• 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 … 387 388 389 390 391 … 547 Next »
Armour upgrades

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Poll: Restricting Capital Armour upgrades
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes, good idea
29.03%
9 29.03%
No, bad idea (your reasons why would be useful)
64.52%
20 64.52%
Undecided (again, reasons please)
6.45%
2 6.45%
Total 31 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Pages (4): 1 2 3 4 Next »
Armour upgrades
Offline Stoat
06-18-2009, 11:07 AM, (This post was last modified: 06-18-2009, 12:46 PM by Stoat.)
#1
Member
Posts: 2,133
Threads: 90
Joined: Aug 2007

Just a thought, but after seeing so many transports with Cap VII or VIII upgrades, how about restricting what kind of ship can mount certain upgrades? It doesn't make sense that all it takes up is cargo space. The sheer mass and volume of some of the larger cap upgrades should surely mean they can only be fitted warships that have the engine power to still manoeuver after they are fitted. So maybe

VIII - Battleships and Battlecruisers only
VII - Cruisers/Destroyers and above
VI - Gunboats and above
V - Liners and above
IV - Transports and above
III - Freighters and above
II - No restriction
I - No restriction


Go ahead, shoot me down.................


Edit: Slight change to the list to make what I mean clearer.

[Image: Sig3.png]
My Stories
Reply  
Online jammi
06-18-2009, 11:27 AM,
#2
Badger Pilot
Posts: 6,561
Threads: 361
Joined: Aug 2007
Staff roles:
Story Dev
Economy Dev

Sounds good, but that would add another layer of bureaucracy to the admin's job, because no doubt unless this was enforced people would just ignore it.

Anyway, if there's a trader fitted with a VIII it's their loss. I mean, they just wasted a silly amount of money and lost a lot of cargo space. There's also exceptions though, like for example Bowex's flagship. It's a Royal Liner and we intend to put a VIII upgrade on it at some point because it's not exactly a trade ship and it is our flagship which is supposed to have the CEO onboard.

[Image: redon.gif]
[Image: f0D5b.png][Image: O2Zu5.png][Image: IlS2I.png][Image: yNeaK.png][Image: 9zbjr.png][Image: D7RGg.png]
News article library, feedback and content requests.
Reply  
Offline Divine
06-18-2009, 11:57 AM,
#3
Probation
Posts: 1,480
Threads: 40
Joined: Jul 2008

' Wrote:...

VIII - Battleships and Battlecruisers only
VII - Cruisers/Destroyers
VI - Gunboats
V - Liners
IV - Transports
III - Freighters
II - No restriction
I - No restriction
...

Good idea, I actually support this.
Can we have a poll to vote?

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=151485
Time left: (Permanent)
  Reply  
Offline n00bl3t
06-18-2009, 11:57 AM,
#4
Member
Posts: 7,448
Threads: 108
Joined: Mar 2008

The cargo loss for the trader is compensated by the capital armour' extra protection. (Also, vice versa.)

[Image: hG0lGaj.png]
Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.
Reply  
Offline tansytansey
06-18-2009, 12:10 PM,
#5
Member
Posts: 4,099
Threads: 67
Joined: Aug 2008

Unless it can be implemented in a way that does not introduce new rules, then no. Meaning a Trader will be physically unable to mount a cap 8 armour even if he owns one.

But honestly I don't see why it's a problem if a trader mounts a cap 8. If a Gunboat captain can afford a cap 8 then sure, he can use one, same with a Dessie captain. Some Battleship captains can't afford cap 8 armour right off the bat, would they be allowed to mount cap 7 and 6 still?

So no, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Mostly because it needlessly nerfs Capital ships, and as a bomber pilot I like a challenge.

http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv46/Ni...gcloudscopy.png
Image turned into a URL because it made your sig too tall. -Zuke
|Ashes and Draya's Epic Adventure|Ashes "Nighthawk" Yotaka|Nightfall|Eva Jones|
[5:50:49 PM] JakeSG (William Darkmoor) says: I like you, Ashes. You're more cynical than God.
[Image: SLRU.png]
  Reply  
Offline Divine
06-18-2009, 12:18 PM,
#6
Probation
Posts: 1,480
Threads: 40
Joined: Jul 2008

' Wrote:...
But honestly I don't see why it's a problem if a trader mounts a cap 8.
If a Gunboat captain can afford a cap 8 then sure, he can use one, same with a Dessie captain.
Some Battleship captains can't afford cap 8 armour right off the bat, would they be allowed to mount cap 7 and 6 still?

So no, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Mostly because it needlessly nerfs Capital ships, ...

So a truck with a tank-plating is a normal sight in your neighbourhood? (Trader)
Or you ever have seen a Police SWAT truck with the ability to gun-out a tank? (Gunship)

And yes, you would still be able to use as Battleship and Battlecruiser captain all Upgrades available.
As far as I read it, it is compatible downwards but not upwards.

Capship-nerf because of the Armour-plating restriction?
I dont think so, you may elaborate on an example why you think that way please.

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=151485
Time left: (Permanent)
  Reply  
Offline ophidian
06-18-2009, 12:24 PM,
#7
Member
Posts: 1,421
Threads: 68
Joined: Jan 2009

' Wrote:So no, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Mostly because it needlessly nerfs Capital ships, and as a bomber pilot I like a challenge.

Ermm... you want to challenge a battleship on one on one with a bomber o.O

[Image: rand-back.png]
  Reply  
Offline Stoat
06-18-2009, 12:43 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-18-2009, 12:49 PM by Stoat.)
#8
Member
Posts: 2,133
Threads: 90
Joined: Aug 2007

' Wrote:And yes, you would still be able to use as Battleship and Battlecruiser captain all Upgrades available.
As far as I read it, it is compatible downwards but not upwards.

Yup, that's the idea. I could have made that a bit clearer I guess

@ N00blet. I disagree. On a 5000 unit transport, the loss of a few hundred units to mount a cap VIII is nothing. Now if they lost half their cargo space, that actually might be something worth thinking about. You up for that happening? I'm not. I just don't think they should be physically able to mount them.

So here comes the poll...........................




' Wrote:Sounds good, but that would add another layer of bureaucracy to the admin's job, because no doubt unless this was enforced people would just ignore it.

Anyway, if there's a trader fitted with a VIII it's their loss. I mean, they just wasted a silly amount of money and lost a lot of cargo space. There's also exceptions though, like for example Bowex's flagship. It's a Royal Liner and we intend to put a VIII upgrade on it at some point because it's not exactly a trade ship and it is our flagship which is supposed to have the CEO onboard.

It may be your flagship, but it's still a Liner, not a Battleship. A Royal Liner should be a thing of luxury, not a clunking great uber-tank with walls 20' thick. In my opinion, of course!

[Image: Sig3.png]
My Stories
Reply  
Offline Tomtomrawr
06-18-2009, 12:49 PM,
#9
Guardian of the Void
Posts: 3,224
Threads: 242
Joined: Nov 2007

I like the sound of the idea, but implementing it will be hard.

More role-play is gained through the idea, but people will just ignore it.

[17:45:39] Wolfs Ghost (Murphy): Tom, you have problems. Go kill yourself.
[19:25:12] Johnny (Jam): Tomtom, I will beat you with a spoon.
[14:22:56] Prarabdh Thakur: KILL HIM WITH A SHEEP.
[17:40:48] Eagle (Junes): Tom should be slapped with a spoon.
[11:32:18] Warspite: Thank you for being so awesome Tom. <3
[18:17:36] Metano: I love you tomtom
[20:06:24] Warspite: I will seriously give you epic head.
' Wrote:Edit: also, Tomtomrawr, fappin' like a boss.
Reply  
Offline Divine
06-18-2009, 12:54 PM,
#10
Probation
Posts: 1,480
Threads: 40
Joined: Jul 2008

@jammi:

Stoat has the point here regarding the Royal Liner.
A Capital Armour Upgrade 5 would be fine enough.
And as you said it is the ship where your CEO would be aboard, it should also be grouped with escort Fighters.

I f.e. will use a CAPAU5 on my Battleship, because there is really no need to build it much more heavier as it would be used for.

That said, I voted of course Yes.

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=151485
Time left: (Permanent)
  Reply  
Pages (4): 1 2 3 4 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