• 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 … 586 587 588 589 590 … 779 Next »
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or...

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Poll: Do you think the factions should control capital ship allowance and disallowance such as the RM has done?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Agree
54.60%
95 54.60%
Disagree
36.21%
63 36.21%
Other - Why
9.20%
16 9.20%
Total 174 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Pages (11): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Next »
Faction Control of Capital Ships... or...
Offline kindred
12-24-2008, 05:42 PM,
#11
Member
Posts: 1,699
Threads: 9
Joined: Sep 2007

I voted for the chestnut stuffing




Devtonia ; all-or-nothing approach to bias.
Reply  
Offline Jihadjoe
12-24-2008, 05:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-24-2008, 05:48 PM by Jihadjoe.)
#12
Custom User Title
Posts: 6,598
Threads: 664
Joined: Nov 2007

I see no flames. Infact I have seen a very well put question from camtheman, and a few responses which are fairly worded.

If it does get flamed I'll lock it.

[Image: DramaticExit.gif]
Reply  
Offline Eppy
12-24-2008, 05:50 PM,
#13
Member
Posts: 3,865
Threads: 162
Joined: Apr 2007

I agree entirely with Joe. That said, voted Yes. Ours is worded a bit more harshly, but for god's sake, I'm not like the SCRA, where if your character isn't approved he gets executed. It's exactly the same principle. Read the reg thread, read the 101st handbook. Standing orders are to help them, not blow them up.

Quote:Quick comment - we thought that Panzer was the Leader, Swift. -Agmen
Eppy Wrote:Which Dreadnought was that?
n00bl3t Wrote:One of your nine. Tongue
Reply  
Offline torchwood
12-24-2008, 05:55 PM,
#14
Member
Posts: 721
Threads: 54
Joined: Sep 2007

if they have good RP then they can not stop them. if they go round in space saying lol wut and i pwned you all the time then the factions should step in

[Image: 27wzuo4.png]
  Reply  
Offline Drake
12-24-2008, 06:13 PM,
#15
Member
Posts: 2,195
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2007

' Wrote:if they have good RP then they can not stop them. if they go round in space saying lol wut and i pwned you all the time then the factions should step in

No, the Admins should step in. Sanction reports.
Reply  
Offline stewcool
12-24-2008, 06:19 PM,
#16
Member
Posts: 1,969
Threads: 275
Joined: Nov 2007

I voted yes in this. Cap ship restriction in my opinion is a big must.

2 reasons:

1 It will lower the amount of people who PvP (Hopefully)

2 It would make it more of a challenge for players to fly them
seeing as how you have to keep the ship as a responsibility

[Image: kelsieicsig.png]
Reply  
Offline Xing
12-24-2008, 06:29 PM,
#17
Member
Posts: 5,274
Threads: 147
Joined: Oct 2007

I agree.
To some extent.
Roleplay can be above anything when its properly done, really.

[Image: audrey03a.png]
  Reply  
Offline guitarguy
12-24-2008, 06:30 PM,
#18
Member
Posts: 429
Threads: 30
Joined: Nov 2008

I think that capships don't need any more restrictions than a fighter or bomber.

*Pauses while the rioting mob gets pitchforks and torches*

Think about it. Let's say Mr. n00b power trades, gets a character with a battleship, and has a proper ID and tag. He may even post a short message explaining some vaguely RP reason for getting it. He then goes around PvPing everything he can find. Now of course we could sanction him, but that's extreme so let's suppose we don't. What do we do to stop a battleship from ruining everyone's fun?

Hmmmm..............................


Oh, wait! We have bombers. All we have to do is get four or five together and Mr. n00b will be enjoying a luxurious view of space from his escape pod.

The other community members with their capships and bombers are the restrictions. The good RPers can organize and stop the bad RPers ingame.

We don't even have to do a sanction.

[Image: dfcz.png][Image: frcl.png][Image: dscz.jpg][Image: 19979982.jpg]
[Image: u3cld.jpg]
| BAF Faction Information | BAF War Bonds | BAF Training Program | BAF Combat Training Manual |
  Reply  
Guest
12-24-2008, 06:37 PM,
#19
Unregistered
 

The main issue most cap restrictions answer if you ask me... Is Conduct, Not RP

Dreadnought sending out a squadron of fighters against a few VHFs, or bombers against a gunboat or two... Good conduct.

Dreadnought sending himself against a Light Fighter, or calling in a second dreadnought against a Gunboat... Bad conduct.

My Vote: Agreed.....as i've been on the receiving end of 2 dreads chasing 2 gunboats, and an entire fleet chasing my solo gunship at one point.
Reply  
Offline Malaclypse 666
12-24-2008, 06:44 PM,
#20
Member
Posts: 3,634
Threads: 87
Joined: Sep 2006

In the spirit of the season, all capital ship purchases by non-factioned players should come with the following disclaimer:

"You'll put your eye out!!!"

Abstaining til after the Holly Days.

Mal

[Image: malsig_alt1.png]
  Reply  
Pages (11): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode