' Wrote:Ok I just wanted to point out that whilst you keep saying if you go out of range of the Capital ships weapons then your have disengaged which does seem fair untill you realise than the bombers "Nova Torpedo" has a range of 4.2k whilst the longest range for a battleship weapon is 3.6k and that is a battlerazor which I doubt you would shoot at a fighter anyway.
So is a bomber allowed to drop back to 4-4.2k range and stay out of reach whilst still shooting or would that be disengaged, in which case why have 4.2k range on a weapon?
Kiggles:mellow:
You know, that's a good point... I think that you should count as engaged if within weapons range, and disengaged outside scanner range- really, everything else is case by case. If a bomber is camping 4.1k and nailing you repeatedly, report them. Its bad form, and basically PvP-abuse.
I don't know.. A bomber is supposed to take out a battleship with range, thats why battleships/cruisers should have fighters with them, to deal with such threats.
its a bit strange when you come up with a roleplay argument like "battleships need fightercover anyway" when we are discussing a rule that is made for gameplay issues and not roleplay.
this rule protects smaller ships, allthough its not plausible in terms of roleplay. - the sight of a battleship chasing a fighter isn t really a realistic one - but things shouldn t be stretched too far. - sitting at 4k recharging cause the SN can shoot that far is loopholing.
I don't see anything strange in what I'm saying:
In terms of roleplay, no battleship would go out unprotected.
In terms of gameplay, this rule (no cruise, battleships limited to 90) make sure battleships need the fighter cover.
' Wrote:its a bit strange when you come up with a roleplay argument like "battleships need fightercover anyway" when we are discussing a rule that is made for gameplay issues and not roleplay.
this rule protects smaller ships, allthough its not plausible in terms of roleplay. - the sight of a battleship chasing a fighter isn t really a realistic one - but things shouldn t be stretched too far. - sitting at 4k recharging cause the SN can shoot that far is loopholing.
No I was not talking about the "Supernova" as it has a range of about 2k, I was talking about the torpedo "Nova" which has 4.2k range.
I must be honest that saying a bomber sitting at range and shooting a BS is using "loopholes" is kind of a lame argument. Should I call it a loophole when I mount weapons with 500m range and a battleship shoots me at 1k?
Kiggles:mellow:
I've been mildly miffed by one-shot weapons since their implementation, oh so long ago. I remember the days when fights were a matter of who could aim better, rather than who could aim a single shot. - Virus
![[Image: SCRAgenderheuristics.png]](http://i530.photobucket.com/albums/dd343/sovfalcon/SCRAgenderheuristics.png)
![[Image: just_a_signature_by_sjrarj-d63yjsx.png]](https://img00.deviantart.net/ca73/i/2013/123/e/a/just_a_signature_by_sjrarj-d63yjsx.png)
![[Image: FistShroom.png]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj219/I_m_rdy/Shrooms/FistShroom.png)
![[Image: OORPShroom.png]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj219/I_m_rdy/Shrooms/OORPShroom.png)
![[Image: bowexbar.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/e3jeremey/Sigs/bowexbar.jpg)
![[Image: RheinlandShroom.png]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj219/I_m_rdy/Shrooms/RheinlandShroom.png)
![[Image: BretoniaShroom.png]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj219/I_m_rdy/Shrooms/BretoniaShroom.png)
![[Image: adacopieky9.png]](http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk156/AdamantineFist/adacopieky9.png)
![[Image: frcl.jpg]](http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5020/frcl.jpg)
