+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 (/showthread.php?tid=7078)
Pages:
1
2
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Othman - 03-20-2008
And I wouldn't give the gunboats a respawn.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - uspatriotsf - 03-20-2008
' Wrote:Capital ships always die first in mass fights anyway.. So, pretty much pointless.
Oh so very true. Besides the rule did used to be if capships were involved fighters could re-engage up to three times. The rule was abused, misreported and an all out mess, hence why it was changed to "No re-engaging, no exceptions." It's not perfect, but it is better than most, if not any other alternative.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Dieter Schprokets - 03-20-2008
' Wrote:Capital ships always die first in mass fights anyway.. So, pretty much pointless.
Precisely
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - ScornStar - 03-20-2008
I like it, and understand your logic but man folks and the rules:wacko:. enough said. However if you ever cross reticles with me on a mass scale I'd be all for it. Sounds good and, can make the battles a little more epic as well as give repair ships a vital role as Capships would have an added benefit to haveing around. Plus the time it takes to fly back to fight would be a good simulation of being checked out in the sickbay, getting into a new ship, waiting for ordinance and, flight telemetery. Bad ass I'd do it. Server wide, I think to big for many to chew on, plus folks who dont participate on forums may have greater difficulty with that one. I only say that cuz it seems I attract the unspoken attacks from folks I never see on forums, I also havent been beaten by one yet though, cept Yoda, he killed me in my fighter, but I attacked him.:mellow:
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Epholl - 03-20-2008
I agree with chopper... To kill a capship is a lot easier than to kill a fighter.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Jihadjoe - 03-20-2008
' Wrote:I agree with chopper... To kill a capship is a lot easier than to kill a fighter.
You literaly can't miss.
Anyhow, i like the idea, use it for an event, otherwise it will just be stupid.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - pchwang - 03-20-2008
For events only, this suggestion would actually be excellent. In addition, this suggestion and many other new, inventive possibilities might actually fit the RP of certain events very well. I think that this is probably the best solution.
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - MrCynical - 03-20-2008
This is actually a good idea from an RP point of view. Maybe restrict it to battleships/carriers (ie those actually big enough to carry their own fighter wings).
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Fellow Hoodlum - 03-20-2008
Guys, ain't going to happen in general play ... If you wish to use differing parameters for big and CLOSED
fleet battles, that could be engineered by both sides, but, and its a big one ... Its entirely up to you, and no
sanctions would ever be entertained, and no one else could be involved.
And of course, Connecticut ought to be the place to do this ...
Hoodlum
Idea for amedment to rules 5.7 through 5.9 - Othman - 03-20-2008
Indeed, this could only work within close circuit.