| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zavernus Hamarabi
   |
Posted - 2005.12.23 05:38:00 -
[1]
Yea, flame on whatever, but
Remote warp core stabiliser, to get that miner you're protecting the frick out so you get back to your bullet sponge duties.
WTB Cool sig :/ |
Denga Vulture
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 09:47:00 -
[2]
Great Idea. Thought about that, too. Maybe only useable by logistics or other supportes.
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 09:54:00 -
[3]
You sick man 
|
Sirilonwe
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 10:04:00 -
[4]
Yep, make them Hi slot. I appose my "good idea" tag. Good for a scrambled freighter, with some logistic help, it can flee away.
|
Vince2332
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 10:18:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Vince2332 on 23/12/2005 10:18:21
Coll idea this could introduce a viable role for logistics for more people. esp if the module had range bonuses only for logistics?
Edit: totally agree with it being high slot BTW
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 10:20:00 -
[6]
nice idea. i like it.
Loading sig, please wait... |
Ordep
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 10:29:00 -
[7]
You sick WCS fans...stop it already.
enough is enough 
If you want to be stabbed, use your lows.
Made in Portugal
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 10:30:00 -
[8]
freighter + 3 logistic ships = invulnifreighter = baaaaad thing
_______________________________________________
Power to the players !
|
Mamarto
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 10:42:00 -
[9]
If you're close enough to scramble, you're close enough to bump.
|
Forsch
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 10:50:00 -
[10]
Whats wrong with 3 Logistics helping a freighter to flee? Afterall it's 3 people that are using their resources to help one. They could as well be in 3 battleships. And I think you could kill off Logistics quicker than battleships.
I also like the idea.
|
Espen
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 10:53:00 -
[11]
Yea, great idea, but only if they were only possible to use on those crappy support cruisers.
|
Keta Min
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:13:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Keta Min on 23/12/2005 11:13:52
crap idea. freighter, 0.0, 2 remote wcs destroyers or as you mention logistics. get it?
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:14:00 -
[13]
wouldnt mind that, as long as wcs become highslot items.
and bumping freighters would give u enough time to kill those pesky remote wcs cruises ;)
|
Alan Bell
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:44:00 -
[14]
or... 3 pvp set up support the freighter... cause have you looked at how many hp the freighter has???!!? 120k frikin hull...shield r crap, but like 30k or so armor too
http://coldfusion.online-guild.com |
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:53:00 -
[15]
How about making the current WCS modules remote only?
|
Kosakova Intrinnae
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 12:06:00 -
[16]
great idea :D at one point i was looking for them on the market beacuse i thougth they already existsed :S
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 13:12:00 -
[17]
 Originally by: Forsch
Whats wrong with 3 Logistics helping a freighter to flee? Afterall it's 3 people that are using their resources to help one. They could as well be in 3 battleships. And I think you could kill off Logistics quicker than battleships.
I also like the idea.
ok.
So, situation currently: a gang of 15 pvp setup ships encounter a freighter with an escort of 5.
15: 5x support 10x damage
5+1: freighter, 2 supports, 3 damage.
What happens ?
The 5 supports all scramble the frieghter and from tha tpositions kill the 2 supports. The 10 damage dealers waste the 3 damage dealers asap before they kill any friendly supports and free the freighter.
Result: (left standing:) 3 support, 10 damage dealers versus 1 freighter that's still scrambled and thus will simply die as well.
Now, factor in remote WCS mods:
5 support and ten damage dealers run into 2 support, one damage dealer, two remote wcs logistics.
the 5 support go for the scramble and try kill support again. But this time the two logistcs remote wcs the freighter so it can still warp. One friendly support webs the freighter and voila : instawarping freighter has left.
Result (left standing):
5 support, 10 damage dealers on one side, 0-2 support, 0-2 logistics, freighter left standing.
Overall change: even less risk of freighters ever being killed. I mean, between them lgging off pre-lock and the way in which it's currently already easy to simply avoid pvp using something as simple as one single scout, isn't there quite enough safety in space already ?
_______________________________________________
Power to the players !
|
Theta9
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 15:51:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
ok.
Now, factor in remote WCS mods:
5 support and ten damage dealers run into 2 support, one damage dealer, two remote wcs logistics.
the 5 support go for the scramble and try kill support again. But this time the two logistcs remote wcs the freighter so it can still warp. One friendly support webs the freighter and voila : instawarping freighter has left.
Result (left standing):
5 support, 10 damage dealers on one side, 0-2 support, 0-2 logistics, freighter left standing.
Yep frieghtor leaves and the entire suport team thats sole purpose was to keep the frieghtor aliave died in the process.
Your 15 camp was a general camp not dedicated to holding down a frightor if it was every ship would be fitted with 20k scram's 15 points of scram will hold the frightor there even with 3 suport ships they would need 5 remote wcs's apiece.
even on the remote chance that said freightor escapes whats he going to do now. His suport is dead he's a slow tug without much hope of escaping. 3 highly dedicated and expensive ships died to give the frightor 10 seconds of escape time and I find this highly fair. all you need now is a ship with probes and you have a frieghtor kill as no frightor pilot in his right mind would even try to run out of the system.
|
Mesaanalt
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 17:19:00 -
[19]
Ugh....reading this suggestion made me feel sick.
|
Blind Fear
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 17:26:00 -
[20]
Fine. Bring in remote WCS and get rid of the current WCS.
Sounds fair to me.
------------------------------------------------
Derailing threads with logic since 1992 |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |