Clan System Discussion

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:34 pm

I like it Shieldwolf. I really like it.

Avenger · Post by **Avenger** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:59 pm

The question is then, can the carrier group defend itself against FT's?

If not then a battle will only last for a few seconds since we all know how lazy some people are around here and FT their way through pretty much everything since money is no real issue anyway.

Shieldwolf · Post by **Shieldwolf** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:39 am

Thought about that. I would suggest that the carrier groups be immune to FT's. Otherwise it would be too easy. Another thing is that clan tagged stations can be built, however if the carrier group falls entirely. So do all the clan stations. It should be that all carriers built MUST have a clan tag attached to them. ( Within that system of course.)

[Edited on 7-10-2011 by Shieldwolf]

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:39 am

I there should only be ONE clan-tagged carrier per system. This would make a set rallying point when conflict breaks out.

I like the idea of linking stations to the carrier, which could act kind of like a command center, maybe creating contracts like Cindy suggested, keeping a clan bank, and allowing clan rename (to allow clans to merge). Would be really cool.

One a side note though, I think this thread has veered way off into dreamland.

[Edited on 7-10-2011 by Dingo]

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:47 am

I'm glad someone noticed that!

Post by **DaveK** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:37 pm

From post: 110321, Topic: tid=7659, author=Avenger wrote:The question is then, can the carrier group defend itself against FT's?

If not then a battle will only last for a few seconds since we all know how lazy some people are around here and FT their way through pretty much everything since money is no real issue anyway.

Lazy? - isn't that like suggesting that armies fight hand to hand because tanks and guns make the killing too easy?

Perhaps the real solution is to lose FT's. Their main legit use seems to be a profitable trade in a system I shall not name

. Present Capital ships can be taken down easily without them (so I am assured

) and FT's they can't actually take stations out (else why the need for station detonators?)

The alternative of making them so expensive that even billionaires think twice is that as a trade item they would make making billions easier so they would still be affordable!

)

Their other use (which those who use them think is legit and those who don't use them think is cheating) is to take out groups of opponents quickly and easily - not very sporting really! (though the Americans call it "shock and awe"

)

It might be interesting to have a poll on who thinks they should stay and who thinks they should disappear (similar to the discussion about how to make Excaliburs less overwhelming when they were instant reload)

[Edited on 10-7-2011 by DaveK]

Post by **Marvin** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:26 pm

I say keep them. Besides being a great trade item, they define good guys from bad (the bad guys use 'em). And, whenever somebody starts tossing a few of them around, it keeps us on our toes.

Mop Head · Post by **Mop Head** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:55 pm

I say scale them down, both in power and price. To merge with the other discussion, free firing rockets, make each harpoint cary a 'two pack' of mini FT's. No lock, free fire - you might take out 2 or 3 reds.

[Edited on 7-10-2011 by Mop Head]