Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Redblade
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 11:55:00 -
[1]
We have encounterd a lot of ships that have there low slots filled with wcs latley and the chases on these ships realy got me thinking about the whole scrambling / stabs situation.
If we look at the wcs it really have no big disadvantages more then the loss of tanking ability that the stabbed out traveller donĘt really care about anyway.
And when we look at the scrambler it needs activation, itĘs range based and itĘs intended use is mainly for friggs/interceptors that have a low number of mid slots.
And comparing the Armageddon that have 8 low lots and is best for stabbing out with the Stiletto that have 4 mid slots for scramblers itĘs impossible to stopping the Armageddon even if the Stiletto doesnĘt have a mwd , and whit mwd and three +2 strength scramblers the only ships that need to worry is the Scorpion and the Raven.
When looking at this comparisons itĘs quite obvious that the wcs it self is to over powered without a stacking penalty so my suggestion would be to add a stacking penalty of -10% inertia per wcs above one fitted, thus giving chasing interceptors some additional time to lock the target down.
And if u still want to warp as fast with wcs u will have the choice to use 50/50 fitting with nanofibers or inertia stabilizers.
If u donĘt have anything constructive to add plz donĘt reply.
Killboard |
Neon Genesis
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 11:58:00 -
[2]
I like this idea, -10 isnt to heavy, so ships with 8 wil suffer while ships with a perhaps more reasonable amount wont be so highly penalized. __
There, i just contributed nothing to your thread
|
Baleine4Nerver
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 12:04:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Baleine4Nerver on 07/06/2005 12:05:47 I dont think its a particulary good idea, if a person doesnt want to participate in loosing a ship at a camped gate.. why shouldnt he kit for travel.
People should have the choice, after all the PvP is non consentual most of the time. If he wants to stab up for travel, then maybe the chasers/gankers should have enough warp scrams to combat.
Its just two sides of the coin... people think that they should be able to gank people at will and dont think that the people should be able to get away.
Whereas the people wanting to trade, run items to particular stations want to sa***uard their travel.
use a bubble.
Why has the word s a f e g uard been censored ?
|
Redblade
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 12:04:00 -
[4]
Shuld be +10% inertia ofc as the inertia stabilizer is -10% and thats where the number comes from btw to give u the option of countering the penalty by using another lowslot for it.
Killboard |
Khonsu
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 12:13:00 -
[5]
Nice feature along with a stacking penalty for warp scramblers.
|
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 12:28:00 -
[6]
Why should 1 Inty be able to lock down an Arma?
That is the basis of your whole idea, and it's flawed.
Tackling is a group effort, if you don't have a group, the advantage goes to the one fleeing, it's that simple...
Stop trying to rationalize the whole one Inty vs 1 BS scenario...
------------------------------------------------ "for piece sakes!" |
anter
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 12:37:00 -
[7]
That would just benefit gate camping even more.
|
Redblade
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 12:37:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Bhaal Why should 1 Inty be able to lock down an Arma?
That is the basis of your whole idea, and it's flawed.
Tackling is a group effort, if you don't have a group, the advantage goes to the one fleeing, it's that simple...
Stop trying to rationalize the whole one Inty vs 1 BS scenario...
Actualy i went to extreems on the ceptor part , if u have a normal fitted standard ceptor u will have an avg of +2 scrambling strenght thus it will require 5 ceptors to lock down the Armageddon.
And for Baleine4Nerver i was talking about chasing not a camp , if it would have been a camp the ship would have died stabs or no stabs.
Killboard |
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 12:53:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Bhaal on 07/06/2005 13:00:23
Quote: Actualy i went to extreems on the ceptor part , if u have a normal fitted standard ceptor u will have an avg of +2 scrambling strenght thus it will require 5 ceptors to lock down the Armageddon.
If the Arma pilot chooses to fly that totally gimped setup, then yes, that's what it will take...
I don't see a problem with that...
He's obviously not setup for combat, so not much of a threat tou you, right?
I just started flying a Tempest into combat, I use 2 WCS at the moment.
I'd like to get to the point where I don't use any.
If there were serious consequences to using them, I probably wouldn't, which increases my chances of losing my first BS, and decreases my desire to build another one, I'd be back to my Thrasher or something...
Yeah, it sucked not being able to have 2 more Gyro II's on there, but hey, the WCS's are kinda like training wheels for me. And I can imagine they are the lifeblood for traders...
I just don't see a big enough justification to pelalize them, it only helps gate campers, and those in fleet battles who don't have enough tacklers...
It would hurt the gameplay of so many, just to ease the gameplay for just a few. That is not enough justification for CCP to make a change... ------------------------------------------------ "for piece sakes!" |
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:05:00 -
[10]
Quote: I agree there are loads of solo traders, so why should they get all the perks like being able to fly through the most dangerous part of eve risk free.
If they want safety why not stay in empire. Where its meant to be safe. 0.0 is not supposed to be safe. 0.0 is not supposedd to be risk free thats why ppl who go through there and make a buisness get paid a lot mroe because it involves more risk.
Haulers are being killed every day where I live
And it's a 0.3 system...
How much easier do you want it to be for us to blow up haulers???
Having insta's does not make 0.4-0.1 hauling risk free, you still better be on your toes... ------------------------------------------------ "for piece sakes!" |
|
Odet
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:05:00 -
[11]
and imagine hwo bad it will be with T2 wcs?
they will have +2 warp strength each, and the t2 war scrambnlers arent going to have +4 they are only getting +3
talk about making things worse.
we might aswell start having concorde in 0.0. make it so u cant target anyoen and make it manditory to fir expanders in lows and miners in highs...
=This podding has been brought to you by Odet, the only way to fry.= |
Thyro
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:08:00 -
[12]
Originally by: aeti move wcs to high slots
so you can still fit to travel
but can't have a full rack of offence and stabs at the same time
As far as I know you lose low slots when you fit WCS
So in fact you not only lose a slot but also CPU and POWERGRID
So what are the conclusions of that self preservation measure... not possible good tank, no possible good setup for damage.
So! really what are you talking about?
|
Abominable
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:11:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Abominable on 07/06/2005 14:12:03
Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 07/06/2005 13:56:16
Quote: Like a Truck Driver delivering groceries to a supermarket, he does not get a corporate escort every delivery...
Give me a break. In most developed countrys theres a thing called "police" and "laws". There are none of that in 0.0 And if the Truck Driver would be driving around in a neutral place u can bet ur ass he would have a shotgun with him or a friend.
Just HAD to flame that because just like you, i have nothing better to do
|
Redblade
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:14:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Bhaal
Quote: I agree there are loads of solo traders, so why should they get all the perks like being able to fly through the most dangerous part of eve risk free.
If they want safety why not stay in empire. Where its meant to be safe. 0.0 is not supposed to be safe. 0.0 is not supposedd to be risk free thats why ppl who go through there and make a buisness get paid a lot mroe because it involves more risk.
Haulers are being killed every day where I live
And it's a 0.3 system...
How much easier do you want it to be for us to blow up haulers???
Having insta's does not make 0.4-0.1 hauling risk free, you still better be on your toes...
Well tbh a hauler isn't going to be in any bigger danger from the penalty as it's allready to slow to get away unless it fits nanofibers.
And that's why i said to begin with that the first one is "free" so the haulers could get a break if they want wcs.
The penalty in itself isn't that big unless u go to extreems and thus shuld get penalized in some way as u are with most mods.
Killboard |
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:15:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Bhaal on 07/06/2005 14:18:14 Edited by: Bhaal on 07/06/2005 14:17:40
Quote: Give me a break. In most developed countrys theres a thing called "police" and "laws". There are none of that in 0.0 And if the Truck Driver would be driving around in a neutral place u can bet ur ass he would have a shotgun with him or a friend.
Just HAD to flame that because just like you, i have nothing better to do
If you're camping a gate, there is no reason you should be able to kill 100% of what comes along...
I've camped my share of gates, ppl slipping through is part of the game, I can deal with that... I like the challengs, having a big red instakill button on my ship would be boring...
Well I'm done with this argument.
I've been on both sides, the one getting ganked doing the ganking...
I don't have a problem with WCS's & Insta's...
Lets see what CCP does...
Bhaal OUT!
------------------------------------------------ "for piece sakes!" |
Black 5
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:20:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Black 5 on 07/06/2005 14:22:54 removed....
|
Odet
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:22:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Bhaal
Quote: I agree there are loads of solo traders, so why should they get all the perks like being able to fly through the most dangerous part of eve risk free.
If they want safety why not stay in empire. Where its meant to be safe. 0.0 is not supposed to be safe. 0.0 is not supposedd to be risk free thats why ppl who go through there and make a buisness get paid a lot mroe because it involves more risk.
Haulers are being killed every day where I live
And it's a 0.3 system...
How much easier do you want it to be for us to blow up haulers???
Having insta's does not make 0.4-0.1 hauling risk free, you still better be on your toes...
so what ur saying is ppl are too dumb to check the map before they travel.... ok. how is that jutification for not balancing wcs?
=This podding has been brought to you by Odet, the only way to fry.= |
Redblade
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 14:22:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Bhaal
If you're camping a gate, there is no reason you should be able to kill 100% of what comes along...
I've camped my share of gates, ppl slipping through is part of the game, I can deal with that... I like the challengs, having a big red instakill button on my ship would be boring...
As stated before what made me think about it was not a camp, it was a small gang of 4 ceptors and 1 BS that where moving to begin with, the ceptors combined had +9 scramble strenght but didnt get the chance to get within 7,5k on the 4 jumps we tryed to catch him.
Eventualy he just turned around at the gate when we jumped throu to get in better positions and went to safe and loged.
Killboard |
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 15:21:00 -
[19]
Quote: Sadly CCP is losing their old time pvp vets because of pvp is becoming less and less intresting. Because everyone is forced to gank if they wanna catch anyone.
Ganking does get boring, almost as bad as mining...
Most fun I have PVP'ing is in fleet ops out in 0.0, not ganking...
Maybe go do more of that...
You're blaming everything on WCS, I don't agree with that... ------------------------------------------------ "for piece sakes!" |
kwoodward
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 15:21:00 -
[20]
10% would be horrid to the galente short range ships which require stabs more than any other combat ship.
although there should be a max limit of 4 stabs IMO, 4 is about right 2 t1 frigs can hold you at that 1 if it's fitted correctally.
but this is hopefully going to be addressed soon and a chance based addition added to it.
Meow! |
|
Odet
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 15:27:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Bhaal
Quote: Sadly CCP is losing their old time pvp vets because of pvp is becoming less and less intresting. Because everyone is forced to gank if they wanna catch anyone.
Ganking does get boring, almost as bad as mining...
Most fun I have PVP'ing is in fleet ops out in 0.0, not ganking...
Maybe go do more of that...
You're blaming everything on WCS, I don't agree with that...
Hate to break it to ya but thats the primary reason ppl started using gank setups. I know because ive been an active pvper since day 1.
how else would u kill and 8 wcs ship? cant get enough scrambles on him, so u gotta kill him before he warps... hmmm ill need 4 sensor boosters and 7 dmg mods. And hope he doesnt have a shield tank.
=This podding has been brought to you by Odet, the only way to fry.= |
Odet
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 15:28:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Odet on 07/06/2005 15:28:58
Originally by: kwoodward 10% would be horrid to the galente short range ships which require stabs more than any other combat ship.
although there should be a max limit of 4 stabs IMO, 4 is about right 2 t1 frigs can hold you at that 1 if it's fitted correctally.
but this is hopefully going to be addressed soon and a chance based addition added to it.
10% isnt a big diff tbh, 4 wcs mas wouldnt fix the indies stacking wcs and cruisers stacking them aswell.
that why 4 limit wouldnt do the trick.
but making it like all other things to get a penalty after every additional one after the first one would be just.
=This podding has been brought to you by Odet, the only way to fry.= |
Galk
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 15:46:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Odet
If they want safety why not stay in empire. Where its meant to be safe. 0.0 is not supposed to be safe. 0.0 is not supposedd to be risk free thats why ppl who go through there and make a buisness get paid a lot mroe because it involves more risk.
Eve is not a solo game, its an MMO, player interaction is the key. In empire its not as important but in 0.0 it is a must. But at this pointt with wcs, 0.0 might aswell be called empire, because its just as safe
Your right it's not safe nor risk free, thats why the sacrfice of a smaller cargo hold come in, more padded expensive ships get used in low sec.. ohh and warp core stabs, they fit them to do there designed job.
Bit like you guys that will find the best way to do your errr job.
Quit calling 0.0 safe space, it's not, if it were you would have probaly quit yonks ago. ------------------------
---- Little wonder why people were, what this person was telling my friends: http://galk.50megs.com/logs/ |
Embattle
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 16:34:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Embattle on 07/06/2005 16:35:40 Oh I see Odet, anyone who doesn't have the same or a totally different opinion as you is a troll....ok
So there are some ideas here for WCS stacking nerf and in a concurrent thread there are ideas for and against. The simple fact is that if you introduce a nerf on stabs because a few people might get away in the right situation (The target being in a ship with loads of the stabs and you either being by yourself and with inadequate warp scrambling or in a group with inadequate scrambling) then it will mean others calling for the nerf to be lifted or for scramblers to be nerfed and since nerfs rarely seem to work as intended I personally don't like them that much.
Perhaps ganking did start because of the stab issue, however I doubt it would stop if they introduced a nerf to stacking stabs.
|
Zdragva
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 17:08:00 -
[25]
Originally by: aeti move wcs to high slots
so you can still fit to travel
but can't have a full rack of offence and stabs at the same time
Thats the best suggestion imo, however why should WCS need nerfed? I dont think its fair that just because you decide to sit at a gate for hours on end ruining other peoples day that no one should be allowed to escape.
The original post was lame, idiotic. There are some other areas though whereWCS are a problem, such as geddons and ravens, ravens more so.
Actually iv just though of a problem. no one is going to mine outside of 0.5 without WCS, and no one is going to give up mining lasers. Making WCS high slot would dramatically affect the amount of non uber carebear alliance resources in the economy, possibly cranking prices up, perhaps even obliterating the market for certain things.
I think that if WCS were made high slot then mega/zyd and trit pyer mex etc. would become the overwhelming majority of mineral types in the economy. Isogen nocxium etc. would probably become a lot rarer, causing yet another imbalance in the demand of minerals an ore between safe empire, low sec, and 0.0
Personally I see nothing seriously wrong with WCS. I see no immediate need to change them. But you would be correct in thinking im not a fun of the unfair gank, so perhaps my opinion isnt relevant to Eve.
|
Trepkos
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 17:10:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Bhaal
Quote: it was stated in the first post not to post unless you have something smart to say.
Then why are you posting?
Oh man, that had to burn..... ------------------ What can I lose? My dignity...every single inch of it.
|
Stars End
|
Posted - 2005.06.07 17:11:00 -
[27]
One of the big draws for alot of players is the "non-consensual PvP". And I agree with that. I do a bit of PvP now and again.
I also travel quite a bit too. And when I do that, I use WCS, instas, safespots. Every trick in the book. And why shouldn't I? Your purpose, as is mine when I am PvPing, is to catch my prey. When I travel, my purpose is to travel from point, let's call it A, to Point B.
Call it "non-consensual passport travelling". If you can't control the vast tracts of space you want/need to, maybe the scope of your project should be revisited to conform to the manpower you have at your disposal.
Not meant as a troll or flame, just trying to bring both aspects to light from a single persons point of view.
Our Kill List
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |