+- 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: Theoretical Scenario (/showthread.php?tid=57180)
Pages:
1
2
Theoretical Scenario - Decerebrated.Individual - 03-23-2011
First of all...
This is not a suggeston to do or change anything, like drop the docking counts as pvp death rule.
I'm not asking to re-install the 10 k rule either, I love it this way.
Its meant as an exchange of ideas on something.
Since peope tend to think polls are meant to further any agenda rather than inform on opinions, and that makes them post "lol no" and leave the thread, I'm not going to make a poll on this.
So since the 10k fleeing rule has been removed, I would like to hear some thoughts about what would happen if you also removed the "docking counts as pvp death" rule.
Right now, a ship can run out of radar range, and if no one follows it to the base to see it dock, it can repair and re-engage, or change characters and re-engage.
This is a strong motivation for everyone to follow the enemy to the enemy's base, so that you will see him dock, or so you can kill him before he docks, or prevent him from docking out of sight.
This leads to the following situations:
-Pirates will lead lawfuls to "hidden" pirate bases like rochester and buffalo, and the lawfuls will be motivated to continue the persuit and buzz around the base, trying to kill him or camping it so they see him dock. Not really the way it should be.
-People will tend to stay near their enemies bases, so that they see it when the enemy docks, so that the enemy cant re-engage.
-People will tend to base hug but not dock, if they see an enemy near. Not really its supposed to be
Now...
If you say that one is allowed to dock, repair, and re-engage, not only when the enemy doesnt see it (they way it is now), but also when the enemy sees it...
I predict this:
-If the lawfuls see that they are not going to catch a pirate before he reaches his "hidden" base, they are going to break off the persuit before he gets there, because they are never going to be able to kill him at the base. Kinda like it should be
-A base will be the ultimate battle-asset. No one is going to beat you if you stay near a base. They can do it and they can try it away from your base, but they wont succeed if you are protected by a base. Exactly how its supposed to be?
-Once a trader lives to dock, even if the pirate saw him (in fact it will be even easier to find the pirate if he followed the trader all the way to the base) "coincidentally", a massive warship will log on jsut after the pirate docked, and follow the pirate. The trader told the lawfuls where to find the pirate, and they are now in hot persuit. Realistic? I say yes, it is.
-Pirates wont stand a chance if they parade their naked butts around near lawful bases. Tehy are going to have to use witt and stealth in remote places. Exactly how its supposed to be?
So....
Would it actually be better to make only death count as a pvp death?
Or would it be better to make fleeing 10k count as a pvp death but not docking? Or both again?
Discuss.
Theoretical Scenario - Death.RunningVerminator - 03-23-2011
Like cannon said, this is a trial. If something is wrong with the new rule then I'm sure it would be adjusted accordingly.
On a side note, stop making so many threads. D:<
Theoretical Scenario - Decerebrated.Individual - 03-23-2011
' Wrote:Like cannon said, this is a trial. If something is wrong with the new rule then I'm sure it would be adjusted accordingly.
On a side note, stop making so many threads. D:<
If you dont want to discuss this, dont post here.
Did you read the part where I said that this is asking for an exchange of ideas, not asking to change anything?
I can make as meany threads as I like . You dont have to read them, nor do you have to post in them.
Theoretical Scenario - Death.RunningVerminator - 03-23-2011
' Wrote:If you dont want to discuss this, dont post here.I am discussing this. 'Cause what it sounds like is that you don't like the new rule and think there are flaws and it will go bad. I'm just re-assuring you that this is a trial and if it turns out the rule is crap then the rule will most likely be changed.
Did you read the part where I said that this is asking for an exchange of ideas, not asking to change anything?
I can make as meany threads as I like . You dont have to read them, nor do you have to post in them.
Btw, it wasn't a demand or anything of the sort. Just a statement.
Theoretical Scenario - Decerebrated.Individual - 03-23-2011
' Wrote:I am discussing this. 'Cause what it sounds like is that you don't like the new rule and think there are flaws and it will go bad. I'm just re-assuring you that this is a trial and if it turns out the rule is crap then the rule will most likely be changed.
Btw, it wasn't a demand or anything of the sort. Just a statement.
I like the new rule.
I think its better this way than it was before.
And right now, when I think about the docking thing, I come to the conclusion that it would be even better if docking didnt count as a pvp death either.
Both in a RP way and in a game mechanic way. Not to mention the reducing of violation reports and rule lawyering.
But I'm sure there are people who coem to different conclusions than me, and I would like to know their line of thought.
Since I cant expect you to read all my posts, I cant expect you to have known that this was my previously stated opinion, so I forgive you.
I think the best would be to stop interpreting hidden agendas into my threads and posts, and to just discuss the subject.
Theoretical Scenario - AshHill07 - 03-23-2011
I was going to say no since its unrealistic to instatly reload a ship with equipment.
However.
Fighters, yes I could understand (Just have a look at Aircraft Carriers, see how quickly those guys can land a fighter, rearm and relaunch), Switching accounts, yes I could also understand (I mean the ship was just sitting there, no need to re-arm if its fully armed already). However, Caps should either have a stall introduced so it takes longer for them to reload and rearm.
So if something was added to make it so caps were re-armed slower, then yes it would definatly make sense.
And yes, being a cap owner, I just stabbed myself in the back ... dam ...:)
Theoretical Scenario - Decerebrated.Individual - 03-23-2011
With you on the caps... I always wanted them to be able to dock only on certain bases, like shipyards or gaurd systems (cause size matters).
Thing is... if you cant beat anyone near their own base... it would be sometihng that I would call horribly wrong or unfair. It would be a realistic game mechanic. Just like you cant shoot down a battlship in your fighter on you own.
Right now I can take my Sabre and kill pretty much any bomber, trader, and maybe even navy VHF even if he tries to hug a base, given the pilot is a little less skilled than me.
Fair if you only look at the 1 on 1 aspect?
MAybe some would call it that.
Its still a thing that appears horribly wrong to me.
If they guy has an allied base right next to him I shouldnt be able to beat him. It makes no sense.
Theoretical Scenario - Hone - 03-23-2011
I would say this would make bases TOO ultimate, and encourage base hugging too much. If bases had health e.g. they could be destroyed/shut down (no docking and base turrets offline for say half an hour) then I would agree with this change, but as it is, I think the unrealistic "no docking in pvp" rule is the trade-off price we have to pay for having invulnerable bases.
Theoretical Scenario - Hone - 03-23-2011
On which note: Can we have vulnerable bases please? I really like the idea of the tactics involved with shutting down the bases to win a fight.
Theoretical Scenario - Decerebrated.Individual - 03-23-2011
As far as I feel it, bases arent supposed to be vanquished.
If they were vanquished it would change hte RP cannon of the server.
Rheinalnd aint supposed to conquer Texas until the day the devs say Rheinland did.
Just accept that you wont be able to beat a guy near his own base.
Its a new game dynamic.
I dont find that hard to accept at all.