Rules revisions, my thoughts and suggestions

[Exsiled_one]

5.6 If a player engages cruise engine or docks with a station, jump gate, or trade lane during a PvP fight, this player has fled the fight. The fleeing player must leave the system and may not re-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) remain in the system until four hours have passed from the time the fight ended.
Using cruise engines to catch up with those capable of thrusting at higher speed than you is not allowed. Trade lanes may be used to pursue or catch up to other ships under any circumstances, even if the other ship has not yet fled as described above.
The fleeing player can fight in self-defense if attacked again while attempting to leave the system after fleeing.


Here's the issues and questions I've got.

1. Engaging cruise engines should be a sign of fleeing away. But should fleeing away really be the same as death? It shouldn't be so, and fleeing ships should be allowed to enter the same system again in next 5 or 10 minutes, enough for the "victor" to restock himself as well. This way, terrorists, guerrilla and others could get a chance to strike with haste, make enough commotion and kill one ship, thrusting away from the combat after that / using tradelane or jumping to another system to setup an ambush there again. In every scenario rogues should be outnumbered by the lawful faction ships, especially if there's a trade convoy.

Why would I revamp this rule?
- It would offer more interaction with pirates and lawfuls, more usage of light vessels because they can strike fast and thrust away fast enough. But most importantly, this rule would open up the path to another awesome rule.

[xy ship has died due the decommission]or whatever. Intentional killing, intentional deaths after combat, that follow the one thing. They respawn and fly out of the base undamaged. This should be outlawed. If you die, by yourself or by hand of every other player (unless, ofcourse, duel is in question - but we'll come to that as well), you should be inactive with that character for next 4 hours.

What would this new rule accomplish?
- It would accomplish few things, few very useful things. First of all, guerrilla tactics would be more applied against the other enemy factions and there would be an increase in number of fighter ships. From one side and from another side. It would increase the value of the capital ship, but it would increase their weakness as well, and forcing people to dock damaged, unless they want to be inactive for 4 hours, would make them think twice about fights they're getting into.
Basically to sum it up, death should be separated from fleeing or tactical retreat.


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) until four hours have passed from the time of his/her destruction.

If the player respawns in the same system, he/she must leave the system within 10 minutes of his destruction without engaging anyone, except in self-defense. Other players are not allowed to attack one who is leaving.

- Now some people misunderstood this rule, so I just want to clear it up for some people, if I'm wrong, then consider this explanation as a rule change suggestion as well.
When traders die because they carried contraband or refused to pay tax to the pirate / lawful, and undock at same system, they have no right to pick up new cargo, unless they want to get pirated again. Abusing the rule of right to leave the sytem for 10 minutes also means carrying that other part of the rule (not retuning for 4 hours) and i'm sure no trader would want that. Know your rights as a trader, but know the drawbacks of the rules that are protecting you.


6.6 PvP combat is allowed only on roleplay basis. The pilot who is attacking must scan for an ID prior to the attack. Relying on general reputation status (red/neutral/green) without scanning for the ID is not allowed.

- There's an issue with this rule. Spotting a navy gunboat in Corsair space, I have taken a shot of cruise disruptor to slow him down so I can scan him. Here's the trick that's been balancing trough "allowed / unallowed" part of the rules. The Cruise Distruptor.
I am sure no admin would sanction a player who fired an CD on a enemy affiliated ship before scanning his his ID. But then again, firing a CD in any other situation is considered to be engaging the PVP and there's been issues of abusing this as well. In my opinion, people need to be more careful about what affiliation they have on their ships. Especially with /droprep around now.


6.19 Pirates have a right to deal as much damage as they see fit before or after demanding money from a trader ship, but killing trader ship before demanding money or cargo is not allowed. "Halt" is not a demand that justifies destroying a trader.

- this rule always leaves the bitter taste in trader's mouth. Usually leading to the situation where trader fires back and signs his own death threat. It is being abused. I have heard about people actually doing the hard damage on intention so the trader fights back or gets pissed. It creates tension and hatred. Perhaps only lowering the trader's shield would do the trick?
Also, "halt" is certainly not a demand, but "cut your engines [xy] and prepare to be boarded, if you cooperate this will all end up fast" should be an demand.
- When I type "drop 2000 of your cargo or die" after that, i feel that my rp has been crippled. Alot.

Also: Engagement notices.
- This has already been talked around and we know what it means, but since you're reading about the rules here i might remind you about this as well.
The "attacking without engagement rule" does apply to everyone. But that does not, and never meant that you have to write "engaging" every time you attack someone. You have to notify it somehow, and rp has to lead to that, but the actual word "engaging" does not have to be mentioned at all. There was also a topic of "gazillion things to say instead of engaging", I suggest someone digs it up and people read on it a bit. It will broaden your rp spectre to more than "engaeigneg!1"


If you feel different, please tell me where am i wrong about this. Keep it civil.

---

<span style="color:#33CC00">I AM GIVING AWAY MONEY TO CREATIVE MINDS*</span>