| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Christopher Multsanti
   |
Posted - 2005.11.13 11:33:00 -
[1]
Ok here is my attempt at a serious post on the ships and mods forum.
I don't like WCS's I have hardly ever used them and I lose alot more ships than I should because of it. The reason I dont use them is because I know if I set my ship up properly it can do some serious damage and kill ships bigger than itself (I am thinking thorax in this example).
To me fitting warpcore stabs is a half hearted attempt at PVP, its like saying yeah i'll try and kill this guy but if things go bad I can always warp out.
This is not the way it should be.
Possible options:
1) remove them from the game completely
2) increase ftting req's alot so they completely gimp your set up, this would mean 3 different sizes of wcs's for frigs, cruisers and bs.
PVP'ing and WCS's should not go together, they should only be allowed for those people that dont want to fight and just dont want to get ganked while travelling somewhere.
Thorax FTW!
Hi, I am your friendly neighbourhood spy! |
Gator McKlusky
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 11:36:00 -
[2]
IMHO they are a pefectly legitimate form of defence. Maybe they should have to be an activated module and therefore use cap, but that's all I'd do to them.
|
Gold Fish
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 11:42:00 -
[3]
Keep them in, the fitting req's are fine too.
The thing that's missing is some sort of combat related penalty similar to the mwd cap penalty or the sensor penalty from cloaks. What you don't want to do is nerf them for people that just want to use them to travel, but they do need to be made less desirable for people that want to fight with them. Losing a single low slot per stab is not really enough of a penalty imho.
|
Ajaya
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 11:44:00 -
[4]
Agreed Christopher.
I've often times found myself fighting someone who should have the advantage in the fight, but they are losing badly... when I start to wonder why, they warp off with a couple of points on them. Then I know why. I remember a war we were in with one corp that filled every low slot on their HACS with these. After we figured this out, we simply packed more and more scram. I hope they were embarrased to lose HAC's to tech 1 cruisers simply because they came fit to run instead of fight. I will admit there are some fun setups where WCS are essential (and they do serve a purpose in travelling through dangerous areas), but more often than not, I find that the loser of even fights often end up being those that have WCS fit. I'll take a trusty tank or high dmg thank you very much :)
|
Bazman
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 11:44:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Bazman on 13/11/2005 11:45:14
I'm the same way, i hate the thought of using stabs since it screws with the slots you could use to make your combat fit even more effective, but lately i've been thinking that blasterboats like a Blasterthron/dominix (and maybe a deimos if your crazy enough) really need to use a couple of stabs in order to actually be able to survive an encounter that swings in an unfavourable direction. You stand to lose too much with such a little advantage in firepower with a ship that relies on getting within range of absolutely every weapon in game (NOS, Smartbombs, Drones etc)
/me is depressed about blasterboats
Edit: Same could be said about autocannon ships, but their range isn't quite so gimped, and Matari ships are fast, so they don't have the same crappy qualities of blasterboats, beside reduced firepower
|
Minnow maught
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 12:23:00 -
[6]
Agreed, WCS are no fun but on industrial ships, frighters etc, they are very handy.
How about have something like a 100+cpu fitting requirement but industrial ships get a cpu bonus that brings them back to current cpu useage levels ?
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 13:08:00 -
[7]
I just wish that they were real "fight or flight"
They need to gimp setups more if you choose to shoot. I dont care if its a locking time penalty, reduction in damage or locking dist or whatever.
On the bright side, I toasted a geddon with 4 wcs two days ago
|
Ak'athra J'ador
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 13:14:00 -
[8]
all wcs do is encourange ganking hehe
|
Krulla
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 13:16:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Krulla on 13/11/2005 13:16:14
Edited by: Krulla on 13/11/2005 13:15:40
There is a horse there.
It is dead.
It has been long dead, in fact.
A man walks into view, striding intendly to the dead horse.
He is holding a baseball bat.
He looks down at the mangled, broken, and rotten cadaver.
He raises the bat above his head, holding it tightly with both hands.
He screams: "OMGWTFBBQ NERF WCS PLZZZ¿!!!211211"
He beats the dead horse.
Respect the Domi. Or else. |
Rexthor Hammerfists2
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 13:33:00 -
[10]
The problem of the WCS is, that:
Warp Core Stab > Scramblers
because:
- warp cores are inactive, scramblers do ahve to activate on a locked target.
- warp cores fit in lowslots, where scramblers fit in meds which are general less in the game.
- warp cores dont have a range, like scramblers do.
|
Dreez
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 13:40:00 -
[11]
 Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists2
The problem of the WCS is, that:
Warp Core Stab > Scramblers
because:
- warp cores are inactive, scramblers do ahve to activate on a locked target.
- warp cores fit in lowslots, where scramblers fit in meds which are general less in the game.
- warp cores dont have a range, like scramblers do.
Amen to that. WCS to highslots ftw !!
I might have ATUKO in my tag, but i have OC in my DNA
|
Soros
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 15:06:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dreez
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists2
The problem of the WCS is, that:
Warp Core Stab > Scramblers
because:
- warp cores are inactive, scramblers do ahve to activate on a locked target.
- warp cores fit in lowslots, where scramblers fit in meds which are general less in the game.
- warp cores dont have a range, like scramblers do.
Amen to that. WCS to highslots ftw !!
Or just activation cost ;D
-= Soros =-
C6
|
Kara Kaprica
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 15:11:00 -
[13]
average slots required to put a str 2 scramble on someone= 1
average slots to stop that scramble= 2
Please, the dead horse cant take it anymore, its verging on necrobeastiality.
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 15:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kara Kaprica
average slots required to put a str 2 scramble on someone= 1
average slots to stop that scramble= 2
Please, the dead horse cant take it anymore, its verging on necrobeastiality.
Slots to get two points = 2.
1 scram and one mwd. Not gonna get close otherwise. Huge chance you wont anyway.
|
HairyGary
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 16:13:00 -
[15]
Quote:
Slots to get two points = 2.
1 scram and one mwd. Not gonna get close otherwise. Huge chance you wont anyway.
Unless you're prepared to show that a MWD's sole functionality rests in getting you close enough to use a warp scrambler, your argument is mind numbingly disingenuous.
|
Boonaki
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 16:16:00 -
[16]
-10% ROF for guns and launchers = balance.
Fear the Ibis of doom. |
Farjung
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 16:16:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Bazman
Edited by: Bazman on 13/11/2005 11:45:14
I'm the same way, i hate the thought of using stabs since it screws with the slots you could use to make your combat fit even more effective, but lately i've been thinking that blasterboats like a Blasterthron/dominix (and maybe a deimos if your crazy enough) really need to use a couple of stabs in order to actually be able to survive an encounter that swings in an unfavourable direction. You stand to lose too much with such a little advantage in firepower with a ship that relies on getting within range of absolutely every weapon in game (NOS, Smartbombs, Drones etc)
/me is depressed about blasterboats
Edit: Same could be said about autocannon ships, but their range isn't quite so gimped, and Matari ships are fast, so they don't have the same crappy qualities of blasterboats, beside reduced firepower
And of course the irony is that blasterboats are the fittings that need every single one of their low slots the most.
---
Remote sensor dampers, sensor boosters and remote sensor boosters are bugged and currently overpowered. |
Kara Kaprica
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 16:25:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Originally by: Kara Kaprica
average slots required to put a str 2 scramble on someone= 1
average slots to stop that scramble= 2
Please, the dead horse cant take it anymore, its verging on necrobeastiality.
Slots to get two points = 2.
1 scram and one mwd. Not gonna get close otherwise. Huge chance you wont anyway.
you cannot factor a mwd in. if it only assisted you in scrambling then you could, but as it allows your ship to travel fast whatever you are doing, then the point is moot.
|
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 17:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kara Kaprica
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Originally by: Kara Kaprica
average slots required to put a str 2 scramble on someone= 1
average slots to stop that scramble= 2
Please, the dead horse cant take it anymore, its verging on necrobeastiality.
Slots to get two points = 2.
1 scram and one mwd. Not gonna get close otherwise. Huge chance you wont anyway.
you cannot factor a mwd in. if it only assisted you in scrambling then you could, but as it allows your ship to travel fast whatever you are doing, then the point is moot.
I want a 92528359 km warp dis.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 17:44:00 -
[20]
Highslot stabs would be laughably exploitable.
Imagine, a geddon with 8 highslot stabs and 8 nanofibers
-
Proud member of the [23].
Don't get the reference in my sig? Click it.
|
Bazman
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 17:52:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Highslot stabs would be laughably exploitable.
Imagine, a geddon with 8 highslot stabs and 8 nanofibers
Yes, i mean, it would be reduced to bumping freighters! oh man, the fun that could be had with that, oh wait... :p
|
Wee Dave
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 18:07:00 -
[22]
Making them highslot would be very unfair to industrials.
One of the better suggestions I heard was a warp penalty for each stab if you activated an aggroing module. So if I have four stabs, for example, and I try to shoot at you, I then can't warp for 120 seconds.
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 18:27:00 -
[23]
-30% warp speed per module.
2 mods = half the normal warpspeed, 4 mods = 1/4 the normal warpspeed.
Gives a chance for someone in control of the system to actually catch the enemies, and makes WCS-sniper and WCS-damper setups actually counterable.
T2 Destroyers: a proposal
Requested Changes: An alphabet's worth |
Jane Vladmir
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 18:30:00 -
[24]
The WCS problem has been since they were introduced to the game. They knew and know they're overpowered, thing is - 90% of eve want them to be overpowered; 90% of eve doesn't want to have to take chances.
First fix the players, then you can fix the modules.
|
Haniblecter Teg
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 18:32:00 -
[25]
Then Ill bill you everytime I lose 100k zyd.
loser.
Friends Forever |
RedWyvern
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 19:03:00 -
[26]
I think the social stigma surrounding the use of WCS, combined with the fact that they waste slots that can be put to better use is penalty enough. :)
Loyalty, Integrity, Honour. |
Rendai
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 19:06:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Rendai on 13/11/2005 19:07:24
I'm seeing the social stigma slowly vanish, personally - combat builds dependant on WCS work, and what works gains respect.
|
hattifnatt
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 22:39:00 -
[28]
Warp stabs is killing the game. 
___
/o.0\
\___/ <-- This is Jigglypuff!! |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 23:02:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Vishnej
-30% warp speed per module.
2 mods = half the normal warpspeed, 4 mods = 1/4 the normal warpspeed.
Gives a chance for someone in control of the system to actually catch the enemies, and makes WCS-sniper and WCS-damper setups actually counterable.
Howso? Do remember that the sniper will propably be going to a mid-warp safe or deep safe, and so warp speed isn't directly relevant.
Anyway, my specific proposal is here
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 23:25:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Highslot stabs would be laughably exploitable.
Imagine, a geddon with 8 highslot stabs and 8 nanofibers
Meh i don't mind as long as he can't gear up for combat. People who use stabs to travel are not the problem.
________________________________________________________
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.11.13 23:32:00 -
[31]
Other idea is each scrambling attempt, successful or not, took a chunk off your cap if you had WCS. If you had multiple WCS, the effect would stack. So you might be able to get away, once, but your cap would definately be shot after it.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Cdr Foxbat
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 01:21:00 -
[32]
As I always repeat - have WCS act similarly to sensor dampers - every module increases decreases your scan range and resolution by say 50% - which would kill most combat setups. Either fight or run - dont sit on the fence........
|
Serret
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 01:45:00 -
[33]
Make them active high slot modules. Industrials can still fit 2. If you need more strength than that, you can always get an elite indy.
Before someone complains too heavily about this, ask yourself this: Why should cargo ships be invulnerable for crashing military blockades anyway?
And P.S.: Good luck sniping with that 8 hislot-wcs, 8 nanos geddon.
--
<Deathwing> just say Amarr pwn cause DW is Amarr |
faceone
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 02:27:00 -
[34]
Buhu for the people that have a hardtime catching ppl with WCS.
Get a faster ship with stronger scram strength mmmk
Wait a minute why dont we just remove warp drives from the ships altogether then WCS become obsoleted wow im such the genious coz CCP cares what I think because im part of a minority of whiners.
/troll
On a serious note, they cant go anywhere when their dead, perhaps you need to dramatically increase your DPS? 
|
TheKiller8
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 02:37:00 -
[35]
But.. without WCS, all my griefing near-bannable ship setups like this one would be impossible!
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 03:05:00 -
[36]
I, personally, preffered randomized warp scramble probability.
If an 8xWarp Stab ship had a 5% chance of being caught in a 30s warp scramble, travelers would think twice about running scrambler blockades.
