Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Famine Aligher'ri
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 08:35:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Famine Aligher''ri on 14/10/2005 08:35:40
This is really starting to annoy me how so many people complain about ôWarp Core Stabsö. I really donÆt get this at all. Here we are in a time when CCP finally decides to understand that stacking damage modules the way they are in every single low slot maybe wasnÆt really a good idea. Cheers to that change. However, I donÆt really understand why so many people are freaking out about ôWarp Core Stabsö. The set good max damage mod line is now set to ô4ö. Which means a couple or more low slots left to fill for your already pimped out gunship. So people have the bright idea to fit ôWarp Core Stabsö to have a chance to escape if theyÆre losing in fleet/group/solo combat. Now everyone wants to nerf the module or remove it completely in fear they will not be able to catch the people they have defeated.
Now what bothers me is that EVE is about power housing now. The bigger and more experienced you are, the more people will flock to your herd. No more loyality anymore. It really saddens me a great deal. Combat has turned into the same aspect. ItÆs not about PVP itÆs about GVP (Group vs. Player) or GvG (Group vs. Group). More and more people are just looking to form massive groups to gank. Some even wish for worthy battles here and there. Which is good in my opinion. What I think alliances and playing the game for fun should be about. But IÆm not really here to say which is the right way to play or the wrong way.
IÆm posting this because IÆm afraid the ôGankö part of the community is going to get something like the ôWarp Core Stabö removed or made useless all because they canÆt dominate 10 vs. 1 player with all WCSÆs fitted. I think that is totally messed up because the object is to win. Warp core stabs is a step to losing. If two evenly grouped ships came into combat with one side wielding gunnery + 4 damage modules and the rest warp cores. They would lose to the almost evenly part that has + 4 damage modules and tanking in the rest. They might not get kills but majority of the other side would flee because theyÆre almost even in damage but lacking in the tank, as the other side would have. A simple leak of intelligence of one side using warp cores could ultimately guarantee a more ship explosions for the fact they would bring more heavy tacklers.
SO to sum this up, I feel as a solo player the options to survive solo are going to get harder and harder to do. Just for the fact so many people are crying about nerfing the warp core. ItÆs like people are afraid to lose to someone who had a setup with warp core stabs and popped a few people then was able to flee away (Points at Burn Eden snicker). TheyÆre not allowed to do thisà WHY? All because you think you should dominate them because you had more people and they were just one pilotà That makes no sense at all to meà You fit for the fight. Someone fits to run. You fit to catchà ItÆs like making heavy gunnery hit interceptors orbiting them 3000000 m/s. All because you canÆt hit them, you whine that your 1400 should be able to track them. Makes no sense at all. IÆm a solo pvp pilot. IÆm afraid people will nerf the WCS because theyÆre afraid to lose to someone with them on. They are afraid to fit for a fight. I simply just want to be able to have an option to get into your house with my lock picking kit because IÆm solo and out numbered 20 to 1.
-IÆm for Warp Core Stabs being high slots -IÆm for Warp Bubbles being more useful -IÆm not for removing or making Warp Core stabs useless.
-Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 08:49:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Shin Ra on 14/10/2005 08:49:00 Amen to that.
WCS > Lazy Ppl
|
Jon Hawkes
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 08:54:00 -
[3]
The only trouble with making WCS high slots is that a lot of haulers and industrial pilots who have no role in combat need these modules to even stand a slight chance of survival. As lowslot modules, they must chose to sacrifice hauling ability for safety, which is a fair enough trade off for a hauler. However, if they were to made highslot modules, while BS pilots would be able to fit a whole rack full of them for safe travel (but not combat), less PvP focused ships would only be able to fit a maximum of 2.
Personally, I'd prefer to see the modules have different size classes fitting costs, like armour plates. It would make sense from an RP point of view: larger ships require stronger stabilisation strengths due to their mass and engine power.
|
Shimpu
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 09:11:00 -
[4]
Amen! But why make them highslot? It would be sufficient to allow a maximum number of fitted stabs on a certain ship(type). Like cruisers get 2 slots and industrials can have 3 or 4? By that you remove the sniper/stab setups we know from gatecampers while effectively keeping it plain and simple. Heck, they could even make some unused frig or cruiser a dedicated blockade runner with more allowed slots. Just think of it as a item like a turret or launcher but located at the lowslots. No big haulover, no whining about shiprace X has more highslots Nannana
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 09:15:00 -
[5]
Warp Core stabs are fine the way they are. Scrams are in the game because warping out is an 'easy' option to avoid a fight, especially once tanks get better soon. Stabs are there to sto pthis. Like everything else, though, as the OP said, you make a sacrifice to give yourself safety. Giving yourself safety means you're more likely to need it :P
But, for everything there has to be a foil, and I dont think you have anything to worry about, really. I see where you're coming from but I dont think there'll be any stab nerfs coming soon.
Afterall, there would have to actually be people using stabs often for this to even be thought about :) _______________________________
Dyslexics of the world, Untie! |
hylleX
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 09:32:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Famine Aligher'ri Edited by: Famine Aligher''ri on 14/10/2005 08:35:40
Combat has turned into the same aspect. ItÆs not about PVP itÆs about GVP (Group vs. Player) or GvG (Group vs. Group). More and more people are just looking to form massive groups to gank.
Actually this is spot on, and one of the reasons u see "GVP", is STABS. I just dont see reasons to go out alone with my 1 disruptor and just see the target warp off, and i cant do well i combat if all my mids are disruptors, and hey amarr dont have alot of mids anyway (i dont beg for more slots). Cuz of this alot of people fly group so they either have enough disruptor strength or enough firepower to destroy the target b4 it enters warp. And with the new patch, i dont see this changing its just gonna get even worse.
I just cant be happy if winning a fight means the opponent warps away, victory is when your opponent is destroyed.
Well kids you've tried your best and failed miserably, the lesson is: never try |
gfldex
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 09:42:00 -
[7]
A low slot is a fine place for a WCS. But there is no penalty to use them. So what's about a sig res malus? Or you are unable to use guns and launchers with onlined WCS'? You would have to decide to fight _or_ run.
-- $ perl -n -e 'print "Stop blameing pirates! Oveur is the root of all evil!\n" if m/podkill|lost my ship|gank|gate camp|Verone/;'
|
Arti K
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 09:47:00 -
[8]
Lower the cost of insurance across the board and delete warp core stabs from the game is my suggestion. Fights are more fun when people fight
|
Zurst
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 09:53:00 -
[9]
We all know that the biggest group to abuse WCS are the lame low sec pirates. They gank industrial and warp away, with their happy little WCS as soon as a fight turns up.
Frustraiting? YES
Reason to get rid of WCS? NO.
This game is about more than just PVP, it is also about Trade and Industry. WCS are a vital way for the industrial community to servive the lawless reaches.
The reality is that you will never stop people from playing a game in a lame manner. The gankers will just find another method to carry on as before. We will just have to adapt to fight them more effectively.
Lastly, I play my game my way, to start saying I have to fight to the death etc is insisting that I play it your way. Too many people here seam to think you have to play eve by their rules and to do it in a manner they like. Well thats both arrogant and wrong.
WSC'a are a module that give the rest of us choice, and if you dont like a bit of freedom, then play WOW .
|
Hast
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 09:57:00 -
[10]
Hyllex hit it right on the spot tbfh.
There is no point in going out alone anymore, unless you maybe plan on fighting npc'ers and even some of them use stabs nowadays.
|
|
Heikki
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 10:48:00 -
[11]
If it's accepted truth, that WCS are good idea for travellers, and bad for combat fellows, wouldn't it be rather simply associate some penalties to reflect that?
Like: * 50% scan resolution penalty per stab, or * xx% damage reducement per stab
Either would make fitting stabs on fleet/sniping ships rather bad idea.
The mentioned signature radius increases wouldn't much help haulers against gate snipers.
Such penalties wouldn't break current balance as much as switching scramblers/stabs to high slots would.
-Lasse
|
Grimwalius d'Antan
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 11:10:00 -
[12]
I don't think anyone is whining about haulers and shipmovers who are using the warp stabs. What ****es people off are those who goes to combat with stabs fitted. Warp stabs in hi slots means you can't use them for safer engagements, as you then lack the arsenal to fight at all. Sounds like a plan to me, if you've entered a fight you should stick with it to the end.
|
Boonaki
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 11:17:00 -
[13]
2 possible fixes.
-10% ROF per stab on guns and launchers.
-10% damage per stab on guns and launchers.
I think non combat ships should have the right to have lows full of stabs. Combat ships should be ineffective though.
Fear the Ibis of doom. |
Sebastato
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 11:31:00 -
[14]
Dont make it that complicated. How about disabling one high slot for every fitted WCS. Imagine a ship with 4 lows and 3 high. You can fit 4 WCS but all high slots are disabled. So industrial ships can use the low rack full of WCS, they dont need their highs anyway. A battleship with 8 high and 8 lows can fit 8 WCS but then it has no high slots left. It can also fit only 4 WCS. Then it has 4 highs left. You simply change your offensive potential for a better probability to escape.
|
Nova Strikes
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 11:35:00 -
[15]
I agree with Famine but i also agree with the other posters too, its useless fighting peeps like Burn Eden for instance *lows stabs, meds jammers* they will only kill lone targets or those small groups who havnt got a chance due to those jammers. This means you either fight them on there terms, or not get a fight at all. Now theres nothing wrong with that, its just annoying. I think that something should be done about Stab but nothing excessive else your just removing a tactic in game that you never use and dont like, just because it suits you and you've run around a system for 2 hours without a singel kill. *must be boring for them to imo*
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 11:36:00 -
[16]
Warp Core stabs already **** up tanking in low slots, Now you want them to **** up offensive in high slots. That won't happen, i hope it won't.
And a Burn Eden commenting negativly about wcs... cold day in hell
|
Fredbob
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 11:38:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Boonaki 2 possible fixes.
-10% ROF per stab on guns and launchers.
-10% damage per stab on guns and launchers.
I think non combat ships should have the right to have lows full of stabs. Combat ships should be ineffective though.
I agree, I've always said stabs should ahve a RoF penalty, they are fine for travel but shouldn't suit combat ships.
Stabs are for those who don't have confidence in their ability to win a fight. If you plan to run before the fight has even started.. shame on you *shakes head* .
___________ ~Fredbob~
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 11:47:00 -
[18]
Why should they penalize something that isn't associated with navigation at all.
|
xJESTERx
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 11:54:00 -
[19]
Edited by: xJESTERx on 14/10/2005 11:55:09 personaly i think theyre fine the way they are. 1) traders/industrialists need them to travel safely in low sec system. 2) if you fit WCS in combat *cough PA* then your going to be fighting an uphill battle. the fact that putting WCSs on means you lose slots to fill with armor tanking, damage mods, cap relays ect. putting on 2 WCS on an armor tanker turns their tank to **it. meaning your going to die very fast. the real problem i think is the fact that everyone flyies BS. overstatement? not really. when ccp created BS they didnt indent to see everyone flying BS. they figures there would be more frigates than cruisers, and more cruisers than BS. so a fleet would consist of a crap load of tacklers and support, backed up by a few BS. how ever we see the exact opposite. fleets of BS with one or two frigates. maybe if you started using more frigates to tackle and focused fire, you might notice that WCS are "a step to losing" as someone said. If you don't agree with what i'm saying, check the -PH- killboard and see all our PA kills. whom are imfamous for fitting WCS. i think they play mc hammer on their TS when they fight o.0
|
velocoraptor
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 12:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Zurst We all know that the biggest group to abuse WCS are the lame low sec pirates. They gank industrial and warp away, with their happy little WCS as soon as a fight turns up.
Frustraiting? YES
Reason to get rid of WCS? NO.
This game is about more than just PVP, it is also about Trade and Industry. WCS are a vital way for the industrial community to servive the lawless reaches.
The reality is that you will never stop people from playing a game in a lame manner. The gankers will just find another method to carry on as before. We will just have to adapt to fight them more effectively.
Lastly, I play my game my way, to start saying I have to fight to the death etc is insisting that I play it your way. Too many people here seam to think you have to play eve by their rules and to do it in a manner they like. Well thats both arrogant and wrong.
WSC'a are a module that give the rest of us choice, and if you dont like a bit of freedom, then play WOW .
I totally agree. Nice post. There is no one "correct" or even "better" way or set of rules to play eve, and that's the fun about it. Proposed changes should not aim to make life easier for one type of players but allow for even more different types to operate. WCS are more or less ok as they are.
|
|
ShadowlordUK
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 12:10:00 -
[21]
Edited by: ShadowlordUK on 14/10/2005 12:12:47 Ironically nerfing wcs would upset pirates most because they rely on wcs to run away when anything remotely threatening turns up.
Personally im all for making them high slot modules, fitting stabs is basically setting up to lose and therefore the setups you can use whilst fitting wcs should be more limited.
Of course the practice of being able to sit right on top of a gate so you can insta jump out of a system if anything dangerous turns up should also looked at.
|
BirdBleed
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 12:28:00 -
[22]
wcs are a problem. Making them high slots wont help, if anything it will make it worse. Armagedon with full tank, 5 tachys + 3 wcs ftw.
Wcs should stay in lows, they should nerf locking time/range/rof whatever :)
|
lythos miralbar
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 12:29:00 -
[23]
Ok.. heres my take on WCS..
WCS in a travel setup are absolutely fine. Infact that is the area they should in my opinion be restricted to.. travel setups. Why?? well heres why..
1) Trying to fight and kill a ship fitted for combat with a couple of WCS on is almost impossible if you arent flying as part of a gang (EG have a couple of tacklers).. eg they screw over solo players BIG time.
Yeah I know everyone says "Eve is a multiplayer game" and yes I agree it is. However not all of us can spend an hour or so uninterupted as part of a gang, personally I have to afk frequently.
And there are those that prefer 1 v 1 fights. You get a far greater sense of achievement winning a 1v1 than you do anhilating someone 10 v 1.
2) They encourage ganking, and before anyone argues they yes do. Its taken for granted that everyone fits WCS and as such people have to fit quick lock gank setups to try and kill the other guy before he warps.
3) They fly in the face of risk vs reward. They MASSIVELY decrease the risk of pvp. If you are going down.. just warp out and leave the other guy swearing at you in local ( )
Whilst they MASSIVELY decrease the risk of pvp, one wcs can normally be fitted to most ships without reducing its fighting ability to much. So I ask you.. wheres the trade off? Do you get less loot with WCS fitted.. no you dont. risk vs reward ..
4)They take the "edge" of pvp and really do diminish the game. Combat is meant to be tense, its meant to be harsh.. wcs make it a bit to warm and fluffy.
My sugestions? simple.. Each WCS fitted :-
a) Increaces the ROF for all turrets and launchers by 10% b) Increaces the fittng requirements of all turrets and launchers by 20% c) Doubles the cap usage of all smartbombs b) Halves the ships lock range and halves its scan resolution.
That way you can still use em for traveling, but they would become useless for combat.
Then combat would get its razor sharp edge back.
|
RedlegSA
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 12:49:00 -
[24]
The Iteron Series of Gallente Industrial ships up to the IVth level have only one hislot. The Iteron V has only 2 hislots.
Making a WCS a hislot item would be bad for this ship, where it is most needed - or at least where I would use such an item. My understanding of the low number of hislots on the Iteron is so this ship does not make a good miner ship.
Perhaps a midslot or lowslot WCS with a power useage when activeated, and drastic reduction in firepower when active (since the WCS takes so much power, it is robbed from hislot, thus reducing firepower for a sci fi reason).
|
TheKiller8
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 12:59:00 -
[25]
WCS are fine the way they are. Less risk but also less combat effective
|
Cdr Foxbat
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 13:15:00 -
[26]
IMO giving WCS the effects of a remote damper would be your best bet - reduced locking range and increased time..... make them for runners and not for fighters...
|
Malken
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 13:26:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Heikki If it's accepted truth, that WCS are good idea for travellers, and bad for combat fellows, wouldn't it be rather simply associate some penalties to reflect that?
yes fight or run, make them highslot items.
|
lythos miralbar
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 13:38:00 -
[28]
Edited by: lythos miralbar on 14/10/2005 13:40:55
Quote: yes fight or run, make them highslot items.
not having a go at you in particular, but making them a high slot is stupid. That would reduce thier effectiveness for both combat AND travel setups.
instead give them penalties like :-
Quote: a) Increaces the ROF for all turrets and launchers by 10% b) Increaces the fittng requirements of all turrets and launchers by 20% c) Doubles the cap usage of all smartbombs b) Halves the ships lock range and halves its scan resolution.
giving them a range of negative effects like that would screw them over as a combat module, but leave them exactly as they are now for travel setups.
the only reason I can see for arguing they should be high slot instead of nerfed like above is becasue you know haulers only have 1 or 2 highslots, and you want to make it easyier to gank them.
Quote: Perhaps a midslot or lowslot WCS with a power useage when activeated, and drastic reduction in firepower when active (since the WCS takes so much power, it is robbed from hislot, thus reducing firepower for a sci fi reason).
thats all well and good, but you just leave them inactive till you want to warp out of a combat situation then turn them on and hit "warp to". by that point your already running so who cares if your firepower gets nerfed. Net effect = no differen to now.
|
Hellspawn666
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 14:06:00 -
[29]
jeez not another WCS post leave them how they are, they are balanced you need more cpu to fit 2 wcs then you do to fit one warp scrambler theirfore it is balanced.
|
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 14:27:00 -
[30]
Ppl think before you post stupidities..
1. stabs are a way for the NON-PvP ppl to avoid PvP by simply warping out. They do not gimp their NPC setups that much.
2. stabs are a way for the unarmed/weak players to way to avoid PvP (industrials namely).
3. stabs are a way for scouts to get away
I agree that there is a slight problem with the gate campers and gankers that flee when threatened, but that is a mentality, you won't change that by nerfing the stabs.
A simple remedy: make warp scramblers/disruptors do % instead of fixed stat influence. In this way, a BS has to fit more stabs to counter one scrambler just because it gets more hit by the scrambling effect. Simple as that.
Second one: create separate frig/cruiser/bs size stabs, like MWDs or ABs. It stands to reason that stabilizing a huge warp core or a bs takes more energy than stabilizing a frig warp core. This way a BS fitted with bs size stabs will sacrifice CPU and PG much more to gimp the remaining setup. 4 WCS should lower it's PG and CPU so it can barely fit 1/2 of it's main guns.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |