Kyeph
   |
Posted - 2006.06.07 15:55:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Talaan Stardrifter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I believe the majority of this thread to be one-eyed, and barely constructive, I have had an idea for a 'balance' modification to the WCS module.
I think the in-game mechanincs are fine, but a penalty should be added to the module that is in keeping with what the module does. Does a WCS enhance a fields stability, or does it merely make the field harder to interfere with?
To this extent, I present the following:
WCS
+1 to warp strength (cumulative, no stacking penalty)
CPU and PG as normal
-8% to max warp speed (cumulative, no stacking penalty)
In essence, to reduce the warp field's susceptablity to scramblers, the WCS is in fact reducing the size and effectiveness of a ships warp field.
This change still means that well prepared pilots can escape from their aggressors while allowing an alert agressor to follow their warp path, and 'cut them off at the pass', as it were, by warping past them to their intended destination.
Personaly, I think this would create an interesting playing field in the realm of EVE.
Cheers,
Talaan Stardrifter
<=X=>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking this idea i had a slightly different twist on it.
i wouldnt penalise the Warp Speed, as that doesnt really mean crap at the end of the day, BUT!!! what if you penalised the agility of the ship making it harder to align for warp rather than warp speed. it would balance out multi stacking of WCS as people should know BS's are sometimes like pregnant wales when it comes to maneuvability (sp) so that would be a deterrent to those that stack 8 wcss at a time. Wouldnt need to be a massive penalty but enough to be noticable maybe.......i dunno 2% per stab? something like that no body would want to fit more than maybe 2-3 max.
Balances out then PvP and travelling setups, plus PvPer doesnt have to totally stuff his fitting up to stop you, but still put up a bit of a struggle.
I did post this on the end of that 22 page crappy flame filled thread, but i thought this to be a fair balance, and no body would read the other thread so ive started another. please let us not let this one go down the same path.
thoughts?
|