+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... (/showthread.php?tid=14677)
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - MB52 - 12-24-2008
Moot point.. with the new rules factions (not even the RM) can't control capships of indies in their respective npc faction. If they try, they face sanctions.
That said I agree with limited restrictions, kinda like the LN is doing now. Just to make sure the capship drives have an inch of RP.
Of course I also believe if official factions are going to restrict and police capships, they themselves need to set a good example and actually RP their capships for once. Usually the only time I see faction capships are to fight, I never see them online just to RP.
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - Camtheman Of Freelancer4Ever - 12-24-2008
I believe that restricting caps will make fighters more usefull, As i tend to hold back from attacking Loki LF's in my RBS. Most do not follow this self-restriction... I had not always done so, but now I see, They REALLY have no chance against a battleship. As for the RM thing i was quoting Koolmo's quote in the order topic.
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - Cellulanus - 12-24-2008
' Wrote:I think that capships don't need any more restrictions than a fighter or bomber.
*Pauses while the rioting mob gets pitchforks and torches*
Think about it. Let's say Mr. n00b power trades, gets a character with a battleship, and has a proper ID and tag. He may even post a short message explaining some vaguely RP reason for getting it. He then goes around PvPing everything he can find. Now of course we could sanction him, but that's extreme so let's suppose we don't. What do we do to stop a battleship from ruining everyone's fun?
Hmmmm..............................
Oh, wait! We have bombers. All we have to do is get four or five together and Mr. n00b will be enjoying a luxurious view of space from his escape pod.
The other community members with their capships and bombers are the restrictions. The good RPers can organize and stop the bad RPers ingame.
We don't even have to do a sanction.
But what about if you can't get 4-5 bombers online?
I've been playing for a few months right now, and seeing 4-5 RM on at any one point has been a fairly rare occurrence, normally its more around 1-3. And I have *never* seen 4-5 wilde online.
Yes battleships need restrictions primarily because the only thing that can take them on solo is another battleship or possibly a well piloted cruiser.
Restrictions aren't about limiting peoples RP, its about limiting the potential havoc that can be wrought.
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - Jihadjoe - 12-24-2008
' Wrote:I believe that restricting caps will make fighters more usefull, As i tend to hold back from attacking Loki LF's in my RBS. Most do not follow this self-restriction... I had not always done so, but now I see, They REALLY have no chance against a battleship. As for the RM thing i was quoting Koolmo's quote in the order topic.
A bomber has no chance vs a battleship either if it's on it own. A bomber and a fighter vs a battleship is near impossible. 2 bombers is a struggle and takes pretty good pilots.
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - Magoo! - 12-24-2008
Linkus Wrote:Grawr, factions are groups of independants.
There be no difference between a group of independants, who just happen to have the same name tag, bullying other independants than factions 'restricting' independants.
Why the hell are factions even trying to restrict independants anyway? If they want to reduce people being 'OORP', they ought to show a good example and hope they follow, not try be server police.
That aside, Merry Christmass:D
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - Eternal - 12-24-2008
' Wrote:I believe that restricting caps will make fighters more usefull, As i tend to hold back from attacking Loki LF's in my RBS. Most do not follow this self-restriction... I had not always done so, but now I see, They REALLY have no chance against a battleship. As for the RM thing i was quoting Koolmo's quote in the order topic.
Are you sure about that ?
Cam , if I where you I'd siriusly consider what Virus said at the begging of this topic.
Anyway , I voted yes ..... because I agree to some extent that random people with little to no RP exp. cannot be trusted with large ships.
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - Cosmos - 12-24-2008
i finally bought an indipendant BS and i RP well as a zoner, staying around my ZOI stating my crew, my intentions etc, thats the RP i look for from other independant caps.
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - Tenacity - 12-24-2008
The primary reason I'm for restriction of capships is simple - some ships should not be common sights around sirius.
I explained this partly in Igiss' post, but ill do it again here, using the order as an example again:
The order is a small organization compared to the other militaries in sirius. While the LN, or RM, or KNF, or BAF may have the resources and crew to man a few dozen battleships or carriers (even the corsairs/outcasts have enough people and resources for this, they're almost houses in and of themselves), the order does not. We do not have the resources to pump out an osiris a day from evora, and we most certainly do not have enough people to crew that many ships.
The problem when ships are not restricted is that players do not pay attention to these RP issues when purchasing. Look at order indies right now, there are more Osirises in the order fleet than there are bombers right now, going by the roster. That is, IMO, way out of whack with how order RP should be.
The same goes for the upcoming order carrier, it is - in RP - even larger than an osiris, requiring even more crew and vastly more resources to construct (it isnt just the carrier, it's all the fighters and supplies it has to carry with it). Now, from what I've heard from Jinx, the infocard SHOULD state "there are only a couple of these ships in operation" - it is meant to be a very rare ship for the order, and the osiris is supposed to be almost as rare.
If there is no restriction put on these ships, we'll end up with the same situation we have with osirises now - too many in operation. Now, we also have the new gunboat and destroyer if players want a capship, and those vessels require significantly less crew and resources to construct. Really, the order should be 90% fighters/bombers, 10% caps, but it will never balance out that way simply because too many players fly capships (and I know, i'm guilty of it as well, but tbh i have been flying a fighter for over 3 months now with aki).
If I were the one given the ability to restrict the order's capships, it would be something along the lines of:
Gunboats "Go ahead, buy a gunboat, just dont be an idiot flying it"
Destroyers "Give me a brief writeup or explanation (on forums or in-game) of what you intend to do with the ship, and show me that you actually know what the letters R and P mean, and you can have it"
Carriers "I hope you started writing your RP for this thing three months ago, because thats the effort I expect for you to deserve this ship."
Battleships "I want to see your RP in other ships before you get this, and I want to make damn sure that you talk more than you shoot."
Now, for the last two those are some pretty hefty restrictions, those should be extremely rare ships for the order - but I dont see any reason why people who dont want to put the effort in for the carrier or osiris cant live with a destroyer or gunboat instead.
You get what you give.
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - n00bl3t - 12-25-2008
How exactly does faction capital ship regulations prevent PVP-whoring and OoRP?
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or... - Cellulanus - 12-25-2008
' Wrote:How exactly does faction capital ship regulations prevent PVP-whoring and OoRP?
It just serves to limit the amount of havoc they can cause.