• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Discovery General Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions
« Previous 1 73 74 75 76 77 779 Next »
Why do we need carriers in Discovery?

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (7): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Why do we need carriers in Discovery?
Offline Omicron
04-02-2016, 03:45 PM,
#31
The Order
Posts: 4,745
Threads: 386
Joined: Nov 2009

Stop balancing carriers according to their supposed role, instead balance them to fulfill combat role aka pvp. It's easy to justify a faction building a carrier on top of their current one (Liberty, Rheinland, Order etc.) to increase its capability in carrying more and more assets into battle, spreading its influence or simply bridging a gap, such as new light carrier to accompany already existing heavy counterpart battleship (or other way around). You can be very creative with it.

In short, make term "carrier" merely a name that explains its INRP'ly higher aptitude for basing snub operations away from installations than other vessels in its faction line.

[Image: E9d8RnV.jpg?1]
Reply  
Offline Impyness
04-02-2016, 03:49 PM,
#32
BHG; JM
Posts: 412
Threads: 56
Joined: Oct 2013

(04-02-2016, 03:45 PM)Omicron Wrote: Stop balancing carriers according to their supposed role, instead balance them to fulfill combat role aka pvp. It's easy to justify a faction building a carrier on top of their current one (Liberty, Rheinland, Order etc.) to increase its capability in carrying more and more assets into battle, spreading its influence or simply bridging a gap, such as new light carrier to accompany already existing heavy counterpart battleship (or other way around). You can be very creative with it.

In short, make term "carrier" merely a name that explains its INRP'ly higher aptitude for basing snub operations away from installations than other vessels in its faction line.

like the geb

#Snakded
Reply  
Offline Omicron
04-02-2016, 03:51 PM,
#33
The Order
Posts: 4,745
Threads: 386
Joined: Nov 2009

Having 2 light battleships is kinda redundant I know but I am in touch with some modeller who may make it not the case in the future.

[Image: E9d8RnV.jpg?1]
Reply  
Offline Hannibal
04-02-2016, 03:58 PM,
#34
Still a Pyromaniac
Posts: 875
Threads: 79
Joined: Oct 2012

i'm curious..how bad/often was the crash from docking module script?
since we don't have anyone to replace the code could we use it again until we do?


People want to believe that God has a plan for them.
They don't wanna believe that anyone else does..
Reply  
Offline Omicron
04-02-2016, 04:01 PM,
#35
The Order
Posts: 4,745
Threads: 386
Joined: Nov 2009

From what I know, the docking module script produced 100% of cases where jumpholes locked themselves into infinite loop, making everyone stuck inside of them and not being able to traverse to any system short of jumpdrive or dying (and thus spawning on last docked base). It wasn't much about actual crashing the server.

[Image: E9d8RnV.jpg?1]
Reply  
Offline Epo
04-02-2016, 04:06 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-02-2016, 04:06 PM by Epo.)
#36
Member
Posts: 1,706
Threads: 109
Joined: Jul 2014

(04-02-2016, 04:01 PM)Omicron Wrote: From what I know, the docking module script produced 100% of cases where jumpholes locked themselves into infinite loop, making everyone stuck inside of them and not being able to traverse to any system short of jumpdrive or dying (and thus spawning on last docked base). It wasn't much about actual crashing the server.

Well, if it's only that, I can live with it and I'd prefer DMs back fully operational. Most likely there was something more that convinced big guys to turn it off
Reply  
Offline SnakThree
04-02-2016, 04:11 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-02-2016, 04:12 PM by SnakThree.)
#37
Member
Posts: 9,091
Threads: 337
Joined: Mar 2010

(04-02-2016, 04:06 PM)Epo Wrote:
(04-02-2016, 04:01 PM)Omicron Wrote: From what I know, the docking module script produced 100% of cases where jumpholes locked themselves into infinite loop, making everyone stuck inside of them and not being able to traverse to any system short of jumpdrive or dying (and thus spawning on last docked base). It wasn't much about actual crashing the server.

Well, if it's only that, I can live with it and I'd prefer DMs back fully operational. Most likely there was something more that convinced big guys to turn it off

Each and every case of infinite jumping animation resulted in staff having to actively initiate server restart.

How about we not go back to those times when it was daily thing that interrupted so many roleplay.

[Image: rTrJole.png][Image: LJ88XSk.png]
[Image: ka0AQa5.png][Image: QwWqCS8.png]
  Reply  
Offline Jack_Henderson
04-02-2016, 04:14 PM,
#38
Independent Miners Guild
Posts: 6,103
Threads: 391
Joined: Nov 2010

(04-02-2016, 02:57 PM)Impyness Wrote: >dock 4 shared fighters on an LN carrier

>Poke the chat asking people to log them as you fly into leeds

Listen to the rage/confusion/insane laughing when they undock 100k below the sun in California.

That was at least my experience when we tried docking bays on convoys with the same intention of calling for fighters via shareds. Big Grin

The theory is cool, I agree fully, Impy.
It's just that - with Alley gone - it will never work.
Therefore we might as well just find another way of making the class useful.
Reply  
Offline Xenon
04-02-2016, 04:19 PM,
#39
Member
Posts: 2,137
Threads: 191
Joined: Feb 2016

(04-02-2016, 11:12 AM)Thunderer Wrote: So, why do we need carriers in Discovery?

Carriers are intended to operate with the main fleet and usually provides an offensive capability.
We use them single and that's why you might find them useless, Because carriers are just 1 out of many pieces composing a fleet.

[Image: 2aD52st.png]
NEBULA INFORMATION BOT ☆ NEBULA DISCORD SERVER
XENON WEAPONS MARKET ☆ NEBULA GRAND PLAZA ☆ NEBULA TECHNOLOGIES

THE DISCOVERY POBCAST ☆ DISCOVERY SERVER RULES

Reply  
Offline Titan*
04-02-2016, 04:53 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-02-2016, 05:22 PM by Titan*.)
#40
Developer
Posts: 1,075
Threads: 88
Joined: Jul 2013

changee their heavy guns to capital repairer slot

add repair guns carrier can mount to capital repair slot

light repair for snubs
heavy repair for capships

light one should have 2k range and 5k proj speed
beam like proj effect

heavy one should have 4k range 1k proj speed
beam like proj effect but more width

light repair should repair 3k hp of the snubs
15s reload

heavy repair should repair 500k hp of the capships
15s reload and hard to hit allied capships that TSing from 3 or 4k cos 1k proj speed

light carrier and medium should have only 1 capship repairer slot
heavy carrier should have 2 capship repairer slot
so you can mount 2 capship repairer or 1 capship and 1 snub repairer or 2 snub repairer to your heavy carrier
so carriers will support ships in battle and hostile fleet will try to destroy the carrier first
Reply  
Pages (7): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode