+- 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: Rule 6.7 (/showthread.php?tid=62249)
Rule 6.7 - Knjaz - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:Dear not-biased trader,instead of simply flaming the topic and look one sided,
how about make your own proposal on how to fix ridiculous situations where pirate capital ships(cruisers- with CD and same thrust speed as the transport vessels) are present and they leave enemy trader vessels unharmed to move on their way (in other words: abusing rules)?
No more ridiculous then the existence of most of the pirate (and other minor faction) capital ships (especially battleships).
But it's needed for balance. And for the fun.
Rule 6.7 - Ceoran - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:Dear not-biased trader,instead of simply flaming the topic and look one sided,
how about make your own proposal on how to fix ridiculous situations where pirate capital ships(cruisers- with CD and same thrust speed as the transport vessels) are present and they leave enemy trader vessels unharmed to move on their way (in other words: abusing rules)?
Unless you wish to maintain the possibilities of rule-abuse there is no need to rage over suggestions that are intended to close loopholes. But anyway now you can continue to beat the dead horse.....
Should I read this as: Sorry, but I'm too lazy to come up with something myself?
If not: Where's the point in pointing to another already existing loophole, that isn't even created by one of the present suggestions, to validate the existence of this loophole? If you were arguing that it would create another one, I would see your point, but currently it only looks like you would want to keep your precious loophole for yourself.
Furthermore, where's the point in using a warship for piracy instead of striking against hostile targets to actually harm the enemy instead of generating 'profit' (you'd have to pirate a lot to do that in a warship)?
The only way I'd see them making sense inRP would be acting as commerce interdiction / destroying hostile supplies. But it's not hard to figure out why we can't give everyone a terrorist ID.
Rule 6.7 - Knjaz - 06-28-2011
There's... another solution.
Transport vessels are forbidden to attack another transport vessel.
PTrans still have it's combat capability, so no harm for smugglers, no harm for traders, pirates still have all the means to get their profit from the trader.
And if you want cargo, bring a friend.
....
(Runs for cover)
Rule 6.7 - SnakThree - 06-28-2011
Substitution is not an option. It would break immersion even more. Pirate Transport was constructed with this intention. To pirate.
Rule 6.7 - Kharon - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:Are you seriously comparing the strength difference of a Pirate Transport vs Other Transports with any Cruiser vs Pirate Transport?
No, i just showed how biased and selfcontradicting some major argumentation pro current Rule 6.7 realy is. You are just forking away from that into/with some cherrypicking sideissue.*
----
Anyway, seems a majority is voting for a change.
Also an even bigger majority agrees to the "Point of View" that current Rule 6.7 is being exploited with Pirate Transports. *(Not with Cruisers)
Rule 6.7 - Grumblesaur - 06-28-2011
I've got a solution.
Fly a bomber. No hassles, and the transport will actually fear you.
Rule 6.7 - Kharon - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:I've got a solution.Just to set this straight:
Fly a bomber. No hassles, and the transport will actually fear you.
"We" dont fear "you"; "we" just avoid "you". Sorry..
Rule 6.7 - Grumblesaur - 06-28-2011
' Wrote:Just to set this straight:
"We" dont fear "you"; "we" just avoid "you". Sorry..
I fly both transports and bombers. There is no "we" or "you." Sorry.
Rule 6.7 - Lunaphase - 06-28-2011
From the responses against this, your basically whining because you would actually have to behave like a pirate should in RP? Flimsy argument is flimsy.
Rule 6.7 - Ingenious - 06-28-2011
Does it not seem silly that we're adding items j) and k) to an already long list of exceptions? Maybe we need a better way.