+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Role-Playing (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Unofficial Factions and Groups (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=67)
+--- Thread: Gateway Shipping General Information (/showthread.php?tid=97532)
Pages:
1
2
Gateway Shipping General Information - Alan Martins - 04-23-2013
This thread is for people who wish to learn more about us and our goals and plans.
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - Highland Laddie - 04-23-2013
(sorry if this isn't the proper place to post this, but I saw you were shutting down the General Discussion thread concerning so I figured I'd post here instead of the recruitment thread)
Here's a thought:
As far as the Raiding division goes (and the labeling of ships by division in general)...do you really wanna make it that obvious to Bowex players that when they see a GWS-name-[R], they can expect an attack or know ahead of time to bring escorts? It kinda takes away the guesswork.
Would it be better served to just have all Gateway ships tagged GWS-name and leave it up the company employees to know who is an Executive, who is in Logistics, Security, etc.? Seems that matter could be handled in-house and let the outsiders try to figure out who is flying what.
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - Alan Martins - 04-23-2013
(04-23-2013, 07:27 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: (sorry if this isn't the proper place to post this, but I saw you were shutting down the General Discussion thread concerning so I figured I'd post here instead of the recruitment thread)
Here's a thought:
As far as the Raiding division goes (and the labeling of ships by division in general)...do you really wanna make it that obvious to Bowex players that when they see a GWS-name-[R], they can expect an attack or know ahead of time to bring escorts? It kinda takes away the guesswork.
Would it be better served to just have all Gateway ships tagged GWS-name and leave it up the company employees to know who is an Executive, who is in Logistics, Security, etc.? Seems that matter could be handled in-house and let the outsiders try to figure out who is flying what.
You are right of course,i will update that in my posts.thanks!
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - jammi - 04-24-2013
One thing that Bowex tries to encourage members to do is set up a company infocard for each ship. You could also use this to show people who're within scanning range what department a ship is in. Also means they can't be metagamed through the chat list.
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - Highland Laddie - 04-24-2013
I like that idea, Jammi.
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - Black Widow - 04-24-2013
(04-24-2013, 11:45 AM)Highland Laddie Wrote: I pointed this out in another thread (and all the more reason we need a Skype.channel to handle all of this), but do you really want to make it so easy for others to see what division a ship is in?
For example...if I'm a Hessian or a Corsairs (or Bowex for that matter) and I see a pair of GSV or GSX tagged ships with no GSE ships with it, I'm gonna assume it's an un-escorted trading convoy and easy pickings. However, if I just see 3 vessels tagged Gateway| or GWS- then I have no way of knowing what I'm up against unless I actually fly within scanner range, which is more of a gamble.
We can keep a corporate directory of ships that shows what division they are without broadcasting it to everyone online.
Just my opinion.
Your wrong meta gaming is not done with ship names but instead with ship levels so if I see 3 ships with levels 78, 67, 53 then I will know without even looking at the names. That there are 2 transports and one escort in the group also if two of the ships have names Gateway|-Cornwall, Gateway|-Oxford, and Gateway|-John.Beards.
I am gonna know instantly that John beards is the escort why because disco naming conventions work that way I will also know the other two are traders from the names. So the effort to confuse meta gamers is lost therefore removing the division tags GSE, GSX and GSV is pointless as does not confuse them anymore.
Our tag system has RP benefit and RP structure as its unique in distinguishing a ship as belonging to a different branch of the group and we want to be different to Bowex including the naming system.
Bowex for e.g. Use the naming convention I said above ie Bowex|-Shipname for traders and Bowex|-Firstname.Lastname for escorts, Gateway will not be following the same naming conventions thus we have our tag system:
Logistics:
Gateway|-GSV-Shipname
Escort/Security:
Gateway|-GSE-Firstname.Lastname / call sign
Executive ( RP only):
Gateway|-GSX-Shipname
These are the three official branches of gateway and our tag is Gateway|
And NO We don't want Bowex to know we are gonna raid them, thus raiders will not carry the Gateway|- tag but will have other other names so that official Gateway|- cannot be blamed for any of the raids our ships make, our raiders will be a secret unofficial section of gateway who will only carry the gateway ID / iff not the tag. Bowex will know Gateway|- is raiding them but won't be able to prove it!
This is request of Lee so no raider tagging, the raiders will act like a sort of gateway privateer, but when raiders hit they will hit Bowex HARD and in the places where it hurts most outside bretonia.
Muhahahaha
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - Highland Laddie - 04-24-2013
Fair enough!
I do have one more food for thought - adding Pilgrim Liner to the ship list.
Now...before you jump to the "NO WAY! It's an unlawful ship!" conclusion...lemme explain:
With Gateway lacking access to the heavily armed and armored transports like the Shire and Shetland because of Bowex, they've looked to the Junkers in Inverness (which is Bretonian) as other possibly suppliers of large, heavily armed transport ships to help them maintain a competitive edge. It kinda helps us maintain the "rising upstart corporation" identity while also giving us that certain "edginess" of a less-polished, small-time operation.
thoughts?
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - Black Widow - 04-24-2013
(04-24-2013, 03:22 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: Fair enough!
I do have one more food for thought - adding Pilgrim Liner to the ship list.
Now...before you jump to the "NO WAY! It's an unlawful ship!" conclusion...lemme explain:
With Gateway lacking access to the heavily armed and armored transports like the Shire and Shetland because of Bowex, they've looked to the Junkers in Inverness (which is Bretonian) as other possibly suppliers of large, heavily armed transport ships to help them maintain a competitive edge. It kinda helps us maintain the "rising upstart corporation" identity while also giving us that certain "edginess" of a less-polished, small-time operation.
thoughts?
I like this idea, infact it's very good for a gateway trader doing black market deals to use a crappy banged up ship like pilgrim liner, however it will be up to gateway to form RP links with Junkers to initiate us to use them.
Don't go buyin any liners just yet, wait til this and other things are discussed first.
I am busy in RL today but will be in game all day starting tomorrow, pm me your Skype name also as I am setting up a Skype channel. Lee don't have Skype yet???
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - Alan Martins - 04-25-2013
Ideas for Raiding allowed ships people?
RE: Gateway Shipping General Information - jammi - 04-25-2013
Freighters armed with missiles are good. The Clydesdale can be a bit of a beast when used well. Ditto for the Percheron - it has a CD to stop heavier transports fleeing, and five T2 turrets can then whittle it down from maximum range. Difficult, but possible.
For bombers, I could suggest the Waran. It's a generic heavy bomber with slightly unlawful connotations. You'll need the firepower to crack a Shire's armour.
Alternately there is the Eagle, Marauder and Roc. Again, nice and generic. The first two are manoeuvrable enough to dodge transport turrets, but would need to work in groups to have an appreciable effect. The Roc is the civilian go-to bomber, and is very agile.