I very much understand the argument, however i don't think it will be good for gameplay long term. For each single combat, it might make sense to use whatever's available to you, but the overall effect is that if Fighters & Bombers can't use their thrusters to some sort of advantage (in that case either a temporary retreat, or disengaging without fleeing), there will only be one answer to a capship comming against you, and that's is bringing a capship yourself next time.
I've been told "don't get a capship please" for the two weeks i've been playing here, and i'm very willing to adher to that if i can actually get away with flying a fighter or bomber, can dodge enemy caps or hide in asteroid fields.
As for the RP argument: If you allow every tomcruiser, dickdestroyer and harrybattleship to waste a humongous ammount of resources to pursue a lone bomber, that's more OORP than saying they can't do it, because unless there was a humongous bounty on my head, it just wouldn't pay off. Gunship with 4-8 crew would maybe do it, but a cruiser upwards with several dozen crew, against a random nonbountied pirate who happens to be in the same system?
Gameplay wise, there needs to be something working for noncaps, because let's face it: if a trader is in a bad mood, tricks me into standing still in for a transfer & then opens fire on my bomber, it looks bad for me if i'm not quick. Doing the same pirating in a gunship not only leaves me with more firepower against them, but also invulnerable against them, if they chose to open fire. Capship inflation wohoo?
I have 1 transport, 1 cargo, 2 fighters and a bomber. The gunship i did have, i handed back after being done with my exploration. 140k shield and a boatload of turrets was just too good an argument against nomad/wild NPCs when exploring edge systems. I personally don't have an issue with people having capships, as long as the way they use them makes sense. Handling them like an overgrown fighter to hunt down a random pirate fighter is way more OORP than anything i ever did on the server.
Their presence at a certain location would mean pirates fighters can't approch that place, some sort of territorial control or force projection. That i can deal with. I could also deal with that cap launching a fighter wing to hunt me down, that would make sense. The capship captain going nuts and hunting single pirates... not so much.
PS: as to the whole thing happening between 2 noncaps, i have less of an issue with that. There's examples of capships having to follow other rules than noncaps already, as far as i'm concerned 2 noncaps can chase each other any way they like. At least they're in the same weightclass.
Sorry, ScornStar, it wasn't my intention to insult you or flame you.
I just thought you wanted a discussion :
Quote:I invite anyone to share whatever their opinion is here supportive or not. This is for everyone. This is where maybe we can get a smoother game for us all. And maybe put old debates to rest.
My opinion is stated.
And as I said, there are more rules that don't support RP but gameplay instead.
Like, it's forbidden to dock, re-arm, and then re-engage. Which would be in RP pretty much, don't you think?
But the fight would never end..
I also don't want to see battleships pirating.. Simply because they are warships, not pirate ships.
Their purpose is to fight a war, not to chase some tiny trading/smuggling ship.
Same for bounties - that needs to be fixed.
Problem is in capital ship spamming on this server.
All of these rules are trying to lower it, and I can't agree more with them.
.
Lucendez Wrote:
It is every Corsair's responsibility to die a beautiful death in defense of Crete, regardless of how OORP or how capwhoring the opposition is. Launch your fighter, joust the battlecruisers and die a beautiful death. Then, drink it down in the bar.
Actually - this is just my opinion but there are two things discussed here that i've always had issue with....
One is the fact that the second you hit cruise you're considered fleeing = i personally have no problem with someone trying to get distance on a fight to recharge their shields, in fact, it makes perfect sense. And as for the fight going on forever? Well... the do go on forever now anyway and if i really dont want a fight to continue i'd be happy to say "I yield" and make my way out of the system....
I also think it's silly that if someone cruisers TO a fight their considered fleeing... that just stretches reason. How is someone fleeing when they are running to get INTO a fight? anyway.....
The other thing i personally don't agree with is capships being unable to engage traders, (and i've written about this somewhere else but anyway....). This makes no sense at all - I mean in terms of RP, it makes no sense.... whats worse is that the rule has double standard - Lawful ships can engage smugglers and law breakers with their cap ships till their hearts content - but pirates can't, literally CANNOT touch a trader while they are in anything bigger than a gunboat. Before anyone flames me about wanting to PVP over RP, it wouldnt make real difference to me anyway as with the antique computer i'm running and the lag i seem to always get in China... PVP is pretty much a non event no matter what i fly or shoot at.
This rule bugs me in terms of RP, because it makes no sense at all. I would like to stop the trader who is carrying a cargo my faction doesnt like while im in my cruiser... i just can't.. some mysterious power in the universe means i have to dock and get into a gunboat or fighter...
try writing a good reason for that in a story... its a stretch.
I know the rules, and i play by them - but these two... not my favourites:)
Quote:problem is... are we to go towards hardcore RP here....then no Battleship would ever attack or chase a single fighter.. same with Cruisers and GBs... no capship will ever go without support... no Cap will enter an asteroid field... and so on...
Like M said, if we are going towards strict RP, then we shouldn't see Battleships without escort.
Or any capital ships in an Asteroid field...
But you'r ignoring these things, and hooking for the rules.
Not even a mad battleship captain would take his ship into a fight without a huge fighter/bomber support.
And in RP, you have this escort/support. Imagination.
So, if I am being chased by 2 bombers.. There is no need for a capital ship to chase me in cruise while I'm thrusting..
His fighter/bomber support is doing that.. See?
When writing a story on board, you won't write that 2 bombers took you down, you will write that you were overwhelmed by them.
People do this all the time. And it's done by almost anyone who flies a cap ship.
Lucendez Wrote:
It is every Corsair's responsibility to die a beautiful death in defense of Crete, regardless of how OORP or how capwhoring the opposition is. Launch your fighter, joust the battlecruisers and die a beautiful death. Then, drink it down in the bar.
' Wrote:Like M said, if we are going towards strict RP, then we shouldn't see Battleships without escort.
Or any capital ships in an Asteroid field...
But you'r ignoring these things, and hooking for the rules.
Not even a mad battleship captain would take his ship into a fight without a huge fighter/bomber support.
And in RP, you have this escort/support. Imagination.
So, if I am being chased by 2 bombers.. There is no need for a capital ship to chase me in cruise while I'm thrusting..
His fighter/bomber support is doing that.. See?
When writing a story on board, you won't write that 2 bombers took you down, you will write that you were overwhelmed by them.
People do this all the time. And it's done by almost anyone who flies a cap ship.
I see your point, but don't really agree completely with it - a battleship obviously works better with an escort and of course it increases his survivability - but there are plenty of examples of warships through out history operating independently, disrupting trade and sinking trade ships. You only have to look at the German pocket battleships in ww2 to see one quick example... sure they were hunted down and killed, but the point is the concept isn't one thats unfeasible or even unrealistic.
What is unrealistic is that these ships CAN"T engage traders. Why can't they? I know the rules say they can't, but in terms of RP? there is just no way to explain it - especially when lawful ships CAN.
Quote:What is unrealistic is that these ships CAN"T engage traders. Why can't they? I know the rules say they can't, but in terms of RP? there is just no way to explain it - especially when lawful ships CAN.
As far as i see it, it's a "single event" vs. "larger view" issue again. Sure a Pirate destroyer could engage a trader, it could happen and there wouldn't be a reason not to as long as we're just looking at that single event. But in the larger scheme of things, there isn't much sense in pirates flying something that big, just to get a million out of a passing trader in first place. In points of mechanics, it's possible; in points of RP, it's not worth the fuel, maintenance, repair cost, manhours, etc.
It also would be way too big a blimp on the radars of the houses... if it became known that (random example) the LR had several cruisers and BS, Liberty forces would have to deal with that threat - and the "escape pod & getting away" is much less applicable to a destroyed capship than it is to a fighter.
A police/navy capship camping manhattan or new berlin is a different thing, and makes sense. Control of territory, deterrence/interdiction to pirating, all payed by the taxes of the good citizens of Manhattan (or wherever you might be). Projection of the same force to somewhere else than your home system is a borderline war declaration, and just because one entity is a large military power, and the other 'just' a corporation doesn't mean the risk is worth taking (re: 80 years war).
Blockading a system can make sense, for example a Bretonian Privateer blockade of the S13/Honshu JG. Say, a Cruiser with fighter support, not letting anyone pass (and i mean blockade, not taxing passerbys 1 mill)? Nice RP as far as i'm concerned, and only concerning lazy NB/Kyushu powertraders anyway (although it would open up blockade running as RP opportunity too).
I'm probably thinking too much in historic pirate terms, and then frozen at a very specific time (given how short the actual period of piracy in the carribean & atlantic was, and how quickly and harshly it was dealt with). The unlawfuls here aren't small individual ships, which rely on speed and overpowering traders, but representatives of larger organisations. Problem is i have very little clue in what sort of money there is going around, and what sort of funds go into the daily business of those organisations, other than pirating in space.
As such it would probably make sense for them if they produced capships as fast as they could with the money they made, just to be able to seriously threaten the space of the houses. That's just a very different matter than picking on small traders passing S-13.
It just doesn't feel right to have BS pirates, no matter how possible it is from a game mechanics PoV.
I am sorry. but I do not see what all the fuss is about, I think the rules are fine as is.
I am a crappy pilot, I have not killed a single person in a PvP, as yet, and I have to stay out of quite a few systems for four hours nearly every time I play, so what.
I have one character a transport and a fighter, when I trade I get pirated quite often some times I run, other times not, if a capship stopped me, what would be the point in trying to run, a couple of shots and boom!
I die quite alot and run quite a lot, as I said I am not a very good combat pilot. But this game is about FUN, enjoyment, not a realistic combat simulator. The rules are there to keep a lid on things and to aid peoples enjoyment of the game. I love the role play, trying to barter the tax down when I am pirated, or escaping through asteriods, and the running from battle trying to survive. I even carry the odd illegal cargo and avoid the police. Its FUN!
I think the arguments about realism is a bit out there.
In reality how long would it take to replace your destroyed ship, longer than four hours.
In reality a capship would never operate alone, (this is space not WWII, which did not have sea going ocean fighters, and cap busting bombers).
In reality a Bounty Hunter would not have a capship, as the cost of running it would outweigh the bounties.
In reality our characters would die, not always eject and survive, should we be making brand new characters every few days!
The list could go on and on, I think the rules are fine, the game is fine, and most of all Discovery is really FUN!
But that is just my opinion.
<span style="font-family:Verdana">From whence we came, we must always return, for we are the Heavens, we are Starstuff.</span>
Captain Stormblade serving the ALG
LR-Kiss.This.Then-D serving with the Rogues, DPL Faction (Also known as Wolfen)
"Lightning does strike twice", Captain Stormblade.
' Wrote:As far as i see it, it's a "single event" vs. "larger view" issue again. Sure a Pirate destroyer could engage a trader, it could happen and there wouldn't be a reason not to as long as we're just looking at that single event. But in the larger scheme of things, there isn't much sense in pirates flying something that big, just to get a million out of a passing trader in first place. In points of mechanics, it's possible; in points of RP, it's not worth the fuel, maintenance, repair cost, manhours, etc.
It also would be way too big a blimp on the radars of the houses... if it became known that (random example) the LR had several cruisers and BS, Liberty forces would have to deal with that threat - and the "escape pod & getting away" is much less applicable to a destroyed capship than it is to a fighter.
A police/navy capship camping manhattan or new berlin is a different thing, and makes sense. Control of territory, deterrence/interdiction to pirating, all payed by the taxes of the good citizens of Manhattan (or wherever you might be). Projection of the same force to somewhere else than your home system is a borderline war declaration, and just because one entity is a large military power, and the other 'just' a corporation doesn't mean the risk is worth taking (re: 80 years war).
Blockading a system can make sense, for example a Bretonian Privateer blockade of the S13/Honshu JG. Say, a Cruiser with fighter support, not letting anyone pass (and i mean blockade, not taxing passerbys 1 mill)? Nice RP as far as i'm concerned, and only concerning lazy NB/Kyushu powertraders anyway (although it would open up blockade running as RP opportunity too).
I'm probably thinking too much in historic pirate terms, and then frozen at a very specific time (given how short the actual period of piracy in the carribean & atlantic was, and how quickly and harshly it was dealt with). The unlawfuls here aren't small individual ships, which rely on speed and overpowering traders, but representatives of larger organisations. Problem is i have very little clue in what sort of money there is going around, and what sort of funds go into the daily business of those organisations, other than pirating in space.
As such it would probably make sense for them if they produced capships as fast as they could with the money they made, just to be able to seriously threaten the space of the houses. That's just a very different matter than picking on small traders passing S-13.
It just doesn't feel right to have BS pirates, no matter how possible it is from a game mechanics PoV.
You make some good points - and i didn't get flamed by anybody! yay!
I see your point in terms of cost. And if we're applying realism to some of this discussion then i think there is a for and against for pirates both having and using battleships - against for one, is that, if they want to avoid heat from large nations, then... cap ships are not the way to go. But, if they don't care, and i would argue this case with the Corsairs and Outcasts, who are, proxy houses anyway, albeit scattered.. then it makes sense they would have them, My personal opinion is they should be allowed to use them how they see fit.
The thing is, i dont want to use my cap ship for taxing, though i believe i should be allowed to, but more to A) terrorize and enforce my factions law in its systems, (which might mean i have to occasionally blow up a trader )and B) enforce some of their laws.. (such as the TBH rule against passengers on Crete). Any body who knows me would know i would only do this in the confines of RP... and perhaps that might be part of the issue, that we cant trust that everyone WILL do that.... (but thats possibly a side issue)
I'd be just as happy to ask a trader carrying passengers to Crete to drop his cargo into space rather than blow up his ship - (and be extra evil by then vaporizing the passengers in space heh heh) - but the fact is now... in my cap ship, i dont have the option - and i find this limits my RP.
i wouldn t mind pirates taxing in warships. - in a RP way, it becomes a problem though... sharing the cash you earn with your crew means that you have to tax a lot more than with a fighter. ( same problem that arises with BHG capital ships that do bounty contracts )
when its about the cruise rule. - yes, its silly, but i don t think we need to change the rules for cruising... what we need is a good/ better rule for retreating. means, if i don t dock and repair, i should not be forced to suffer near death penalties for retreating.
i don t think its a problem that fighters can thrust away from a capital ship. - once they are out of sensor range, they retreated, no matter if they thrusted or not. - so the capital ship can slowly fly after them, while they slowly gain distance and head to safety - but if they progressivly increase the distance untill they are out of sensor range, the fight is over - and the capship can engage cruise again of course.
i don t think the fighter should leave then though.... what i would like is ....:
capital ship cruise to charge for 1 minute - and can be disrupted all the time. thats 1 minute of being unable to fire. - not sure if that can be done though.