Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing

[MB52]

No offense to anyone, but those who enjoy the rules as is, are PVP whores.;)

The rules as is work against RP, and strengthen PVP.

Simple solution? remove batts and bots. Problem solved, people can't retreat to rearm, and if they come back fully healed, you know they docked and repaired.

---

I’ll carry this flag
To the grave if I must
Because it’s flag that I love
And a flag that I trust

[mjolnir]

No offense to anyone, but those who enjoy the rules as is, are PVP whores.;)

The rules as is work against RP, and strengthen PVP.

Simple solution? remove batts and bots. Problem solved, people can't retreat to rearm, and if they come back fully healed, you know they docked and repaired.

It's not the bats/bots that are the main problem.. but shields on large vessels.

And I think this is going nowhere.

---

Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.

[X-Lancer]

simple..you only can cruise for chasing in a fight...if you think you can't win them..call for help or engage cruise and escape..

[MB52]

I guess it is unlikely that anything can be done. The rule has been here for a long time.... and it has worked decently. But are we just to accept decently? or do we want better..?

Edit- what about removing batts/bots AND shields on capships?

Single player has capships with no shields, why do ours have them? I think the ingame reasoning was that the capships are too large for the shield generators, and the tech wasn't there...

---

I’ll carry this flag
To the grave if I must
Because it’s flag that I love
And a flag that I trust

[mwerte]

The NPC BSs don't have shields because it makes SP impossible, and so far Igiss has stated that he wants to keep SP playable.

We don't remove them from players because the shaking makes it impossible to aim. And it makes EVERY engagement costly which, in turn, promotes more ooRP power trading...and so on.

---

[mjolnir]

Dramatic changes to whole mod are surely going to fix this...

one change creates 100 other problems... while there was virtually not problem in the first place.

---

Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.

[sovereign]

Yeah, a lot of stuff does seem... weird. I personally am for the idea of certain rules (especially retreat, death, not so much) being 'breakable' if RP'd properly. Basically, if situation demands, people can do what they think should work, and as long as no one directly involved (indie caps getting hosed does NOT mean involved in this context, btw...) is really upset about it its fine. If they are, admins (before sanctioning) ask other side for story, and if it seems reasonable, they either A) let them off the hook, or B) lighten the sanction (like %credits as opposed to full credits, weapons, ban). If not, warn them about their interpretation, and apply normal sanction. Might be a little more work, but not too much if sanctions went like this;

1) Player A does something questionable in regards to Player B (like hit and run type thing).
2) Player B files sanction report.
3) Player A receives a notice in hold about possible sanction, and a thread appears in sanctions for them to defend themselves. They have a set time limit (say, 3 days) to post there.
4) If Player A does not respond, sanction goes into place. If they do, thread works sort of like an open-ended appeal discussion, with normal witnesses, filer, and sanctionee trying to come to an agreement.
5) If report is withdrawn or Player A appears to have acted justly (in-RP), then no sanction is applied. Otherwise, Player A is sanctioned as normal after set time period from his/her first response.
6) If Player A receives sanction, discussion may continue as per current appeal process.

Anyone see anything wrong with this?

Mention.

Anyone see any problems with this? Could fix this pretty well if you ask me.

---