Boosting Away From A Fight

[El Nino]

A fighter SHOULD be able to escape a capital by thrustering away. Sure, it counts as a retreat, but they still have their ship. A capital SHOULD NOT be allowed to cruise to catch upto him, as that would break the rules.

I totaly agree. :rtfm:... i will make sanction reports in the future when some lazy bountyhunter in a battleship cruises up while i run for my life on thrusters....

---

Donate to the Poor Pilot's Fundation via Sirius Bank /givecash GreenHawk 1000000 now, and support poor pilots sirius wide!
Skype: jure.grbec
My primary char: Jose El Nino - Corsair Elder captain of the SS Greenhawk

Currently Inactive due to pursuit of life long dreams, will be back...*edited* As promised am back.

[marauder]

Wait, Marauder, does that mean if I'm in my fighter, I can report anyone from over 700 metres away?

That's a bit of a harsh stance Marauder. I think that 4k is the best, but that does restrict capitals a bit...

No, thats my stance on this 'issue'. I know for a fact that you're perfectly capable of staying well within 1000m of a capship and still regen your shields, all it takes is concentration and an agile ship. Besides which if you re-read what I posted you'll see that it's about me being in a capship and being attacked by a fighter or bomber.

My character who actually has a capship (currently the only character I've got with one) has no interest in killing a lone or pair of pilots in one ship. So I will only kill a fighter/bomber in my capship if they refuse to disengage, otherwise I will deal enough damage to force them to run away, but I won't be chasing them.

Killing off a hostile capital ship is a different matter entirely, because theres:-
A) alot more effort and time involved in building a capship,
B) theres a heck of a lot more people onboard a gunboat/cruiser/destroyer then a bomber
C) theres generally more left to salvage from a capship then a fighter/bomber.

As for transports, A), B) and C) still apply and theres also:-
D) it denies a group of enemies financial support
E) it alters the price of whatever commodity the trader was hauling (ok, it doesn't really do so, but it would)

If I'm the one in a fighter, and I run into a capship using enemy (only if I'm unlucky usually) then I'll disengage unless I can see that I'm doing enough damage to possibly chase it off/force it to disengage.

[Muleo]

What about this scenario?

4 gunboats, 2 on each side engage.
They're all firing at each other, and they split off in 2x 1v1 fights.

One gunboat kills his target, the other 2 are still fighting 6k away.

Is he not allowed to cruise?

[Edge]

***Beware Marines***
***Tusks Ahead***


This is a ridiculous attempt to make uber fighters in a battle. You have to come up with another rule now that will prohibit capships from moving on a battlefield, to decrease the miss rate of your Supernovas. And then, remove the cap ship's shields. Then their guns. Then, remove cap ships altogether.

Epyon's solution would be wonderful, if it would be possible to implement it. I don't get bothered much if a cap ship chases my fighter. With my LR fighter I have out-stepped a legion of liberty independents in cap ships, when I took them through the Badlands. I was thrusting, they were cruising. I should have reported all of them? I find this silly, and somewhat amusing.

So, no, I don't agree with that rule. It creates confusion, and it can't get any clearer than now, otherwise more rules will appear, and there are lots already. Try to cut down the un-necessary rules, such as this one.

[McNeo]

I think I agree in part with the Edge.

This, while being a logical rule if one thought hard, would not be a logical rule if one only gave cursory thought. As such, I think that this rule would increase rule lawyering and people interrupting RP engagements with "OMFG GET OUT OF FIGHT U WAS 4K!!!!". I get enough of the other rules being quoted to me on a regular basis by some know it all (who gets it wrong no less), I don't want that to increase.

Also, short of a video, this is very hard to prove. Sure, you can take a picture of the guy at 4k, and then you fighting, but how are the admins to know what order they're in without a timestamp?

I do not think this rule should be added, we have a lot less problems now with this particular issue than if this rule were to be instigated, and it would mean more sanctioning for a ridiculously minor infraction, such as I believe this is.

Sure, its annoying, but come on guys.

[marauder]

@McNeo: If I'm in a fighter, fleeing/disengaging/whatever and someone cruises after me in a capship and theres other members of the faciton I'm in on, then I'll consider that I'm luring an enemy into a trap and try to do exactly that.

Otherwise I'll lead them on a long and pointless <strike>dance</strike> chase and then consider that a capship wasting time, fuel and energy on chasing a lone fighter a victory for whatever faction my fighter belongs to.

If I'm the one in a capship, I'll only chase another capship and then only if I consider it worth it, otherwise I'll hammer them and let them run off.

[El Nino]

Well I've just reported two BH gunboats for this kind of behavior... cruising up on me anytime I went over 1k then ramming me and start shooting again, how the hell am i suppose to dodge them, without cruising myself...

Without the rules as they are any kind of maneuverability advantage a fighter might have over a gunboat, gets lost. So when fighting gunboats in a bomber, you are not only out gunned you are also out maneuvered. I believe this is not the kind of gameplay Discovery was intended for... otherwise we would see much better capital ships...

---

Donate to the Poor Pilot's Fundation via Sirius Bank /givecash GreenHawk 1000000 now, and support poor pilots sirius wide!
Skype: jure.grbec
My primary char: Jose El Nino - Corsair Elder captain of the SS Greenhawk

Currently Inactive due to pursuit of life long dreams, will be back...*edited* As promised am back.

[timmychen]

Just a note, this is not a rule proposal; this is simply asking for clarification on an existing rule.

[Barracuda]

Yes, With all this said... I have an Example Question...
A battleship, And a VHF, Engaged my Cruiser...
I thrusted away from the battleship...
about 3k... and The battleship entered cruise...
Cought up, And Got me...
That rengagement?...

---

&lt;&lt;-&gt;&gt;WE ARE THE COLLECTIVE | WE ARE AS ONE | RESISTANCE IS FUTILE&lt;&lt;-&gt;&gt;

Proud Member of - [M] &amp; LR | DPL

Cartman - Liberty Rogues - Barghest Pirate Bomber
Marksman - Outcast - Outcast Destroyer
Flame - Lane Hacker - Lane Hacker Gunboat
Demonica - Lane Hacker - Slip Stream
<span style="font-family:Comic Sans Ms"><span style="color:#33CC00">Lorenzo - Bounty Hunter - Bounty Hunter Battlecruiser</span></span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans Ms">
<span style="color:#33CC00">Barracuda - Trading Vessel - Adv. Train</span></span>
<span style="font-family:Comic Sans Ms"><span style="color:#33CC00">Shotgun - Trading Vessel - Adv. Train / next mod</span></span>

[RickJames]

I am surprised no admins have commented yet. It was stated a while back that capships "can not" use cruise to catch those ships that are faster when thrusting. The first person to use cruise for any reason is considered to be leaving the fight and is not allowed to engage further unless attacked.

This does make it so capships can not catch fighter class ships and it was mentioned that this is the way it is supposed to be. It is one of the negatives of flying a capship.

Are cap ships now allowed to use cruise to catch a fleeing fighter that is only using thrusters?