EVE Search - WCS Idea #223579

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

WCS Idea #223579

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Weirda	Posted - 2006.05.17 18:45:00 - [1] you know bug where you can't use covops cloak or cryno field if both are fitted (see recon threads #296-3428)... well... that show us that there is a certain mechanic that can be implimented (incorrectly in that case) where having one module equipped cause other not to function. here is the idea: - equipping wcs make you unable to use warp scramblers/disruptors... they simply won't work if you have a wcs equipped (online or not) seem fair enough if someone have dedicated tackler they can fit wcs without worrying about it (fitting for gang dynamics fair enough0... but this would 'fix' the problem that really bother weirda... 1v1s. even if ppl with wcs fitted generally DO have to warp out ... it like 'why did weirda waste time/energy/ammo fighting someone who was ready to flee at sign of danger to their ship'. well - their penalty is that they can't hold weirda in place either! discuss/flame... sorry - work slow today... __ Weirda Assault Ship deserve a 4th Bonus and More!
R31D	Posted - 2006.05.17 18:50:00 - [2] Nice idea - although I'd prefer WCS to not be used on any combat ship, it would help a lot of my grievences with them Free bumpage for all
Marcus Alkhaar	Posted - 2006.05.17 18:56:00 - [3] Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 17/05/2006 19:00:02 WCS should make your EVE crash and not let log in before your ship has exploded. you wont dissapear/autowarp as long as someone got a lock on youu Good idea Weirda.... but it would possibly just make people post a crazy amount of I-want-to-fit-9-stabs-plus-be-able-to-scramble-my-enemy-posts. This isnt a whine post. anyone writing that it is should have taken away their accounts tbh.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.17 19:09:00 - [4] Well, this idea is certainly interesting. Has a lot of merits and tackles most of the... abuse. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Kcel Chim	Posted - 2006.05.17 19:20:00 - [5] only problem would be the "oh so famous" ravens with their ecm and stabs + missiles and a tackle frig. These days its usually not the big guns doing the tackling, atleast in most videos and the little combat ive seen lately. However i agree it will have a big impact on the 5 stab vagabonds and other solo hacs/recons/commandships.
Forsch	Posted - 2006.05.17 19:24:00 - [6] You could still kill the tackler then and escape. Good suggestion! Whatever hurts wcs users is good in my book. Forsch Defender of the empire More love for side factions!
Lumel	Posted - 2006.05.17 20:02:00 - [7] I've been a bit leery about the concept of nerfing WCS since they're already basically just a vanilla component that's otherwise wasting a slot outside of certain instances. But I actually kinda like this idea... seems to be fairly simple balance wise and makes more sense than nerfing locking time etc. "Warp core stablilizers generate a field which lessens the effects of warp jammers both attempting to affect them and those that the ship itself attempts to emit." Along the same lines, it could just add it's stabilization bonus to jammers you have equipped, making 20km jammers ineffective and reducing the strength of 7.5km scramblers to 1 point. --- Knowledge won't help us understand
Rivek	Posted - 2006.05.17 20:07:00 - [8] Allow me to add WCS fix idea #285380. Leave them exactly as they are.... And boost scrambling! Warp disruptors --> 30k range, -1 str. Warp Scramblers --> 20k range, -2 str. NEW MODULE Warp Nulifiers --> 10k range, -3 str. Faction versions would of course maintain their advantages over conventional modules. A domination disruptor for example would have a 45k range. The new module would allow for stilletos with -9 str (can stop a full wcs geddon), while improvements to the original modules would allow for meaningful small scale combat at ranges greater than 20k, and generally stronger scrambling for short range ships. WCS remain the same, but still more people are caught and killed. Those of us who think PVP shouldn't be so consentual gain a little ground. Simple and effective.
Weirda	Posted - 2006.05.17 20:33:00 - [9] thank you for positive feedback. weirda main point is not to disturb or change the gang dynamics (where tacklers are necessary and individual role) - but as somebody pointed out, to alleviate the risk vs reward discrepancy on setup like the stababond by saying 'if you can always get away' (except when being caught in a solid camp/bubble etc) then so can weirda. sure the staba-whatever will still get lot of kill from ship that it either kill too fast to make a difference, or who don't realize that they are 'free', but at higher level of pvp (specifically one v one pvp - rare and exciting as it is) things would definately get a lot more interesting. sure - this doesn't address stabbed snipers who are just relying on alpha kills, but tbh nothing that really isn't absurd in some way can. at best this will help improve the lost art of the one v one that means something... ... at worst, it doesn't really change much at all. __ Weirda Assault Ship deserve a 4th Bonus and More!
Hellspawn666	Posted - 2006.05.17 20:43:00 - [10] Originally by: R31D Nice idea - although I'd prefer WCS to not be used on any combat ship, it would help a lot of my grievences with them Great so ship fitout wise you either fitout to kill travel setups only or pvp setups since youl only need one disruptor to hold a pvp guy down. Limiting setups is a bad idea it just screws with the hole idea of it being a choice.

Deoneandonly	Posted - 2006.05.17 20:47:00 - [11] forcing people to fight is about as fair as forcing people to mine since using jammers is agression, without wcs people that run into situations that you cannot handle, have no other alternative, than to warp to gate and move along, while the agressors are stuck in the system. People that relish piracy and other forms of pvp like it, feel that they are entitled to holding their target with impunity. Pirates and gate campers and other lazy trash want to click 1 or 2 buttons and to be sure they will work 100% of the time, or they will go whining to Tomb. He has already remedied their whinings with new ecm nerfage, new ecm nerfage modules, and other things, to make their lives easier. What weirda is talking about is just my tactic when jumped. Usally I enter with my raven, get jumped, have 4 wcs, screwing everyone, then scramble the inty, then my scorpion comes through, sensor boosts and scrambles the bigger ship, and send all of our drones and missiles to disintegrate the little ship(since missiles alone will not), then we both ecm the remaining tackler(if any) and warp to safety. It is fair, rarely do I get to do it, as most gate campers either use sniper setups, or multiple ships, but occasionally it works out nicely. Why do I not double team the other guy? well I have done it before, but my luck is usally the case that the rest of their friends are taking a leak at the nearest station.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.17 20:47:00 - [12] Originally by: Hellspawn666 Originally by: R31D Nice idea - although I'd prefer WCS to not be used on any combat ship, it would help a lot of my grievences with them Great so ship fitout wise you either fitout to kill travel setups only or pvp setups since youl only need one disruptor to hold a pvp guy down. Limiting setups is a bad idea it just screws with the hole idea of it being a choice. It's got a loop hole, though, that will still need to be plugged. If you don't fit scramblers, you're free to fit any number of WCS you want, which is... well, I'd prefere a fix that'd limit the abuse on sniper setups, too. (Limit abuse, I wrote, NOT "limit/remove use") New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Shaelin Corpius	Posted - 2006.05.17 20:50:00 - [13] Well if I were to put a penalty on WCS, it would be this. %10 Cpu and %15 Interia. So fitting one wouldn't be sooo bad, but stacking them would be committing suicide and render your ship inable to fit any decent offensive or defensive ability.
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:03:00 - [14] Originally by: Rivek Allow me to add WCS fix idea #285380. Leave them exactly as they are.... And boost scrambling! Warp disruptors --> 30k range, -1 str. Warp Scramblers --> 20k range, -2 str. NEW MODULE Warp Nulifiers --> 10k range, -3 str. Faction versions would of course maintain their advantages over conventional modules. A domination disruptor for example would have a 45k range. The new module would allow for stilletos with -9 str (can stop a full wcs geddon), while improvements to the original modules would allow for meaningful small scale combat at ranges greater than 20k, and generally stronger scrambling for short range ships. WCS remain the same, but still more people are caught and killed. Those of us who think PVP shouldn't be so consentual gain a little ground. Simple and effective. cant have +3 scrams without +2 stabs its that simple. or we could just get rid of both the scram and the WCS and think of some other way to handle things. remember the haulers need to be able to nullify the max scram power.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:04:00 - [15] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Hellspawn666 Originally by: R31D Nice idea - although I'd prefer WCS to not be used on any combat ship, it would help a lot of my grievences with them Great so ship fitout wise you either fitout to kill travel setups only or pvp setups since youl only need one disruptor to hold a pvp guy down. Limiting setups is a bad idea it just screws with the hole idea of it being a choice. It's got a loop hole, though, that will still need to be plugged. If you don't fit scramblers, you're free to fit any number of WCS you want, which is... well, I'd prefere a fix that'd limit the abuse on sniper setups, too. (Limit abuse, I wrote, NOT "limit/remove use") Right. Still in favour of range penalty... "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Yzman Shhan	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:07:00 - [16] Well my king idea to fix the stabs once and for all is to include a coolout period for stabs where they do not function after PvP aggression for a certain period. For example fill your lows with stabs and they function just as now, IF you engage another player your stabs wont have the adequate power/cap/powersurge to function for 30sec after the initial aggression. Basically, if you wanna be safe _don't_ aggro. If you wanna aggro, don't think you're safe with your 6 stabs. --
Rivek	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:09:00 - [17] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Originally by: Rivek Allow me to add WCS fix idea #285380. Leave them exactly as they are.... And boost scrambling! Warp disruptors --> 30k range, -1 str. Warp Scramblers --> 20k range, -2 str. NEW MODULE Warp Nulifiers --> 10k range, -3 str. Faction versions would of course maintain their advantages over conventional modules. A domination disruptor for example would have a 45k range. The new module would allow for stilletos with -9 str (can stop a full wcs geddon), while improvements to the original modules would allow for meaningful small scale combat at ranges greater than 20k, and generally stronger scrambling for short range ships. WCS remain the same, but still more people are caught and killed. Those of us who think PVP shouldn't be so consentual gain a little ground. Simple and effective. cant have +3 scrams without +2 stabs its that simple. or we could just get rid of both the scram and the WCS and think of some other way to handle things. remember the haulers need to be able to nullify the max scram power. So do you think haulers (or anyone else) should be able to stroll through a gate camp? Or should they have to band together with allies and forcibly remove it? If they go to remove it, should they watch in disapointment as their enemies warp away while scrambled or score a few kills for their time and efforts?
Meridius	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:11:00 - [18] I like this idea a lot. I would prefer that wcs pilots have no place in pvp at all (by disabling highslots (yeah they can still ecm) but this is a good compromise. - _____
Clavius XIV	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:13:00 - [19] This is certianly an interesting idea that would help solve a lot of the problems people have. Another idea along the same lines may be to move WCS back to med slots as they were originally. The more wcs you fit the less tackling/propulsion/EW power you have.
Kyguard	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:28:00 - [20] If it was up to me, -x % RoF Turrets/Launchers/Drones -x % Locking Range + Weirda's suggestion. (This is Maya's suggestion btw if I remember correctly.) === God is on the side with the best artillery.

lofty29	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:32:00 - [21] FYI its idea #223578 --------------------------- I wanna be dev-jacked
Nahia Senne	Posted - 2006.05.17 21:42:00 - [22] Originally by: Weirda you know bug where you can't use covops cloak or cryno field if both are fitted (see recon threads #296-3428)... well... that show us that there is a certain mechanic that can be implimented (incorrectly in that case) where having one module equipped cause other not to function. here is the idea: - equipping wcs make you unable to use warp scramblers/disruptors... they simply won't work if you have a wcs equipped (online or not) seem fair enough if someone have dedicated tackler they can fit wcs without worrying about it (fitting for gang dynamics fair enough0... but this would 'fix' the problem that really bother weirda... 1v1s. even if ppl with wcs fitted generally DO have to warp out ... it like 'why did weirda waste time/energy/ammo fighting someone who was ready to flee at sign of danger to their ship'. well - their penalty is that they can't hold weirda in place either! discuss/flame... sorry - work slow today... i endorse this proposal. simple and effective.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.17 22:00:00 - [23] Originally by: Meridius I like this idea a lot. I would prefer that wcs pilots have no place in pvp at all (by disabling highslots (yeah they can still ecm) but this is a good compromise. And of course warp scramblers would do the same, AND slap you with a speed bonus. Right? Heh. Kyguard, no, not quite. The thing is, as I see it, the abuse element is RANGE. So lower weapon range (NOT lock range) and lower missile flight time (or explosion velocity, undecided there) by 10% per WCS The problem with the base idea is it simply encourages sniping even more. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Weirda	Posted - 2006.05.17 22:15:00 - [24] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Meridius I like this idea a lot. I would prefer that wcs pilots have no place in pvp at all (by disabling highslots (yeah they can still ecm) but this is a good compromise. And of course warp scramblers would do the same, AND slap you with a speed bonus. Right? Heh. Kyguard, no, not quite. The thing is, as I see it, the abuse element is RANGE. So lower weapon range (NOT lock range) and lower missile flight time (or explosion velocity, undecided there) by 10% per WCS weirda agree w/you idea too maya - though for many it is a more major change in mechanic... and admittedly weirda proposal does not deal with stabbed snipers. it is mostly to deal with the most frustrating and personal encounters (what really get people most worked up) of a 1v1 where guy with stabs has every advantage (to not lose ship - not necessarily to win) - AND he can still lock you down. a common example would be a stabbed cruiser (or hac) attacking smaller/weaker targets. he have no risk... he pretty much going to win anyways - yet he can always leave. all this proposal deal with is to FORCE him to have risk if he want to hold you there. for the most part though - am talking about consentual 0.0 PVP (not piracy/ganking/etc). Quote: The problem with the base idea is it simply encourages sniping even more. weirda all set to agree with you on everything - but you always have to throw in stuff like this. nothing changes with sniping. if you are in a role where you want to do solo pvp, you will be tackling... if you are sniping it is status quo. while also agree with you that the status quo for snipers blows, that is not the intention of this change. thank you for you input though! __ Weirda Assault Ship deserve a 4th Bonus and More!
Anarkia Evangel	Posted - 2006.05.17 22:21:00 - [25] How about there are 2 types of stabs, as there are scrams One which is +2 and works the same as a 7.5 scram, only works if someone gets below 7.5km, so someone with a 20km scram can keep them as long as they dont get to close. Plus a +1 stab with a range of 20km, so someone with a 20km scram could not keep them but someone with a -2 7.5km scram could. The cpu would be simular to wot the scram usage is atm. Not sure if its the answer but might as well put it on the table Oh and nice idea Werida :P
Humpalot	Posted - 2006.05.18 00:12:00 - [26] What about having a new module called a Warp Core Shock? Bear with me... Basically I am thinking of a module that is an area of effect "weapon". Pop this thing off and everything within (say) 10km cannot warp for 1 minute and that includes you and your allies regardless of how many stabs someone has. To balance it assume only one such module can be on a ship and that it'd whack 50% off your cap (if you do not have at least 50% cap it won't work). You could roleplay the reasoning behind it chopping 50% off a BS cap versus a frigate cap in that you are using your warp engines to make the "shock". Even though the shock does not need more power to have its effect the bigger engines on bigger ships just have to do it that way. Also give the module a 30 minute cooldown time. Seems this would make for some interesting tactical choices. When do you choose to use it? Should you govern your cap so it can be used? Is killing your ability to warp (or your allies) a bad idea? Is whomping on your own cap worth it? The thirty minute cooldown would not see it overused...just used in those moments where there is a battle you really want to see finished without the other guy warping away. Also make people with a zillion stabs think twice if it is really worth it. Note I am just thinking out loud here and have not really considered all the ins and outs but seems interesting to me. Also note that the numbers I tossed out above are just possibilities...feel free to tweak at will if you think the idea has any merit.
Foulis	Posted - 2006.05.18 01:01:00 - [27] Originally by: Humpalot points at interdictors I like weirdas idea, not bad at all. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Nahia Senne	Posted - 2006.05.18 15:20:00 - [28] Originally by: Foulis I like weirdas idea, not bad at all. i agree. i would very much like to see weirdas suggestion implemented. people should stop cluttering this thread with their overly complicated solutions and give weirda their unconditional support
Weirda	Posted - 2006.05.18 20:45:00 - [29] Originally by: Nahia Senne Originally by: Foulis I like weirdas idea, not bad at all. i agree. i would very much like to see weirdas suggestion implemented. people should stop cluttering this thread with their overly complicated solutions and give weirda their unconditional support thank you very much! weirda just trying to think 'they like to take baby steps...' this step is baby in that it mostly affect small gang/1v1 scenerios (the personal ones where people maybe get most frustrated with their investment into fight), but it is effective change and is one of few suggestion that don't hurt ALL the ship type that may need stabs (industrials/etc), just because of combat annoyance. __ Weirda Assault Ship deserve a 4th Bonus and More!
Daos Leghki	Posted - 2006.05.18 21:20:00 - [30] I like this idea. It doesn't deal with snipers, but it's the only WCS nerf idea I've heard that I don't disagree with. It addresses a lot of the problems with WCS without too many unintended consequences. Good one Weirda.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.