Topic: Poll: Would you fly a line ship if exempted from disengagement rule/hex ban?

[Lepton]

So here is the next poll.  Trying to assess the viability of this line ship proposal.

Tell me if you'd be likely to fly a line ship given these conditions:

1.  Line ships exempt from disengagement rule/hex ban when opposed by any player in a non-line ship.
2.  Line ships subject to disengagement rule/hex ban when all opposing players are in line ships
3.  All non-line ships subject to the disengagement rule/hex ban

This proposal gives line ships a special strategic and tactical role in that they can operate with impunity unless faced up other line ships.  The above conditions will actually require players to get into line ships to drive opposing line ship players out of a hex.  I think this makes flying a line ship a viable alternative.

As for how to vote, please indicate the conditions under which you would be likely to fly a line ship.  If it is essential to you to be able to fly a CC as a line ship indicate Yes with CC's included. If you would fly a line ship even if the largest class available were a CA, indicate Yes with CC's out. If you would not fly a line ship under any of the conditions supplied here, indicate No.

Thanks.

[FPF-DieHard]

The designator should not be, some CCs should not be considered "line."  I would go with a BPV of 179, any CA/CC over 179 BPV should not count as a line ship regardless of iy'd class designation.

I picked 179 as this is one point below the BCHs

[Soreyes]

I voted No because I love causing Hate, Heck, and Discontent in my little ity bitty DF

[Lepton]

The designator should not be, some CCs should not be considered "line."  I would go with a BPV of 179, any CA/CC over 179 BPV should not count as a line ship regardless of iy'd class designation.

I picked 179 as this is one point below the BCHs

OK, let's consider that as part of the poll parameters.  CC's included means that there is a 179 bpv cap on line ships.  Change your vote accordingly if that changes your view, pretty please. 

[762_XC]

You are not going to get an accurate vote from this.

[Lepton]

Define a better one and I will post it or you may.  Also you might define your reason for your belief rather than being cryptic.  Your remark doesn't help much.  Are you poo-pooing or contributing?  Make your choice.

[762_XC]

I just don't believe in these polls in general.

What are you trying to accomplish?

And stop being so negative.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

And stop being so negative.

 

You are not going to get an accurate vote from this.

 



 

[762_XC]

Was there a point in there Chuut, or was that just troll bait?

[Lepton]

I just don't believe in these polls in general.

What are you trying to accomplish?

And stop being so negative.

I'd suggest you are being negative.  Be that as it may, I actually know something about polling as I have a degree in psychology with an emphasis in social attitudes toward environmentalism.  That said, I am well aware that attitudes and opinions polled do not always translate into behavior.  Also people tend to have different response biases depending on certain personality characteristics.  Basically, some people are nice and will say yes to anything or respond in a way you might like them to.  That's an over-simplification but you get the idea.

My suggestion would be is that if there is support for what I have proposed someone might want to consider using it on a server.  So far the response to what I have been suggesting has been not overwhelming.  I am doing the poll in part to see if there is even the slightest level of basic support for such an idea.  If the response is favorable, I will continue to bring this idea up.  If not, I'll probably drop it.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Was there a point in there Chuut, or was that just troll bait?

The point is you implied a negetive behavior of another forum member after making a negetive comment aabout his poll.  Wasn't trying to bait anyone, just hoping that you would take the hint and be more supportive.

I'm not commenting about this anymore after this post so any unintended "baiting" doesn't continue.

If you want to have an argument you will just have to pay the fee  like the rest.



 

[762_XC]

I'm  not being negative, just skeptical of polling on a game forum. A poll is only valuable if a large cross section of the population responds.

One only has to look at any given server signup thread and compare it to whom actually shows up to determine its value.

As to whether your idea has merit, the only valid test is combat.

P.S. My original comment was not directed at you Chuut, so why don't you give Lepton the credit of being able to answer for himself.

[Lepton]

Nearly 60 people signed up for SG6 and we saw most of them on the server at one time or another.  In the other poll thread I put up, 24 people have responded which is probably over half of the actual server population for SG6.  I'd call that a representative sample.  Further, if the SG series is one of the most attended series of servers than we can be assured that this server caught up most of the veteran players and new players as well, so that poll is likely to have a sample of veterans and irregulars and the SG6 population is likely to be representative if not nearly entirely inclusive of the people who actually attend servers any more.

Be that as it may, the results of this poll will be the results of this poll.  It's not earth shattering.  It's a poll.

[KBF MalaK]

Have we finally defined what exactly a line ship actually is ??

I find it hard to vote on a topic when it's boundries are undefined.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Have we finally defined what exactly a line ship actually is ??

I find it hard to vote on a topic when it's boundries are undefined.

Depends on who you ask...

Moi... I'd be content in a H-RN+ or a H-LC until the H-MHK or the H-RGR came out.

Unless, I have to escort someone which ends up making my ship selection a bit different....

[FPF-DieHard]

I think if you are in a fleet, all disenagament rules should apply regarless of who is in what.

[KBFLordKrueg]

I think if you are in a fleet, all disenagament rules should apply regarless of who is in what.

Agreed.

[762_XC]

Yep.

[Lepton]

Highly incorrect.  That would mean that the exemption would only ever apply in a 1v1 of line ships.  It guts the whole premise.

[762_XC]

How does that gut the premise? I can solo hex flip in a line ship all day long and never have to worry about getting chased.

If I have a DF drafting me, then what's the point of making it only line ships? There's no downside.

[FPF-DieHard]

Highly incorrect.  That would mean that the exemption would only ever apply in a 1v1 of line ships.  It guts the whole premise.

It means if 3 guys jumo you in a fleet actions while flying by yourself you can come right back with a fleet

[Lepton]

Highly incorrect.  That would mean that the exemption would only ever apply in a 1v1 of line ships.  It guts the whole premise.

It means if 3 guys jumo you in a fleet actions while flying by yourself you can come right back with a fleet

I'm not sure you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me but thanks for entering the conversation.

Here's the premises I am laboring under:
1.  We'd like to see people in line ships and some people would prefer to fly them.
2.  We'd like to give them some encouragement to fly line ships despite these ships' seeming deficits.
3.  We'd like to make flying a line ship a valuable strategic and tactical alternative.
4.  We'd like to have a system wherein new players can muck about on a server.
5.  We'd like to be able to level the playing field on some occasions.


I think my proposal begins to address these issues.  The problem with chucking the rules I have laid out when any line ship fleets with any other ship is:
1.  It kills any inducement to flying them as to receive the benefit you basically have to fly alone.  The benefit so easily stripped is no benefit at all.
2.  It kills the strategic and tactical uses of line ships that I have outlined elsewhere.
3.  It actually creates a situation in which the new player's benefit of flying a line ship is immediately rescinded if he'd like to fly with someone else, which is always a good thing for a new player to do.
4.  It kills the idea of levelling the playing field.  If 3 BBs jump 3 line ships under my rule set, they would be exempt from the disengagement rule/hex ban.  Under Tool's idea, they would be subject to disengagment rule/hex ban.  An extreme example, but you get the idea.  The rule system I have set up would make players have to get into line ships to kick other players in line ships out of a hex.  It levels the playing field.

This is how it guts the premise as my goal is to give line ship flyers a benefit that is persistent and can only be countered by other players entering line ships.  It's a beautiful system.  It actually encourages folks to fly in relatively evenly matched ships instead of seeking the easy answer.

[Lepton]

Have we finally defined what exactly a line ship actually is ??

I find it hard to vote on a topic when it's boundries are undefined.

Open your OP+ shiplist in excel and look at the ships that are marked as line ships in the role field.  Cut off the bpv at 179 and that is a good start.

[762_XC]

You raise some good points there Lepton as there are many players, especially newer players, who will not fly alone. However giving an exemption to players who wing with specialty ships, or even other line ships, raises too many potential cases of abuse and weakens the disengagment rule (and by extension PvP) to an extreme.

Take for example the case of a Z-FFK, a 4 rack 80 BPV line ship, drafting for the largest line ship available, whether an NCA or CCH. That's a 2 minute mission force which cannot be expelled from any hex.

I like the idea of getting n00bs into line ships and fighting it out instead of taco belling, but there are negative aspects with almost every rule change and sometimes they are not worth it.

I could never get behind the rule as you propose it because it would drastically undercut the disengagement rule, which almost everyone agrees is necessary.

[Lepton]

My proposal does not gut disengagement rule and I am really not intending to do that.  Disengagement rule applies when line ships face line ships.  Want to kick line ships out of a hex?  Get in a line ship.  No biggy.

I have no idea what you are saying with your example.  If the FFK is bugging you, you jump it with some line ships if we are considering the FFK a line ship.  Same as any other server except you need to force him out with a line ship.

I don't think you understand the rules as I have stated them. I certainly don't understand your example.

[Lepton]

Let me spell it out because I don't think people are getting it.

A = 1 line & 1 non line ship fleeting
B = 2 line ships fleeting
C = 2 non line ships fleeting

A vs B: all of B's ships not subject to disengagement rule, A's line ship subject to disengagement rule
A vs C: A's line ship not subject to disengagement rule
B vs C: all of B's ships not subject to disengagement rule

To force B out of a hex, you are going to have to engage them in line ships.  This is the idea.  To get people into line ships.

Now, if, in any of these cases, one side were to outclass another, the side or ship that is not subject to the disengagement rule gets a little bonus and the freedom to fight a bit harder and take more risks.  I think that is a good thing.  If you run through all the permutations, you will see that a fleet with a capital ship will always have an advantage and rightly so for winning the mission, but to win the hex you must face a line ship with a line ship.  That's it.

[el-Karnak]

Yes, if CCs are included and line ships are determined by their Class types. For example, the Mirak BC is a CA-class vessel. The ISC CCs are BCH-class vessels.

Any fleeting would require the Disengagement Rule to stand.

[Lepton]

Argh, don't you people get it!!!  If you make that caveat, there is no mechanism that gets people into line ships.  It ruins the whole scheme.  It might as well not even exist. If a line ship is immediately subject to disengagement with any fleeting you might just as well fly a non-line ship.  There is no benefit, no inducement, no carrot.  You are basically saying if you fly alone in a line ship, you won't be subject to the disengagement rule.  This punishes the line ship player and at best only creates the conditions for 1v1s in line ships.  I think we want 2v2s and 3v3s with all line ships as well.  No disrespect, Karnak.  This is not aimed specifically at you, but people seem to refuse to understand this point.

[762_XC]

We understand Lepton, we just refuse to agree. 

I know what you are trying to do, and I think for those who are inclined to fly solo the inducement will be strong, IF you include command ships in the line category (such as CCH and NCC).

I think you are possibly dissuaded by the difficulty of the mission pack on the last server. It need not always be so, and people need not always be afraid to fly solos.

I believe strongly that when taking up new ideas it is best to proceed in limited steps, so we can minimize any unforseen negative consequences.

[Lepton]

I appreciate your sensible words, but I flew solo nearly the entire time on SG6 and I had no problems with the missions and of course often in a line ship.  That's not an issue for me.  If someone would like to implement this incrementally, I am all for it.  I am just not sure there will be sufficient inducement given the fleeting restriction.  You yourself, I believe, thought that even what I was suggesting was not sufficient inducement, so how is limitng the benefit going to be better?

[el-Karnak]

I think that it's a balance issue.

Given the laws of the dyna universe, some team is going to find the most uber-fleet of line ships available and potentially run hex-flipping wild on the dyna because they suddenly have a hex ban waiver.  In order to counter-balance such an eventuality some races are going to need the speciality ships in order to counter these fleets and they will need the hex ban rules in place to do it.

Having line ships fleets fight each other,  in order to hex ban the losing team out, may work on dynas that use the traditional SFB map where decades of work were used to make sure the races balance each other out in the given geographic areas.

[762_XC]

I appreciate your sensible words, but I flew solo nearly the entire time on SG6 and I had no problems with the missions and of course often in a line ship.  That's not an issue for me.  If someone would like to implement this incrementally, I am all for it.  I am just not sure there will be sufficient inducement given the fleeting restriction.  You yourself, I believe, thought that even what I was suggesting was not sufficient inducement, so how is limitng the benefit going to be better?

I think it will be sufficient if you include CCH's. Going from a CF to a CCH is not so drastic a step, whereas going from a CF to an NCA or CA will be like asking some to swallow tripe.

P.S. You yourself may have been comfortable flying solo under this pack, but I know for a lot of new and returning players this was not the case. I think if Dave ups the 1v1 and 2v2 frequency that will change.

[Dfly]

Lepton I fully understand your system you are suggesting, and I for one will endorse it.  Only part I am not too fond of is the more rules in a dyna thing, but after some Dizzy rules, this is not too bad
This theory of someone will ultimately find a hex flipping combo from hell, well, I know they will.  Problem is, the other team would need to assemble an uber hex flipping line team as well, which I am also sure they will do.  Then the 2 teams will most likely be hitting the same areas, and when they meet in battle, one side loses, is out for 1/2 to 1 hour, and the winning team runs missions there a little easier.  The losing team moves over a couple hexes and does the exact same thing again. 

Where is what I just posted any different from what has happened on any other server I have been on?(other than dividing line and non-line ships)
The only change is now it would take line ships to oust line ships, and specialties to oust specialties.

I also understand many will feel people will try to exploit the rulings, or the ship choices, etc, but we all do that now, to one extent or another.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Lepton's rule, in a dyna-rules friendly format:

If a player's side consists purely of line ships, and the opponent's side contains a specialty ship, the player's side is exempt from the disengagement rule.  For purposes of this rule, a line ship is defined as _________.  (current definition seems to be "all non-variant hulls and command/leader variants under 179 BPV")

[FPF-DieHard]

Lepton's rule, in a dyna-rules friendly format:

If a player's side consists purely of line ships, and the opponent's side contains a specialty ship, the player's side is exempt from the disengagement rule.  For purposes of this rule, a line ship is defined as _________.  (current definition seems to be "all non-variant hulls and command/leader variants under 179 BPV")

You can put together some particulary viscious fleets made up of nothing but "line" ships

[Hexx]

Again the real telling thing will be is- are you counting command ships as line -
IF you do, then yes, you can make some killer fleets
~Although the 179 BPV kinda makes a mess of some things, KRC is fine,KRCS is over
and of course most of the CCH with mechlinks are over. (Which is probably a good thing)

[762_XC]

I don't buy the whole 179 thing. The whole reason behind it is that the Novahawk is considered to be better than most CCH's. I think if we have a balanced CCH-class plasma boat on the other side we can avoid the whole issue. Give the Gorn CCH 2 more points of power and the problem will correct itself.

Gorns are sometimes Alliance and sometimes Coalition, but they are always on the opposite side of the Roms. Make the CCH comparable to the NHK and we have no BPV issues for command cruisers.

[Hexx]

~ Of course not flying plasma, but wouldn't a 41 power 10Ph1 CCH be better than a 42 power 7Ph1 CCH?

[762_XC]

Probably not. In the late era cheese and chase fight power is ultimately the most important thing.

G-CCH was avoided like the plague.

[Lepton]

The line ship idea avoids the cheese and chase of late era.  It's one of the ideas behind the whole thing.  Levelinng the playing field with ships that are relatively balanced and not uber.  Line ships will likely not stand up well to late era silliness.  This line ship system is designed to offer an alternative to that kind of gameplay.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

well, that brings up a point doesn't it?

According to what I know about the general war, the whole reason behind the cheesy goodness of late era is b/c all the line ships had been DESTROYED in the previous years of combat.

All the cheese and chase ships were the replacements for those line ships.

Maybe, we should just cut out the line ships in late era?

[Dfly]

Or how about only line ships for the first week,  only a few specials(say 4 ships per side heavy or fleeting) for the second week, and Cheese for the 3rd week then? 

[Lepton]

I'd rather not see the benefit of flying a line ship disappear in the late era as I think that this is the era that servers are in the longest.  Is that true?

While the SFB source material and history is valuable in many cases, much of what we do has little in common with SFB and F&E.

[Dfly]

I'd rather not see the benefit of flying a line ship disappear in the late era as I think that this is the era that servers are in the longest.  Is that true?

While the SFB source material and history is valuable in many cases, much of what we do has little in common with SFB and F&E.

From what I remember, the late era is usuallly about the last 4 or 5 days of a 3 week server, so it is not the longest.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'd rather not see the benefit of flying a line ship disappear in the late era as I think that this is the era that servers are in the longest.  Is that true?

While the SFB source material and history is valuable in many cases, much of what we do has little in common with SFB and F&E.

From what I remember, the late era is usuallly about the last 4 or 5 days of a 3 week server, so it is not the longest.

I think that is the best way to go,  AOTK2 was a 30 Day server with maybe 4 days in "late."  I think the best bet is to just have 90% of a server take place before 2280.

[FPF-DieHard]

well, that brings up a point doesn't it?

According to what I know about the general war, the whole reason behind the cheesy goodness of late era is b/c all the line ships had been DESTROYED in the previous years of combat.

All the cheese and chase ships were the replacements for those line ships.

Maybe, we should just cut out the line ships in late era?

By 2275, all "Heavy Cruisers" would have been converted to CCs, Carriers or detroyed.   This is why the NCAs come out as conversioa of War cruisers in 2275

[Hexx]

well, that brings up a point doesn't it?

According to what I know about the general war, the whole reason behind the cheesy goodness of late era is b/c all the line ships had been DESTROYED in the previous years of combat.

All the cheese and chase ships were the replacements for those line ships.

Maybe, we should just cut out the line ships in late era?

By 2275, all "Heavy Cruisers" would have been converted to CCs, Carriers or detroyed.   This is why the NCAs come out as conversioa of War cruisers in 2275

Well no, NCA's came out because ADB (or whoever) wanted to sell more stuff.

[FPF-DieHard]

well, that brings up a point doesn't it?

According to what I know about the general war, the whole reason behind the cheesy goodness of late era is b/c all the line ships had been DESTROYED in the previous years of combat.

All the cheese and chase ships were the replacements for those line ships.

Maybe, we should just cut out the line ships in late era?

By 2275, all "Heavy Cruisers" would have been converted to CCs, Carriers or detroyed.   This is why the NCAs come out as conversioa of War cruisers in 2275

Well no, NCA's came out because ADB (or whoever) wanted to sell more stuff.

Not correct, NCAs were part of the Battelships book and that would have sold anyway.  A Black-letter rule in R5 was that there would never be any NCA Varients EVER . . .

NCA varients were invented to line SCV's pockets with R10 

So long longe before "Strike Cruiser" ships are mad for all races?

[IAF Lyrkiller]

Not all ships are created equal. (CA/CC).

There is going to be an imbalance is a given.

I just dont think it will work.

Not voting.

[Julin Eurthyr]

I don't buy the whole 179 thing. The whole reason behind it is that the Novahawk is considered to be better than most CCH's. I think if we have a balanced CCH-class plasma boat on the other side we can avoid the whole issue. Give the Gorn CCH 2 more points of power and the problem will correct itself.

Gorns are sometimes Alliance and sometimes Coalition, but they are always on the opposite side of the Roms. Make the CCH comparable to the NHK and we have no BPV issues for command cruisers.

The whole "179 BPV" thing was chosen by Lepton, IMO, because SVC himself declared all ships at 180 BPV or above are classified, at a minimum, as a "heavy battlecruiser".

Consider the SFB text for your aforemetioned ships:

R4.72 "This ship is considered a heavy battlecruiser" - Novahawk
R4.73 "This ship can be considered a BCH" - Royalhawk

Both lines are reprinted, in all their glory, in the SFC 1 manual.

Miraculously, without checking the shiplist / MSC, I'll bet you both ships are 180+ BPV.  I think Taldren cut them some slack because:

The Royalhawk, with it's 1 R vs 2 S configuration, is potentially "undergunned" or at least "underhardpointed" for the 180+ BPV level.  SVC recognizes this potential issue by the differentiation in the text (wishy-washy "can be BCH" vs strict "is a heavy battlecruiser").  The Novahawk was mis-classed as a standard Heavy Cruiser because of either the plasma tracking issue, the fact that the officially "conjectural and unbuilt R-KCR" is "built" in SFC as the Rommie's "official" BCH, or it was just missed as an oversight on the original shiplist work by Taldren.
To make matters worse, we've carried this illusion of the NHK/RHK as a "line command cruiser" on throughout our SFC play for over 5 years.

As an alternate fix, we could take advantage of the wishy-washiness on the RHK and specifically declare it as a "CCH", and noting it as an official exemption to the 179 BPV limit in the rule.  Therefore, the Rommie's now have an "official" CCH to counter the Gorn CCH, and all is right in the plasma world.  We'd avoid repeating the whole flamewar over the NHK being an "overpowered" CCH that way too...

Because, as an ISC pilot, if you gave our "historical" enemy, the Gorn (ISC's often aligned against the Gorn, I think I've winged with Mirak more often than the Gorn) 2 power for their CCH, I'd request it get an appropriate BPV hike.  That BPV hike would, most likely, put the G-CCH over 180 BPV.
Using the existance of the R-NHK, R-RHK & G-CCH as prime examples of "BCH" level ships (180+ BPV) being treated as CCHs, the ISC deserve to get a CCH-class vessel.  Due to the awful thin ISC shiplist, the CCY/CCZ are the only currently existing combination of ships that can be reclassified into this position, as they are CCs over 180 BPV made during the CCH era.  As this reclassification would leave the ISC without a "heavy battlecruiser" roled ship, and that could cause no end of consternation with the serverkit / missions, I believe the entirety of the ISC would survive with the CCZ retaining it's artificial "BCH" treatment as long as the CCY gets it's YLA adjusted to "end of CCH production", which is, IIRC, 999 along with the CCH classification.  Perhaps, if it's absolutely necessary, a new I-CC (CCC / CCB) could be generated to fill the vacant "ISC BCH" slot from 2275 - the end of the Y-refit period(2280-ish).  This BCH-level CCY could carry the SFB-official 6 cargo boxes (representing the space the I-torps would be installed into) instead of the Pl-I, granting it 12 extra (doubled) internal hits over the "stock" CCY.

[Lepton]

It was DH's suggestion.  I just said OK, sure.

[FPF-DieHard]

I don't buy the whole 179 thing. The whole reason behind it is that the Novahawk is considered to be better than most CCH's. I think if we have a balanced CCH-class plasma boat on the other side we can avoid the whole issue. Give the Gorn CCH 2 more points of power and the problem will correct itself.

Gorns are sometimes Alliance and sometimes Coalition, but they are always on the opposite side of the Roms. Make the CCH comparable to the NHK and we have no BPV issues for command cruisers.

The whole "179 BPV" thing was chosen by Lepton, IMO, because SVC himself declared all ships at 180 BPV or above are classified, at a minimum, as a "heavy battlecruiser".

Consider the SFB text for your aforemetioned ships:

R4.72 "This ship is considered a heavy battlecruiser" - Novahawk
R4.73 "This ship can be considered a BCH" - Royalhawk

Both lines are reprinted, in all their glory, in the SFC 1 manual.

Miraculously, without checking the shiplist / MSC, I'll bet you both ships are 180+ BPV.  I think Taldren cut them some slack because:

The Royalhawk, with it's 1 R vs 2 S configuration, is potentially "undergunned" or at least "underhardpointed" for the 180+ BPV level.  SVC recognizes this potential issue by the differentiation in the text (wishy-washy "can be BCH" vs strict "is a heavy battlecruiser").  The Novahawk was mis-classed as a standard Heavy Cruiser because of either the plasma tracking issue, the fact that the officially "conjectural and unbuilt R-KCR" is "built" in SFC as the Rommie's "official" BCH, or it was just missed as an oversight on the original shiplist work by Taldren.
To make matters worse, we've carried this illusion of the NHK/RHK as a "line command cruiser" on throughout our SFC play for over 5 years.

As an alternate fix, we could take advantage of the wishy-washiness on the RHK and specifically declare it as a "CCH", and noting it as an official exemption to the 179 BPV limit in the rule.  Therefore, the Rommie's now have an "official" CCH to counter the Gorn CCH, and all is right in the plasma world.  We'd avoid repeating the whole flamewar over the NHK being an "overpowered" CCH that way too...

Because, as an ISC pilot, if you gave our "historical" enemy, the Gorn (ISC's often aligned against the Gorn, I think I've winged with Mirak more often than the Gorn) 2 power for their CCH, I'd request it get an appropriate BPV hike.  That BPV hike would, most likely, put the G-CCH over 180 BPV.
Using the existance of the R-NHK, R-RHK & G-CCH as prime examples of "BCH" level ships (180+ BPV) being treated as CCHs, the ISC deserve to get a CCH-class vessel.  Due to the awful thin ISC shiplist, the CCY/CCZ are the only currently existing combination of ships that can be reclassified into this position, as they are CCs over 180 BPV made during the CCH era.  As this reclassification would leave the ISC without a "heavy battlecruiser" roled ship, and that could cause no end of consternation with the serverkit / missions, I believe the entirety of the ISC would survive with the CCZ retaining it's artificial "BCH" treatment as long as the CCY gets it's YLA adjusted to "end of CCH production", which is, IIRC, 999 along with the CCH classification.  Perhaps, if it's absolutely necessary, a new I-CC (CCC / CCB) could be generated to fill the vacant "ISC BCH" slot from 2275 - the end of the Y-refit period(2280-ish).  This BCH-level CCY could carry the SFB-official 6 cargo boxes (representing the space the I-torps would be installed into) instead of the Pl-I, granting it 12 extra (doubled) internal hits over the "stock" CCY.

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

[Julin Eurthyr]

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

DH, let me refine how I want to say it, and you'll wind up finding a nice dissertation on ISC balance in your SGO dev thread...

[FPF-DieHard]

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

DH, let me refine how I want to say it, and you'll wind up finding a nice dissertation on ISC balance in your SGO dev thread...

Oh, this should be entertaining.   Just could the verbiage small so it's easier to find the bullsh*t

All joking aside, the ISC's CCH would be the I-CAZ though it comes out a few years later than the cookie-cutter races.   The NHK comes out earlier.

[FPF-Paladin]

I voted yes.  I prefer line ships anyway though.

I know there's going to be debates and disagreements over where to draw the 'line' (oh that's just bad...) but I like the reasoning behind it.

[Hexx]

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

DH, let me refine how I want to say it, and you'll wind up finding a nice dissertation on ISC balance in your SGO dev thread...

Excellent.
t00l needs something new to whine about.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Or we could simply leave the ISC out of the game and be better for it   

DH, let me refine how I want to say it, and you'll wind up finding a nice dissertation on ISC balance in your SGO dev thread...

Wound up throwing it, as a separate topic, in D2 Server Admin Corner, so that all seeking answers on the ISC may look there...

[Lepton]

My reading of this poll is that there is broad support for exempting line ships from the disengagement rule.  Presumably those willing to fly CAs as line ships would not object to CCs as line ships.  I hope to see this implemented on a future server.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

My reading of this poll is that there is broad support for exempting line ships from the disengagement rule.  Presumably those willing to fly CAs as line ships would not object to CCs as line ships.  I hope to see this implemented on a future server.

Not quite.  I think excluding line ships from the disengagement rule is a good idea.  However, I do object to CCs as line ships.  They are not line ships, and you may as well do away with the disengagement rule completely if you include them as such.

-S'Cipio

[Lepton]

The poll basically says if CAs were the top ship, people could accept that.  If the CC people were willing to go with a CC, I'd think they'd be willing to go with a CA. I also think the converse is true.  Those who voted the CA option would be willing to have CCs included.  The dividing line is a non-issue in my opinion as, if you include in the definition of a line ship everything that is identified in the OP+ list as a line ship, you are looking at alot of ships being line ships anyway.  The concept doesn't suddenly crumble over the addition or deletion of a ship class from the definition.

Also you forget the quintessential rule that makes this system work.  Line ships subject to disengagement rule when faced by all line ships.  There are plenty of ships that can force line ships out of a hex.  They are, in fact, LINE SHIPS, in this system by definition.  So, no, one isn't throwing out the disengagement rule if you include CCs as their counter is, tada!!!!, another CC.  It's that simple.

[KBF-Crim]

Bah..too many rules....

[Lepton]

This would be the simplest system ever next to no rules.  In such a system one would not have to worry about fleeting rules, metal points, or any particular fighter/PF CnC.  Heavy metal flyers could go nuts, but you can't force a line ship out of a hex without using a line ship.  It requires a diversity of ships being flown by both sides.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

My reading of this poll is that there is broad support for exempting line ships from the disengagement rule.  Presumably those willing to fly CAs as line ships would not object to CCs as line ships.  I hope to see this implemented on a future server.

Not quite.  I think excluding line ships from the disengagement rule is a good idea.  However, I do object to CCs as line ships.  They are not line ships, and you may as well do away with the disengagement rule completely if you include them as such.

-S'Cipio

Agree with this 100%