| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Heinky
   |
Posted - 2006.01.17 14:33:00 -
[121]
Ive never used stabs and i agree with the poster, its not fair that people can fitt stabs so my gank squad cant get them. I got a group to fight 2 be ravens the other day and we needed 40 people just to try to scramble them but it didnt work so stabs are overpowerd.
But they managed somehow to kill 1 of our bs,s that had 4 stabs i dont get it.
|
Kindakrof
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 14:41:00 -
[122]
hmmm, bump em!
WCS 4tl
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 15:09:00 -
[123]
 Originally by: Testy Mctest
For me, a build is everything, as evidenced by the fact that not a single person ever has a good thing to say about Burn Eden. Everyone slates them. They owned a lot of people with their Ravens, and lost very little in return. They made an established setup and used it to its full. No-one changed their tactics enough to counter what they did. Stabs dont need a nerf, whoever fought Burn Eden just needs to learn to counter.
Actually a lot of ppl have good things to say about us. At the same time, we wouldn't be Eve's most hated corp if we didn't annoy some ppl.
In the year or so I've been in the corp, nobody has ever came out with a successful anti-BE setup. One or two ppl have setup traps, but they only ever caught one of us with it. I look forward to the day when someone manages to catch all of us at once. But if theres a way to fight us, chances are, we know about it too so know what to look for/expect.
Oh and, un-nerf dampners CCP!
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 15:17:00 -
[124]
burn eden are the best example.
theyre doin a rlly good job..
at annoying ppl, with using wrong game mechanics in their advantage.
now imagine every1 would use the 5 stab ravens - hell ya would be funy wouldnt it?
and the 5 stab ravens are effective, no doubt there.
-
Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
|
Filan
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 15:27:00 -
[125]
without WCS we would need to make Heavy Assault Haulers, cruiser class armor and shields and 5x launcher slots. Caracal Meets Badger........to make Q-Ship, bane of pirate wolf packs.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 16:18:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Terradoct
Make WCS high-slot module , with cap. capacity penalty 25%.
Sure, and do the same with scramblers.
What, you need assurances your target won't get away? Organize yourself and your team better.
|
Spathi
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 16:27:00 -
[127]
The worst thing happened to a friend yesterday, he was in a crow and got jumped by a wannabe pirate in a crow. Now my friend was beating this guy easily when the guy warps off because of his stab. No big deal but the guy kept coming back and trying his luck. Each time he would warp off in structure and my friend never went to repair. Eventually we were tempted to rig up my rapeship and scramble him for 6 and let the two of them fight it out with no escape for either. Unfortunately he didnt come back after 5 tries. I was flagged in another system or I would have got there sooner.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 17:18:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 17/01/2006 17:20:03
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 17/01/2006 17:18:56
Winterblink:
"Sure, and do the same with scramblers.
What, you need assurances your target won't get away? Organize yourself and your team better"
Oh, many can do that.
the best team organization to kill the nowadays so often stabbed up target is:
The beloved bubblecamp.
Now ppl might say: "Hey, rex, bull*hit thats boring!"
then i say that so many ppl think bubbles are the way to counter stabs, and so wcs are fine
- see? u have to use bubblecamps.
other ppl might answer me then: "But rex, u nub should know that interdictors will catch all and every1!"
but then i have to admit that i dont have the skills to fly them, like most of the eve population - and even more important, i dont have the money (70m isk) to spend oon a paperthin cruisersized suicidal,(scrambles itself with the bubble), destroyer.
and here most ppl will become quiet, thinkin of The argument, to make this pesky rex shutup, who dares to touch the nobrainer winmodule for so many
- and suddenly Tom ****
stands up - screaming: "EVE IS AN MMO GAME, GO TAKE INTERCEPTORS AND LOADS OF TACKLERS WITH U NUBLET!!11"
guess what,
hes right.
and im doin exactly that.
slight tank, dmg, the one witht he fastest lock wins -
and frigs as tacklers next to us.
call it a gankgroup.
bses last about 10seconds to it, hardly fun pvp, but im happy enough when i get on the killmail.
the guys that die then think, damnit next time i gota fit more wcs to survive this damn blobbers and gankers...
-
Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 17:20:00 -
[129]
I just don't like how the whole 'running away' thing is done in Eve.
in my opinion, it should be harder to lose a ship but more expensive to maintain one. Structure should be damage easily and you should have to repair at a station or maintanance array, it should take a certain amount of minerals and cost some money.
Meaning.. I want it to be where you can cause a battleships 50m isk worth of damage before he run but where it's not that easy to take him down before he runs.
Why can't it be like this? it would solve A LOT of problems with the game and combat in general.
I can't stand not having enough time to react to something in this game.. having to run and not knowing if I'll be able to. I think WCS and Disruptors should be chance based (like EW), I think damage should bleed through to structure quite often, I think repair costs should be high and should be mandatory (no structure repairers).
People laugh at me when I suggest this.. I guess I'm having trouble putting the idea into.
I'd also be for extremely high structure HP (15k for a battleship, or high resists) to make it so modules get damage quite often in a fight and getting into structure doesn't mean "oh ****, im dead in 3 seconds". I think it would make the game more fun.
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 17:29:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Grimpak on 17/01/2006 17:30:38
only ship that I have with some warp stab str is my prowler and that's because they are built-in.
That said, I know I've lost lots of ships before due to not having stabs, but I don't care. "Do or Die" is my fighting motto, as it should be.
I hate wcs, and altho I don't cry for a nerf to them, I've seen very sad examples of their uses, namely a harpy with 1 wcs and a vampadomi I've saw once that packed at least 5 stabs. Took a bit of effort to kill the guy.
----------------
Originally by: Abdalion
Shoot him ingame if you don't like this person. If you do like him, go mine veldspar with him.
|
Sanaen Eydanwadh
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 17:38:00 -
[131]
Originally by: ErrorS
I can't stand not having enough time to react to something in this game.. having to run and not knowing if I'll be able to. I think WCS and Disruptors should be chance based (like EW), I think damage should bleed through to structure quite often, I think repair costs should be high and should be mandatory (no structure repairers).
I'd also be for extremely high structure HP (15k for a battleship, or high resists) to make it so modules get damage quite often in a fight and getting into structure doesn't mean "oh ****, im dead in 3 seconds". I think it would make the game more fun.
I could agree with most of these ideas, but since I'm trying to look like I'm working right now I'd just like to comment on the part I highlighted - which is directly linked to this topic - and which I don't agree with. Scrambling becoming chance-based. Devs indeed have thought about it, maybe still consider it (hence the current propulsion stats we can see), but I'm convinced it would be quite awfull, at least if it's done the same way than ECM: roll a dice, win, roll a dice, win, roll a dice, lost, target escaped. No matter how many tacklers you would have, no matter if/how many stabs the target has, there's a chance he will escape if you don't kill him before he can align.
Predictable result (yes I know, "the sky is falling ohnoes", but I really can't see how it would not lead to this): always gank massively and instantly or don't bother to undock. dk.
No more chance-based mechanisms, for the love of Joves 
|
NebulousBlur
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 17:58:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Sarmaul
all wcs does is encourage big blobs to hunt down smaller targets, as it's impossible to keep someone in place with a single ship unles he devotes his entire midslot layout to scramblers. Even 2 ships will have a hard time if they want to fit something useful in those other mids.
Don't blame large gank fleets on warp core stabilizers. People would form gankfleets in any situation where having numerical superiority is advantagious. Saying that the only reasons gank-fleets form is to counter warp core stabilizers is just foolish and wrong.
Please find a new excuse.
|
Blind Fear
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:03:00 -
[133]
Originally by: NebulousBlur
Originally by: Sarmaul
all wcs does is encourage big blobs to hunt down smaller targets, as it's impossible to keep someone in place with a single ship unles he devotes his entire midslot layout to scramblers. Even 2 ships will have a hard time if they want to fit something useful in those other mids.
Don't blame large gank fleets on warp core stabilizers. People would form gankfleets in any situation where having numerical superiority is advantagious. Saying that the only reasons gank-fleets form is to counter warp core stabilizers is just foolish and wrong.
Please find a new excuse.
Hes not saying the only reason ganks occur is WCS. He's saying that the reason only ganks occurs is WCS.
------------------------------------------------
Derailing threads with logic since 1992 |
Kaylana Syi
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:12:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Hellraiza666
if u dont want to lose ur ship to ppl then dont fight, wcs isnt the solution.
WCS shud be for transporting only, therefore the penalty shud be combat based, mayb dmg reduction.
Thanks for telling me how to play an open ended game... 
Why the DEVs don't see your absolute logic on what PVP is... I will never know.
Originally by: "Oveur"
I don't react to threats any better than you do
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:14:00 -
[135]
Problem is ships that fill their lows with stabs require a fair number of people just to stop the target warping off.
When you bring enough people to do the tackling the target warps to an ss and accuses you of "blobbing/ganking/etc".
tbh I think wcs should be high slots for 2 reasons.
1) they will severaly limit your ability to kill in favour of your ability to survive during an engagement.
2) It balances out the ability to fit stabs for all races (i.e nearly every class has the same number of highs regardless of race, the same cannot be said of low slots).
WCS are very annoying when you want a kill but they are part of the game and somthing to make survival more likely, I just feel they should have a stronger detrimental effect on a players damage potential if they are fitted.
|
Ayla Vanir
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:20:00 -
[136]
Two biggest arguments for nerfing WCS are essentially:
1) If you choose to fight, you must stay and fight, and
2) WCS contribute to EVE gank rates.
Alrighty, if eliminating these two issues are at the crux of nerfing WCS, then let's cut to the chase and level the playing field across the boards:
1) Once combat starts, no one can get away. So things like ship speeds need to be capped You can't stealth. You can't warp out.
2) Remove gates. Limit gangs to some low number of ships, like 2 for example. Logging off leaves your ship in space for 30 minutes - and it doesn't auto-warp to some random spot in space.
Sound like dumb ideas? They are. About as dumb as saying that you can't disengage from a fight. Or that WCS is the reason we have blob wars and gank squads.
I'd still like to see any changes to either WCS or scramblers shelved - until after CCP puts in that neat looking ship's propulsion strength thing that didn't quite live to see the light of day. (reference the attributes tab on any ship).
Escrow Market Revamp
|
Asane
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:25:00 -
[137]
Put scramblers and stabilizers on the same slot type. You Problem solved.
|
High Sierra
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:26:00 -
[138]
oh look. another thread about WCS.
they're a part of the game. deal with it.
there is a solution to WCS - its called a disruption bubble.
it costs money. so what.
with a bit of planning, you can get those pirates. Talking about it on the forum just lets them know that you are annoyed that you didnt get them and gives them a warm glow inside because most pirates live to grief.
I've said it before I'll say it again - the only tweak WCS need is to make them an active, cap hungry module.
|
Asane
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:30:00 -
[139]
I just don't get what's with the whole "Boohoo I can't force myself onto anyone I want" attitude...
If people want to fight, they get better use for their lowslots.
If they don't, they use stabs, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET AWAY
|
Dreez
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:34:00 -
[140]
WCS to Highslots ftw !, and increase their CPU.
Current Location: In my Blasterthron chasing TomB with a blowtorch
|
Nicholai Pestot
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 18:36:00 -
[141]
I wonder what the effect of making WCS an active module would be?
Give them a one minute cycle time and have each cycle's cap cost vary by ships total cap, scaled so that each WCS will use 25% of the ships total cap.
Thusly if you want to use a pair of WCS you are going to have to activate them at the correct time and have 50% of your cap left.
This would highten the negative impact of WCS on combat, while keeping their effectiveness on travel setups at near-current levels.
________________
What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete |
Cvuos
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 19:09:00 -
[142]
Why is warp scrambling supposed to be a citizen's right?
|
Dukath
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 19:10:00 -
[143]
There really is no problem with warp cores stabs. You just need to be able to chase the target. Whether that is done using a new tracking module or another feature doesn't realy matter. It just needs to be possible.
A simple warp to safe is just too strong and kills the fight completely. A chase would prolong the fun greatly.
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 19:17:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Scrammer
So you want people to be able to warp jam someone from 150km away while pegging them with missiles?
And you actually find this to be fair?
I'm not looking for a 100% effective warp scrambler at that range. The Caldari get given a lot of grief about how good their range is with missiles, and that's why they do lower DPS than any other weapon. But no-one ever mentions that they take about 15 seconds to travel that range, and so never actually hit, because the target is long since gone. Turrets don't have this issue as "fire" is instantly followed by "hit".
All I'm saying is Caldari shoudl be given SOMEthing to make their supposed "long range advantage" a REAL one instead of a theoretical one.
---
Ha! Vote me for top forum ***** |
Tsual
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 19:20:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Dukath
There really is no problem with warp cores stabs. You just need to be able to chase the target. Whether that is done using a new tracking module or another feature doesn't realy matter. It just needs to be possible.
A simple warp to safe is just too strong and kills the fight completely. A chase would prolong the fun greatly.
In Prey Miner they "tracking bugs" are named...
then there would be the "follow warp" option for frigats specially interceptors, dropping them near the target at the end of warping (in a sphere about 30 and 50 km away from target)
or how about a t2 "space watch and control" ship?
--------------------------------------
Haanem ulwei, utnazhiram Hal'sha'roh mahiraam Hor'thul.
The Universe is everything, the creation Hal'shah and the destruction Hor'thul.
|
Quanteeri
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 19:28:00 -
[146]
Well, it's lunch and I'm eating some fries and a samich, so I guess I'll toot in on this tired freakin topic too.
Currently as it stands, Scrams and Disruptors have the advantage over Stabilizers, because an unlimited number of points can be put up against the target ship.
Personally, I think there should be remote stabilizers, so if your buddy is stuck, you can send a point his way.
Other than that, the WCS/WCS argument is pointless, it's quite well balanced, for what it is, a points race. Can't get much simpler than that.
If you don't want an opponent that warps off in the middle combat, set up a duel, or have your commander call their commander and fix it so both sides face another on a dew covered field at the break of dawn. And no one shoots till you see the whites of their eyes.
|
Snake Jankins
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 19:45:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Snake Jankins on 17/01/2006 19:51:17
I don't believe that wcs are the main reason for blobbing and ganking. Maybe if people blobbed up try to catch people like heikki in the past, but these are exeptions !
Usually people blob up to increase their damage output and reduce the risk to die !
Most ships you meet aren't fully wcs fitted, so you could hold them with maybe two interceptors, but anyway, if people expect to meet a 10 player pvp fleet, they prefer to come with 20 people just to reduce the risk to loose !
That's not true for everyone, especially not for the experienced player, who know that they are 'better' or who have enough isk to replace their losses easily, but imho what I said is true for a big part of the playersbase.
Logic: Running into a bigger enemy fleet and loosing = bad, so let's reduce that risk and fly around in a big gang ourselves. => *BLOB*
Imho wcs are not really a reason for blobbing, except you think that 2 or 3 players roaming around trying to hunt indis are already blobbing.
___________
'Only ships can be assembled, this is a Frigate.' |
Montague Zooma
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 20:12:00 -
[148]
The way combat is currently designed, things seem balanced about as well as they can be. Removing WCS would not stop gangs from attacking solitary targets, it would just mean the target has no chance of surviving...and that's not balanced. Guaranteed "I win" buttons take the fun out of the game.
The problem isn't WCS, it's the whole set of PVP game mechanics. There must be a better way to balance the ability to fight with the ability to escape a fight, but I'm no game designer. It's easy to come up with a scenario that is best for me but not one that's best for everyone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
One noob. One corp. One complete waste of 1.6 million isk. |
0August0
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 21:31:00 -
[149]
Imagine if we applied the WCS/scrambler nerf argument to a real life war like WW2:
Allies: "OMG those King Tigers are just too powerful! It's forcing us to gang up like 7-8 Shermans to counter each one of these uber tanks. We think the Tigers armor should be nerfed to at least half their strength to balance gameplay."
Axis: "Well if you're going to nerf the Tiger then we want to see the bomb payload of your uber-Thunderbolts reduced to 1/4th of its present capacity, since they're making it too difficult to operate our Tigers during the day!"
Switzerland: "We are so sick of listening to you people whine about this incessantly. Why don't you just agree to fight it out in matched 1v1's in some far off arena, say Greenland, and STFU!"
United States: "Fine, then we'll go with Atomic bombs 4TW"
Dosen't anyone realize how silly this whole argument is? Pirates are the last people CCP should listen to about WCS.
Regards,
August
Soldier of the Gooch |
MysticNZ
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 21:50:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Megadon
They need to un-nerf the Raven once and for all!!
The Apocalypse can fit EIGHT (8) Warp Core Stabs and the Raven can only fit FIVE (5)!!
This is not right, how can Caldari compete with that.
Either increase the Ravens low slots to 8 or introduce tech 2 WCS...
I hope that's a joke?
-
                    |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |