Battleships- a solution

[Jihadjoe]

what if bombers were the problem or VHF? - same measures taken? - and ..... what exactly qualifies as a "problem" and who is it to define the "problem". - there are ( at least to me ) the problems with all of those attempts. - the intention may be good... yes. - but the "solutions" are not worked out properly.

Allow me to re-state the reasoning in my first post in this thread.

There are just as many problem players in fighters, bombers, gunboats, starflier, man-flying-engine-with-a-baseball-bat... Whatever. The problem comes with power and visability.

I'd much rather the problem players weren't the size of several whales stacked (like women OLOL) on top of one another, with the power to destroy a fully kitted out VHF or bomber in a couple of shots.

It's a lot harder to ignore a battlecruiser that just doesn't get what disco is about, than it is a fighter. The fact people have been around long enough without getting it to be able to afford a BC or BS astounds me anyway, but that's another matter.

in all the recent years - all of those solutions were similar. - they scratched a bit on the top of the matter - but left deeper problems elsewhere.

if there was a thread saying "restrict bombers to factions only" and give them the very same options. - i would expect to see the same results ( yes, people say a battleship can ruin a players day more than a bomber ... but we agree that its not really the ship, but its the player controlling the ship ) - still - such a thread would be answered greatly different to battleships being the focus of attention.

But is is the power of the ship which causes the problem, as I explained above.

In recent years no solution to the problem of highly visable, loud, and non rp-ing ships has been made, beyond a few player's efforts, be they for better or worse.

I do agree that a lot of attempts at controling cap use has been for the self agrandisement of those doing the restricting rather than the good of the server.

There is a lot to be said for giving people responsibility, and power over other people's actions where it is due.

What you say is true, if you were to make a thread like this regarding bombers the reponce would be along the lines of 'lol-no'. There are reasons for this, and I'll repeat them. Battleships, battlecruisers, cruisers etc, are vast, have high hull values and have insanely powerfull weaponary. This means they are far more of an obstacle to overcome in an RP vs OoRP incident.

- what if a faction does not WANT to restrict caps? - force them to? - if not by rules... paint them as "bad" factions, cause they allow "lol-caps"?
- what if a faction totally ( and i mean utterly ) messes up. - what punishment have they gotto face? - what effect will it have on the wellfare of the community?
- what if a faction approves players and those players totally mess up ( within the rules, but still totally off ) - is that a testament of the failure of a factions judgement?

[ i know - many people really hate these "what if" questions - but if you don t think of them before you introduce things - you ll be unprepared if they occur ]

there are many questions that are not answered and "may" only be answered when it is attempted. - but if it turns out that the concept does NOT work - who dares to take the changes back to what it used to be?

With the system I would like to introduce, the faction would NOT be able to restrict the purchase of capital ships. They would ONLY be able to petition the admin team to have someone's cap-flying rights removed, AFTER that individual had been shown to be screwing up. Adaquate proof would have to be shown.

In answer to your 'what if' questions...

-Then that's their own choice. If a faction chooses not to ever petition for individuals to have their cap rights removed, then that's their own choice.

-If a faction totally screws up they would have to face exactly the same punishment as anyone else who screws up. Although I would be able to answer this more clearly if you were to specify -how- said hypothetical faction would screw up.

-Re-read my proposal for how this would work. Factions would NOT be able to restrict PURCHASE.

- Irrelevant.



Now, in answer to the very last bit. I find no shame in admitting I have been wrong. I'm not a politician, I can change my mind without losing public face. If the system I propose is implemented and doesn't work, then it could be revised, changed or removed.

So in more direct answer to this...

who dares to take the changes back to what it used to be?

Me.

---