| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eyeshadow
   |
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:55:00 -
[1]
Make them:
High slot
Activation required (15 cap per 10 second cycle)
increase fitting to 60 CPU
And do it now please.
You wanna fight, fight. You wanna run, run. Being able to do both is retarded and has been said many many times. Please change it 
thanks
My Latest Vid: Linky |
Inor
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:56:00 -
[2]
Ran from ya did they? 
|
Agnar Koladrov
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:58:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Eyeshadow
Make them:
High slot
Activation required (15 cap per 10 second cycle)
increase fitting to 60 CPU
And do it now please.
You wanna fight, fight. You wanna run, run. Being able to do both is retarded and has been said many many times. Please change it
thanks
Make webbers/scramblers also highslotted then when you are at it  
|
Eyeshadow
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:58:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Inor
Ran from ya did they?
dont they always?
I just feel its got to the stage now that fitting WCS is an integral part of PVPing, and it sucks. People are fitting WCS to frigs and cruisers so they gank with near invulnerability. It needs to be changed
My Latest Vid: Linky |
Eyeshadow
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:59:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Agnar Koladrov
Originally by: Eyeshadow
Make them:
High slot
Activation required (15 cap per 10 second cycle)
increase fitting to 60 CPU
And do it now please.
You wanna fight, fight. You wanna run, run. Being able to do both is retarded and has been said many many times. Please change it
thanks
Make webbers/scramblers also highslotted then when you are at it
why? what has that got to do with anything? The main reason for this is so that you cant have a full rack of weapons and near invulnerability at the same time
My Latest Vid: Linky |
Weebear
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:02:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Eyeshadow
increase fitting to 60 CPU
Would rather just see them in a small, medium and large variety to be honest, and the sizes restricted to the ship they can be fitted to.
Can't just change a generic module like that. |
Digiblast
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:03:00 -
[7]
Get over it Eyeshadow.
It's a nice tactic so stop whining!
|
Inor
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:05:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Eyeshadow
Originally by: Inor
Ran from ya did they?
dont they always?
I just feel its got to the stage now that fitting WCS is an integral part of PVPing, and it sucks. People are fitting WCS to frigs and cruisers so they gank with near invulnerability. It needs to be changed
People just dont want to lose what they have gained, even though its only a virtual world, an idea is to make an implant removeal skill (or an option ingame for a price) What do ya think?
Or...CCP could just bring out Tech 2 scramblers, but then the tech 2 WCS will follow
|
Jack Brimstone
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:05:00 -
[9]
Quote:
High slot
Activation required (15 cap per 10 second cycle)
increase fitting to 60 CPU
So I guess haulers (high slot limits) and miners (high slot, cpu) are screwed too then right?
Sorry that other PvP'ers are sometimes weaseling out on fights, but this brush is too broad.
j0sephine's idea is much better tbh.
=========================
Standings based market? |
Konietzko
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:08:00 -
[10]
Nerf WCS when they add a stacking penalty for multiple sources of damage to a single target. Until then, nerfing WCS will only create more prolific gankers.
---
Konietzko
|
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Digiblast
Get over it Eyeshadow.
It's a nice tactic so stop whining!
Isnt your Alliance flamining Burn Eden in every post on this forum for their use of warp core stabilizers?.
Eyeshadow i do believe they should stay low slot as many indys could only fit 2 but battleships can fit 8, BUT i think their cpu should be increased to 100 cpu per unit, and you cap usage is about right.
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Konietzko
Nerf WCS when they add a stacking penalty for multiple sources of damage to a single target. Until then, nerfing WCS will only create more prolific gankers.
No.
wcs leads to ganking. wcs means kill target before it can possibly enter warp
|
Konietzko
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:25:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Konietzko on 26/09/2005 16:28:04
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Originally by: Konietzko
Nerf WCS when they add a stacking penalty for multiple sources of damage to a single target. Until then, nerfing WCS will only create more prolific gankers.
No.
wcs leads to ganking. wcs means kill target before it can possibly enter warp
Hrm. I disagree. I think laziness and greed leads to ganking. People want lots of easy kills that they don't have to work too hard for. So they sit at a gate with 20 of their friends and shoot everything that goes through. People would still do that even if WCS had never been in the game. It's just human nature. It's the same reason people join megacorps. There is power in numbers. If you get 20 individuals that separately can't PVP very well, and put them together in a gang and on a gate, they will get kills. Probably more kills then 1 solo, talented pvper.
---
Konietzko
|
Wee Dave
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:42:00 -
[14]
Class-based WCS would seem the best option. If there is only one type of WCS, then there's no way to significantly inhibit a BSes ability to fight and run without making it impossible to fit stabs on non-combat vessels.
If the largest wcs were very CPU heavy (say 100 or more) with the medium ones being 50-60 (fine for fitting on non-combat indies which generally have lots of CPU) that would work and prevent BSes fitting tons of guns and midslot items, while still allowing stabs for those planning to run from the start.
|
James Lyrus
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:52:00 -
[15]
I prefer this solution
|
Imran
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:55:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Eyeshadow
Originally by: Inor
Ran from ya did they?
dont they always?
I just feel its got to the stage now that fitting WCS is an integral part of PVPing, and it sucks. People are fitting WCS to frigs and cruisers so they gank with near invulnerability. It needs to be changed
Exactly.
If a person has a 50% chance above the norm to get out of a firefight because of a stab or MULTIPLE, reduce their effectiveness in combat by 50%.
Ps. frigs + stabs = a kitten dies.
|
Yith Solarius
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:59:00 -
[17]
ahhh so you want everyone to be able to either run or fight... erm... exept my hauler, which would be unable to do either so would die at every encounter.
I guess thats about right, Eve is now a purly a pvp game isn't it so it's right that all industrials and people who don't do anything exept pvp should be phased out of the game, once thats done concord can be removed and player respawn points created to prevent the hassle of actually having to earn your ships to fight in.
Once thats in place of course the giant eve based killboard can be implemented so that all players are ranked in terms of there kills, the ones who cannot compete get a n00b warning 3 warnings and they get auto-banned from the game, the game at that point also gets shut off from new player so that only the experiansed players may continue to play, because thats the players that eve's based around isn't it!
|
RedlegSA
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:02:00 -
[18]
This may be ignorance speaking, but there are times I carry a warp scrambler and others I carry a stabilizer. If I am seeking to lock someone down I carry the scrambler. If I am hauling something and dont want to - or cannot effectively fight (such as I am in my industrial) then I carry the stabilizer.
Why does this annoy some folks so much? In a ship not designed to fight, I dont think it is unreasonable to have the option to escape if I prepare for it (using a stabilizer) and am alert enough to use it if I get in trouble. The pirates can counter me by using mulitple tacklers if they want, if my stabilizer is valued at 1, then they can use two scramblers to pin me down, right?
Am I missing something?
|
Summersnow
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:07:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Eyeshadow
You wanna fight, fight. You wanna run, run. Being able to do both is retarded and has been said many many times. Please change it
thanks
I want to do missions, which sometimes means I need to run :-p
Telling me I can't do missions because you want to gank a few more newbs is "retarded"
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:33:00 -
[20]
Bump their CPU usage.
Won't hurt haulers AT ALL, but will sting for everything else.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Sadist
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:46:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Eyeshadow
Originally by: Inor
Ran from ya did they?
dont they always?
I just feel its got to the stage now that fitting WCS is an integral part of PVPing, and it sucks. People are fitting WCS to frigs and cruisers so they gank with near invulnerability. It needs to be changed
Double web, more scramblers, bump ship, overcome with damage before aligning. All viable substitutes for preventive strike so the enemy does not enter warp. Stop whining, kthxbye.
---------------
VIP member of the [23] |
Jack Brimstone
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:51:00 -
[22]
Quote:
Bump their CPU usage.
Won't hurt haulers AT ALL, but will sting for everything else.
Yeah, but that means everything else
Guess what the highest CPU highslot turret is (all figures are base)?
Mega pulse laser II = 53tf
1400mm howitzer artillery II = 47tf
dual 425mm autocannon II = 35tf
neutron blaster cannon II = 72tf
425mm railgun II = 77tf
Miner II = 80tf
So in actual fact, those who would be hurt most by any CPU-increase solution for WCS are those who rely on escape as their sole defence. It doesn't matter how much of a tank your mining osprey can run if it cannot get away - against a combat fitted ship it is going to die if it cannot escape.
If you absolutely have to go down the 'increase requirements' route for WCS reform, I suggest grid instead (although that brings its own set of problems). I strongly suggest checking out the proposed WCS, Insta's and travel times idea that James Lyrus linked to above. Without flaming you or anyone, it's much better than this.
=========================
Standings based market? |
Aureus
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:52:00 -
[23]
If they flee, you won the battle. Is that not enough for you???
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:56:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jack Brimstone
Quote:
Bump their CPU usage.
Won't hurt haulers AT ALL, but will sting for everything else.
Yeah, but that means everything else
Guess what the highest CPU highslot turret is (all figures are base)?
Mega pulse laser II = 53tf
1400mm howitzer artillery II = 47tf
dual 425mm autocannon II = 35tf
neutron blaster cannon II = 72tf
425mm railgun II = 77tf
Miner II = 80tf
So in actual fact, those who would be hurt most by any CPU-increase solution for WCS are those who rely on escape as their sole defence. It doesn't matter how much of a tank your mining osprey can run if it cannot get away - against a combat fitted ship it is going to die if it cannot escape.
If you absolutely have to go down the 'increase requirements' route for WCS reform, I suggest grid instead (although that brings its own set of problems). I strongly suggest checking out the proposed WCS, Insta's and travel times idea that James Lyrus linked to above. Without flaming you or anyone, it's much better than this.
Meaning to sound mean,
This has NOTHING to do with travel time or anything else of that nature. Stop trying to push your old tired crap into the technnical disucssion of the fitting requirements of a module.
I don't CARE about miners who mine in .4 and below without escort, incidently. If you want to risk, it do so. DON'T cry when it has results. You shouldn't be able to fit a rack of miner II's and WCS, now you bring it to my attention.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Haggislander
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:57:00 -
[25]
Originally by: RedlegSA
This may be ignorance speaking, but there are times I carry a warp scrambler and others I carry a stabilizer. If I am seeking to lock someone down I carry the scrambler. If I am hauling something and dont want to - or cannot effectively fight (such as I am in my industrial) then I carry the stabilizer.
Why does this annoy some folks so much? In a ship not designed to fight, I dont think it is unreasonable to have the option to escape if I prepare for it (using a stabilizer) and am alert enough to use it if I get in trouble. The pirates can counter me by using mulitple tacklers if they want, if my stabilizer is valued at 1, then they can use two scramblers to pin me down, right?
Am I missing something?
Ok pal, what part of this don't you follow? NOBODY is complaining about WCS for traveling/escaping. The complaint is fitting them to COMBAT ships. Take any group of 4-5 battleships with no tanking, no dmg mods and it can kill pretty much any battleship that runs into them.
As for the bring warp scramblers argument, yeah ok. I'll buy that argument when you add an activation cost and a range penalty to WCS to bring them inline with their countermeasures. Sound fair?
|
Haggislander
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 19:00:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Aureus
If they flee, you won the battle. Is that not enough for you???
Apparently you don't get it. Please refrain from posting about things you havent a clue about.
This post is a responce to the odious plauge of max-wcs gankfleets and solutions to bring them inline with game mechanics.
|
Miri Tirzan
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 19:03:00 -
[27]
Anyone else find it interesting that the pirates and assorted other kill for thrills type in the game are agaist anything that would let players get away from them? WCS are ebil cause ships can escape, but where is it carved in stone that people can not show the good sense to run away from a fight they cannot win?
And putting them in high slots is the stupidest thing I have heard. So now miners can either mine or be able to run away but not both.
svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
|
Knerf
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 19:11:00 -
[28]
I liked this idea myself, Linkage is less complex than the other thread about the warp core stability one and would drastically hinder a combat ship
|
So'Kar
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 19:14:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
This will make things worse.
Imagine a ganktempest. It fits two stabs, and 6 guns, AND 6 damage mods. Currently it would have to sacrifice about 25%-35% of its damage (2 damage mods) to have stabs--with these it would be even worse.
Would run out of cpu, but still agree that this is hardly a fix for it. Just make wcs half the pg for each, so having 2 would mean you only have 1/4 of original pg. You could still have lows full of these, but micro size pg.
|
Jack Brimstone
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 19:28:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
This has NOTHING to do with travel time or anything else of that nature.
I don't CARE about miners who mine in .4 and below without escort, incidently. If you want to risk, it do so. DON'T cry when it has results. You shouldn't be able to fit a rack of miner II's and WCS, now you bring it to my attention.
No one is crying Maya, least of all me. I am pointing out valid criticisms of both proposed high slot, and CPU modifications. If you had actually bothered to click that link I pointed out, you would know that a big part of that solution deals with warp core stabilisers and scrambling. I also haven't mined for months, in low sec or otherwise so if you are suggesting my post was self-serving, let me put your mind at rest.
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Stop trying to push your old tired crap into the technnical disucssion of the fitting requirements of a module.
The module listing was an example to show that specifically CPU is a bad critera. It showed that pretty well given the animus against WCS is ostensibly directed at combat fitted ships. As for my 'old tired crap', I rarely post and not on this subject before, perhaps you were referring to someone else.
Originally by: Maya Rkell
I don't CARE about miners who mine in .4 and below without escort, incidently.
That's okay. You don't have to, but my point was a valid one in terms of game balance. If you would like WCS nerfed to uselessness or removed entirely, please come out and say that, and support your points intelligently. At no point did I talk about fitting a 'full rack' of WCS to anything - given that WCS take up 30cpu as is, I doubt there are many ships you could in fact fit a full rack and a full set of miner IIs even at present.
You'll notice in my posts I have specifically tried to post constructively and avoid the "you carebear!" "you griefer!11one" polarisation that these threads usually descend in to, so please do me the honour of replying in kind.
=========================
Standings based market? |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |