' Wrote:They exist, but are not used. To get them used, perhaps either make reports to the relevant people, or STFU and stop asking for more rules and restrictions.
-_- anger has no place in this. This proposal would change much and require much. I'd rather not be the one to get factions to use their faction rights more often, as I rather dislike factions for the reason that they get rights (even though they are a necessary evil). The proposal allows for fewer instances of these rules to be invoked.
You have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it's quite understandable to get emotional about it, but please don't. You yourself have acknowledged that the problem exists when you said that the rules in place to keep the system in check were not being used.
' Wrote:I make no secret of having a large amount of cruisers, almost every single cruiser anyone can buy. However, accusing me ignoring the non-existent problem is a good diversion from answering my post content. (Oh, and not all my capital ships are independents, but eh.)
I've given it my all to answer all of your questions. If, however, you feel that I haven't - then my sincerest apologies.
' Wrote:So, you think it is in-RP for a fighter to fight a cruiser, one on one, instead of fleeing? Right. Please, let us come up with tangible situations. (However, yes, the fighter would win. Either by calling backup or the cruiser getting tired of consistently trying hit a target which it cannot hit.)
So there was never a time when a cap ship succeeded in landing a hit on you and bound you to the engagement by draining your shields?
No, in a one on one fight, the fighter would not win. If it calls for backup, it would not be a one on one. In a battle of attrition, the cruiser has to just sit there while the fighter must continue dodging fire or die.
' Wrote:FL was also made for PVP, not RP. Perhaps get rid of RP too? *Facepalms.*
You're taking the quote out of context, as it was just an explanation on the rationale of why I happened to write a pro-fighter proposal first. Also, this is a logical fallacy.
' Wrote:You made it relevant with your "I love caps too" statement. I suggested where your proposals of restrictions would be more appropriate.
Not quite sure how an 'I love caps too' statement validates a proposal regarding fighters within a thread regarding caps exclusively.
' Wrote:-_- anger has no place in this. This proposal would change much and require much. I'd rather not be the one to get factions to use their faction rights more often, as I rather dislike factions for the reason that they get rights (even though they are a necessary evil). The proposal allows for fewer instances of these rules to be invoked.
You have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it's quite understandable to get emotional about it, but please don't. You yourself have acknowledged that the problem exists when you said that the rules in place to keep the system in check were not being used.
I've given it my all to answer all of your questions. If, however, you feel that I haven't - then my sincerest apologies.
So there was never a time when a cap ship succeeded in landing a hit on you and bound you to the engagement by draining your shields?
No, in a one on one fight, the fighter would not win. If it calls for backup, it would not be a one on one. In a battle of attrition, the cruiser has to just sit there while the fighter must continue dodging fire or die.
You're taking the quote out of context, as it was just an explanation on the rationale of why I happened to write a pro-fighter proposal first. Also, this is a logical fallacy.
Not quite sure how an 'I love caps too' statement validates a proposal regarding fighters within a thread regarding caps exclusively.
I am not angry. Well, if you are not going to get them to use the rules to solve situations of abuse, then stop complaining. Quite simple really.
I am not emotional, but eh, feel free to keep stating that I am. The problem exists in people not presenting sufficient evidence. Not the rules. Therefore the rules do not need to be fixed. The people do.
You tried to flip it around on me, with the "your biased" card, and failed.
The only time a capital ship has hit me, was either when I was already in combat, where an LSC main gun hit me, and killed me, or the Isis. However, the Isis did not bind me to combat. If I get hit by capital ship weapons, I am doing it wrong.
Plausible and tangible situations. The fighter should not be holding it's own against a cruiser. It should be fleeing. Eh.
No, it need not dodge fire, or die, it can choose to flee from combat too.
They are both statement which talk about the vanilla FL aspects, due to how the game was built. No fallacy present.
Any thread on capital ships automatically involves all other ships, since capital ships interact with everything. Everything is inter-related.
' Wrote:I am not angry. Well, if you are not going to get them to use the rules to solve situations of abuse, then stop complaining. Quite simple really.
Rules are but another tool to add gameplay mechanics. It is a legitimate tool to fill in where the game code's limitations restrict mechanic implimentation.
' Wrote:I am not emotional, but eh, feel free to keep stating that I am. The problem exists in people not presenting sufficient evidence. Not the rules. Therefore the rules do not need to be fixed. The people do.
So your argument is 'everyone but me is broken, therefore there is no problem.' This is not a legitimate insight.
You tried to flip it around on me, with the "your biased" card, and failed.
' Wrote:The only time a capital ship has hit me, was either when I was already in combat, where an LSC main gun hit me, and killed me, or the Isis. However, the Isis did not bind me to combat. If I get hit by capital ship weapons, I am doing it wrong.
Perhaps you're good, or the guys you went up against aren't. The problem exists and is wide spread in other people - so congrats on your skills, let's fix it for everyone else who isn't exactly the red baron.
' Wrote:Plausible and tangible situations. The fighter should not be holding it's own against a cruiser. It should be fleeing. Eh
There shouldn't be a situation where a capital ship interdicts a small fighter period - this is part of the problem which this proposal addresses.
' Wrote:No, it need not dodge fire, or die, it can choose to flee from combat too.
A fighter that is not dodging against cruiser fire is dead; a cruiser that is not dodging fighter fire has an itch to scratch on an undented shield - unless the cruiser pilot is either stupid, blind, or both - the fighter is either dead or in a stalemate. Choosing to flee means death - pvp death.
' Wrote:They are both statement which talk about the vanilla FL aspects, due to how the game was built. No fallacy present.
A must be B. C is like A. Therefore C must be B - this is a syllogism which is a logical fallacy.
' Wrote:Any thread on capital ships automatically involves all other ships, since capital ships interact with everything. Everything is inter-related.
Except, the purpose of this thread is to exclusively address this proposal. You seem rather intent to 'lol no' it and put in another completely different proposal instead - if it contributes insights into this proposal, it is welcome. If it does not concern this proposal, it is not - at least on this thread.
No u from me, its better to give caps more ability to defend themselves from bomber\fighters and remove mobility from them to make from BSes a strong flying fortress that controls the area around it. But cruise time of bs = 2 min, but Bs is undisruptable by CDes and main guns fire range to be 15k to fight another BSes in artillery ranges. - agility of dreads and BSes... bla bla, im allready said all that, guess that all interesting ideas are already noted so, no need to say twice.
' Wrote:Rules are but another tool to add gameplay mechanics. It is a legitimate tool to fill in where the game code's limitations restrict mechanic implimentation.
So your argument is 'everyone but me is broken, therefore there is no problem.' This is not a legitimate insight.
You tried to flip it around on me, with the "your biased" card, and failed.
Perhaps you're good, or the guys you went up against aren't. The problem exists and is wide spread in other people - so congrats on your skills, let's fix it for everyone else who isn't exactly the red baron.
There shouldn't be a situation where a capital ship interdicts a small fighter period - this is part of the problem which this proposal addresses.
A fighter that is not dodging against cruiser fire is dead; a cruiser that is not dodging fighter fire has an itch to scratch on an undented shield - unless the cruiser pilot is either stupid, blind, or both - the fighter is either dead or in a stalemate. Choosing to flee means death - pvp death.
A must be B. C is like A. Therefore C must be B - this is a syllogism which is a logical fallacy.
Except, the purpose of this thread is to exclusively address this proposal. You seem rather intent to 'lol no' it and put in another completely different proposal instead - if it contributes insights into this proposal, it is welcome. If it does not concern this proposal, it is not - at least on this thread.
Refer to my part about fun, again.
No, but the attempted flip and consequential fail is appreciated. The point is, people who are not reporting abused capitals with appropriate evidence allow the abuse to propagate. Reporting them or teaching them to RP is the path to take here, not throwing in a thousand in-built limitations which restricts "fun" within the RP environment.
You need to learn to fly your ship. Try strafing, reverse thrusting, engine killing and so on. If you cannot dodge capital ship fire you are doing it wrong. Also, I am ANZLAG, and out of the hundreds of PVP sessions I have been in, there are only a handful or two which I have won.
No, there should not be. The fighter should flee, disallowing this situation to happen.
It is a game. You can die. It is in-RP for your fighter to flee.
Congratulations on listing out a logical fallacy. Now, explain how it applies to the situation, fully.
You seem to ignore that your proposal affects all areas. As long as you continue to do so, you fail. However, I do appreciate being compared to a "lolwut" by my "lol no" behaviour.
The concept is sound, however the reality is not. The problem is that we have a dev team biased against capital ships, and wont let them get any real ability to defend themselves. As long as this is the case, capital ships will remain pure suckage in combat, because as stated, the FEW idiots with capital ships are scapegoated. There are far more lolwut gunboats and bombers than there are battleships.
As mentioned, only about 10% of the server is capital ships. The only reason they are noticed is becuase they are sort of hard to miss.
Those 10% though? They are disproportionately loud on the forums. They have invested a lot of time and effort into their accounts, far more than the (I'd guess) 30% of fighters on the server that at under level 30.
They have spent tons of time trading and outfitting their ships, is it any wonder that they yell so loud to defend them?
' Wrote:Those 10% though? They are disproportionately loud on the forums. They have invested a lot of time and effort into their accounts, far more than the (I'd guess) 30% of fighters on the server that at under level 30.
They have spent tons of time trading and outfitting their ships, is it any wonder that they yell so loud to defend them?
Actually, their "loudness" is balanced against the disproportionate whinging against them, in equivalently loud threads.
That, and those 10% are simply capital ship users. A percentage of that 10%, would represent "lolwuts", and it would be a rather small percentage.
Of course, it is nice to play the "your biased" card. So, flip. I guess it is alright to whine and demand nerfs if you are incapable of trading for long enough to afford a capital ship.
Ahoj,i got BS,im afreid im a reason that my way of flyin it make som player angry.Im indy ,wery indy,my english bad,my RP bad. I weit in systems for BC,bs,cruiser .I like pvp. When bomber nier,yes i exploude wery fast,but when they make mistake i kill them too.I thake it as it is.I hope for caps,sometimes they ask vhf,bomber not to interfer(navy).Well in my way even i try to reduce the number of caps.It was long way to get money for bs in my smuggler.Then rule changet,my LH spyglass was not OK.I did copy.Another monts of triin to get alive whit cargo till sellin point and agein i got BS.I love it!Im bad pilot,moustly cant hit .I need big ship to be able to stay alive inaf time to fight(of course thous bomber nasty)i try to hawe funn. Jarek_70
![[Image: hG0lGaj.png]](https://i.imgur.com/hG0lGaj.png)
![[Image: bhglogo.png]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ff494/Ilya_Gorunov/bhglogo.png)
![[Image: lunasig2.png]](http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii202/Mitraies/lunasig2.png)
