stole them) ideas to possibly be tested on a future server

- Scouts -
If a fleet includes a scout, the enemy may not disengage from the battle without the side with the scout's
permission

-pros: Takes away (maybe) some firepower from the 3 player fleets, gives scouts some actual use, might add a tiny bit
        of strategy to creating units rather than just throwing the three best together (would now be the two best and a scout)
-cons: Someone has to fly the scout

Carriers
CVA's are supposed to be protected above all, therefore
A)If a CVA flies with wingmen, one must be an escort. Therefore if a CVA flies with one wing, it would have to be an escort
Two wings could include one escort and one other legal ship. Of course if the escort crashes out, the mission can still be flown
but you would be unable to fly a mission with a CVA & 2 non-escorts

B)No two carriers can fly together unless one is a CVE.

Heavy Battlecruisers
-Heavy Battlecruisers may wing with other BCH's (max of two )
BCV's/BCS's may not

Disengagement
-The first time a player disengages with a Capital ship they are subject to normal disengagement rules
 The second time they are out 2x as long or surrender X vps
 The third time they are out  3x as long or surrender 2X vps
The above would probably be over a (roughly) 24hr period as I don;t think anyone wants to
really keep track that long, let alone longer

Dreadnoughts
DN's may only wing with non-specialty ships
unless the ship in question is a scout or escort (?)
This means no DN -Carrier/droner/Fast Cruiser/ combos

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Looks like alot of rules with very little reward for them.

Note:  While it would be cool to have scouts useful for something,  I'm not sure this is the way to go.  The best use fior them would be if a scout pilot could see icon movement and terrain features 2 hexes away, but this  isn't possible now 9at least to my knowlegde).


As for wingman requirements, drafting is too much hit and miss to make this feasible.

As for 2 BCHs winging, some race's BCHs are more than a match for other races BCVs and I think this would be unbalancing if BCHs were allowed to wing but BCVs weren't.

As for longer disengagement penalties for capital shipsafter multiple engagements. I think this would just cut down on PvP matches between larger ships...... and only encourages a move to the larger capital ships so as to not be chased out.for extended periods.  If you want to get players out of the heavy iron more, shortening the penalty for non capital ships would likely have more impact in the desired direction.  Another possible way would be to extend the penalty for the capital ships based on size.   Say  1.5x the standard penalty for BCHs 2x for DNs, 3x for Battleships. I'd also give the capital ship pilot a 0.5x discount if he was forced to disengage in a mission where he had no wingman.

[Hexx]

Thanks Chuut, I guess you're right about the BCH's
-was just a thought I had for getting a 2v2 BCH match
Still I guess if all players wanted one on a server they coul set it up themselves.

I'd disagree about the drafting being too hit or miss,there's a few players
who are still that way, but for the most part you tend to be able to draft for your wing
without huge issues.
I'm not saying it is a perfect idea, but I think it's technically feasible to set a CV(A/PFT) up with an escort
that should be drafting for them.

The scout idea is actually one suggestedby someone (Scip?) in another thread- I like the idea, actually I love the idea
but I'm not actually sure if anyone wold use it. CVA+NAC+ Scout would be cool, but it'd still get whipped by a
CVA+NAC+CCH.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

If you want to add something for scouts, perhaps you increase the disengagement penalty by 50% in a mission where a player on the winning side is flying a scout, and it survives the mission.

One reason I don't like the no disengement option you proposed would be situations where someone was flying a Dreadnaught or Battleship and drafted an opponent in a smaller ship.  Making that opponent stay and face certain destruction by the heavy iron while the scout just sat back seems to be a sure way to frustrate players, especially casual players without much prestige in the bank and newer players.

P.S.  I'd be careful about taking too many ideas from S'Cipio.  While it was not a bad idea in  the distant past when he lived near me and I could tell him what to think  , now that he lives in DC it isn't advisable.  I mean what good ever came out of Washington D.C.?  J'inn is also living in D.C., need I say more?

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Scouts in SFB had special scout functions, they could lend EM to other ships, take over drone control etc. none of which we have in SFC. Scouts also had better sensors for tactical intelligence (which we do have in SFC to a limited automated capacity).

An idea for making Scouts useful in SFC arose awhile back, where a single Scout vessel was to be employed to 'scout' out enemy terrain. Scouts are not really combat capable, but with their advanced sensors and scanners would detect enemy ships before being detected. One possible way to emply this in game, was to make a loan scout vessel exempt to the deepstrike rule. Since a scout is not likely to win very many engagements anyway (even against AI), essentially the scouting player could only really move around the board with impunity, but mostly only by losing missions (certainly deepstriking a base or planet would be impossible). The disengagement rule should still apply, however, since once the Scout has been discovered and its warp signiture identified and tracked by the enemy, it has lost its element of secrecy.

[Dizzy]

Karnak and I tried to get a scout to give in mission ECM bonuses. Wouldnt work. We tried by class and there doesnt seem to be anything in the script to get a ship to add to its shift bonus. Mb you could take a look, tracey? My idea was to reclass all vessels scouts as carriers and designate carriers in the scripts to generate ECM bonus for their team. Karnak couldnt figure out how to do it.

[el-Karnak]

Karnak and I tried to get a scout to give in mission ECM bonuses. Wouldnt work. We tried by class and there doesnt seem to be anything in the script to get a ship to add to its shift bonus. Mb you could take a look, tracey? My idea was to reclass all vessels scouts as carriers and designate carriers in the scripts to generate ECM bonus for their team. Karnak couldnt figure out how to do it.

Actually, I don't remember trying to re-class ships in-mission.  I must have never gotten to this action item.

[Dizzy]

U didnt. I reclassed all scouts as Carriers. Then in your script u tried to get the carrier class to trigger an ECM bonus for all ships on that side if present. I think you said there wasnt any code for ecm or shift bonuses...

[el-Karnak]

U didnt. I reclassed all scouts as Carriers. Then in your script u tried to get the carrier class to trigger an ECM bonus for all ships on that side if present. I think you said there wasnt any code for ecm or shift bonuses...

OK, that's sounds more plausible. I think that I think I said that too.  I think that I think that  mSetFighter() stuff was not working either for the EEK AI stuff. I think that I think that I was trying also to ram in Hornets on Hydran ships and kept getting funny itty, bitty Killer Bees.

[Dizzy]

Yeah, that setfighter stuff was crap.

[762_XC]

Do a real disengagment rule Hexx.

1 hex radius, all over the map.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Do a real disengagment rule Hexx.

1 hex radius, all over the map.

And a map the size of the one used in Artic fire to go along with it 

[FPF-DieHard]

Do a real disengagment rule Hexx.

1 hex radius, all over the map.

And a map the size of the one used in Artic fire to go along with it 

What Chuut says, this needs to be dependent on the size of the map.

[762_XC]

Articfire's would have needed a 12 hex radius.

Does anybody really want another Sockfoot server? This is getting too boring.

[Hexx]

Articfire's would have needed a 12 hex radius.

Does anybody really want another Sockfoot server? This is getting too boring.

Err
what was Sockfoot's server?


And just a thought- (seriously, haven't thought about any downsides)
what about if you disengage in a Cap ship ou aren't only out of the hex but you have
to sell the ship?
Seems to be a good idea to me.. but I think I'm missing something..

[762_XC]

Sockfoot was somebody who wrote a long D2 term paper which basically said PvP should be avoided at all costs, because running quick missions against the AI was the only way to win a server.

It was written way back in Articfire days but unfortunately it's still true.

[ShadowLord]

One initial thought I had about new server rules --

I dont have any problem with FF class ships not being worth any pts for a PVP kill however, I believe any ship making deepstrikes should be worth a VP regardless of their size.

[FPF-DieHard]

And just a thought- (seriously, haven't thought about any downsides)
what about if you disengage in a Cap ship ou aren't only out of the hex but you have
to sell the ship?
Seems to be a good idea to me.. but I think I'm missing something..

The Storm Seaon 2 rule was perfect.   If you disengaged in a DN in an even numbered engagement, you gave up VC points (5 points, 20 if a DN was killed).   This was the last time I remember people fighting tool and nail while in DNs.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Sockfoot was somebody who wrote a long D2 term paper which basically said PvP should be avoided at all costs, because running quick missions against the AI was the only way to win a server.

It was written way back in Articfire days but unfortunately it's still true.

Actually Sockfoot was one of the most skilled and honorable pilots ever to play the game.  He advocated not fighting a battle on the enemies terms but rather adopting strategy that best suited the goal of your side.  This could be PvP or it could be hex flipping, he wrote a piece on how to hex-flip but wasn't limited by only that train of thought as some (who never knew him)  would portray him to be.   He actually believed in the concept of strategy rather than getting into the most uber PvP ship you could find and refusing to get out of it, preferring not to think but just sitting on a front line hexx with your best wing combination and waiting for someone to draft you.

He wasn't just a hex flipper like some would like to portray him as, although he could hex flip if it was called for, he was also skilled in PvP and one of the best ever at strategy and having more impact from his missions than could ever be achieved by mindless hex flipping.  So I call a sockfoot server one that makes it possible to use your brain to explore numerous strqategic options not limited by inordinate numbers of server rules restrictions (aimed at Nerfing those who know how to use such tactics) that are imposed because someone doesn't want to have to use their brain to counter their opposition and would rather sit on one hex in their awesome PvP boat to do so.

Now there are some good rules and many of these are necessary, but they should be made to achieve balance and to allow for all levels of strategy.

[Hexx]

   This was the last time I remember people fighting tool and nail while in DNs.

Miss having someone on your side?

I've fought tool lot's of times with his DN's, he refuses to fight me in an even BP match..

It worked though? I can see people taking a 5pt loss than risking a 20 pt loss,

[Hexx]

Sockfoot was somebody who wrote a long D2 term paper which basically said PvP should be avoided at all costs, because running quick missions against the AI was the only way to win a server.

It was written way back in Articfire days but unfortunately it's still true.

Actually Sockfoot was one of the most skilled and honorable pilots ever to play the game.  He advocated not fighting a battle on the enemies terms but rather adopting strategy that best suited the goal of your side.  He actually believed in the concept of strategy rather than getting into the most uber PvP ship you could find and refusing to get out of it, preferring not to think but just sitting on a front line hexx with your best wing combination and waiting for someone to draft you.

He wasn't just a hex flipper like some would like to portray him as, although he could hex flip if it was called for, he was also skilled in PvP and one of the best ever at strategy and having more impact from his missions than could ever be achieved by mindless hex flipping.  So I call a sockfoot server one that makes it possible to use your brain to explore numerous strqategic options not limited by inordinate numbers of server rules restrictions (aimed at Nerfing those who know how to use such tactics) that are imposed because someone doesn't want to have to use their brain to counter their opposition and would rather sit on one hex in their awesome PvP boat to do so.

Now there are some good rules and many of these are necessary, but they should be made to achieve balance and to allow for all levels of strategy.

I'm trying to find a balance that doesn't give the server to the side with the best mission times, but also limits the number of the "PVP Boats" over the server
by having those knocked out be unreplacable. I've seen both over the past few servers and am not particularly fond of either.
(Unless it's me in the uber PVP bateau)

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Civil war servers should work well,  yopu can alolow lots of freedoms since the shiplists will be the same for all.

[Hexx]

Civil war servers should work well,  yopu can alolow lots of freedoms since the shiplists will be the same for all.

Speaking of those..
Did you know the Kzin had their own late-era Civil War?

Now we have yet another one to work on...   

[FPF-DieHard]

It worked though? I can see people taking a 5pt loss than risking a 20 pt loss,

Yes, it worked.   People did there damndest to not get chased off.  This also made and hour long battle that ends in disengamnet worht something.

I bagged over 10 DNs and lost 2 that server.   When was the last time we had that level of attrtion?

Make DN/BCH ships worth something if run off and you will see PvP get dirty again.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Civil war servers should work well,  yopu can alolow lots of freedoms since the shiplists will be the same for all.

Speaking of those..
Did you know the Kzin had their own late-era Civil War?

Now we have yet another one to work on...   

Actually the Kzin had tons of early and extra early Civil wars, that would be a real fun server!

[Hexx]

Civil war servers should work well,  yopu can alolow lots of freedoms since the shiplists will be the same for all.

Speaking of those..
Did you know the Kzin had their own late-era Civil War?

Now we have yet another one to work on...   

Actually the Kzin had tons of early and extra early Civil wars, that would be a real fun server!

LOL I can barely kill something with spd 32 dronez, I don't want to think about spd 16...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

LOL I can barely kill something with spd 32 dronez, I don't want to think about spd 16...

Just think about how much easier they appear to be to avoid 

I think we need to have a Kzin Civil war where the phaser 3 knife fights get really down and dirty, not one where people are killing each other with fast drones from range 30.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

It worked though? I can see people taking a 5pt loss than risking a 20 pt loss,

Yes, it worked.   People did there damndest to not get chased off.  This also made and hour long battle that ends in disengamnet worht something.

I bagged over 10 DNs and lost 2 that server.   When was the last time we had that level of attrtion?

Make DN/BCH ships worth something if run off and you will see PvP get dirty again.

I agree pretty much with what Die Hard said, although perhaps the DNs could be scaled by BPV (adjusted if necessary for fighters and pfs)  so that for example  a DNL forcing a DNH to disengage might be worth slightly more than the DNH forcing the DNL to disengage.

[762_XC]

Too complicated. You don't need a rule to balance this when the shiplist already does it. People shouldn't even be flying DNL's when DNH's are out.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Too complicated. You don't need a rule to balance this when the shiplist already does it. People shouldn't even be flying DNL's when DNH's are out.

Well that was just an example, fact is some DNs are not even close to being balanced and perhaps we should consider some minor adjustments for that, just something to consider.

As for it being too complicated, it could be simplified by assigning a standard disengage VC award based on the ship before the server.  For example a F-DNG is worth 5 pts a Fed DNH is worth 7.  Make it a little more costly if you are forced out flying the biggest baddest boat. 

[el-Karnak]

Civil war servers should work well,  yopu can alolow lots of freedoms since the shiplists will be the same for all.

Speaking of those..
Did you know the Kzin had their own late-era Civil War?

Now we have yet another one to work on...   

Actually the Kzin had tons of early and extra early Civil wars, that would be a real fun server!

But, where's the part about the ISC coming in with their CAs and CCs thingies and BBQing, err....I mean, Pacifying everybody? 

[762_XC]

Too complicated. You don't need a rule to balance this when the shiplist already does it. People shouldn't even be flying DNL's when DNH's are out.

Well that was just an example, fact is some DNs are not even close to being balanced and perhaps we should consider some minor adjustments for that, just something to consider.

As for it being too complicated, it could be simplified by assigning a standard disengage VC award based on the ship before the server.  For example a F-DNG is worth 5 pts a Fed DNH is worth 7.  Make it a little more costly if you are forced out flying the biggest baddest boat. 

No one in his right mind will fly a DNG over a DNH. You can assign a 2 point VC difference or a 200 point difference. It won't matter.

Don't make rules more complicated just for the sake of doing so. There has to be a gameplay benefit for it to be worth it.

[Hexx]

That is likely my fault, I had spread the DN's I suggested out with some having
the heavy upgrade and some not.
Probably far easier (and more fair) to have them all have the upgrades rather than worry about
wha's tougher than what.

[Dfly]

Just a thought.  How about having say only 2 or 3 size DNs in total?  Say a DNL, a DNH, and a BB?  Skip all the other stuff and make it a little more simple.  Have all the races that would be in it having such said ships have equality(as close as can be achieved).  If it makes things down to  2 DNs per race, or 4, so be it.

This would be in conjunction with the emphasis on having a (as used for example somewhere above) 5 DV shift for running and a 20 DV shift for dying.

[762_XC]

There's nothing wrong with having multiple classes of DN's. It's all part of ebb & flow.

Some DN's will not be flown after a while. Nothing wrong with that.

Some races have better DN's than other races. Nothing wrong with that either, as long as the best DN available to each side are more or less balanced.

By "balanced" I mean a fleet with side A's best DN is not grossly outgunned by a fleet with side B's best DN.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Too complicated. You don't need a rule to balance this when the shiplist already does it. People shouldn't even be flying DNL's when DNH's are out.

Well that was just an example, fact is some DNs are not even close to being balanced and perhaps we should consider some minor adjustments for that, just something to consider.

As for it being too complicated, it could be simplified by assigning a standard disengage VC award based on the ship before the server.  For example a F-DNG is worth 5 pts a Fed DNH is worth 7.  Make it a little more costly if you are forced out flying the biggest baddest boat. 

No one in his right mind will fly a DNG over a DNH. You can assign a 2 point VC difference or a 200 point difference. It won't matter.

Don't make rules more complicated just for the sake of doing so. There has to be a gameplay benefit for it to be worth it.

The DNH might not always be available, and there are differences in release dates.

It is no more complicated, its exactly the same, each ship has a set value.

Gameplay benefit = the grewater reward for the greater task. Its a whole lot easier chasing a DNL off the map than a DNH, and the rewards should be proportional. 

That being said it won't make or break a server, but it might make it better.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Just a thought.  How about having say only 2 or 3 size DNs in total?  Say a DNL, a DNH, and a BB?  Skip all the other stuff and make it a little more simple.  Have all the races that would be in it having such said ships have equality(as close as can be achieved).  If it makes things down to  2 DNs per race, or 4, so be it.

This would be in conjunction with the emphasis on having a (as used for example somewhere above) 5 DV shift for running and a 20 DV shift for dying.

Nice thought Dfly, but some players have ships they really like that may get excluded by such a system.  Remeber we have DN carriers, Dns with Pfs, etc.

[shin]

i know this is a little late, but i really agree with chuut on this one...having dn's and bb's worth something if you chase them off......and any time an isc bbz is involved have it give 20 reguardless as long as its in a fleet since the things jsut too damned over gunned even alone... might make isc players think twice before hopping into a bb when theres only an enemy dn on....risky.........LOL

[762_XC]

Like I said Chuut, DNL won't be flown when DNH is out.  The shiplist already accomplishes what your rule is trying to.

And rating DN's like that is highly subjective - and likely to cause strife - for no real benefit IMHO.

[Dizzy]

Like I said Chuut, DNL won't be flown when DNH is out.  The shiplist already accomplishes what your rule is trying to.

And rating DN's like that is highly subjective - and likely to cause strife - for no real benefit IMHO.

Wrong, I flew a DNL around 2285 for quite a few many PvP engagements. It's like a BCH on steroids... with a sucky turn radius...

[762_XC]

OK fine, but it's still your choice to fly it over the DNH. Since in the opinion of you the pilot it's just as good, there's no need to give it a different point value.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

OK fine, but it's still your choice to fly it over the DNH. Since in the opinion of you the pilot it's just as good, there's no need to give it a different point value.

And it would also be a choice to fly a DNH instead of a DNL, by giving them different point values you further encourage a choice rather than having it be an automatic action to buy the biggest baddest most uber DN you can afford and find in the shiplist.  Encouraging a range of options is always a good thing.

[762_XC]

But that argument has been disproved a million times by experience Chuut. People are always gonna fly the baddest thing they can, especially when it comes to a DN. Discounts mean nothing if there's a better ship available.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

But that argument has been disproved a million times by experience Chuut. People are always gonna fly the baddest thing they can, especially when it comes to a DN. Discounts mean nothing if there's a better ship available.

And likely they will continue to do so, especially with a lack of incentive not to, just make then take added risks when doing so. 

Players fly BCHs and Command cruisers all the time when they could be in a DN, while there are other reasons such as power curbs turn radius etc, at least part of it is due to a difference in the potential VCs at risk if they lose the DN.  The same may well work for different classes of DN, if there is a big enough point differential people will likely adjust what they fly.  However, you don't want to make the differential too much to discourage the DNHs altogether, the benefit needs to match the risk.  Of course some people will fly the biggest and baddest regardless.

The whole reason for VCs is to reward player achievement, The tougher the DN, the bigger the achievement for running it off, thus more VCs,  its really quite a simple concept.

[762_XC]

I can't believe you actually think that will have even the slightest effect. Remember Storm Season 2?

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

I can't believe you actually think that will have even the slightest effect. Remember Storm Season 2?

It will effect the VC count everytime a DN disengages

[Riskyllama]

So what are the VC differences? is it 100 points to kill DNGHI and 20 to run it offf, while 60 points to kill the BCHIJ and 12 to run it off? is this the plan or am i missing something? It's been a long week(and its only Tuesday)  so I've merely just scanned this and about 5 other server idea threads.

[Dizzy]

Who says what ships are what points? Are we encouraging to fly the latest tech? I'll admit, the DNL I flew during the cheese years was ill advised, but I found it to be competitive enough. However, some ships, DN wise, are better than others. And who is gonna make an arbitrary ruling on whats worth what? Otherwise, I'll be forced to wait for the biggest badest DN out. I dont like that.

Also, disengagement points are very bad. Would lead to an elitist group that always fleets to win and excludes newbs. Bad. I love taking newbs into battle. Its an awesome oportunity to really ddisplay your skills as a leader and vet having a liability in battle. You have to make sure you both dont die. Very exhilirating. But the minute you slap disengagement points on a ship is the minute I'm not flying with a newb.

And if you suggest newbs dont fly with those DN packs, then where are they gonna get competitive pvp action? We mise well tell them to stick to flipping hexes.

I think disengagement penalties suck. I agree with DH, that having them would see matches get dirty and nasty, but at the expense of seeing only a handful of captains enjoy it and thats why its lame.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

P.S.  I'd be careful about taking too many ideas from S'Cipio.  While it was not a bad idea in  the distant past when he lived near me and I could tell him what to think  , now that he lives in DC it isn't advisable.  I mean what good ever came out of Washington D.C.?  J'inn is also living in D.C., need I say more?

My ideasss are perfect.  It'sss jusst that my audience isss flawed.

-S'Cipio

[shin]

well diz...consider this....you spend 2 hours to run off a DN flown by a vet......escorted by 2 vet wings in nasty lil ships.......use isc ships as your opponents race fro this example......you beat them down to almost nothing only to have them run away from a 1-2 hour match with nothing to show for it........what good is that? im tired of winging with some one and have people disengage leaving me with nothing but a lil cash and a dv shift (wow how exciting -.-). show how expensive and risky it is to really fly a dn if their gunna be in the game.........now about bb's.............hehehe

[762_XC]

well diz...consider this....you spend 2 hours to run off a DN flown by a vet......escorted by 2 vet wings in nasty lil ships.......use isc ships as your opponents race fro this example......you beat them down to almost nothing only to have them run away from a 1-2 hour match with nothing to show for it........what good is that? im tired of winging with some one and have people disengage leaving me with nothing but a lil cash and a dv shift (wow how exciting -.-). show how expensive and risky it is to really fly a dn if their gunna be in the game.........now about bb's.............hehehe

Because the disengagement rule is currently inadequate. If that DN was driven out of 7 hexes instead of just 1, that 2 hour investment of time would actually be worth it.

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

Interesting. Some of the discussion here is paralleling the other thread about PvP VCs.

Might it then be prudent to combine the two. Have a ship hull class system that gives VCs based on some percentage of BPV, modified by the outcome (such as using S2.0 Victory Conditions), 100% for a kill, 25% for a forced disengage, and so on, and then add on PvP VCs as well as discussed in the other thread. The disadvantage however, is that green pilots wanting to try out big ships are still penalised, although not as much.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

well diz...consider this....you spend 2 hours to run off a DN flown by a vet......escorted by 2 vet wings in nasty lil ships.......use isc ships as your opponents race fro this example......you beat them down to almost nothing only to have them run away from a 1-2 hour match with nothing to show for it........what good is that? im tired of winging with some one and have people disengage leaving me with nothing but a lil cash and a dv shift (wow how exciting -.-). show how expensive and risky it is to really fly a dn if their gunna be in the game.........now about bb's.............hehehe

Because the disengagement rule is currently inadequate. If that DN was driven out of 7 hexes instead of just 1, that 2 hour investment of time would actually be worth it.

I would only support a disengagement radius for areas around permant targets, ie. planets, anything else just makes no sense in the emptiness of space.  If you want to make it more meaningful, double the disengagement penalties for BCHs and triple them for DNs if they are defeated in equal numbered combat.  Of course then you will get fewer duels between the big ships, but that is a known drawback of any disengagement rule.