• 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 News and Announcements
« Previous 1 … 25 26 27 28 29 … 45 Next »
Discovery 4.87: Conquest - Update 7

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (13): « Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Next »
Discovery 4.87: Conquest - Update 7
Offline aerelm
05-22-2014, 08:52 AM,
#101
0110000101100101
Posts: 5,265
Threads: 522
Joined: Oct 2009

Unforgiven, a friendly request - You already voiced your concern in a somewhat civil manner with your first post, then amended your argument with the second post, which actually made me consider giving scanners another look, but you've been completely ruining it with each and every post you've made in this thread arguing since, reading through which has made me less and less inclined on going through scanners again. So, if you want to see scanners reviewed properly, do yourself and those who share your opinion a favor and drop the argument. You already said all you had to say with your first couple of posts in this thread, so please leave your stick by the door and let the dead horse rest in peace and quiet, and we'll see what we can do about scanners in the next update.

Going on and on in an endless, pointless and mannerless argument about scanners with fellow players while you had already summed up all the constructive criticism you had on the subject in your first two posts does no one no good, so it'd be best if you don't degrade the few good points you made with the continuous argument any more than you've already done. Thank you.
Reply  
Offline Swallow
05-22-2014, 12:25 PM,
#102
Member
Posts: 4,493
Threads: 213
Joined: Jun 2010

(05-22-2014, 06:42 AM)seven-alpha-one-one Wrote: why the heck cant you guys adapt.

It happens because of constant playing, which turns into the routine, which is similar to the real life, and thus is being taken too serious and deeply personal, which in its case leads to mental issues, the ones we can see standing after numerous and constant complains.

It is not OK to get seriously or continuously disappointed just because of the gaming stuff.
Take a break more often, don't let the disease take over you.

FL MOD(EL)MAKING: TOOLS, RESOURCES, TUTORIALS AND MY SHIPS (OLD)

I am on discord: Roal-Yr#5994, I don't log on forum more than a few times a year.

I am not making ships for FL anymore, I am making my own space game instead:
https://github.com/roalyr/GDTLancer
https://roal-yr.itch.io/gdtlancer
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5HQB...cdH45LZgjj
Reply  
Offline SnakeLancerHaven
05-22-2014, 03:10 PM,
#103
Volgograd Industrial
Posts: 2,873
Threads: 238
Joined: Feb 2012

I love how people go all like "WAHT!? CODENAMES FOR INTERCEPTORS!? THEY RUINED IT THEYR UINED THE GAME!" or "WHAT? THEY REPLACED FIREFLY!? WOAH THEY RUINED IT THE GAME SUCKS NO"


Single complaints, even if just 1 single ship would've been changed, the whole game is ruined, srsly? 8|

[Image: ?key=dc385ef2304f0cab6f94da42bc2ff703cf5...5BS0UucG5n]
R.I.P Tabris...
Youtube - Twitch - My old Account
  Reply  
Offline Binski
05-22-2014, 03:22 PM,
#104
Member
Posts: 1,531
Threads: 96
Joined: Jun 2013

(05-22-2014, 08:52 AM)aerelm Wrote:
Unforgiven, a friendly request - You already voiced your concern in a somewhat civil manner with your first post, then amended your argument with the second post, which actually made me consider giving scanners another look, but you've been completely ruining it with each and every post you've made in this thread arguing since, reading through which has made me less and less inclined on going through scanners again. So, if you want to see scanners reviewed properly, do yourself and those who share your opinion a favor and drop the argument. You already said all you had to say with your first couple of posts in this thread, so please leave your stick by the door and let the dead horse rest in peace and quiet, and we'll see what we can do about scanners in the next update.

Going on and on in an endless, pointless and mannerless argument about scanners with fellow players while you had already summed up all the constructive criticism you had on the subject in your first two posts does no one no good, so it'd be best if you don't degrade the few good points you made with the continuous argument any more than you've already done. Thank you.


You're right, but people asked, and I let myself get a little baited. This is the first I've seen an admin speak on the subject in days though. Despite what some say, I've shed no tears over this. Please disregard my irritation in favor of considering my arguments, that's all I care about. You know how I feel, and will hear no more from me on the subject.

And without getting too antagonized again, @ scumbag, I don't think I'm better than everyone else here (if my scanner was better, all it cost was credits to compete), but i believe my 'libertarian' attitude when it comes to equipment and gameplay, is indeed a better one to have than the opposite. It seems you feel the opposite, and we all know how we all feel about this now, so lets just leave it at that. En lieu of this, I might hang around a while, and wait it out in the shadows to see what happens Wink

[Image: G38aJ6J.jpg]
The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############
Reply  
Offline Wous
05-26-2014, 10:28 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-26-2014, 10:47 PM by Wous.)
#105
Member
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2013

But..
It's gone..
The last place in the 'verse where you could take a firefly into the sky..

Apart from that, I really enjoy the dynamic qualities of Discovery.
Kept Freelancer interesting for over a decade, which is quite a feat.
Reply  
Offline GrnRaptor
05-26-2014, 10:38 PM,
#106
Member
Posts: 941
Threads: 115
Joined: Mar 2012

(05-18-2014, 05:59 PM)aerelm Wrote: Complete list of bug fixes and changes included in update 7:
Code:
- Added codename weapons for Light Figthers and Bombers.

So, about this. This isn't quite correct now is it? You didn't "add" LF/Bomber codenames, you took existing ones and made them LF/Bomber codenames. This has broken things for several people, myself included. For example, I logged my UC Sunbeam (VHF) armed with SILVER FIRE/HAMMERFALL guns, because those match our faction Class 8s in speed/refire and have the convenient look of our colors, only to find that my HAMMERFALLS weren't present on my equipped weapons list. It took me a moment to check my loadout to find that my guns were now useless because they are Class 6 guns. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been so rudely surprised by this. If you wanted to "add" guns for these vessels you should have added guns, not repurposed existing ones that people were already using.

Secondly, why were these added in the first place? You've given Light Fighters and Bombers these weapons, and ignored the Heavy Fighters, which are now the only snub class to not have these special weapons available. People now have less of a reason to choose Heavy Fighters if they want any kind of power available to them. Adding codenames for the LF/Bomber classes was bad enough, but to not add them for those and not the HF class is even worse.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that you add HF codenames now; I'm arguing that you remove the LF/Bomber ones back to where they were previously. VHFs had codenames because they had the power to supply such demanding technology. Now that you've given that to everything except the HF class, how do you justify that? LFs have no cores comparitively speaking, and bombers are bombers, not dogfighters. Return codenames to the VHFs who have the capacity to wield them and leave the LFs their maneuverability and the bombers their anti-cap striking role.

[Image: 9igxhx.png]
[Image: Zr1b4H3.jpg]
Reply  
Offline Nerva
05-26-2014, 11:24 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-26-2014, 11:52 PM by Nerva.)
#107
Member
Posts: 460
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2012

No fighter codenames were harmed when making bomber codenames. Some Phantom weapons were recycled for that.
They seem quite bad actually, except ASURAS.
Reply  
Offline 7AlphaOne1
05-27-2014, 05:55 AM,
#108
Gravedig = BAD
Posts: 942
Threads: 81
Joined: Jun 2013

Just a small fact, the bomber codes are SNACs, becoming anti-cap codenames. LF codes, well, since LFs dont have a heavy core, they cant support those weps. HFs dont have the slots, save Missile slots and Gladiator/Hyena, so that just about settles it.
Reply  
Offline Nerva
05-27-2014, 06:35 AM,
#109
Member
Posts: 460
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2012

(05-27-2014, 05:55 AM)seven-alpha-one-one Wrote: Just a small fact, the bomber codes are SNACs, becoming anti-cap codenames.

No, they are not. Only one of them is.
Reply  
Offline YoungLion
05-27-2014, 06:21 PM,
#110
Member
Posts: 6
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2013

I guess I'm the only one... but I'm having no luck loading the update. I've even tried the manual method, but the installation just stalls out. Has anyone had this issue... and -if so- how did you resolve it?

Thanks!
Reply  
Pages (13): « Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)



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