<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[Discovery Gaming Community - Discovery Mod General Discussion]]></title>
	<subtitle type="html"><![CDATA[Discovery Gaming Community - https://discoverygc.com/forums]]></subtitle>
	<link rel="self" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/syndication.php"/>
	<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/</id>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/"/>
	<updated>2024-09-18T18:58:42Z</updated>
	<generator uri="https://mybb.com">MyBB</generator>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=39442">Dark Chocolate</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-09-16T19:51:18Z</published>
		<updated>2024-09-17T07:01:15Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204708" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204708</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Version 5.1 - Aftershock. Things I DISLIKED]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204708"><![CDATA[<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Should I call it Discovery Restrictlancer now? Coz everything is so nerfed and restricted that It is becoming more and more tiresome to play.<br />
I'm a Cap Main, and my opinion will kinda reflect that. Please Allow me to rant about everything that bothered me this patch.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">:::Yet Another damn Cruiser <span style="text-decoration: line-through;" class="mycode_s">Update</span> NERF:::</span></span><br />
-Cruisers were too OP before, I thought they had been nerfed enough in the previous update with the strafe punishing power core and guns speeds reduced. Now it’s even worse for the following reasons. <br />
<br />
<span style="text-decoration: underline;" class="mycode_u">-Cruiser Engines are made up of paper. </span><br />
-They will go BOOM even if people sneeze at it. This is worsened by whatever changes have been made to snubs. Sometimes the gun placement of Agincourt would allow it to hit components even when fighting face to face. <br />
<br />
<span style="text-decoration: underline;" class="mycode_u">Power Core change</span> <br />
-The recharging shield mechanic that consumes power core is interesting. The line “switch all reserve power to weapon systems” makes much more sense now. I had good hopes when I heard of this, But in the current built I hate this mechanic for two main reasons. <br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">1. how much impact it has and the absolute need to learn it. </span><br />
I would have preferred it If learning the mechanic would give you an advantage, but it’s not mandatory and it is actually possible to fight without learning it. Wasn’t this how it was initially intended to be? I don’t remember. <br />
But No, That’s not the case in the current built. <br />
In the current version, without disabling the shield recharge (and being shot at) Cruiser Pulse Cannons can’t even Kill the shield of other cruisers in a one on one. So You absolutely have to learn this mechanic no matter how cumbersome it is. It sucks and forces player to a specific playstyle. <br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">2. Why are only cruiser power cores affected by this?</span><br />
Why don’t Battlecruisers and Battleships or any other ship require to “Switch Power to Weapons” to have better energy recharge? <br />
--I think this mechanic should be much less punishing if not used and everyone should suffer this, if it exists, not just cruisers.  <br />
<br />
<span style="text-decoration: underline;" class="mycode_u">Cruiser Head and Tail Guns Thing. </span><br />
I absolutely hate this restrictive feature that came with this update. The division of this Cruiser heavy and Cruiser Defense category leaves you with very little options on what you want to mount. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">For Heavy hardpoints:-</span> <br />
-Missiles are quite unpredictable on cruisers in my experience. Many a times they will fail to lock on to target when I fly cruisers. This didn’t happen so often before. <br />
-Light Mortar has very slight difference of 150m in range but much worse efficiency and very limited arc.  <br />
-the only good option is Tachyon Lance. No wonder why everyone goes for Code-Guns..<br />
<br />
-Bretonians get special heavy gun which is basically old shards. It’s good. But I wish it was something new and more unique instead of a white painted shard.<br />
-Cerberus Cruiser gun finally feels great. And atleast makes Donau a bit unique. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">For Defense Guns:-</span><br />
-Impacts have much higher efficiency to shield and hull compared to Shards and Storms, with similar projectile speed and Range. So it’s the best out of the three non-code options.<br />
-It is even better than Mauler since it sucks at shield damage for some reason, so you have to use Mauler + Ion Blaster for best results which restricts them to heavier cruisers. <br />
Even with that Mauler would give you just 50 more projectile speed for slightly worse anti hull efficiency. You’re better off mounting 2 Impacts lol. 2 Impacts will give you decent enough shield stripping power and best hull damage efficiency. <br />
<br />
-So basically just forget everything and mount 2 tachyons and 2 impacts and you’re good. Maybe 1 tachyon and 1 missile if you really want to missilelancer. No need for variations. No diverse loadouts. This is all you need. <br />
-I miss the old times with simpler mechanics before the very first major cruiser update. Was it so bad? Was this much radical changes needed? <br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">:::The goddamn Rear facing Guns. ::::</span></span><br />
I don’t understand this obsession with tail guns that devs have. First the Battlecruisers, now the Cruisers. Are you gonna do the same with Battleships when they get a component update? I can already see a lot of Battleship arcs NERFed to favor “sideways combat”.<br />
Yeah, the cruiser defense guns can be and are supposed to be used for “sideways” combat, which is being favored now as compared to the previous chase and kite combat.<br />
<br />
But it’s just that I fail to understand WHY would a space civilization design a class of ships to have their most efficient guns situated only to fire in the rear 180ish degrees. Why would it not have the guns rotate full 360 degrees. <br />
<img style="max-width: 700px; height: auto" src="https://i.imgur.com/j5kQoZW.png" /><br />
Even when you look at the guns on their hardpoints and see how much open space they have. It feels there is no real reason why they would not rotate full 360 degrees. Who came up with this.<br />
<br />
What’s even more funny that some cruisers like Dragon Cruiser and Liberty Siege Cruiser do have Forward Guns designed to work well against large capital ships. Earlier the Cumbersome Aiming which did put you at risk of eating mortars was highly rewarding if done correctly as these guns had high dps and efficiency. But now the rear guns are still much more efficient than these forward guns and you can dodge with full freedom while shooting. So I just end up using the rear guns against large targets which makes me wonder what’s the point of having Large Intimidating Forward guns<br />
<br />
Why do Gunboats still have Forward Guns tho? Are they going to get converted to Rear guns in the future?<br />
Is there going to be a variation of Liberty Siege Cruiser with rear facing main gun with much more efficiency?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">:::Removal of Iconic Features and making each cap of same class feel more or less the same. :::</span></span><br />
-This affects most of the caps, like all light battleships kinda feel the same except Core BS. You can have the same loadouts on all Battlecruisers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers and what not. I miss the times when the guns were situational and I had different set ups of the same ship to play different playstyles. Nowadays Ships of same class feel more or less the same. <br />
<br />
-The Coalition “Hurricane” class Battlecruiser had it’s Iconic Forward gun removed. WHY. I just can’t look at the Coalition Battlecruiser the same way as I used to. <br />
I first saw the Coalition Battlecruiser in the opening Intro cutscene of Vanilla Freelancer. To have that ship playable in Discovery Freelancer felt like a dream come true. And now after all these years you feel necessary to remove its Iconic Forward Guns? Why are you so keen to remove fun and iconic elements of the game. <br />
You could have easily kept the forward guns and given two less heavies. And these forward guns would be destructible as the front power component thing blows up. Doesn’t seem like it would affect balance that much. <br />
Oh wait. The Nomad Battlecruiser does have a forward-facing Battlecruiser Special gun that is destructible. So Nomad Battlecruiser can get special design but the Iconic Coalition Battlecruiser cannot? That’s not Fair. <br />
Without the forward guns, the Hurricane doesn’t feel like Hurricane. May be you should just rename it to ‘Monsoon’ or ‘Rain’ or may be just ‘Wind’ or something. <br />
-Every human Battlecruiser feels the same to fly basically. Not much difference. <br />
Why can’t there be some variation. <br />
Iconic ships such as This one should have it’s iconic features. <br />
<br />
-I would even say that  Triumphs should have a functional downward facing cannon like mentioned in the description. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">:::Restrictive Battleship gameplay:::</span></span><br />
-Yeah. Most of the Battleships have their all arcs restricted. This plus the Ship mass thing which makes it super tedious to maneuver, be it heavy or light. And ofcourse most of the turret rotation speed is slower than the sloths of that animated Zoo movie. All of which make me feel as if someone up there doesn't want people to play caps. <br />
-And any fleet deciding to kite puts it at a major disadvantage. There is a push towards specific side to side combat for all caps. This sucks because, even if enemy has slightly more ships than you, you're gonna have a very hard time. <br />
 <br />
-Valor FWG was very very intimidating in the past. Getting too close and in front of a Valor would put you at a serious disadvantage. But now it is just a Heavy mortar with a bit more damage. I didn’t fly the Hessian Battleship as much before this patch, but I guess it’s more or less the same situation. <br />
You can ignore these big mighty Forward Guns altogether and you won’t be missing anything much during battles. <br />
I think using the FWGs should be more Rewarding considering the Cumbersome Aiming you have to do for it.  <br />
<br />
-I hear Battleships are going to have thursters and engine components in the next patch. Not sure how that’s going to turn out but it makes me wonder why can’t battleships mount Cruise Disruptors when they can literally mount everything else? Such Big flying fortresses with most heavy power core and hull hardpoints capable to mount the largest of guns, with cargo space enough to store heaviest of ammunition and somehow cannot equip a tiny little cruiser disruptor?<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">:::Whatever that was done to snubs:::</span></span><br />
