| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scrammer
   |
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:15:00 -
[1]
This is rather a simple issue.
If you look at the different types of Warp Jammers, you see that there are 2 types.
One has a Warp Scramble Strength of 1, another has a Strength of 2.
Strength 1 also has a range of 20km, while Strength 2 a range of 7,500km.
Now...Warp Core Stabilizers only give a +1 bonus to warp scrambling.
So what's to stop someone from equiping two Strength 2 jammers, or one Strength 1 and one Strength 2?
That would give that player either 3 or 4 points of scramble strength inside of 7,500km.
The only way I see to counteract that is to equip more than one WCS, but the mod requires a low slot, and I know for most player ship setups you need those low slots fo a lot of other things than just to stabilize your warp core.
Is this something that will continue this way? Or are we going to get some WCS units with a Strength 2 rating?
87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:17:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 27/10/2005 16:16:52
You're lucky warp stabs even do +1 of anti-scramble strength.
ECM, for example, has no comparable countermeasure. Nor does webbing, NOSing, or tracking disrupting.
Oh, and there is a +2 warp core stab... Viceroy has it 
-
Proud member of the [23].
Don't get the reference in my sig? Click it.
|
Liver Damage
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:18:00 -
[3]
/me hands Scrammer flame-proof suit and hides
|
Rufus Roughneck
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:18:00 -
[4]
Rofl.
WCS are most certainly not underused or underpowered.
My bet is you will see str 2 wcs when there's str 3 scramblers or str 2 scrambler with alot more range., and not before. Altho tbh, introducing either would be useless, as it would not change the balance, everyone would train for both of them first thing they do.
|
Pestillence
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:19:00 -
[5]
But wcs use no cap and have unlimited range.
This thread is going to go downhill before the end of page1
|
Scrammer
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:20:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Scrammer on 27/10/2005 16:25:22
 Originally by: Liver Damage
/me hands Scrammer flame-proof suit and hides
I don't care if people want to flame me/bash me/beat me with a baseball bat or whatever it is they do.
I'm just duscussing game mechanics in a public forum, and if people don't want to contribute to the discussion in an adult manner, well then I won't force them to.
87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot |
DarkStar251
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:24:00 -
[7]
Yes, WCS need to be nerfed so they prevent the use of any offensive modules. Hell even prevent your ship from locking by interfereing with your targetting scanners :P
WCS are for travelling, in which case fitting 3 or 4 of them isnt a problem as you dont need the slots ofr other things. They should not be for combat at all.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) |
Score
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:26:00 -
[8]
roflmao, range on a wcs? What ya gonna point it at besides your own ship?  If they put in a Remote WCS, then I would expect range.
In any case, the issues with the WCS & Jammers are well known and compensated for. I would really have to agree with Rufus!
|
Manwoman
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:38:00 -
[9]
Originally by: DarkStar251
Yes, WCS need to be nerfed so they prevent the use of any offensive modules. Hell even prevent your ship from locking by interfereing with your targetting scanners :P
WCS are for travelling, in which case fitting 3 or 4 of them isnt a problem as you dont need the slots ofr other things. They should not be for combat at all.
Why shouldn't warp cores be used on a ship that can fight? Because you want to have 100% of all fights to the death?
|
Hex Stiletto
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:41:00 -
[10]
Warp core stabs are a piece of nonsense. Can you imagine it.
Captain: Engage warp drive
Engineer: Sorry sir, canna dae it, you swapped the warp core stabs for 3 cases of Corellian Wine.
[boom]
I feel this is more likely
Captain: Engage warp drive
Pointy Ear Guy: We a currently being warp scrambled.
Captain: I need warp drive......now
[Engineer flips oversized switches, slides sliders while muttering something about the laws of fizziks]
Pointy Ear Guy: Warp drive back on line.
[woosh]
I myself never fit them, or scramblers, I find it much more effective just to blow up the ship of the guy who has fitted the scrambler.
Hex Stiletto - Pan Galactic Gigolo
Your pleasure is my business
Available for weddings, funerals and Bar Mitzvah
Contact me for rates and availability |
Rodge
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:47:00 -
[11]
The devs are already very well aware of the overpowered nature of the existing warp core stabilisers.
That's why there's no WCS II BPO being dropped and it's unlikely that there will be until there's some kind of rework of warp scrambling.
[ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
|
Remedial
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:49:00 -
[12]
I think a "chance of success to avoid scrambling" WCS would be preferable to the current system, but no doubt such an implementation would be preceded by an avalanche of whining.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 16:53:00 -
[13]
Lol. WCS are for whatever you want them to be for. Just because half of eve is too stupid/up themselves to realise they are good modules that have their uses (even in combat). They allow us to get way more kills and also stop some losses (although surprisingly not that many).
|
Scrammer
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 17:00:00 -
[14]
I've been saved a few times, but that's only after I decided to fit a few.
87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot |
Kara Kaprica
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 17:06:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Kara Kaprica on 27/10/2005 17:10:22
Warp Core Stabilizers are fine as they are. They reduce armour tanking ability, offensive capability (dmg mods) Passive speed mods, cargo space, and anything else you care to put in your low slots. They are a trade off. Ability to POSSIBLY (depending on your agressers Scrambler setup) get away from and engagement once it turns against you, for reduced effectiveness during that engagement. if you are fighting close range they also out-slot scramblers by two to one, as you need two stabs to get away from one strength 2.
EDIT, and to people who moan about stabs, i got one word for you. Stiletto.
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 17:58:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Kara Kaprica
EDIT, and to people who moan about stabs, i got one word for you. Stiletto.
won't scramble a fully stabbed geddon
Originally by: Chowdown
We camp a lot
|
pardux
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 18:04:00 -
[17]
wcs's need -15%pg and 50-60cpu ._.
|
Goberth Ludwig
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 18:35:00 -
[18]
Stabs are retarded because they are the number 1 reason solo pvp in eve is so difficult.
Of course tho, most people do not pvp solo so they dont realise that.
- Gob (also known as Admiral Goberius) |
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 18:40:00 -
[19]
They need to get rid of the cap use on scramblers and disruptors or just vastly decrease it.
________________________________________________________
|
Skyscorcher
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 18:47:00 -
[20]
I just think that it's funny that Scrammer's name is very similar to Scrambler.
*Scrambles Scrammer*
Wheeee!
______________________________
PLAY LIKE YA GOT A PAIR! |
Scrammer
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 19:00:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Skyscorcher
I just think that it's funny that Scrammer's name is very similar to Scrambler.
*Scrambles Scrammer*
Wheeee!
Actually..... =)
People keep calling me "Scrammer the Scammer."
*Holding fingers out like Nixon*
I'm not a crook!
87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot |
hylleX
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 19:18:00 -
[22]
Oh noes! 
Well kids you've tried your best and failed miserably, the lesson is: never try |
Mercy Less
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 19:19:00 -
[23]
As we have seen things go from 0/1 type of mechanics to chance based (like EW), I keep wondering why scramblers and webbers are still 100% effective every time they are used.
IMO scramblers should have a chance of failure even if the opponent doesn't have WCS fitted. If a WCS is fitted, the chance of failure would increase dramatically but it would still be possible to scramble the opponent. And I'd imagine that the warp engines of a battleship would be better shielded than a frigate has, requiring several tacklers against a single battleship to prevent it from escaping where as a single tackler would be able to scramble a frig.
For webbers it probably wouldn't work the same way as there is no counter module against them. I think there should be webber for each class of a ship, a small webber would slow 75% of the speed of small ships, but only 10-15% of a battleship. Battleship class webber would slow 75% of the speed of a battleship and 97% of the speed of a frigate (right tool for the right job).
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 19:34:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 27/10/2005 19:36:44
Originally by: Remedial
I think a "chance of success to avoid scrambling" WCS would be preferable to the current system, but no doubt such an implementation would be preceded by an avalanche of whining.
Do bear in mind that (and no, this isn't a whine, it's a point) that is a 0 WCS ship has a chance to escape scrambling, pirates are allways going to kill rather than ransom.
Mercy Less, you are NOT going to find many proponents of chance-based webbing, btw. And your "right tool for the right job" is another tired old BS supreme post. NO.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Rangoon
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 19:37:00 -
[25]
It amazes me how most of the complainers are people who feel they were somehow ripped off or jaded because their prey can actually get away from them.
Lets get rid of insta's because ... well because ... I can't solo camp a gate now and destroy and loot Industrial ships.
Lets get rid of WCS because ... well because when my HAC engaged that cruiser, it warped away despite me warp scrambling it. Big deal. Open the Eve map and select show pods destroyed in last 24 hours.
Other people are destroying player ships and podding them. Why do they have to make it easier for you.
|
Leitari
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 20:59:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Leitari on 27/10/2005 20:59:21
look at the slots, there are ****loads more of lowslots on ships then medslots, you cant deny that. Now, if you are using a 7500meter scrambler then you need to have a mwd on your frig to be able to mwd quickly to your target and hold it down. So I think your point is totally void. And you have to sacrifice the security of getting away for something else like Tanking!!! Or else it would suck. Also I really want to put something else instead of warp scramblers in my med slots but I have to use warpscramblers or else those targets are going to get away :( boohoo
I mean, Im fighting people that put Warp core stabilizers on their damned tech 1 frigates ffs.
|
SoldierOfFortune
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 21:09:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Hex Stiletto
Warp core stabs are a piece of nonsense. Can you imagine it.
Captain: Engage warp drive
Engineer: Sorry sir, canna dae it, you swapped the warp core stabs for 3 cases of Corellian Wine.
[boom]
I feel this is more likely
Captain: Engage warp drive
Pointy Ear Guy: We a currently being warp scrambled.
Captain: I need warp drive......now
[Engineer flips oversized switches, slides sliders while muttering something about the laws of fizziks]
Pointy Ear Guy: Warp drive back on line.
[woosh]
I myself never fit them, or scramblers, I find it much more effective just to blow up the ship of the guy who has fitted the scrambler.
thats kool and for that...
I have an idea... lol
why not remove the stregth of wcs and scrammers all together, why not change it to a frequcny system?? the way a scrammer jams the core is by probably emiting a beam into the core, which would be runnning at a frequncy, so you would have a max of 1 scrammer and one wcs unit on a ship (like MWD's) and....the scrammer would didrupt the core at a fequceny of say.. 12.6mhz or something, and the Wcs unit would change the ferquceny of the warp core untill it found the ferqucny of the scrammer which would be 12.6mhz in this case, and at that point the ship could warp out, also the scrammer would have to change its ferqucny to rescramm, so there might be a 10-30second lock out time to rescram the same ship, of course the ferqucny would be random, so the time it takes to get free would be differnet each time. so basicly you have...
a scrammer.....disrupts core on a random ferqucny (disabling the warp core)
and the wcs unit would have to change the base ferqucny of the warp core to conspemsate, and allow warp out.
im sorry, i hope you all get what i mean, but im a bad explainer hehe :)
|
Antoinette Civari
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 21:23:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Antoinette Civari on 27/10/2005 21:32:33
Originally by: Mercy Less
As we have seen things go from 0/1 type of mechanics to chance based (like EW), I keep wondering why scramblers and webbers are still 100% effective every time they are used.
It was planned and implented on Singularity but fortunately the devs cancelled it. We really dont need another vital part of pvp depending on luck tbh :F Furthermore, a chance based scrambling system shifts the advantage way to much towards the wcs user - if he gets lucky and the scrambler fails, his ship gets away. If the scrambler gets lucky enough to scramble him, even though he doesnt have enough scrambling strenghts, he only has about 5 seconds time to kill his target because it is actually very unlikely that he gets lucky again on the next cycle and i think, and i'm sure everyone can agree here, that 5 seconds are definitely not enough time to kill a target in a standard 1on1 situation.
<edit/> ty maya, havent checked that in a long time ;)
|
dantes inferno
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 21:28:00 -
[29]
the only change i would like to see is the 20Km change to a 35KM scrambler and a 7.5km to a 15km scrambler. scrambling on anything but a frig is dificult due to the small range and makes the 7.5km scrambler redundant which as previously mentioned makes solo pvp very difficult
_____
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 21:29:00 -
[30]
Er.
Scrambler cycles are *5* seconds long.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Blind Man
|
Posted - 2005.10.27 21:34:00 -
[31]
Warp Core Stabilizer 1
Penalty: 1 less highslot
|
Mercy Less
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 03:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Mercy Less, you are NOT going to find many proponents of chance-based webbing, btw. And your "right tool for the right job" is another tired old BS supreme post. NO.
Actually, I borrowed that sentence from a frigate flyer. He(she?) wanted to introduce tracking to NOS, because battleships drain his cap with heavy NOSses all too easy. Same sentence was used by frigate flyers before missile nerf, too.
When ever changes (balancing) are introduced that affect the mechanics of gameplay, they seem to favor frigs over bigger ships  . If you suggest a change that would give some benefit to battleships over frigates, the same argument somehow becames invalid  
|
Hellspawn666
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 04:11:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig
Stabs are retarded because they are the number 1 reason solo pvp in eve is so difficult.
Of course tho, most people do not pvp solo so they dont realise that.
More like the other way rounds, stabs aid solo pvp since they stop 10mned gank squds trpping u so easy.
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 08:07:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Blind Man
Warp Core Stabilizer 1
Penalty: 1 less highslot
Not possible. Some ships like indies have more low slots than high slots. If this were to happen, then there is no way to use normal indies for blockade running.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
M3ta7h3ad
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 08:33:00 -
[35]
Considering in an indie you really need to start warping as soon as your being targetted at a gate to even get away. I think WCStabs are fine.
WCScramblers on a chance basis is actually a damn good idea, then folks who whine about ECCM not having effect, cant whine about WCStabs being too powerful (its my experience that the same people whine about the two things).
As for WCS removing a high slot, or removing targetting ability, my indie's tank has a back up.
I run 2 Nosferatus in the highs. If for some reason im stuck smacking into something and need a little extra time to align to warp, my ship has normally targetted at least one of the scrambling ships. I fire up the two nosferatu's and shove my shield booster on auto. It might not do much but it may give me 2 or 3 seconds more of warp out time. So removing or gimping the targetting abilities or highslots on my indie would mean I run the risk of completely running out of cap.
As for it gimping tanking? it already does that, If your not caldari your armour tank is gimped further and further everytime you add a warpstab. Since caldari tanks are notoriously bad (more cap usage for less repair) I think the sides are equal.
|
SoldierOfFortune
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 08:53:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Antoinette Civari
Edited by: Antoinette Civari on 27/10/2005 21:32:33
Originally by: Mercy Less
As we have seen things go from 0/1 type of mechanics to chance based (like EW), I keep wondering why scramblers and webbers are still 100% effective every time they are used.
It was planned and implented on Singularity but fortunately the devs cancelled it. We really dont need another vital part of pvp depending on luck tbh :F Furthermore, a chance based scrambling system shifts the advantage way to much towards the wcs user - if he gets lucky and the scrambler fails, his ship gets away. If the scrambler gets lucky enough to scramble him, even though he doesnt have enough scrambling strenghts, he only has about 5 seconds time to kill his target because it is actually very unlikely that he gets lucky again on the next cycle and i think, and i'm sure everyone can agree here, that 5 seconds are definitely not enough time to kill a target in a standard 1on1 situation.
<edit/> ty maya, havent checked that in a long time ;)
i do know that with the system i thought about the cycle for both the scrammer and wcs wouldnt be 5seconds, probably a variable time depending on the ship, like a BS might has at least a 30second cycle, and a low ferqucnsy range, like 200-210mhz, so a 1/10 chance of getting free, unlike a frigate which might have a low cycle time, say 10seconds, but a littlelarger range, like 1125-1150mhz. so 1/25 its like one big game of rock paper siccsors lol. also there might be scrammers that can jam better, and wcs that can find ferqucnys faster, who knows.
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 08:57:00 -
[37]
Every time I've tried to get in some solo PvP lately, the target's always warped out care of WCS. I had a cerb agressed, warp scrambled, web, jammed, and nossed and was raping him with dual 650's in my tempest, then he warped out. :P
About 20 minutes later, the same thing happened with a Dominix.
-Wrayeth
|
Joshua Deakin
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 09:37:00 -
[38]
Isn't the WCS main use to evade non-consentual PVP? Usually people who fit WCS are not looking for a fight... and thus have fitted the ship for instance for mining.
WCS able one to solo a little bit in low-sec systems.
Pirates are of course looking for an easy prey, they do not seek encounters where they could possibly lose. They do not seek challange, they seek grief.
The basic carebear has to work a lot to finance a BS, and if I were to lose the ship, and not be able to fit it for protection, much of the games appeal would be lost to me.
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 10:17:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Joshua Deakin
Isn't the WCS main use to evade non-consentual PVP? Usually people who fit WCS are not looking for a fight... and thus have fitted the ship for instance for mining.
Not really, you havent seen Battleships with 5 or more WCS that seek to annoy people. They usually look for easy preys and run away when things get a little hotter. 
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
Lord WarATron
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 10:43:00 -
[40]
Perhaps scrambler vs WCS'er should be a case of scrambler eating up, say 5X cap per WCS? Eventually it cant be maintained... though this creates a BS large cap issue though.... and make frig pirates finda useless.
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 10:47:00 -
[41]
TBH, IMHO, I think leave WCS as it is.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
lythos miralbar
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 11:23:00 -
[42]
Edited by: lythos miralbar on 28/10/2005 11:23:54
There are a couple of factors to think of when examining wcs..
First of all they are extremely handy in a travel setup where you do not under any circumstances intend to fight.
At present they are extremely handy in a combat situation where fitting 2 Wcs will make you practicly unable to lose a 1v1 situation, as the opposition would have to sacrefice a minimum of 2 mid slots to hold you. Mid slots are too precious for this and if the other guy does sacrefice 2 mids he will have a severely gimped ship.
So what to do? Anyone who pvp's will have come accross a stabbed out ship and we all know how DAMM annoying it it. The guy is taking almost no risk what so ever to pvp. That goes against the fundamental things that makes eve, well, eve.
The only sugestion I have seen that :-
1) Does NOT in any way hinder WCS for travel setups
2) Makes masses of WCS unusable for pvp
3) Leaves 1 wcs for pvp a viable choice
Is some static nerfs that directly affect a ships combat ability, multiplied by teh number of wcs equiped.
These should IMHO be, each WCS equiped has ALL the following effects
1) Turret optimal range, fall off AND tracking all reduced by 10% for all fitted turrets
2) Launcher ROF increased by 10%, missile flight time reduced by 10%, explosion radius increased by 10%, explosion speed decreased by 10%
3) Scan resolution decreased by 10%, lock range decreased by 10%
4) Smart bomb cap use increased by 20%, +3 second delay on smart bomb activation
Those penalties would be in place if 1 wcs was fitted. If you fit 2 you then double them AND multiply those penalties by 2..
So for smartbomb cap use, with 2 wcs fitted youd have (20%x2)x2= 80% increase. with 3 wcs it would become (20%x3)x3= 180% increase.
Honestly i cant think of a single downside to this and Id challenge some one to come up with a sensible argument against it.
You wanna pvp, then take the risks like a man, dont hide behind your WCS. if you dont want to fight and just want to travel, nothing changes for you.
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 12:15:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 28/10/2005 12:15:58
Iythos, good idea IMHO but maybe a more simplified version. Too much calculations atm.
Reason: Warp core stabs generate a stabilising field for the ship to warp. By doing in, the field does cause internal weapon disruptions. Therefore, all damages are reduced by xx%.
I see the enemies cant cause damage to me while I am warping, why not the field also nerf very own yourself if you have stabs on. That way, indies that do not need to fight will not be bothered about this. It is those combat ships that need to worry about it.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
Dukath
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 12:24:00 -
[44]
chance basted warp scrambling? yes please, but only after removal of safespots. That way someone might get out but can still be chased and 'recaptured'.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 12:31:00 -
[45]
No. Make Warp Core Stabs a high slot item instead.
Run weapons or warp core stabs, your choice.
_______________________________________________________________________
Trey Azagthoth > Youre my idol Jocool. I wanna be like Jocool jr. or Jocool the sequel!
Oveur > ohnoes jocool |
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 12:32:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 28/10/2005 12:32:35
Originally by: JoCool
No. Make Warp Core Stabs a high slot item instead.
Run weapons or warp core stabs, your choice.
2 high slots on Indies?
I think we really need to look again or might as well give all Indies a default of +2 warp stabs and transports a default of +4 warp stabs then...
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
JoCool
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 12:32:00 -
[47]
Oh and yes to Dukath's idea. Kill safespots (and instant bookmarks). Then add chance based warp scrambling. Chases over several moons and planets were common and much fun.
_______________________________________________________________________
Trey Azagthoth > Youre my idol Jocool. I wanna be like Jocool jr. or Jocool the sequel!
Oveur > ohnoes jocool |
JoCool
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 12:35:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 28/10/2005 12:32:35
Originally by: JoCool
No. Make Warp Core Stabs a high slot item instead.
Run weapons or warp core stabs, your choice.
2 high slots on Indies?
I think we really need to look again or might as well give all Indies a default of +2 warp stabs and transports a default of +4 warp stabs then...
Equip defenses in your other slots and tank that frigate pirate. It's a Cruiser? Where's your escort? Why're you here in the first place? Ah yes, 5 WCS make you invulnerable.
If I need to use an Industrial, I fly a Badger. No room for warp core stabs there, and it's still a good ship.
_______________________________________________________________________
Trey Azagthoth > Youre my idol Jocool. I wanna be like Jocool jr. or Jocool the sequel!
Oveur > ohnoes jocool |
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 12:45:00 -
[49]
Originally by: JoCool
1. Equip defenses in your other slots and tank that frigate pirate. It's a Cruiser? Where's your escort? Why're you here in the first place? Ah yes, 5 WCS make you invulnerable.
2. If I need to use an Industrial, I fly a Badger. No room for warp core stabs there, and it's still a good ship.
1. I have defenses in my other slots and have been running blockades of elite frigates before. Just that sometimes, it is hard to find escort because of irregular times. And no, most indies have 3 low slots for WCS and it is by chance that you may escape from being killed. 5 slots? Maybe you will need a raiding party to try to kill Indies in the first place.
2. I rather have WCS on the low slots as it is right now and have dmg debuff instead. Otherwise, might as well change all the ships slots in the game.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
lythos miralbar
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 13:32:00 -
[50]
WCS to high slots is a daft idea that while it kicks around, will do nothing but hold up getting a workable solution in place.
TBH I couldnt give a monkeys if someone in a hauler with 5 stabs on manages to run around dodging a few frig pilots.
As soon as he comes accross a) a gang big enough to scramble him b) some one with the brains to bump him c) a quick lock gank BS d) a bubble, hes dead, simple.
I can see no other reason for people arguing for wcs in high slots, other than to make it easyier for them to gank indies. Escpecialy when there are other MUCH better alternatives around.
Any change stands a better chance of getting put through if it upsets as few people as possible whilst benefiting as many as possible.
WCS in low slots, with penalties to combat efficency/flat dammage reduction as above is the best way to go and actualy has a chance of getting implimented this side of 2007.
Quote:
I see the enemies cant cause damage to me while I am warping, why not the field also nerf very own yourself if you have stabs on. That way, indies that do not need to fight will not be bothered about this. It is those combat ships that need to worry about it.
what about EW? stabbed scrambling ships ?? NOS'S/neutralizers??
there are lots of ways you can effect combat without actualy doing dammage. By the time youv'e said "reduces dammage by missiles, turrets, smartnombs, nos's, neutralizers, jammers, dampners etc etc" you might as well of gone with a direct nerf to turrets, launchers, smart bombs and locktime/lockrange (screws over EW)
This way you have to choose between combat or travel, but it changes nothing for travel setups atm.
|
Mercy Less
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 14:14:00 -
[51]
Originally by: lythos miralbar
At present they are extremely handy in a combat situation where fitting 2 Wcs will make you practicly unable to lose a 1v1 situation, as the opposition would have to sacrefice a minimum of 2 mid slots to hold you. Mid slots are too precious for this and if the other guy does sacrefice 2 mids he will have a severely gimped ship.
To quote another popular sentence:
"If you want to X, you have to sacrifice Y"
(replace X with scramble and Y with something else), and:
"Eve is MMOG; if you can't do it by yourself gather a group of friends to help you".
|
fairimear
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 14:56:00 -
[52]
WCS and jammers are unbalanced.
Wcs either need to be moved to med or be made into a active item that use's sever amount of caps.
but also stasis webbers need altering as the only current counter to 1 is a MWD and that has way to many penalty's to counter them.
AB's may counter them on smaller ships to but are unpractical on anything but ceptors asa webber counter.
Please resize your signature image, the filesize limit is 24,000 bytes - Imaran
|
Locke DieDrake
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 17:40:00 -
[53]
The solution to this particular problem is very simple. And I can't believe no one has seen it yet.
Make stabs ONLY work when you are non-aggressive. With a 60second time delay between last agressive act and stabs coming into affect. And at the same time add in high cost high skill T2 stabs for those of us that don't have the low slots to mount more than one. (caldari destroyer,1 low slot, for instance)
This solves the PK greifer problem, where some people do not want to be easy prey for pirates in bigger ships.
And it sloves the PVP to the death problem for PVPers that do want to fight, and have it relatively safe (which it shouldn't be). So that if you fight, instead of run, you don't have the option to run later if you start losing. Don't fight if you aren't willing to risk it.
I don't have a problem with PVP, I have a problem with PK greifers. Don't jump my destroyer in your BS and expect me to stick around. It's not a fair fight, I have 0 chance of winning and you are just being an Ahole.
And at the same time, if a nearly same sized ship wants to PVP, I'm all about it. It may still be an unfair fight, but I'm willing to risk it.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 17:49:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Mercy Less
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Mercy Less, you are NOT going to find many proponents of chance-based webbing, btw. And your "right tool for the right job" is another tired old BS supreme post. NO.
Actually, I borrowed that sentence from a frigate flyer. He(she?) wanted to introduce tracking to NOS, because battleships drain his cap with heavy NOSses all too easy. Same sentence was used by frigate flyers before missile nerf, too.
When ever changes (balancing) are introduced that affect the mechanics of gameplay, they seem to favor frigs over bigger ships . If you suggest a change that would give some benefit to battleships over frigates, the same argument somehow becames invalid
You have 101 tools for use against smaller ships. And BS are getting a MASSIVE boost to relative effectiveness in this patch - plates and extenders are being made suicidal.
(I'm for *reduced* nos/neut effectiveness on smaller ships. So you need a neut if you want to one-shot a frig's cap. If you have several nos, 2 cycles though...)
Actually, I like the idea that each WCS uses an amount of cap each time a disruptor hits it, successful or not. Protection, at a cost.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Kaiser
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 18:42:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
The solution to this particular problem is very simple. And I can't believe no one has seen it yet.
Make stabs ONLY work when you are non-aggressive. With a 60second time delay between last agressive act and stabs coming into affect. And at the same time add in high cost high skill T2 stabs for those of us that don't have the low slots to mount more than one. (caldari destroyer,1 low slot, for instance)
This solves the PK greifer problem, where some people do not want to be easy prey for pirates in bigger ships.
And it sloves the PVP to the death problem for PVPers that do want to fight, and have it relatively safe (which it shouldn't be). So that if you fight, instead of run, you don't have the option to run later if you start losing. Don't fight if you aren't willing to risk it.
I don't have a problem with PVP, I have a problem with PK greifers. Don't jump my destroyer in your BS and expect me to stick around. It's not a fair fight, I have 0 chance of winning and you are just being an Ahole.
And at the same time, if a nearly same sized ship wants to PVP, I'm all about it. It may still be an unfair fight, but I'm willing to risk it.
Maybe you didn't get the fact that Eve is so better than other MMORPG cause luckly there is pvp, and not only "consensual pvp". Makes the game much more realistic. A game where consensual pvp is the only one allowed would take most of the "pathos" of eve out.
|
Locke DieDrake
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 20:21:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Kaiser
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
The solution to this particular problem is very simple. And I can't believe no one has seen it yet.
Make stabs ONLY work when you are non-aggressive. With a 60second time delay between last agressive act and stabs coming into affect. And at the same time add in high cost high skill T2 stabs for those of us that don't have the low slots to mount more than one. (caldari destroyer,1 low slot, for instance)
This solves the PK greifer problem, where some people do not want to be easy prey for pirates in bigger ships.
And it sloves the PVP to the death problem for PVPers that do want to fight, and have it relatively safe (which it shouldn't be). So that if you fight, instead of run, you don't have the option to run later if you start losing. Don't fight if you aren't willing to risk it.
I don't have a problem with PVP, I have a problem with PK greifers. Don't jump my destroyer in your BS and expect me to stick around. It's not a fair fight, I have 0 chance of winning and you are just being an Ahole.
And at the same time, if a nearly same sized ship wants to PVP, I'm all about it. It may still be an unfair fight, but I'm willing to risk it.
Maybe you didn't get the fact that Eve is so better than other MMORPG cause luckly there is pvp, and not only "consensual pvp". Makes the game much more realistic. A game where consensual pvp is the only one allowed would take most of the "pathos" of eve out.
You clearly did not understand what I said. So I'll explain it.
Currently, for a stab to work, you need at least 2, and probably 3. Which not possible, much less practical in all ships.
The biggest complaint about making stabs more powerfull is that then not even consentual PVP is possible. Since anyone at any time can escape.
What I suggest is to keep the current system. Add in a handfull of rarer, and higher level stabs. (and scramblers too) But also make it so that stabs don't work when you are doing aggressive things. The same way gates are.
This would make it slightly easier for non-combatants to escape PVP. While making it almost impossible for PVP combatants to chicken out and run if they begin to lose.
IF what you want is the ability to ALWAYS force someone into combat with you, then the whole system needs to be redone with that in mind. And it needs to cost you ALOT in trade for being able to force combat on people. Not simply a small amount of cap and a med slot. Because if you want to greif people, which is exactly what forcing combat is. Then you need to give something up. Like 3 slots, or tons of cap, or something like that.
I am not a pirate, nor do I support your "right" to greif non-combat players at any time any place. So if thats what you want, you are talking to the wrong person.
I do however support PVP, but not when some pirate shows up in a BS to destroy my frig or destroyer. Thats not PVP, because I have 0 chance of inflicting damage in that case. Thats greifing, and it should not be easy.
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.29 00:23:00 -
[57]
I think stabs are needed for hit and run tactics. However, the current system can be left alone with changes to attribute modes like decrease in dmg, etc. would be better. You may hit and run, but it will be harder for you to kill. It is the same as saying, crippling your own ship. Most ships wont be affected except for combat ships with stabs.
I have seen stabs making most combat ships a bit weak with the exception of battleships.
Just my 5 cents.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
Derron Bel
|
Posted - 2005.10.29 00:44:00 -
[58]
Quote:
Do bear in mind that (and no, this isn't a whine, it's a point) that is a 0 WCS ship has a chance to escape scrambling, pirates are allways going to kill rather than ransom.
Mercy Less, you are NOT going to find many proponents of chance-based webbing, btw. And your "right tool for the right job" is another tired old BS supreme post. NO.
Well, it would be tough, but you could solve that by causing failed warpout attempts to cause the warp engines to go offline for some significant period of time.
-==-
Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise!
LooseCannoN> ahh!
LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled! |
alphawolf2929
|
Posted - 2005.10.29 02:10:00 -
[59]
LOL your arguement is "we have to use another low slot to get awat" we have to use another med slot to stop you from getting away...
|
Xrak
|
Posted - 2005.10.29 03:07:00 -
[60]
Nothing wrong with current system
But dont forget about t2 destroyers
|
Masta Killa
|
Posted - 2005.10.29 04:42:00 -
[61]
Solution:
Release t2 scramblers and shift-delete the folder with the t2 wcs in the dev database.
--------------------------------------
Hail Stian Allaince and the emperor who can't spell. ;]
|
Scrammer
|
Posted - 2005.10.29 08:45:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Wrayeth
Every time I've tried to get in some solo PvP lately, the target's always warped out care of WCS. I had a cerb agressed, warp scrambled, web, jammed, and nossed and was raping him with dual 650's in my tempest, then he warped out. :P
About 20 minutes later, the same thing happened with a Dominix.
Anyone that posts their killboard info in their signature deserves every missed opportunity they come across.
87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot |
Broken Wings
|
Posted - 2005.10.29 11:34:00 -
[63]
there's nothing wrong with taking pride in your kills...unless you have killed 500 noobships ehehe 
|
Fendor Atar
|
Posted - 2005.10.29 11:56:00 -
[64]
This has been whined, moaned, smacked, flamed abaout for ages. I cant see any reason why it should be easy to catch a enemy ship? i find it funny to see people just whine away how that "noob" used WCS to get away from you and ure gank fleet. The WCS is 1 of the only thing keeping losses to a sane level in 0.0 as i see it if we would remove Instans BMs and "balance" WCS. only 1 thing could happen. You would have to call for fleets of ships as soon as u wanted to move anything bigger then a frig
I know this is a team work game but comeon who in here can say they want to be dependant on others all the time?
"Well keep ure space safe then"
yea everyone that live in 0.0 knows thats impossible
the only way i will ever accept a removal of instant BMs and balance on WCS is if alliances get sentry capabilitys at gate thats actully been looked on atm
the WCS has been put into the game for a good reason it wasnt to anoy PvPers with ZOMG he got away! damn WCS! it was to make 0.0 livable and travable
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |