Torpedoes are over rated. Otherwise I could build 40 Missile Boats and said that I took down the shields on a SSD.
Dark Empire Thirteen (OOC)
Very true.
Either way, 90 torpedoes is still more than enough to eliminate a Corvette.
Drayson that was the dirtiest, shitiest most bullshit move I've ever seen. I had a problem with your post. You didn't give me a satisfactory reply or even consider crap and then you pulled the 72 hour rule. I ask for a staff ruling on whether or not Drayson's last post is void. And in the meantime you're not posting Drayson I don't give a @#%$ if it take a @#%$ month to get a ruling.
LOL, Marth.
Perhaps I should yell at you. After all, you didn't give me a satisfactory response as to how a corvette could survive a salvo of 90 proton torpedoes in its face.
For future reference, if you have a problem, you come out and say it. You don't say "Magic! Or not." You also generally provide some argument as to how the actions of the other party are not legal/realistic.
You did none of these things.
If my most recent post had destroyed some of your ships, I might even understand where you're coming from. But I didn't - I simply took advtandage of your lack of a response to set up my fleet for the next round.
Your crying over spilt milk before the milk has been spilt!
And yes, Marth, I took full advantadge of the 72 hour rule. ORS has never cut TNO a break - why the hell should we do so for you?
You don't have to reply. If you don't, I'll take full advantadge of the 72-hour rule again, and again.
Perhaps I should yell at you. After all, you didn't give me a satisfactory response as to how a corvette could survive a salvo of 90 proton torpedoes in its face.
For future reference, if you have a problem, you come out and say it. You don't say "Magic! Or not." You also generally provide some argument as to how the actions of the other party are not legal/realistic.
You did none of these things.
If my most recent post had destroyed some of your ships, I might even understand where you're coming from. But I didn't - I simply took advtandage of your lack of a response to set up my fleet for the next round.
Your crying over spilt milk before the milk has been spilt!
And yes, Marth, I took full advantadge of the 72 hour rule. ORS has never cut TNO a break - why the hell should we do so for you?
You don't have to reply. If you don't, I'll take full advantadge of the 72-hour rule again, and again.
Oh, Kas... if you're still reading this:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The last point is questionable (leave it open for a reply, etc) but the first is obviously true.<hr></blockquote>
I closed the line to ensure the ORS could not reply, which is why sense dictates that jamming was also reestablished.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The last point is questionable (leave it open for a reply, etc) but the first is obviously true.<hr></blockquote>
I closed the line to ensure the ORS could not reply, which is why sense dictates that jamming was also reestablished.
I'm gonna call your last post BS, Drayson.
I did check the times, and I said... well, okay, but Marth does have a point.
Cut your damages by a lot please. Or remove your post and let Marth respond, dealing severely limited damages.
I did check the times, and I said... well, okay, but Marth does have a point.
Cut your damages by a lot please. Or remove your post and let Marth respond, dealing severely limited damages.
I disagree.
Marth says "You can't do that" - but fails to offer any reason as to why not. Simply stated, a 150-meter Corvette cannot take a volley of 90 proton torpedoes and be expected to fight.
If Marth can put forth a convincing argument as to how his ships could possibly be not dead, then I'll take the time to listen.
But I'm not going to make changes based on "You can't do that!!!"
Marth says "You can't do that" - but fails to offer any reason as to why not. Simply stated, a 150-meter Corvette cannot take a volley of 90 proton torpedoes and be expected to fight.
If Marth can put forth a convincing argument as to how his ships could possibly be not dead, then I'll take the time to listen.
But I'm not going to make changes based on "You can't do that!!!"
Ahnk:
Drayson:
You are allowed to disagree. But you will comply.
Unfortunately, this is no longer possible since the staff has been brought in. Both players are no longer trying to satisfy each other's view but trying to satisfy the staff's.
Individual players views are no longer relevent once the staff is brought in. That is why we urge players to settle issues on their own and why a "give and take" attitude may be required.
Therefore, if the staff says Marth's ships are destroyed, he has no say. Or if the staff says for you to edit, you really have no say.
If player A calls for a staffer's view and the staffer agrees with player A, a decision will usually go against player B. And the punishment may be more severe since it took a staffer to render a decision in something that shouldn't really require one.
Now, on the other hand, if player A calls for a staffer's view and the staffer feels player A is being a butthead and simply trying to waste time (72 hour rule), the decision will go against player A and the staff may make the damages even more severe given player A's trying to waste the staffer's time.
So, the lesson is: calling on the staff to render a decision in something that should be worked out between players can cut both ways.
Secondly, if a staffer tells a player to do something and they don't, the decision will always (always) go against them no matter if it's 40 ISD's against a freighter with no shields.
Perhaps not. But ALL players will make changes according to staff rulings (whether for or against them and whether they agree or disagree).
Just some thoughts for all fleet roleplayers to keep in mind.
Drayson:
You are allowed to disagree. But you will comply.
Unfortunately, this is no longer possible since the staff has been brought in. Both players are no longer trying to satisfy each other's view but trying to satisfy the staff's.
Individual players views are no longer relevent once the staff is brought in. That is why we urge players to settle issues on their own and why a "give and take" attitude may be required.
Therefore, if the staff says Marth's ships are destroyed, he has no say. Or if the staff says for you to edit, you really have no say.
If player A calls for a staffer's view and the staffer agrees with player A, a decision will usually go against player B. And the punishment may be more severe since it took a staffer to render a decision in something that shouldn't really require one.
Now, on the other hand, if player A calls for a staffer's view and the staffer feels player A is being a butthead and simply trying to waste time (72 hour rule), the decision will go against player A and the staff may make the damages even more severe given player A's trying to waste the staffer's time.
So, the lesson is: calling on the staff to render a decision in something that should be worked out between players can cut both ways.
Secondly, if a staffer tells a player to do something and they don't, the decision will always (always) go against them no matter if it's 40 ISD's against a freighter with no shields.
Perhaps not. But ALL players will make changes according to staff rulings (whether for or against them and whether they agree or disagree).
Just some thoughts for all fleet roleplayers to keep in mind.
Okay, Ahnk. Now it simply says that his ships were struck by 90 proton torpedoes each. I'll leave it to Marth to set realistic damages considering the circumstances.