If a stabless ship had a 5% chance of not being scrambled by a 30s scrambler, people would be a less hesitant about charging an enemy frigate force.
I would think a sort of Fermi-Durac probability function would do nicely
|
Redblade
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 08:11:00 -
[37]
Option 3: Give wcs a stacking penalty of +10% inertia.
|
tiller
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 08:31:00 -
[38]
WCS are fine, I often fly with 3+ on my raven... reason ?,
1. For gate camping they effect my shield tank by only 30secs or so
2. They let me stay longer at a fight because I know once in hull I can warp
3. I stay longer in a fight meaning I kill more
4. When you are outlaw status you often get blobbed by a gang of HACs and running is something that works for me in these situations.
5. Knowing I can leave a fight means I will have a go at anyone, even if odds stacked against me and flying a 300m isk raven.
6. Often in PVP you will meet in a 1 vs 1 where enemy setup will beat you every time, whats the point in staying to fight ?
People who usually write these blah blah I hate WCS threads fall into only three possible cats..
1. They dont PVP or at least don't understand it
2. They are so rich that they dont care about going boom
3. They fly in a blob so dont need them
4. They fly a ship that has major design problems and can't use them without gimping it.
Could everyone stop whinning about everything that they don't like. Just because YOU don't like it, don't assume everyone doesn't.... adapt, learn the game mechanics or fit a better scrambler.
/rant off
|
VossKarr
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 09:04:00 -
[39]
Originally by: tiller
WCS are fine, I often fly with 3+ on my raven... reason ?,
1. For gate camping they effect my shield tank by only 30secs or so
2. They let me stay longer at a fight because I know once in hull I can warp
3. I stay longer in a fight meaning I kill more
4. When you are outlaw status you often get blobbed by a gang of HACs and running is something that works for me in these situations.
5. Knowing I can leave a fight means I will have a go at anyone, even if odds stacked against me and flying a 300m isk raven.
6. Often in PVP you will meet in a 1 vs 1 where enemy setup will beat you every time, whats the point in staying to fight ?
People who usually write these blah blah I hate WCS threads fall into only three possible cats..
1. They dont PVP or at least don't understand it
2. They are so rich that they dont care about going boom
3. They fly in a blob so dont need them
4. They fly a ship that has major design problems and can't use them without gimping it.
Could everyone stop whinning about everything that they don't like. Just because YOU don't like it, don't assume everyone doesn't.... adapt, learn the game mechanics or fit a better scrambler.
/rant off
Heh, the funny thing is, tiller, those points you mention about their use in combat are precisely the reason why a lot of people want to see them nerfed. They basically allow you to d*ck around and be irresponsible in your actions and about your ship in combat, and getting away with it.
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 09:13:00 -
[40]
All ships have an arbitrary base core strength. Say... 1.
Warp Core Stabilizers take a low slot and about... maybe 10 CPU.
Chance of scrambling is:
(Target Core Strength) / (Scrambling amount)
Net effect: nerfed WCS, retained scrambler strength (no WCS = no chance of escaping a scrambler. Less core strength than scrambling strength = 100% successful scrambling)
Or we could have the slightly more complex system proposed earlier where you always had a chance of escaping or always stood a chance of getting scrambled. The avarage was that you'd more often get scrambled wearing WCS than you'd escape while not wearing stabs (and being scrambled by only a disruptor).
I wish there were more fun skills with Memory as primary. Poor Intaki combat people with low perception... |
Rexthor Hammerfists2
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 09:31:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists2 on 14/11/2005 09:31:50
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists2 on 14/11/2005 09:31:18
the ultimative balance would be to make warp cores active, means u have to lock a ship and activate an wcs on it.
god id love it, no lame 3 wcs ***** ravens out there who wouldnt risk to stick around for a real fight without a open backdoor
|
tiller
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 09:31:00 -
[42]
Edited by: tiller on 14/11/2005 09:31:07
Originally by: VossKarr
Originally by: tiller
WCS are fine, I often fly with 3+ on my raven... reason ?,
1. For gate camping they effect my shield tank by only 30secs or so
2. They let me stay longer at a fight because I know once in hull I can warp
3. I stay longer in a fight meaning I kill more
4. When you are outlaw status you often get blobbed by a gang of HACs and running is something that works for me in these situations.
5. Knowing I can leave a fight means I will have a go at anyone, even if odds stacked against me and flying a 300m isk raven.
6. Often in PVP you will meet in a 1 vs 1 where enemy setup will beat you every time, whats the point in staying to fight ?
People who usually write these blah blah I hate WCS threads fall into only three possible cats..
1. They dont PVP or at least don't understand it
2. They are so rich that they dont care about going boom
3. They fly in a blob so dont need them
4. They fly a ship that has major design problems and can't use them without gimping it.
Could everyone stop whinning about everything that they don't like. Just because YOU don't like it, don't assume everyone doesn't.... adapt, learn the game mechanics or fit a better scrambler.
/rant off
Heh, the funny thing is, tiller, those points you mention about their use in combat are precisely the reason why a lot of people want to see them nerfed. They basically allow you to d*ck around and be irresponsible in your actions and about your ship in combat, and getting away with it.
Fair point ... but should you be responsible for your actions in a game. ahh well, thats another thread 
|
tiller
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 10:00:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists2
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists2 on 14/11/2005 09:31:50
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists2 on 14/11/2005 09:31:18
the ultimative balance would be to make warp cores active, means u have to lock a ship and activate an wcs on it.
god id love it, no lame 3 wcs ***** ravens out there who wouldnt risk to stick around for a real fight without a open backdoor
No the ult bal is to have everyone in the same ship with the same fitting. Pass me a tissue im gonna cry 
|
Mangus Thermopyle
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 10:10:00 -
[44]
I agree that something should be done. Putting WCS in high slot seems to be te best solution. Or maybe have a stacking penalty, so that 2 WCSs gives 1.5 in streangth, 3 gives 2 in streangth, 4 gives 2.5 and so on (the formula would be (2 * WCSs + 1) / 2)
|
Spartan 1185
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 16:03:00 -
[45]
I'll say this, to me, if your not in a hauler, and your fitting stab's ur a P*****Y, and you need to play another game, i got on raids all the time in enemy space, and i'll fit a civilian afterburner before i fit stabs, end of story. 
|
tiller
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 17:19:00 -
[46]
Edited by: tiller on 14/11/2005 17:22:57
Originally by: Spartan 1185
I'll say this, to me, if your not in a hauler, and your fitting stab's ur a P*****Y, and you need to play another game, i got on raids all the time in enemy space, and i'll fit a civilian afterburner before i fit stabs, end of story.
, I lose 1 or 2 ships a wk... without stabs that would be double at least. Without them I would not be able to afford to PVP in my chosen style (have a go at anyone, anywhere style). Anyway, this is a game, play it how you like.... if you really want to fit a blah blah whatever, then great.. it's in the game so it's a viable fitting. Live with it
ps: why doesn't anyone post with mains ?
|
Haniblecter Teg
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 17:26:00 -
[47]
CCP wants to move people out of high sec space.
Making WCS's less effective hampers this.
Your changes are falling on deaf ears. Go dig a hole.
Friends Forever |
pardux
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 17:58:00 -
[48]
-15% powergrid(or more) and 50-60 cpu use on wcs's = fixed.
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 18:12:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Originally by: Vishnej
-30% warp speed per module.
2 mods = half the normal warpspeed, 4 mods = 1/4 the normal warpspeed.
Gives a chance for someone in control of the system to actually catch the enemies, and makes WCS-sniper and WCS-damper setups actually counterable.
Howso? Do remember that the sniper will propably be going to a mid-warp safe or deep safe, and so warp speed isn't directly relevant.
Anyway, my specific proposal is here
I'm not of the opinion that we need a massive nerf, a 'la "50 CPU per WCS" or "Highslot only." We just need a slight equalizer against WCS-dependant combat builds which currently (as the pirate above admits) make it too easy to pop things and get away without fighting..
This would make hostiles who fancy hit-and-run tactics require some major time to traverse hostile territory - nerfing hit-and-run tactics on the macro scale. Burn Eden fleet 5 jumps out? Now you'd have 10 minutes to put up an effective gate gank - including bubbles - instead of 3.
----------------------------
T2 Destroyers: a proposal
Requested Changes: An alphabet's worth |
Crellion
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 18:14:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Crellion on 14/11/2005 18:14:37
WCS really stop you from fielding your best set up which is why they are not used in -v-. I used thm when pirating solo b4 -v- howeve and cant argue with their effectiveness in 9/10 situations.
The problem is that it is really cheap using them in pvp. Even respected forces like MC (an of cource 2x in every NBSI vagabond gooh gooh @ OP) use them gallore to try and steal kills when faced with superior force. Is that really a problem?
I dont know. But if it is perceived by the majority of pvp-ing eve to be a problemthen the solution is simple (although taxing the server a bit perhaps): For every WCS in a gang all ships in that gang lose 1xwcs number / amount of ships in gang = scram strength. So if your 10 BSs have 30 wcs all 20 ships in your gang lose 30/20 = 1.5 scram strength. That would stop people using them in pvp mighty quick :D
On the other hand if thats what they like doing, let them do it. As a friend said above, you have to fix the people b4 you fix the mods in this case. Where's the excitment if you know you can warp out ??? I dont even use the Thorax anymore cause its too strong and costs too littl to replace. For me lack of balance is a bigger pain for the favoured party but then its not perhaps so self -evident for some. best of luck to all :)
|
Serret
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 18:45:00 -
[51]
Originally by: tiller
People who usually write these blah blah I hate WCS threads fall into only three possible cats..
1. They dont PVP or at least don't understand it
2. They are so rich that they dont care about going boom
3. They fly in a blob so dont need them
4. They fly a ship that has major design problems and can't use them without gimping it.
Not only are you a nub, but you can't count, either.
--
<Deathwing> just say Amarr pwn cause DW is Amarr |
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 18:54:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Serret
Originally by: tiller
People who usually write these blah blah I hate WCS threads fall into only three possible cats..
1. They dont PVP or at least don't understand it
2. They are so rich that they dont care about going boom
3. They fly in a blob so dont need them
4. They fly a ship that has major design problems and can't use them without gimping it.
Not only are you a nub, but you can't count, either.
Agreed.
My last 3 bs kills have had a total of 7 wcs drop from them.
|
madaluap
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 18:54:00 -
[53]
just make warpcorestabs reduce shield and armor systems by 10% each stab fitted 
this is gonna be fun
|
tiller
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 19:10:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Originally by: Serret
Originally by: tiller
People who usually write these blah blah I hate WCS threads fall into only three possible cats..
1. They dont PVP or at least don't understand it
2. They are so rich that they dont care about going boom
3. They fly in a blob so dont need them
4. They fly a ship that has major design problems and can't use them without gimping it.
Not only are you a nub, but you can't count, either.
Agreed.
My last 3 bs kills have had a total of 7 wcs drop from them.
omg guys , you all gonna bust into tears in a second ?...
If a module is in game, then it's fine to fit it, ADAPT! ..don't cry about it on the forums. Like ..look at me I'm uber I dont use stabs... who cares ? 
Looking back at some other posts then maybe there is a case for some kind of stacking penalty, but only to stop entire low slot fitments. 1 or 2 should not be nerfed.
btw, I used to shout nub at guys when I was 13 as well
|
Fenris'ar
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 19:11:00 -
[55]
what about change wcs(lowslot per hitslot).It Would be fun if people use wcs instead of guns ....or so
|
tiller
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 19:17:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Fenris'ar
what about change wcs(lowslot per hitslot).It Would be fun if people use wcs instead of guns ....or so
tbh, I think that is probably the best idea... not that I want it to happen
|
Arleonenis
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 20:31:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Arleonenis on 14/11/2005 20:31:49
oh another topic with pirates screaming for easier prays? consider this: you screw game to much to other players and you could camp every gate in eve as only you will remain...
only idea about wcs i will support is to made them high slot and lower they fitting requirements, they are meant for travel, no one sane want to enter through gate to meet 5-7 pirates gank and cant do a s**t to survive
|
Serret
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 20:55:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Serret on 14/11/2005 20:55:38
Originally by: tiller
btw, I used to shout nub at guys when I was 13 as well
Let me remind you what you posted originally:
Quote:
People who usually write these blah blah I hate WCS threads fall into only three possible cats..
1. They dont PVP or at least don't understand it
(3 other cats snipped...)
You were saying?
--
<Deathwing> just say Amarr pwn cause DW is Amarr |
Kara Kaprica
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 22:58:00 -
[59]
There is nothing wrong with this module. People who see them as the antichrist of EVE make me giggle. It gives you the ability to POSSIBLY get away from combat, for the price of REDUCED effectiveness in such combat. In combat, there is nothing you can fit in a low slot that has a lesser combat potential than a WCS, except that the stab MAY allow you to leave the combat.
Removing and/or nerfing WCS would have a massive effect on Industry in this game as alot of people would simply avoid certain areas because they woukd no longer feel remotely safe traveing through them.
|
Zane Broohn
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 00:00:00 -
[60]
One vote for WCS fine as they are.
ZB
|
Kalik Montclair
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 01:19:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Jane Vladmir
90% of eve want them to be overpowered; 90% of eve doesn't want to have to take chances.
First fix the players, then you can fix the modules.
Sig Quality quote there......
Originally by: Jane Vladmir
90% of eve want them to be overpowered; 90% of eve doesn't want to have to take chances.
First fix the players, then you can fix the modules.
|
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 03:44:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Kara Kaprica
There is nothing wrong with this module. People who see them as the antichrist of EVE make me giggle. It gives you the ability to POSSIBLY get away from combat, for the price of REDUCED effectiveness in such combat. In combat, there is nothing you can fit in a low slot that has a lesser combat potential than a WCS, except that the stab MAY allow you to leave the combat.
Removing and/or nerfing WCS would have a massive effect on Industry in this game as alot of people would simply avoid certain areas because they woukd no longer feel remotely safe traveing through them.
Thats the issue. The opportunity costs for fitting wcs are absurdly low. What are you giving up? 2 slots out of 18? 60 cpu? The fact that 4 wcs+ are common should indicate how little opportunity costs you actually give up in comparison to the advantage you gain by mounting them.
And no one cares about travel setups with WCS. No one cares about industrialists with haulers using lots of WCS.
EVERYONE HATES BATTLESHIPS THAT STILL MOUNT MAJOR OFFENCE WHILE EASILY USING 4+ STABBIES.
Sorry for the shouting. But I thought it needed to be heard. And please don't even get me started on the sheer number of interceptors with stabbies that I have encountered recently.
Nyxus
Plasmatique> "Cry 'Cartiff' and let slip the dogs of war!" |
Berasus' Minion
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 04:51:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Berasus'' Minion on 15/11/2005 04:51:54
how about the jamming strength of a scrambler is cumulative?
so the strength of jamming on the target increases every cycle.
__________disruptor___Scrambler
Cycle 1_______1___________2
Cycle 2_______2___________4
Cycle 3_______3___________6
Cycle 4_______4___________8
Cycle 5_______5___________10
etc etc etc
ships using them to travel won't be effected since they'll be long gone by the time the scramblers gone through the 2nd cycle.
Ships using them in combat will still have a chance to use them to run at the very start if they act quickly, but if they stay they'll be sacrificing their chance to run since the scrambler will stack up enough to stop him.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists2
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 07:39:00 -
[64]
well said nyxus.
|
M3ta7h3ad
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 07:55:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Berasus' Minion
Edited by: Berasus'' Minion on 15/11/2005 04:51:54
how about the jamming strength of a scrambler is cumulative?
so the strength of jamming on the target increases every cycle.
__________disruptor___Scrambler
Cycle 1_______1___________2
Cycle 2_______2___________4
Cycle 3_______3___________6
Cycle 4_______4___________8
Cycle 5_______5___________10
etc etc etc
ships using them to travel won't be effected since they'll be long gone by the time the scramblers gone through the 2nd cycle.
Ships using them in combat will still have a chance to use them to run at the very start if they act quickly, but if they stay they'll be sacrificing their chance to run since the scrambler will stack up enough to stop him.
Thats actually a damn good idea.
Allows travel and nerfs it for combat. I like it!
Oh and now with the new insta removal thing, perhaps they should consider making WCS a little more effective. Maybe release those tech 2 WCS now? eh ccp?? :)
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 07:59:00 -
[66]
nerf wcs
________________________________________________________
|
Serret
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 08:04:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Nyxus
And no one cares about travel setups with WCS. No one cares about industrialists with haulers using lots of WCS.
EVERYONE HATES BATTLESHIPS THAT STILL MOUNT MAJOR OFFENCE WHILE EASILY USING 4+ STABBIES.
And, in fact, making WCS high-slots actually means that indies can fit full cargo expanders and still have a pair of WCS. How can ya complain about that?!?
--
<Deathwing> just say Amarr pwn cause DW is Amarr |
M3ta7h3ad
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 08:08:00 -
[68]
Because indies tend to have more low slots than high slots.
I prefer more security as opposed to more cargo space.
The guy above with the "cumulative effect" had the best idea I've heard of so far.
|
Agricola Augusta
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 08:26:00 -
[69]
/sarcasm mode
I can't destroy ships that fit WCS so they should be removed, or people using them should be penalized so they have no chance of defending themselves WHHHHHHHHAAAAAA!
I get destroyed at gates by pirates because they use sensor boosters to snipe me, remove sensor boosters or penalize them so badly they can't use them to snipe WHHHHHAAA!
I get killed in belts because pirates have scramblers and I have nothing to counter it with effectively, remove scramblers or penalize thier use so the pirates have no way to break the tank on my barge WWHHHHHHHHHAAAAA!
I can't pvp 1v1 because it's impossible to fit a scrambler/WCS and fight meaning he always warps away before I can win, put something in the game that allows me to prevent them from warping WHHHAAAAAAA!
/sarcasm mode off
And they call me a P***y for fitting WCS on my Raven?
All I see when someone calls for a nerf to WCS is "I didn't kill him because he had WCS, so please change the rules to satisfy my need to win."
People who call for a nerf to WCS= White Goodman (Dodgeball). My advice is to grab life by the balls and adapt!
|
Quentin Decker
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 08:48:00 -
[70]
Warp core stabilizers are fine as they are.
Why? For starters, any ship fitting warp core stabilizers is already severely penalized by occupying valuable low slots that might otherwise drastically improve the set-up. For example, a battleship with a standard PvP set-up is far more likely to defeat a pilot with equal skills in the same ship that decided to eat up one or two of his slots with stabilizers. Fitting WCSs may just be your ticket to bail you out of a bad situation, but it's also risky using them at the same time - they reduce the full potential of your set-up.
Additionally, pilots that wish to evade having their ships scrambled usually have to fit multiple stabilizers to counter the often high strengths of the modules attempting to scramble them. I don't understand why a module such as the WCS - something you often have to use in numbers for them to be effective - needs to be nerfed.
When I engage in PvP, a tenth or so of the ships I'll attempt to scramble will effectively counter it. That's right, 10% of them. Now just because a ship is able to stabilize its warp drive and get away from me does not give me the right to go to the opposite extreme... and say that just because the guy I wanted to blow up got away means that WCSs need to be nerfed, killed, removed. PvPers have an effective and almost guranteed method for shutting down the warp drives of their targets, and there is absolutely no reason why the targets do not reserve the right to have an effective counter. Or at least attempt to counter. Do I like to watch my targets get away? Heck no. But it is only fair. I try to shut their warp drive down, they try to keep it online.
There is nothing unreasonable about the warp core stabilizer. Using them can nerf your own set-up, yet they offer the ability to get away from unfavorable situations, in all fairness. If you wish to remove the WCS, remove the scramblers / disruptors as well. The simple fact is, players hate to see their prey mount an effective counter to their set-ups. But that's the way it works and should work.
My two cents, take or leave it.
-JP
-this space left intentionally blank- |
Ocean Soul
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 12:04:00 -
[71]
I ransom mostly for a living and WCS P****s me off when ppl escape. however it is part of the game and is just another factor for for us to work around. also WCS is the only thing thats going to encourage ppl out of lagville and into lower sec systems. if WCS is nerfed less people will leave high sec space as they are affraid to loose a ship. i think that it is purposly over powered and for this reason.
Live with it ladies and gentlmen i dont believe that it is going to change.
|
mOrdi
|
Posted - 2005.11.15 12:48:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Quentin Decker
There is nothing unreasonable about the warp core stabilizer. Using them can nerf your own set-up, yet they offer the ability to get away from unfavorable situations, in all fairness. If you wish to remove the WCS, remove the scramblers / disruptors as well. The simple fact is, players hate to see their prey mount an effective counter to their set-ups. But that's the way it works and should work.
totally got it one sir
its a counter for scrambers and they should be there for those who want to protect themselves
leave em alone ..havnt we had enuff nerfs latley without messing up things further?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |