+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Three death rule (/showthread.php?tid=2698)
Three death rule - majkp - 04-13-2007
I agree with Cay that arguing before every fight is quite odd, but it can be also argued after the 1st win/loss. I believe most of us are used to thank the opponent when PvP finishes. So why not to decide they want to continue the fight at that time? You mostly have some time to get near to your opponent anyway...
Three death rule - Rogue63 - 04-13-2007
I dont have a problem either way with 3 deaths or 1 deaths. Most people check who is in system with them or who is in the system they are going to, and if a fight is possible a quick private chat could be sent by either party if a one death battle is preferred over the 3 death scenario. Or after the first death a similiar mesage could be sent. Just a matter of communication.
Three death rule - Lairig - 04-13-2007
The balance between 2 types of suffering, not using fighters much, or a before combat pm that an all fighter attack is coming, allowing the other side to switch to their fighters. I think it would be good to be able to have an all-fighter at times, so how else could it be done ? (this meant as asking for ideas, not meant as its the only one).
Three death rule - caylith - 04-13-2007
Yeah, you have a good point. But, sadly, the opposing force will not switch to their fighters. They'd rather stay in their cap ships and claim victory that way. It's the easy way. And from what I was told today in game bye one from the other 'side'...obviously we don't want to win because we fly fighters and a very limited amount of cap ships.
The server is nothing but cap ships now as it is. There is no balance anymore... meaning the amount of fighters vs cap ships.
It doesn't even matter if the rule of 1, 2, or 3 deaths are applied to certain ships. Those who fly fighters will now upgrade. I won't do it.
Come on...kill me in my raven claw when you're in your Battleship, or Gunboat, or Destroyer, or Cruiser, or Frigate! Good on you!
Three death rule - Exile - 04-13-2007
Yes caylith, todays battle ( phantom vs SA-BSG in Cali) clearly showed, there is no ballance.
heck, i was the only figther on SA side ( Exaillian) while all the phantoms ( except darkstar i belive) we're in figthers, where's the balance in that?
( Great battle btw;))
Three death rule - Fellow Hoodlum - 04-14-2007
As predicted earlier, its turning into a capship only server. Shame really ...
The battle was set up basically to prove the point, we had two capital ships, and the rest were fighters. The
opposition at the beginning had all of one fighter, and that was a BHG.
Sick of the taunting, and the pathetic lack of use of the new 'one death rule' (Go read 6.8 Guys)
The fighter is dead, long live the the fighter.
Hoodlum
Three death rule - Yngen - 04-14-2007
I'll reemphasise what Exile said.
The use of bases can be regulated to make battles more realistic, give some breathing room for the victor while not spoiling the loser's fun by preventing him from continuing when someone utterly destroys him in seconds. Combatants should replace their ships from faction bases, not just friendly bases. The abuse of Zoner and Junker bases comes to mind, if you aren't a Zoner or a Junker you shouldn't be storing your fighters and battleships there. In effect it steals one of the few exclusive benefits of those factions when you do so. This simulates getting rescued, hospitalized and aquiring a new ship. This also gives the opportunity to simulate a counter attack. If a losing party has to return to a faction base to get another ship, the winner can then take the fight to the loser's doorstep rather than continuing to defend their own turf from ceaseless attacks by an enemy whos home may be 3 systems away or more.
The only problem to the staging rule idea are Phantoms and generic ID wearing players (trader, merc, pirate etc.) [Phantom], the Discovery server player faction lead by Kane, choose to hold to a one death rule-so a staging/ship storage rule would be moot with them. However there are people on this server now using the Phantom ID who are unaffiliated with Kane's faction. Phantom IDs don't have a corresponding faction base, so they are forced to use other bases (or all bases.) Mercenaries and generic pirates are the worst off. I believe in order to balance the advantage a mercenary, generic pirate or phantom-ID wearing player has in choosing whom to fight and where, all of these players should be held to a one death rule regardless of the ship they fly.
I'm not sure it would be a good idea to replace the 1, 2 or 3 death rule with a base-staging rule as it would leave people open to harrassment. Abusive players would eventually appear who simply would not stop attacking until the defender logs off or otherwise retreats. Base staging in combination with some regulation as to the number of times you can attack an individual or group would be best.
Quote:Though personally I think char switching should be prohibited completely if you have already entered the fight. Find out what you need before you enter, not after.
I believe this will only encourage more cap ship use over fighters. If I see an unidentified enemy in a neighboring system and I know he is coming my way I have to choose which ship to bring to the battle (I'm thinking in a defensive situation, like my KNF ships where I have 2 fighters and a cruiser all in the same place.) If given the choice to engage an unidentified target with a cruiser or a fighter, it would always be prudent to go for the most powerful ship because I cannot verify what ship class the enemy is bringing until (s)he is in sensor range.
Quote:Level 30 rules have absolutely NOTHING to do with 3 death rules. Level 30 means if your below it your safe. Being in the Bretonia-Kusari war has no effect on that. Everything you just said is incorrect AND has nothing to do with this issue..
There is only one reference of three in 7.2 rule to being lvl 30 or less. The other 2 rules clearly state that if you are at a state of war, whether as a result of the mod design, or due to an official declaration made by an official faction leader, you can respawn as many times as you like (unless you have the afore mentioned town hall meeting and mutually agree to have a specific number of respawns.) The complaint here is that declaring war is perhaps too easy a way to abuse the 3 respawn rule because there is no limit to the number of wars one can declare or with whom you can declare it AND one shouldn't have to form a commitee to have a dogfight.
Three death rule - Dab - 04-14-2007
No they wouldn't switch to fighters.. They wouldn't stay in their caps either. If they knew an all-fighter attack was coming EVERY person would switch to a nearby gunboat so they can fly around and missile spam. The most favorite'tactic' they can think of.
SA, SF, and KNF are particularly bad about the capships only crap. AW, RM, Phantoms, GoR, and even TBH use a decent amount of fighters. People don't see many of the AW fighters anymore because all that happens is SA jumps in their GBs and missile spams them. That or they jump in more GBs and use the ridiculous amount of damage their stock weaponry can do against BATTLESHIPS and simply kill everything.
I'm starting to think that restricting capships to factions, then restricting factions to a set number of caps is starting to sound good. Even though I would love for everyone to have the freedom of choice, the amount of fighters I see now is making me think this is the only fix. We need to upgrade fighters. Damage is okay, as 3 fighters can take out 2 cruisers.
But the ease in which capships kill fighters is just stupid. Missiles need a serious downgrade in just about everything, and then normal BS turrets need a speed downgrade.. GB turrets need a speed downgrade and especially a damage downgrade. A single Lib GB being able to kill a BS is retarded.
Three death rule - Doom - 04-14-2007
' Wrote:As predicted earlier, its turning into a capship only server. Shame really ...
The battle was set up basically to prove the point, we had two capital ships, and the rest were fighters. The
opposition at the beginning had all of one fighter, and that was a BHG.
Sick of the taunting, and the pathetic lack of use of the new 'one death rule' (Go read 6.8 Guys)
The fighter is dead, long live the the fighter.
Hoodlum
Correction...Exillian and Hood are both wrong...there were three fighters entering the phantom fight on SA side...yes..exillian was there as well as BHG pilot...but my fighter was also in that fight...we had one more but he left due to RL issues.
No back on topic. I blame factions and faction leaders for this situation. Leaders must appoint every single ship in fleet and fleet needs to be balanced. In the early days of BSG on this server we had only two battleship slots. Each battleship had minimum of 6 fighter wing under its command and two cruisers. Max number of fighters in one wing was 12. We had 25 members if i am not mistaken...2 Bstars, 4 cruisers, 2 bombers and rest were Vipers...I use it only as example for better role play.
Lets face it..better weapons on Battleships, cruisers, gunboats and fighters wont solve anything. As well as nerfing some ships. Role play balance must be kept by us, players and not by constant ship or gun changes...
Fleet size must be balanced by number of members and two tagged ships per player max (banks and storages not included) and by amount of systems they control (for RM, SF, SA and KNF)..other factions that control only one system must have smaller fleets then house faction...(there can be exceptions to this)...
Three death rule - Fellow Hoodlum - 04-14-2007
Thanks for the correction Doom ... And BSG is the best example of a well controlled faction, apart from the
Phantoms, that has graced the server. Worse thing you did was changing the name from [CR] ...
Balance issues are getting a little lost I think now with so much changing at once, litttle things are making
large differences, with the high standard of pilots here now.
Much more difficult to tell how much difference these changes are making, and the benefits and losses to
all of us.
Lets keep it clean and start another thread as this one has wandered off the original subject just a touch ...
Hoodlum