+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 (/showthread.php?tid=7078)
Pages:
1
2
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Blackstarr - 03-19-2008
Rules 5.7 through 5.8 state :
Quote:5.7 A player who was killed in a PvP fight must not enter the system where the fight took place with any of the characters on his/her account(s) while the enemy (player or players involved in the fight) remains in the system, but no more than 4 hours.
If the player respawns in the same system, he/she must leave the system without engaging. Other players are not allowed to attack one who is leaving.
5.8 A player who was killed in a PvP fight must not re-engage the enemy (player or players involved in the death) with any of the characters on his/her account(s) for 4 hours.
5.9 After a death in a PvP fight, players are recommended to switch to other characters (preferably with different role-playing status) for no less than 4 hours.
I have an idea for an exception to these rules. Please not that this is an exception not a deletion.
I propose an amendment that states that IF you are flying in team combat, and you have 1 or more capital ships in your fleet, you can respawn and join the fight. This will ONLY APPLY TO FACTIONS AND IF-
1. You have 1 or more capital ships in your team that are participating in the fight that HAVE THE SAME TRANSPONDER as you. If it dosent have the same transponder, this rule does not apply.
2. If the capital ship dies, it may not respawn, if there is no capital ships left, then fighters may not respawn.
3. You cannot respawn from an independent capital ship. If you are an independen that is not in a capital ship then you may respawn from a faction capital ship ONLY IF your transpnder matches theirs (EX: ind corsair and TBH cap ship)
I belive this will create more roleplay abilities for capital ships and will discourage the use of independent capital ships. It will also encourage the use of capital ships in faction roleplay.
I have set up an example faction fight that would use this proposed amendment.
Faction a- [ZZ2] VS faction b- [QQQ]
members of each faction
[ZZ2]Fighter 1
[ZZ2]Fighter 2
[ZZ2]Gunboat 1
[ZZ2]Gunboat 2
[ZZ2]Capital ship
[QQQ]Fighter 1
[QQQ]Fighter 2
[QQQ]Gunboat 1
[QQQ]Gunboat 2
[QQQ]Capital ship
the 2 factions collide in battle.....
[ZZ2]Fighter 1 kills [QQQ]Fighter 2
[QQQ]Fighter 2 may now respawn and reengage, because of the presence of [QQQ]Capital ship
[ZZ2]Gunboat 1 is killed by [QQQ]Gunboat 2.....
[ZZ2]Gunboat 1 may respawn and reengage because [ZZ2]Capital ship is present
now....
[ZZ2]Gunboat 1 and [ZZ2]Fighter 2 gang up on [QQQ]Capital ship and kill it
[QQQ]Cpital ship is now destroyed and cannot respawn.
The ZZ2 ships engage the rest of the QQQ fleet and destroy them. QQQ may not respawn because their Capital ship is now destroyed, ZZ2 win the battle
Please give me your suggestions about this proposal.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Eppy - 03-19-2008
Actually, one used to be able to rejoin a fight after being shot down until everybody and their dog got sick of it and went home, but that, for obvious reasons, is no longer in play, and I think this falls under that, though it IS a nice idea.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Blackstarr - 03-19-2008
Yes, but this applies to cap ships... if there is no cap ship present, then no respawn.... easy as that...... think of it reality terms.... ships gets destroyed, pilot ejects, gets tractored in by cap ship, the pilot goes to hangar and gets in new ship and rejoins battle
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Eppy - 03-19-2008
It's actually a lot more detrimental in a fight when a Bomber comes back out of a ship's hangar than a Battleship, really. I mean, two bombers will maim a Battleship unless he REALLY knows how to shoot (and very few of us do, and that's not even applicable on anything larger than an Outcast Dreadnought, since the timing differences are so messed up).
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - tfmachad - 03-19-2008
It may be a good idea, it may work, it may be cool. I have two words for it:
House Rules
If you find more people willing to participate in a battle like that and you all agree to the terms, go for it. Get them all to agree and make an event and restrict the participants to the people that agree. Don't make the rules even more complicated, don't put an extra burden to the admin team, please. I'm sure they appreciate being able to actually play the game from time to time.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Kambei - 03-19-2008
naaah, ppl dont understand to rules now, this is complicated.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Blackstarr - 03-19-2008
i never said this was perfect...... it can be changed to only apply to LF and HF
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Varyag - 03-20-2008
I could totally see this working for an event. Mabey not so much for a "in stone" rule.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - mwerte - 03-20-2008
For an event? yeah, for a server-wide rule no
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - chopper - 03-20-2008
Capital ships always die first in mass fights anyway.. So, pretty much pointless.