| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
   |
Posted - 2008.04.02 19:23:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Rells
You can kill a Faction Vagabond with an interdictor and 8 destroyers fairly easily.
Bull. ****.
He'd never engage you solo. He'd MWD back to the gate if you were waiting there for him, or he'd MWD AWAY so much faster than any of your ships. If you baited him he'd kill the baitship and leave when the gang arrived.
--
Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.04.02 19:24:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Corstaad
Tarminic pull him out of warp when he goes to engage the lol dessie's and kill him  .
You forgot to assume that the pilot has a brainstem. Its like saying a megathron can kill a vagabond because the vagabond can run into web range and turn its mwd off.
Sorry for the doublepost but LOL that's the most perfect forum analogy I've ever heard.
--
Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.04.02 19:39:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Corwain
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Why should anything but fast ships be viable for roaming gangs? The whole concept of small raiding forces implies fast ships (or stealthy cloakers), not big honking battleships.
Fast in EVE with WTZ refers to align speed, not orbit speed.
What?
A raiding gang in eve needs to move across systems quickly, hence a "roaming gang". They don't need to reach top speeds of 5000+m/s to do this, they just need to align quickly. Thus a gang of non-nanoed HACs would still meet the concept of "small raiding forces" that you claim is only validated by nanogangs.
Need more explanation of a simple concept, or are you just feigning ignorance?
--
Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.04.02 19:50:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
They die, which is a fact. Everything else is subjective.
Yes, but how does this support your point?
--
Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.04.02 20:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
They need to be survivable and be able to get out of trouble if they are outnumbered.
Raid means "a sudden attack on the enemy, as by air or by a small land force."
Thus the ability to ambush an enemy. This says nothing about being survivable and being able to run away. By definition a raiding party is a mobile group that can launch a surprise attack, not a surprise retreat.
--
Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 03:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Corwain
By definition a raiding party is a mobile group that can launch a surprise attack, not a surprise retreat.
It implies both. Stop being daft.
You're the one being daft. I just linked you to the official definition of raid, and it's multiple variations on suprise, and attack. Nowhere on the page does it say anything about running away whenever you bloody feel like. Find me a counter definition and/or stop saying anything like "implies".
I think you being Minmatar implies your biased, does that make it true? I dunno. I have no evidence to support such a statement, the same as you have no evidence that a raid is a retreat.
--
Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |
| |
|