• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Discovery Development Discovery Mod General Discussion
« Previous 1 … 129 130 131 132 133 … 546 Next »
Wacky Idea (warning: opinions contained within)

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (5): 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Wacky Idea (warning: opinions contained within)
Offline Kazinsal
12-02-2013, 10:52 PM,
#1
Wizard
Posts: 4,541
Threads: 230
Joined: Sep 2009

Disclaimer: The following is personal opinion and braindump and not representative of the views of the Discovery Mod Development Team.


So, capital ships. They go boom, and are big, and are expensive, am I right? And sometimes they're fielded sparingly by factions that can't afford to just keep cranking more and more replacement hulls out (an example being the BAF, whose fleet is in the middle of being owned by Gallia).

Some of you have played EVE. Others haven't. Now, before those who have (and likely those who haven't) jump down my throat for even mentioning EVE in a thread titled "Wacky Idea", please, keep reading. It's not that bad. For those who haven't played EVE, when your ship goes kaboom in the game (whether it be from PvE or PvP), that's it. That ship is gone. Done. The character survives, but the ship is no more. That's the total opposite end of the extreme for Discovery, where you can just hit respawn and go somewhere else.

Now, imagine for a second, that we had a balance between the two. One common suggestion is the implementation of a "death penalty" where a fraction of a ship's wealth is fined on death. In my opinion, that's a bit much. It could (and likely would) end up driving people away from Discovery. So I have a better idea.

In-RP, it takes time to build a ship. It takes a lot more time to build a battleship than it does a fighter. Fighters are practically churned out on a production line. Patching up a fighter that's been critically damaged could be as easy as throwing some new internal parts in and welding new armour in or as easy (yes, I said that twice) as transferring the equipment over to a replacement ship (let's just pretend ships come with insurance in the Discovery universe) and registering the replacement's serial number with the pilot's license.

Bigger ships, however, are a totally different deal. A freighter may only take a bit longer than a fighter to repair after being critically damaged (in case you haven't noticed, I dislike the term "destroyed" when we have a crazy respawn mechanic to account for). A transport or gunship's gonna take a lot more time -- there are more complex systems to build up and a lot more surface area. Cruisers and battleships are going to take insane amounts of time to repair after massive hull ruptures and reactor damage, and can't just be replaced like a fighter or bomber can. Factions like the Colonial Republic (sorry to pick on you guys -- I'd use VR as an example but then someone will scream bias or conspiracy or something) can't afford to shoot a new Thanatos out every time one gets blown up.

So here's my proposal: The larger a ship is, the harder it falls. The server already has mechanics for automatically-expiring tempbans. Fighters, on death, don't get tempbanned -- they just follow regular PvP death rules and and can go somewhere else. However, as ships grow in size through gunship and transport and cruiser and battlecruiser and battleship stages, they take a larger timeout on death. Let's say a battleship, once blown up, can't be used for 24 hours. Ballpark number. A cruiser might be usable again in 12. A transport, 12 for larger ones, 6 for smaller ones. A gunship, let's say 6.

This could be a really neat mechanic to implement. It would only contribute to roleplay. I know several factions already do this kind of things themselves -- something that inspired this wacky idea of mine.

I mean, really. If you blow up, say, a Hegemon, and then go over a few systems, and see it again, does that really help your immersion?

I didn't think so.

Retired, permanently.
Reply  
Offline sindroms
12-02-2013, 11:06 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 11:14 PM by sindroms.)
#2
Member
Posts: 9,434
Threads: 985
Joined: Feb 2008

So basically a WoTesque CW locker.
Not bad, I like it, but if I was to make a trollsquad to capitalize off this, I would remake the Torpedoes and constantly keep caps docked out of fear of losing them.

Also, what if you lose all of your guns during a fight? There is a reason why we still have sun damage, allowing players to planetdive.

EDIT: To further dump my thoughts on this, I can already tell you that this idea is abusable as hell. I can make a whole bunch of bombers, get a few folks and just troll cap owners, because one death would mean 14 hours without any usage from their ship. And if I happen to die in a bomber, np. The cooldown on that thing isn't as much.

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------
Reply  
Offline APDAF
12-02-2013, 11:27 PM,
#3
Member
Posts: 523
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2013

What if your ship was killed in an accident, like getting lane killed or dying on a planet when you are undocking?

[Image: tmarYUd.jpg]
Reply  
Offline Hidamari
12-02-2013, 11:35 PM,
#4
Member
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 217
Joined: Jul 2009

automated services are simply the absolute bain of this servers existance.

absolutely no way.

[Image: RKaqSve.png]
Reply  
Offline Kazinsal
12-02-2013, 11:38 PM,
#5
Wizard
Posts: 4,541
Threads: 230
Joined: Sep 2009

(12-02-2013, 11:35 PM)Hidamari Wrote: automated services are simply the absolute bain of this servers existance.

absolutely no way.

The anticheat is an automated service. Have you been insta'd by near-infinite-range high-refire SNACs lately?

Retired, permanently.
Reply  
Offline Trogdor
12-02-2013, 11:41 PM,
#6
Member
Posts: 1,236
Threads: 64
Joined: Feb 2009

Nope nope nope nope.

1) Some people can't fly snubs because of lag or lack of skill. You are effectively banning those players for the length of the timeout.

2) All this does is drive people away from the game. What positive purpose does this serve?

3) Are you now going to rebalance caps (specifically BS) so that they're actually as powerful as they should be?

[Image: i4h0ll.gif]
[Image: zonerzonerzoner.gif]
Reply  
Offline EisenSeele
12-02-2013, 11:41 PM,
#7
Herder of Cats
Posts: 2,692
Threads: 211
Joined: Jan 2010

If something like this were to be implemented, then snubs will need a corresponding nerf against everything that isn't another snub.
EDIT: What Trogdor said. Basically, you're going to see a lot more cap pilots get very much more butthurt over getting killed, and little other effect - since players that are killed by another player can't interact with the killer anyway.

FEEDBACK
Reply  
Offline Hidamari
12-02-2013, 11:46 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 11:49 PM by Hidamari.)
#8
Member
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 217
Joined: Jul 2009

considering the anti-cheat has always been there, and all the jury-rigged auto services that keep being added to the server that piss everyone off, havent.

all you need to know is anything you add that is an automated service will be nothing more than a cockblock, because it seems devs are incapable of adding any auto service which isnt designed to stop something from happening.

why dont you make something cool like the /pimpship. theres an example of an automated/semi-automated service that actually enhanced the game play

[Image: RKaqSve.png]
Reply  
Offline Lonely_Ghost
12-02-2013, 11:48 PM,
#9
Member
Posts: 1,217
Threads: 48
Joined: Nov 2010

I agree with Spazz, because, there will be enough gank team, and whole idea will be biased completely.

Kazinsal, it's not, that your idea is bad, sux or something. It has point, no doubt in that, but as we all know. Many ideas, which were ok from the beginning, turned to be making some painfull strikes into gaming in future.
Reply  
Offline SnakThree
12-02-2013, 11:51 PM,
#10
Member
Posts: 9,091
Threads: 337
Joined: Mar 2010

Only if Caps became real caps. Hardly taken out by even 5 bombers.

[Image: rTrJole.png][Image: LJ88XSk.png]
[Image: ka0AQa5.png][Image: QwWqCS8.png]
  Reply  
Pages (5): 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode