Discovery Gaming Community

Full Version: Cruisers/Battleships shooting transports rule change poll
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Because people are arguing over Discord for some reason, lets see if this is a vocal minority or real, widespread opinion against the change.
Voting no because it annoys you.
(01-22-2020, 05:34 AM)The Only Hokan Wrote: [ -> ]Voting no because it annoys you.

I dont know who you are, but if you think this annoys me you clearly do not know me.

I would just like this settled to stop the energy depleting discord rants to come to an end. We have bigger issues to discuss such as the dev blackout.
Do ID rules > general rules still?
Imagine being Lib Navy and seeing an entire fleet of smugglers casually fly by and you can't do anything to actually stop them cause you're in a cap and rules say lolno.
(01-22-2020, 05:37 AM)Promotheus Wrote: [ -> ]Do ID rules > general rules still?
By the rules, the new change is made completely null and void as far as I'm aware. This..
Discovery Rules Wrote:4.4 Every char must have only one type of ID equipped and they must play to that ID. Ship and equipment infocards which specify their use on a specific ID or specific ship must only be used on that ID or ship. In all other cases where these restrictions and allowances conflict with the server rules, the ID overrides the rules except as described in 4.5 and 4.6.
.. is still very much the active rule countermanding the new change, and it's not going away anytime soon.

Honestly, why did such a rule even need to be implemented? I can see battleships being a bit much, but cruisers genuinely make sense. Gunboats these days can and do get outdone by transports, so that heavy firepower and shield give authority to a situation that a pirate honestly should have it in. Removing that factor is only giving even more of an advantage to the transport captain, who already have the bots/bats and, whether it be by themselves or via lawfuls, the firepower to defend themselves. There's also no risk for transports to combat dock, as they can still trade.
It's honestly just a useless rule made when plenty of other stuff could be changed for the better.
(01-22-2020, 05:45 AM)Spectre Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2020, 05:37 AM)Promotheus Wrote: [ -> ]Do ID rules > general rules still?
By the rules, the new change is made completely null and void as far as I'm aware. This..
Discovery Rules Wrote:4.4 Every char must have only one type of ID equipped and they must play to that ID. Ship and equipment infocards which specify their use on a specific ID or specific ship must only be used on that ID or ship. In all other cases where these restrictions and allowances conflict with the server rules, the ID overrides the rules except as described in 4.5 and 4.6.
.. is still very much the active rule countermanding the new change, and it's not going away anytime soon.

Honestly, why did such a rule even need to be implemented? I can see battleships being a bit much, but cruisers genuinely make sense. Gunboats these days can and do get outdone by transports, so that heavy firepower and shield give authority to a situation that a pirate honestly should have it in. Removing that factor is only giving even more of an advantage to the transport captain, who already have the bots/bats and, whether it be by themselves or via lawfuls, the firepower to defend themselves. There's also no risk for transports to combat dock, as they can still trade.
It's honestly just a useless rule made when plenty of other stuff could be changed for the better.

Loken said the rule change was decided back in October.
The recent RP involving a Unioner Cruiser pirating a transport reminded him of it.
I don't mind the change, however as it's written right now, the change is effectively null and void by ID lines. Should these issues be addressed and changed in a meaningful and enforceable manner, then I'm fully for it. I don't mind making piracy more engaging and not a completely hopeless situation for transport captains. To address Spectre's point of gunboats being out done by dedicated battle transports, I say occupational hazard. It gives transports reasonable means to fight back and win. Outplay the transport with superior tactics or numbers, and out think the pirates with unexpectedly heavy firepower or godly aim.
So, on top of Transports being faster than Cruisers already, you want to add another layer of protection that can be solved by in-game mechanics?
(01-22-2020, 05:54 AM)DarkTails Wrote: [ -> ]I don't mind the change, however as it's written right now, the change is effectively null and void by ID lines. Should these issues be addressed and changed in a meaningful and enforceable manner, then I'm fully for it. I don't mind making piracy more engaging and not a completely hopeless situation for transport captains. To address Spectre's point of gunboats being out done by dedicated battle transports, I say occupational hazard. It gives transports reasonable means to fight back and win. Outplay the transport with superior tactics or numbers, and out think the pirates with unexpectedly heavy firepower or godly aim.

[Image: 85faa3bf3127ae8b2945262369e1ccdc.png]
Absolutely useless and unnecessary change that will only put more complex rules Vs IDs situations.

I understand the need to protect tradeships, but this is not the way. It will certainly be idiotic and ooRP to ignore opportunity to extort trader in cruiser. What about such case where cruiser is grouped with someone in bomber and the bomber makes demands? Seriously. You introduced a change that puts so much ooRP crap back into Disco, but can't approve rephack overhaul or restart improvement. Priorities, right?

Don't know about the rest, but the further this farse is going, the less I want to play the game. Could have asked community before making this change but imagine staff actually listening to community before enforcing such silly changes.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27