EVE Search - My take on balancing of wcs and nos/neuts

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

My take on balancing of wcs and nos/neuts

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.22 12:32:00 - [1] Some balancing issues have been bugging me and other members of my corp for some time: Warp Core Stabs As they are now, they have very little penalty for using them on a combat fitted ship. And that's my main grip about them. People can engage in combat, then when they are losing, they can safely warp out. They have close to no penalty of use. The solution is simple: Make them use 150tf CPU to fit. You can still use them on haulers or in travel setups, but you can't easily use them in combat setups. nos/neut There is a serious imbalance on nos/neut between ship classes. A BS with nos also has a win button against a smaller ship. Again, the solution is simple: Each nos or neut fitted should never drain more than 10-20% (numbers need to be tweaked) of the total maximum cap of the target ship. There will be no difference between a BS vs BS, cruiser vs cruiser, etc. However, a BS will no longer be able to drain a ceptor completely dry in a heartbeat. Right now, these 2 issues are the ones I care most about. There is nothing so annoying than to watch ships warp in and out of an ongoing battle, even if they are scrambled.
Raem Civrie Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.07.22 12:34:00 - [2] agreed, I was always disappointed that signature radius didn't affect nossing. ---- Nothing I ever say is official
Alita Tiphares	Posted - 2006.07.22 12:36:00 - [3] Edited by: Alita Tiphares on 22/07/2006 12:37:33 Edited by: Alita Tiphares on 22/07/2006 12:36:44 wtf are you smoking? BS size nos/neut should ALWAYS cripple frigs..
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 12:36:00 - [4] Edited by: Laboratus on 22/07/2006 12:37:08 Edited by: Laboratus on 22/07/2006 12:36:37 Problem: WCS save ships. Analysis: Fit 7.5km scramblers. 2 of these and the WCS offender BS has to waste low slots. Result: Scramblers overpowered. Solution: boost WCS. Problem: NOS/NEUT. NOS/NEUT eat cap for breakfeast. Analysis. Module working as intended. Solution: No action required. End of transmition. Edit: Still Can't type. Mind control and tin hats
Nafri Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 12:41:00 - [5] as long as 2 frigs cant dry a BS in seconds From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Mogatu	Posted - 2006.07.22 12:42:00 - [6] Well as I said in IRC... Why should it cost me cap to lockdown my opponent, where he needs no cap to counter it.
Laocoon Veto.	Posted - 2006.07.22 12:49:00 - [7] Originally by: Alita Tiphares wtf are you smoking? BS size nos/neut should ALWAYS cripple frigs.. qft in my opinion. The main problem is that Large nos reach 3 times further than small (which is okay in guns becasue of tracking). The ranges should be switched, that's all. - Lao Veto. Corp
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.22 12:49:00 - [8] Mitchman, Removing WCS as a viable option for combat isn't a good idea. You reduce the amount of combat quite nastily, and there are some BS sniper setups which will still be able to mount 2 WCS with only 1 other lowslot module dedicated. No, better give them a combat penalty. What makes WCS so abusive? Range. You cankeep RANGE and still mount WCS. Give WCS each a 10% penalty to range and missile explosion radius.
Tyler Lowe Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.22 13:00:00 - [9] I've been thinking over some of this myself. It seems like a good idea to add two things to Nosferatu in order to decrease their impact on combat. 1. Add a target resolution figure, which would be modified by skill level. Give a 5% bonus per skill level when targeting a ship smaller than the nosferatu's resolution perhaps, similar to the way guided missile precision works now. This would limit the effect of larger energy vampires on smaller targets, and provide a reason to train the skill past level 3. 2. Add a stacking penalty to Nosferatu on a single target. This would still make one nos very good, 2 nos still worth fitting, and 3 nos about the max limit of what might be useful one on one. The WCS issue is a touchier subject, and no matter what changes are suggested to it, someone cries foul. to say that fitting a WCS has no drawbacks currently isn't really true. Sacrificing a lowslot that could be augmenting capacitor, or could be a damage mod, or an armor plate or a damage control, or even an eccm lowslot mod instead is giving up alot. To me, the problem is the absolute nature of warp core jamming. My concept would be more like the chance based system we have in ecm jammers now, with each cycle of activation always having at least a chance to jam, and with the propulsion strength of the ship taken into account. Could be neither idea is practical. I think up all sorts of crazy things like making all ecm functions highslot modules, since they are offensive in nature, and I would really like to see something other than jamming and nosing decide the outcome. Or the other insanity of eliminating all long range tech II ammo and replacing it with +0% range ammo that gives a bonus to resolution allowing the pilot to engage targets of a smaller size more easily. J.A.F.O.
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.22 13:01:00 - [10] Edited by: LUKEC on 22/07/2006 13:04:25 nosfs are fine, maybe they should increase ranges of small and medium ones, but that's just maybe. Attacking BS in frig should result in very dead frig. WCS... for all i care, they can be removed from game. And chance based scrambling is not good idea. Chance based scram WILL fail before you manage to take down capital ship. No thanks, as if morons docking / undocking in capital ships aren't annoying enough. Chance based in eve = bad. Look at EW and tell me who likes it. --------- Boost caldari. It will reduce whining on forums due to the fact: 45% chars are mostly caldari specialized.

Rexthor Hammerfists Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.22 13:06:00 - [11] for wcs: there was this dev guy on evetv, who said that he hates wcs (good man), and theyll get fixed(!). so no need for any discussions over that anymore ;) - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Dixon	Posted - 2006.07.22 13:42:00 - [12] Originally by: Alita Tiphares Edited by: Alita Tiphares on 22/07/2006 12:37:33 Edited by: Alita Tiphares on 22/07/2006 12:36:44 wtf are you smoking? BS size nos/neut should ALWAYS cripple frigs.. Yes, that's what I like to hear. Also bs sized guns should always hit frigs and cruisers. Actually frigs and cruiser shouldn't be allowed into battles where BS are used. Battleships SHOULD be solopwnmobiles, that's just good gameplay.
Nyxus GALAXIAN	Posted - 2006.07.22 13:47:00 - [13] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists for wcs: there was this dev guy on evetv, who said that he hates wcs (good man), and theyll get fixed(!). so no need for any discussions over that anymore ;) Thank god. I hate wcs on combat setups. Recently I had a corpmate convince me to try a little belt piracy with 4 stabbies/3 HS II's on my geddon. Even when the odds were 8 hostiles vs 2 of us it was no problem. Kill what you can, then warp out to rep. No risk. Ignored tacklers except for sending my drones after them. It truly was Eve on "easy mode". I knew from experience that nothing was going to be able to stop us and our risk of dying was between zero and none as long as we were half awake. I was ill when I realized how much more effective it is than actually tanking. I will be a happy camper when the devs finally nerf combat setups with more than 1 or 2 stabbies. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Dethis Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 14:04:00 - [14] Just make WCS give a 50% rof penalty -------- Kill em all and let god sort em out
Tyler Lowe Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.22 14:15:00 - [15] Originally by: LUKEC Edited by: LUKEC on 22/07/2006 13:04:25 WCS... for all i care, they can be removed from game. And chance based scrambling is not good idea. Chance based scram WILL fail before you manage to take down capital ship. No thanks, as if morons docking / undocking in capital ships aren't annoying enough. Chance based in eve = bad. Look at EW and tell me who likes it. Valid points. Perhaps the best penalty to WCS would be a ship agility/mass penalty. Yes, you can warp away... provided you can actually align and accelerate to warp fast enough to avoid getting blown to bits. Basically, if you want to run, you're not going to be doing much by the way of fighting, you're running. If you are already aligned, it'll take a little longer to enter warp, but it will still be possible even with multiple WCS fitted, but returning to the fight would take longer, and trying to leave again would be like trying to get a hauler fitted with cargo expanders to turn and enter warp. If by chance you're bumped while trying to align, even once, it is probably over. The mass penalty would also mean ships fitted with wcs aren't going to be able to make use of micro warp or afterburners very well. J.A.F.O.
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.22 14:50:00 - [16] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 22/07/2006 14:50:57 WCS fix : Make varried "activated" WCS modules from +1, +2, +4 and +6. Make them to where only 1 module can be "activated" on a ship at once. Give them cap and fitting requirements that will scale up proportionally with combat fittings. +1 and +2 won't have very dramatic impact on combat setups but will need cap to use and will take small gun size amounts of powergrid to mount. They will take cap similar to modules such as sensor boosters. CPU will be 1x and 1.5x the current ones, respectively. Then +4 and +6 modules will take 8 and 12 times the CPU as current ones, repsectively. They will also take 50 power grid and 100 powergrid, respectively. These will take cap similar to armor hardners. Simple as that... Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.22 15:01:00 - [17] Originally by: Tyler Lowe Perhaps the best penalty to WCS would be a ship agility/mass penalty. Yes, you can warp away... provided you can actually align and accelerate to warp fast enough to avoid getting blown to bits... Would hurt people who use them "legitimately" (ak travel setups, haulers) more than people who "cheese" it (aka fit it on PvP ships). Those can start early to allign (or if sniping place themselves ready).
Tao Han Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 15:46:00 - [18] Make WCS active modules and not passive, they should eat cap and be possible victims of human error (forgetting to turn them on?)
Deros Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.22 15:54:00 - [19] Edited by: Deros on 22/07/2006 15:55:26 double post ftl D
Deros Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.22 15:54:00 - [20] Maya, personally i had been an advocate of an agility penalty for stabs and had never thought of a penalty against optimal range or explosion velocity. thinking about it though, it might not be a bad idea, the two situation that gripe me in pvp are: 'the sniper' - t2 fitted battleship who has 2 stabs fitted. almost zero risk, and easy to get out. and 'the stabwh*re' - perfectly fine in a ship designed to get away, ie a fully stabbed BS. designed primarily for running away, and has virtually no combat capability. the latter has problems though, such as the raven who warps in with missiles, an ok tank (or EW) and runs away. with your idea, (i think a 15% penalty would be best, with maybe a skill to reduce that % by 1% per level). it would mean that the sniper wanting to reduce his chances of being caught, would also have to come in closer increasing his risk. and ships fitted for running, and caught close could still run, but not have missiles or other weaponry doing good damage to close range targets. D

Nafri Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 16:16:00 - [21] give WCS a speed penalty of about 20% per module and incrase the interna by 20% stops stabbabound and other stupid setups. Also gives nice times till warp From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Zanarkand Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 16:34:00 - [22] Edited by: Zanarkand on 22/07/2006 16:35:52 WCS if fine. Nosf/Neut is fine. WCS does not need a nerf due to a few things that are ... semi-broken(vagabond, t2 ammo, etc)
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 16:40:00 - [23] Originally by: Zanarkand Edited by: Zanarkand on 22/07/2006 16:35:52 WCS if fine. Nosf/Neut is fine. /signed Mind control and tin hats
Leam Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 16:47:00 - [24] Yeah, nos are perfect. I win buttons ftw.
Darktec Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 16:47:00 - [25] Originally by: Mitchman Some balancing issues have been bugging me and other members of my corp for some time: Warp Core Stabs As they are now, they have very little penalty for using them on a combat fitted ship. And that's my main grip about them. People can engage in combat, then when they are losing, they can safely warp out. They have close to no penalty of use. The solution is simple: Make them use 150tf CPU to fit. You can still use them on haulers or in travel setups, but you can't easily use them in combat setups. nos/neut There is a serious imbalance on nos/neut between ship classes. A BS with nos also has a win button against a smaller ship. Again, the solution is simple: Each nos or neut fitted should never drain more than 10-20% (numbers need to be tweaked) of the total maximum cap of the target ship. There will be no difference between a BS vs BS, cruiser vs cruiser, etc. However, a BS will no longer be able to drain a ceptor completely dry in a heartbeat. Right now, these 2 issues are the ones I care most about. There is nothing so annoying than to watch ships warp in and out of an ongoing battle, even if they are scrambled. 1. Stabs are good the way they are, but i believe they need to be an active way to not get jammed, that would balance them out. NO combat penalty needed. and for the guy who wrote: Quote: null Quote: Why should it cost me cap to lockdown my opponent, where he needs no cap to counter it. It should cost you alot more to lockdown someone else, not none. In fact this is the modual that needs a combat penalty, if you locksomeone down it should draw half your cpu to do it, hence your combat power goes to crap, thus making tacklers more specialized. The need to rethink scramblers, not stabs.
Darktec Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 16:48:00 - [26] Edited by: Darktec on 22/07/2006 16:48:23 Stupid dbl post.
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.07.22 16:50:00 - [27] how are WCS fine? nubs..
Darktec Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 16:56:00 - [28] Originally by: Hellraiza666 how are WCS fine? nubs.. Because TBH, I'd rather have 3 BCU in my lows than 3 stabs. Id call that a pretty big combat penalty already..
Altai Saker Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.22 17:03:00 - [29] Why should nos neut instantly drain smaller ships giving them little or no chance to escape? Where in the Golden Ratio does it stat that bs should be completely immune to small ships aslong as they fit this one particular module? I dont have a problem with nos neuts being a serious problem for frigs, but It shouldnt nuke all your cap instantly, why? Because where is the balance in a bs taking one frig completely out of the fight with 1 mod INSTANTLY? Their's no other mods in the game that do this, except nos, if you remember back in the day when large guns hit frigs frequently, trackin was implemented because the devs wanted BALANCE!
Deja Thoris Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.22 17:10:00 - [30] I have the utmost respect for Mitchman and his buddies as pvp'rs. They don't speak up often so when they do I think people should listen instead of giving the normal trite responses (Laboratus) If you want to fight then fit for a fight and not to run away. If you just want to run away then forgo the pretense of trying to fight and just run or dock. Doing what Mitchman suggests would force people to choose their engagements more carefully and would give fights meaning. atm I am truely of the opinion that pvp is pretty broken in EvE and thats sad.

Andrea Jaruwalski Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 17:14:00 - [31] Edited by: Andrea Jaruwalski on 22/07/2006 17:21:55 Your corp losses alot of frigates, mainly interceptors. If you look at all the interceptor losses, i rarely see them involving a battleship that 'might' have a heavy nosferatu. Is there a reason why you might want to whine about it? Or it's just a way to make it easier for the tacklers in EVE? I understand it's quite easy to get killed by a Battleship once your capacitor of your little fragile piece of steal has been nossed down to 0 and you have a horde of light drones coming at you. I still don't see the point in Nerfing Nos/Neut. EVE is about teamwork, it's a MMORPG, it's made to be involving alot of ships in a fight, If a battleship can't even help the support of his gang by rendering them useless. (100m ship > 10m ship) Well, that's a problem. Biggers ship should have, and should always have the advantage over small ships, The day you can instantly predict a battleship loss when you're tackled by a interceptor, will be the day many people will quit EVE. You can't force people to fight in EVE, there's methods to avoid and get rid of tacklers, NOS/Neut should stay the way they are. KILROCK'S GIRLY SIDE / WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 05:47:00 - [32] Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski Your corp losses alot of frigates, mainly interceptors. Correct. Many of our pilots have more balls than sense, and it's how it has always been Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski If you look at all the interceptor losses, i rarely see them involving a battleship that 'might' have a heavy nosferatu. No, not directly, but a nosf might be the secondary cause for a loss. Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski Biggers ship should have, and should always have the advantage over small ships, The day you can instantly predict a battleship loss when you're tackled by a interceptor, will be the day many people will quit EVE. I totally agree. But you see, tackling interceptors are usually on the border of their cap when tackling due to the cap requirements for the 20km disruptor, so being able to suck 10-20% cap from a ceptor will in many cases be plenty to archive the objective. This does not go for ceptors in particular. I would say it's a bigger problem for close range HACs as they are slower and have a harder time to get out of nos range. Many times, they will simple die because a BS sucked them dry in 15 seconds. I'm seeking the same kind of balance that added tracking to guns so they couldn't hit smaller targets than what they designed for. nosf is the only offensive module, AFAIK, still in the game that has absolutely no inter-shipclass balancing added to them, making them highly imbalanced. My suggestion will add some balancing to their use, without making them complete unusable as a defense for battleships against smaller targets. Trust me, sucking 20% of the total cap from a ship will hurt, but it will not be an instant WIN button.
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 05:57:00 - [33] Originally by: Maya Rkell Mitchman, Removing WCS as a viable option for combat isn't a good idea. You reduce the amount of combat quite nastily, and there are some BS sniper setups which will still be able to mount 2 WCS with only 1 other lowslot module dedicated. No, better give them a combat penalty. What makes WCS so abusive? Range. You cankeep RANGE and still mount WCS. Give WCS each a 10% penalty to range and missile explosion radius. But that won't actually help at all, as most ships can easily fit long range ammo, tracking computers and still hit out to 150+ KM. Sisi now has a penalty that is 20% increase in signature radius (what you suggested, more or less) and a 20% increase in lock time. I believe these penalties, if they remain as they are, will not really solve much. Here's why: A ceptor with a wcs fitted with have a 20% higher sig radius and a slightly slower lock time. In most cases, this is insignificant and is not really a penalty worth talking about (compared to say, the MWD penalty). For a cruiser, the sig radius penalty will make it slightly more easier to hit, but provided the cruiser pilot doesn't fit 2+ of them, it will make little difference in most cases. For a battleship, the lock speed penalty can easily be negated with a single sensor booster. A single sensor booster will actually nullify the use of _3_ WCS fitted. Signature radius is not an issue on a BS unless you fire on it using rage torpedos (with their short range) or by a dread. This is so rare, it's not generally a problem. For a hauler, using WCS is (IMHO) a viable module. However, the hauler will be hit worst with the signature radius penalty. This actually inflicts the biggest penalty on the wrong shipclass, IMHO. So, basicly, the suggested penalties doesn't cut it. Here's what I suggest: Make WCS a med slot item like the used to be. They were made a low slot module because, back then, everybody was shield tanking and armor tanking didn't exist in the game. Make the WCS use 100-150tf CPU to fit. This will basically still keep it a viable module for travel, haulers etc. but will nerf their usefulness in combat.
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 06:36:00 - [34] nos and neuts are ok as they are. the only change I could see is to invert nos ranges. heavy nos shortest range, small nos longest range. leave neuts as they are, they eat insane cap. ------------------------------ at least fit ECCM before you start crying how overpowered ECM is.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.24 07:20:00 - [35] Originally by: Mitchman Again, the solution is simple: Each nos or neut fitted should never drain more than 10-20% (numbers need to be tweaked) of the total maximum cap of the target ship. There will be no difference between a BS vs BS, cruiser vs cruiser, etc. However, a BS will no longer be able to drain a ceptor completely dry in a heartbeat. With the cycle time of the larger neut/nos, this means a frig will not have much difficulty to be able to regen enough cap to run its modules between activations unless it is only stable at 20%. Personaly I think more interesting would be to lower heavy nos range a bit.
eLLioTT wave Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.24 08:00:00 - [36] agreed nerf wcs (see othr thread on this topic) as for nos on a bs crippling a frigate... think of an aircraft carrier being attacked by a spitfire... sure it might be too small for long range missiles but get inside range of its anti aircraft weapons (the same range the spitfire can do damage) and it will be shreaded to a small ball of fire in a approximately a second or less. Imho all big ships in eve should have some sought of auto defence. Think of a freighter. During WW2 i dont think any cargo ships ever went out to see without at least small arms onboard to defend against a hostile boarding party or small aircraft (i might be wrong). A dreadnought should not be able to instapop an interceptor with its big guns but it should have some automatic small guns that engage anything hostile within say 2 - 10km. This automatic damage would be from small anti air/missile batteries on the dreadnought which would be possible to tank on a heavily tanked interceptor if it was moving fast, but if it got low trans would eat it quite fast. Battleships should also have a lesser version of this and cruisers a tiny version. For example a cruiser's auto defence could kill a slow moving frigate orbiting at 5km in about a minute. The current situation we have with ecm and other ew is rediculous as big ships have more than one line of defence than their main guns. Drones are good but useless for this soughta thing. Solution: New High slot module: Close Range Defence. Variations: Small, Medium, Large, Extra Large. Ranges: 2km (small) 5km 10km 20km DPS (similar to 5 t2 light drones) Tracking speed (can hit an interceptor if its orbiting @ less than 1km/s) DOES NOT REQUIRE A TURRET SLOT OR MISSILE BAY If this were to come in then i agree to the nos nerf making it sig radius based (would still insta criple an mwd'ing small ship) but with mwd off would be based on a tiny sig radius therefore not so effective) Might put this idea in a new thread and hope CCP read :P
Cecil Montague Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.24 08:18:00 - [37] Originally by: Clavius XIV Personaly I think more interesting would be to lower heavy nos range a bit. Won't work. They are 21km because that is greater than scram range unless you are fitting faction scrams. If Heavy nos range dropped to say 10km what you would have is a crow zipping round and 15km laughing while the big slow BS desperately tries to get in range. Part of the problem is there is no way to shield from nos. With scrams you can fit WCS, with ECM you can fit ECCM (dunno if it does any good though), if the target is long range you go short etc. Perhaps a module or skill (or both) that reduce how effective a nos is on you. "There is no such thing as an effective segment of totality." - Bruce Lee Karwal Security Director and corp Jester.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 08:20:00 - [38] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 24/07/2006 08:22:09 Dont touch my NOS/NEU or I will have to get all racial frigates 5. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.07.24 08:43:00 - [39] I haven't been commenting a lot on the forums lately but I can assure you guys that I am reading them. I wanted to comment on this one (even though it has tux in the title) because these are both "issues" that have been talked about for some time and some people here come pretty close to what we want to do about it. WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. Nos/Neut This has been talked about for a pretty long time as well. The problem with Nos is that its a bit of a no brainer. It does pretty much the same as neutralizer only it gives you cap in return. The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. We haven't actually done anything of this yet. The WCS one is pretty simple to implement but I'm pretty sure I need programmer support for the nos "nerf". _______________

