• 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 Development Discovery Mod General Discussion
« Previous 1 … 75 76 77 78 79 … 547 Next »
Suggestion: Remove nanobots from battleships

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard
Core Dominance - 7 / 10,000
Humanity's Defiance - 80 / 10,000
Nomad Ascendancy - 46 / 10,000
Order Mastery - 10 / 10,000

Latest activity

Pages (7): 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next »
Suggestion: Remove nanobots from battleships
Offline Skorak
02-28-2016, 10:44 PM,
#1
3x Custom User Title
Posts: 4,422
Threads: 503
Joined: Mar 2008

I would really love to see the nanobots just getting added to the hull cruisers and battleships have.

The removed nanobots will be converted to the normal ship hull. There would be no armor lost at all.

Pros:
Repairships are actually viable for the whole duration of the fight and after.
For such a big vessel, seeing how far you are to destroying it is a nice thing to have.

Cons:
Armor upgrades are having less impact(might be a plus for some) because the nanobots are now equally repairing for all of them. - Might be I misunderstand how AUs work here.

Discuss.

[Image: 4M4UTts.png]
[Image: IDgpvpG.png][Image: T5nJFSb.png] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: dAW1eot.png111] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: OECngVP.png77] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: 7ODm3kk.png33] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: RKgpLfI.png88]
Reply  
Offline Laz
02-28-2016, 10:45 PM,
#2
(Sorta) Retired Code Monkey
Posts: 1,905
Threads: 106
Joined: Jan 2014

+1

Very good and it makes repair ship RP a thing, would be fun to see repair ships actually being used as utility ships.
Opens up more possibilities.

Reply  
Offline Findarato Veneanar
02-28-2016, 10:59 PM,
#3
Member
Posts: 421
Threads: 15
Joined: Sep 2012

+1

Can we also remove the recharging of shields on snubs? It's pointless and just makes fights take ages.

Signatures may not be bigger than 700x250, 1MB. ~Skorak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EddX9hnhDS4 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6623...%20Sig.png http://i.imgur.com/BpOtRCf.jpg -My stance on all the censorship in this community.
|:~ TBS ~:|:~ LMP ~:|:~ BMF ~:|:~ SW ~:|
  Reply  
Offline Skorak
02-28-2016, 11:01 PM,
#4
3x Custom User Title
Posts: 4,422
Threads: 503
Joined: Mar 2008

Then there would be little point in a shield. And fights don't seem to take ages for me.

But please stick to the topic. Maybe make another thread about that. I believe snubfights are pretty good the way they are now.

[Image: 4M4UTts.png]
[Image: IDgpvpG.png][Image: T5nJFSb.png] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: dAW1eot.png111] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: OECngVP.png77] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: 7ODm3kk.png33] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: RKgpLfI.png88]
Reply  
Offline Sciamach
02-28-2016, 11:06 PM,
#5
Member
Posts: 1,643
Threads: 114
Joined: Jul 2013

Pls no

[ sci·am·ach ]
/sīˈamək/
A simple, angry man casually working his way through life on a personal quest to acquire copious amounts of street cred.
Reply  
Offline Skorak
02-28-2016, 11:06 PM,
#6
3x Custom User Title
Posts: 4,422
Threads: 503
Joined: Mar 2008

Explain why please. Why not?

[Image: 4M4UTts.png]
[Image: IDgpvpG.png][Image: T5nJFSb.png] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: dAW1eot.png111] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: OECngVP.png77] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: 7ODm3kk.png33] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: RKgpLfI.png88]
Reply  
Offline Operator
02-28-2016, 11:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-28-2016, 11:07 PM by Operator.)
#7
Member
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 60
Joined: Apr 2015

(02-28-2016, 11:06 PM)Scourgeclaw Wrote: Pls no
It's dumb. Like you said before, this would not be a Freelancer anymore.
  Reply  
Offline Skorak
02-28-2016, 11:07 PM,
#8
3x Custom User Title
Posts: 4,422
Threads: 503
Joined: Mar 2008

(02-28-2016, 11:06 PM)Skorak Wrote: Explain why please. Why not?

[Image: 4M4UTts.png]
[Image: IDgpvpG.png][Image: T5nJFSb.png] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: dAW1eot.png111] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: OECngVP.png77] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: 7ODm3kk.png33] [Image: R2wbzfN.png] [Image: RKgpLfI.png88]
Reply  
Offline Stoner_Steve
02-29-2016, 02:28 AM,
#9
Master of Arms
Posts: 2,551
Threads: 339
Joined: Jan 2014

No

I don't need to give a reason for terrible ideas

[Image: O2vt8So.png]
SLRC Faction Document | SLRC Recruitment | SLRC Feedback | SLRC Message Dump
Reply  
Offline nOmnomnOm
02-29-2016, 02:33 AM,
#10
Probation
Posts: 5,914
Threads: 247
Joined: May 2011

Mathematically speaking removing nanos and giving the equal amount of hull is pointless.
Why do it if there is no change? This only reduces one thing and it is that caps dont need to remember to use nanos.
Why not something better requested that actually changes things a little like no shields on caps but making it extra tanky.

Then again... Why? Why is the system mot good enough?

[Image: zBEqQfl.jpg?1]
Reply  
Pages (7): 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 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