There has been much debate on Cruise rules. I for one have fought against them and failed in my first attempt but, I also went about it all wrong.
It seems to me that to have the Cruise rules in place to make PVP takes less time and to provide less hassle to an aggressor only helps to bolster the PVP and force more people to PVP when the may want to use something other than blaster war fare.
Being that this is a RP server, killing should not be made easy and a player should have every ability to defend, avoid, and deter their attacker every way possible, even if it means playing cat and mouse in a neabula untill the aggressor's attention span has run out.
Now being an imperfect being I understand I can not see every perspective so, I await others opinions but, my big question is, DOES THIS SUPPORT RP or PVP? Can anyone provide responces on how it supports RP, I can see none. I know that I don't need a kill message every time I shoot at someone and I don't need to chase them out of system for 4 hours because they were smart enough not to die in a fight they didn't think they could win, or hit cruise for a second.
I'm seeing a steady chaffing of this rule I personally think it needs to go to the PVP server and let us act more life like.
Other people dont have to address my question directly this is for everyone so, if you have another, DOES THIS SUPPORT RP or PVP then feel free to post.
I believe it is a PVP rule, designed to make PVP easier....which, makes people more inclined to PVP. It is, in RP, a good strategy, and, one would think, that such a strategy, that could make a PVP exhausting, would make PVP less common in favor of some RP...but, then, if a PVP death means one cannot RP, well, I'm not sure.
The PVP is tied closely to the RP, but I do not think the Cruise rules support RP in any manner.
Edit: as for the PVP server, just because there isn't one, doesn't mean the RP shouldn't be there. Thats what the community, as a whole, wants, is an RP game (or so I believe).
The rule is flawed. Shieldrunning is unnacceptable, simply because then the fight WON'T end. However, not being able to chase a target by entering cruise is BS, pun unintentional. Mercy. Give none, get none. Why would I let my figthers get slaughtered when I can just as easily waltz in and maul them from two kilometers with an unprecedented volume of firepower? Seems more logical this way...
Quote:Quick comment - we thought that Panzer was the Leader, Swift. -Agmen
Posts: 2,122
Threads: 244
Joined: Oct 2007
Staff roles:
Personally, I don't see any point in prohibiting some form of "shield running" when it only takes a handful of hits in a few seconds to eliminate a fighter class ship's shields. For a capital class ship, then I can see it being a problem. Hull damage is what can take serious time to accomplish against a fighter class ship, not shield damage. I also think that if a fighter engages cruise engines, that is a huge disadvantage for the fighter. They can't fire their weapons, their speed is reduced to impulse, and they become a much easier target to hit for the five seconds that their cruise engines are charging. If every fighter I fought tried to escape on cruise, my kill count would be substantially higher than it is. Without the armor upgrades, I can see the shields as having a greater impact on the outcome of a battle, but with them, I don't think the rule accomplishes much for fighter class ships.
What it does accomplish is endless wrangling over the rules DURING combat, and monthly threads like this one.
Check out my Trade Development Blog
for all the latest news on Nerfs and Final Nails, or to request trade changes.
shield running is a good tactic. the problem is that a side cannot afford to retreat. - when it was in character.... a pilot that realizes that he cannot win - or only win with a very lucky hit ... but would on the other side be in much greater risk to loose his life... - - such a pilot would just retreat.
the problem is that people WANT to fight to an end. and so - fights last too long. retreating means to be locked out of a system for up to 4 hours - and so, a player has another reason not to retreat.
so in roleplay - this rule is stupid and detrimental - but if it did not exist, fights might become a lot tougher - and ship classes could be unbalanced a lot, of course - especially capital ships that can cruise away to fill up their shields. ( 70 CDs only last so long..... )
so - i think the no cruise at all rule is necessary. not logical and all - but necessary to limit fights to a reasonable time / location.
i think .... people should behave easier with that rule though - if there is an understanding about it. sometimes cruise is no shield running but used in favour of good RP. - but a player using cruise would allways fear to break a serverrule. - so such an understanding can only be achieved in planned events. ( some players are just too much after reporting others.... )
(( but i got mad at someone activating cruise in a dogfight, too some time. - and felt utterly stupid and embarrassed about my own behaviour later. stupid thing... ))
a good thing woudl be to say that cruise is basicly allowed, as long as its not shield running. - shield running isn t hard to recognize. - but its not objective. for some its shield running, for others its not... so its a bit of a problem here - and will lead to more ooc and flamed, i guess.
Then take away the capital ships. Treat the source of the problem and remove the rule, don't just stopper up the symptoms.
EDIT: Missed Jinx's post. Shieldrunning is fine the way it is, that makes a fight virtually impossible. I just think it is bad RP NOT to chase an enemy target in a capital ship if it means letting the target get away when your entire motivation for having a capital ship is to kill said people...let's face it, if the Outcasts had no military enemies they needed to massacre would they bother building a Battleship?
Quote:Quick comment - we thought that Panzer was the Leader, Swift. -Agmen