Ling Xiao	Posted - 2006.07.24 08:48:00 - [40] Those ideas sound great to me. Although without knowing the numbers it's still possible the WCS change might not be enough (knowing how good Sensor Boosters are).

Virida Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2006.07.24 08:58:00 - [41] The logical problem with making NOS not take all cap: what happens if you got 3NOS and 2neuts on a battleship?
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 09:00:00 - [42] Originally by: Virida The logical problem with making NOS not take all cap: what happens if you got 3NOS and 2neuts on a battleship? The victim should and needs to die slowly. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 09:04:00 - [43] Originally by: Tuxford I haven't been commenting a lot on the forums lately but I can assure you guys that I am reading them. I wanted to comment on this one (even though it has tux in the title) because these are both "issues" that have been talked about for some time and some people here come pretty close to what we want to do about it. WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. Nos/Neut This has been talked about for a pretty long time as well. The problem with Nos is that its a bit of a no brainer. It does pretty much the same as neutralizer only it gives you cap in return. The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. We haven't actually done anything of this yet. The WCS one is pretty simple to implement but I'm pretty sure I need programmer support for the nos "nerf". Nice to know. What worries me is that CCP does not think about NPVers very much. The change to WCS will make their life in lowsec harder. And of course we have sensor booster :-) ------------------------------ at least fit ECCM before you start crying how overpowered ECM is.
Avataris	Posted - 2006.07.24 09:05:00 - [44] Thank you Jenny Spitfire for speaking sense..
Varis Jericho Fraction	Posted - 2006.07.24 09:08:00 - [45] as for number for WCS - if you fit 1 sensor booster it should still be worse off if its already fit a WCS. (ie, need at least 2 sensor boosters to get any bonus if you are also fitting a WCS) for someone wanting to travel and not fight - WCS should remain as they are. But for anyone wanting to fight it should seriously interfere. Would be great to have something like "sensor recalibration" where any lock takes a minimum of X seconds.
T'sar	Posted - 2006.07.24 09:25:00 - [46] NOS is one of few defenses a BS got against the smallest targets, it should be left alone. As for WCS, once scambled it should start sucking cap power.
OrangeAfroMan Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.07.24 09:32:00 - [47] Originally by: T'sar NOS is one of few defenses a BS got against the smallest targets, it should be left alone. As for WCS, once scambled it should start sucking cap power. You have access to almost any module in the game in a BS: Fit. Smaller. Guns. It worked when an apoc fought off my Jagabond. It will work for you. Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
Leandro Salazar Aeon Industries	Posted - 2006.07.24 10:07:00 - [48] What I REALLY want to see for NOS is a stacking penalty. I think they should be plenty powerful against small ships as they are now. But I really hate those dedicated NOS ships whose only purpose is to rid you of your cap and then slowly whittle you away. That imho should only be possible with Neuts. And imagine the fun that would cause in a gang of NOSers: /PirateOnes Dominix activates 3 NOS on enemy Raven PirateOne: "Wheee, I am da Tankz0r!" /PirateTwos Typhoon activates 3 NOS on same enemy Raven PirateTwo: "FFS WTF I get no cap from my NOS!" /Enemy Raven activates 2 NOS on PirateTwos Typhoon /Enemy gang opens fire on PirateTwo PirateTwos oh so likeable computer voice: "Your capacitor is empty." /PirateTwos Typhoon is out of control... And I would also like a middle-ground module between NOS and Neuts, that leeches a decent amount of cap from the enemy but does not gain or cost the user any cap. --------- ZOMG my sig was concordokkened! Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
T'sar	Posted - 2006.07.24 10:20:00 - [49] Originally by: OrangeAfroMan Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 24/07/2006 09:37:23 Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 24/07/2006 09:36:34 Originally by: T'sar NOS is one of few defenses a BS got against the smallest targets, it should be left alone. As for WCS, once scambled it should start sucking cap power. You have access to almost any module in the game in a BS: Fit. Smaller. Guns. It worked when an non-dedicated apoc fought off my Jagabond. It will work for you. You might now say "Oh Orange but those 2-3 slots I used for small turrets now hurts my damage against other Battleships!" Well... My point exactly, fitting 2-3 large nos is as good or better than those 2-3 large turrets you would otherwise have in place against BS down to frig. Thats why Nos is imbalanced. Ever seen a Apoc with Small Lasers? It can fit them, but no bonuses. Same for every other BS. Kinda like putting Pulse lasers on a Harpy, can do it. But you'd be a moron..
Logi3 SniggWaffe	Posted - 2006.07.24 10:37:00 - [50] NOS is fine as it is, but if i had to pick something to change then maybe make S NOS have the furthest range with the Large having the smallest. If you dont want to risk getting NOS'ed DONT GO CLOSE TO THE SHIP. Its simple, its like the moaning people who want WCS left as they are and say "STICK x590 SCramblers on your ship". Stick 20km Scramblers, or buy faction Webbers so u can sit out of NOS range. Dont **** up the NOS now... -----------------------------------------------

Avataris	Posted - 2006.07.24 10:48:00 - [51] Edited by: Avataris on 24/07/2006 10:53:07 Edit for correct use of sentences. Don't be silly.. if small NOS has the longest range it would just lead to frigates orbitting outside of heavy NOS range. To suggest that all BS's should be forced to setup as part cruiser/ part destroyer/ part BS for the sake of balance makes no sense either, as is pointed out above BS's get no bonuses on anything less than Large Turrets. Any BS setup for dedicated BS warfare will wftomgpwn the hell out of any BS going around with a few highslots full of small turrets, and a few highslots full of medium turrets. Also.. have you considered what losing NOS will do to the duration of battles? In the tournament the longest battles were those battles where NOS was used, as people were able to sustain their caps and as a result tank damage. A ship like the dominix is heavily reliant on NOS to keep it's cap running. If you don't like getting NOS'd don't get inside NOS'ing range.. simple.
SUPER FREAK	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:05:00 - [52] let see, wcs works at intended, so do warp scramblers so no problem here, NOS, i have big sucker and i'm not able to get your energy? something's wrong here. In your opinion it should be bigger sucker no suck? Think not, they work as intended so no problem either. I fly only gallente frig's and yes it happens to me also. So.... live with it. You don't fill a tanker with a gardenhose
Boonaki Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:10:00 - [53] Originally by: Mitchman I totally agree. But you see, tackling interceptors are usually on the border of their cap when tackling due to the cap requirements for the 20km disruptor, so being able to suck 10-20% cap from a ceptor will in many cases be plenty to archive the objective. Frigs aren't supposed to fit 20k scrams, they're supposed to be fitting 7.5k scrams. That's why the 7.5ks use much less cap per second. Fear the Ibis of doom!
Dukath	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:27:00 - [54] For the NOS problem make it so that: * if the targetted ship does not have enough cap to drain the nos overloads and takes 2x the remaining cap from your own ship. So a nos that takes 100 cap on a frig that only has 20 cap left will take the 20 cap from the frig, but also 80 * 2 cap from yourself. Nossing a smaller ship will still be possible but it willcome at risk, also using 6 nosses on another ship to keep his cap to 0 zill be much more costly. People might actually need to manage their nosses a bit more in stead of F1-F8 and then yawn till the battle is over. For the WCS issue i have a solution but it would change other things in the game and would take too long to explain.
Kaeten Hybrid Syndicate	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:33:00 - [55] Originally by: Altai Saker Why should nos neut instantly drain smaller ships giving them little or no chance to escape? Where in the Golden Ratio does it stat that bs should be completely immune to small ships aslong as they fit this one particular module? I dont have a problem with nos neuts being a serious problem for frigs, but It shouldnt nuke all your cap instantly, why? Because where is the balance in a bs taking one frig completely out of the fight with 1 mod INSTANTLY? Their's no other mods in the game that do this, except nos, if you remember back in the day when large guns hit frigs frequently, trackin was implemented because the devs wanted BALANCE! however you should think about that a battleship costs abit more than an inty (don't give me 20mill agsint 30mill insurance crap cause the default buidling cost AINT 20mill). TBH I think nos should wtf bbq smaller ships cap. However... I also think nos should have tracking of somesort, this way frigs can avoid nos if skilled enough. my view anyway... High-Sec Piracy Recruitment
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:34:00 - [56] Originally by: Tuxford I haven't been commenting a lot on the forums lately but I can assure you guys that I am reading them. I wanted to comment on this one (even though it has tux in the title) because these are both "issues" that have been talked about for some time and some people here come pretty close to what we want to do about it. WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. Nos/Neut This has been talked about for a pretty long time as well. The problem with Nos is that its a bit of a no brainer. It does pretty much the same as neutralizer only it gives you cap in return. The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. We haven't actually done anything of this yet. The WCS one is pretty simple to implement but I'm pretty sure I need programmer support for the nos "nerf". Thanks for the comment. Havent seen you post for months now. I know you mentioned the reasons for it in your last dev blog, but you not posting AT ALL is no fun at all. Just post and let us know you are reading (like you just did). About adding additional sig radius to wcs... well, it will hurt haulers. They will take more damage, specially when having lots of them equipped. I think you should rethink this and find a penalty that affects combat ships in a negative way while not hurting haulers. And for the nos nerf... well, what can i say. Just another reason to be using an elite frigate with multispectrals. They are already pwning any other ship out there. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
eLLioTT wave Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:34:00 - [57] Edited by: eLLioTT wave on 24/07/2006 11:35:42 ty for the response Tux, what about increase the current sisi wcs penalty from currently 20% (i think?) to 30%-40%? This would mean fitting a sensor booster per WCS would still be a pain for snipers. I havent done the numbers but i think this would put gate snipers in sentry gun range for 2 wcs fitted? I also think the scan resolution penalty should NOT APPLY to industrial ships. And make the scan res penalty a biggy! so an interceptor REALLY doesnt want to fit a wcs cos then he will look like a cruiser :P Please put these on sisi and see how it goes.
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:34:00 - [58] Originally by: Boonaki Frigs aren't supposed to fit 20k scrams, they're supposed to be fitting 7.5k scrams. That's why the 7.5ks use much less cap per second. I'm curious where you have that strange information from? If it wasn't supposed to be a frigate module, it would take 50MW powergrid.
Shadowsword Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:35:00 - [59] Originally by: Tuxford WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. That would do nicely, I think, with most situations where long range ships are using WCS. Some short range ships (Blasterthron, Raven) could still be relatively combat effective while still fitting WCS, but they'd have to take more risks fighting in close. However, I see one example of a ship where such a nerf wouldn't change much: the Vagabond. But then, the problem with that ship isn't really the WCS, but rather the effect of a falloff bonus and falloff-enhancing T2 ammos on weapons that already have 10km falloff, with skills. That's 22.5km falloff. So much for a "short"-range weapon, eh? Originally by: Tuxford Nos/Neut This has been talked about for a pretty long time as well. The problem with Nos is that its a bit of a no brainer. It does pretty much the same as neutralizer only it gives you cap in return. The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. That will leave pretty wide gap to battleship defenses in the 10-20km range. only some light weapons and light/med drones would be effective at that range, and they need some time to kill. That mean inties are basically free to tackle larger ships and leave when things get hot for them, without real risks for themselves. Suggestion: more webbifiers: a cruiser sized web with 20km range but not a lot of efficiency (50-60%) and a battleship-sized web with 20km range and normal efficiency. Now, before some players go beserk at the idea that small ships would be rendered obsoletes, consider this: if a frig-sized ship go 1v1 against a battleship, you should get killed, simple as that. If a dozen of frigs go against a battleship with a web like that, the BS will web one. So what? the BS will still need to kill you, it takes time with small guns, and you and your budies can shoot drones easily. At worst, you lose one frig before the BS dies -> balanced. ------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: Because of Amar philosophy: whatever happened, if they need to flee they can honestly sa
Kaeten Hybrid Syndicate	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:35:00 - [60] Originally by: SUPER FREAK let see, wcs works at intended, so do warp scramblers so no problem here, NOS, i have big sucker and i'm not able to get your energy? something's wrong here. In your opinion it should be bigger sucker no suck? Think not, they work as intended so no problem either. I fly only gallente frig's and yes it happens to me also. So.... live with it. You don't fill a tanker with a gardenhose thing is heh, the anti to nos is err nos. The only diffrence is how much cap is transfered here... High-Sec Piracy Recruitment

Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:41:00 - [61] Originally by: Tuxford The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. The problem with this is that many already fit 1-2 sensor boosters on their setup, so unless the penalty was severe, it wouldn't be that much of a penalty. I don't think just 20% will cut it here. Originally by: Tuxford The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. Unless people are really lucky with the cycle timing compared to the mwd cycle on a ceptor, the ceptor will be unaffected by a nosf or 2. I don't think that is intended, nor wise. But I will make sure to take a good look at the changes, when/if they make it to sisi.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:46:00 - [62] The nos-ceptor issue can be solved easily by fitting a neut instead. Exept I am missing something here?
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:52:00 - [63] Assuming Tuxford is choosing his words with care, it's worth pointing out to those who are a bit confused that sig radius != scan resolution. The penalties Tuxford describes are both pitched at target acquisition being more difficult for a ship with WCS. I have no great feeling about that to be honest. I think Maya's weapons range penalty on both falloff and optimal is better myself. On Nos/Neut, I'm very glad that Tuxford is recognising that the neut is a balanced weapon (because it certainly is and any nerf in performance would need a reduction of its cap cost) while suggesting a sensible change in Nos behaviour so that it is no longer a mod pretty much bereft of tactical choices. Cosmo Jericho Fraction
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:03:00 - [64] Originally by: Tuxford ... WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. ... Just quoting the WCS section. The ideas all seem to be to drastic. My personal fix would be a slight mod of the 3 warp affecting modules and another favorite. Warp Scrambler range increased to 10km. Warp Disruptor cap use lowered slightly from 25 to 20. Warpcore Stabalizers use same cap as old Warp Disruptor which is 25. Fix ECM. This change would have the greatest impact imho, it will lower the value of mids being used for ECM and people will fit more Scramblers and/or Disruptors. The increase in range of the scrambler will make it more effective as people can get it active sooner. 1 tackler module > 1 wcs, is that not fair? WCS now being active means it isn't just something to throw in a low without thinking, if you run out of cap you lose the WCS effect just like if a tackler is NOS'd it loses its tackle points as the module deactivates. Basically, problem isn't WCS so much as the value of mids and the best counter, the 2 point warp scrambler not being used enough.
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:16:00 - [65] Originally by: Mila Prestoc Warpcore Stabalizers use same cap as old Warp Disruptor which is 25. (but isn't affected by the skill to lower its cap useage) This makes absolutely no difference on any ship except for a frigate, so it's really not a nerf.
Marcus Alkhaar Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:31:00 - [66] My 2 isk about nerfing WCS: make WCS give you 1 falloff meter on any turret/Electronic Warfare you got fitted. Turret example: Now: 1000m Optimal - 10000m falloff = can hit from 0-21 km (say tracking isnt an issue) After: 1000m Optimal - 1m Falloff = Can hit at 998-1002m (its near to impossible to hit your target. Missile Example: Going to do this fast - put Explosion Velocity to 0 m (the missile basicly cant explode, hehe) the same Penalties follows for Electronic warfare - if you dont got falloff you're Toast.... What about drones? You shouldnt be able to CONTROL any kind of drones in space except for Logistic drones (the smalls fellows dont actually kill off the enemy?) Smartbombs..... They dont got a falloff? No - but they got an "Area of effect", put it to 1m of Effect and problem is solved Nosferatu got a "Transfer Range", that one needs to be 1m too... Webbers dont got falloff (only 10-40km optimal) but I think People like Tux can change it so they got 1m optimal and 10km falloff (the module should have 100% effect in the falloff). Who/what do I mess up with these "changes".... well you could start with NPC'ers.... but even those people need to take a risk if they want to earn money - NPC'ing shouldnt be an I-Get-All-Isk-In-EVE-button and you know it - and if you cant solo it, then make your friends help you (I think CCP made lvl 4 missions harder because they wanted people to Teamwork and stop Solo'ing lvl 4's anyway...). the ECM Burst is going to be soooo Bad with these changes - you cant fit your dual/triple bursts on your Hauler anymore and avoid 5 tacklers... but I dont see alot of people using Bursts anyway (not even when people are moving their BS) These changes wont reduce Agility/speed/fitting requirements - which our ships already are strugling with without another module "nerfing it" anyone want to comment on my Idea? PS. this isnt flame bait for anyone who dont like WCS/NOS/ECM-threads - Be constructive and "modify" my ideas if you point out one of my flaws. ---------------------------------------------- Marcus Alkhaar > so you're saying that I got the Pottsey-stamp? Pottsey > first class stamp Collector edition. Marcus Alkhaar > <--- Dances
ParMizaN Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:33:00 - [67] 1 lone frig should not be immune to bs really UNLESS 1 frig on it's own loses the ability to lock down a battleship. Giving a range penalty to wcs seems like a good idea but setups like the nos domi that can only operate in close range are a massive part of the problem and this just shuffles around them. sig edited for lack of pink really PINK -eris
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:03:00 - [68] Originally by: ParMizaN 1 lone frig should not be immune to bs really UNLESS 1 frig on it's own loses the ability to lock down a battleship. Giving a range penalty to wcs seems like a good idea but setups like the nos domi that can only operate in close range are a massive part of the problem and this just shuffles around them. The Nos domi is a Nos and ECM problem, Parm... the WCS range nerf idea is aimed more at snipers and vagabonds
Gariuys Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:10:00 - [69] Edited by: Gariuys on 24/07/2006 13:11:54 Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 24/07/2006 12:35:43 My 2 isk about nerfing WCS: make 1-8 WCS fitted give you 1 falloff meter on any turret/Electronic Warfare you got fitted. Turret example: Now: 1000m Optimal - 10000m falloff = can hit from 0-21 km (say tracking isnt an issue) After: 1000m Optimal - 1m Falloff = Can hit at 998-1002m (its near to impossible to hit your target. Here's a flaw, you don't understand how turrets work.... Edit: intended to ignore the rest, but can't resist a short... horrible idea... removes them as a choice completely, penalties is good, unusable completely is not good.
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:10:00 - [70] Edited by: Laboratus on 24/07/2006 13:13:06 Originally by: Mitchman Originally by: Tuxford The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. The problem with this is that many already fit 1-2 sensor boosters on their setup, so unless the penalty was severe, it wouldn't be that much of a penalty. I don't think just 20% will cut it here. Now to counter a normal tackler fit (2x7.5km scram, 4 point strength) with a 20% penalty, with no stacking penalty of course, it would bring it down to (0.8^4=0,4096 ~=) 41% of original range and sensor strength. Requiring 2 mid slots to get back to the status quo. As proven above, avoiding a single tackler eats 6, six gentleman, six slots from your ship. 4 low and 2 mid. This is broken. Broken I say Broken. Wouldn't you rather just release the t2 W Sramblers, distruptors and stabs. That would mess up the status quo enough to make things interesting. Originally by: Tuxford The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. Ach! If it ain't broken don't fix it. Mind control and tin hats

Deva Blackfire DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:12:00 - [71] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 24/07/2006 13:12:26 Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar Turret example: Now: 1000m Optimal - 10000m falloff = can hit from 0-21 km (say tracking isnt an issue) After: 1000m Optimal - 1m Falloff = Can hit at 998-1002m (its near to impossible to hit your target. My friend: you should read tracking guide, because thats not how optimal+falloff works unfortunately. 1000m Optimal - 1m Falloff = can hit at 1-1002m actually (depending on tracking ofc.) EDIT: doh... 2nd ;p
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:27:00 - [72] Originally by: Mitchman Originally by: Mila Prestoc Warpcore Stabalizers use same cap as old Warp Disruptor which is 25. (but isn't affected by the skill to lower its cap useage) This makes absolutely no difference on any ship except for a frigate, so it's really not a nerf. Who said it was a nerf? I'd call it a balance which is what is needed not a all out nerf. Look at the overall proposal not just one line. And it would affect all ships to, especially those that use MWD and can't afford to fit a cap booster. 5 cap per second when recharge is at most 15 cap/sec will be noticable where WCS are not noticable now. If using a Raven and you want to fit 3 or 4 of them in your lows then thats 15 to 20 cap per second, ok a cap booster counters that but the module is now doing a noticable difference to the ships defencive capabilities for the bonus of the chance of escaping.
Admiral IceBlock Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:37:00 - [73] Make Warp Core Stabilizers to a medslot item and give them capacitor usage. Problem fixed!
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:47:00 - [74] I love these silly threads, 'My opinion on blah blah'. All these self absorbed individuals who think that they're opinion/thoughts are so important than the average rabbles that it deserves not only its own thread, but a reminder in the title that this knowledge is being handed from a deity. "Yes Tomb, read this 1298732978 thread on NOS/WCS and how to 'fix' them - cause we all know their borked despite being in game for YEARS - not because Ive come up with some new and inventive way of 'balancing' them, but because I, Mitchman [even that name smacks of ego and idiocy) has graced this forum with my golden doodoo of an opinion." Die mitchman. If I come back to this thread and you've responded, I'll war dec your corp and turn your EVE into a **hole. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever**

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:51:00 - [75] Originally by: Jim McGregor Thanks for the comment. Havent seen you post for months now. I know you mentioned the reasons for it in your last dev blog, but you not posting AT ALL is no fun at all. Just post and let us know you are reading (like you just did). About adding additional sig radius to wcs... well, it will hurt haulers. They will take more damage, specially when having lots of them equipped. I think you should rethink this and find a penalty that affects combat ships in a negative way while not hurting haulers. We had quite a talk about WCS some time ago, and when I mean talk I mean all the devs ganged up on me. We agreed on sig res and target range penalty. We had a talk about number of other ones like sig rad and agility decided not as it just nerfs industrials which is not really what we want to achieve. So its just a simple misunderstanding between me and LeMonde. Originally by: Jim McGregor And for the nos nerf... well, what can i say. Just another reason to be using an elite frigate with multispectrals. They are already pwning any other ship out there. ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Originally by: Jim McGregor Another thing with making nos not completely drain the enemy cap is that you will make it very hard to kill gallente blasterboats. The best way to kill those is to drain their cap and hope they dont have a cap injector, or use electronic warfare. It looks to me that they will be even harder to kill with this change. You can still use neutralizers to get that last bit of cap from it. _______________

Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:04:00 - [76] Originally by: Tuxford ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Amazing... would make us all very happy if you find a good solution to this. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:07:00 - [77] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Tuxford ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Amazing... would make us all very happy if you find a good solution to this. Yeah thats gonna happen _______________

Kai Lae Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:12:00 - [78] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Tuxford ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Amazing... would make us all very happy if you find a good solution to this. Yeah thats gonna happen It's easy. You just make the countermeasure modules effective, so that if you fit enough of them it's impossible to be jammed, just like in the old days. The ECM system isn't broke, the fact that there's no countermeasure that can be applied that is 100% effective is. Raptor and Ares Fix
Leandro Salazar Aeon Industries	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:15:00 - [79] Okay I realize thread hijacking is bad, please chastise me. But Tux, can you please reply on the Khanid MkII thread? Even if its just another bump. Give it that yellow stripe! Pretty please! --------- ZOMG my sig was concordokkened! Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:52:00 - [80] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg "Yes Tomb, read this 1298732978 thread on NOS/WCS and how to 'fix' them - cause we all know their borked despite being in game for YEARS - not because Ive come up with some new and inventive way of 'balancing' them, but because I, Mitchman [even that name smacks of ego and idiocy) has graced this forum with my golden doodoo of an opinion." Well, I've been PvP'ing for over 3 years and other PvP'ers know me and respect myself and my corp. Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Die mitchman. If I come back to this thread and you've responded, I'll war dec your corp and turn your EVE into a ****hole. Excellent, I'm looking forward to your war declaration.

Ath Amon	Posted - 2006.07.24 15:11:00 - [81] i'll go with my picks :P WCS: -15% to cap and shield regeneration NOS: keep them as they are now but give them a high slot as other weapons eg domi 6high 6turrets 2nos.
Ysolde Xen Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.24 15:14:00 - [82] Scan res nerfing (along with the targetting delay) is much better than the Sig Rad mixup. Phew! ----- It's not a crap ship, you're just flying it all wrong.
FireFoxx80 Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 15:23:00 - [83] Whatever happened to propulsion disruptors being chance based? (hence the introduction to propulsion type/strength?)
Dupac Corsets and Carebears Whips and Chains	Posted - 2006.07.24 15:46:00 - [84] Originally by: FireFoxx80 Whatever happened to propulsion disruptors being chance based? (hence the introduction to propulsion type/strength?) I think that's even worse than the current system - look what it did to ecm You have ten points on some BS and he still gets a chance to warp - no thanks. Sig res (not radius) and range penalty seems to have it covered imo - doesn't impact industrials that much, unless they were planning on jamming the person scramming them. Hopefully will have a nasty impact on combat ships and should kill off stabbed up snipers, sniping is fine if you want to do it but doing it with loads of stabs is the poorest form of combat I can think of.
Milkminer Independent Frontiers	Posted - 2006.07.24 16:59:00 - [85] Originally by: Tuxford You can still use neutralizers to get that last bit of cap from it. This depends on how much "the last bit of cap" is. If the last bit of cap is actually 20% then that ship can still semi tank, without neuts on it, also can fire weapons happily (unless its a scrap heap challenge ship of course). I can only base my view(s) on my own experience and as such I fly Curses/Pilgrims and although on my Curse I fit a neut its not able to run if constantly to keep cap dry, Neuts use far to much cap to do such a thing for all scales, even with cap skills. If a change of such a scale was to change nos's id suggest adding an advanced Energy Emission System skill to help compensate for the new requirment of leaving neuts on almost constantly to make sure the target is dry. Without such a thing specialised nos+neut setups(as well as ships) will lose alot of their current effectivness and could endup being just another unused ship. Not a flame I promise, was wrote with a true beleif that currently its just a suggestion and every bit of imput adds to the greater goal. -Krissy (aka Milkminer) Originally by: John Moscroft Goons are a renewable resource. There are no recruitment problems.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:16:00 - [86] Got that wardec yet mitchman What an idiot eh ? Anyways, sig rad and lock range sounds ok, as long as the penalty is at least 40% to each for each wcs. Old blog
Crux Australis MotorSaikol LadrUNZ	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:18:00 - [87] Rof penalty, imho Assuming that you have a 10 sec base rof: 1 wcs = 20 sec rof 2 wcs = 40 sec rof If you want to travel safer, you can do it. If you want to stay and fight, you don't fit them. If you want to travel/npc/whatever to/in unsafe areas you have to make choices, bring friends or both. End of problems. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Originally by: Frezik Detaurus isn't a person. It's a state of mind.
Merin Ryskin Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:31:00 - [88] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 24/07/2006 17:33:34 Originally by: Tuxford The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The problem with this is the assumption that all players in a fight wanted to be involved in it. An NPC-ing pilot who gets ambushed by a focused PvP pilot (who is engaging because he knows his setup has the advantage and will likely win) doesn't want to be in the fight. And with WCS penalties, you can't decide you're going to fight in some situations and run in others, it's all or nothing. Keeping the ability to run when confronted with a fight you don't want shouldn't require sacrifices beyond the considerable sacrifice of the lost slot. PvP in EVE already strongly favors the attacker, with the ability to pick only targets you know you can kill. The last thing we need is to tip this balance even farther. By punishing WCS use, you now turn a single scrambler on a attacker into an instant I-win button that leaves no chance of escape for the victim. Or will there be some balancing to take away the automatic no-escape scramble to prevent the I-win button effect?
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:35:00 - [89] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 24/07/2006 17:35:31 Disagreed, anyone killed while NPCing made the fatal mistake himself, and it had nothing to do with forgetting or declining to fit WCS. As long as local exists, you don't ever need to die outside of voluntary pvp and maybe travelling you can't or don't want to delay. The attacker is not favoured at all except at gates, and that's fine. Old blog
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:42:00 - [90] Edited by: Aramendel on 24/07/2006 17:45:55 Originally by: Milkminer Originally by: Tuxford You can still use neutralizers to get that last bit of cap from it. This depends on how much "the last bit of cap" is. If the last bit of cap is actually 20% then that ship can still semi tank, without neuts on it, also can fire weapons happily (unless its a scrap heap challenge ship of course). I can only base my view(s) on my own experience and as such I fly Curses/Pilgrims and although on my Curse I fit a neut its not able to run if constantly to keep cap dry, Neuts use far to much cap to do such a thing for all scales, even with cap skills. If a change of such a scale was to change nos's id suggest adding an advanced Energy Emission System skill to help compensate for the new requirment of leaving neuts on almost constantly to make sure the target is dry. Without such a thing specialised nos+neut setups(as well as ships) will lose alot of their current effectivness and could endup being just another unused ship. Not a flame I promise, was wrote with a true beleif that currently its just a suggestion and every bit of imput adds to the greater goal. -Krissy (aka Milkminer) Well, with maxed skills for energy emission and recon and the best named neut you'll kill 3.2 of they cap for every 1 of yours which you'll invest. An apoc with max ship skill regenerates averagely 6.5 cap/sec, a cruse and pilgrim do 3.6 cap/sec. With the 3.2:1 effeciency for the energy neuts you could disable a 11.5 cap/sec regeneration using only your own cap regeneration, the apoc would need 2 cap power relays or 3 cap recharger IIs to achieve that. Which wouldn't be that a unrealistic fitting but note that this would be only if the apoc uses no other cap - keeping an repper active will cost him far more than you keeping your tracking disruptors online.

Conwright Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:48:00 - [91] Originally by: Tuxford We had quite a talk about WCS some time ago, and when I mean talk I mean all the devs ganged up on me. We agreed on sig res and target range penalty. We had a talk about number of other ones like sig rad and agility decided not as it just nerfs industrials which is not really what we want to achieve. So its just a simple misunderstanding between me and LeMonde. Personally I was pushing for a RoF penalty, but I think this will work as well. I don't think fitting a WCS needs to totally incapacitate a ship for combat purposes as some people seem to want, and even if fitting a sensor booster can negate the effect from the WCS, that is in effect losing 1 mid slot which is significant. I suppose it all depends on how much of a reduction is given to sig res and target range though. I think I know the answer to this already, but to be sure, will this reduction factor into the stacking penalty with sensor boosters/signal amplifiers? Will it be similar to the current situation with boost amps/cap power relays?
Merin Ryskin Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:54:00 - [92] Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 24/07/2006 17:35:31 Disagreed, anyone killed while NPCing made the fatal mistake himself, and it had nothing to do with forgetting or declining to fit WCS. As long as local exists, you don't ever need to die outside of voluntary pvp and maybe travelling you can't or don't want to delay. The attacker is not favoured at all except at gates, and that's fine. That's just one example. What about a PvP pilot who knows some ships are a good fight, but some an auto-loss for him? Is he required to just lose ships every time the wrong person decides he needs to die? And yes, it entirely favors the attacker, because the attacker has the ability to scan his target's location and know what they're flying. The defender just knows someone is in the system, but has no idea what ship, or if they're even looking for a fight. The attacker makes the choice to engage or not with full knowledge of his target, while the defender has to start running before he's even sure the attacker is coming. EVE shouldn't come down to logging off the moment someone else enters local. That's not fun for anyone, pvp aggressors included.
Wodin Drukvik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:57:00 - [93] It won't really punish the pure Nosboats - most Pilgrim setups I've seen mix Nos/Neuts, and while the Curse pilots who are used to packing 4 mediums won't be particularly thrilled to have to drop one for a Neut, they'll manage. At the T1 level, it will make life much more interesting. Arbitrators and Vexors that traditionally use pure nos as their cap weapon will now be forced to pack some sort of neut, making them somewhat more fragile, but hey, it's a T1 cruiser. Most Nos/ECM Doms already pack a medium neut or two, so they're fine. I'm not really sure how the change makes them any less of a no-brainer module, though. The common cruiser-level pvp fittings that use Nos will still use them to help power their tank and guns, as will the battleships. There's not really anything else to put in those utility slots, and given the significant superiority of T2 weapons, slapping a relatively unsupported launcher into the final slot isn't going to make a great deal of difference. In a non-support role remote reps of either flavor don't make much sense, Are there plans for additional high-slot utility modules that will benefit solo pvp that will answer the "what do I put there?" question? Smartbombs and scan probe launchers aren't really all that appealing.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.24 18:02:00 - [94] Tux, Both targeting range and scan resoloution are quite easy to counter with sensor boosters. This is why I suggested range, which is far harder to counter, and uses more of those scarce midslots to do so. And range dosn't affect travel setups or haulers in ANY way either. As for Nos/Neut, please remember the power curve of the capacitor. Sure, you can keep 20% power after you've been nossed. That 20% will fail very very quickly since you're well below the peak of the recharge at ~35%. That's why I don't think it'll work. Crux Australis, snipers alpha your hauler and warp off. That nerf SURE hurt em. Oh...wait... Rod Blaine, ever heard of warp scrambling NPC's? It takes a short time to kill them. This is inevitably the window when people enter local. People who are +10 on both sides. Who proceed to kill me anyway. So..you're not right on that. (certain alliances STILL use corp-set standings. Don't ask me why)
Gramtar GoonWaffe GoonSwarm	Posted - 2006.07.24 18:28:00 - [95] Edited by: Gramtar on 24/07/2006 18:33:34 Edited by: Gramtar on 24/07/2006 18:31:59 WCS: It seems like a good change to apply combat penalties to stabs. Perhaps sensor booster stacking needs to be looked at in addition to this. If the end result is a sniping BS with 2 WCS is brought in 20km, and lock time is increased 1 second, the penalty isn't severe enough. Nos: At first glance it seems to benefit T2/higher skill point players over T1/lower skillpoint players. In the end, it will depend on what % is held in reserve. If an interceptor with a heavy or 2 med nos on it can continue to run a MWD and 7.5k scram, that seems to be unbalancing. Since a BS/cruiser pilot has to give up high slots in order to fit nos, it seems fair that this prevents them from being locked down indefinitely by 1 interceptor. These are my personal views and do not represent my Corporation or Alliance
Yeung	Posted - 2006.07.24 18:33:00 - [96] Originally by: Gramtar Edited by: Gramtar on 24/07/2006 18:31:59 WCS: I don't understand the sig radius penalty not adversely affecting industrials, or poor-man's blockade runners (e.g Stabber). Other than that, it seems like a good change to apply combat penalties to stabs. In addition to range, I think the penalty should be more along the lines of locking speed (signal bandwidth iirc). This means you can still theoretically rat in a ship with 1 or 2 WCS, just not be anywhere near as effective at ganking (due to increased time to lock). Nos: At first glance it seems to benefit T2/higher skill point players over T1/lower skillpoint players. In the end, it will depend on what % is held in reserve. If an interceptor with a heavy or 2 med nos on it can continue to run a MWD and 7.5k scram, that seems to be unbalancing. Since a BS/cruiser pilot has to give up high slots in order to fit nos, it seems fair that this prevents them from being locked down indefinitely by 1 interceptor. From Tuxford's first post (39): WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much.
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.24 18:46:00 - [97] Edited by: Sarmaul on 24/07/2006 18:46:54 Some ideas: Nos I'm still in favour of changing Nos from taking a fixed amount of cap to taking a percentage instead. Using 10% as an example, if the ship currently has 2000 cap it will take 200, but if it only has 50 cap it will take 5. Also, it won't ever drain more than you can add to your own cap (so looking at scenario 1, if you only have 50 left to refill but your nos can take 200 from your enemy, it will only take 50). WCS WCS effecting range will do nothing to missile users except maybe rockets as the remaining missiles have such a high range to begin with (especially on Caldari ships which get range bonuses). Making it reduce locking range and increase lock time will screw over defensive/travel setups that also use ewar to escape. The only way I can think of that isn't easily exploitable is for them to give -50% damage and +100% rof to launchers, turrets and drones (half damage per shot, doubles the time between shots). It will screw over snipers, close-range ships and anything else attempting to fire a weapon while allowing those who want to fit a purely defensive setup to do so (please tell me if you can spot any flaws in that suggestion). ECM As for ECM, the problem is that there is no module to help you when you are jammed. Sensor Boosters don't decrease the chance of getting dampened; they increase your scan resolution and target range to help compensate. Tracking Computers/Enhancers don't decrease the chance of getting disrupted, the help to counter the effects by increasing your optimal range and tracking. You'll also note that those 2 modules have uses besides "helping when you get damped/disrupted". The only purpose of ECCM is to help to prevent you from getting jammed - it has no other effect to your ship. For ECM to be balanced, it needs to be changed so one module doesn't prevent you from targeting anything, while ECCM actually has some benefits when fitted. An idea: ? 1) Reduce the maximum amount of targets on each ship by 1/4 (rounding up). 2) Have Active ECCM increase the amount of targets the ship can lock by 2, and passive ECCM increase the amount of targets the ship can lock by 1. They will still provide bonuses to your sensor strength. This means fitting ECCM allows you to lock more targets to begin with, hence providing a useful bonus to begin with. 3) Change ECM so it reduces your maximum amount of targets if it successfully jams. OR Same system as we have now, but when you get jammed the ECCM modules allow you to relock a certain amount of targets (Active ECCM +2 relockable targets when jammed, Passive ECCM +1 relockable targets when jammed). The problem with this is that it doesn't give a benefit to your ship until you're jammed. Prahaps combining the 2 solutions (+1/2 active targets, +1/2 relockable targets) would create the ideal situation? Vagabond Please make it 6/5/4 if you nerf stabs + ECM :P Edit: I fail at forum tags TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Sammiel Ars Caelestis HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2006.07.24 18:46:00 - [98] Originally by: Maya Rkell Tux, Both targeting range and scan resoloution are quite easy to counter with sensor boosters. This is why I suggested range, which is far harder to counter, and uses more of those scarce midslots to do so. And range dosn't affect travel setups or haulers in ANY way either. Affecting targeting range and scan resolution both effect NPCers far less than PvPers. Which I believe is what Tux was gunning for, to punish people who engage in combat as an aggressor and then just jet away when things turn south. Not to punish the average NPCer or hauler. Also, to compensate with sensor boosters means that mid slots are being eaten as well as lows, which I don't think many setups can handle well.
OrangeAfroMan Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.07.24 19:02:00 - [99] Originally by: T'sar Originally by: OrangeAfroMan Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 24/07/2006 09:37:23 Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 24/07/2006 09:36:34 Originally by: T'sar NOS is one of few defenses a BS got against the smallest targets, it should be left alone. As for WCS, once scambled it should start sucking cap power. You have access to almost any module in the game in a BS: Fit. Smaller. Guns. It worked when an non-dedicated apoc fought off my Jagabond. It will work for you. You might now say "Oh Orange but those 2-3 slots I used for small turrets now hurts my damage against other Battleships!" Well... My point exactly, fitting 2-3 large nos is as good or better than those 2-3 large turrets you would otherwise have in place against BS down to frig. Thats why Nos is imbalanced. Ever seen a Apoc with Small Lasers? It can fit them, but no bonuses. Same for every other BS. Kinda like putting Pulse lasers on a Harpy, can do it. But you'd be a moron.. Well I have and thats what I was talking about in my post above. The apoc doesnt get a damage bonus to its large turrets either, or its nos so...... You have no point. Fit your 5-6 large turrets and put 2-3 small turrets if you want to be decent against battleships and frigates. Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
OrangeAfroMan Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.07.24 19:08:00 - [100] Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 24/07/2006 17:35:31 Disagreed, anyone killed while NPCing made the fatal mistake himself, and it had nothing to do with forgetting or declining to fit WCS. As long as local exists, you don't ever need to die outside of voluntary pvp and maybe travelling you can't or don't want to delay. The attacker is not favoured at all except at gates, and that's fine. QFT, so very, very true. Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.

NebulousBlur Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.24 19:15:00 - [101] Here is my take on this. I've thought on it for a long time, as a user of warp cores and as a tackler and tried to think of some things outside of the box that would create a different sort of balance that would make everyone happier. The proposed WCS fix won't really change anything. All it will do is make people fit a sensor booster and then the situation will be the same as before with people complaining that there is no meaningful penalty to using warp core stabilizers. I enjoy hit and run. I enjoy flying with my friends and trying to outmanuever and outwit a force that outnumbers me, waiting for them to make the crucial mistake that lets us get in, cause some damage and get out intact. I don't think there should be a large penalty. If someone wants to do hit and run attacks, there should be some way to do it that doesn't involve picking on lone rookie ships that happen to show up. I do agree that something should be changed, but it isn't the cores. I think that the warp scrambling mechanics need a reworking. Warp scrambling a ship should be a battle between the scramblers and the warp drive. It shouldn't be an on/off switch. My idea is that there would be a warp strength meter, dependant upon the propulsion strength of the ship. This meter would be displayed in the same arc as the ship's current speed, preferably in red or some colour that would stand out. When a ship is warp scrambled, this meter is attacked just like a weapon attacks the shields. Warp core stabilizers would be a way of repairing, extending or hardening this warp bar. If the warp core bar falls below 50%, you cannot enter warp even if they had already initiated the warp but have not warped off yet. Bigger ships with stronger engines would have a stronger warp core strength, requiring more effort to knock it down to a level where they cannot warp. The meter would have a fast natural, passive regeneration, but only up to 55%. It should take between 45-90 seconds for a ship to regain it's warp core stability. After it regerates 55% warp core strength, you require external means to recharge it, such as a station or pos or some anchorable module similair a mobile warp disruptor. So if a target is constantly harassing you, you can wear down it's warp core strength to the point where he is in danger of getting tackled the next time he warps in. It also means that someone who is unlucky enough to warp to the wrong spot isn't instantly dead if he is quick enough to warp out before his warp core bar is dropped below 50%. The ships still have propulsion strengths and types, so that data could be used to create the meter. That is my big revamp idea, which is probably unrealistic because it requires a lot of code change and balance testing. But on a whole, I would rather see more game mechanics where a ship's systems battles other ship's systems to get them to an unworking state rather than an on/off switch. A similair idea could be applied to sensors/ECM, rather than jammers turning a ship's sensors off, they could damage a ship's sensors to the point where they fall below 50% operation and then it becomes inoperable. NOS/Neut, the ideas sound good. I think that small nos needs more range, at least 10km. You have to be careful if you extend the medium nos/neut range, as the curse gets a bonus to it's range. I also believe that nos & neut's effectiveness should be dependant upon it's range to the target, and the target's signature radius. Nosses are the only way that a big ship can effectively counter tacklers so care has to be taken when considering any changes.
Prometheus Wrong Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.24 19:25:00 - [102] Rather than Nerf nos, just give us a counter mod that either negates or greatly reduces the Nossing effect.
Metis Aote	Posted - 2006.07.24 19:26:00 - [103] Originally by: Sarmaul Edited by: Sarmaul on 24/07/2006 18:46:54 Some ideas: WCS WCS effecting range will do nothing to missile users except maybe rockets as the remaining missiles have such a high range to begin with (especially on Caldari ships which get range bonuses). Making it reduce locking range and increase lock time will screw over defensive/travel setups that also use ewar to escape. The only way I can think of that isn't easily exploitable is for them to give -50% damage and +100% rof to launchers, turrets and drones (half damage per shot, doubles the time between shots). It will screw over snipers, close-range ships and anything else attempting to fire a weapon while allowing those who want to fit a purely defensive setup to do so (please tell me if you can spot any flaws in that suggestion). I see no flaws in this. I am new to the game and pvp but I have grown to hate WCS. To me if the goal is to eliminate the use of stabs on combat ships without bothering the haulers this is the solution that seems to work the best. Just make them dramatically affect the damage capabilities of the ship and people wont fit them on combat ships.
Jerick Ludhowe Arcana Imperii Ltd. Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 19:47:00 - [104] I think changing nos to a % is a perfect solution so long as nuets remain untouched. Nos should be designed around running your own tank off the targets reactor, nuets should be designed to render your targets capless by using a large portion of your own cap. Currently Nos is the best of both worlds and I have to say that I am very excited about these proposed changes, maybee people will start fitting things other than nos in their utility slots .
Happysin Ars Caelestis HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2006.07.24 20:03:00 - [105] I think Sarmaul has some considerably good ideas that are certainly worth looking into.
Nidhoggur	Posted - 2006.07.24 20:32:00 - [106] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Die mitchman. If I come back to this thread and you've responded, I'll war dec your corp and turn your EVE into a **hole. Hah, hilarious. Anyway... Originally by:** Andrea Jaruwalski Biggers ship should have, and should always have the advantage over small ships. Being honest for a bit, I hate this vision of Eve. "I know, lets make it so that the big ships can always beat the small ships! Yeah, thats a brilliant idea. So anyway, I was zooming along in my Night Elf Druid Ship, and would ya believe it, a Gnome Mage Ship turns up!..." Hey, and while nerfing that, they can just rip out the whole Eve skill system, and replace it with levels. It would sure speed up what you are inevitably going to suggest. Listen, the cost of ships, or their skill needs shouldnt matter. The fight shouldnt always go to the biggest ship, and making it so that the smaller ships have no chance to affect (I didn't say win against...) larger ships is just ridiculous. All the ships, including the smaller ones, should have a use in pvp, and the day that the dont... Well, that day, my friend, that day will the be the one where many people quit eve.
Stuart Price Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 22:06:00 - [107] The biggest, biggest problem here is the way Eve punishes you for losing. If I was to pvp in WoW, I get killed in pvp and OH NOES I have to run back to my body or (in battlegrounds) wait for auto-res. No equipment loss, no stat loss, no cost. Just time and feeling a bit dumb for not overpowering the frackin' rogue. In Eve, if I lose my ship is gone completely, along with whatever stuff I had fitted to it. Insurance never completely covers the loss (nor should it) and it gets MASSIVELY more pronounced with t2 ships/gears where you pretty much lose ALL your investment. In addition, if you get podded you lose, at the very least, the cost of a new clone and, at worst, a buttload of sp's (more time...) if your clone wasn't good enough. So in order not to have people losing tons more ships/sp's than they can afford/make back, the devs have made it much easier to escape a fight than to commit someone to one. Sure, you could argue that people could stay in Empire space, that Eve is meant to be a harsh pvp game and all the other arguments but surely that would only widen the gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' to the point where only about 10% or less of the playerbase participate in pvp at all, with everyone else safely ratting in 0.5 or strip-mining veld to sell to 0.0 dwellers. This being the case, the only real thing they can do is to have escape tools (wcs's mostly) inflict purely COMBAT related penalties, not nerfing anything that can assist the ship with escaping (so no agility, speed nerfs etc). The only people who would really suffer from this are low-sec pirates. But then again, if they really are combat experts why aren't they pirating in 0.0? As far as I'm concerned most low-sec pirating isn't actually 'combat' as much as it's griefing (there are exceptions ofc) and hence if they're the only ones to suffer for the benefit of the majority, so be it. Apologies for length blah blah blah. "I got soul but I'm not a soldier"
Crux Australis MotorSaikol LadrUNZ	Posted - 2006.07.24 22:10:00 - [108] Originally by: Maya Rkell Crux Australis, snipers alpha your hauler and warp off. That nerf SURE hurt em. Oh...wait... Fair point. Than add halving of targeting range per wcs fit to the rof penalty. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Originally by: Frezik Detaurus isn't a person. It's a state of mind.
Mjnari Empyreum	Posted - 2006.07.24 22:53:00 - [109] "Ways of Killing The Other Ship" Guns: Size Dependent Missiles: (Now) Size Dependent Drones: (Fairly) Size Dependent Nos: ... ? Either push for un-class-nerfing guns/missiles/drones in addition to keeping Nos class-apathetic, or concede that BSs shouldn't be wtfpwnmobiles.
Woopie	Posted - 2006.07.24 23:02:00 - [110] Edited by: Woopie on 24/07/2006 23:02:39 Originally by: Tuxford Nos/Neut This has been talked about for a pretty long time as well. The problem with Nos is that its a bit of a no brainer. It does pretty much the same as neutralizer only it gives you cap in return. The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. Wouldn't this just dramatically widen the gap between ships that need cap to fire vs. ships that don't need cap to fire? -Try to fire and your cap dies competely (including hardeners) vs. just losing active tank or no effect at all when using passive tank. I don't see this being very sexy unless there will be some racial difference between the unleechable x%.

Deja Thoris Contraband Inc.	Posted - 2006.07.24 23:15:00 - [111] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Die mitchman. If I come back to this thread and you've responded, I'll war dec your corp and turn your EVE into a ****hole. lmao, I hope you have the balls to follow up on this (but I doubt it) I have a feeling it's you thats going down the crapper head first if you do
paeronsoda	Posted - 2006.07.24 23:55:00 - [112] buhu nos nerfing - pilgrim and curse nerf, please take all amarr ships out of the db. But as some1 said we still have the Cylon Raider lookalike
fairimear Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.25 00:43:00 - [113] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Tuxford ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Amazing... would make us all very happy if you find a good solution to this. Yeah thats gonna happen yeah cus if u dont, well lets say thx to eve tv we ALL know what you looklike, and well the bounty hunters said that helps.
Trepkos Angel Deep Corporation	Posted - 2006.07.25 00:47:00 - [114] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Die mitchman. If I come back to this thread and you've responded, I'll war dec your corp and turn your EVE into a ****hole. lol....Clueless FTW -------- ANGEL DEEP CORPORATION
Weirda Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.25 01:39:00 - [115] Originally by: Altai Saker why? Because where is the balance in a bs taking one frig completely out of the fight with 1 mod INSTANTLY? Their's no other mods in the game that do this... multispec II or Hypnos... though agree w/you point. __ Weirda Join QOTSA Now
JeanPierre	Posted - 2006.07.25 01:51:00 - [116] Originally by: Dixon Originally by: Alita Tiphares Edited by: Alita Tiphares on 22/07/2006 12:37:33 Edited by: Alita Tiphares on 22/07/2006 12:36:44 wtf are you smoking? BS size nos/neut should ALWAYS cripple frigs.. Yes, that's what I like to hear. Also bs sized guns should always hit frigs and cruisers. Actually frigs and cruiser shouldn't be allowed into battles where BS are used. Battleships SHOULD be solopwnmobiles, that's just good gameplay. As opposed to making frigs/cruisers unswattable flies? That's just good gameplay, too. I'm thinking of launching a rubber raft with a .50 caliber mounted on it and launching an assault on the U.S.S. Nimitz (an aircraft carrier). If they win, I'm going to whine to Jesus until he nerfs aircraft carriers. It's not fair.
Rift Scorn Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 02:51:00 - [117] Edited by: Rift Scorn on 25/07/2006 02:53:34 Originally by: Merin Ryskin Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 24/07/2006 17:33:34 Originally by: Tuxford The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The problem with this is the assumption that all players in a fight wanted to be involved in it. An NPC-ing pilot who gets ambushed by a focused PvP pilot (who is engaging because he knows his setup has the advantage and will likely win) doesn't want to be in the fight. solution to that one is easy, keep your bloody eyes glued to local. I think i've been collared once in 3 years of playing when i was NPCing, and tbh thats once more than i should have been. If you're NPCing, you have MORE than enough time, even against an accomplished covert ops/scanning tackler pilot, to get your BS to a safe/POS before you get bum rushed, if you have your eyes on local. Since only a small amount of NPC frigates actually scramble these days, the liklihood of getting out before they have sniffed you down to a particular belt is huge, and if you have your drones on a scrambling NPC and you are already alligned to get out of there when you see a hostile come into local, you should still make it out in time. Edit: nutz, Rod already said this Moral of the story: local chat in 0.0 is your friend Your friendly clone activation expert, free of service to the eve community since '03!
DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.25 03:24:00 - [118] I can't bring myself to like either of your proposed solutions, for several reasons. Most of them are probably mentioned already, but I cba to read the replies here. WCS The penalties don't really gimp your combat setup unless you're using an extreme amount of them. Its still very viable to use 2 WCS on any ship, which is what the majority of users have. For battleships the signature radius increase is a moot factor, unless you are being shot at by a Dreadnaught or Rage Torp Raven. How often does that happen? The lock range can be negated by sensor boosters quite easily. One sensor booster counters three warp core stabilizers. So obviously, Ravens with 4 WCS in the lows sacrifice some shield hardeners for sensor boosters and its back to business as usual. But then again, a WCS Raven never relied on its shield tank anyways. Its merely a buffer to let you stay in the fight a little bit longer. The primary defense is WCS, and if you get caught the shields don't matter at all. For Frigates, what does a lock penalty mean? You nearly instalock battleships, will 20% increase that by a half second maybe? Frigates don't have the lows for extreme abuse anyways, so you can assume the majority of stabbed frigs have only two. A 40% penalty to lock speed is meaningless, unless you are trying to tackle other Frigs. Next is the signature, while it sounds like a scary thing.. 20% of 28m is 5.6. Now obviously this will make it noticably larger with mwd online but I don't see it causing too many problems. Halos negate the penalty, Snakes ensure nothing hits you as long as you maintain transverse. Even with a huge sig you can evade fire when you're flying at interceptor speeds. And even with a small unpenalized interceptor sig radius you can die horribly. Cruisers? They suffer the most because sig is most relevant, and they typically don't have the mids for sensor boosters. Yet its mostly the vaginabond which abuses them, and it has the lowest sig radius of all the HACs. Hitting a mwding Vagabond won't become easier either. They tend to get out of your optimal really fast. You also say these penalties don't nerf travellers but I think they do. Higher sig makes you easier to lock, which is what travellers avoid. If you do get locked down, your pitiful lock speed means you probably don't stand a chance to defend yourself or fight your way through. WCS are lame because they are not a fair counter to Warp Disruptors. - no cap - no activation - no range - lower fittings - low slot If you want to remove WCS use from combat, make them medium slot first priority. The average number of medium slots across all ships is far lower than lows, and generally more important pvp modules go there. Low slot is mainly utilitarian, for defense or other buffs. You're merely exchanging one form of defense (tanking) for another (warping out). Having WCS in the mid slots means no EW, no tackling gear. A frig is no threat if it can't tackle, and the cruisers with enough mids to abuse wcs typically rely on shield tanks and are extremely slow so they wouldn't even come close to the annoyance level of Vagas. Travellers only use up one med slot for essential travel gear (MWD) and the rest is usually fluff. Next you add agility penalty, to counter overpowered travel setups where you have all wcs and all nanos. This also helps hurt combat users, especially frigs and cruisers (almost zero incentive by now). It also means anyone doing all wcs + cargo expanders (not very many indies have a lot of mids anyways) would really be hurting. Next, add activation, even if its for negligible cap.. just to add some human factor and make it less of a no-brainer module. I honestly think that would be enough, if not you can always add more penalties (going to sensors next). Yes, Raven can still abuse wcs but it would have no shields or ew or sensor boosters or disruptors or target painters. And even though it can armor tank, it would be an extremely weak ship. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Dark Crux Catalyst Reaction Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.07.25 04:25:00 - [119] How about this for a WCS nerf: WCS continue to function as normal most of the time, however if you commit an act of aggression (shoot someone, scram, jam, etc.) the WCS cease to function entirely. So basically if you shoot someone the stabs stop working. This won't hurt the low-sec NPC'ers as shooting NPC would not be an agression act. This doesn't hurt haulers either. The more I think about it, the more I like this idea.
Madcat Adams Mission Runners Anonymous Incorporated	Posted - 2006.07.25 04:54:00 - [120] Not really seeing the prob with WCS. If a pirate trys to kill me at a gate camp, he doesn't whine if I jump away with stabs. He brings scramblers the next time. So why shouldn't pirate hunters do the same? It's just common sense to bring at least one guy with some scramblers to any type of combat situation. Might have to fit more than one scrambler? Oh noes!!!11! Guess what, carebear and pirate alike are having to fit more than one WCS. Isn't having to fit two to each one 7.5 scrambler already a penalty? And for the love of god quit trying to move stabs to the middle slots. Amarr are screwed when it comes to middle slots already, we have to try to balance CR's and EW, of which can fit almost none, and now you want us to try to squeeze our stabs in there too?

JeanPierre	Posted - 2006.07.25 05:09:00 - [121] Originally by: Madcat Adams Not really seeing the prob with WCS. If a pirate trys to kill me at a gate camp, he doesn't whine if I jump away with stabs. He brings scramblers the next time. So why shouldn't pirate hunters do the same? It's just common sense to bring at least one guy with some scramblers to any type of combat situation. Might have to fit more than one scrambler? Oh noes!!!11! Guess what, carebear and pirate alike are having to fit more than one WCS. Isn't having to fit two to each one 7.5 scrambler already a penalty? And for the love of god quit trying to move stabs to the middle slots. Amarr are screwed when it comes to middle slots already, we have to try to balance CR's and EW, of which can fit almost none, and now you want us to try to squeeze our stabs in there too? Right on. There are already ways to counter Nos and WCS that work fine. But never is something working so good that you can't find a goodly number of people to whine about it. And the more they whine the more devs, of any MMORPG, think something is wrong. I have no idea why, but there you go.
OrangeAfroMan Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.07.25 05:12:00 - [122] Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 25/07/2006 05:13:08 DBL Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
OrangeAfroMan Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.07.25 05:13:00 - [123] Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 25/07/2006 05:15:25 Originally by: JeanPierre Originally by: Madcat Adams Not really seeing the prob with WCS. If a pirate trys to kill me at a gate camp, he doesn't whine if I jump away with stabs. He brings scramblers the next time. So why shouldn't pirate hunters do the same? It's just common sense to bring at least one guy with some scramblers to any type of combat situation. Might have to fit more than one scrambler? Oh noes!!!11! Guess what, carebear and pirate alike are having to fit more than one WCS. Isn't having to fit two to each one 7.5 scrambler already a penalty? And for the love of god quit trying to move stabs to the middle slots. Amarr are screwed when it comes to middle slots already, we have to try to balance CR's and EW, of which can fit almost none, and now you want us to try to squeeze our stabs in there too? Right on. There are already ways to counter Nos and WCS that work fine. But never is something working so good that you can't find a goodly number of people to whine about it. And the more they whine the more devs, of any MMORPG, think something is wrong. I have no idea why, but there you go. K whats that counter to nos? More nos ? There Is a counter to WCS yes, however, it requires capacitor to run, it requires you be within a certain RANGE, it requires you to have LOCK, and it also requires a more valuable slot tbh. Both quoted posts are carebear noobs who have no idea about PvP or how to balance it. Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
JeanPierre	Posted - 2006.07.25 05:38:00 - [124] Originally by: OrangeAfroMan Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 25/07/2006 05:15:25 Originally by: JeanPierre Originally by: Madcat Adams Not really seeing the prob with WCS. If a pirate trys to kill me at a gate camp, he doesn't whine if I jump away with stabs. He brings scramblers the next time. So why shouldn't pirate hunters do the same? It's just common sense to bring at least one guy with some scramblers to any type of combat situation. Might have to fit more than one scrambler? Oh noes!!!11! Guess what, carebear and pirate alike are having to fit more than one WCS. Isn't having to fit two to each one 7.5 scrambler already a penalty? And for the love of god quit trying to move stabs to the middle slots. Amarr are screwed when it comes to middle slots already, we have to try to balance CR's and EW, of which can fit almost none, and now you want us to try to squeeze our stabs in there too? Right on. There are already ways to counter Nos and WCS that work fine. But never is something working so good that you can't find a goodly number of people to whine about it. And the more they whine the more devs, of any MMORPG, think something is wrong. I have no idea why, but there you go. K whats that counter to nos? More nos ? There Is a counter to WCS yes, however, it requires capacitor to run, it requires you be within a certain RANGE, it requires you to have LOCK, and it also requires a more valuable slot tbh. Both quoted posts are carebear noobs who have no idea about PvP or how to balance it. Oh no. Not capacitor to run it. You can also align and warp away quicker if you use nanofiber, and it doesn't use power. How unfair. I'll bet you want to nerf drones too don't you? (I'm taking ISK that you're going to say "why yes, yes I do") And the counter to NOS is fitting nos yourself if you insist on flying close range. They also have limited range, very limited range, < 25km with most named, and 21-ish km with standard (large of course; meds and smalls even less by a much larger degree). We wouldn't want to fit rails or anything and stay outside of that zone. Best to whine instead because we can't instagank in our blaster/med pulse/ac friggies. And who has no combat experience again? lol! And lastly, calling somebody a carebear noob neither proves your point, neither does it indicate that they are a carebear or a noob. Geesh. Save the high school name calling for high school please.
OrangeAfroMan Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.07.25 06:08:00 - [125] Originally by: JeanPierre Oh no. Not capacitor to run it. You can also align and warp away quicker if you use nanofiber, and it doesn't use power. How unfair. I'll bet you want to nerf drones too don't you? (I'm taking ISK that you're going to say "why yes, yes I do") That made no coherent sense. You are comparing a module that allows you to escape from combat - from a module requiring lock, range, and capacitor - with absolutely no downside except a lowslot, to something that uses a low slot, nerfs your hull hp, and warp align speed means nothing if you're scrambled. Good post. Originally by: "more noob" And the counter to NOS is fitting nos yourself if you insist on flying close range. They also have limited range, very limited range, < 25km with most named, and 21-ish km with standard (large of course; meds and smalls even less by a much larger degree). We wouldn't want to fit rails or anything and stay outside of that zone. Best to whine instead because we can't instagank in our blaster/med pulse/ac friggies. And who has no combat experience again? lol! So yes, you are saying that the counter to nos is nos, which is broken logic, if a modules best counter is more of the module, its broken. Sorry to dissappoint you. So, you say fight outside 25KM? K. Show me a scrambler that scrambles that far without costing 10+ times the value of the ship you are flying, or that even FITS on your ship, and you have a point. Otherwise, get out of this thread. And blaster/AC/pulse "friggies" far from insta-gank anything... except maybe something you fly? . . . . Originally by: "even more noob" And lastly, calling somebody a carebear noob neither proves your point, neither does it indicate that they are a carebear or a noob. Geesh. Save the high school name calling for high school please. It does actually support my point. I said it because it is true, and abraisive language, especially with thickheaded people, is often times required. Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
Tyler Lowe Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.25 06:20:00 - [126] Originally by: Sarmaul Nos I'm still in favour of changing Nos from taking a fixed amount of cap to taking a percentage instead. Using 10% as an example, if the ship currently has 2000 cap it will take 200, but if it only has 50 cap it will take 5. Also, it won't ever drain more than you can add to your own cap (so looking at scenario 1, if you only have 50 left to refill but your nos can take 200 from your enemy, it will only take 50). One of the better Nos fix suggestions I've seen. I would add to that description "up to a maximum amount of" and place the max drain at the current levels listed on the Nosferatu modules in game. J.A.F.O.
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.25 07:13:00 - [127] Originally by: Tyler Lowe Originally by: Sarmaul Nos I'm still in favour of changing Nos from taking a fixed amount of cap to taking a percentage instead. Using 10% as an example, if the ship currently has 2000 cap it will take 200, but if it only has 50 cap it will take 5. Also, it won't ever drain more than you can add to your own cap (so looking at scenario 1, if you only have 50 left to refill but your nos can take 200 from your enemy, it will only take 50). One of the better Nos fix suggestions I've seen. I would add to that description "up to a maximum amount of" and place the max drain at the current levels listed on the Nosferatu modules in game. Gah I forgot that part! Pretend I added: Each nos will also have a maximum drain limit, identical to what it now. It will only drain whichever value (10% or the max limit) is lowest. For example: Your Ship Max Nos: 10% / 50 cap Target Ship Current Cap: 250 Cap Nossed: 25 (10% of 250) Target Ship Current Cap: 500 Cap Nossed: 50 (10% of 500, identical to max drain) Target Ship Current Cap: 1000 Cap Nossed: 50 (10% of 1000 = 100, but the nos can only take a max of 50) TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Moominer Independent Frontiers	Posted - 2006.07.25 08:34:00 - [128] I believe the proposed nosf changes Tux mentioned a few pages back are somewhat flawed, this has probably been said already but the "X%" statement is what's concerning me. Everyone is familiar with how the capacitor works, available capacitor/sec is much greater at around ~30% - that includes capacitor you can use, or capacitor someone with a nosf on you can use. I don't believe "X%" solutions are appropriate for a non-linear function like the capacitor. And finally, I am not a proponent of making multiple game-altering changes all at once. We all know an ECM change is in the works too... "Fix" ECM first and then come back and address Nosf if required. Baby-steps. Eve Fitting Manager
Yaay Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.25 08:36:00 - [129] Edited by: Yaay on 25/07/2006 08:40:28 Originally by: Tuxford I haven't been commenting a lot on the forums lately but I can assure you guys that I am reading them. I wanted to comment on this one (even though it has tux in the title) because these are both "issues" that have been talked about for some time and some people here come pretty close to what we want to do about it. WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. Nos/Neut This has been talked about for a pretty long time as well. The problem with Nos is that its a bit of a no brainer. It does pretty much the same as neutralizer only it gives you cap in return. The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. We haven't actually done anything of this yet. The WCS one is pretty simple to implement but I'm pretty sure I need programmer support for the nos "nerf". Only problem with your idea to a nos fix is that it does nothing really to the Domi, and a few other ship setups. A lot of people won't complain about that, but since the domi has the slots to uber tank, ECM, and Nos like hell, with Crazy drone dmg, it's just too good in 1v1. Only real counter is webbers, and most webbers don't work outside 10-15km, unless you train for a Rapier/Huginn. Now I know people will throw out cap injectors, and whatever else they can think of, but they aren't viable solutions. I'm saying this as a Domi user. Best choice would be to up webber range IMO since it would not only help counter nos, it would also help ships like the mega. 30km should be a t2 webber range, t1 being 20-25... maybe that could be optimal + falloff. Optimal always hitting. Most fights just don't happen at 10km or less, but a ton happen at 10 - 20km, and a nos domi is generally MWD fitted so it can close range fast while it is outside that range anyways... not to mention ECM again. ECM = no dmg on the run in, vs the Mega which takes crap loads. Or we could just give them tracking.... don't understand the issues behind tracking on Nos... seems odd.

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.07.25 08:38:00 - [130] Originally by: Moominer And finally, I am not a proponent of making multiple game-altering changes all at once. We all know an ECM change is in the works too... "Fix" ECM first and then come back and address Nosf if required. Baby-steps. Neither am I. This is pretty much what is going to happen, we're focusing on ECM now, Then shortly after that nosferatu, but like I said more on that later. _______________


fmercury Contraband Inc.	Posted - 2006.07.25 08:50:00 - [131] Originally by: OrangeAfroMan K whats that counter to nos? More nos ? Linkage
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.25 09:39:00 - [132] Edited by: Laboratus on 25/07/2006 09:40:28 Dear DG: Consider the following: Originally by: DigitalCommunist WCS The penalties don't really gimp your combat setup unless you're using an extreme amount of them. Its still very viable to use 2 WCS on any ship, which is what the majority of users have. As I stated Here, to avoid a single tackler, set up for stopping a ship, you need to waste a lot of slots. Therefore the simple amount of slots needed to avoid a single tackler is just dumb. Quote: For battleships the signature radius increase is a moot factor, unless you are being shot at by a Dreadnaught or Rage Torp Raven. How often does that happen? The lock range can be negated by sensor boosters quite easily. One sensor booster counters three warp core stabilizers. So obviously, Ravens with 4 WCS in the lows sacrifice some shield hardeners for sensor boosters and its back to business as usual. You forgot a wee little thing: Originally by: Tuxford WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and Scan resolution. It nerfs your scan resolution, the speed you target other ships. I know, I know, I missread it too the first 3 times. /me hides away. Quote: WCS are lame because they are not a fair counter to Warp Disruptors. - no cap - no activation - no range - lower fittings - low slot There is a counter system to WS that needs: -cap -activation -range -fittings -med slot It's called an ECM However it's gotten a lot of whineage, and is getting it's due nerf. It also does a load of other stuff... However. I think your missing the whole point of slots and the principle behind how modules work. See, modules that effect the ship itself are supposed to be low slots. Systems that project low energy around the ship are supposed to be medslot (shields around the ship. See? remote sensor boosters? ECM. Etc etc.) And systems that project active high energy outside the ship, are supposed to be high slots (weapons remote cap transfers, nos, remote repairs etc etc.) So by defenition, what does a WCS effect? And as such which slot should it take? What should be thought however, is adding mid slot, high power WSC and projected WCS to the game. Quote: If you want to remove WCS use from combat, make them medium slot first priority. The average number of medium slots across all ships is far lower than lows, and generally more important pvp modules go there. Low slot is mainly utilitarian, for defense or other buffs. You're merely exchanging one form of defense (tanking) for another (warping out). Having WCS in the mid slots means no EW, no tackling gear. A frig is no threat if it can't tackle, and the cruisers with enough mids to abuse wcs typically rely on shield tanks and are extremely slow so they wouldn't even come close to the annoyance level of Vagas. Travellers only use up one med slot for essential travel gear (MWD) and the rest is usually fluff. Now this was discussed in an earlier therad. It's called forcing your own playstyle on others. I find it sad. It makes me want to frown:( Originally by: OrangeAfroMan K whats that counter to nos? More nos ? There Is a counter to WCS yes, however, it requires capacitor to run, it requires you be within a certain RANGE, and it also requires a more valuable slot tbh. Originally by: fmercury Linkage Dear OAM: A scramber in it self brings something of value to the gang, a WCS doesn't. Mind control and tin hats
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 09:52:00 - [133] Originally by: Merin Ryskin The problem with this is the assumption that all players in a fight wanted to be involved in it. An NPC-ing pilot who gets ambushed by a focused PvP pilot (who is engaging because he knows his setup has the advantage and will likely win) doesn't want to be in the fight. Well, no /pvp flag in this game. Sorry. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 10:12:00 - [134] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 25/07/2006 10:13:07 Originally by: DigitalCommunist good stuff I cant quote this post because its too long. But i agree to what it says almost completely. The targeting speed is easily countered with a sensor booster (alot of battleships always have these equipped anyway), and the extra sig radius doesnt really matter on a battleship either. I think wcs should be made medium slot again. It will allow haulers to use quite alot of them and still have cargo expanders. Also all combat ships are very dependant on medium slots either for tanking or for warp scrambler/webber/mwd etc. Using a med slot for wcs hurts setups alot more than using a low slot. It would basicly remove wcs completely from armor tanked ships with 3 medium slots, or gimp their setups severly. As for shield tankers, it will gimp their tanking alot and will hardly ever be used either. End result is that there will be alot less wcs in combat. There might not even be a need for any penalties on the module. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Agnar Koladrov Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.25 11:01:00 - [135] Been in this game for over 1 year now and still the same discussion about the same freaking WCS problem. Most of the solutions I see there really make me laugh out very loid, or make me cry. Why in the world would you penatalize users of a module to death, literaly and why not keep the solution plain and simple? Penalties, ok good to some extend but you can really over do them. Remember Tech2 ammo anyone?? Yes it is still here and yes it still sucks. My take on WCS is: -use the ship classes te determin max WCS allowed to be fitted (i`ll explain later) -set max allowable scamble/WCS points per ship class per target jammed. -make WCS a active module but still low slot -make it use X amount of cap, determined by max cap of ship and class. -when WCS/scamble ratio is 1/1, then there could be a plain 50% chance of scrambling target or target jumping out. Point one. Use ship classes to determin the max allowed WCS points to be fitted, yes im counting tec1 and 2 WCS in. A bit like how you cannot fit 2 AB/MWD anymore. EXAMPLE!: Frigs = max of +1, cruisers max of +2, BC max of +3, BS max of +4, capital max of +5. (this holds up same for tec2 counterparts) So when you enconter a BS in pvp you know what you can expert taking the worst case scenario and how to counter it. 4+ scambling or drain him dry as fast a possible so he can`t use his WCS. Now I`m not saying that my solution is holy, but I think it is better then the penalty frenzy I have seen in this thread by now. ________________________________________________ Bring The Stabber in line with the other two versions. Add a fourth low.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 11:13:00 - [136] Originally by: Agnar Koladrov Been in this game for over 1 year now and still the same discussion about the same freaking WCS problem. Most of the solutions I see there really make me laugh out very loid, or make me cry. Why in the world would you penatalize users of a module to death, literaly and why not keep the solution plain and simple? Penalties, ok good to some extend but you can really over do them. Remember Tech2 ammo anyone?? Yes it is still here and yes it still sucks. My take on WCS is: -use the ship classes te determin max WCS allowed to be fitted (i`ll explain later) -set max allowable scamble/WCS points per ship class per target jammed. -make WCS a active module but still low slot -make it use X amount of cap, determined by max cap of ship and class. -when WCS/scamble ratio is 1/1, then there could be a plain 50% chance of scrambling target or target jumping out. Point one. Use ship classes to determin the max allowed WCS points to be fitted, yes im counting tec1 and 2 WCS in. A bit like how you cannot fit 2 AB/MWD anymore. EXAMPLE!: Frigs = max of +1, cruisers max of +2, BC max of +3, BS max of +4, capital max of +5. (this holds up same for tec2 counterparts) So when you enconter a BS in pvp you know what you can expert taking the worst case scenario and how to counter it. 4+ scambling or drain him dry as fast a possible so he can`t use his WCS. Now I`m not saying that my solution is holy, but I think it is better then the penalty frenzy I have seen in this thread by now. You laugh or cry at others suggestions and then you come up with this crap... priceless. First of all, everything that is based on luck is BAD. You want the roll of a dice to decide if you live or die? The ecm system currently works like that and its worthless. Second of all... making the module use cap will solve nothing. How exacly will this make people not use it, when it can save their life? And we dont need the game to set limits to whatever amount of wcs people can use, thank you very much. Its up to them and their specific situation, and shouldnt be decided by what ship they use. Why should frigates only be able to fit 1 and battleships 4? Very strange reasoning. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Agnar Koladrov Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.25 11:31:00 - [137] Edited by: Agnar Koladrov on 25/07/2006 11:31:33 Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Agnar Koladrov Been in this game for over 1 year now and still the same discussion about the same freaking WCS problem. Most of the solutions I see there really make me laugh out very loid, or make me cry. Why in the world would you penatalize users of a module to death, literaly and why not keep the solution plain and simple? Penalties, ok good to some extend but you can really over do them. Remember Tech2 ammo anyone?? Yes it is still here and yes it still sucks. My take on WCS is: -use the ship classes te determin max WCS allowed to be fitted (i`ll explain later) -set max allowable scamble/WCS points per ship class per target jammed. -make WCS a active module but still low slot -make it use X amount of cap, determined by max cap of ship and class. -when WCS/scamble ratio is 1/1, then there could be a plain 50% chance of scrambling target or target jumping out. Point one. Use ship classes to determin the max allowed WCS points to be fitted, yes im counting tec1 and 2 WCS in. A bit like how you cannot fit 2 AB/MWD anymore. EXAMPLE!: Frigs = max of +1, cruisers max of +2, BC max of +3, BS max of +4, capital max of +5. (this holds up same for tec2 counterparts) So when you enconter a BS in pvp you know what you can expert taking the worst case scenario and how to counter it. 4+ scambling or drain him dry as fast a possible so he can`t use his WCS. Now I`m not saying that my solution is holy, but I think it is better then the penalty frenzy I have seen in this thread by now. You laugh or cry at others suggestions and then you come up with this crap... priceless. First of all, everything that is based on luck is BAD. You want the roll of a dice to decide if you live or die? The ecm system currently works like that and its worthless. Second of all... making the module use cap will solve nothing. How exacly will this make people not use it, when it can save their life? And we dont need the game to set limits to whatever amount of wcs people can use, thank you very much. Its up to them and their specific situation, and shouldnt be decided by what ship they use. Why should frigates only be able to fit 1 and battleships 4? Very strange reasoning. You may call it crap, I don`t really care, but sometimes problems need restrictive measures to fix a problem. Seeing this was a thread discussing FIXING wcs and not 1000% trying discourage WCS usage, I found it rather strange seeing the only the latter. I edited the example to frig +2 and cruiser +3 btw But you ask why, simple. How many man + wropes do you need to keep a mopet or a truck from driving of? The differance between how many man you need is vs. horsepower. But as EVE doesn`t use the prop. strength variable, you can still make the differance between the different ship classes. Back to you limit argument again. So you would be all in if CCP rerolled back to when we could all use multiple AB/MWDs?? Some things just need to be limited and if limiting can fix a problem then I would be all in for it. To the chance of scrambling/warping, the 50% chance was the easiest way to show an example, cause it WAS an example. It can well be replaced by an all out formula of doom adding to even more lag But on a more serious note, a possible formula for a 1/1 situation could consist of availebe ship cap, wcs points, etc. You get my point I hope, the example was NOT the the holy grail Jim ________________________________________________ Bring The Stabber in line with the other two versions. Add a fourth low.
madaluap Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.25 11:32:00 - [138] Originally by: Tuxford Nos/Neut I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. /emote sets loads of buyorders on Neut (the new pwnmod!) _________________________________________________
Dred 'Morte Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.25 11:39:00 - [139] Originally by: OrangeAfroMan Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 24/07/2006 09:37:23 Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 24/07/2006 09:36:34 Originally by: T'sar NOS is one of few defenses a BS got against the smallest targets, it should be left alone. As for WCS, once scambled it should start sucking cap power. You have access to almost any module in the game in a BS: Fit. Smaller. Guns. It worked when an non-dedicated apoc fought off my Jagabond. It will work for you. You might now say "Oh Orange but those 2-3 slots I used for small turrets now hurts my damage against other Battleships!" Well... My point exactly, fitting 2-3 large nos is as good or better than those 2-3 large turrets you would otherwise have in place against BS down to frig. Thats why Nos is imbalanced. Don't talk about what you don't know. If I sacrifice 2 or 3 weapons I'll probably be unable to break a decent tank even with maxed gunnery skills. Signature made by Mr Floppykickners
CardboardSword42 Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2006.07.25 11:53:00 - [140] Originally by: Dred 'Morte Originally by: OrangeAfroMan Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 24/07/2006 09:37:23 Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 24/07/2006 09:36:34 Originally by: T'sar NOS is one of few defenses a BS got against the smallest targets, it should be left alone. As for WCS, once scambled it should start sucking cap power. You have access to almost any module in the game in a BS: Fit. Smaller. Guns. It worked when an non-dedicated apoc fought off my Jagabond. It will work for you. You might now say "Oh Orange but those 2-3 slots I used for small turrets now hurts my damage against other Battleships!" Well... My point exactly, fitting 2-3 large nos is as good or better than those 2-3 large turrets you would otherwise have in place against BS down to frig. Thats why Nos is imbalanced. Don't talk about what you don't know. If I sacrifice 2 or 3 weapons I'll probably be unable to break a decent tank even with maxed gunnery skills. I think you missed the point. What he's trying to say is that Heavy nos is a no brainer. If you want to hit frigates reliably you have to fit smaller guns in a battleship in order to be effective. Doing so makes you less effective against battleship targets. However, nosferatu are one size ****s over all. It is the battleship weapon that does full damage to all ships regardless of size. Those nos you fit are effective at helping to break a BSes tank, but are also effective at raping smaller ships. I'm Ex-Biomass, that makes me cool But now I'm KOS and it's all about the manlove

Rodj Blake Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:06:00 - [141] Originally by: Mitchman nos/neut There is a serious imbalance on nos/neut between ship classes. A BS with nos also has a win button against a smaller ship. Again, the solution is simple: Each nos or neut fitted should never drain more than 10-20% (numbers need to be tweaked) of the total maximum cap of the target ship. There will be no difference between a BS vs BS, cruiser vs cruiser, etc. However, a BS will no longer be able to drain a ceptor completely dry in a heartbeat. Fine. Just as long as a frigate can no longer warp scramble or target jam a battleship. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:09:00 - [142] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edit: One thing comes to mind though. People ratting npc's in armor tanked ships can probably fill up their med slots with wcs and get away easily from pirates. This is of course not good at all...so some kind of penalty is probably needed here after all. This is the exact response that makes me cry. And that's the reason why I do not want any change to WCS. basicaly you said: "You have no right to escape from my attack, however I have all the options available to me." You think that makes your oppinion on the issue any more viable ? ------------------------------ at least fit ECCM before you start crying how overpowered ECM is.
Ann Mari Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:19:00 - [143] I don't know if this has been mentioned in the 5 pages so far. But how about simply letting a 1:1 be a jam instead of a warp? At this point, if sum1 puts 1 point of jam on a target and that target has 1 wcs, he will warp away. Just reverse that. 1 point of jam on a target with 1 wcs = jammed = stay where you are 2 jam points vs 2 wcs = jammed That way, the least amount of wcs you can use in combat will be 2. And if you wind up against a close range ship, you'll probably need 3 WCS to maintain your ability to warp out. ///End "There can be no justice, if rules are absolute" "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend"
Rodj Blake Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:20:00 - [144] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 25/07/2006 12:24:41 My plan for Nos... * Make the skill actually do something other than allow you to fit the module - increase transfer amount by 5% per level perhaps, whilst lowering the base transfer amount by 15%. * Introduce a new high slot module that prevents the final 30% of capacitor being drained by a nos. Fitting requirements would be in the region of 20tf/20MW, making it useable on frigates at the expense of more then one weapon. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:27:00 - [145] Originally by: Hugh Ruka Originally by: Jim McGregor Edit: One thing comes to mind though. People ratting npc's in armor tanked ships can probably fill up their med slots with wcs and get away easily from pirates. This is of course not good at all...so some kind of penalty is probably needed here after all. This is the exact response that makes me cry. And that's the reason why I do not want any change to WCS. basicaly you said: "You have no right to escape from my attack, however I have all the options available to me." You think that makes your oppinion on the issue any more viable ? Well, pvp in this game is not supposed to be duels. If you make the mistake of letting me catch you, there will be a fight. Simple as that. There are plenty of ways to avoid pirates in this game, and tbh i think its even too easy. We show up in local right away and people that watch local then run to safespot or log in 20 seconds. Where is the danger of 0.0 again? Its a bit stupid, isnt it? Its like you walk down a dark alley and when you are about to get mugged, you get a clear warning before it happens so you can run away every time. Consider how the game would look if you couldnt prevent people from running away when engaged. How many do you think would stay to fight to their death? I would say... none. Meaning there would be no real danger either, and no point to piracy. Everybody would just fill up their bank accounts and quit out of boredom in the end. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Admiral IceBlock Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:39:00 - [146] As for Nosferatu. Make Capacitor Batteries UNDRAINABLE! Problem fixed and you now have a anti-Nosferatu module.
Rodj Blake Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:46:00 - [147] Originally by: Admiral IceBlock As for Nosferatu. Make Capacitor Batteries UNDRAINABLE! Problem fixed and you now have a anti-Nosferatu module. That's actually not a bad idea. Would they also be immune to neutralisers though? Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:46:00 - [148] Originally by: Admiral IceBlock As for Nosferatu. Make Capacitor Batteries UNDRAINABLE! Problem fixed and you now have a anti-Nosferatu module. Thats another way we've been thinking about, instead of having unnosferatable percentage we have unnosferatable value which can be varied for each ship and have cap batteries add to that. _______________

Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.25 13:04:00 - [149] /emote looks at all the setups that don't even have enough room for ECCM, let alone cap batteries TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Admiral IceBlock Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 13:08:00 - [150] Originally by: Sarmaul /emote looks at all the setups that don't even have enough room for ECCM, let alone cap batteries Well thats their problem right that they sacrifice a anti-Nosferatu module for ECCM or Warp Disruptor?

inSpirAcy Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 13:53:00 - [151] Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Admiral IceBlock As for Nosferatu. Make Capacitor Batteries UNDRAINABLE! Problem fixed and you now have a anti-Nosferatu module. That's actually not a bad idea. Would they also be immune to neutralisers though? Ooh, I like that! It gives smaller ships some immunity to nos since cap batteries work quite well (fitting issues aside) for them. As long as neuts can still zap the cap - which gives them purpose - I think that's a great idea. Finding a spare slot might be a problem, as Sarmaul points out. Perhaps add a weaker low-slot capacitor module so they aren't totally gimped in one of their most important roles (tackling)?
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 14:10:00 - [152] Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 25/07/2006 14:11:18 Originally by: Admiral IceBlock As for Nosferatu. Make Capacitor Batteries UNDRAINABLE! Problem fixed and you now have a anti-Nosferatu module. This man is a GENIUS. So simple yet so effective. As to the ships that don't have enought whatever to fit a cap battery. Well you have to outsource some of the modules to gang/corp mates. I think the game should be ballanced by options, not by hard limits (like the % not drained suggested before). Oh and move cap batteries to low slots :)) So the Amarr folks can at least have an option to fit them. You cannot be resistant to EVERYTHING with just a few modules fited. ------------------------------ at least fit ECCM before you start crying how overpowered ECM is.
Hans Roaming Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.25 17:04:00 - [153] I think that if WCS had the penalty for use of being unable to type in local then a lot of 'combat' pilots that use them now would refrain from fitting them in the future.
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.25 17:44:00 - [154] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Admiral IceBlock As for Nosferatu. Make Capacitor Batteries UNDRAINABLE! Problem fixed and you now have a anti-Nosferatu module. Thats another way we've been thinking about, instead of having unnosferatable percentage we have unnosferatable value which can be varied for each ship and have cap batteries add to that. Didn't Weirda come up with this idea months ago? Make sure you give him credit. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.25 18:05:00 - [155] Originally by: Laboratus Dear DG: Consider the following: As I stated Here, to avoid a single tackler, set up for stopping a ship, you need to waste a lot of slots. Therefore the simple amount of slots needed to avoid a single tackler is just dumb. I don't know what this is supposed to mean or prove. Are you saying its fine because it takes a lot of slots to counter a single tackler? Originally by: Laboratus You forgot a wee little thing: Originally by: Tuxford --- It nerfs your scan resolution, the speed you target other ships. I know, I know, I missread it too the first 3 times. /me hides away. Actually, I didn't misread it just mistyped range for some reason. But thats kind of pointless as sensor boosters increase lock speed and range. Originally by: Laboratus There is a counter system to WS that needs: -cap -activation -range -fittings -med slot It's called an ECM Thats a weak argument, let me illustrate: ECM (offensive) <=> ECCM (defensive) Warp Disruptors (offensive) <=> Warp Cores (defensive) Hell, I wish you were saying the truth. Travellers relying on ECM as defense would be hilarious. Originally by: Laboratus However. I think your missing the whole point of slots and the principle behind how modules work. See, modules that effect the ship itself are supposed to be low slots. Systems that project low energy around the ship are supposed to be medslot (shields around the ship. See? remote sensor boosters? ECM. Etc etc.) And systems that project active high energy outside the ship, are supposed to be high slots (weapons remote cap transfers, nos, remote repairs etc etc.) So by defenition, what does a WCS effect? And as such which slot should it take? If I'm missing the whole "point", why does your argument only serve to reinforce mine? Warping is done by creating a warp bubble around your ship, so you can assume that stabilizing it would involve strengthening this bubble/field to prevent its collapse. By your very own definition of "low energy around the ship", WCS are medium slot items. The fact that they were released like this originally only further reinforces it. Please don't lecture me about about slots and their meaning, something I learned in 2002. Originally by: Laboratus What should be thought however, is adding mid slot, high power WSC and projected WCS to the game. Does that mean we get low slot passive warp scramblers, high slot high power warp scramblers, and projected warp scrambler enhancers too? Funny. Originally by: Laboratus Now this was discussed in an earlier therad. It's called forcing your own playstyle on others. I find it sad. It makes me want to frown:( Check what you're quoting before you begin to type a response. I essentially explained what it would be like to have WCS as a medium slot. If you're going to buhu at my "forcing" of griefer gameplay unto others, at least try to have your replies in some sort of context which makes sense. And tbh, forcing is not the same as promoting. I am a cheerleader of Team Tuxford, and I just did a backflip super-suplex spin-somersault in your FACE. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Ann Mari Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.25 18:17:00 - [156] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Originally by: Laboratus However. I think your missing the whole point of slots and the principle behind how modules work. See, modules that effect the ship itself are supposed to be low slots. Systems that project low energy around the ship are supposed to be medslot (shields around the ship. See? remote sensor boosters? ECM. Etc etc.) And systems that project active high energy outside the ship, are supposed to be high slots (weapons remote cap transfers, nos, remote repairs etc etc.) So by defenition, what does a WCS effect? And as such which slot should it take? If I'm missing the whole "point", why does your argument only serve to reinforce mine? Warping is done by creating a warp bubble around your ship, so you can assume that stabilizing it would involve strengthening this bubble/field to prevent its collapse. By your very own definition of "low energy around the ship", WCS are medium slot items. The fact that they were released like this originally only further reinforces it. Please don't lecture me about about slots and their meaning, something I learned in 2002. Sorry I'm chipping in here, but I just hate high and mighty people, with the whole "I'm so leet and know everything, and lemme tell you how long I've been playing, and there's no chance you know anything I havn't known for years you're stupid, I'm not" kinda remarks... For the same token it can be said that a Warp Core resides inside the ship, and whatever mechanism used to stabilise the core itself will be inside the ship, hence a low slot. I'm not saying I agree with WCS being in a low slot, I just don't like the way you try to belittle other's opinions. ///End "There can be no justice, if rules are absolute" "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend"
Wormtong Crabbs	Posted - 2006.07.25 19:03:00 - [157] I am sorry but after reading all of theese posts regarding NOS. I only see more caldari ftw and bye bye gallente. If given a percentage on the NOSF you are only gonna gimp the Domi to shreads. Only really effective way of taking down a raven is to nos it to death or out damage it with boatloads of gangmembers. And seeing that raven pilot's are packed with crazy both T2 and faction shield boosters AND amplifiers gives them a advantage over any armour tanker any day. Tanks way more then any armour tanker out there. And both caldari and minmatar dont even need Cap to fire their weapons makes me even more at eas. 100% of their cap is spent on tanking and you are gonna give thoose guys even more cap to tank that's just wrong. NOS are fine seeing as a raven pilot can fit 2 and a full rack of cruise on their ship thus counter the domi somewhat. As for interceptor and frigs are just gonna make thoose puppies solopwn mobiles against BS. ---------[Signature]------------
Nytemaster Sniggerdly	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:09:00 - [158] SOLUTION TO NOS I'd like to see NOS adjusted to something like this: The NOS module opens a conduit for energy to travel which tries to balance the two capacitors, only it works as a one way conduit from a targeted ship to the nosing ship (and thus will never GIVE someone cap FROM the NOSing ship). There is a power cost need (cap used to initiate the conduit) and the energy vamped takes into account the targeted ships capacitor and the nosing ships capacitor. If the targeted ship has more cap than the nosing ship, it receives cap. If not, it doesn't. The higher the ratio of cap needed, the more it will receive. Now I know NOS is useful against frig forces as it currently stands...however that's what webs/drones and support ships are for. The NOS as an I win button is what prevents ships like the deimos from every really having a chance against any battleship that equips one, let alone two of these modules. It creates vastly overpowered ships like the dominix (and is something I currently use). NOS as I originally thought it was intended, was to subsidize your cap from the opponent whenever your need for it arose. This plan does just that without creating an I win button against every other ship in the game. --- Nytemaster
Nytemaster Sniggerdly	Posted - 2006.07.26 12:31:00 - [159] Edited by: Nytemaster on 26/07/2006 12:32:54 SOLUTION TO ECM ECM needs to be adjusted for range. The closer the range, the less sensor strength needed to effectively jam a ship. The longer the range, the more needed to jam. This will put ECM ships at a choice, jam less ships at further range or more ships at close range. Return sensor strengths to previous format removing the chance based system. On/Off solutions don't work as previously stated by someone else. Chance based solutions don't work either. This is one of many possibilities but one I came off the top of my head. --- Nytemaster
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.26 13:00:00 - [160] Originally by: Sarmaul I'm still in favour of changing Nos from taking a fixed amount of cap to taking a percentage instead. Hm. You realise that that makes medium sized nos, for example, a LOT better at draining frigate cap? I'd perhaps add a lower drain module for BS with a lower overall drain vs other BS, but better against frigates. Tradeoffs. Quote: WCS effecting range will do nothing to missile users except maybe rockets as the remaining missiles have such a high range to begin with Which is why, for missiles, I suggested not range (make that optimal/falloff only, not flighttime), but a 10% explosion radius nerf per. And the flaw is that youre once more suggesting removal of them from combat, which simply isn't afaik a good idea Quote: As for ECM, the problem is that there is no module to help you when you are jammed I disagree. A module is the wrong way to approach this, since you them make it almost mandatory. The problem is inherent in the total jam nature of current ECM. Penalising ships and forcing them to carry a module to compensate is going to hurt. Relocking? Um..you only need one target at a tume to focus fire, so on non-ECM ships it's not going to stop you from firing ever. Indicentally, Sensor boosters, I feel, should make you MORE vulnrable to being jammed. They increase offensive sensor strenght - scan resoloution - but weaken defensive by say 10%. Makes the long range ships easier to jam! Crux Australis, it's then just another "remove WCS from conbat ships" idea. They're all the same in effect (Less PvP).

Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.26 13:10:00 - [161] Originally by: DigitalCommunist I can't bring myself to like either of your proposed solutions, for several reasons. Most of them are probably mentioned already, but I cba to read the replies here. What a surprise. "One sensor booster counters three warp core stabilizers". Yep, hence I suggested range..which needs a 1:1 tradeoff. 5.6m onto 28 is quite a big nerf, actually. Tracking is affected by weapon sig resoloution, and at the frigate end of the scale, small changes can have huge effects - especially when you're running a MWD. People train and fir faction MWD's on frigates in part to improve their speed/sig ratio, and penalising that hurts when larger ships are trying to kill you at range. "If you want to remove WCS use from combat" An unjustified assumption from what's been said. Moreover, again, haulers with full racks of WCS and cargo expanders anyone? "As for Nosferatu. Make Capacitor Batteries UNDRAINABLE!" Again, you hit the cap recharge issue, and this isn't really viable for frigs since even a small won't provide enough cap to make a difference when your MWD fires, and it's hard to fit. Two? Uhm.
Dinique Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 14:13:00 - [162] I still say the best solution is to have your scramblers and stabalizers cancel eachother out. If you fit 3 points of stabilizers, and 2 points of scrambling you should effectively only have 1 point of stabilizing. _____ There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.26 15:56:00 - [163] Originally by: Dinique I still say the best solution is to have your scramblers and stabalizers cancel eachother out. If you fit 3 points of stabilizers, and 2 points of scrambling you should effectively only have 1 point of stabilizing. Sounds exactly how it works now.
Terranid Meester	Posted - 2006.07.26 16:18:00 - [164] Personally I don't think theres much wrong with nos/neutralizers or warp core stabilisers. But there needs to be one or two counters for them. I believe there are anti-nos(neut?) modules out there in the database. Perhaps it should be a module that only one can be fitted but in turn it reverses all nos/neut effect on your ship and in turn reduces the cap of the ship(s) with them fitted. As for warp core stabilisers my opinion is that interdictors should be able to drop bubbles in low sec but as soon as they do its classed as aggression and anyone that fires on them would not get a sec hit. Not at gates though as the effect wouldn't work there (or something).
Taurgil Balanced Unity	Posted - 2006.07.26 17:43:00 - [165] Originally by: Avataris Thank you Jenny Spitfire for speaking sense.. rofl Seriously, some of the best Dev responses i read. Especially the WCS modification sounds perfectly round. Right way, CCP, i have to say after all the Tier3 affair.
Dark Crux Catalyst Reaction Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.07.26 21:36:00 - [166] Edited by: Dark Crux on 26/07/2006 21:36:56 Ok so lets say we make cap batteries un-drainable, guess what happens? 1) People have setups that are hard enough to fit out as it is, sweet, lets make it take slots and tons of power to counter something. (And not even totally counter it, just reduce its effects.) 2) People overload on the boosters and make nos useless. Again, not a good thing. 3) Nos will become useless save for the very beginning of the fight. Enemy will still be getting good cap regen in that little untouchable area and you won't be gettting any at all. note: points 1 and 3 conflict somewhat depending on how they would implement this. To be perfectly honest, nos doesn't need a nerf. Use cap boosters, you get cap, use ECM, they can't nos you, stay out of range, they can't nos you, and finally, the most important part, MORE NOS = FEWER GUNS
Dinique Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 06:25:00 - [167] Originally by: Mitchman Originally by: Dinique I still say the best solution is to have your scramblers and stabalizers cancel eachother out. If you fit 3 points of stabilizers, and 2 points of scrambling you should effectively only have 1 point of stabilizing. Sounds exactly how it works now. Perhaps we don't play the same EVE. If I fit 2 points of scrambling, and 3 points of stabilizing on MY ship, I only effectively should have 1 point of stabilization. Hence my own scramblers cancel out my own stabilizers, and unlike how it works now, where you need 4 points to beat my 3 WCS, you'd only need 2 points in that case, since I'd effectively only have 1 WCS. Being able to hold people in place with scramblers and then being able to warp away when you like with your WCS is ***. _____ There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.27 08:02:00 - [168] Originally by: Dinique I still say the best solution is to have your scramblers and stabalizers cancel eachother out. If you fit 3 points of stabilizers, and 2 points of scrambling you should effectively only have 1 point of stabilizing. Actually. That could work. If you want to hold the enemy down. You ain't goin nowhere. Mind control and tin hats
Azeroth Uluntil Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 08:30:00 - [169] As has been said before, just give wcs a rof penalty... 15% should do it, even 10% per ffs. Remember to apply it correctly to nos. Seeing as nos is basically the only defence against frigates now, kinda hard to do things. A suggestion can be to reduce the effectiveness... IE: Heavy Diminishing Nos: 120 cap VS BS: 120 cap VS Cruiser: 96 cap VS Frigate: 72 cap. 20% reduction against each size class. IE: Medium Diminishing Nos: 36 cap VS BS: 43.2 cap VS Cruiser: 36 cap VS Frigate: 28.8 cap IE: Small Diminishing Nos: 9.6 Cap? VS BS: 13.44 cap VS Cruiser: 11.52 cap VS Frigate: 9.6 cap Would probably work. 20% reduction on ships smaller than the module you are using, and 20% effectiveness to larger ships, since they have more cap. Solves people whining about losing cap to bs's in one go, which is complete and utter crap. 1 Heavy nos doesn't take any frigates cap that I've flown in actual pvp. Takes 2 cycles, which gives me more than enough cap in between to mwd away or scramble the target. If the target has 2 large nos, oh well, 1 frigate down, as it should be. Just remember, even without cap, if you are smart, a bs can't hit you without his drones or a smartbomb. Just keep it webbed and orbit at 500m.
Bunny Do'Urden	Posted - 2006.07.27 08:51:00 - [170] imHo something like missiles' explosion radius would be nice for nos like med nos have 150m drain radius, frigs have 50m radius so med nos do 1/3 of their actual drain to frigs, that's still better than small nos vs frigs and don't change anything when one nos same sized ships.

Sirilonwe Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 09:20:00 - [171] Wow, i've eventually read the whole topic. For WCS, I have maybe an idea which i'd like to suggest: Leave everything as is. When one ship is scrambled, the core stabs are automatically put online and try to keep the core integrity, sucking cap like there's no tomorrow. This cap sucking should be in fonction of WCS installed, and maybe the scramble strength. Like 100 cap per scrambler cycle (example). It is important that all WCS activate themselves, to effectively gimp the setup. And if there's no cap, they won't activate. This is all about risk vs reward: I risk to fit a WCS and have no more cap, but I could flee faster if I put lots of them. If I don't use them, I'll have more cap, to maybe win a fight that I wouldn't have won if I had put WCS. There's also the capacitor booster problem. The capacitor, coupled with WCS, will allow people to sustain a little bit more the battle. But the setup would be still gimped. Some examples: 8 WCS setups will be sucked dry in a matter of second disabling effectively the ship (for pirating, whoohooo). Frigates, which can fit 1 or 2 WCS max, would be pwnt in 2 cycles, but due to their high maneuverability, can warp out faster. On industrials, coupling Booster with WCS + nanos will achieve the desired effect. Thus, when you fit WCS, you say: i'll not use cap for fighting nor tanking, but for warping away. ____________________________________ Free ISP users, read this if you have connections problems [b]I'm on Eris side!
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.27 10:23:00 - [172] Originally by: Dinique Being able to hold people in place with scramblers and then being able to warp away when you like with your WCS is ***. Ah, I didn't realize you mean on your own ship.
Shaemell Buttleson Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.07.27 11:42:00 - [173] Originally by: Boonaki Originally by: Mitchman I totally agree. But you see, tackling interceptors are usually on the border of their cap when tackling due to the cap requirements for the 20km disruptor, so being able to suck 10-20% cap from a ceptor will in many cases be plenty to archive the objective. Frigs aren't supposed to fit 20k scrams, they're supposed to be fitting 7.5k scrams. That's why the 7.5ks use much less cap per second.
Nidhoggur	Posted - 2006.07.27 15:16:00 - [174] Originally by: Dinique If I fit 2 points of scrambling, and 3 points of stabilizing on MY ship, I only effectively should have 1 point of stabilization. Hence my own scramblers cancel out my own stabilizers, and unlike how it works now, where you need 4 points to beat my 3 WCS, you'd only need 2 points in that case, since I'd effectively only have 1 WCS. I like this idea.
Kazaam Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 16:26:00 - [175] Just get WCS and scramblers outta Eve. _________________________________________
Karash Amerius Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 16:51:00 - [176] Edited by: Karash Amerius on 27/07/2006 16:53:02 My fear, as an Amarr pilot, is that if cap batteries counter NOS/Neut then we are even more disadvantaged than our current gimp setups. We don't have a lot of mid slots on a vast array of our ships...something that focuses on Mid slots would really hurt. If there is a NOS/NEUT fix, I would leave any sort of slot module based design out of the picture. Karash Amerius Tac Coordinator, OEC Merc Blog - OEC Services
Slaaght Bana Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.28 12:28:00 - [177] <dons flame proof suit> Is the idea of a "mid & low slot module" completely wacky? Thinking of a single module that takes BOTH a mid and a low, so that fitting a stab would also deny you 1 mid. and fitting a scram would deny you a low. Re-inforces the idea that you can't fit a rack of stabs without it seriously impacting your fighting capability. Also you can't fit a rack of scrams and also be able to run. However, this would still open the path of creating a ship that can only run away, while being sod all use to do much else.
Wulfstan Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.28 18:25:00 - [178] Another plan (that might involve major changes to the structure of the game code): Have certain modules which have a numeric value attached to their strenght of effect. However, the strength introduces an exponential / squared / cubed / whatever value to your ship's grid and / or CPU. WTF am I talking about? Here's an example using Warp Core Stabs: You can only fit one module of this type. That module takes one low slot. The slider (or text box whatever) sets the strength: Strength 1: 3% grid / 3% CPU Strength 2: 9% grid / 9% CPU Strength 3: 27% grid / 27% CPU Strength 4: 81% grid / 81% CPU Those are example figures only to give you a flavour, play with them as you see fit. The percentage figures would make them affect every class of ship equally badly. Further modifiers could be introduced where combat ships get a further penalty, and elite haulers at the other end of the "fight or flee" scale get a bonus. What do you reckon on that?
Hex'Caliber	Posted - 2006.08.03 03:27:00 - [179] It is easy to spot who the frigate pilots are in this thread, while I agree there has to be some penalty to using wcs in combat ships I believe nos should be left as they are. Why in gods name should a t1 frigate costing less than 500k isk and a few measly sp be able to pin down a battle ship costing 200 times more? If you want to stop pure nos boats just add a stacking penalty as we have with other modules. IMHO, we should see a change to warp scrams anyway, remove the ability to stop ships from warping completely, the use of warp scrams is the reason this debate exists in the first place. Instead, increase the time it takes to enter warp, alternatively change it so that x number of scram points prevents y amount of mass from warping, with enough scrams on a target you would still achieve the desired result and end up with a more balanced system in the process. If you want to pin down a battleship with a CHEAP piece of tin it should take a coordinated gang of frigs to get the job done. Otherwise, we may as well do away with battleships and all fly frigates or cruisers. What ever happened to risk versus reward?
Kalianyia Caldari Finis Lumen Muffins of Mayhem	Posted - 2006.08.03 07:47:00 - [180] Nerf WCS? NO Nerf NOS? NO Both have valid counters. WCS gimp your setup. If someone is using them then get more tackers or mount more warp scramblers - SHOCK!!! Stilleto with 3x7.5km scramblers will ruin any stabbers day. I love locking down BS's that are stabbed out the butt. They think their stabs will save them, then oh noes locked down. You can always tell by how fast they disintegrate to weapon fire. I would say the only somewhat overpowered ship with stabs is a Raven or Vagabond and that is simply because they dont need their low slots to be effective (though it is a trade for less DPS and slightly less tank). If your an armor tanker and you mount stabs then you just screwed your ability to tank. NOS? There are counters. 1) Get out of range 2) ECM them 3) NOS back 4) Cap injectors OMGZ!!!!!! SHOCK!!!! About BS's being able to NOS frigs? That is pretty much their own frig defence (unless they have a decent drone bay with decent skills). NOS is pretty much any BS's anti-frig weaponry. It will be a sad day in hell when a 300k frig can start locking down BS's without the BS being able to do much back. SB's are limited in range. It takes wayyy too many assualt launchers OR small weapons to kill a frig in any reasonable ammount of time. Plus a BS wasting 3-5 hi slots on assualt launchers /small turrets is totally unreasonable. BS torps / cruise missiles / guns either wont hit or will do crap for damage and thus are not effective anti-frig tools. Webbers are limited by range, and worthless against any decent frig pilot. They come in at 1,000-2,000 mps. Any idea how long it takes the web to slow them down? Too long to make it viable. Any decent frig pilot is not scared of a web. That pretty much takes care of that. ECM is about the only possible counter - but i doubt too many of you would like to see ECM become any more popular simply because NOS got gimped of its ability to handle frigs and now people are resorting to ECM as an anti-frig tool. Sadly ECM doesnt even help the BS kill the frig any easier. It just simply will let the BS warp if it needs to. So if your BS is jumped by 2-3+ frigs - oh your screwed! NOS will at least give the BS a fighting chance. -----

