Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
88
   |
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am honestly curious how cloaking in range of the beacon is so overpowered that it must have a block, yet warp core stabs are not considered an issue.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I want to make it clear that these changes are intended to create a more interesting environment for FW plexing and to make pvp fits more competitive with "farming" fits on an lp/hr scale, but are not intended to somehow bring an end to "farming" or other evasion tactics. We have no intention of hard blocking warp core stabs or cloaks from complexes. Players should have tools to help mitigate risk, as long as those tools require tradeoffs.
Trade off for using stabs?
- Less low slots otherwise available
- Reduced lock range and time
- CPU usage
For the actual use of WCS, are these actually trades? Do the typical or even significant minority of FW WCS users actually face a challenge with the decreased lock time and range? Is the CPU cost honestly enough to make them question the fitting or lose something meaningful to them? Can it really be said that the cost of the low slot and fitting makes the use of WCS an honest decision, or are they merely a hindrance on par with the inability for a caldari FW pilot to undock an Iteron V from Dodixie, nominal at best.
What is removing cloak within beacon range changing that isn't also impacted to a similar degree by WCS? My confusion is doubled by the comment that the range of the no-cloak zone means one can still sit behind the warp in spot at a reasonable distance for cloaking traps - if they're not the issue, what is?
With regards to the NPC respawn, I would suggest their timer extended to at least half the time for a plex of that size to be captured, but with an instant respawn should the plex become abandoned by all parties. With the current design, a frigate in a novice will have to remove a minimum of four NPCs throughout their time in the plex, with an average of 5 and potentially 7 NPCs to remove. A kiting ship struggles to begin with as the NPC can always chase them down, the reduce damage of a kiting fit struggling harder still and then anything buffer fit has to deal with diminished buffer as a result. Heaven forbid the timer is partially completed in the opposite direction! In a typical site, this means going from 1 enemy per site at 100% damage to 4-7 enemies each doing 60% damage minimum, in itself a large increase in damage done. Improved tanking factor and lesser damage reduction raises the bar further!
One additional mitigation to the relative balance of the NPC here (taking they are meant to be a minimum size mediator, not a significant combat aid) would be to make them ceasefire once an allied pilot warps into the site, only to resume if the pilot leaves. None the less, the buffer fit ship suffers as a result.
A final consideration, to assist in the reduction of NPC impact would be instead of timer adjustment from the originally posted, make the NPC damage very low and application horrendous. This would allow almost any well piloted ship to get below the NPC weapons, but still require a minimum damage output to continue capture of the plex, with greater damage output still being rewarded with quicker dispatch.
In short (for quoting):
1) What makes cloak so powerful in beacon range, while warp core stabs are considered suitable in their tradeoff for those who use them?
2) Is the appearance of almost half a dozen NPCs each plex necessary to limit minimum ship/fleet size? Is this considering:
- the impact on anaemic kiting damage,
- the relative inability for kiting ships to mitigate these NPCs damage due to NPCs being able to catch up
- the impact this has on buffer fit ships.
3) Consider the potential solutions to 2 such as:
- Reducing enemy respawn rate (with potential instant respawn on site abandonment
- Make the NPC ceasefire if an allied pilot is in the plex
- Make the NPC damage and application poor, creating a soft limit based only on damage output, not sustained tank. |