| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ohmite
   |
Posted - 2005.06.20 12:23:00 -
[31]
Why not make the WCS be either size dependant - It shields your warp core which must be different size on a frig and BS so
Suggestion 1 is to make 1MN WCS 10MN WCS and 100MN WCS and obviously the fitting requirments are scaled up. It seems stupid that the WCS at present has same fitting req on a frig and a BS
Suggestion 2 make the fitting requirements a % of pg and/or cpu of ship being fitted. This would require no different WCS just change fitting requirements.
so say a wcs takes 5% CPU and 5% PG so fitting 8 WCS means you lose 40% of your CPU.
The figures are just a stab in the dark but it would mean you either fit for travel or fit for fighting and not both which seems to be peoples main complaint of the current situation.
|
Mistress LadyAir
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 12:26:00 -
[32]
Whenever I snipe, I always warp to a covert ops ship. I hate using the same bookmark twice. It drives the enemy crazy because they can never guess which direction I will be coming in from and it also gives me the advantage of knowing what I'm up against when I warp in.
 Originally by: Elve Sorrow
Bubbling every gate has zero use aswell, since the snipers can warp to a Covert Ops, or to pre-made bookmarks.
|
Derisor
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 13:18:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Typherin laidai
Right basicly... this whole post then is just a rant because their some nice people ganking people where-ever the hell you are and you cant find a way around theyre completely legitimate tactic.... and theyre winning and you dont feel thats fair ?
They are using a cheeseball tactic that is pathetic and not in the spirit of the game IMHO. If this is what the developers intend then by all means keep the stabs the way they are. However, I highly doubt that the devs want the game to boil down to 10 BS gank squads sitting popoing individual ships and running whenever some force shows up. Nor do I think the devs intend these gankers to be invulnerable.
Nor do I think that you are still sober if you think a safe can be busted with a 2 minute window.
The rest of your post is posturing and chest beating. Keep the featthers in because no one is interested in how good you think you are.
---------
The words "Exciting" and "Safe" are mutually exclusive; pick one. |
Derisor
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 13:19:00 -
[34]
Originally by: The Enslaver
Edited by: The Enslaver on 20/06/2005 11:33:36
Simple solution.
High slot, with more CPU use. Make them need 80 CPU, and take a high slot each. Possible a -10% range, tracking, cargo cap (else all indies will fit out with all stabs in high) and agility penalty also.
Upgrade the haulers to have 4 high slots each, same number of turrets etc so no change on that front.
Problem solved.
Oh I think indys should be able to fit all stabs. They trade stabs or cargo capacity. I just dont agree with gank squad snipers being able to gank and then stab out. IE: I dont agree with anyone being quasi invulnerable to a large superior force.
---------
The words "Exciting" and "Safe" are mutually exclusive; pick one. |
Eirelynn
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 13:19:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Eirelynn on 20/06/2005 13:20:14
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
Originally by: Marie Sklodowska
no. You're wrong.
The timer to be changed is the amount of time when you've been warp scrambled to when u dissappear. If they were changing the regular timer of logging off and everytime 20 min have to pass, then I'm sure they'll have lots of people quit the game. I know I will because there are times where I have to go, now, and have no choice but to log right away without docking.
No, you are wrong.
Anyone who is engaged in PvP will have that 30minute timer. Which means, if you shoot at someone or get shot at, you better have some safespots lined up for the next 30 minutes.
Are you sure? Here's what Oveur wrote in response to a comment in the dev blog.
Originally by: Oveur
unless you are actually in combat while you disconnect AND warp scrambled, this won't change anything for you.
|
Derisor
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 13:22:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Carl Jidona
Why not start mapping alignment routes they use then put warp bubbles up midway through them to drop them out of warp.
I would also use bubbles at any gates with squads there, that way when they came in they will get bounced back which will give tacklers time to web and the snipers with damage mods to take them out in a big way.
From what I understand a bubble wont yank you out of warp, merely prevent you from entering it.
---------
The words "Exciting" and "Safe" are mutually exclusive; pick one. |
Redblade
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 13:28:00 -
[37]
Can't be botherd to read it all so if it's been said before nwm my post but i'll throw in my usual sugestion to the wcs stacking penalty.
Give it a +10% inertia penalty per stab above one fitted, makes fittings with 1-3 still viable and if u want more then that u have to compensate with nanofibers/inertia stabilizers or be realy realy slow at aligning.
Killboard |
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 13:39:00 -
[38]
Derisor,
The problem with your ideas is that they change depending on what is flavour of the month with you.
Your personal peev is a small group of wcs poofs so you call for a nerf.
A while back it was something else.
Just because its lame doesnt mean it NEEDS a nerf. It's done by a small minority of people. It's boring and they will probably get bored of it.
If you want to stop them just name them and we can point and laugh when we see them in space. Its probably going to be more effective than crying "nerf" yet again.
|
Lig Lira
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 13:42:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Derisor
Addendum: YOu cant make them take 80 cpu as the haulers and non combat ships dont have massive cpu.
uhm, have you seen how much CPU haulers have?
|
Derisor
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 13:52:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Derisor,
The problem with your ideas is that they change depending on what is flavour of the month with you.
Your personal peev is a small group of wcs poofs so you call for a nerf.
A while back it was something else.
Just because its lame doesnt mean it NEEDS a nerf. It's done by a small minority of people. It's boring and they will probably get bored of it.
If you want to stop them just name them and we can point and laugh when we see them in space. Its probably going to be more effective than crying "nerf" yet again.
*yawn*
Your pathetic insults to me aside, they wont get bored of it because they can pop ships with little to no danger to themselves.
I wont name them but some will probably guess who Im talking about.
---------
The words "Exciting" and "Safe" are mutually exclusive; pick one. |
Aalekzander Sevvari
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 14:00:00 -
[41]
Quote:
High slot
Quote:
high slot
Quote:
High slot
Quote:
high slot
Quote:
High slot
No. Stop mentioning the high slot already. Are you all even thinking about logical ship structure? What are the high slots? They are mountable points or sunken points on the top level of the ship. Nowhere near the warp core of a ship. Middle slots are still not at the core of a ship, but instead embedded into the electronics areas. LOW SLOTS are the modules placed deepest within the, generally sitting right beside the powegrid and warp core.
Asking to put them in mid or high slots doesn't make any sense from a logical OR role playing point.
|
TFC Grimwill
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 14:14:00 -
[42]
Penalizing ships who use a lot of wcs sounnds like an excellent idea. Create penalties so that wcs users would be ineffective in combat. That would be a GREAT idea.
The person who argued that wcs are the opposition of disruptors and thus as effective as any module in combat is more than a little misguided. Would you be able to load a scorpion with 8 disruptors and hope to be a formidable opponent? NO NOT AT ALL. However, you can load a BS with wcs and still be able to carry a full rack of turrest and have sensor boosters and tracking computers to ensure good hits at decent lock times. The argument is a week one.
WCS should be a module used for people who want to avoid combat, completely. Otherwise, you have these situations where one side becomes nearly impossible to counter. In terms of pvp combat, a one-sided scenario, like the current situation, is bad form and very bad for the game.
|
Reiisha
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 14:16:00 -
[43]
Increase WCS CPU usage to 60 or 80 tf. Problem solved.
Gamersland.nl, DE site voor PC gaming! |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 14:18:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Reiisha
Increase WCS CPU usage to 60 or 80 tf. Problem solved.
Chance based scrambling ftw.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 14:46:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Aalekzander Sevvari
No. Stop mentioning the high slot already. Are you all even thinking about logical ship structure? What are the high slots? They are mountable points or sunken points on the top level of the ship. Nowhere near the warp core of a ship. Middle slots are still not at the core of a ship, but instead embedded into the electronics areas. LOW SLOTS are the modules placed deepest within the, generally sitting right beside the powegrid and warp core.
So you're saying that armour repairers and hardeners sit in the middle of the ship?
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
spiritfa11
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 14:56:00 -
[46]
How about this... If you fit even 1 Warp Core Stabilizer you get a penalty of -8 Turret Hardpoints, and -8 Missle Hardpoints. Problem solved.
I also support the tracking and locking interference referenced in the first post.
---------------------
|
The Cosmopolite
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 15:00:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Aalekzander Sevvari
No. Stop mentioning the high slot already. Are you all even thinking about logical ship structure? What are the high slots? They are mountable points or sunken points on the top level of the ship. Nowhere near the warp core of a ship. Middle slots are still not at the core of a ship, but instead embedded into the electronics areas. LOW SLOTS are the modules placed deepest within the, generally sitting right beside the powegrid and warp core.
So you're saying that armour repairers and hardeners sit in the middle of the ship?
You're right but it's an irrelevence which slot they go in in reality, especially if the issue is gangs of WCS-equipped BSs - they can sacrifice enough highs to be almost untouchable and fill their lows with damage mods and the gang will still cause pain.
A CPU cost of 60-80 just puts the modules out of reach of a number of low CPU ships completely unfairly. (I'm aware some people regard the WCS as almost akin to cheating but I would argue that the 1 or 2 WCS on a guerilla warfare type setup is perfectly legitimate and undercuts the argument that a WCS is 'only for those who don't want to fight'.)
As Discorp says, we need to actually try warp scrambling/stabilising that uses a similar system to the new EW. (Which, again, we would have experienced in full for many weeks and probably have tweaks in the forthcoming patch by now if not for the whines that killed it...)
Cosmo
Jericho Fraction - CEO: Jade Constantine |
Sarkos
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 15:52:00 -
[48]
We had that problem with a person that loved to use a Tempest to gank smaller ships. Eventual solution was having everyone equipt a scrambler. His 4 WCS did not work against a scramble strength of 14.
Either free the slaves or we will come and get them.
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 15:59:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Derisor
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Derisor,
The problem with your ideas is that they change depending on what is flavour of the month with you.
Your personal peev is a small group of wcs poofs so you call for a nerf.
A while back it was something else.
Just because its lame doesnt mean it NEEDS a nerf. It's done by a small minority of people. It's boring and they will probably get bored of it.
If you want to stop them just name them and we can point and laugh when we see them in space. Its probably going to be more effective than crying "nerf" yet again.
*yawn*
Your pathetic insults to me aside, they wont get bored of it because they can pop ships with little to no danger to themselves.
I wont name them but some will probably guess who Im talking about.
It's a statement of fact not a pathetic insult.
"OMG, I dont like something - rewrite the gamecode!!!!ONE111!!!"
|
Yith Solarius
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 16:13:00 -
[50]
I read a very good post a while back about insta's, but it also have a very good solution to this problem as well and it involved giving a charge up delay to warp engines - so a shuttle could warp instantaniously but a bs could take up to 15secs to warp even if it was alligned.
Of cource you can and should get mods to reduce this value but your sniper ship is gonna have to think long and hard about what mods to fit, fast warp and run the risk of getting cought by an inty, lots of stabs and run the risk of getting nailed before he hits warp or go for a ballance and risk loasing either way
***
check out my ideas for Concord logic |
Taalgar
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 16:41:00 -
[51]
I still like the idea of having different sizes of WCS, ie stabs that are frig size, stabs for cruisers and stabs for BS size vessels. It doesn't sound too far fetched in my opinion, as a large vessel should have a larger warp field, so why shouldn't you need higher powergrid Stabs to re-inforce a large warp field ?
The powergrid requirements of each type of stab can reflect the powergrid size of each size and class of ship. For example a BS WCS could cost 2000 - 2500 powergrid, this doesn't prevent people using them stacked when running around in a travel kit setup. but if they want to use them in a combat setup, its going to severely gimp their available PG for firepower. This also allows haulers/transports/freighters to stack their WCS if they want, as firepower isn't really an issue.
The other option is, make them the same as EW modules, whereby they might not ALWAYS work, and the more u stack the higher the penalty for them not to sucessfully re-inforce the warp field? I'm not as keen on this idea as it will also effect the people that prefer the industrial/carebear side of the game. (yes us PvPers can be nice to carebears sometimes  )
--------------------------------------------
Brian: "Do you think i should lose the waistecoat ?"
Tim: "No i think you should burn it, coz if you lose it.....you might find it again!" |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 17:10:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Mistress LadyAir
Edited by: Mistress LadyAir on 20/06/2005 12:20:54
If you are going to use a covert op ship to try to gank the ganker, then you need to have the covert op ship bump the ganker's ship out of alignment. <snip>
Problem is, the OTHER 5+ snipers then destroy you. And you MIGHT get the BS. You WILL lose the covert and other ships.
Say NO to target painters |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 17:11:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 20/06/2005 17:12:16
dp 4tl
Say NO to target painters |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 17:12:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 20/06/2005 17:13:17
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Derisor,
The problem with your ideas is that they change depending on what is flavour of the month with you.
Yea, except this time he's actually hit on something worth fixing. Go figure.
I'd make them reduce optimal range, by say 5%.
Say NO to target painters |
Yolan
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 17:28:00 -
[55]
I agree with the original poster, fitting full rack of lows with WCS and sniping has got to be one of the pussayist things any combat pilot can do but unfortunately there will always be gimps playing this game. However i do think having the option to fit one or two wcs as part of a tactical combat setup is a viable option. I suggest that you should be allowed to fit two wcs unpenalised, then for each further wcs fitted your sensor range should be reduced by 50% which cannot be countered by sensor boosters. This would still leave haulers able to fit a full rack of wcs but would not be a viable option for a combat ship
|
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 17:44:00 -
[56]
100 cpu, wont see alot of 5 wcs raven then will you ;).
>_> |
Plymer Ization
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 18:19:00 -
[57]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
A CPU cost of 60-80 just puts the modules out of reach of a number of low CPU ships completely unfairly.
This could be solved by giving the necessary ships (IE Indys and Mining Barges) special abilities, reducing the CPU usage by a percentage to bring it down to what is currently needed (or close to it).
The increased targeting time/reduced tracking seems like an extra idea that could perhaps be used to solve problems the original poster is facing.
|
Corvus Dove
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 18:51:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Discorporation
Originally by: Reiisha
Increase WCS CPU usage to 60 or 80 tf. Problem solved.
Chance based scrambling ftw.
Agreed, but the chance needs to be on the WCS. Applying it to both modules just leads to tons of scramble failures on ships with no WCS, as we learned on SiSi.
WCS are dirt cheap, so they need to be cheap equipment. Diceroll should activate only if the target has WCS, and there should be t1, named, and t2 units that give you better and better percentages to stabilize. Stack penalty should be -50% of the module effective percentage, to keep 4 modules from reaching that full 100% mark.
"You Griefer!!!" = "You Doodyhead!!!" |
Messerschmitt facility
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 19:09:00 -
[59]
Either chance of scrambling, wtich would be very exciting,
Either limit the WCS to 4, as the MWD/AB have been limited to 1.
_________________________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking...
|
spiritfa11
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 19:18:00 -
[60]
Do you guys think that a -8 penalty to turret and missle hardpoint is a little harsh for equipping a warp core stab? It allows people who want to run to run, and forces the people who want to fight to be vulnerable.
Perhaps make so its only a -2 penalty per warp core stab. For ships that have no missle hardpoints it takes away the full two turret points. On ships that have both missle and turret hardpoints it takes away 1 from each hardpoint until only one type is left in which case it begins taking a full 2 hardpoints from the hardpoint type leftover.
Anyway I would like some sort of harsh penalty. If the devs are looking into changing instas because they make you near invulnerable then they should definately consider warp core stabs because those also make you near invulnerable.
---------------------
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |