| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

FlakKer
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 00:41:00 -
[91]
Edited by: FlakKer on 11/08/2005 00:41:42 alt 4tw
|

Kaeten
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 00:42:00 -
[92]
Originally by: mirel yirrin We need something like this. so a geddon could fit 8 stabs but it wouldn't be able to fit anything else.
Is that a setup? lol
|

Plim
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 00:42:00 -
[93]
Warm cream sandwiches are bad. -----------------
|

Wizard
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 09:14:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Nyxus Edited by: Nyxus on 11/08/2005 00:21:49 I think there is a lot of confusion here on *WHY* a lot of pvper's hate wcs. You have to differentiate between pvpers and gankers.
If someone wants to use 8 stabbies on a travel setup no one cares. I myself have put 8 stabbies on a geddon I bought to try to get home safely to refit. That's fine. No one cares.
The problem is that gankers are smart. Get 3-5 BS loaded with 5 stabbies sitting at long range outside a station. Anything that undocks gets pwned. Anything gets close to them and they warp away. And its incredibly frustrating when you FINALLY sneak 3 ceptors to warp in on top of them and with 4 points of scramble they....<poof> warp off.
You can't catch them. They just wait for a the timer to run out and log. When the system quiets, they log back on rinse and repeat. The stabbies don't effect their combat efficiency. And you can't catch ONE of them without 4+ tacklers. How do you catch someone with 5 stabbies aligned and up to speed? Answer: You can't, unless the ganker is stupid.
Have you ever tried fighting a small group with ALL of the enemy have 5+ stabbies? I have, it sucks. Maybe thier damage isn't optimized, but its still so effective it doesnt matter. And unless you bring MASSIVE overkill fleets you cant kill them before they warp. Bumping is the ONLY way you have a chance to stop them. And fights with 5 to 1 odds are just lame. I dont want to blob, I want a good fight.
No one wants to mess with travel setups. Even 1 or 2 stabs are fine. Anyone who is a pvper hates combat capable ships of 4+ stabbies. This is what has to change.
Travel (relatively) safely, or fight. No more combat with 5 Stabbies.
Nyxus
OMG its like someone sucked my thoughts from my head
|

Deros
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 16:00:00 -
[95]
nyxus, i think that your post completely describes the problems, people think everyone to be "gankers" rather than wanting pvp.
D
|

Imran
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 16:24:00 -
[96]
highslot plz.
|

StokolaN
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 16:52:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Baleine4Nerver And there you have it, the penalty for fitting is less low slots for damage mods etc.
if you want to stop people leaving a battle, use warp scramblers.
Agreed! The penalty for using stabs is that your setup is now compromised in battle. I'm surprised people are really worried about the pvp capabilities of a stabbed up ship. If you die to a ship with 8 stabs you deserve it, if they get away before you kill them, that's what they fitted their ship for and that's fine also. The reason they had to warp was probably because they were stabbed up in the first place and it compromised their tank or didn't allow them to use dmg mods. _
|

Dukath
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 18:11:00 -
[98]
For those who want warp cores back as medslot, remember that webbies and scramblers were highslot at that time.
Although now that i think about it, it might make interceptors more intercepting ships and less damage ships... And less battleships will fit scramblers since they will have to give up a highslot or even 2
|

DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 18:52:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Hellspawn666 Stabs are balanced wizard ure argument kidna sucks teh guy was using stabs that means that his setup was not as powerful had he not been using stabs u might of been the one who died. Stabs make ure setup ALOT weaker then the enmeis in a 1v1 situation tehre is not 5 stabed raven that can wtfpwn frig anymore so its fairly balanced.
Dont change a system that already works, if i fit 2 stabs on my sacrilige i cant tank half as well as anotehr sacrilige this means i am more likly to lose but it makes me less likly to be ganked its all about penalty the 30 cpu is already high enough penalty. If your going to give it a PG cost then lower the cpu usage.
/agree I Die A lot in this vid
|

Haggislander
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 18:52:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Nyxus Edited by: Nyxus on 11/08/2005 00:21:49 I think there is a lot of confusion here on *WHY* a lot of pvper's hate wcs. You have to differentiate between pvpers and gankers.
If someone wants to use 8 stabbies on a travel setup no one cares. I myself have put 8 stabbies on a geddon I bought to try to get home safely to refit. That's fine. No one cares.
The problem is that gankers are smart. Get 3-5 BS loaded with 5 stabbies sitting at long range outside a station. Anything that undocks gets pwned. Anything gets close to them and they warp away. And its incredibly frustrating when you FINALLY sneak 3 ceptors to warp in on top of them and with 4 points of scramble they....<poof> warp off.
You can't catch them. They just wait for a the timer to run out and log. When the system quiets, they log back on rinse and repeat. The stabbies don't effect their combat efficiency. And you can't catch ONE of them without 4+ tacklers. How do you catch someone with 5 stabbies aligned and up to speed? Answer: You can't, unless the ganker is stupid.
Have you ever tried fighting a small group with ALL of the enemy have 5+ stabbies? I have, it sucks. Maybe thier damage isn't optimized, but its still so effective it doesnt matter. And unless you bring MASSIVE overkill fleets you cant kill them before they warp. Bumping is the ONLY way you have a chance to stop them. And fights with 5 to 1 odds are just lame. I dont want to blob, I want a good fight.
No one wants to mess with travel setups. Even 1 or 2 stabs are fine. Anyone who is a pvper hates combat capable ships of 4+ stabbies. This is what has to change.
Travel (relatively) safely, or fight. No more combat with 5 Stabbies.
Nyxus
AMEN!
|

Haggislander
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 18:55:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Moghydin
Originally by: Haggislander
Hi,
The solution to all your junk above is to STAY OUT OF DANGEROUS AREAS. I dont want to hear any RL (crappy) analogy, this is a space game.
CCP has provided you with TONS of .5+ space to roam in worry free (for the most part). IF you want to play with the big boys, you need to understand the consiquences. If you want only consentual pvp (***) go play WOW or someother cardboard cutout, k?
I see the whinage about WCS as another attempt from the PvP comunity to further nerf the empire space and empire pilots. And I'm afraid that as in the case with lvl 4 mission nerf, you'll get what you ask. I don't want to start that risk/reward thing. It's off-topic and it's clear that gankers have only reward/no risk situation. Many talk about frustration when a prey escapes. I feel your pain. But what about frustration when you lose your ship? Why doesn't it count? Or is it less frustrating? Any ship can have only up to 8 WCS starength. Tackler can throw at him up to 16 scrambling strength. Where's the problem? Use tacklers.
In PvP a ship with 4 WCS has either reduced dmg output or reduced tanking. So, no problem here too. And who said that a road to fight is a one way ticket if you lose? Why the possibility of retreat from a battle should be nerfed? Having non-standard ship setups is part of fun and challenge. Using different modules smart and tactical manuvering (sp) in battle is a good thing. If you want an arcade style shoot em all game, go and play Quake with some 13 year old m3gawtfpwnage kid.
I so tire of the usual knee-jeck assumptions by players liek yourself. The simple fact is tossing labels out in an argument means you have no argument. Your very premise is a flawed POV. Ganks tent to happen because you need to have overwhelming firepower to kill-before-warp. Nobody likes to play that way that I know.
The point we are trying to drum across here is that fitting many WCS on a combat setup needs a fixing. Just like the uber raven needed a fixing. Understand this now?
|

DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 18:57:00 -
[102]
Edited by: DrunkenOne on 11/08/2005 18:58:47
Originally by: Deros Edited by: Deros on 10/08/2005 19:37:29 guys, take a deep breath and calm down, i have the firm belief that they need only small tweaking.
No increased changes to fitting, No negative effects on CAP
and most definately
No to making their effect chance based. (yes i tested it, and i think the current system is better, apart from the power of stabs).
simply give them a stacking penalty, which should only kick in after 3 are fitted, and then give them a negative effect on the agility of the ship that they are fitted on.
at the moment they are overpowered, but people need to get less bent out of shape about it.
yes i pvp, no i am not an alt, and no i dont want an i win button either.
Deros
This is the best idea yet. But make it a stacking penalty after 2. And possibly increase fitting to 50 cpu. This would make it so even if you had say 8 stabs on, making your ship worthless, you would effectively have 4 or something. And 5 stab ravens would = 3 or something like that. I Die A lot in this vid
|

danneh
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 20:03:00 -
[103]
If u make them 100 cpu not many pvp setups will include one that means 3 dmg mods or 1 stab and travel setups will still be ok but dont see any geddons fitting 8 though.
|

Verone
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 20:16:00 -
[104]
Make them midslot again, slightly more CPU usage, and give them a stacking penalty like damage mods have.
MY NAME IS VERONE OF SNIGG, AND I AM GOING TO KILL YOU TILL YOU DIE FROM IT! |

Moghydin
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 20:37:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Verone Make them midslot again, slightly more CPU usage, and give them a stacking penalty like damage mods have.
No problem, but make scramblers stack on target too, also make named and factional stabs at 2 and 3 strength. And plz stop asking CCP for "I win" button in ganking. Well, not all PvP in Eve is ganking, as I was able to see it myself today, and not everyone engages only when he is 100% sure he will win, but MOST PvP in Eve is gank, so if WCS nerfed, ganked gate can be only passed if you bring a huge battleship fleet there - not good at all.
|

Reptar
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 21:34:00 -
[106]
We need to encourage more people into 0.0, nerfing the Stabs will only prevent this
|

Saladin
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 21:35:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Verone Make them midslot again, slightly more CPU usage, and give them a stacking penalty like damage mods have.
I think making them mid-slot like it was before is sufficient, without cpu or stacking penalties. When they were mid-slot I only ever came across one guy who used them in combat ----
|

Crushing Abyss
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 21:42:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Reptar We need to encourage more people into 0.0, nerfing the Stabs will only prevent this
Just curious, why do you want to encourage more people into 0.0? Besides joining an alliance corp and PvPing what's there to do out there that you can't already do in fed space?
|

Haggislander
|
Posted - 2005.08.12 01:05:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Moghydin
Originally by: Verone Make them midslot again, slightly more CPU usage, and give them a stacking penalty like damage mods have.
No problem, but make scramblers stack on target too, also make named and factional stabs at 2 and 3 strength. And plz stop asking CCP for "I win" button in ganking. Well, not all PvP in Eve is ganking, as I was able to see it myself today, and not everyone engages only when he is 100% sure he will win, but MOST PvP in Eve is gank, so if WCS nerfed, ganked gate can be only passed if you bring a huge battleship fleet there - not good at all.
Scams already have a range and heavy cap usage(for frigs). I want you to understand something already; NOBODY THINKS THEY NEED TO BE NERFED FOR TRAVEL, JUST FOR COMBAT.
Could you please try to understand the above and also understand it has nothing to do with gankage as true gankage is a kill so fast they have no need to be scrambled.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |