+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: The Carrier Update (/showthread.php?tid=121752)
RE: The Carrier Update - An'shur - 10-17-2014
(10-16-2014, 10:30 AM)Vredes Wrote: Carriers are supposed to be large, make them bigger.
There is difference between light carrier (Geb, Elbe) and heavy carrier (Atlantis). I can imagine situation when someone buy Elbe as small as Liberty dreadnought.. and after some update (or I'd rather say downdate) it will be turtle sized.. If I were the owner who bought small ship and got some bullseye, I would write a plea to admins to take it and give me same ammount of money I lost for buying it. Quess they wouldn't do that. There was one thread from Kusari dessie owner.. a QQ thread. I can imagine that anger... People just can't be lucky with something they in fact didn't buy.
PS: Thinking about obtaining an Elbe, small Elbe.
RE: The Carrier Update - Thunderer - 10-20-2014
This could potentially be a bit awkward in role-play, but I doubt it will happen often, as the snub has to dock somewhere first.
What I think would be better to do is divide nanobots and shield batteries into cap class and snub class. Cap can only repair caps and transports, snub can only repair snubs. Snubs would only carry snub class, excluding repair ships, and caps only cap class, excluding battleships, which should have -a bit- of the snub class regens, and carriers, which should have a lot more.
RE: The Carrier Update - Alley - 10-20-2014
(10-20-2014, 11:29 AM)Thunderer Wrote: This could potentially be a bit awkward in role-play, but I doubt it will happen often, as the snub has to dock somewhere first.
What I think would be better to do is divide nanobots and shield batteries into cap class and snub class. Cap can only repair caps and transports, snub can only repair snubs. Snubs would only carry snub class, excluding repair ships, and caps only cap class, excluding battleships, which should have -a bit- of the snub class regens, and carriers, which should have a lot more.
We'd love to do that, it would solve a lot of problems, but without the source code it's never happening. Maybe with FLOS, who knows.
RE: The Carrier Update - MÃmir - 10-20-2014
how about just removing b/b from caps, gunboats and transports and buff hull instead?
RE: The Carrier Update - Hannibal - 10-20-2014
While i do like the idea ,even more since it's a very large map for such a low server population,it's potential for fixing the aforementioned issue will not make up for most of cases that it can be abused
Think about it the option to spam fighters and bombers against any group of players you encounter will decimate them in seconds..
What if instead of being able to teleport form any NPC base at the location of the carrier,the carrier will have to jump there and pick up the players itself and afterward join or rejoin the battle? [using the jumpdrives of course]
Maybe just increase the amount of ships that can be stored on a docking module..from 1 to 2..that will be like what..@6-10 players per carrier,which is more than enough and should not be too overpowered
About the other fix you recently did for the docking modules,where a player could undock from a ship that was docked at a npc base,what if the players could only be ejected by the carrier/(ship with docking modules) and if he tries to undock and the carrier is offline he could go to conn..
would that work?you know..making docking modules not useless for trading ships and the sorts that use shared ship docked on them in case they get attacked or they found a prey themself?
Think about it the option to spam fighters and bombers against any group of players you encounter will decimate them in seconds..
What if instead of being able to teleport form any NPC base at the location of the carrier,the carrier will have to jump there and pick up the players itself and afterward join or rejoin the battle? [using the jumpdrives of course]
Maybe just increase the amount of ships that can be stored on a docking module..from 1 to 2..that will be like what..@6-10 players per carrier,which is more than enough and should not be too overpowered
About the other fix you recently did for the docking modules,where a player could undock from a ship that was docked at a npc base,what if the players could only be ejected by the carrier/(ship with docking modules) and if he tries to undock and the carrier is offline he could go to conn..
would that work?you know..making docking modules not useless for trading ships and the sorts that use shared ship docked on them in case they get attacked or they found a prey themself?
RE: The Carrier Update - nOmnomnOm - 10-20-2014
Is this only for carriers then....
So pirates will not have access to this and this would only be military?
ok
RE: The Carrier Update - SnakThree - 10-20-2014
It's for docking modules.
RE: The Carrier Update - Zen_Mechanics - 10-20-2014
Only millitary has carriers ( and one faction that I will not mention because of the chance of qq ) so if its going to piss off someone, its going to be the pirates - but hey, you are a pirate - You know what you are getting into.
However, I will dislike anyone whos going to use it against one individual - but i trust that most people here know what fairness means. That' is my stance, even though i could have simply said " in combat no one will be fair " and let it be an open case.
RE: The Carrier Update - nOmnomnOm - 10-20-2014
If its for docking modules and not only for the carriers ships themselves then that is fine by me for sure.
Even if it wasn't then I'd still think its a fine idea, though im curious.
RE: The Carrier Update - Alley - 10-20-2014
(10-20-2014, 04:17 PM)Snak3 Wrote: It's for docking modules.
No, it'll be for what ship we think is fit to benefit from this. (but has docking modules, you're correct on that point)