Regarding the cruise changes

[Tenacity]

Right now it takes my carrier 27 seconds to regen it's core after dropping out of cruise. That's 27 seconds where I can either rely solely on cruiser primary turrets - which suck against anything bigger than a gunboat anyways - or sit there and do nothing while I get up the energy to use pulses, mortars, razors, missiles, or anything else.

In 27 seconds, a single battleship can run me out of bats and bots, and have me near death. In 27 seconds, a pair of bombers can start chewing into my hull. Hell, in 27 seconds even the weaker destroyers would have my shield down and start pelting my hull with mortars.

That kind of downtime is simply not acceptable, and it's almost as bad for most of the other shipclasses...

Heavy bombers take 25 seconds to regen enough energy for a snac. Light bombers take 27 seconds.

A titan takes 16 seconds, a sabre takes 14. Gunships and most gunboats take 15 seconds. Destroyers/Light cruisers take 20 seconds, heavy cruisers take 24 seconds, light battleships take 36 seconds, and heavy battleships have to wait a full 35 seconds.

No matter what ship class you're flying, you're going to be experiencing a minimum of 10 seconds downtime before you can fire all but the weakest weapons. Anything over 5-6 seconds is too much, as far as I'm concerned - especially considering the damage that can be dealt to a player in that amount of time.

@Tenacity: I think it is broken. Stating that it isn't seems to me to be wrong. Head over to the sanctions section to look at the guys who have lost all of their guns, credits and cargo for violating the rule.

Cannon, the only thing this change does is punish everyone for the mistakes of a few. In real world governments, that's called dictatorship, and it isnt looked very highly upon.

You're still going to have just as many re-engagements as before, the number of sanctions received due to this will not drop. The only thing you're doing is pissing off the people who follow the rules becuase you're tired of processing a handful of sanctions every week. I'm sorry, but that doesnt sit right with me, not in the least.

But I guess you dont have to worry about my opinion anymore, as I said in previous threads I'm done on disco until this gets reverted - and if it doesnt, well, I guess I'm done for good then. I've already heard of three other decent players here leaving for the same reason. If you want to replace the good with the bad, then by all means, keep this ridiculous mechanic.

---

[mjolnir]

As I believe was previously stated, doing high-level anti-cap missions in a cap is now pretty pointless. The energy drain renders you helpless. I'm not entirely certain how to get around this one in particular (with the caps) without it becoming useless at stopping caps chasing smaller ships. Perhaps give ships (just caps or all ships) a set 10-15 second cooldown in which their energy does not regen, then just boost it back up to full.

It is kind of hard yes, but GBs and cruisers can thrust in and dodge until they see the enemy. Tbh doing these anti-cap missions in Gbs and Cruisers was very difficult even before. On the other hand they make for a nice bomber training. I'd say the missions could get a bit more rewarding (money wise) by adding some more credit cards to the NPC Caps.

I dont honestly care if some noob tries to cruise to catch up to me, whether or not I can prove it I'll either kill him or die. What I care about is not having my own capability in combat gimped because some idiot cant follow the rules - and this does effect -every- combat situation that exists on the server, because cruise is -always- used as an entry tactic.

Somehow you sounded rather differently when BHG BS killed your carrier within 20 seconds using similar tactic, oh well.

In 27 seconds, a single battleship can run me out of bats and bots, and have me near death.

Why would you start a fight by cruising next to a stationary enemy BS? That doesn't sound clever. Neither do that other situation you are talking about, where you cruise next to other smaller ships that sit still. I guess you want to 1-2 kill them or?

---

Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.

[Zukeenee]

Well. It's certainly a new thing, and therefore I may have been quick to label it a bad thing in my mind. While I still don't entirely understand how this is supposed to solve some of the aforementioned problems, I think it will be an interesting addition to combat, at the very least. Even so, seeing my energy drop to near-zero every time I fire up cruise does make me cringe a bit.

And I don't blame you, anyway, Cannon. I blame Zelot.

---

[Camtheman Of Freelancer4Ever]

I also agree with tenacity.

Cannon, Once you come up to a such a point where your implementing things like this, THIS is when you have the time to implement player docking on capital ships.

Fixing things that wasnt broken.

Fantastic!.

Another -1 discovery!

YAY!

This heavily interferes with realism. I dont know what ship designer would make his engines SO inefficient they drain all the power.

[TheMillers]

As I believe was previously stated, doing high-level anti-cap missions in a cap is now pretty pointless. The energy drain renders you helpless. I'm not entirely certain how to get around this one in particular (with the caps) without it becoming useless at stopping caps chasing smaller ships. Perhaps give ships (just caps or all ships) a set 10-15 second cooldown in which their energy does not regen, then just boost it back up to full.

I beg to differ - I am ONLY doing high level caps missions against ossies in my Bullhead. I have NO problem whatsoever pwnzoring 3 to 12 Ossies on one mission in my Bullhead, with the cruise drain enabled. Its called "Adjusting your tactics".

But okay, if people don't WANT to adjust their tactics, then I can see why people are having a hissyfit, footstamping and yelling at the top of their lungs, approximately 10 minutes after the update implementing these changes were implemented.

Secondly (mainly towards Tenacity) : WHERE in the Readme, or the forum section covering the Mod, does it say that any changes to the mod must only be implemented after a majority consensus among the players ?
The mod is made by Igiss and the team of developers - IN their spare time. The server is run by Igiss, ON his own dough. If they decided that they want to nerf every vessel besides the Starflea, they can - Without having to run it through any form of consensus poll or discussions on the forums.

If people then decided NOT to play on the server due to this, he and the dev team might change it in the next iteration. But the fact remains : They can do whatever they want with the mod, WITHOUT having to run it by the players first.

That said though, my experience with the devs is that they listen to the playerbase IF there is valid, constructive, backed up by evidence and examples criticism to revert or change something.
So far I have seen very LITTLE of such, regarding the changes implemented in this update. Au contraire, I have mainly seen kindergarden semantics, hoping to force a revert by Trial-By-Forum.

Just my 0.02 Sirius Credits worth...

---

Out of bats, Out of bots, Out of torps - Down to harsh language...

[Birdtalon]

Im afraid i have to agree, this was total rubbish.

Why should the rule-following core of the community have to suffer becasue so idiots cant follow a basic rule such as "No cruising in combat"

Nothing against you personally Cannon becasue the majority of stuff you do helps the server and community tenfold, but this was a mistake.

@mjolnir & Tenacity: Lets keep it on topic and not start bashing eachother?

---

[darthbeck]

After thinking about it, i like this change. Thank you cannon. *Throws a cookie*

---

<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">Violence is Golden</span>

[TFinnegan]

Tenacity....Dude...

[color=#FF9900]CHILL, please!
I'll bet you a billion creds you're back inside of 3 days, regardless of changes.

The Millers had it right. Adjust your tactics or die.
Its called Evolution.
If you dont happen to be one of the 'fittest' who can adapt, well, bye bye.
And if your tactic of adaptation is screaming until the world reverts to the way it was five minutes ago, theres always the Republican party for you....

man....Someone invest in diapers cause I've never seen so much _ _ _ is so little time.

Constructive HELP to the Admins who bust thier HUMPS for FREE is one thing.
Noones even PAYING for this game so any rights to demand ANYTHING are forfeit.

End rant/

---

[Magoo!]

Well then, skipping the rest of the wall on this page until a later time,

But I guess you dont have to worry about my opinion anymore, as I said in previous threads I'm done on disco until this gets reverted - and if it doesnt, well, I guess I'm done for good then.

Tenacity, you're overreacting. It is, at its most harsh, an inconvenience. I really am confused as to how PvP could mean so much to a person. While RP is absolutely nothing without PvP, I don't think it warrants this big of a flip-out. If you ever fight any good capital ship pilots, you can probably make a friendly (and inRP) request to hold fire until your batteries are charged up. Clearly, if they decline, they're only after your blue tombstone and it wasn't worth your time fighting them anyways.

... New page O.O

[chovynz]

It was not "a few" who were doing this.
The no cruise rule you wont know about unless you come to the forums or someone tells you, usually in a rule-lawyer way.

Even Disco Veterans had to be careful, because cruising IS a legitimate tactic. It's like asking a racer to not use the 5th gear.

So previously it was broken. Now, it's different.

Time will tell where this needs work, but it's a positive thing in my books.

---

Seek fun and you shall find it. Seek stuff to Q_Q about and you'll find that, too. I choose to have fun.