• 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 … 100 101 102 103 104 … 546 Next »
The Carrier Update

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (10): « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
The Carrier Update
Offline An'shur
10-17-2014, 05:13 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-17-2014, 05:14 PM by An'shur.)
#71
Banned
Posts: 578
Threads: 37
Joined: May 2013

(10-16-2014, 10:30 AM)Vredes Wrote: Carriers are supposed to be large, make them bigger.

There is difference between light carrier (Geb, Elbe) and heavy carrier (Atlantis). I can imagine situation when someone buy Elbe as small as Liberty dreadnought.. and after some update (or I'd rather say downdate) it will be turtle sized.. If I were the owner who bought small ship and got some bullseye, I would write a plea to admins to take it and give me same ammount of money I lost for buying it. Quess they wouldn't do that. There was one thread from Kusari dessie owner.. a QQ thread. I can imagine that anger... People just can't be lucky with something they in fact didn't buy.

PS: Thinking about obtaining an Elbe, small Elbe.

User was banned for: Requested
Time left: (Permanent)
Reply  
Offline Thunderer
10-20-2014, 11:29 AM,
#72
Tea Disposal Unit
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 463
Joined: Jul 2011

This could potentially be a bit awkward in role-play, but I doubt it will happen often, as the snub has to dock somewhere first.

What I think would be better to do is divide nanobots and shield batteries into cap class and snub class. Cap can only repair caps and transports, snub can only repair snubs. Snubs would only carry snub class, excluding repair ships, and caps only cap class, excluding battleships, which should have -a bit- of the snub class regens, and carriers, which should have a lot more.

[Image: 396AUfe.png]
Bretonian Treaty Database Bretonian Armed Forces Recruitment Center
Bretonian Charter of Interstellar Law Bretonian Secrets Act
Reply  
Offline Alley
10-20-2014, 12:14 PM,
#73
Member
Posts: 4,524
Threads: 406
Joined: Jun 2009

(10-20-2014, 11:29 AM)Thunderer Wrote: This could potentially be a bit awkward in role-play, but I doubt it will happen often, as the snub has to dock somewhere first.

What I think would be better to do is divide nanobots and shield batteries into cap class and snub class. Cap can only repair caps and transports, snub can only repair snubs. Snubs would only carry snub class, excluding repair ships, and caps only cap class, excluding battleships, which should have -a bit- of the snub class regens, and carriers, which should have a lot more.

We'd love to do that, it would solve a lot of problems, but without the source code it's never happening. Maybe with FLOS, who knows.

Laz Wrote: Alley was right.
Reply  
Offline Mímir
10-20-2014, 12:18 PM,
#74
Member
Posts: 2,823
Threads: 182
Joined: Dec 2010

how about just removing b/b from caps, gunboats and transports and buff hull instead?

[Image: 120px-BhgLogo.png][Image: 120px-LH_Logo.png]
Reply  
Offline Hannibal
10-20-2014, 03:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-20-2014, 03:32 PM by Hannibal.)
#75
Still a Pyromaniac
Posts: 875
Threads: 79
Joined: Oct 2012

While i do like the idea ,even more since it's a very large map for such a low server population,it's potential for fixing the aforementioned issue will not make up for most of cases that it can be abused
Think about it the option to spam fighters and bombers against any group of players you encounter will decimate them in seconds..

What if instead of being able to teleport form any NPC base at the location of the carrier,the carrier will have to jump there and pick up the players itself and afterward join or rejoin the battle? [using the jumpdrives of course]
Maybe just increase the amount of ships that can be stored on a docking module..from 1 to 2..that will be like what..@6-10 players per carrier,which is more than enough and should not be too overpowered

About the other fix you recently did for the docking modules,where a player could undock from a ship that was docked at a npc base,what if the players could only be ejected by the carrier/(ship with docking modules) and if he tries to undock and the carrier is offline he could go to conn..
would that work?you know..making docking modules not useless for trading ships and the sorts that use shared ship docked on them in case they get attacked or they found a prey themself?


People want to believe that God has a plan for them.
They don't wanna believe that anyone else does..
Reply  
Offline nOmnomnOm
10-20-2014, 03:56 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-20-2014, 03:56 PM by nOmnomnOm.)
#76
Probation
Posts: 5,914
Threads: 247
Joined: May 2011

Is this only for carriers then....

So pirates will not have access to this and this would only be military?

ok Sad

[Image: zBEqQfl.jpg?1]
Reply  
Offline SnakThree
10-20-2014, 04:17 PM,
#77
Member
Posts: 9,091
Threads: 337
Joined: Mar 2010

It's for docking modules.

[Image: rTrJole.png][Image: LJ88XSk.png]
[Image: ka0AQa5.png][Image: QwWqCS8.png]
  Reply  
Offline Zen_Mechanics
10-20-2014, 04:23 PM,
#78
Member
Posts: 2,262
Threads: 196
Joined: Oct 2012

Only millitary has carriers ( and one faction that I will not mention because of the chance of qq ) so if its going to piss off someone, its going to be the pirates - but hey, you are a pirate - You know what you are getting into.
However, I will dislike anyone whos going to use it against one individual - but i trust that most people here know what fairness means. That' is my stance, even though i could have simply said " in combat no one will be fair " and let it be an open case.

Were fools to make war on our brothers in arms.

Reply  
Offline nOmnomnOm
10-20-2014, 04:54 PM,
#79
Probation
Posts: 5,914
Threads: 247
Joined: May 2011

If its for docking modules and not only for the carriers ships themselves then that is fine by me for sure.
Even if it wasn't then I'd still think its a fine idea, though im curious.

[Image: zBEqQfl.jpg?1]
Reply  
Offline Alley
10-20-2014, 06:06 PM,
#80
Member
Posts: 4,524
Threads: 406
Joined: Jun 2009

(10-20-2014, 04:17 PM)Snak3 Wrote: It's for docking modules.

No, it'll be for what ship we think is fit to benefit from this. (but has docking modules, you're correct on that point)

Laz Wrote: Alley was right.
Reply  
Pages (10): « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)



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