| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Meridius
   |
Posted - 2005.04.14 16:32:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Meridius on 14/04/2005 16:33:19
Edited by: Meridius on 14/04/2005 16:32:36
Ok so it seems that WCS are not getting a nerf anytime soon despite the fact that they are overpowered.
Warp Core Stabalizers:
30CPU, (24 for best named) ZERO capacitor useage and unlimited range. Unlimited range? You can get scrambled from any range and it doesn't matter, the WCS will be 100% effective. These modules have ZERO drawbacks, no stacking penalty or anything.
Warp scramblers use cap and are very close range (7.5km), warp disruptors use a lot of cap (frig/cruiser) and have a 20km range but half the strength of a scrambler.
These modules have drawbacks like real balanced modules are suppose to. Unfortunately the module they are designed to counter do not have any drawbacks!
The fact that ships have more lowslots on average then midslots does not help.
Midslot average for all battleships: 4.875
Lowslot average for all battleships: 6.375
I realize that CCP is busy with other things atm, perhaps balancing WCS is something that requires a lot of effort (probably will).
As a temporary fix i suggsest this. Vastly reduce or kill all cap use from warp scramblers and disruptors.
Cap isn't an issue when using WCS, it shouldn't be an issue to counter one.
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 17:00:00 -
[2]
  Originally by: Damien Vox
In other words you want the guy in the hauler who wants nothing to do with PvP and instead wants to mine or trade to have no way of getting away from you because YOU want to kill him regardless of what he thinks...
PvP is bad enough as is in the non-consensual department. WCS's are a -1 to warp scram strength and honestly if you know what your doing you can kill a ship before it has to warp off.
I don't give a **** about indies, they hardly survive me as is.
Moving wcs to highslots only benefits haulers. Give indies more highslots and boom, you are warp core stable and able to load up on those nice expanders.
Reducing cap on scramblers/disruptors really doesn't affect indies anyway, indies die fast so cap isn't really an issue to begin with in this scenario.
Perhaps you should read my post again
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 17:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Weirda
Edited by: Weirda on 14/04/2005 16:53:01
Agree - and disagree... 
The WCS is not an offensive module (though you argument make it sound as though it is)... When you use bad logic to argue a point, it make you argument look flawed...]
I don't see how i made it sound like an offensive module. It's a module that has a purpose and has is 100% effective with no penalty at all.
All other lowslot modules have penalties.
Cargo expanders slow you down
Nanofibers kill your structure
Overdrives kill your cargo
Armour hardners use cap and have stacking penalties
Damage mods have stacking penalties + high cpu use + increase cap useage from non-projectile weapons
Tracking enhancers have stacking penalties
Cap relays kill shield boosting
WCS have no penalties.
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 17:15:00 -
[4]
All chance based scrambling was taken out, this thread has nothing to do with that.
This thread isn't about a complete solution either, just something hopefully CCP can throw our way quickly
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 17:37:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Cherok
Originally by: Baun
I have not had enough time to test this out:
But doesn't the new patch make WCs less effective? Before when someone had 8 WCs in his low slots you needed at least 3 tacklers to get to him before he warped, now said BS is not even neccesarily safe from 1 tackler, because the scramble formula is no longer simple arithmatic.
Is this really true? How does it pan out in application?
Well...look at it like this. Yes, chances are you can be scrambled...but with 5 sec. duration, the dice just keep rolling. So lets say it takes you 30 seconds to kill said ship with gank squad. That guy keeps rolling the dice 6 times. If at any point, your scramble fails, he warps out, kill is lost.
This works AGAINT the tacklers because even if they do have enough scramblers to hold someone, chances are they will get away now...since the dice keep rolling. Eventually he will get away...just a matter of time. Where before he was NOT getting away...
There is no chance based scrambling.
Everything WCS related is 100% effective within optimal.
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 18:01:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Damien Vox
Last I checked this thread was about the WCS not about 0.0. I am well aware of 0.0 and its rules, my point was the player who wants nothing to do with PvP shouldn't have to PvP unless he wants to.
Your point of non-consentual pvp makes no sense.
If you don't want to PVP you don't have to. Sadly, you can make isk hand over fist in 0.5+ and be perfectly safe.
So whats the problem again?
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.14 22:50:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Originally by: RollinDutchMasters
I have always thought that WCS needed a ship agility penalty.
The drawback to using them is that while you need more ships to scramble you to get you stopped, you take longer to get to warp, giving more ships a shot at scrambling (or killing) you.
That's the option I'd go for too.
Either that or a 10% sig. radius nerf per WCS module.
I like rollins idea as well. Your idea makes more sense but it's not really much of a penalty if you consider that battleships are the major WCS abusers. It's not like they are too small to hit
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.16 00:04:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Meridius on 16/04/2005 00:04:24
Originally by: Sternburg Export
So as i stated before. give scramblers and webber a stackingpenality then you can gimp WCS. as long as people can use more then 1 Scrambler without any penality this whole thread is senceless.
It¦s just a cry for easy ganks. /me thinks at 1000+ discusions about Instajumps.
Same ****, different content. > Call for easy ganks
Scramblers have drawbacks *snip, they have a 7.5km range and use CAP. They also occupy midslots which are generally more valuable then lowslots. Disruptors have a 20km range, +1 strength and uses a lot of cap.
I don't care about  's who don't want to fight, if they dont want to fight and only want run i'm ok with that.
What ****es me off is 5 WCS ravens that actually PVP and are next to impossible to tackle. I just want these modules less appealing to WCS PVPERS. If you fit a WCS, your offense should suffer greatly.
A raven with 5 PDU IIs and 5 WCS have absolutely no difference in damage output.
flaming removed - Sherkaner
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.18 19:26:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Meridius on 18/04/2005 19:27:34
Originally by: Helmut 314
WCS have pretty harsh fitting demands for all ships except Battleships and indys. 30 CPU on a frigate can be between 25-15% of the total CPU available. Using up a lowslot can also be a hard tradeoff on some cruisers and battleships.
Uh, WCS use the same amount of cpu damage modifiers do. Frigs can fit damage mods easily so
WCS also come in named flavours that go as low as using 24 cpu.
There are named tech1 damage mods but they use more cpu then tech II damage mods 
________________________________________________________
|
| |
|