Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
319
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 09:48:24 -
[1] - Quote
Hunting FW players and realizing how many of them are pathetic stabbed plex farmers has highlighted a point I've believed for a long time: warp core stabilizers need to be removed from the game. They have two major problems, issues that are inherent to the concept of the module and can not be fixed with a mere balance pass:
1) They create negative play experiences. It's incredibly frustrating to do everything right, especially in a situation where you're hunting an unwilling target that has every advantage in trying to escape (local, d-scan, etc) if they're paying attention at all, only to watch your target warp out because they had their low slots full of WCS. Did they win the fight? No. Did they earn an escape by getting out of range/neuting my point off/etc? No. They just fit their ship so that it's impossible to tackle for a solo player (unless they're flying a HIC). So you end up wasting time trying to get to a fight when you were doomed to failure the whole time.
2) They reward terrible play. Fitting WCS means admitting that you are never going to win a fight. In addition to the penalties from the WCS itself you've wasted low slots on them instead of using those slots on modules that will help you win. And they only help you when you've already screwed up by failing to use local/d-scan/etc to be aware of a potential threat and set up your escape. So you have the textbook situation for a Darwin award in EVE: a fail-fit ship flown by a careless player. But because they've fitted the magic "get out of jail free" module they get to escape with their ship intact. Incompetence is not punished, and the player learns that continued incompetence is acceptable. They're never forced to learn to win in PvP, or to use the available tools to escape before a warp disruptor is activated against them. They just mindlessly orbit the FW beacon and warp out if anything tackles them. This is a problem.
At the very minimum WCS should have crippling penalties such that they are only ever useful for travel fits, and can never be used while engaged in any kind of PvP or PvE. No offensive modules (including analyzers, mining lasers, etc) can be activated, and a ship with WCS fitted should not count towards any FW control beacons or similar "have a ship present" effects. If you want to do anything but get from point A to point B you should not be able to fit WCS. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
319
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 09:54:31 -
[2] - Quote
And no, "just bring more ships" is not a solution to WCS. In many of these cases we're talking about weak targets like T1 frigates, where it can be a fun 1v1 fight but bringing 2-3 (or more!) people to ensure tackle makes it a boring execution instead of a fight. And that's on top of the difficulty of coordinating multiple ships to get tackle before the target warps, having more people in local to scare them off, etc. If you can't get these fights solo then there's no point in wasting time on them.
Nor is "fit multiple points" a solution. Very few ships have enough mid slots to fit sufficient points to deal with 3+ WCS, especially if you don't want to cripple the ship in every other way. You pretty much have to use expensive faction scrams to have a realistic fit, and a 50-100 million ISK module should not be required for T1 frigate vs. T1 frigate fights. |
Alessienne Ellecon
Solitude Rangers
95
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 11:14:07 -
[3] - Quote
You're one of those bloodthirsty twits who thinks everyone should be forced to fight, aren't you?
WCS is meant to help haulers WHO WANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO LEAVE THEM ALONE. All Johnny Carebear wants to do is take his stuff from Point A to Point B. He's not interested in fighting anyone, he just wants to get where he's going and drop off his cargo. WCS allows him to do that without your interference.
Stop crying about stabs and go do some real PvP instead of preying on haulers, you scumbag. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3954
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 11:44:31 -
[4] - Quote
If you are going to remove stabs, you need to replace them with something to allow withdrawing from a fight.
A slow spool up of warp core strength that every ship can do without using modules would be an option though, as that would force everyone to commit to a fight initially, but mean that if you can't kill them in a reasonable time they can still escape. Probably with no weapon timer allowed for the spool up meaning you are on the defensive only. Or at least reduced DPS/Ewar/etc when it is spooling up, so you don't just start it going as soon as you fight to always be able to escape. (For reasonable time I'm imagining a spool up something like 1 point per (Minute * ship size), where frigs are 1, dest 2 cruiser 3 etc. So to escape a single T1 scram would take 4 minutes for a frigate if they fired guns, or 3 minutes if they started trying to escape instantly)
@Alessienne Ellecon, WCS mainly don't help haulers since there are almost no haulers that can make effective use of them, really only DST. Since the others all are sacrificing significant cargo space for them, and all the T1 haulers are vulnerable to instant alpha also if they are carrying enough to interest gankers, so...... sorry but your argument isn't a very good one for WCS remaining. I may have argued a lot for changes to industrials in some ways, but this isn't really going to impact on haulers. |
Kelly Riley
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 11:56:47 -
[5] - Quote
FW needs a rework to be more combat focused |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
869
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 13:02:54 -
[6] - Quote
Kelly Riley wrote:FW needs a rework to be more combat focused
Sure. When they fix FW targets docking in hostile space. And lots of other insipidly stupid issues. Make lowsec worth living/mining/missioning/etc in. Aside from FW missions and L5's there's too much risk for low benefit. |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
90
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 13:12:17 -
[7] - Quote
There is no real argument for removing WCS.
If there is a mod for preventing warp, there needs to be one that blocks that. That's how the rock/paper/scissors of eve works.
There might be an argument for blocking WCS from FW complexes. I'd actually like every complex to be bubbled (with the edge of the bubble extending say... 10km past the maximum distance you can be from the complex center to still trigger the count down).
I'm for forced action in FW complexes... because that's what FW is about. You should be ready for PvP when you warp in to a plex. But WCS in general are fine. |
perseus skye
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 13:29:11 -
[8] - Quote
wcs are fine as they are ,eve is about choices and fitting Your ship differently or badly is totally what eve is about as everyone should be allowed to play and fit up a ship however they want
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2554
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 13:35:38 -
[9] - Quote
WCS are a pro module that when used correctly do many marvelous things. Their primary purpose (my opinion) is to generate salty tears from guys w/out enough points fitted to their ships. If these stabbed ships upset you enough you will come up with a fit to counter them. Look into the faction scrams (3 points of scram) and things like that. I'm not saying it will be easy.
There has been quite a bit of reference over time of the negative impact that wcs are having on FW pvp. I get that. TBH it only makes sense that if you sign up for faction WARFARE you are signing up to do pvp - I get that too. I'm not solid on the mechanics with the FW sites, but I do understand that ship size limits are important to prevent one sided camping and that this makes wcs more powerful as ship size goes down.
It seems some form of adjustment to the game is needed, but I don't feel removing wcs from the game is the answer. It is such a broad stroke for shut a narrow issue. If all ships were using wcs all over Eve were avoiding pvp, then sure wonk them. The problem though is very narrowly focused, so I think a more focused fix would be in order. I don't know what that fix is (again, not a FW expert), but removing wcs isn't it.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1223
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 14:42:11 -
[10] - Quote
OP let me keep my response short and sweet, I can elaborate later if needed.
You have failed in every way that it is possible for you to fail in a situation where you should have had the upper hand. As a result of your complete and total failure your targets routinely get away. Yet despite your complete and total failures you believe it is unfair that these players get away, and so in typical fashion you demand that CCP change the game so that what is currently your failures will become your wins.
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3304
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 14:50:34 -
[11] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:And no, "just bring more ships" is not a solution to WCS. In many of these cases we're talking about weak targets like T1 frigates, where it can be a fun 1v1 fight but bringing 2-3 (or more!) people to ensure tackle makes it a boring execution instead of a fight. And that's on top of the difficulty of coordinating multiple ships to get tackle before the target warps, having more people in local to scare them off, etc. If you can't get these fights solo then there's no point in wasting time on them.
Nor is "fit multiple points" a solution. Very few ships have enough mid slots to fit sufficient points to deal with 3+ WCS, especially if you don't want to cripple the ship in every other way. You pretty much have to use expensive faction scrams to have a realistic fit, and a 50-100 million ISK module should not be required for T1 frigate vs. T1 frigate fights.
If you are not willing to fit or form up to catch your target, I wish your target also spam fofofofofo in local after escaping because you deserve it. |
TheFourteenthTry
Unicorn Balls
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 17:02:34 -
[12] - Quote
no. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6409
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 18:39:32 -
[13] - Quote
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:You're one of those bloodthirsty twits who thinks everyone should be forced to fight, aren't you?
WCS is meant to help haulers WHO WANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO LEAVE THEM ALONE. All Johnny Carebear wants to do is take his stuff from Point A to Point B. He's not interested in fighting anyone, he just wants to get where he's going and drop off his cargo. WCS allows him to do that without your interference.
Stop crying about stabs and go do some real PvP instead of preying on haulers, you scumbag.
Nobody in game should be exempt from any type of player-on-player interaction. So, yeah if Johnny Carebear is carrying stuff from point A to point B and somebody wants to shoot them...that should be allowed. Conversely Johnny is also allowed to try and evade, shoot back, etc.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
319
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 19:44:42 -
[14] - Quote
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:You're one of those bloodthirsty twits who thinks everyone should be forced to fight, aren't you?
WCS is meant to help haulers WHO WANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO LEAVE THEM ALONE. All Johnny Carebear wants to do is take his stuff from Point A to Point B. He's not interested in fighting anyone, he just wants to get where he's going and drop off his cargo. WCS allows him to do that without your interference.
Stop crying about stabs and go do some real PvP instead of preying on haulers, you scumbag.
Apparently you didn't read beyond the title, because I'm primarily talking about combat ships, not haulers. I don't love WCS on haulers (it favors mindless autopiloting over careful use of scouts/the map/etc), but it's not something I care very strongly about. If WCS are nerfed so that only haulers can fit them I'll be ok with that.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:If you are going to remove stabs, you need to replace them with something to allow withdrawing from a fight.
There are plenty of things that allow withdrawing from a fight: ECM, neuts, having a faster ship and burning out of tackle range, etc. The problem with WCS is that they make all of these things redundant. You don't need to have a superior plan to win the ability to disengage, you just press "warp" and warp out because no single ship can tackle you.
And the problem with the "spooling up" idea is that it encourages blobbing. If the timer is short enough that it is relevant in a realistic fight then the answer is to bring more ships and kill the target before they can build enough strength to warp out. That gets you the kill, sure, but it makes the resulting execution much less interesting than a 1v1 fight.
Serendipity Lost wrote:Their primary purpose (my opinion) is to generate salty tears from guys w/out enough points fitted to their ships.
How exactly is a T1 frigate supposed to fit 3-4+ points of scram strength? Am I supposed to leave off the AB/MWD and fit nothing but scrams in my minds?
Quote:Look into the faction scrams (3 points of scram) and things like that.
I already addressed that idea. A 50-100 million ISK faction module should not be mandatory equipment for a 1v1 fight between T1 frigates.
Donnachadh wrote:You have failed in every way that it is possible for you to fail in a situation where you should have had the upper hand.
Lolwut. Do you know anything about FW PvP? The target has every advantage in this situation, not the hunter. If they're spamming d-scan with a short radius they'll have plenty of advance warning of any ship warping to their site and can align out. Then if the potential threat enters the site they immediately warp out before the hunter can finish exiting warp. And even if they miss the hunter on d-scan if they're smart they're going to move away from the warp-in point so that they still have time to align out and warp even if they don't start trying until after the hunter appears on their overview.
Now, I have no problem with that part of the situation. A target escaping because of superior situational awareness is fine. My problem is that WCS eliminates the need to pay attention to any of those things. You don't need to spam d-scan or even pay attention to the overview. You can just sit on the warp-in beacon at 0km and press "warp" as soon as you hear the scram notification, and because you have lows full of WCS you're guaranteed to escape. |
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
422
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 19:44:56 -
[15] - Quote
op should be glade they were even nerfed
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3878
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 20:09:29 -
[16] - Quote
If you think they are stabbed bring a heron with +3 scrams lol.
But really, fw mechanic's are about capturing the sites more than the farmers. When he runs away, you win. If you really want a kill then put those extra scrams on. Theres also a faction frig that gets extra scram str and can get into novice sites.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6409
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 20:30:43 -
[17] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Donnachadh wrote:You have failed in every way that it is possible for you to fail in a situation where you should have had the upper hand. Lolwut. Do you know anything about FW PvP? The target has every advantage in this situation, not the hunter. If they're spamming d-scan with a short radius they'll have plenty of advance warning of any ship warping to their site and can align out. Then if the potential threat enters the site they immediately warp out before the hunter can finish exiting warp. And even if they miss the hunter on d-scan if they're smart they're going to move away from the warp-in point so that they still have time to align out and warp even if they don't start trying until after the hunter appears on their overview. Now, I have no problem with that part of the situation. A target escaping because of superior situational awareness is fine. My problem is that WCS eliminates the need to pay attention to any of those things. You don't need to spam d-scan or even pay attention to the overview. You can just sit on the warp-in beacon at 0km and press "warp" as soon as you hear the scram notification, and because you have lows full of WCS you're guaranteed to escape.
Maybe make it so FW players cannot fit stabs on their non-hauler ships and restrict haulers so they cannot be used in these sites.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2560
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 20:35:02 -
[18] - Quote
Personally I would prefer that the landing beacon double as a webbing tower and T2 large warp disruption bubble. It's easily doable and would work wonders to enhance player to player interactions. Not just FW beacons, but all non HS beacons (I'd be OK w/ HS beacons too, but would only go for that once everyone agrees how wonderfully they are performing in the non HS regions of space). These beacon scrams would be so awesome that they would over ride any nullification and MJD technology (inty/T3 I'm looking at you).
This would promote commitment from site runners and also encourage players to get to know one another better through close interaction.
You could also start by just putting this new feature on FW and SOV null beacons. My reasoning being that the W in FW means you're signing up to fight in a war and SOV null by definition means you're a tough mofo that can police his own territory. This seems plain dumb obvious.
That would fix a lot of this. Only a risk averse crybaby would oppose this universal solution.
Faction WARFARE = combat SOV NULL = able to police ones own space
Let's get this done! |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6410
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 20:37:28 -
[19] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Personally I would prefer that the landing beacon double as a webbing tower and T2 large warp disruption bubble. It's easily doable and would work wonders to enhance player to player interactions. Not just FW beacons, but all non HS beacons (I'd be OK w/ HS beacons too, but would only go for that once everyone agrees how wonderfully they are performing in the non HS regions of space). These beacon scrams would be so awesome that they would over ride any nullification and MJD technology (inty/T3 I'm looking at you).
This would promote commitment from site runners and also encourage players to get to know one another better through close interaction.
You could also start by just putting this new feature on FW and SOV null beacons. My reasoning being that the W in FW means you're signing up to fight in a war and SOV null by definition means you're a tough mofo that can police his own territory. This seems plain dumb obvious.
That would fix a lot of this. Only a risk averse crybaby would oppose this universal solution.
Faction WARFARE = combat SOV NULL = able to police ones own space
Let's get this done!
I like that even better.
Edit: Well, except maybe the webbing part...unless it can be disabled by say shooting it or something.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2560
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 20:52:56 -
[20] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Personally I would prefer that the landing beacon double as a webbing tower and T2 large warp disruption bubble. It's easily doable and would work wonders to enhance player to player interactions. Not just FW beacons, but all non HS beacons (I'd be OK w/ HS beacons too, but would only go for that once everyone agrees how wonderfully they are performing in the non HS regions of space). These beacon scrams would be so awesome that they would over ride any nullification and MJD technology (inty/T3 I'm looking at you).
This would promote commitment from site runners and also encourage players to get to know one another better through close interaction.
You could also start by just putting this new feature on FW and SOV null beacons. My reasoning being that the W in FW means you're signing up to fight in a war and SOV null by definition means you're a tough mofo that can police his own territory. This seems plain dumb obvious.
That would fix a lot of this. Only a risk averse crybaby would oppose this universal solution.
Faction WARFARE = combat SOV NULL = able to police ones own space
Let's get this done! I like that even better. Edit: Well, except maybe the webbing part...unless it can be disabled by say shooting it or something.
I added the webbing to help older players become acquainted with the newer breed of players that like to go fast and kite everything. It would still be possible, just not until you get out of the bubble. My thought being that really careful player could land on the beacon and run out to a kiting distance, it would just allow some time for the friendlier players to stop by and say hello.
I got this idea from the surveillance beacons. Players deploying them come in 2 flavors. The vanilla players that will let you warp in and take their surveillance loots and the Rootin tootin raspberry players that stop by and say hello and even lend some assistance when you go for their goodies. (Not to derail this great idea w/ another, but these surveillance thingerdoodles should not be deployable w/in 100km of anything. Some guys are dropping them on anoms by mistake and ruining a lot of interaction opportunities) |
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
319
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 21:40:38 -
[21] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:But really, fw mechanic's are about capturing the sites more than the farmers. When he runs away, you win.
Only if I'm enemy FW. If I'm a pirate trying to kill everyone equally then a missed fight is a complete failure. And even as enemy FW capturing the site is much less satisfying than capturing the site AND killing the ship attacking it. The beacons are a means to get PvP fights, not an objective that is interesting for its own sake.
Quote:If you really want a kill then put those extra scrams on. Theres also a faction frig that gets extra scram str and can get into novice sites.
Again, not possible with a realistic fit. You aren't going to counter a full rack of WCS with any ship that isn't an automatic lossmail against everything but stabbed farmers. And the existence of a single faction frigate which mitigates the problem is not an overall solution. I shouldn't be limited to a single ship choice to get fights. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
472
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 22:18:32 -
[22] - Quote
Make WCS active modules.
Give them some sort of spool-up or preparation mechanic - either a warm-up timer like MJDs, or make the align speed higher to make them stay on grid longer. The point is to make them stay on grid for a little while unless they're paying attention and can pre-empt your tackle (of course in this case they should just bloody warp out).
Make them suck 100GJ per activation. 100GJ is nothing for a hauler, but a lot for a plex frigate.
You could even give spool-up bonuses to industrials to lessen the inconvenience of the change.
This also opens up lots of balancing options for the meta-modules. The difference in penalties between Meta 0 to Meta 5 are trivial. An enduring or a restrained WCS would be a meaningful choice here. |
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3879
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 00:44:11 -
[23] - Quote
Get fights...what fights are you missing out on? When they are warp stabbed up the arse are you really going to complain about missing out on a fight where they couldn't fight back anyway?
And if they can't use wcs do you think they are going to be easier to catch? Or do you think it's more likely they are going to leave fw all together and find a different way to make isk?
I doubt removing wcs will get you more fights. Might just make the place a whole lot quieter.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
275
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 00:50:15 -
[24] - Quote
Just fit dual scram bro. Git gud. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
320
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 03:38:51 -
[25] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Get fights...what fights are you missing out on? When they are warp stabbed up the arse are you really going to complain about missing out on a fight where they couldn't fight back anyway?
They could fight back if they didn't waste valuable slots on WCS. And by removing their "get out of jail free" card they'll be forced to learn how to fight back if they want to accomplish anything.
Quote:And if they can't use wcs do you think they are going to be easier to catch? Or do you think it's more likely they are going to leave fw all together and find a different way to make isk?
If they leave FW entirely and go back to highsec then at least incompetence and failure have been properly punished, and nobody has to waste time trying to engage someone that can't be caught. FW should be primarily about PvP, with the ISK being an incentive to do the PvP, not an opportunity for lazy minimal-risk ISK farming.
Rawketsled wrote:MGive them some sort of spool-up or preparation mechanic - either a warm-up timer like MJDs, or make the align speed higher to make them stay on grid longer. The point is to make them stay on grid for a little while unless they're paying attention and can pre-empt your tackle (of course in this case they should just bloody warp out).
The problem, again, is that things like this encourage blobbing. If you know you only have a fixed time before the WCS activates and breaks your point then you have to bring more dps to kill your target before they can escape. That gets you the kill, but makes the fight much less entertaining because it's so one-sided. |
Cade Windstalker
1379
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 03:54:15 -
[26] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:They could fight back if they didn't waste valuable slots on WCS. And by removing their "get out of jail free" card they'll be forced to learn how to fight back if they want to accomplish anything.
More likely they'll find another way to avoid engaging, which you will come on here and complain about the existence of.
Any source of ISK that can be exploited in the game will be, any source of ISK that can't be exploited will be ignored. All ISK-farming is always minimal risk, because the alternative isn't profitable.
Merin Ryskin wrote:The problem, again, is that things like this encourage blobbing. If you know you only have a fixed time before the WCS activates and breaks your point then you have to bring more dps to kill your target before they can escape. That gets you the kill, but makes the fight much less entertaining because it's so one-sided.
Implying that anyone currently fitting WCS in a FW Plex is ever going to provide anything other than a one-sided fight...
There was actually a brief question about Warp Core Stabs at, I believe, the Game Design panel. The answer was essentially that CCP want options for players to control whether or not they engage in a fight. That pretty clearly puts the likelihood of them outright removing something like this at basically nil.
Like, if you just want to vent then fine, but I wish you'd put the thread in a better place for circle-jerky trolling, because down here it's just wasting pixels. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
320
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 04:04:31 -
[27] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:More likely they'll find another way to avoid engaging, which you will come on here and complain about the existence of.
Nope. The way to avoid engaging is situational awareness, and I've explicitly said that I have no problem with people carefully watching for a threat and escaping before I can catch them. The issue here is entirely with lazy and incompetent players who ignore the need to watch for potential threats, because they know they have enough WCS to just warp out if anyone tries to attack them.
Quote:Any source of ISK that can be exploited in the game will be, any source of ISK that can't be exploited will be ignored. All ISK-farming is always minimal risk, because the alternative isn't profitable.
Speak for yourself. I do plenty of ISK farming in 0.0 with a risk of being caught, because I know how to minimize those risks and keep a net positive ISK/hour.
Quote:Implying that anyone currently fitting WCS in a FW Plex is ever going to provide anything other than a one-sided fight...
Maybe they will if they're forced to learn, instead of being coddled with an auto-escape option that allows them to avoid learning how to win a fight.
Quote:There was actually a brief question about Warp Core Stabs at, I believe, the Game Design panel. The answer was essentially that CCP want options for players to control whether or not they engage in a fight. That pretty clearly puts the likelihood of them outright removing something like this at basically nil.
That's unfortunate, because whoever said that is pretty clueless on game design. There are plenty of options for controlling whether or not you engage in a fight: situational awareness, ECM/neuts/etc to remove points, fast align times to get out before you can be tackled, fast ships that can burn out of tackle range and warp off, staying off the warp-in point so you have time to escape before tackle can close in and catch you, etc. All of these are far more interesting than declaring that you will never be caught by a solo player and filling your lows with WCS. |
Alessienne Ellecon
Solitude Rangers
99
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 07:40:35 -
[28] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:If you are going to remove stabs, you need to replace them with something to allow withdrawing from a fight.
@Alessienne Ellecon, WCS mainly don't help haulers since there are almost no haulers that can make effective use of them, really only DST. Since the others all are sacrificing significant cargo space for them, and all the T1 haulers are vulnerable to instant alpha also if they are carrying enough to interest gankers, so...... sorry but your argument isn't a very good one for WCS remaining. I may have argued a lot for changes to industrials in some ways, but this isn't really going to impact on haulers.
That's what shields and hardeners are for. I fit shield extenders and invuln to my hauler mids and let those soak up alpha from gatecamps while the warp drive spools up. One of the biggest problems with minmax theorycrafting in EVE is the utter lack of creativity and flexibility. Most people aren't willing to experiment with unusual fittings, and the few who are are often relentlessly mocked.
@OP, Your thread is demanding that WCS be removed. You said nothing about the effect it would have on haulers, you just whined about how your targets kept getting away and oh what a tragedy it was because you want your targets to stay the hell still while you beat on them. Gods forbid you actually try a different tactic, ship or fitting. People say carebears like to whine, but look at you! You're doing the same thing! WAH WAH I'M TOO LAZY TO GIT GUD CCPLZ NERF THIS THING
git gud
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
329
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 08:43:59 -
[29] - Quote
AAaaannnndddd there is the problem.
Pirate, not Militia, entering Plex sites.......
You know what, I could agree with you maybe.....
If first anybody not Militia entering one of these complex sites automatically becomes suspect (flashy yellow) the moment you hit the "use the acceleration" button on your UI.
Because without that, if someone cares about their Standings....they have to wait for you to shoot first, and as a non-military pilot or such, you have no legal business being in one of those sights.
|
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 12:12:30 -
[30] - Quote
If the cat cannot catch the mouse, then the cat should get better.
It is a pretty poor cat that demands it's prey is nailed to the floor.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |