Capital Ship Realism

[EisenSeele]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

FEEDBACK