EVE Search - A call for the rebalnacing for the most overpowered module.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A call for the rebalnacing for the most overpowered module.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:13:00 - [1] Edited by: Chowdown on 01/04/2005 10:46:33 Surely one of the most overpowered modules in game at the moment must be the Warp Core Stabilizer. These modules allow for some of the most cowardly risk free combat in the game. The emergence of TechII warp core stabilizers threaten to make worsening problem unbearable. When previous modules which have brought about dubious tactics, such as the dual MWD BS, the module has been rebalanced. I would like to suggest that the WCS is looked at in some depth. Potential fixes I see for this module include: 1. Making it class specific, i.e. BS need to use BS class WCS, cruisers use cruiser class etc. Surely it is only realistic that a larger vessel would require a more powerful stabilizer, which of course would have much higher fitting requirements. 2. Move the WCS back to being a med slot item, it was also a module you had to activate. This would negate the tactic where by people sit at 200km with 4 WCS on there BS effectively making there combat risk free. 3. My personal preference, both of the above measures. New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:15:00 - [2] I think being fixed in the next patch - one would think next tuesday it come in with the EW changes
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:17:00 - [3] WCS -> Highslot. Gotta make a choice between offense and chicken tactics then. /Elve New Video out! Watch me!
Kyle Caldrel	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:18:00 - [4] New EW makes WCS even more powerfull, because within optimal range scrambled dosent always = scrambled
Antoinette Civari	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:20:00 - [5] Edited by: Antoinette Civari on 30/03/2005 08:23:34 Make wcs a highslot item. Problem solved. No more haulers running through 0.0 with 5 stabs and no more battleships waiting for a cheap gank while still beeing able to run all the time.
Jaydom	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:20:00 - [6] WCS's in high slots..sounds interesting. I do not use them on combat ships so it would be fine by me!
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:41:00 - [7] heres another idea make the named and tech 2 ones high slot - make regulard +2 ones medium slot and make the +1 WCS low slot Adds a strategic element to the use ie the higher level ones requie a weapons slot etc.
w0rmy	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:47:00 - [8] Originally by: ollobrains heres another idea make the named and tech 2 ones high slot - make regulard +2 ones medium slot and make the +1 WCS low slot Adds a strategic element to the use ie the higher level ones requie a weapons slot etc. What an absolutely brilliant idea You havent thought this idea through have you?
Gissa	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:49:00 - [9] Originally by: Elve Sorrow WCS -> Highslot. Gotta make a choice between offense and chicken tactics then. What load of crap. I¦ll prefer to have 4 WCS i the lows rather being ganked 4-5 pilots.
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:50:00 - [10] Originally by: Gissa Originally by: Elve Sorrow WCS -> Highslot. Gotta make a choice between offense and chicken tactics then. What load of crap. I¦ll prefer to have 4 WCS i the lows rather being ganked 4-5 pilots. If your trying to avoid being ganked, what does it matter which slot there in? New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:51:00 - [11] In the rare case you get scrambled to hell, it's nice to be able to take out a few defenders. [Heterocephalus glaber]
Antoinette Civari	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:52:00 - [12] Originally by: ollobrains heres another idea make the named and tech 2 ones high slot - make regulard +2 ones medium slot and make the +1 WCS low slot Adds a strategic element to the use ie the higher level ones requie a weapons slot etc. Not without a stacking penalty. All races have different mid/low slot layout, only highslots seem quite balanced. Plus fitting a whole rack of wcs in your highs would gimp your offence resulting in more combat orientated fittings rather than full offence + running away setups.
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:54:00 - [13] in hindsight that bit of thinking outside the box was a miss - gotta try it though perhaps boosting capactor use for WCS ? or raising power grid or CPU usage
darth solo	Posted - 2005.03.30 08:56:00 - [14] Originally by: w0rmy Originally by: ollobrains heres another idea make the named and tech 2 ones high slot - make regulard +2 ones medium slot and make the +1 WCS low slot Adds a strategic element to the use ie the higher level ones requie a weapons slot etc. What an absolutely brilliant idea You havent thought this idea through have you? hahaha, a dont think he has:).. as for stabs, yar, they need to be seriously looked at. d solo.
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:04:00 - [15] Originally by: Discorporation In the rare case you get scrambled to hell, it's nice to be able to take out a few defenders. Fair point, mid slots then New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:07:00 - [16] another random idea - for each +1 of warp stab you lose 5% of shield, armour and structure ? this might encourage moderation of their use Stacking penalties well a 2% reduction in speed or even 2% reduction in CPU output culd be put into place for each additional one
Tobiaz	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:08:00 - [17] Edited by: Tobiaz on 30/03/2005 09:09:13 Lets first see what the patch will brings. Yes scrambling will no longer be a 100%, but beating a scrambler with all stabs for 100% will also be no longer the case. Only thing is that if you have a large ship and stabbed it, big chance you can survive untill one of the cycles fail and you can warp out. EDIT: Also when stabs will influence chances, it becomes a lot easier to release the stacking penalty on these as well.
Estios	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:09:00 - [18] Midslot or High Fitting reqs is the way ahead So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
Qayos	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Kyle Caldrel New EW makes WCS even more powerfull, because within optimal range scrambled dosent always = scrambled I dont see how you can make that assertion from an informed standpoint. We dont know the numbers on things yet, so dont know how effective they will be. All we know is nothing will be certain anymore. It could be a 98% chance WarpScram works and WCS subtracts 10% off that with a heavy stacking penalty for extras (I doubt WCS will take this hard a hit, but my point is we dont know). I say wait for the changes, and analyze them when we know the numbers and the workings. At that point, if WCS is overpowered, we can lower their effect (since it wont be integer effect anymore as I understand), and if they are underpowered their number can be increased or stacking penalty lightened....
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:17:00 - [20] the chances of escape - or raising the success of youre warp scramblers (based upon my experience on the testing server) is that it will be heavily skill based ie 10 new EW skill subsets with 5 levels of each (that are new skill basis into the game) - that aspect is going to create a bit of positive discussion Suggestion jump on the test server and have a look
Feta Solamnia	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:18:00 - [21] mmmm, stiletto's...
Von Drussen	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:19:00 - [22] Anyway you look at it needs fixing. The current state is adding to pvp boredom. Look at corps like BE and others. There is really no penalty to using these. Any solution is better than current. But, I think class sized req's is definitly a starting point. Highslot would also be nice.
Von Drussen	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:20:00 - [23] Originally by: Feta Solamnia mmmm, stiletto's... Good luck tackling a raven.
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:22:00 - [24] Warp scramblers and warp stabs being class specific as well is also a component that might work
Piscis	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:23:00 - [25] Before anyone flame me for this, I'm just going to play devils advocate Lets look at this. In terms of a one bs gank, WCS are kinda redundant. A properly setup ganking BS should be able to obliterate any hauler coming through. No EW required. Same goes for fleet setup. What about a lone inty ganking a hauler? Is that really fair? an inty locks and warp scrambles you, and takes like a whole minute to kill you. Nothing you can do to return fire... Yes, I know you can setup indies for anti frig. But, with that setup they become pretty crap for popping frigs. It's all well and good saying that indies should not be able to run around in 0.0 scott free just cos they've got a low slot of WCS, but, don't forget they sacrifice a HELL of a lot of cargo space. I'd lose approx 3/4 of my cargo space when I'm hauling my ammo and loot about in my mammoth, using speed mods or whatever. it's not exactly scott free... Have you ever tried hauling a decent amount of stuff about with only 5-6km¦?? It takes long enough to haul the stuff like Trit as it is, let alone with 1/4 of the cargo space... Anyway, like I said. There is a lot of unbalanced stuff in this game. Wait and see how the up can comming EW changes affect the usage of WCS and scramblers/ disruptors...
Raem Civrie	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:23:00 - [26] They really should get changed to medslots again, imho. But I guess that would only encourage Raven pilots even more. Some sort of a tradeoff would probably be the best way to go, much like the shield boosting reduction on cap relays. This could be made manifest in either lower shield, which makes little or no sense, and would do nothing to deter apoc/arma gankers. A better solution would probably be to reduce top speed on WCS-fitted ships, or some sort of a mobility-related nerf.
Selena 001	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:35:00 - [27] Carebear - Leave them alone PvP (gankers) - Nerf them Seems fairly pointless. They work fine now, they do their job, and running shouldn't require you to sacrifice a good defence. Just cause u cant scramble the first Indy, or BS you come across, try fitting more Scramblers . Carebears fit multiple WCS', so you should fit multiple Scramblers to compensate... seems only logical. Who was it that said "Adapt to survive"? ___________ I only have 5 months left of 'knowing at all'... I had better put it to good use
ollobrains	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:36:00 - [28] A ship that can destroy ravens could be a good idea ?
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:41:00 - [29] Edited by: Chowdown on 30/03/2005 09:41:27 Edited by: Chowdown on 30/03/2005 09:40:53 Originally by: Selena 001 Carebear - Leave them alone PvP (gankers) - Nerf them Seems fairly pointless. They work fine now, they do their job, and running shouldn't require you to sacrifice a good defence. Just cause u cant scramble the first Indy, or BS you come across, try fitting more Scramblers . Carebears fit multiple WCS', so you should fit multiple Scramblers to compensate... seems only logical. Who was it that said "Adapt to survive"? Well this post was predictable, the tactic which I draw issue with is the pilots which warp in at 200km with mental tracking, are of course aligned (which all good pilots are) and have loads of WCS. Any fool can gank a travelling BS/indy the tackling strength is not the problem, this is not the scenario where WCS are overpowered. New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
Malken	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:42:00 - [30] the new tech2 stabs should be high slots and the tech1 should be moved to midslots Originally by: Graelyn "We're at war with you, and you FIRED on us! I am so telling CONCORD!" Quote: [18:46:36] Weebear > WTS Electric Golf Cart, 1 careful owner. Phone Rome 555 6567
Golgrath	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:45:00 - [31] Edited by: Golgrath on 30/03/2005 09:48:40 Originally by: Elve Sorrow WCS -> Highslot. Gotta make a choice between offense and chicken tactics then. I agree. Industrials should get some more of those 'utility' high slots though.
Antoinette Civari	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:48:00 - [32] Originally by: Malken the new tech2 stabs should be high slots and the tech1 should be moved to midslots So people can fit wcs in med and highslots ? Bad idea tbh :F
Valentine Keen	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:50:00 - [33] Fine, make them midslot and we'll all just play the 'Caldari 4tw' merry-go-round again. It's bad enough that only 1 of the 2 'shield tanking' races can actually shield tank and that only 1 race can currently use EW at all, altering WCS would simply make EVE even more Caldari oriented. How many Amarr or Minmatar ships are going to escape with their 3 or so midslots, compared to the Caldari scorpion breezing through with 8? It really wouldn't change the problem, only the class of vessels that get to escape - at least low slot allocations are more equally balanced across the races.
Antoinette Civari	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:55:00 - [34] Thats why the better idea is to make them a highslot item Valentine
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:57:00 - [35] Originally by: Valentine Keen Fine, make them midslot and we'll all just play the 'Caldari 4tw' merry-go-round again. It's bad enough that only 1 of the 2 'shield tanking' races can actually shield tank and that only 1 race can currently use EW at all, altering WCS would simply make EVE even more Caldari oriented. How many Amarr or Minmatar ships are going to escape with their 3 or so midslots, compared to the Caldari scorpion breezing through with 8? It really wouldn't change the problem, only the class of vessels that get to escape - at least low slot allocations are more equally balanced across the races. WCS do not make you 4tw in combat, especially with ships that need to fight at relatively close range such as .......... missile ships! I agree with your point tho that it would be overly harsh on Amarr. So the answer must be having different classes of WCS depnding on ship size, and harsher penalties for fitting these modules. New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
Xeris	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:57:00 - [36] Originally by: Valentine Keen Fine, make them midslot and we'll all just play the 'Caldari 4tw' merry-go-round again. It's bad enough that only 1 of the 2 'shield tanking' races can actually shield tank and that only 1 race can currently use EW at all, altering WCS would simply make EVE even more Caldari oriented. How many Amarr or Minmatar ships are going to escape with their 3 or so midslots, compared to the Caldari scorpion breezing through with 8? It really wouldn't change the problem, only the class of vessels that get to escape - at least low slot allocations are more equally balanced across the races. Scorpion: 4 low slots Armageddon: 8 low slots Your point? Too lazy to get my sig changed
Avon	Posted - 2005.03.30 09:59:00 - [37] Originally by: Valentine Keen Fine, make them midslot and we'll all just play the 'Caldari 4tw' merry-go-round again. It's bad enough that only 1 of the 2 'shield tanking' races can actually shield tank and that only 1 race can currently use EW at all, altering WCS would simply make EVE even more Caldari oriented. How many Amarr or Minmatar ships are going to escape with their 3 or so midslots, compared to the Caldari scorpion breezing through with 8? It really wouldn't change the problem, only the class of vessels that get to escape - at least low slot allocations are more equally balanced across the races. WTB: 7/8 Low slot Raven / Scorp. ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Valentine Keen	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:00:00 - [38] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Valentine Keen Fine, make them midslot and we'll all just play the 'Caldari 4tw' merry-go-round again. It's bad enough that only 1 of the 2 'shield tanking' races can actually shield tank and that only 1 race can currently use EW at all, altering WCS would simply make EVE even more Caldari oriented. How many Amarr or Minmatar ships are going to escape with their 3 or so midslots, compared to the Caldari scorpion breezing through with 8? It really wouldn't change the problem, only the class of vessels that get to escape - at least low slot allocations are more equally balanced across the races. WTB: 7/8 Low slot Raven / Scorp. Raven with 5 low is better than an apoc with 4 mid. As I said, they're better balanced.
Avon	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:03:00 - [39] And how many hi-slots do they both have? Now which slots are balanced? ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
F'nog	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:12:00 - [40] Won't someone think of BE????? If WCSes are changed what will become of their corp? They'll have to disband and slink away to the shadows.
Valentine Keen	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:17:00 - [41] Edited by: Valentine Keen on 30/03/2005 10:34:51 Edited by: Valentine Keen on 30/03/2005 10:16:58 Originally by: Avon And how many hi-slots do they both have? Now which slots are balanced? All I said was low slots were better balanced than mid, in response to the idea of changing WCS to mid. I'd be happy to change WCS to high, provided EW were also high slot items. I'm happy for it to be a conscious choice for a player to try and escape, but so should it be a choice to catch, rather than simply load up the scramblers and jammers and fire a volley of torpedos knowing full well the target can't run and can't fire back. Edit: As an aside, due to an error with my autopilot and my own lack of attention I was ganked last night, which was fair enough, I lost my cheap travel frigate and my podding was unfortunat. Strangely I regret the loss of implants less than I thought - I'm free to fight more easily now and I have owned them since well before the current horrendous prices, so the loss was less, though I can't afford to replace them. I didn't complain, whine, smack in local, nor am I campaigning for change or security from my own blunders. Yet it did leave me wondering why? Is there any pvp thrill in a pair of scorpions immolating a Slasher Frigate? Hardly. Was there any loot? No, I carried nothing, not even a ship set up (I'd intended to travel a safe route, but one wrong click and a few minutes afk and well... never mind.) Was there any ransom? No, not even a single word as I was turned from pod pilot to corpse. So while I am happy for players to fight and it's right that I should face these risks if I make a mistake, I can't understand the reasoning why a player does it - it's simply not part of my own approach to the game, I simply don't comprehend where any benefit or gain was made through it.
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:30:00 - [42] I'll throw in another option, don't make 3 types make 4. Industrial Warp Core Stabilizer - Low slot item +1 (-2% cargo capacity) Frigate Warp Core Stabilizer - Mid slot item +1 (-4% power grid) Cruiser Warp Core Stabilizer - Mid slot item +1 (-2% power grid, -2% capacitor) Battleship Warp Core Stabilizer - Mid slot item +1 (-4% capacitor) All the modules have to be activated, no longer passive. All fitting penalties are stacking. This will nerf the combat ships if they want warp core stability and still nerf an industrial's cargo capacity. -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:32:00 - [43] I forgot to add, each type won't be able to be fitted to another ship class. i.e. Indy WCS can only be fitted to industrial class ships: Haulers, Mining barges, etc.. Same for the other classes, let's not have CCP try to control fitting using the power/cpu useage only. -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Jin Entres	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:38:00 - [44] Seems like a decent idea. Also increasing signature radius when active would be a suggestion aswell.
Vince Draken	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:42:00 - [45] Edited by: Vince Draken on 30/03/2005 10:48:22 Originally by: Selena 001 Carebear - Leave them alone PvP (gankers) - Nerf them Seems fairly pointless. They work fine now, they do their job, and running shouldn't require you to sacrifice a good defence. Just cause u cant scramble the first Indy, or BS you come across, try fitting more Scramblers . Carebears fit multiple WCS', so you should fit multiple Scramblers to compensate... seems only logical. Who was it that said "Adapt to survive"? Hey, can I be the first to you? Most ganks are due to wcs *****s making pvp'ers need more firepower and more ships. As it stands, WCS have no downfall. Add: Before some asshat says that there is a penalty to fitting them (sacrficing slot), all mod fittings require slots to be used.
Gothmatar Ravenblade	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:48:00 - [46] I am not fine with any proposal made here. Here comes mine: For every WCS let's make the ship saying "meow" in a way of a 14 days old kitty, even audible for all like hull repairers. You will see using WCS becoming very embarrassing. Problem solved. j/k Seriously, WCS should need energy to be activated and becoming med or hi slot. Hi slot preferred (would be preferred if you own a Retribution).
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:53:00 - [47] Originally by: Jin Entres Also increasing signature radius when active would be a suggestion aswell. A cool second penalty. Originally by: Gothmatar Ravenblade For every WCS let's make the ship saying "meow" in a way of a 14 days old kitty, even audible for all like hull repairers. You will see using WCS becoming very embarrassing. Problem solved. j/k Not sure about the Meow, but making it audible is a great "embarrassment" factor -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Malken	Posted - 2005.03.30 10:57:00 - [48] Originally by: Antoinette Civari Originally by: Malken the new tech2 stabs should be high slots and the tech1 should be moved to midslots So people can fit wcs in med and highslots ? Bad idea tbh :F not if "any use of tech2 wcs nullifies effect of tech1 wcs" Originally by: Graelyn "We're at war with you, and you FIRED on us! I am so telling CONCORD!" Quote: [18:46:36] Weebear > WTS Electric Golf Cart, 1 careful owner. Phone Rome 555 6567
Xenu	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:03:00 - [49] Originally by: Jaabaa Prime I'll throw in another option, don't make 3 types make 4. Industrial Warp Core Stabilizer - Low slot item +1 (-2% cargo capacity) Frigate Warp Core Stabilizer - Mid slot item +1 (-4% power grid) Cruiser Warp Core Stabilizer - Mid slot item +1 (-2% power grid, -2% capacitor) Battleship Warp Core Stabilizer - Mid slot item +1 (-4% capacitor) All the modules have to be activated, no longer passive. All fitting penalties are stacking. This will nerf the combat ships if they want warp core stability and still nerf an industrial's cargo capacity.
Lars Henrikson	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:05:00 - [50] Originally by: Jaabaa Prime Not sure about the Meow, but making it audible is a great "embarrassment" factor Maybe CCP could optimise sound so that it doesn't cause a 15 frame per second performance drop when it's turned on while they're at it too.....
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:16:00 - [51] Originally by: Khal Dominicus I don't understand how you would publicly admit to having targets just 'warp away' from you. Suck it up, and find a counter measure for the problem you're having instead of getting people to change the game for the way you like to play. The thoughts of a kestrel pilot New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
Fuse	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:16:00 - [52] There is such a thing called a warp bubble. I wish the smaller ones had a bigger radius and were cheaper to make since I sell them. Well they only run about 7 million on the market. It seems to me youÆre perfectly fine with ganking and running away when it suits YOU. Throw down the bubbles and stop them you might loose them you may not but you will definitely stop the indies from getting away. 0.o It's not you... no wait it is you.
Khal Dominicus	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:16:00 - [53] I don't understand how you would publicly admit to having targets just 'warp away' from you. Suck it up, and find a counter measure for the problem you're having instead of getting people to change the game for the way you like to play.
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:18:00 - [54] Originally by: Fuse There is such a thing called a warp bubble. I wish the smaller ones had a bigger radius and were cheaper to make since I sell them. Well they only run about 7 million on the market. It seems to me youÆre perfectly fine with ganking and running away when it suits YOU. Throw down the bubbles and stop them you might loose them you may not but you will definitely stop the indies from getting away. Once again, warp bubbles are a good counter measure for travelling. This is not the problem. New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
lythos miralbar	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:19:00 - [55] Why not have them play a song from you ship? something like... "if you go down to the woods today your sure of a big surprise, If you go down to the woods today you wont believe your eyes, because todays the day the carebears have thier picnic" Have that playing from every ship with them fitted
capt	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:21:00 - [56] Edited by: capt on 30/03/2005 11:21:57 WAAA WAAA WAAA I can't get my kill WAAA WAAA WAAA People run away while I'm trying to kill them....... Uhm DUH??? Why not just ak for the devs to change the game so that your target becomes immobilized (can't move, warp, log off) when you have established a lock on them and that your target can't use his weapons, can't selfestruct etc. and basicly just sits there waiting for you to do something. Hmm while were at it maybe ask for a right-mouse click on target option saying "POP", after which the target in question just blows up. Easy enough for you guys?
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:24:00 - [57] Originally by: capt Edited by: capt on 30/03/2005 11:21:57 WAAA WAAA WAAA I can't get my kill WAAA WAAA WAAA People run away while I'm trying to kill them....... Uhm DUH??? Why not just ak for the devs to change the game so that your target becomes immobilized (can't move, warp, log off) when you have established a lock on them and that your target can't use his weapons, can't selfestruct etc. and basicly just sits there waiting for you to do something. Hmm while were at it maybe ask for a right-mouse click on target option saying "POP", after which the target in question just blows up. Easy enough for you guys? Ohh my a cowardly alt attack ........ I wonder what he has fitted on his low slots ...... New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
capt	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:26:00 - [58] Edited by: capt on 30/03/2005 11:29:29 Oh my, look my character up in game and see how much of an alt I am...... I don't hide behind alts. I fact I think all alts should be removed and only 1 character per account allowed, but thats an entirely different discussion alltogether. It just bugs me that you guys keep on whining that your targets aren't easy enough to kill...... that's just the whole point isn't it? The game would soon lose all intrest if you just had to lock and say "pop" and then the target of your choice would be no more..... The other party involved should have a fair chance of escaping unscathed, and it's up to you to find a way to reduce that chance to you can get your kill, but asking for the devs to change this or that is not the way......
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:29:00 - [59] Edited by: Chowdown on 30/03/2005 11:41:35 Edited by: Chowdown on 30/03/2005 11:40:59 Originally by: capt It just bugs me that you guys keep on whining that your targets aren't easy enough to kill...... that's just the whole point isn't it? The game would soon lose all intrest if you just had to lock and say "pop" and then the target of your choice would be no more..... The other party involved should have a fair chance of escaping unscathed, and it's up to you to find a way to reduce that chance to you can get your kill, but asking for the devs to change this or that is not the way...... My point is that it is currently an unfair chance of them escaping unscathed, minimal risk pvp= teh ghey. How can this game move forward if the community do not bring up obvious flaws in game design. New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:29:00 - [60] Chow, why even quote him/her/it It's a typical response from someone that has probably got 0 XPs in 0.0 combat, and thinks that the sun shines out of his ... People can be contructive in their ideas and also in their criticism if they have a little bit of respect for each other and enough intelligence to use it. How I miss the gemini forums. I think my idea () is uber BTW -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Clipped Wings	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:30:00 - [61] Edited by: Clipped Wings on 30/03/2005 11:33:49 Originally by: F'nog Won't someone think of BE????? If WCSes are changed what will become of their corp? They'll have to disband and slink away to the shadows. Uh...Didn't they already do that when Dual mwd/Mwd+oversized AB was removed, around december? I seem to remember some rant-filled posts from certain BE pilots about how unfair it was to their tactics of tackler tristans with warp core stabs+MWd+Oversized AB or something, and the subsequent reducing of members from what 25, to 5 alts, or something. As for the stabs in general, I just hope that if you get enough scrambling points on one ship, from enough people, that the chance of the victim escaping is so miniscule that it'll only happen 1 in a 100 times. Alternatively, how's about this: warp core stab: reduces lock range by 25% and decreases scan resolution by 25% per stab fitted. Make up some techno-babble explanation, in short, rig it so that people either fit for fighting, or running. I know some people will object and say "but we always fight outnumbered, so we have to use stabs to be able to get away!", I guess the answer is "don't fight in situations so outnumbered that you have to use stabs". Some ships are much too ideal to fit stabs on, and still retain killer setups. That doesn't seem entirely to fit with the concept of a warp core stab. edit Just a thought: How's about that fitting stabs on your ship would interfere with you using warp scramblers, some technobabble concept about fluctuations in the warp core making it too hazardous...Just the thought of people either choosing to be able to scramble, or to be able to (have a chance to) warp away? -Clipped Wings of LFC "I believe in the theoretical benevolence, and practical malignity of man." ~William Hazlitt
Arthur Guinness	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:32:00 - [62] Class specific size + fitting reqs are the solution imo: BS size: 1000 - 1250MW, 75 - 100TF Cruiser: 150 - 250MW, 30 - 50TF Frig: 10 - 15MW, 10 - 20TF They should be a module that prevents you from using any kind of offensive or tanking setup. They should be a pure travel module.
Rich Head	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:37:00 - [63] I don't see a problem as it is. If someone wants to fit 5 WCS in their low slots, it's your tough luck. YOu simply picked the wrong guy to try and kill. Get over it, if someone decides to fit defensively then good on them. You fit more than 1 offensive weapon on your ship, so it's ridiculous not to fit more than one defensive module. If we want to go down the line of stopping people fitting lots of WCS, maybe we should start stopping people fitting say 6 siege on a raven or 3 zillion multispectral jammers on a scorp, etc etc......(And you guessed it, that's a ridiculous idea) So, to finish, I'm for leaving things as is after the patch. PS: BTW I have never used a WCS in the 5-6 months i've been playing.
Drunken Claptrap	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:38:00 - [64] Oops, alt posted by mistake. Do apologise. Draft Beer Not People
Tolan	Posted - 2005.03.30 11:44:00 - [65] Drop WCS all together.. give ships different inbuilt warp core protection factors(ie minmatar ship worst cos they made of wood and nails). Warp core protection could then be skilled based to improve the chances of not being scrambled (CCP would like that) the problem then goes away...pvp'ers might not be able to run away and indies might just not be able to run that blockade.
Edison Frisk	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:04:00 - [66] Originally by: Tolan (ie minmatar ship worst cos they made of wood and nails). now thats funny!
Dabljuh	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:11:00 - [67] Edited by: Dabljuh on 30/03/2005 12:12:38 Now, what exactly is the problem with WCS? Whats wrong with them? This is a question I'm asking as a noob, folks, not rethorics What I see is this: WCStabs stacking prevent you from - armor tanking - doing notable damage through damage mods - Having notable cap - hauling notable amounts of goods WCScramblers stacking prevent you from - Shield tanking - Instalocking - Having notable cap - Attacking with ECM So, maybe they are used a lot. Wouldn't that just reflect the judgement of a lot of people that they would like to have the option to run? And then there's Mobile warp field disruptor generator thingies -that totally negate any warping activity within their field of action, regardless of any WCS fitted. Seriously, I fail to see the problem
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:14:00 - [68] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 30/03/2005 12:16:54 Seriously. The answer is pretty damn easy tbh. Put a max on warp core stability strength. Say you can't get above +5, end of story, Wether you do that by fitting +2 WCS that cost 10 mill each or by +1's that cost 10K each is your decision. +5 equals at least two tacklers tackling you long enough for you to die. that should imo constitute the maximum tackling power needed for any single ship. Personally, I'd even say +4. But i guess reducing it to only one tackler needed is a bit harsh. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
MaiLina KaTar	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:21:00 - [69] Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 30/03/2005 12:25:52 Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 30/03/2005 12:16:54 Seriously. The answer is pretty damn easy tbh. Put a max on warp core stability strength. Say you can't get above +5, end of story, Wether you do that by fitting +2 WCS that cost 10 mill each or by +1's that cost 10K each is your decision. +5 equals at least two tacklers tackling you long enough for you to die. that should imo constitute the maximum tackling power needed for any single ship. Personally, I'd even say +4. But i guess reducing it to only one tackler needed is a bit harsh. That would make 'em worthless. Two tacklers for any ship. No thinking involved, no counter, no variables and ultimately no use for WCS on your ship. Any smalltime newb squad in Rifters will jam and pwn your ship worth hundreds of millions of isk. Tbh I'm fine with the current system. I see so many indies going poof at gatecamps... WCS can't be all that uber. WCSed bships also do a lot less damage than properly fitted ships and they can still get jammed by dedicated inties/bb/scorp. Mai's Idealog
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:23:00 - [70] Originally by: Elve Sorrow WCS -> Highslot. Gotta make a choice between offense and chicken tactics then. This would make sense. Also, it would have to be activatable and the time it takes to work would be based on the warp scramble strength it has to overcome, that time being reduced by the number you have activated with a random factor thrown in for fun. See the chronicle named "Loser". He talks about activating his warp descrambler.
Roshan longshot	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:25:00 - [71] OH shut the pock up....rebalance this, re balance that....IF YOU CANT PLAY THE GAME THE WAY IT IS DISGNED...then maybe you should not play... Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter,pirate[/i] or mixture of them all. [i]As read from the original box and from this site.
Trooper B99	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:41:00 - [72] Edited by: Trooper B99 on 30/03/2005 12:41:43 Personally I'd say if it's gonna get changed, go for the class specific route with 100mn, 10mn and 1mn WCS. Leave the current WCS as the 1mn and have graded 10 and 100mn ones that you will have serious problems mounting say, 5 and your guns. I would argue against making them mid slot again however, or even high slot. If the increase on grid and CPU uptake for Cruiser and BS sized WCS is done correctly they won't have the ability to fill their lows with WCS and still fit a full rack of guns given the Grid and CPU eaten up by the WCS. This would allow the maxed out WCS people to still do what they do, but their weapon set-ups would be gimped to hell. Possibly one way around it would be cruiser/BS penaltys rather than a whole new breed of WCS. Cruiser penalty: WCS = + 50 grid + 70 CPU BS Penalty: WCS = + 1000 grid + 500 CPU ? Anyways, yes, maxed out WCS BS's do need a nerf. Chasing down 5 WCS ravens and 8 WCS 'geddons is an exercise in futility while their offensive capabilitys aren't effected Wirykomi Team Racer - COLOSSUS Championships Year 106
Cinnander	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:43:00 - [73] Either don't change them and hope the EW "Fixes" fix them, or; Activated module, max 2 per ship (say). Long cycle time. Activating uses 60% of the ships cap. When you're scrambled and you turn it on, there's a chance that it manages to stabilise your warp core and out you fly, merrily on your way. Otherwise your ship gets a quick trip to the scrapyard in the sky. WCS: They're lame until they save your ass. ><))))¦> This is fishy .. You know what to do.
Sarkos	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:50:00 - [74] Placing a WCS in the mid slot would eliminate anyone using Minmatar ships, which are mid slot deficient. Thus a bad idea. The fact is with todays faster ships and short range STR:2 Disrupters, getting away with a single WCS is no longer guarenteed. Also consider that for each WCS loaded, that means less power, damage mods or armor repair/resistances. If need be, simply make it an activated mod, similar to an small armor repair. Yes, it uses little power, but if a ship is drained or neutralized by NOS or Power Neutralizers as is common today, it can not warp. Sarkos Either free the slaves or we will come and get them.
Azure Skyclad	Posted - 2005.03.30 12:53:00 - [75] Originally by: Cinnander WCS: They're lame until they save your ass. Single most valuable line in this thread. La Maison de tous Les Plaisirs Star Fraction http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/
Trooper B99	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:00:00 - [76] Edited by: Trooper B99 on 30/03/2005 13:01:29 Originally by: Azure Skyclad Originally by: Cinnander WCS: They're lame until they save your ass. Single most valuable line in this thread. I don't think it's the use of them that people are complaining about, it's OVERuse and still being able to mount a full offensive set-up. Wirykomi Team Racer - COLOSSUS Championships Year 106
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:05:00 - [77] Originally by: Chowdown Originally by: Gissa Originally by: Elve Sorrow WCS -> Highslot. Gotta make a choice between offense and chicken tactics then. What load of crap. I¦ll prefer to have 4 WCS i the lows rather being ganked 4-5 pilots. If your trying to avoid being ganked, what does it matter which slot there in? Because an Iteron has only on Hi-Slot? Maybe what you really want is the devs to install a beam weapon that will cut out their engines and cause a popup box that say "LOL OWNED" Stop crying because a target got away and either use more tacklers or stop camping the same gate and try to get unexpecting haulers.
Alberta	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:06:00 - [78] Originally by: Xeris Originally by: Valentine Keen Fine, make them midslot and we'll all just play the 'Caldari 4tw' merry-go-round again. It's bad enough that only 1 of the 2 'shield tanking' races can actually shield tank and that only 1 race can currently use EW at all, altering WCS would simply make EVE even more Caldari oriented. How many Amarr or Minmatar ships are going to escape with their 3 or so midslots, compared to the Caldari scorpion breezing through with 8? It really wouldn't change the problem, only the class of vessels that get to escape - at least low slot allocations are more equally balanced across the races. Scorpion: 4 low slots Armageddon: 8 low slots Your point? In some situations the scorps med slots would still give it the advantage. As an extreme example if the scorp has 6 multispec jammers fitted and both ships get attacked by 3 stiletto's all running -6. Sure, the 'geddon needs 2 of them to scramble it, but the scorp can jam all 3 of them once it has a lock. An extreme example as I said, but the point is that ECM can complement WCS and uses different slots. Make them high slots mods and the scorp increases its advantage. Just rambling on for the point of it cos I'm bored at work. My main points I guess are that I still think a CPU usage increase is probably the easiest way forwards. Making them med slot mods would suck. Making them high slot mods would fix quite a few of the annoying things atm though. My Thoughts on Game Balance
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:11:00 - [79] Originally by: Dionysus Davinci Originally by: Chowdown Originally by: Gissa Originally by: Elve Sorrow WCS -> Highslot. Gotta make a choice between offense and chicken tactics then. What load of crap. I¦ll prefer to have 4 WCS i the lows rather being ganked 4-5 pilots. If your trying to avoid being ganked, what does it matter which slot there in? Because an Iteron has only on Hi-Slot? Maybe what you really want is the devs to install a beam weapon that will cut out their engines and cause a popup box that say "LOL OWNED" Stop crying because a target got away and either use more tacklers or stop camping the same gate and try to get unexpecting haulers. I am not of the nature to cry about much, other than the inanly stupid, indies by there very nature should be slow, unmanuverable and die alot without escourt. New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
Latex Mistress	Posted - 2005.03.30 13:19:00 - [80] Well, if CCP is going to rework EW to have a sense of "randomness", then I don't see anything wrong with making WCS the same way. And another vote for class-size WCS's... make it painful to load up 5 of them in a Raven. If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
Hast	Posted - 2005.03.30 15:01:00 - [81] good firepower + teh invunerability of 5 warpcores + instaganking frigs with missiles = teh uberghey
aeti	Posted - 2005.03.30 15:12:00 - [82] Originally by: Kyle Caldrel New EW makes WCS even more powerfull, because within optimal range scrambled dosent always = scrambled and to counter that there is a chance you can scramble somebody with 8 wcs with 1 scrambler
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.03.30 15:19:00 - [83] Edited by: Elve Sorrow on 30/03/2005 15:19:45 And the chance he gets scrambled again after the first successfull scramble is about nothing * nothing = nothing. As small as the chance is that it scrambles the first time, the chance it happens twice in a row is chance^2. /Elve New Video out! Watch me!
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.30 15:23:00 - [84] For those which whinge Please check the second most destroyed item on low slots. Now if we could have less, "ohh you just want to chane eve to suit you threads", and a bit more constructive critism, that would be great. New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 17:48:00 - [85] I think Warp Core Stabilizer should be limited to 1 per ship, just like MWD. However, if that is done, there should be a better version of WCS that has strength 2, but uses about 100 CPU This would make things much better in terms of forcible PvP, while still providing decent flexibility for defense.
marioman	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:02:00 - [86] Originally by: Chowdown For those which whinge Please check the second most destroyed item on low slots. Now if we could have less, "ohh you just want to chane eve to suit you threads", and a bit more constructive critism, that would be great. If yall have killed that many ppl with WCS fitted, it doesnt sound like theres a problem, as obviously they didnt get away
capt	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:07:00 - [87] Originally by: marioman If yall have killed that many ppl with WCS fitted, it doesnt sound like theres a problem, as obviously they didnt get away word
Domalais	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:30:00 - [88] Originally by: Selena 001 Seems fairly pointless. They work fine now, they do their job, and running shouldn't require you to sacrifice a good defence. Just cause u cant scramble the first Indy, or BS you come across, try fitting more Scramblers . Carebears fit multiple WCS', so you should fit multiple Scramblers to compensate... seems only logical. Ah but you are wrong. Right now, you have to sacrifice defense to equip warp core stabs. If they were high slot modules, you would have to sacrifice offense. This would actually help carebears, not hurt them. You could tank AND stab at the same time.
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:20:00 - [89] Highslots is the way to go. ________________________________________________________
Mark A	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:40:00 - [90] Dunno if anyone's suggested this, didn't read the whole thread, but a stacking nerf could work also, i.e.: 1xWCS = 1 point 2xWCS = 2 points 4xWCS = 3 points 8xWCS = 4 points ____________________________________
Hellspawn666	Posted - 2005.03.30 19:47:00 - [91] how the hell is wcs teh most unbalanced item... i think its one of the most balanced the fitting requirement is very very harsh the only ships u can even have a chance at offence with wcs are caldari or mayb minmitar. If it gimps ure tanking or firepwoer abilty then surely its balanced the only unbalcnerd setup is the 5x wcs with a raven since it doesnt lose much of its firepower, i would say look at the ship not the module. Increase the fitting on wcs wud just remove any use of the module except for those who are not looking for a fight. They should use the module tactically opposed to just using it to leg it all teh time i would keep it how it is too many other unbalanced things in the game. Just dont release t2 ones.
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.30 20:03:00 - [92] Originally by: Selena 001 Carebears fit multiple WCS', so you should fit multiple Scramblers to compensate... seems only logical. By that pathetic excuse for logic... My scramblers should use no cap and have infinite range. ________________________________________________________
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.30 20:07:00 - [93] Originally by: Hellspawn666 how the hell is wcs teh most unbalanced item... i think its one of the most balanced the fitting requirement is very very harsh the only ships u can even have a chance at offence with wcs are caldari or mayb minmitar. If it gimps ure tanking or firepwoer abilty then surely its balanced the only unbalcnerd setup is the 5x wcs with a raven since it doesnt lose much of its firepower, i would say look at the ship not the module. Increase the fitting on wcs wud just remove any use of the module except for those who are not looking for a fight. They should use the module tactically opposed to just using it to leg it all teh time i would keep it how it is too many other unbalanced things in the game. Just dont release t2 ones. WCS have the same fitting req as a damage mod or warp scrambler. Unlike a damage mod or warp scrambler, they have zero drawbacks. They use no cap and are always 100% effective. Only viable on caldari on minmatar? How many weeks have you been playing eve for? An Armageddon can fit 8 megapulse, 4 damage mods + 4 wcs. Yeah really tough to fit ________________________________________________________
spiritfa11	Posted - 2005.03.30 20:40:00 - [94] im glad chowdown started this thread. rampant use of wcs is out of hand. make them high slot items, if you want to have the invulnerability of not being scrambled you should not be allowed to use any offense whatsoever. it just opens up the door for lame tactics. having 4+ points on a battleship and watching it warp away while sniping the rest of your fleet makes me sick. --------------------- I'd like to do your sig. You may contact me in-game
Fikia	Posted - 2005.03.30 20:56:00 - [95] I find it funny that you guys are arguing over WCS. People even suggesting that they're turned to hi slots or max amount... Personally, if they are turned to hi slots, then the scramblers need to be changed to hi slots.. If WCS is limited to 1 per ship, then scramblers should be limited to 1 per ship AND have a max str of 1 or at least a closer range than the scramblers are if you want a str 2. Along with this, only 1 ship can affect another ship in terms of propulsion jamming. There really isn't anything wrong with them at this time. There are more ways to counter the WCS than there is to defend vs disruptors. 1 WCS = 1 disruptor, 2 WCS = 1 scrambler (which are designed for close range yes, however, you can get into that range pretty quick in a frigate which they're designed for). Each has their counterpart. It isn't like you can form a gang and all the ships pool their WCS together so that you can only warp scramble them when you get past all of their warpcore strength. I am not 100% sure of how the EW changes will affect this in particular and so we'd just have to ride it out and see.
Ange1	Posted - 2005.03.30 21:36:00 - [96] I also think WCS's should be an activated med slot or at the very very least, an active module in the low slots that require a fair amount of energy to run. I mean if Warp Scramblers are active modules fitted in med slots, isn't putting WCS's in the med slot as an active module a decent enough counter? Having them inactive in low slots gives WCS's teh advantage. ------------------------- Proud Warrior of Shinra
Raven1x	Posted - 2005.03.30 21:37:00 - [97] Seems fine to me. Shift them to mid or high slots. I use them exclusively on ships kitted out for running camps anyway so I rarely have weapons on them :) ____________________________________________ There is no such thing as too much cynicism. Beware of geeks bearing gifs.
Hellspawn666	Posted - 2005.03.30 22:58:00 - [98] Edited by: Hellspawn666 on 30/03/2005 22:58:47 Originally by: Meridius Originally by: Hellspawn666 how the hell is wcs teh most unbalanced item... i think its one of the most balanced the fitting requirement is very very harsh the only ships u can even have a chance at offence with wcs are caldari or mayb minmitar. If it gimps ure tanking or firepwoer abilty then surely its balanced the only unbalcnerd setup is the 5x wcs with a raven since it doesnt lose much of its firepower, i would say look at the ship not the module. Increase the fitting on wcs wud just remove any use of the module except for those who are not looking for a fight. They should use the module tactically opposed to just using it to leg it all teh time i would keep it how it is too many other unbalanced things in the game. Just dont release t2 ones. WCS have the same fitting req as a damage mod or warp scrambler. Unlike a damage mod or warp scrambler, they have zero drawbacks. They use no cap and are always 100% effective. Only viable on caldari on minmatar? How many weeks have you been playing eve for? An Armageddon can fit 8 megapulse, 4 damage mods + 4 wcs. Yeah really tough to fit ive never seen that setup used to take anyone down... sure ive seen it used to annoy the hell outa ppl but it doesnt kill for a start the cap recharge is too sucky too do bugger all and please show me this armageddon that can fit 8 megapulse u noob... last time i checked 7 turret slots not to mention the cpu doesnnt support that even with maxed skills nor does the cap. plus as already stated u need 2 low slots to counter 1 med slot item plus as for makign them use energy seems fairly pointless most ppl that fit wcs are bs or indys to make ive never had a setup that cant run 1 warp disruptor without barley noticing it so thatd have to be the same for wcs surley. So clearly ive been playing longer then you
Warm0nger	Posted - 2005.03.30 23:18:00 - [99] Originally by: marioman Originally by: Chowdown For those which whinge Please check the second most destroyed item on low slots. Now if we could have less, "ohh you just want to chane eve to suit you threads", and a bit more constructive critism, that would be great. If yall have killed that many ppl with WCS fitted, it doesnt sound like theres a problem, as obviously they didnt get away Exactly. U want some cheese with that Shinra scum? --------------------- Eve Spawn Grounds
Sleazy Cabbie	Posted - 2005.03.30 23:26:00 - [100] Edited by: Sleazy Cabbie on 30/03/2005 23:28:39 I have a different perspective on the whole pvp vs. carebear. The ppl they call carebear are actually having all the financial burden and risk in the game. The ppl they call "pvp'er" or "pirate" have almost zero risk. On the one hand you have 2 or 3 frigate (or whatever) camping a certain gate, on the other hand you have a slow hauler carrying valuable cargo. As a pirate even if everything goes wrong, you still covered by insurance almost totally. The hauler is hauling his hundred mil cargo through .4 and below, who knows if there's some ganker/sniper camping, they have no insurance covering cargo, you either double or nothing, that's a huge risk to take. It's not a big risk to risk a Rifter, I want to see you try to risk an Iteron 5 full of cargo in lowsec and tell me "oh WCS is overpowered." If you ask me, all the carebear industry have all the burden and all the risk and all the boredom, while being a good fighter is pretty much zero risk zero hassle %100 pure profit no investment needed. I can take a Kestrel and just run around hunting, make a few hundred k per hour, and if I see a miner that seems to be not paying attention, can grief him and be like "pwned noob." The decisions are all up to me, at any time I can hit my MWD and just bug out. Even if you find no victim, you're still out hunting, still making money any way, and if you happen to find a juicy victim that's just a bonus. So piracy and ganking is not really as hard as ppl try to make it seem. If you ask me the ppl who have it the most unfair in this game are the industrialists, carebears, haulers, ppl who try to tradeskill and do business. They carry all the burden, all the risk, need all the balls to put up huge financial gambles, and they're also the ones who need to put up with wannabe "pirate" noobs who think ganking indies is a good PVP gaming experience. Of course the price of minerals seems outrageous sometimes, not because piracy "creates the economy" but because being a hunter/killer/ganker is %100 pure profit and pure fun, while mining is %100 pure boredom and pure grief.
Qayos	Posted - 2005.03.30 23:28:00 - [101] Edited by: Qayos on 30/03/2005 23:40:24 Originally by: Elve Sorrow Edited by: Elve Sorrow on 30/03/2005 15:19:45 And the chance he gets scrambled again after the first successfull scramble is about nothing * nothing = nothing. As small as the chance is that it scrambles the first time, the chance it happens twice in a row is chance^2. And if that base chance is 90%, then that gives you an 81% chance of scrambling them twice. Like I said, you can't say its unbalanced when NO ONE KNOWS what the damn numbers are yet! If its 99.9999% chance of scrambling, and 99.9995% if they have 8 WCS equiped, that is not too difficult to scramble, it is too difficult to get away... it is impossible to say its unbalanced one way or the other without knowing the numbers. Which we will know in about a week as I understand. EDIT: I refer you all to... This Post
Hellspawn666	Posted - 2005.03.31 00:01:00 - [102] Originally by: Sleazy Cabbie Edited by: Sleazy Cabbie on 30/03/2005 23:28:39 I have a different perspective on the whole pvp vs. carebear. The ppl they call carebear are actually having all the financial burden and risk in the game. The ppl they call "pvp'er" or "pirate" have almost zero risk. On the one hand you have 2 or 3 frigate (or whatever) camping a certain gate, on the other hand you have a slow hauler carrying valuable cargo. As a pirate even if everything goes wrong, you still covered by insurance almost totally. The hauler is hauling his hundred mil cargo through .4 and below, who knows if there's some ganker/sniper camping, they have no insurance covering cargo, you either double or nothing, that's a huge risk to take. It's not a big risk to risk a Rifter, I want to see you try to risk an Iteron 5 full of cargo in lowsec and tell me "oh WCS is overpowered." If you ask me, all the carebear industry have all the burden and all the risk and all the boredom, while being a good fighter is pretty much zero risk zero hassle %100 pure profit no investment needed. I can take a Kestrel and just run around hunting, make a few hundred k per hour, and if I see a miner that seems to be not paying attention, can grief him and be like "pwned noob." The decisions are all up to me, at any time I can hit my MWD and just bug out. Even if you find no victim, you're still out hunting, still making money any way, and if you happen to find a juicy victim that's just a bonus. So piracy and ganking is not really as hard as ppl try to make it seem. If you ask me the ppl who have it the most unfair in this game are the industrialists, carebears, haulers, ppl who try to tradeskill and do business. They carry all the burden, all the risk, need all the balls to put up huge financial gambles, and they're also the ones who need to put up with wannabe "pirate" noobs who think ganking indies is a good PVP gaming experience. Of course the price of minerals seems outrageous sometimes, not because piracy "creates the economy" but because being a hunter/killer/ganker is %100 pure profit and pure fun, while mining is %100 pure boredom and pure grief. Although u are rather off topic u have some fair points like an empire pirate is gonna make all the choices and its all too easy to do... but most ppl dont empire pirate because its ever soo boring and too easy. Believe it or not it doesnt make all that much isk mining makes about 10x more since no empire targets dont drop any good loot. Plus Carebears carebear because they want to nothing is stopping any of them jumping in a frigate and hunting haulers... i think the pvp has more risk but he expects it i rarley camp in frigates and its easier to run away then it is to catch u never know wot ure gonna run into.
DoR Founder	Posted - 2005.03.31 00:18:00 - [103] I understand that this topic is not about stoping player to run away in a "travel" setup but more about player that use offive setup with minimal risk of been cought with the use the WCS. I dont think that changing the slot of WCS is the way to go. I agree that Med slot have more figthing purpose then low because of the EW but low slot is also very usefull for dmg mods, cap recharges and tanking. I think WCS should have weapons rate of fire penality to both Turrets and Missile launcher. Let say a rate of fire penality of 25% that keep stacking with the previous penality. 10sec * 25% = 12.5sec * 25%(another WCS) = 15.625sec etc ... This will have a huge impact on fighting with WCS and will leave those who are fitting many WCS to travel without big penality since they rarely fit weapons. They want to go in and out of system fast without fighting. I also think that intercepter should have bonus to what they are intented to do, using propulsion EW to stop ship from running away. Something like increasing range & strengh of Stasis and Scrambler/Disrupter maybe. Giving a total of 50% more range & strengh with intercepter skill at lvl5. Meaning a disrupter will have nearly 30km range and a strengh of 1.5 and disrupter nearly 10km range with 3 points strengh. But that's my personnal opinion.
jamesw	Posted - 2005.03.31 00:29:00 - [104] My take: Firstly as a lowslot module, they are reasonably balanced between races, due to this I think they should remain that way. I also think that they can stay that way, yet still have their usefullness in PVP reduced. I see them as doing this in one of 2 ways: 1) 25% cap penalty "per" WCS. An RP reason for this could be that like the MWD, the WCS requires a substantial amount of Cap to be reserved so that it can function. This means yes, you can still fit a geddon with 8 WCS, but omg, try shooting more than one round with your megapulse. This has a disadvantage in affecting travellers (can't warp as far). 2 (preferred) 60 - 70cpu "per" WCS. The current fitting req is 30cpu iirc. Once again, you can max out your low slots with stabs, but good luck fitting much else with the cpu you have remaining. I don't see a way that this method would affect travel too much. -- jamesw Rubra Libertas Militia Originally by: RollinDutchMasters I fly a dominix, its like a portable blob in a can
nahtoh	Posted - 2005.03.31 17:14:00 - [105] yeah well how about over a certian amont of damage mods your weapons use more cap...of apply your other WCS "fixes" to weapon mods... OR since you are infact "supercharging" your weapon systems a chance for a catasropic failure? And before anybody screams "carebear" in the middle of a corp war and loving it...no I don't use Instas and yes avoid 0.0 at the present (can't afford the ship loses that getting to know how it goes can intail)... "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself" (credits to mcallister TCS)
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.03.31 17:27:00 - [106] Originally by: nahtoh yeah well how about over a certian amont of damage mods your weapons use more cap...of apply your other WCS "fixes" to weapon mods... OR since you are infact "supercharging" your weapon systems a chance for a catasropic failure? And before anybody screams "carebear" in the middle of a corp war and loving it...no I don't use Instas and yes avoid 0.0 at the present (can't afford the ship loses that getting to know how it goes can intail)... Personally I would not give a toss, just nerf the cowards mod of choice. New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!!
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:06:00 - [107] Nerf the WCS for gankers and not carebears! Beautiful fix!!! I would love to see them as a high slot and nerf rof with stacking penalties when fitting WCS. If the first can't be done then please do the second. Look at Eve-Kills.com. Who have the highest kills? Simple - lamers that equip 4+ wcs and still have huge damage output. Zincol, MegaJ, Bridgette, etc. I don't blame them really, its just manipulating the stupid loopholes in the system. But when your opposing force warps to a covert ops that is sitting on top of them, and 4 tacklers can't hold them.....well.....that is just stupid game mechanics. WCS are for folks that want to run (haulers, carebears, whatever). If you want to pirate or fight then you should have to FIGHT. Or take an offencive penalty. Nyxus
nahtoh	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:14:00 - [108] Originally by: Chowdown Originally by: nahtoh yeah well how about over a certian amont of damage mods your weapons use more cap...of apply your other WCS "fixes" to weapon mods... OR since you are infact "supercharging" your weapon systems a chance for a catasropic failure? And before anybody screams "carebear" in the middle of a corp war and loving it...no I don't use Instas and yes avoid 0.0 at the present (can't afford the ship loses that getting to know how it goes can intail)... Personally I would not give a toss, just nerf the cowards mod of choice. Since Chowdown seems to be genuine I personally have no problems with keeping WCS lowslot and applying some kind of penilty to more than one as long as the same kind of penilty is applied to weapon mods... IE just one no side affects, more than one then you get a side effect (or possably just a stacking penilty applied to WCS/weapon mods)... "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself" (credits to mcallister TCS)
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2005.03.31 19:07:00 - [109] make wcs highslots modules so u have a run aor combat ship
WildHope	Posted - 2005.03.31 19:09:00 - [110] Another idea: If warp scrambling is made % based depending on the distance between tackler and target, why not make wcs % based as well. They work some of the time, but not always. The chances of them working increases with stacking, although the improvement isn't linear (similar to damage mod stacking effect). Thus something with 5 wcs 'could' be scrambled by something by a strength 2 disruptor, but it's very unlikely. By the reverse, tackle strength 4 may get unlucky and be evaded by a ship with 1 wcs This provides a slight nerf to them. I think moving them to high/med slot will ultimately be ineffective at solving the problem. Thoughts? Wildhope ShinRa Curse Alliance (may it last 1000 generations)
El Yatta	Posted - 2005.03.31 19:22:00 - [111] Your idea is, I beleive the main thrust of the new propulsion warfare. Once propulsion and EW are in, surely its problem solved- there's never 100% chance of scrambling, and its never 100% chance of your stabs working. Ships have an inbuilt warpcore strength, boosted by stabs, which is probability rolled against the scramble strength. Scrambler wins, you're scrambled, warpcore wins, you escape. WCS are no longer binary win/lose modules. ---:::---
Deadzone	Posted - 2005.03.31 19:59:00 - [112] Originally by: Chowdown Surely one of the most overpowered modules in game at the moment must be the Warp Core Stabilizer. These modules allow for some of the most cowardly risk free combat in the game. The emergence of TechII warp core stabilizers threaten to make worsening problem unbearable. When previous modules which have brought about dubious tactics, such as the dual MWD BS, the module has been rebalanced. I would like to suggest that the WCS is looked at in some depth. Potential fixes I see for this module include: 1. Making it class specific, i.e. BS need to use BS class WCS, cruisers use cruiser class etc. Surely it is only realistic that a larger vessel would require a more powerful stabilizer, which of course would have much higher fitting requirements. 2. Move the WCS back to being a med slot item, it was also a module you had to activate. This would negate the tactic where by people sit at 200km with 4 WCS on there BS effectively making there combat risk free. 3. My personal preference, both of the above measures. This rant comming from a guy in a corp who do little but kill other people and pirate. Gee, what a big surprise there. Whaaa..here, i'll give you a free box of double-chip cookies. Vice-Admiral Executive Commanding Officer Military Command Hadead Drive Yards
hellwarrior	Posted - 2005.03.31 20:10:00 - [113] Originally by: Chowdown Originally by: Discorporation In the rare case you get scrambled to hell, it's nice to be able to take out a few defenders. Fair point, mid slots then then, ravens can do all dmg mods and warp cores.., amar can fit a massive tank, but not sustain nonstop, and they could still fit dmg mods just less sensor boosters, and it makes it much easier to scramble amarr/gallente vs minmatar/caldari if they are rolling on all warp cores to just not pvp at all. just trying to see things equal'ish
Mikelangelo	Posted - 2005.03.31 20:14:00 - [114] Warp Core Stabilizers are not overpowered. They take up significant amounts of CPU which pretty much gimp any setup, which again leads to flight. The MOST overpowered module right now is the remote sensor dampener. No real limit on its effectiveness, other than the lockon range of the dampening ship. It takes 2 sensor boosters to overcome one remote dampener, thereby gimping anybody's setup. I'm glad the new ECM patch is going into effect.
YuuKnow	Posted - 2005.03.31 20:20:00 - [115] I wish webifyers were also high slotted.
Burning Chrome	Posted - 2005.03.31 20:27:00 - [116] Hello, I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I'd suggest that the fitting req's of wcs increased as u stacked them, so u could fit 1 and have a combat capable ship, maybe u have to make sacrifices if u want to fit 2 wcs, by about 3 - 4 u have to remove all ur high slot gear to fit them. Another solution would be to give caldari ships (since they are the main culprits IMO) something usefull for their low slots, stacking 7% dmg mods is hardly rewarding. When cap relays were switched to penalise shield "boost" rather than recharge, shield relays should have been switched to increase shield boost rather than recharge, since the 2 modules are mirror images. That would allow caldari ships to fit offence and defence (basically low slot shield amps) in thier low slots and to fill up the lows with wcs will be sacrificing oportunities. - Burning Chrome - Blind Vengeance
Jonkai	Posted - 2005.03.31 21:02:00 - [117] Yep, agreed they need changing, as others have said med or high slots would be the way forward. Can't see why CCP can't fix or add features that were coming with Exodus before adding new features such as this? (talking about the new Scrambling / ECM changes)
Lord Zap	Posted - 2005.03.31 21:30:00 - [118] Signed Chowdown, I haven't bothered reading any of the half-assed replies, needless to say 75% of them are complete drivel. But yes please nerf WCS because I want to kill more people. Smb gg thanx and yes i'm **ed. This useless post was brought to you by Lord Zap, useless pirate, fkwit and leader of most carebearish-corp in EVE. And yes, im drunk. /Zap
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.03.31 23:22:00 - [119] Originally by: nahtoh Since Chowdown seems to be genuine .... You think that the boss of Shinra might be a fake Some one pick me up please. The point being made is "NOT" to do with 0.4 gate camping, it has primarily to do with ships still being capable of dealing maximum damage while still having a belly full of WCSs. It's about 0.0 combat, it's about getting into a real fight, it is not, by a long chalk, about scrambling your Bestower/Iteron/Mammoth. Jeez, some people think that the 0.0 players are n00bs. Well sorry to tell you , but the 0.0 player are NOT n00bs and can survive and fight in 0.0 exactly due to the fact that they aren't. There are slightly different rules when "living" in 0.0, and before you go "Oh pirate/carebear conflict" again, think about what someone is saying, that has been playing the game since beta (you know, before release?) and why he feels it is time to speak. A load of pathetic spotty 13 year olds "spamming" a thread with their destructive comments instead of putting their head on and thinking about what is being discussed and making something called "constructive critisism" is what defines a lot of the posters on these boards. Just reading a few of the replies enables you to figure out the poster's mental (if not physical) age. Go figure. And, Yes Chow, I agree, you shouldn't be able to do serious damage and chicken sh*t out thanks to a belly full of WCSs when you are on the receiving end. -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Xeris	Posted - 2005.04.01 00:55:00 - [120] Bump up the CPU, right now its just a mattter of swapping tech II damage mods with warp cores. Seems like everyone we are fighting is flying a stabageddon or a stabapoc. Too lazy to get my sig changed
Nyk0n	Posted - 2005.04.01 02:31:00 - [121] Quote: 1. Making it class specific, i.e. BS need to use BS class WCS, cruisers use cruiser class etc. Surely it is only realistic that a larger vessel would require a more powerful stabilizer, which of course would have much higher fitting requirements. By that logic, you would also need a bigger scrammbler, surely that Tiny frigate couldnt stop a BS?????
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.04.01 02:49:00 - [122] Originally by: Nyk0n By that logic, you would also need a bigger scrammbler, surely that Tiny frigate couldnt stop a BS????? Some merit it that, but consider that a BS class WS can (should?) do it at extreme range considering the power it uses. So if a BS scrambles you in a frigate/cruiser you're toast. If a frigate "tries" to WS a BS it's drones will make sure you're toast (if he can lock fast enough). Very good point. It make the whole WS/WCS theme very interesting. -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Clementina	Posted - 2005.04.01 03:59:00 - [123] The stabs are fine, they take up a slot that could have been used for a damage mod or nanofiber, they really only work with two or more (unless you come up against a frigate and with a lone distruptor). Stab-centric warfare is annoying to the target, but stoppable (as proven by Chowdown of Shinra) If they have 8 stabs, they don't have 8 heatsink II's, and are planning to run even before they undock.
Lysandra Moore	Posted - 2005.04.01 04:47:00 - [124] Originally by: DoR Founder I understand that this topic is not about stoping player to run away in a "travel" setup but more about player that use offive setup with minimal risk of been cought with the use the WCS. I dont think that changing the slot of WCS is the way to go. I agree that Med slot have more figthing purpose then low because of the EW but low slot is also very usefull for dmg mods, cap recharges and tanking. I think WCS should have weapons rate of fire penality to both Turrets and Missile launcher. Let say a rate of fire penality of 25% that keep stacking with the previous penality. 10sec * 25% = 12.5sec * 25%(another WCS) = 15.625sec etc ... This will have a huge impact on fighting with WCS and will leave those who are fitting many WCS to travel without big penality since they rarely fit weapons. They want to go in and out of system fast without fighting. So far, I like this idea the best. It reduces the effectiveness of combat without hindering an industrials ability to avoid gankage, since they are already loosing out on cargo space by using a WCS.
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2005.04.01 04:50:00 - [125] make wcs highslot, so u have to gimp ur pvp setup
WildHope	Posted - 2005.04.01 10:27:00 - [126] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists make wcs highslot, so u have to gimp ur pvp setup But some ships (E.G Dominix) would then get a severe advantage, as they still have decent offense (drones), combined with a good low slot tank, +mid slot e-warfare. Then with hi-slots full of stabs they're very difficult to stop. Imagine 3 of those landing on top of you? Simply moving the mods to another slot doesn't solve the problem Wildhope ShinRa Curse Alliance (may it last 1000 generations)
nahtoh	Posted - 2005.04.01 15:30:00 - [127] Originally by: Jaabaa Prime Originally by: nahtoh Since Chowdown seems to be genuine .... You think that the boss of Shinra might be a fake Some one pick me up please. Ok funny enuff I did not think he was a ALT, but genuinely trying to improve gameplay (it matters not that I agree/disagree with what he says), instead of the whiney arsed so called pirates that normally seem to be posting this subject... So perhaps what I said was unclear, but Chowdown seemed to get where I was coming from... My suggestions were off the cuff but perhaps you might want to actuall comment on them rather than your missunderstanding of what I posted? "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself" (credits to mcallister TCS)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.