+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? (/showthread.php?tid=2880)
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - DBoy1612 - 05-17-2007
EDIT:
Why the hell do I always vote wrong on these things?
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - majkp - 05-17-2007
' Wrote:Cruise Engine Kill is not required... As it is a form of bad strategy and shield running...
Dboy, it's about whether *the rule* is required, didn't you just vote wrong? :)
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - DBoy1612 - 05-17-2007
' Wrote:Dboy, it's about whether *the rule* is required, didn't you just vote wrong? :)
<.<
>.>
Oops:P
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - Eppy - 05-18-2007
There is little doubt in my mind we still need the rule-Shield running would be essentially legal again (Since so many people would end up banned, there'd be no more community). We just need to clearly define the rule. I think it reasonable that, say, fighters/bombers can cruise/engine kill-a single well-placed barrage from 6 missile turrets can drop a Saber like a Mig-21 hit with a Genie (Nuclear air-to-air missile). Capships, however, shouldn't, because, as stated above, they'd never die. Fighters should not, however, use the Cruise-Engine kill against each other. That's too much for anybody to handle ([pantswetting]except you super-pilot-Phantom/GoR types [/pantswetting]).
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - fwolf - 05-19-2007
Damn, I voted wrong too. It was to be "no" but I voted "yes".
Just put a more high turn rate in the cruise disruptors and it will be all fine.
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - pipsqueak - 06-06-2007
Here is a radical idea that can be flamed...:unsure:
Get rid of the massive shields on the cap ships altogether and raqther give them massive hulls. I mean massive enough to compensate for having no/or lower shields. May be give them enough shields so they do not die tring to get through a asteroid field. Make sure they are still the best shields in the game.Two advantages of that...
1. Repair costs will be astronomical. So people will think twice about flying these ships. aka more variety ...
2. will take care ofthe shield running problem.
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - McNeo - 06-06-2007
Do you have any idea what flaks would do to the vanilla capships then?
If they all had one hitbox, then maybe that would be a feasable idea....but then guns would need to have alot more health and cost alot more to buy...im fine with that...
I think i'll vote yes for now.
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - Eppy - 06-06-2007
I'd very much like to ditch capship shields, but that would invalidate the usefulness of any of the vanilla capships entirely. As I recall, one well-placed Mortar used to be able to slag an Osiris, in versions long past. Besides, we'd have to give caps millions of bots/bats, which would probably cause even more problems, and to compensate for balance we'd have to completely get rid of flak cannons, which would strip us of our anti-fighter systems. Not good. Not to flame, and it's an excellent idea, but...
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - Nightfall - 06-06-2007
Yes, but the Mortar was an explosive weapon, a torpedo. Now, it's an energy weapon. Flaks still remain though.
On the other hand, it would make people put the capships to the right use and reps.
Is the engine kill from cruise rule required? - me_b_kevin - 06-06-2007
is it possible to have shields negate each other?
so if they ram each other both your shields go down? and then you slam into each other and take hull damage..or.. you just get repelled from each other (like hitting an asteroid) with no shields.
ya know like two positives make a negative?
just an idea....do you think that would stop ramming?