' Wrote:You are distancing from the main point of thread - sudden rule change.
How many Tizonas inRP you have as Reavers? I bet you'll say huge number. But did Elders gave you unlimited numbers at once or did they mean till you can land on their stations to do that? I'll bet you'll say about first instance or some other excuse.
The rule was suddenly changed to resolve an issue where the right was being abused. I don't think I'm distancing from the main point of the thread, considering the rule has been changed for awhile now and the reason this thread was created was because a Corsair got shot by a Reaver with Corsair guns. Yes, I am assuming that as I know the person who posted the thread plays a Corsair character. Could I be wrong in my assumption? Of course, but I doubt it.
How many do we have? I've no idea. They are sitting on our armory ship, if someone needs them they ask and someone who has access to the armory helps them out.
' Wrote:It doesnt matter wether you can repair them or not, when your ship gets blown up they are destroyed, not damaged.
So is your ship and I don't see anyone having to replace their ship when they are destroyed. With that in mind, what is your point?
Sure. When you'll create one of the most advanced weapons inRL from spare parts only imagining concept I might believe you. Otherwise, I can make food out of basic knowledge, but will it taste same as professional cook that has vast experience could make?
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I can give my car to a mechanic and I somehow doubt he's ever seen a 2010 Chevy Cobalt with the same problem I have before, since the car is brand new with only the 8100 miles I have put on it, but I will guarantee you that he will find the problem because he understands how an assembly of parts which we call a car works. If someone is familiar with the assembly of parts we call a pulse gun, he will understand how a different model of pulse gun works. The parts might be in a different place, in a different configuration, and a different shape, but the assembly is basically the same. I don't just have a concept, I have an understanding.
These advanced weapons have been around for a millennium now. The same basic designs were standard issue on several Starlancer ships. Now, if you want to fool yourself into thinking that an Apache is fundamentally different than a Hind, be my guest, but put both of them in a hanger and tell an aircraft mechanic to fix one and he can do it, because they are fundamentally the same assembly of parts in a different package. It's only a matter of time until the mechanic figures out what is different between the two. How can we put that jury-rigging into the game? Well, we can't. It's just something to live with, but I don't understand how it's completely unbelievable to think that these things can be fixed.
Replaced? No. They can't be. That's why I take every opportunity to run the heck away from a fight when using guns I know I can't replace. But then again, do we really want the game to be that big of a commitment? Maybe sometimes it's just fun to use those guns after working that hard for them? When you get to that kind of position with a character and the faction decides that it will close its bounty board and you no longer fly your character because you don't want to lose your guns, tell me how fun it is. I'll wager a guess that it's not even close to being fun. Why even bother for guns you know will be lost immediately because of rules? I guess it's more fun to play on a server which mostly uses Codenames, isn't it?
But quite honestly, no matter what is done with the rules, it doesn't matter. I know the root of the problem is that someone thinks someone is better because of these guns, and until the blame is pointed inward instead of outward, the debacles will continue. You're getting shot by something. Is that someone else's fault? That's really the question to consider.
[8:32:45 PM] Dusty Lens: Oh no, let me get that. Hello? Oh it's my grandma. She says to be roleplay.
[12:49:19 AM] Elgatodiablo: You know its nice that you have all that proof and all, Bacon... but I just don't believe you.
Who said Tizonas is old? Maybe in imaginary RP they are still upgraded but balance doesn't let showing it.
Who said their assembly is easy and understandable by simple mechanic?
I understand you protect your right to use them, but you can't blame people searching ways to regain their own rights.
But anyways, how many Tizonas you got? I doubt you would agree to lose numbers of them with each ship of yours mounting them gone KaBoom. That is if you have logical number.
' Wrote:Who said Tizonas is old? Maybe in imaginary RP they are still upgraded but balance doesn't let showing it.
Who said their assembly is easy and understandable by simple mechanic?
I understand you protect your right to use them, but you can't blame people searching ways to regain their own rights.
But anyways, how many Tizonas you got? I doubt you would agree to lose numbers of them with each ship of yours mounting them gone KaBoom. That is if you have logical number.
Who says they are new? Who says their assembly is hard and difficult to understand for a simple mechanic? You?
He isn't blaming them for anything, he is merely telling them to accept the consequences for the actions of the Elders. Wanting to have admins step in and remove the guns because you say there is no way in role play for us to continue using them isn't role play. It is you wanting to avoid the consequences of the actions of the Elders.
As I said, I don't know the numbers and I don't think anyone who has access is online.
More to Bacon's point: You are being shot at. It doesn't matter if it is a Corsair gun or a Vampire or a Code. You are still being shot at. The gun doesn't make the player any better. If the player sucks, the gun isn't going to give him the ability to magically beat you.
You can't give example in argument without evidence. If you try defending your position with theories why can't other side do the same?
If you have one armory it means you have maximum of 99 Tizonas. Let's make a thrilling roleplay consequence of losing them now? Since you are emphasising consequences yourself, I'd guess you have no objection to this, yes?:)
No one knows how complicated the assembly is. Considering that guns are put into different types (Pulse, Neutron etc.), I would assume those types are similar to each other. It's not at all out of the realm of possibility that they are reparable in a simple way. But, I would only assume that in the same way that a Sabre is similar to a Stiletto because they are in the same ship series and named as such. If they weren't similar, why categorize them that way?
Simple is not what I would call an equipment dealer or ship mechanic. I would expect a car mechanic to understand how cars work. I would expect an equipment dealer to understand how guns work. That's his business. He had better know how it works or he won't be in business long.
It's not about protecting my privilege to use my guns as a Reaver Mercenary. I could use Debs instead; that's fine. The point is that there is a strange trend in removing consequences. That's not fine. Certain people make certain decisions and they should have to see the consequences. If the Junkers sell me Barragers and get shot by them in Galileo, that's their business. Maybe they should put up a bounty which would entice me not to shoot them. Is it my fault that they sold me the weapons and went to Galileo, where there is a price on their heads? Not really. If the Corsairs sell me weapons and then take down their bounty board, I have to go somewhere else to get money. That just might be the Hessians. Is that my fault? No. I should not get punished for RPing well.
[8:32:45 PM] Dusty Lens: Oh no, let me get that. Hello? Oh it's my grandma. She says to be roleplay.
[12:49:19 AM] Elgatodiablo: You know its nice that you have all that proof and all, Bacon... but I just don't believe you.
Having self destruct mechanisms in handed tech might seem good roleplay to others. So why should they be punished by sudden change of rules where that kind of roleplay is null and void?
You can't give example in argument without evidence. If you try defending your position with theories why can't other side do the same?
If you have one armory it means you have maximum of 99 Tizonas. Let's make a thrilling roleplay consequence of losing them now? Since you are emphasising consequences yourself, I'd guess you have no objection to this, yes?:)
I know of two armories and I fly primarily bombers because I suck.
My Corsair kit stays on my fighter no matter how many times I get blown up. Until either a admin or Virus (or another senior Reaver) tell me to remove them. Why you ask? Because I am breaking no rule by keeping them there and because I'm not going to apply a consequence to myself when the people demanding I apply it refuse to apply consequences to themselves.