Discovery Gaming Community
Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - Printable Version

+- 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: Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing (/showthread.php?tid=6905)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - El Nino - 03-13-2008

' Wrote:E.g. 2 I used to hire myself out as escort, but it is infeasible to do this with the current rule. Pirate asks for tax, my employer says no, I engage, skirmish ensues, employer hits cruise, I form up with him (engaging cruise), pirate uses CD. Now unless he shoots at me I’m out of the game… and my employer just has to fend for himself.

E.g. 3 Poor factions historically have always used hit and run tactics. It is all they really have, but with this rule you hit once… and then have to leave the server for 4 hours.

E.g. 4 People have often used the wounded animal ploy… where one engages… appears to be losing and runs away drawing out the enemy to where his mates are waiting to pounce. See battle of Hastings for an example of how this has worked in the past.

These could all be done if people used the rules... you can do a hit and run attack with thrusters alone (unless you use capital ships wich poor people are not suppose to have... the problem is, however, when you use thrusters to escape, the pesty gunboats will hit cruise to catch up, wich is against the rules and overrides the 200 vs 140 speed diffrence, between fighters and caps, that should enable such fights...

Now what you should be able to do, is retreat with trusters and IF you didn't get cruised up on, you could do all of the above...

Offcorse, whenever i tried to thrust away, the "smart" opponent always tried to catch up with cruise engines... :rtfm:if rules were followed to the letter, everything would be alright.


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - Jihadjoe - 03-13-2008

' Wrote:Offcorse, whenever i tried to thrust away, the "smart" opponent always tried to catch up with cruise engines... :rtfm:if rules were followed to the letter, everything would be alright.


OK, even this is bad for roleplay.

Say there are two fighters engaging a a fighter allied to me and I am in my GB, I enter the fight and the two fighters run, thrusting away from me, and we both give chase. Once they are out of my range they turn and engage my friend who is in a fighter, what do I do? Slowly crawl up to them at GB thruster speed while my friend gets shot up? Or do I use what I have at my disposal to save my friend?

I agree with your sentiment but to be honest it is only within RP to use what you have to protect your own people, I can see the point in haveing a rule to prevent shield running in the middle of a fight, as that would make fights go on FOR EVER, and they can be long enough already.

I really don't know any solution to the confusuion over this, but I think we just have to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter, and that creates arguement, which leads to better definition...


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - Vince - 03-13-2008

Well ok..the smart people have now then forced me to unrealisticly play this RP server.

I will now park my one character at Atka, Setup an ambush with my ohter character, Take down the guys bats and bots, dock at atka as if Im running away, switch character, come back and finish the job. That is what you people are now forcing me to do.

So, Jippie Kaye..


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - Jihadjoe - 03-13-2008

' Wrote:Well ok..the smart people have now then forced me to unrealisticly play this RP server.

I will now park my one character at Atka, Setup an ambush with my ohter character, Take down the guys bats and bots, dock at atka as if Im running away, switch character, come back and finish the job. That is what you people are now forcing me to do.

So, Jippie Kaye..

Eh? Is this directed at me? I don't entirely know what you're talking about. The situation I created there is a hypothetcical one, I'm simply presenting an agruement for the sake of discussion. Who are these 'smart' people and why do you have to switch chars?

Forgive me if I'm being dumb here but I'm confused.


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - El Nino - 03-13-2008

' Wrote:Well ok..the smart people have now then forced me to unrealisticly play this RP server.

I will now park my one character at Atka, Setup an ambush with my ohter character, Take down the guys bats and bots, dock at atka as if Im running away, switch character, come back and finish the job. That is what you people are now forcing me to do.

So, Jippie Kaye..


Switching chars to re-engage... is also against rules so... good luck :rtfm:


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - marauder - 03-13-2008

The 'smart people' here would actually consider that to be breaking the rules.

All you have to do is use your thruster and dodge until you reach the jh, you jump, they follow and you plus your friends get to ambush the fool who chased you.

Its that simple, no cruise engines needed, no breaking the rules.

Why is that so hard?


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - Quigs - 03-13-2008

People seem to have this mindset that the only win is kill spam. Any fight you can walk away from is a good one. That's as true to life as it gets. If you are clearly outclassed in a fight and you successfully run away and deny your pursurer his server message, you won. You don't need to go home and fetch your big brother and his friends and beat the hell out of your pursuer 5 minutes later. Thinking you need to resume a fight you (wisely) abandoned once the odds turn to your favour is just being greedy. Take your moral victory, fly to another system, and have a nice day.

' Wrote:engaging a a fighter allied to me and I am in my GB, I enter the fight and the two fighters run, thrusting away from me, and we both give chase. Once they are out of my range they turn and engage my friend who is in a fighter, what do I do? Slowly crawl up to them at GB thruster speed while my friend gets shot up? Or do I use what I have at my disposal to save my friend?
If having a gunboat by his side is what gave your ally his advantage in that fight, then he would be an idiot to fly off on his own after a numerically superior enemy. You don't need a rules exemption to save somebody who's doing something wreckless. Win your fights within Disco RP's rules of engagement or don't win. Anything else trying to rationalize cheating.

CP


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - Jihadjoe - 03-13-2008

' Wrote:People seem to have this mindset that the only win is kill spam. Any fight you can walk away from is a good one. That's as true to life as it gets. If you are clearly outclassed in a fight and you successfully run away and deny your pursurer his server message, you won. You don't need to go home and fetch your big brother and his friends and beat the hell out of your pursuer 5 minutes later. Thinking you need to resume a fight you (wisely) abandoned once the odds turn to your favour is just being greedy. Take your moral victory, fly to another system, and have a nice day.
If having a gunboat by his side is what gave your ally his advantage in that fight, then he would be an idiot to fly off on his own after a numerically superior enemy. You don't need a rules exemption to save somebody who's doing something wreckless. Win your fights within Disco RP's rules of engagement or don't win. Anything else trying to rationalize cheating.

*sigh*

The situation I described in my earlier post is a HYPOTHETICAL one. Not something that has ever happened to me. I am not trying to rationalise cheating, just creating another perspective to view the issue from. Don't take everything people say as their personal veiw of the issue.

The reason I put that there is in order to get some more clarification of this very woolly rule. It is something that COULD happen and the pursuer in the GB would not nescesarily regard himself as breaking a rule.

Please don't all start shouting if someone presents a veiw that is contrary to your own, it just doesn't need it. I am simply presentin possible situations for clarification.

EDIT: Also, if you can kill a pilot, that is better for your char's cause than if you just see him off only for him to come back with all his mates. Becuase the rule is in place it doesn't mean you can behave like it mnakes a difference for you CHARS motivations.

For example, in real life if there is a gunfight between two people, and one runs off shouting "I'll be back soon, I am calling for re-inforcements!!!" you would stop him from doing that, 'cos him coming back with all his mates would reduce you likelyhood of more long term survival. Your char should behave as if this is the case rather than going ... "Phew I saw him off, now it's impossible for him to come back for four hours, 'cos thats just how the universe is."


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - Quigs - 03-13-2008

Hypothetical situation : hypothetical answer. Chill.

CP


Tactical Retreat vs Fleeing - sovereign - 03-14-2008

' Wrote:*sigh*

The situation I described in my earlier post is a HYPOTHETICAL one. Not something that has ever happened to me. I am not trying to rationalise cheating, just creating another perspective to view the issue from. Don't take everything people say as their personal veiw of the issue.

The reason I put that there is in order to get some more clarification of this very woolly rule. It is something that COULD happen and the pursuer in the GB would not nescesarily regard himself as breaking a rule.

Please don't all start shouting if someone presents a veiw that is contrary to your own, it just doesn't need it. I am simply presentin possible situations for clarification.

EDIT: Also, if you can kill a pilot, that is better for your char's cause than if you just see him off only for him to come back with all his mates. Becuase the rule is in place it doesn't mean you can behave like it mnakes a difference for you CHARS motivations.

For example, in real life if there is a gunfight between two people, and one runs off shouting "I'll be back soon, I am calling for re-inforcements!!!" you would stop him from doing that, 'cos him coming back with all his mates would reduce you likelyhood of more long term survival. Your char should behave as if this is the case rather than going ... "Phew I saw him off, now it's impossible for him to come back for four hours, 'cos thats just how the universe is."

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?