-I’m not sure what is going on. But ability to mount SNACs on light fighters is obnoxious. Snubs shield regeneration is quite fast and their guns deal significant damage to caps now. Even if you manage to hit them, you won’t kill them fast enough most of the time. They’ll just retreat and grow their shields back very quickly and bother your or go restock. <br />
-Somehow fate of all fleet battles is decided by who has the better or more snubs. <br />
-So basically, you buy big Capital ships that you dream of with all the tedious money grind, spend more money on guns, docking bays, cloaks and what not. Only to have swarms of shield-running snubs chew your engines off surprisingly effectively in every damn fleet battle. It sucks. It barely seems possible to do anything against even a small number of snubs. Shouldn’t snubs be afraid of getting near caps?<br />
-Even light fighters are a threat now for caps which makes me laugh at my misery when fighting against them. <br />
-Many of you might not agree with me but It’s my personal opinion that I preferred how things were before in terms of Snubs vs Caps. <br />
 <br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">:::Everything is so damn Expensive:::</span></span><br />
-All guns, ammunition, regens and commodities are quite expensive now. POB supplies are much more expensive than it used to. Is it really necessary.<br />
<br />
-I hate the fact that Jump drive batteries still cost 200,000 (20 million old money) and cloaks still cost 50,000 (5 million old money) Despite all the the restrictive JD and cloak nerfs. <br />
-Moreover, the plugin that saved this ammo in your ship when you got destroyed is also disabled. So if you might potentially lose about 250,000 to 300,000 on a fully supplied capital ships which might compel you to just combat dock. Is it really necessary to punish players who fly capital ships?<br />
<br />
-The last time I asked this question, someone answered by saying, It’s so that people would do trade/fly transports which would result in more pirates which would result in more lawfuls and so on. <br />
But that doesn’t seem the end result considering how much the server population has fallen. People would just use the JDs to bare minimum or won’t bother to have ammo at all. No one wants to grind transportlancer just so they can afford losing 250,000+ everytime their Cap dies. You can try as much as you want, but if you’re gonna try to make people play to your specified way, more and more people gonna stop playing the game altogather. <br />
<br />
-I suggest either bringing back that plugin that saved your ammunition when you died OR reduce the overall price of ammunition, atleast the JD and Cloak ammunition. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">:::Omicron Theta Storyline.:::</span></span><br />
-Whatever storyline made the Freeport 9 in Omicron Theta become Corsair base, I hate it. <br />
-For whatever reason Outcasts decided to abandon the battle after a victory to focus on Sigmas, It makes zero sense to me. Okay the sigma thing was important for Outcasts, but I think The Maltese Navy would have first capitalized their victory, ceased Corsair resources and then left to sigmas or whatever. Everytime I see ‘Corsair base’ written in front of “Freeport 9” I am reminded that all the big event and the awesome battles and victory over the Freeport 9 was ultimately pointless. It has left a bad taste and I barely participate in events anymore. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">:::Summary:::</span></span><br />
-The game has become very restrictive. It forces player to play in a very specific playstyle. It takes the fun out of the gameplay. Until the devs realize this we’re gonna have more and more people leaving. <br />
I’m sticking around barely becoz of the nostalgia factor I have with this game and becoz of the friends I made here. Sooner or later I’m gonna get tired of all of these radical changes every patch and just play Halo or something with my friends idk. <br />
<br />
-In my opinion the development focus should be more on how to make all ships more fun instead of restrictive, over-complicated and cumbersome. <br />
I want to be able to play this game becoz it is fun and not becoz I can’t get over my nostalgia or have a crippling fascination to torture myself. <br />
<br />
-Thank you for listening. My apologies If I was offensive in anyway. <br />
</span>]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=39442">Dark Chocolate</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-09-16T19:48:46Z</published>
		<updated>2024-09-16T20:01:51Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204707" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204707</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Version 5.1 - Aftershock. Things I LIKED]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204707"><![CDATA[<span style="font-size: large;" class="mycode_size">Despite the many negatives and the fact that I lost interest for a few months and have considerably reduced playing this game, There are lot of things I really liked about this patch. <br />
I welcome all to post things that you enjoyed as well, Things that are awesome in this update and may be things that are in the right direction but might need some improvement/fine tuning. I will try my best to keep this post as wholesome as possible just like I did the last time<br />
<br />
-Firstly, Thanks to all the dev team. It is amazing to see that this game gets so much love after all these years. The team has worked really hard for this massive update, for that you have my utmost respect. They deserve all the appreciation everyone can give<br />
<br />
-Thanks for listening and fixing the absolutely OP missiles that came the last patch. They are much more tolerable with the current changes. Moreover I like the mechanic of doubling the ammo count of cap missiles if you have 2 missile launchers and tripling for 3 and so on. Ammo-Stacking? is that what its called? Not sure but I like that. Also, It would be great if we get Silo missiles like Nightmares back. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">:::Visual and Sound Changes:::</span><br />
-I love the new Main menu screens. They are beautiful. <br />
-I love the Omega 58 system. The one with the Pulsar. I like how travelling there is extremely hazardous although I don’t fully understand it. <br />
-Systems like Dublin look great<br />
-I like most of the Projectile and visual effects changes except may be I preferred the Old Mortars, heavy mortars and Gales. <br />
And if would be great if Battleship Cerberus can get it’s old sound effect back. It gave weird satisfaction when firing.<br />
-The death fuses are awesome and the new ship explosion and I still love them. Please never remove again.  Can Hessian ships have red explosions tho instead of the current green ones?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">:::Missions:::</span><br />
Thanks a ton for increasing the pay for the missions. As you require multiple people to do those high level missions anyways. <br />
The AI functions well. It doesn’t shoot constantly with it’s infinite powercore and that’s good. <br />
Sometimes the ships just kite out of the mission boundries tho and won’t even come back a lot of times. But I think the devs are already working on fixing that. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">::: PVE Encounters:::</span><br />
As last time they are great. In the last patch I noticed that the Simga-15 Corsair encounter would sometimes spawn a Corsair Legate with full Sledges and Nightmare torpedoes loadout. I always wondered if we would get such boss enemies  or there would be more emphasis on them in the next patch. And It feels great that you awesome folks worked on it. These rare-times the Boss enemy and it’s much more dangerous fleet spawns and drops a codegun. This just feels awesome. <br />
<br />
Although I want to say one thing. You guys have worked a lot on the NPCs and they certainly play better now. I still think there’s a need for the old battlezones to co-exist along with these encounters. <br />
<br />
I understand there are certain areas that spawn Capital ship patrols, but the NPC battlecruisers just cruises away without fighting most of the time. And they are no where close to the old Battlezones. <br />
<br />
The old battezones had something magical about them. The ones where two to three NPC fleets would keep endlessly spawning and just fighting each other. It would attract players for some reason. And people would just sit there farming NPCs and have dumb fun. I think there’s nothing wrong with that. I would usually come home and sit there dumbfiring at NPCs and talk to friends after a busy day at work, It was relaxing for some reason. There would always be people farming a Battlezones all the time on the server. <br />
<br />
The PVE Encounters and Patrols are great. But I think The Battlezones should also co-exist in other areas.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">:::Cruise Speed and System changes:::</span><br />
- The 500 cruise speed feels so much better. Especially when navigating through Lawful systems while playing as unlawfuls. Flying Frigates through Omicrons makes much more sense now. While 5kers can be used mostly in house systems with lanes and everything. Overall a very good change. <br />
I might have some mixed feelings in how the smaller systems like Omicron Delta were stretched due to this. It makes them feel a bit more emptier than before. <br />
Also, Not sure if it is becoz of this, but the Cruise Disruptors have lost some of their effectiveness. Maybe they need a buff to their projectile speed or damage radius.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">:::Ships and Guns Changes:::</span><br />
-The Dragon Battlecruiser is great. <br />
- Asteroid Miner and It’s 10k Cargo is awesome. I like how it is available to all factions. Also I like the fact that It isn’t super expensive like the bustard Civilian Carrier. <br />
- Cruiser Flaks are good. Although I am not entirely sure how to use them. <br />
- Little things like sledges don’t fire like machine guns anymore. I’m thankful. <br />
-The Agincourt is beautiful. Although It’s Crecy 2.0, The textures, the colour, the overall design of the ship and it’s special guns and basically everything about it looks great. It’s still kinda broken tho. <br />
- Thanks for actually introducing new Code Name weapons instead of just reworking the old ones. Lot of codeguns such as the plasma mortar have very beautiful projectiles. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">:::Bombers:::</span><br />
I like the changes to Nova Torpedo and the really good looking Rage Torpedo. They deal good punch when hit, have decent range and only 20 ammo. They work great in fleet battles with a ship, especially a Battleship to fall back to and restock. <br />
I like the Twin Thrusters Bombers have now. It looks pretty and I love it. <br />
I was wondering. Since we have special death fuses for snubs, which don’t allow them tho get insta-killed,. Regens can be used to avoid Insta kills right? So can you please revert the SNAC changes then? I still want the Old SNAC Back.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">::: Conclusion :::</span><br />
Thank you for the efforts taken on the game. I appreciate the hard work.<br />
Thank you for listening to me<br />
</span>]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=39442">Dark Chocolate</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-09-16T10:17:39Z</published>
		<updated>2024-09-16T10:17:39Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204701" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204701</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Can we have Sci Data Engines for Cruisers?]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204701"><![CDATA[So, I just want to say that Snubs, Freighters, Gunboats, Frigates and Transports have wide array of engine customization options. <br />
<br />
Battlecruisers and Battleships have the option for engine customization with Sci Data. <br />
<br />
It will be great if we get Sci Data engines for Cruisers too. Just my humble suggestion.]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=22842">sindroms</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-08-21T19:30:41Z</published>
		<updated>2024-08-21T20:11:39Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204440" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204440</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Help me with this:]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204440"><![CDATA[Right, so I was asked to make a completely from the ground up video explaining Disco to someone who has not done online RP before, or had games like this before. <br />
One of the things I was suggested was that I should basically ask the following to my discords:<br />
<br />
That, <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">''hey, I need you guys to do me a small favour and basically newbie-test a RP game called Discovery Freelancer. I am providing you no links, you need to find it and get it up and running yourself. Report back on any issues or confusion you encounter, thank you.''</span><br />
<br />
^ I think that you all should toss this to like.. 1-2 people you know well enough who'd be willing to give feedback. <br />
Before I make this thing, I need to replace what I ''assume'' is the biggest pitfalls with what are ''actually'' the biggest pitfalls for new players.<br />
Cheers.<br />
<br />
The responses should be posted here and made public so we all know what potential new players struggle with. You know, apart from the game advertising.<br />
<br />
EDIT: Please make sure you explain that you need their report on specific issues they have faced. Not what issues they think a player other than them might face in X situation. <br />
Speculation is something we can do ourselves.]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=44084">TheKusari</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-08-19T07:12:50Z</published>
		<updated>2024-08-19T07:12:50Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204399" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204399</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[OF Activity Check Overhaul]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204399"><![CDATA[<table style="width:100%;">
<tr>
<td>
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: overpass;" class="mycode_font"><div style="margin-left: 40px; margin-right: 40px;">
<div style="text-align: center;" class="mycode_align"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b"><span style="color: #FFFFFF;" class="mycode_color">OFFICIAL FACTION<br />
<span style="font-size: 15pt;" class="mycode_size">QUARTERLY CHECK OVERHAUL PROPOSAL</span></span></span></div></div></span><br />
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table style="width:100%;">
<tr>
<td>
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: overpass;" class="mycode_font"><div style="margin-left: 40px; margin-right: 40px;">
<span style="color: #FFFFFF;" class="mycode_color">'Sup, everyone.<br />
<br />
First of all, this is more or less an expansion or revival of <a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=198225" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">this thread</a>. Though this is a newer idea, that's somewhat related to my old one.<br />
<br />
I have had a chat with a few people about Official Factions and what the ins and outs are of what you actually get once you become official. We have all seen the <a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=282" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">quarterly checks</a> at one point or another, this post is essentially serving as my suggestion on how this system can be overhauled and changed into something that may enable more factions to come to officialdom.<br />
<br />
The basic idea here is that when you apply to become Official, the Moderation and Administration teams decide which kind of faction you most resemble. This isn't a way to circumvent the quarterly checks to remain official easier, though the "passive" one may appeal to a lot of you. It's more so meant to enable people to bring to life factions that may not require a ton of in-game presence, but can function primarily on the forums. As I have listed two here (as examples) the idea would be that if there's any dispute, by default you'll be classed as "Active." Having too many of these classes would only make this more convoluted.<br />
<br />
Both of the classes below have different roleplay articles and activity we look out for to pass the check. Now, these lists don't include all the tidbits, it serves to make the reader understand by point, or my proposal here. Please don't take this as final by any means, it's mostly just to get the conversation going so we can reach an end point that we're all happy with.<br />
<br />
Any feedback is welcome.</span></div></span><br />
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table style="width:100%;">
<tr>
<td>
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: overpass;" class="mycode_font"><div style="margin-left: 40px; margin-right: 40px;">
<span style="color: #FFFFFF;" class="mycode_color">"Active" Official Faction</span><br />
<br />
For those factions who would realistically be seen having a stronger presence in-game compared to on the forums. Primary examples (but not limited to) being House Militaries, Logistics Corporations and Mining Organizations.<br />
<br />
Major Checks<ul class="mycode_list"><li>Log Time (72 hours every Quarter)<br />
</li>
<li>Official Event Participation<br />
</li>
<li>Bounty Boards<br />
</li>
<li>Recruitment<br />
</li>
<li></li>
</ul>
Minor Checks<ul class="mycode_list"><li>Message Dumps<br />
</li>
<li>Faction Projects<br />
</li>
<li>Mission Boards<br />
</li>
<li>PoB Activity<br />
</li>
<li>Communication Channel<br />
</li>
<li>Permit Requests<br />
</li>
<li></li>
</ul></div></span><br />
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
</td>
<td>
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: overpass;" class="mycode_font"><div style="margin-left: 40px; margin-right: 40px;">
<span style="color: #FFFFFF;" class="mycode_color">"Passive" Official Faction</span><br />
<br />
For those factions who would realistically be seen having a stronger presence on the forums compared to in-game. Primary examples (but not limited to) being Scientific Organizations, News &amp; Media and Insurance &amp; Financial related groups.<br />
<br />
Major Checks<ul class="mycode_list"><li>Log Time (48 hours every Quarter)<br />
</li>
<li>Faction Projects<br />
</li>
<li>Mission Boards<br />
</li>
<li>Recruitment<br />
</li>
<li></li>
</ul>
Minor Checks<ul class="mycode_list"><li>Official Event Participation<br />
</li>
<li>Message Dumps<br />
</li>
<li>PoB Activity<br />
</li>
<li>Communication Channel<br />
</li>
<li>Bounty Boards<br />
</li>
<li>Permit Requests<br />
</li>
<li></li>
</ul></div></span><br />
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
</table>]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=760">Leo</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-08-12T06:55:14Z</published>
		<updated>2024-08-12T06:55:14Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204337" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204337</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Boneyards]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204337"><![CDATA[So I've been spending a lot of time on the server recently as a Junker. One of those things that, for some reason, I've been enjoying--is Scrap mining. During those mining sessions, I've been thinking a lot about how the activity of scrap mining can be further enhanced to be a more enjoyable, and lucrative, endeavor. When I think on this, I think of how the dev team created Gold Mining in Dublin and how this can be applied to Scrap mining. From there, a myraid of ideas ran through my head and here is what I've come up with:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 15pt;" class="mycode_size"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b"><span style="text-decoration: underline;" class="mycode_u">Boneyards</span></span></span><br />
Sirius is a dangerous place and there have been so many battles fought over the past 834 years that Humans have existed within Sirius. The 80-year war between GMG and Rheinland, the Colony Wars, the war between the Insurgency and Liberty, and the list goes on. Once those battles are fought and the victors decided, very rarely do those participants pick up the debris and move on. Many times that task falls to the Junkers who pick over the debris looking for valuables to further their craft. This is where my idea stims from.<br />
<br />
Systems such as Vespucci, Sigma-13, Omega-5, Omicron Theta, Tau-23, etc. are where battles have been fought. A new type of field/nebula is created where, much like the solar models in Dublin that spawn with gold, derelict gunboat and larger ship solars spawn that have places that can be blown up to mine Scrap Metal from within. Now, I can hear you thinking, <span style="color: #0080FF;" class="mycode_color">"Well, Scrap is already easy to get, why would this addition create a rush?"</span> You're right, of course. Scrap is one of those ores that is extremely easy to get. However, what if you added a carrot to the activity? Many of these ships were fielded by major powers. Liberty, Rheinland, GMG, Corsairs, Core, etc. Don't you think that they would field prototype technology as well? Maybe lost plans for these super weapons that have been forgotten to time?<br />
<br />
As you mine the scrap, you have a rare chance to find things such as Prototypes, Blueprints, Prototype Components, maybe you blast open a cargo hold and find a ton of Xeno Relics or Cardamine. Maybe a rare metal alloy can be created as a rare spawn from these Boneyards that can be processed at POB's as a needed component for new or existing advanced crafts. Possibly Premium Scrap makes a return to fit this niche?<br />
<br />
From my perspective, this will generate activity wherein factions might hire Junkers to comb these fields to find technology related to their enemies. Maybe they go out and do it themselves attacking any who get close to the field to protect their own technology in these fields. Omega-5 is one such place I can see this creating a lot of activity between Hessians, Corsairs, and anyone else trying to exploit this resource.<br />
<br />
As for the drop rate of these special drops, I leave that up to the balance team. It should be balanced in a way which doesn't make it too lucrative but isn't a huge grind to get anything. I'm not very well versed in balancing things, but it should be properly done in such a way that it isn't broken, but isn't a chore either.<br />
<br />
<hr class="mycode_hr" />
<br />
Of course, this is just a suggestion and brainstorming session. I don't expect that this will ever be put into Discovery but it's a fun thought experiment to discuss. Is this something you might be interested in? Is it something that you think has merit or not? Why or why not? Be constructive, not unproductive.<br />
<br />
Discuss!]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=35276">Reeves</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-07-18T08:34:05Z</published>
		<updated>2024-07-18T08:34:05Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204069" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204069</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[[Poll] Bring back the swear filter]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=204069"><![CDATA[Self explanatory.]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=56841">Big Bison Bessie</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-06-23T12:50:52Z</published>
		<updated>2024-06-23T12:50:52Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203725" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203725</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[A potential update to station infocards]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203725"><![CDATA[Now I know this would be a lot of work, but I can't help but wonder if it would make sense to have an NPC station's IFF written clearly in the F9 infocard.  I know we all know the bases by heart for the most part, but I cannot help but recall when a friend of mine started playing a few weeks ago and flew all the way out to Delta to try to dock on Lichtenfelde, and we all can guess how that went.  If a station's IFF was plainly indicated on it's F9 info, it could help the new players figure out if they're making a run to a potentially hostile base much more easily.]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=54858">HUMPHRESS</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-06-08T04:53:53Z</published>
		<updated>2024-06-08T04:53:53Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203433" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203433</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[What Encounter Codes are where?]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203433"><![CDATA[I am looking into gathering some encounter codes, and I bet others are too. If you know an encounter that drops a codename weapon, I would appreciate if you would share it <img src="https://discoverygc.com/forums/images/smilies/smiling.png" alt="Smile" title="Smile" class="smilie smilie_1" /> Thanks in advance kind sirs!]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=44084">TheKusari</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-06-07T22:45:06Z</published>
		<updated>2024-06-07T22:48:16Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203428" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203428</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[v5.1 Exploration Experience]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203428"><![CDATA[<table style="width:100%;">
<tr>
<td>
<span style="color: transparent;" class="mycode_color">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: overpass;" class="mycode_font"><div style="margin-left: 40px; margin-right: 40px;">
<span style="color: #DADEDF;" class="mycode_color">Sup, everyone.<br />
<br />
I'd like to share my experience with the exploration side of 5.1 so far. Before I get into it, I'd like to clarify that I have flown through numerous systems, without any pointers and hints as to where any new content is. To my surprise, some stuff is hidden and not shown anywhere else. I haven't been to every corner of the game, though what I have found so far has told me that there's more to look forward to. The biggest advice that I can pass along is to fly around and really take notice of the environment. In some cases, certain rocks, asteroids, formations are intended to be... followed, let's say. May lead you to someplace fancy. I want to share the handful of systems I have found some particularly juicy discoveries in, instead I will share with you a piece from Tau-23:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;" class="mycode_align"><img src="https://imgur.com/v7nuFh2.png" loading="lazy"  width="640" height="360" alt="[Image: v7nuFh2.png]" class="mycode_img" /></div>
<br />
Stuff like this is nice to see. It may not have crazy loot, but it does fill in the space a bit. Just to tease you further, there's an even crazier model formation with cool lighting effects in the system. Outside the Taus, found some cool stuff in two of the Omicron Systems and I intend to fly around more and see what else I can discover. I know a lot of you like your PVP and silent trading, making money and the like, but there's some proper cool stuff you can find in regular systems that don't require you to wait for the next Uncharted system to go "wow that's cool".<br />
<br />
On a side note, Omega-58 was made way too easy with the inclusion of a certain base. I'd ask to remove it, but that's just me. Or turn off conn access. Either / or. Otherwise, fantastic system to explore and fly around in. Real dangerous and interesting to look at with the scenery.<br />
<br />
Fly around, visit the bars, follow rumors, get hints, and see for yourself what's outside the navmap of some systems. You'd be surprised. Suppose this is more of an appreciation piece, to thank the systems devs. They do put a lot of work into hiding these cool things. As I've had a good chance myself to slap stuff together and have it successfully be put into the game, it's good to sorta pay it back in a way by finding the content they likely thought we'd never find.<br />
<br />
So please, if you all haven't made the time to try, get a FL ID'd freighter, slap the 550 engine on it and go crazy.<br />
<br />
Guess that's it from me.</span></div></span><br />
</td>
</tr>
</table>]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=25330">Traxit</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-06-06T13:53:28Z</published>
		<updated>2024-06-06T13:53:28Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203374" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203374</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA["Gun/Turret Mounts" ---->>> "Weapons Array"]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203374"><![CDATA[suggestion for caps "Gun/Turret Mounts" be switched to "Weapons Array", and display;<br />
<ul class="mycode_list"><li>1/2/4 for gunboats (i.e: condor) | 2/0/4 (bottlenose)<br />
</li>
<li>2/1/6 for cruisers (i.e: agincourt) | 0/2/5 (archer)<br />
</li>
<li>1/4/5 for battlecruisers (i.e fortitude)<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Gunboats - FWG/Heavy/Prim<br />
</li>
<li>Cruisers - Off./Def./Prim<br />
</li>
<li>Battlecruisers - BCHvy/Off./Prims<br />
</li>
<li>Battleships - personally don't know...</li>
</ul>
you get the idea, heaviest slot to lightest slot<br />
<br />
very simple change really,<br />
thoughts and suggestions?]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=56841">Big Bison Bessie</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-06-02T09:29:02Z</published>
		<updated>2024-06-02T09:29:02Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203265" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203265</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Frigate conversion/rebalance]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203265"><![CDATA[I am wondering if it would make sense to take a few existing transports and convert them into frigates... mostly thinking about the pirate transport, l'ane, and outcast battle transport for instance.  They're all largely used by factions with a lot of enemies and also cannot rely on house trade lanes for their travel.  There are a couple odd outliers here and there like the Dunlin in it's weird position of being the only frigate with transport equipment too.  Thoughts?]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=39156">Groshyr</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-05-30T15:32:10Z</published>
		<updated>2024-05-30T15:32:10Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203205" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203205</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Microstate RP]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=203205"><![CDATA[Over my experience on Discovery, it always seemed quite a move tone to RP almost any faction as a microstate, and the most people I have communicated with apperently not happy with it, although I might've confused what they were trying to deliver. <br />
<br />
I wonder why? What's wrong with people or person trying to play a little bit of management and build their own little state, even if its just a colony on a planet or in space? What's your personal take on this and if you think that what most do is incorrect, how would you like to see microstate RP on disco?]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=56841">Big Bison Bessie</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-05-05T11:33:59Z</published>
		<updated>2024-05-05T11:33:59Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=202965" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=202965</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Looking for bomber advice]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=202965"><![CDATA[I am still re-familiarizing myself with the game, and I know bombers have changed a lot since I last played with the instant kill SNAC.  Does anyone have any advice on bomber loadouts and tactics these days, perhaps breakdowns of different weapon options?]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
	<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<author>
			<name type="html" xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[<a href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=56841">Big Bison Bessie</a>]]></name>
		</author>
		<published>2024-04-29T11:26:02Z</published>
		<updated>2024-04-29T11:26:02Z</updated>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=202873" />
		<id>https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=202873</id>
		<title xml:space="preserve"><![CDATA[Friend looking for PVE opportunities]]></title>
		<content type="html" xml:space="preserve" xml:base="https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=202873"><![CDATA[Morning.  So a little while ago I started playing this with a friend of mine who is just getting into Freelancer.  So far we've done a lot of trading and smuggling to get him off the ground.  My buddy though has always liked coop and PVE aspects of games, so I want to know if anyone had any insight on some good factions or areas that lend themselves to good missions or encounters with NPCs?  Bonus points if the faction has a variety of enemies or encounters they can go at.]]></content>
		<draft xmlns="http://purl.org/atom-blog/ns#">false</draft>
	</entry>
</feed>