Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Alduin · Post by **Alduin** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:02 pm

Just an idea, would make roleplay little more interesting and provide some more limitations and bonuses.

҉ · Post by ҉ » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:05 pm

Would require standardized health and armor too. And it doesn't make sense to have standard health and armor without having stuff like speed and strength as well. Before you know it you're not doing Internet roleplay anymore; you're trying to recreate Dungeons & Dragons through text. Good luck with that.

Professor Fenway · Post by **Professor Fenway** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:37 pm

I'm still working on it. But this is too limiting, like Jedi said.

Alduin · Post by **Alduin** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:31 pm

there need to be some limits, im not saying we get really controlling over it but it would be nice if little fighters couldn't be equipped with super-anti matter cannon lasers.

Example (not best)
Power: How much damage the weapon type does generally
Speed: how long it takes to shoot/reload/shoot again
Types: like lasers, cannon, torpedoes, etc

Not the best example, but i would envision it being some kind of number system (Ex: only so many # of points usable) and would also give reasons to have more than one type of energy/other weapons. And could also add to roleplay with ships (Ex: Targeting energy storage(you decide what its called, im not good with names) to disable/nerf the enemy ships weapons).

just ideas.

oh and Jedi, i do not know how a Dragon would fit in a Dungeon or why a Dragon would even be in a Dungeon

Post by **Prototype** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:40 pm

Depends on the size of the dungeon, and whether you can fit a dragon in, or if the dragon likes dungeons

Alduin · Post by **Alduin** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:56 pm

Prototype wrote:Depends on the size of the dungeon, and whether you can fit a dragon in, or if the dragon likes dungeons

offtopic completely

Professor Fenway · Post by **Professor Fenway** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:59 pm

Ok Alduin. Stop. You know EXACTLY what you are doing. It is not YOUR job to point out off-topic or anything. Despite our warning in the previous thread, obviously you continue to do these reports and such. Stop. It's very annoying.

And he was on topic. He was replying to a part of your post (which was off-topic btw) in which you brought up.

In the future, there simply is no reason for a fighter not to have anti-matter cannon lasers. What they lack in speed/etc they make up for in firepower. Not everything is perfect, but the future is a lot closer than today.

Alduin · Post by **Alduin** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:09 pm

Professor Fenway wrote:Ok Alduin. Stop. You know EXACTLY what you are doing. It is not YOUR job to point out off-topic or anything. Despite our warning in the previous thread, obviously you continue to do these reports and such. Stop. It's very annoying.

And he was on topic. He was replying to a part of your post (which was off-topic btw) in which you brought up.

In the future, there simply is no reason for a fighter not to have anti-matter cannon lasers. What they lack in speed/etc they make up for in firepower. Not everything is perfect, but the future is a lot closer than today.

Did i send a report to you? Noooo? Did i just tell him that his post had nothing to do with the main topic in any way so that it would not become a chain like it is now and that way he would actually have to contribute for his post count to go up? Yes. And i guess i do not know what I am doing. please tell me.

Now, as for the fighters: i was meaning the fighters would be overpowered as in just regular fighters with cannons that should only be on a dreadnought without ANY bad side-effects like reduced maneuverability or any reduced anything as if it was a regular fighter without a big super cannon thing strapped to it. And Anti-Matter will always be overpowered. Always (unless its in Star Wars, in that case its normal). one reason to have weapon type balancing

Professor Fenway · Post by **Professor Fenway** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:13 pm

Just because you didn't submit a 'report' doesn't mean it doesn't count.

Anyway, sometimes there are no drawbacks. If that comes, it comes.

҉ · Post by ҉ » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:37 pm

What Fenway is saying is that you aren't a moderator. We appreciate your dedication to the off-topicness rules (Well, I do, I supposed I can't speak for Fenway), but please stop noting it in the thread. It doesn't help anyone, and in fact only tends to prolong the off-topicness, as it has here. Every single post on the forum is read by a moderator, so if anything requires an off-topicness warning it will receive one. I know this goes against my thread about reporting posts, but since Moderators (or at least I) can't see the reports anymore anyway it now only serves to annoy Fenway.

Alduin · Post by **Alduin** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:26 pm

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:What Fenway is saying is that you aren't a moderator. We appreciate your dedication to the off-topicness rules (Well, I do, I supposed I can't speak for Fenway), but please stop noting it in the thread. It doesn't help anyone, and in fact only tends to prolong the off-topicness, as it has here. Every single post on the forum is read by a moderator, so if anything requires an off-topicness warning it will receive one. I know this goes against my thread about reporting posts, but since Moderators (or at least I) can't see the reports anymore anyway it now only serves to annoy Fenway.

i acknowledge that i am not a moderator, have always acknowledged that i am not a moderator, and will always. But thank you for explaining what fenway tried to say. And i will stop now.

As for the weapons thing:

I have came up with an example system
In this system, points would determine what the power(Damage rating), Efficiency(how much is used per shot) and flexibility(yes, not best term, but represents what how many weapon types it can be used in Ex: Cannons, lasers Etc...)

Maximum points10
Maximum Per Category5

Name
Power
Efficiency
Flexibility

Now, here's an example,

NamePlasma (Name of the Energy type and no, this would not be the set rating for plasma)
Power2 (2 would be the standard damage for regular ship weapons)
Efficiency3 (3 Means it fires fairly well, can can fire repeatedly)
Flexibility5 (5 signifies it is a very "flexible" energy type, meaning it can be used from anything ranging from a Superlaser to a ground hand-gun)

And NO, this is not perfect by far and i know that. it is just a rough, rough example (repeated rough intended). Also, if you have a idea which is simpler AND better, post it!

cats · Post by **cats** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:20 pm

A numbered system? No. We don't really do that kind of RP unless it's a special one.

Alduin · Post by **Alduin** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:58 pm

catsonmeth wrote:A numbered system? No. We don't really do that kind of RP unless it's a special one.

like i said, just an example....

cats · Post by **cats** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:52 pm

Alduin wrote:
catsonmeth wrote:A numbered system? No. We don't really do that kind of RP unless it's a special one.
like i said, just an example....

...Of a point-based system.

Alduin · Post by **Alduin** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:59 pm

catsonmeth wrote:
Alduin wrote:
catsonmeth wrote:A numbered system? No. We don't really do that kind of RP unless it's a special one.
like i said, just an example....
...Of a point-based system.

....Nooo? A suggestion of one of many systems to make a standard comparison system for weapon damage types

FC Forums

Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

?

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types

Re: Agreed Upon standard for damage of weapon types