Quote:3.2 A player who was killed during a PvP fight in any form, must not enter the system where the fight took place or re-engage the attacker(s) for 2 hours from the time of their destruction, or until this ship leaves the game. The player may do so on a different character to fight for the opposing force.
8|
Whatcha think? Not like it is not already being done.
EDIT:
In the case of large battles involving official factions as opposing sides, for example LN and RM. Players who have an LN ID, if died, could come back as RM IDed characters and join in. If they die there, tough shait.
And as for the "It's not like people don't do it already" th'ang, as far as I'm aware I've never done anythin' of the sort, the man/woman/other/multibox to my left, right, centre and geographical polar opposite doesn't, and the fact tha' one or two members of the lulzmunity decide to occasionally rule violate n' get away with it due to the lack of potential evidence...
...Let me put it l'aik this. Doj occasionally (or used to) hack n' blind engage due to not bein' able to swallow well-deserved sanshunz like a normal human being. That don't mean we all gotta' find it alrighty to counter-hack "'cause this guy I once saw in pick-a-system did it", n' install a "hacks okeyed" policy intah' the server.
Typing in the manner to which I am more conventionally accustomed now; another point is the fact that, not only are increasing one-siders a gameplay bore and increase predicability of outcome, they also decrease the incentive to acquire superior piloting skills. Most importantly, it renders little sense in the eyes of the roleplay universe and basic military theory; rendering a loss on the opposing side does not bilaterally bestow upon you a fully crewed, trained, provisioned, supplied, combat capable fighter/warship/trader out of magic seemingly, nor cause a fully crewed, trained, provisioned, supplied, combat capable fighter/warship to be equally hurried towards the lines. Also, if winning with present forces, why would a commander take the decision to relocate additional forces from elsewhere (which may require them) in order to tackle a threat which is already showing signs of weakening with what her/he presently possesses?
Sadly, the idea seems like a fun-detriment.
THE SYNDIC LEAGUES
(A co-operative of Rheinland's Shipping Unions, retired from a life of piracy.)
Somebody being able to rejoin a battle they were destroyed in is certainly a bad idea. On the other hand, what I don't see a problem with is, say for example I'm a cop and I find a pirate on the lane; he blows me up in a 1v1 and I then switch to a pirate character to team up with him. In this case I could actually ask them if it's okay, but I also don't see a problem if I want to pirate alone on the other side of the system. The same applies vice-versa; if I was the pirate and got blown up, I don't see any wrong in switching to a navy or police character and engaging in patrols with that player. In either scenario, it is very, very unlikely that a re-engagement is going to occur.
(11-12-2013, 11:33 PM)sindroms Wrote: Yes, and didn't we want PVP fights to end faster?
8|
Just saying.
Not by sacrificing fairness completly. :|
I'd prefer just having snubs made a bit easier to kill.
The bots combined with an AU8 make them survive for all eternity, pretty sure I already put forth some numbers about how much hull a VHF has due to bots.
(e.g.: Sabre:
Hull: 11'200 hp * 2.5 = 28'000 hp
Bots: 66 * 600 hp * 2.5 = 99'000 hp
hull + bots = 127'000 hp
Time till the armor is downed by shooting 3 guns (Flashpoints) at it, without missing, without shields: 19.32 seconds...even if all guns were fired constantly and hitting all the time and no shields were had and all ... O; )
![[Image: XTF1d6x.png]](https://i.imgur.com/XTF1d6x.png)
![[Image: KUoTN2f.png]](https://i.imgur.com/KUoTN2f.png)
![[Image: 7tAtSZe.png]](http://i.imgur.com/7tAtSZe.png)
