First off: the cruise changes were primarily pushed through by me. Please direct all blame and anger in my direction and not at the other guys.
To start at the beginning, the cruise is fleeing rule existed for a few reasons.
1. To prevent shield running.
2. To improve the chances of smaller ships escaping from bigger ships without allowing 1 to occur.
(I'm sure there is a third reason but I can't remember it).
and so the cruise is fleeing rule was born. The main reason was shield running.
The problem with this rule was that we are/were using sanctions to address a game mechanics problem. Sometimes we have no choice to do things like this but it is better to fix game mechanics problems if at all possible rather than using rules to work around them.
The number of violation reports is also a problem although it is a secondary consideration. To give you an idea, 5 days ago there were 120 unprocessed violation reports. We've caught up a bit now -- probably only 30-40 open ones. Cruise is fleeing re-engagement violations are some of the hardest to prove and normally take a fairly long time to process. In my opinion, it is better to avoid sanctioning players, in particular new ones by making it impossible for them to break rules.
Some of the options considered were:
1. Make capships including gunboats faction controlled. As the vast majority of rule violations are conducted by non faction members, this would be a quick and simple solution. Independant players could still use capships but only with the permission of factions.
2. Introduce different cruise speeds, big ships go slower. This doesn't necessarily stop shield running but it does allow fighters to escape from capships.
3. Significantly increase cruise charge time based on ship mass.
4. Not letting weapons fire over a certain speed.
5. Draining powerplant when in cruise.
6. Draining sheilds when in cruise.
6. A local chat alert whenever a capital ship uses its cruise engines.
7. Removing cruise from some capships.
8. Banning certain people or groups from using capships if they prove 'unworthy', i.e get a sanction related to this behaviour.
9. Disabling cruise if you have taken too much damage or possibly if your shields are down.
10. Disabling cruise for a few seconds after weapons fire
The current system works like this:
- If you enter cruise and your speed is 20% above thruster speed (for your ship class) your power plant will discharge.
- If you are in EK and your speed is 20% above thruster speed then your power doesn't drain or charge.
- After you exit cruise (speed) your power plant charge is disabled for the period of time equal to the cruise charge time.
- Your power drains to 20 units not 0 (not percent but units -- enough to fire some types of CM). This allows all CMs to be fired except the heavy I think and this is a bug I think. The heavy should be able to be fired in cruise.
And so that is the background behind the change. If it fails to solve problems 1 or 2 or creates unsolvable problems of its own then I am sure we'll remove it and try one of these other options.
I know many of you are certain that this change has failed. Fair enough but please propose an alternative that is acceptable to a fair number of players and solves the above problems.
If you think the cruise power drain can be fixed then list what you think needs to be done.
One thing I ask, try fighting with it in at least a couple of situations first before proposing alternative solutions and/or fixes.
Proud member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"
20% of power is enough for an EKing BS to kill a gunboat, bomber, fighter, whatever.
It is not enough to let any of those defend themselves in any way, shape, or form.
----------------------
Traders are going to die in droves.
Zealot Wrote:Just go play the game and have fun dammit.
Treewyrm Wrote:all in all the conclusion is that disco doesn't need antagonist factions, it doesn't need phantoms, it doesn't need nomads, it doesn't need coalition and it doesn't need many other things, no AIs, the game is hijacked by morons to confuse the game with their dickwaving generic competition games mixed up with troll-of-the-day.
Bleh, misread. Saw 20%, not 20 units period. My bad.
Zealot Wrote:Just go play the game and have fun dammit.
Treewyrm Wrote:all in all the conclusion is that disco doesn't need antagonist factions, it doesn't need phantoms, it doesn't need nomads, it doesn't need coalition and it doesn't need many other things, no AIs, the game is hijacked by morons to confuse the game with their dickwaving generic competition games mixed up with troll-of-the-day.
I like the change,
I want to give it a try.
I am instantly going to get Enhanced CMs for all my eight transports that have Heavy CMs at the moment.
Please make up a new thread when I can reequip Heavy CMs. I need the range for my escape-tactics.
' Wrote:for those who missed it: the moral of it all is ----> traders with teeth are fun for pirates. - within reason.
My two cents come from a quote in a posting I made myself earlier...
Quote:What insane ship designer designs his cruise engines to eat up all the available power on the ship, even threatening to kill the life support? Thats just nuts!
ALTERNATIVE... Have cruise engines drain say 50% or 75% or heck even 90% of power, THAT makes more sense in a realism / nerf the speed attack contest. That way, you could at least return fire after being CD'd or on a high speed drift. You simply couldnt go on a pewpewpewpew rage untill you gave yourself some space to recoup the energy.
![[Image: 7220a57d19cexl1.jpg]](https://imageshack.us/a/img10/5332/7220a57d19cexl1.jpg)
![[Image: 4ZLnMzL.png]](http://i.imgur.com/4ZLnMzL.png)
