' Wrote:BUT! If they did not bring your shield below 50% (in this specific instance, I doubt that they did) it was not an engagement and you did not flee.
They were pirates, so they probably made a demand before shooting, means he got an engagement notice.
da rulez Wrote:5.2 All attacks must be the result of some form of role play. "Engaging" is not sufficient. An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Being hit with a CD is not considered an attack. If a player is attacked he has a right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking.
It sayeth, that an engagement only happens after 50% shields are lost. I could give 'engagabugs' all day long, and not have an engagement if I do not take someone's shields down or get my shield taken down.
Nah, actually Agmen said it once that if engagement was clear aka if the person is riled up to kill someone and can actually kill him then engagement already happened.
Because it created a problem. Police/Military characters would kill a pirate, say, in New York. Then twenty minutes later they'd either go to another Liberty system to patrol, or log off.. Then that pirate would reenter New York and go back to pirating just because the Navy guy logged. Rampant loop-holing to avoid consequences and promote RP-less piracy/pvp-whoring.
' Wrote:Ok then, but why is fleeing and blowing up considered the same if it's all about realism?
Because it's also about practicality. Without the 'fleeing = death' clause in the rules, people would just fly away everytime they got hurt, restock bots/batts, and return. There used to be no fleeing rule.. And used to be no DEATH rule. This happened over and over and over. When you have a 4v3 battle where the ending numbers were over three dozen deaths, you know you have a problem.. That's a real example too, it actually happened.. It was fun.. For the first few respawns, then got annoying since neither side backed off. What should have been a twenty to thirty minute fight dragged on for five hours.