"Dies" as in shot down or crashed before T+30 re-up cutoff, your one life is over.
If you disco before T+30, fields are open for instant re-up. Pretty much the way it
is now but fields aren't locked until T+30.
So it's a contest of the 'once combat is joined' part of the rule? IIRC, this has been
an understood and accepted part of whether a disconnected player can be given
permission to re-up and participate for some time now. If reconnection with your
plane airborne fails then the original rule comes into play. As such, occasionally chaos
will ensue.
I've seen the description of the specific events that came to pass and although I can
appreciate the frustration of the player denied I'm not seeing a sufficient case presented
to force a rule re-write of this nature.
What, specifically, causes the need to eliminate that part of the rule? In a way, it
represents a pilot disappearing prior to combat engagement only to re-up a 'new'
plane during or after that engagement (no matter how accidentally) and becoming
a reserve asset (even with the original plane loss in a non-combat situation) that
wouldn't have otherwise existed. That player/pilot usually becomes a 'rogue' in such
a situation, anyhow. He would get to play ... but would no longer be part of the
cohesive unit. While this may also be an eventual result later in the frame for the
other pilots who didn't disco , being such from the outset changes the chemistry
too soon (and may even be done intentionally, which is probably the nature of the
rule being written the way it is). Requesting coding is even more of an unnecessary
'fix.' It wouldn't 'make things better' and is a waste of time and resource.
The 'may not re-up after combat is engaged' part of the rule is at least a compromise
over 'discos represent that random mechanical situation that would have cost a plane,
period' with further BOTD that though it may cost a plane due to a situation that didn't
involve engagement with the enemy, that pilot wasn't captured and made it back behind
his own lines.' That would represent a change in the other direction that would be more
reasonable than what is being suggested, IMO. It would not allow for any possibility
of
intentional disconnection to split one or more planes from the main body to
change the scope of battle (even if such a plan has inherent flaws).
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be the one left out of the frame due to a
combination of technical difficulty and seconds to reslove (especially if I was prepared,
on time and excited) either.
