• 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 … 774 775 776 777 778 Next »
Alliance vs Coalition

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Poll: Alliance vs Coalition
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
For
85.71%
24 85.71%
Against
14.29%
4 14.29%
Total 28 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Pages (8): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next »
Alliance vs Coalition
Offline Denier-of-Soup
07-26-2005, 11:49 AM,
#11
Member
Posts: 335
Threads: 18
Joined: Jul 2005

Yes, either the Alliance tries freeing a system of the Coalition's control, or the Coalition tries conquering another one.

Looks like everyone is for this idea. :D

[Image: ps3black2eu0.png]
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
--Sir Peter Ustinov
  Reply  
Offline xit
07-26-2005, 12:08 PM,
#12
Member
Posts: 133
Threads: 6
Joined: Jun 2005

Denier-of-Soup,Jul 26 2005, 11:49 AM Wrote:Looks like everyone is for this idea. :D
[snapback]869[/snapback]

That's almost scary considering how we usually argue in here. :unsure: :P

Beware the Lazy Invasion of the Lonely Mudcrab of Doom!
Lady Arwen's Realm
  Reply  
Offline Circadian_Lupine
07-26-2005, 04:10 PM,
#13
Member
Posts: 85
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2005

Ok 2 further explanaions directed towards Igiss. I was kinda hazy when i covered these in my rambling posts.

1.) i had no intention of letting people change thier account names, the idea was that if you wanted to participate in the alliance vs coalition war you make a NEW account with the [AL] or [CO] tag on it and transfer credits/equip to it from another account to jump start it. Just listing who's on who's side on the forums isn't good enough. There will be times in the heat of battle or in a surprise coflict where you need to know exactly who's on who's side in a moments notice. This is intended to simulate the war between the alliance and coalition factions, these two groups shared a deep brooding hatred for eachother and always fired upon sighting a member of the opposing faction. They did NOT offer a kind but guarded welcome and then scamper off to check the forums to see if they could shoot thier target.

2.) The handling i was refering to in my post about battleship weight is directly linked to the mass of the ship. I've played around with these extensively on my private testing server. Increasing the battleships' weight by an order of magnitude or two dramatically reduces the effect of random fighter impacts (a good thing) but adds a fair amount of inirtial drift and decreased acceleration (not TOO bad a thing, it IS realistic). If you were interested in making the changes i could refine my tests and send you a new shiparch.ini to look at.

[Image: taglup.jpg]
  Reply  
Offline Igiss
07-26-2005, 04:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-26-2005, 04:39 PM by Igiss.)
#14
Discovery Creator
Posts: 3,178
Threads: 578
Joined: Jun 2005

You can just explain what values you changed and what the new values were. But a whole shiparch might be useful too.
Reply  
Offline Denier-of-Soup
07-26-2005, 06:03 PM,
#15
Member
Posts: 335
Threads: 18
Joined: Jul 2005

I remember someone saying that if we were to increase the mass of cap ships, the cruise engines would take longer to charge. I could be wrong though.

[Image: ps3black2eu0.png]
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
--Sir Peter Ustinov
  Reply  
Offline Wrath
07-26-2005, 06:41 PM,
#16
Member
Posts: 129
Threads: 8
Joined: Jul 2005

Yes, I believe increasing mass does make the cruise engines take longer..... However I think we are all really tired of getting flipped around by ships ramming us. On the other hand, if you make the battleship cruise engines take longer, can you make them faster? It would help immensely with the fact that the Rheinland Battleship is nearly impossible to dock with tradelanes on a regular basis. The osiris is a picnic to land by comparison and it is not the easiest to dock.

Also, I've had quite a bit of trouble with the Rheinland battleship docking with jumplanes, 2/3 times you ram the thing and get mis-aligned. Getting back into a proper approach vector takes some practice.
Reply  
Offline Denier-of-Soup
07-26-2005, 07:14 PM,
#17
Member
Posts: 335
Threads: 18
Joined: Jul 2005

A cruising speed between 400-500 will be enough. We wouldn't want the ship to go too fast, otherwise we'll have to rely on our normal engines to get us out of those asteroid fields.

[Image: ps3black2eu0.png]
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
--Sir Peter Ustinov
  Reply  
Offline Circadian_Lupine
07-26-2005, 10:12 PM,
#18
Member
Posts: 85
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2005

Cruise engine speed is a universal standard, to increase it for battleships woul dbe to increase it for every ship. Increasing mass shouldn't increase the time it takes to charge cruise engines though, just the time it takes to accelerate to 300 once they're on. If speed was a factor it IS possible to chance the standard travel speed of individual ships... Bumping the regular engines up to ~120 for battleships would help shorten transit time between points too close to cruise to, since we don't have thrusters.


I'm working on something of a project in-server to prepare for the [AL] vs [CO] war (coalition all the way baby! :cool: ), so i probably won't have numbers for you on rebalancing the cap ships mass until then.

[Image: taglup.jpg]
  Reply  
Offline Denier-of-Soup
07-26-2005, 10:16 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-26-2005, 11:05 PM by Denier-of-Soup.)
#19
Member
Posts: 335
Threads: 18
Joined: Jul 2005

Don't you think [C] and [A] tags would be better? I mean, "CO" sounds like we're some sort of corporation. >_>

[Image: ps3black2eu0.png]
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
--Sir Peter Ustinov
  Reply  
Offline Circadian_Lupine
07-27-2005, 05:52 AM,
#20
Member
Posts: 85
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2005

Too late for me, i just made my [CO] account and dropped 40 million dollars into it i guess just a plain old [C] and [A] would work just as well for people that want to do that too though.

[Image: taglup.jpg]
  Reply  
Pages (8): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode