I like the ideas in this thread. Changing PvP from a "double whammy" in losing both points and "front time", to a "pick your poison" fight sounds very intriguing, indeed.
I think the idea of giving a wide difference between whatever you choose to set for disengagement and actual defeat is a good one. Whatever those values are set at is relatively minor in comparison to how pilots are going to react and weigh their decisions upon. I'd like to see it worth sticking in to fight out myself.
I'm sort of undecided on the PvP VCs being more results of called duels than not but I can see how this might ease people who would normally avoid PvP altogether into the battle.
Maybe if you could factor in some kind of modifier for uneven odds? Say a lessening of the time penalty or something - I don't know, besides I can already immediately think of weaknesses in that idea and possible exploiting to some degree. I don't want to suggest making things really complicated, but personally 75%+ of the time I'm alone facing 2-3 equal or superior hulls... not sure if it's worthwhile to even look at but I like sticking in and at least engaging instead of Instant HET+ spd 31 exit. I know it's probably outright stupid but I do it anyway...
This sounds like a request to make the PvP penalty scale "sliding", based on the quantity and quality of the opposing force.
Notice Paladin says that he runs into a lot of 2-3 ship fleets, all flying equal to bigger hulls than he is (say, a DN and 2 BCH's vs his solo BCH). Which does, obviously, get tiring after a while, especially since his choices have traditionally been - run away (and stay out of main PvP area for an hour) or lose his big ship (and PP to replace it)
and stay out of fighting for 1/2 hour.
However, I'm willing to stick a few numbers (yes, the great complicator) into the equation, a proposal:
In a 2 on 1 or 3 on 1 situation, if the opposing fleet out-BPVs the victim's fleet by 200%-275%, penalties (point cost or time banished from hex) is cut in half, and if the difference is 275%+, penalties are negated (or reduced to 10%).
Since the report system already has us posting hull types of all involved ships, post-mortem adjustments can be calculated "fairly" simply for points battles, and I'm sure many people are capable of "close enough" BPV estimating base hulls to make an informed decision in the "run away" scenerio.
Example:
Player 1 flys 150 pt. F-CA. Runs into a fleet with a 160 K-D7L and a 140 K-D6K. (made up but still clos-ish numbers). Since opposing multi-ship fleet is twice (200%) as big as the Fed's ship, if the Fed loses he only gives up 1/2 the point score, or is banished from the hex for 1/2 the normal time (so if his F-CA gets blown up, his penalty is 15 min instead of 30).
If I remember the disengagement rule debates right, the base penalty is 1 hour, for any loss. It was decided that if you lose your ship, and the resultant PP to replace it, then halving the time banished from the fight hex (down to 30 min) was considered "fair" in light of the loss. Most of that 30 min time was spent looking for and restocking your replacement hull anyway...
So, put me "firmly" against any reduction in time from 60 min to 45 min if you run away. Especially if you plan to keep the "death penalty" at 30 min. That would, IMO, only encourage more people to run away instead of engage in PvP.
I say that because, in a way, I want to reward people who engage and managed to get off the map edge (controlled run-away or a "mercy" action). I can see a 3-stage disengagement rule:
Get blown up in a battle, 30 min.
Run off map edge in crippled ship (say, 3/4 of "hull bar" wiped out at any point in battle), 45 min
Run off map edge in nearly intact ship, 1 hour.
This benefits the guy who actually fought a battle, while still keeping the original intent of the rule around (you pay a price for seeing a guy and taco belling).
Topic: SG8 or is it 9? Rules (discussion) (Read 15762 times)