KilROCK Minmatar Angel Deep Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.03 08:25:00 - [181] EVE is going Ganka-Mode again, Tier 3 going to dish out damage, ECM nerfed, NOS getting nerfed, why not just go around with ganka fitting all the time again then. Hell, This will be fun. Every ships that don't have the ability to push out damage enough will just get creamed, HAC prices will rise up unless this patch hits Kali or however the whole T2 bpo crap turns out. EVE is going back and forth, everytime.. Only there's a couple of new toys every 6 months to play with and train for to see them worthless after that timeframe. I love it. Exageration? Let's see when Kali hits then. I can see alot of Amarr whiner when everyone starts using Tracking disruptors on their ships instead of a Multispec and everyone starts moaning about it.. Stabs,ECM,Nos. EVE is turning into a balanced game? HA ha, right... that's never going to happen. Back and Forward. SMACKING IN A TOPIC NEAR YOU / WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS
Wat0721 GalacTECH Unlimited	Posted - 2006.08.03 08:43:00 - [182] Originally by: Kalianyia NOS? There are counters. Orly? Let's evaluate them, then... Quote: 1)Get out of range How do frigates manage to tackle from 25km again? Quote: 2) ECM them You have a problem with frigates acting in their most useful role against larger ships and holding them down as support with little-to-no firepower, but not with a "300k" ship completely disabling a ship worth many, many times more with 1 mod? Quote: 3) NOS back Small NOS: - 8 cap every 3 seconds at 5km. Heavy NOS: 100 cap every 12 seconds at 21km. Do the math. Not only is the Heavy NOS going to completely deplete the frigate's cap, it's going to do it before the frigate gets into range to do what it's supposed to do. Quote: 4) Cap injectors In the sizes that frigates can keep loaded -- not a chance. Originally by: Kalianyia OMGZ!!!!!! SHOCK!!!! About BS's being able to NOS frigs? That is pretty much their own frig defence (unless they have a decent drone bay with decent skills). NOS is pretty much any BS's anti-frig weaponry. ... It also acts as a wonderful defense against any other ship of the same class that needs cap to shoot, or as a wonderful offense if they need cap to tank! OR BOTH...simultaneously! Also, if you'll look, every battleship has a drone bay. Know what you can fit into those drone bays? Anti-frig drones. If you only pack guns and missiles and drones to fight big ships, expect trouble trying to swat the flies. Just because BSes are worth more doesn't mean that they should be unpinnable by anything other than BSes+. Originally by: Kalianyia SB's are limited in range. ...next. Originally by: Kalianyia It takes wayyy too many assualt launchers OR small weapons to kill a frig in any reasonable ammount of time. Plus a BS wasting 3-5 hi slots on assualt launchers /small turrets is totally unreasonable. BS torps / cruise missiles / guns either wont hit or will do crap for damage and thus are not effective anti-frig tools. Webbers are limited by range, and worthless against any decent frig pilot. They come in at 1,000-2,000 mps. Any idea how long it takes the web to slow them down? Too long to make it viable. Any decent frig pilot is not scared of a web. OK, your credibility is out the window by now. You almost had me for a minute, I thought this post was serious. Originally by: Kalianyia That pretty much takes care of that. ECM is about the only possible counter - but i doubt too many of you would like to see ECM become any more popular simply because NOS got gimped of its ability to handle frigs and now people are resorting to ECM as an anti-frig tool. Sadly ECM doesnt even help the BS kill the frig any easier. It just simply will let the BS warp if it needs to. So if your BS is jumped by 2-3+ frigs - oh your screwed! NOS will at least give the BS a fighting chance. Oh noes! THE BEES! /emote introduces aforementioned bees to Warrior IIs. /emote is not longer worried about aforementioned, above-referenced bees. As Maya might say... It looks like you're just trying to weaken support further. --- ECM Fix
Kldraina	Posted - 2006.08.03 08:46:00 - [183] It's balance through chaos, which I think is a lot more fun than having everything always be the same. It is as much a gamble to try predicting what ships and setups will be best in the future, as it is predicting what will be best for your next encounter. Without change, things stagnate, and I always find that boring.
Hillesumos Minmatar Egg Enterprise	Posted - 2006.08.03 10:06:00 - [184] Edited by: Hillesumos on 03/08/2006 10:07:18 Dear all, I would like to add my carebear imput to the discussion. Althought the proposed change to the wcs does look neat, it does have a few draw back for my own personal use. First of all, i have an essential question to ask. I use quite a lot the transport class prowler which have a nifty -2 warp scramble bonus, does the proposed change would affect only the wcs module or would also affect any ships with lower scramble bonus. Continuing on my extensive use of this ship, i mainly use this ship to pickup cans by using the tractor beam. I do tend to show up in belts where the corp mate ratting is not there and quite often i have a BC or BS spawn shooting at me. I do tank a bit but can't do it for ever so i normally quickly lock and pickup the loot. For safety purpose, i tend to put wcs o the low slot just to be on the safe side and if it take more time to lock and pick up the loot i may have issue to collect the loot quickly before my tank ran out. Also, i know some miners that put wcs on the low slot and do ninja mining, again taking a bit more time to lock the roid is precious time not used to mine roids. Further more, it would be nice if wcs gives bonus to non combat ships like hauler and transports such as increased agility. cheers and may the minmatar god's of commerce save the wcs --------- Sadly I just make ISK, I don't print it. :(
KilROCK Minmatar Angel Deep Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.03 10:09:00 - [185] Originally by: Hillesumos D First of all, i have an essential question to ask. I use quite a lot the transport class prowler which have a nifty -2 warp scramble bonus, does the proposed change would affect only the wcs module or would also affect any ships with lower scramble bonus. I don't see why it should affect blockade runners, I think you're 99.9% safe of any changes made to them. Anyone want to complain about these? Something along the lines of "As i jumped in a systme, i've noticed a prowler class industrial ship in my Taranis, i was rigged out to kill, scrambler and a web! Suddenly, he uncloaks! I swiftly make my way to him and web him and put my scrambler on this lovely ship, and he warps!!41$!2!#!@315!?1, My taranis is t2, it's an interceptor, why couldn't i intercept NOOO". SMACKING IN A TOPIC NEAR YOU / WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS
Awox Awox Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.03 12:45:00 - [186] Then you've still got the whole deal with people who go into fights with stabbed up battleships with dedicated tacklers. How do you counter that? I guess CCP should negate scrambler strength based on gang WCS :) - nerf 0.5+
eLLioTT wave Art of War	Posted - 2006.08.18 09:44:00 - [187] Originally by: Tuxford ... WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. ... How is this going to affect stagabonds and make them "commit to fights"? A simple one-move fix would be if a stab or multiple stabs are fitted, the targetting computer is disabled and you may not lock on to anything. Doesnt affect industrial ships and if you are traveling in a ship you have setup to travel, you're not going to be fighting (this makes sure of it).
KilROCK Minmatar Angel Deep Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.18 09:47:00 - [188] Edited by: KilROCK on 18/08/2006 09:48:12 Originally by: eLLioTT wave Originally by: Tuxford ... WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. ... How is this going to affect stagabonds and make them "commit to fights"? A simple one-move fix would be if a stab or multiple stabs are fitted, the targetting computer is disabled and you may not lock on to anything. Doesnt affect industrial ships and if you are traveling in a ship you have setup to travel, you're not going to be fighting (this makes sure of it). It won't change vagabonds to lose stabs that much. With upcoming patches, you'll get NOS nerfed, ECM nerfed. Vagabond pilots might not be affected that greatly by this, it will still be impossible to knock them down and if you don't want to engage something in your vagabond, you only cruise away at 6km/s. So, you can't NOS it enough to stop it from tapping the mwd, you can't jam it effectivly with any of your 1 multispec fitted ships. People need to grow some brain and realise the ship is about thinking before engaging, and with tactics, it's how the vagabond becomes the best solo ship. SMACKING IN A TOPIC NEAR YOU / WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2006.08.18 11:09:00 - [189] Edited by: madaluap on 18/08/2006 11:16:19 Originally by: Nidhoggur Originally by: Dinique If I fit 2 points of scrambling, and 3 points of stabilizing on MY ship, I only effectively should have 1 point of stabilization. Hence my own scramblers cancel out my own stabilizers, and unlike how it works now, where you need 4 points to beat my 3 WCS, you'd only need 2 points in that case, since I'd effectively only have 1 WCS. I like this idea. Me aswell, this is a really good idea. Based on dont do to others, what you dont want to happen to yourself = Getting warpscrambled. @Keorythe I have seen plenty of interdictors in 0.0 and i must say, they kinda rock and are a very powerfull tool with extreme warpscrambling capability, good damage output and highspeed. _________________________________________________
Keorythe	Posted - 2006.08.18 11:09:00 - [190] Why mess with WCS? They're already balanced as is for small unit actions and piracy. If you want to address the "stay and fight" issue then why not RETHINK INTERDICTORS? Seriously, interdictors and not popular to use. They have poor resists, poor grid/cpu, poor bonuses, have a survival duration measuring in seconds, need I go on? For the skills needed to use one why not make it more viable in the field thus making it more popular to use? -Adjust resists up to Assualt Frigate levels (the skill requirements already justify them) -Redo warp bubble items to make them more user friendly (fittings, launching, etc) -Increase grid/cpu to facilitate fittings. -Come up with new scramble units like an interdictor based burst or a bonus to scrambler strength for interdictors only. If people are complaining about too many others not wanting to stay and fight make it so that more battlefields are locked down and that NO ONE can leave till the fight is over. Rethinking the interdictor is long overdue. Doing so now would address the scramble/stabilizer issue and fix an old ship that is very unpopular in combat. PvP, piracy, and even missions would benefit from something like this. How hard would it be for you to readjust and keep it balanced?

Magnus Thermopyle Chosen Path	Posted - 2006.08.18 11:51:00 - [191] Edited by: Magnus Thermopyle on 18/08/2006 11:52:34 Tuxford, have you considered making NOSes drain a % of the maximum cap instead of a fixed amount. For example, big NOSes could drain 5%, medium ones 3% and small ones 1%. This has a number of nice effects, like small NOSes will be far more useful against big ships, and big NOSes will not be an "I Win" button against smaller ships. A NOS domi would still drain all ships, but it will take the same of time (3 cycles) to drain a big ship as it takes to drain a small ship. This way of doing it seems more natural an more inline with the rest of the game mechanisms, which always revolves around %.
Soyemia Minmatar Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.18 12:03:00 - [192] WCS are fine. They give you more tha 10% damage reducion, as you can fit dmg mod in their place, or cap mod. I hate those "honor" guys. Go play knight games. Proud member of fix. Hated on finnish channel. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty - Cortes
Slevin Kalebra	Posted - 2006.08.18 12:21:00 - [193] Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle Tuxford, have you considered making NOSes drain a % of the maximum cap instead of a fixed amount. For example, big NOSes could drain 5%, medium ones 3% and small ones 1%. Or what about draining a percentage of the remaining cap (up to a fixed maximum per cycle)? That gives you diminishing returns as the target's cap starts to dry up. If you wanted to make the amount slightly variable, factor in the target ship sig radius in calculating the maximum drain per cycle.
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest	Posted - 2006.08.18 12:27:00 - [194] Originally by: Soyemia WCS are fine. They give you more tha 10% damage reducion, as you can fit dmg mod in their place, or cap mod. I hate those "honor" guys. Go play knight games. I bet you fly a vagabond... Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
MrRookie Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2006.08.18 12:37:00 - [195] Originally by: Slevin Kalebra Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle Tuxford, have you considered making NOSes drain a % of the maximum cap instead of a fixed amount. For example, big NOSes could drain 5%, medium ones 3% and small ones 1%. Or what about draining a percentage of the remaining cap (up to a fixed maximum per cycle)? That gives you diminishing returns as the target's cap starts to dry up. If you wanted to make the amount slightly variable, factor in the target ship sig radius in calculating the maximum drain per cycle. I thought about this aswell. It's a really good idea. You will have dimishing returns but still be drying up the cap even if it's litle. It will be more benefitical draining large ships rather than frigs. The only downside is how Nos will affect capital ships though, so it has to be a maximum drain or something like it. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
Alupigus1 Delta team Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.18 13:25:00 - [196] Originally by: Dinique I still say the best solution is to have your scramblers and stabalizers cancel eachother out. If you fit 3 points of stabilizers, and 2 points of scrambling you should effectively only have 1 point of stabilizing. Sounds fair.. plus looks easy to implement. Another thing: why don't make 20km scrams have a 1.1 strength? Even 1.01 works, 1.01 for 20km ones and 2.01 for 7.5km ones. Or add a skill allowing you to increase scrambler modules strength, something like par with wcs at level 4 and better at level 5.
Caoim Fearghul Caldari Surani Holdings	Posted - 2006.08.18 13:28:00 - [197] I'm not going to comment on NOS, but with regards to WCS the general thought seems to be that people shouldnt be able to escape from your attack. Why the bloody hell have WCS at all then? Simply by fitting them you're loosing slots that can give you other bonuses in a fight. The idea here on the "nerf WCS" side seems to be that people have no business withdrawing from combat. That's frankly retarded, the inital choice of whether to engage or not and the form of the engagement lies with the agressor. Dropping some low slots to make sure that you have the option to flee if someone jumping you has the advantage (something really bloody likely if they have actually chosen to engage you) is just adding options other than "sit and get ganked" which seems to be what the nerf WCS bunch want. Boo-hoo, woe is me! I tried to jump someone and kill them and they ran away! It's sooo unfair! Prodesse Non Nocere
Yarek Balear Veto.	Posted - 2006.08.18 13:32:00 - [198] Edited by: Yarek Balear on 18/08/2006 13:34:03 Originally by: Tuxford WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. All over EVE there are limits imposed on ships that engage in combat, such as not disappearing from local for 30 minutes, not able to jump/dock following aggression. Why not simply extend that principle to WCS - i.e. WCS do not activate until 30 seconds/one minute after aggression. This allows travelling ships that do not respond to attack to maintain WCS, but stops people fighting then deciding to warp off when it looks bad. EDIT: just to clarify - this allows travelling ships or ships that are jumped without warning the ability to escape if they don't like the odds, but not ships that attack/respond then decided it's looking bad and run away (e.g. stababond).
Alupigus1 Delta team Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.18 13:40:00 - [199] Edited by: Alupigus1 on 18/08/2006 13:40:47 Originally by: Yarek Balear Edited by: Yarek Balear on 18/08/2006 13:34:03 Originally by: Tuxford WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. All over EVE there are limits imposed on ships that engage in combat, such as not disappearing from local for 30 minutes, not able to jump/dock following aggression. Why not simply extend that principle to WCS - i.e. WCS do not activate until 30 seconds/one minute after aggression. This allows travelling ships that do not respond to attack to maintain WCS, but stops people fighting then deciding to warp off when it looks bad. EDIT: just to clarify - this allows travelling ships or ships that are jumped without warning the ability to escape if they don't like the odds, but not ships that attack/respond then decided it's looking bad and run away (e.g. stababond). What about real tackling? edit: i thought that will affect dictors, my bad.
Magnus Thermopyle Chosen Path	Posted - 2006.08.18 21:26:00 - [200] Originally by: MrRookie Originally by: Slevin Kalebra Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle Tuxford, have you considered making NOSes drain a % of the maximum cap instead of a fixed amount. For example, big NOSes could drain 5%, medium ones 3% and small ones 1%. Or what about draining a percentage of the remaining cap (up to a fixed maximum per cycle)? That gives you diminishing returns as the target's cap starts to dry up. If you wanted to make the amount slightly variable, factor in the target ship sig radius in calculating the maximum drain per cycle. I thought about this aswell. It's a really good idea. You will have dimishing returns but still be drying up the cap even if it's litle. It will be more benefitical draining large ships rather than frigs. The only downside is how Nos will affect capital ships though, so it has to be a maximum drain or something like it. Yea, % drain from remaining cap is even better, but it also means a bigger "nerf". And yes, there should be a maximum amount of cap you recieve, but the drain should not be capped. For example, if a frig with a small 1% nos drains a 5000 cap BS, it will drain 50 cap, but only recieve a maximum of about 15. And with nos working like this, you would not have to have special fixes to balance them.

VeNT Minmatar Freelancer Union Unaffiliated	Posted - 2006.09.17 11:06:00 - [201] maybe if nos took a % of the remaining cap? ie it steals 10% of remaining cap upto a max of xxx and effected by range (ie works further away than now but to less effect and gets better the closer in you are) -------------------- Selena 001 > has VeNT left system? its gone really quiet!
Arknox	Posted - 2006.09.17 12:06:00 - [202] Fix to nosf ... Instead of getting cap from it make it some sort of "light neutralizer" Same cap drain but it doesn't add cap to your own . Nosdomi's get less unbeatable tanks , it sacrefices a highslot and if you realy want to drain someone's cap fit neutralizers ! also give it a tracking, falloff and optimal as suggested so many times before. Frigs would orbit in 5km and wouldn't get affected , bs's and cruisers would ... Bs's should not be able to kill frigs imo , we got so many anti-frig ships but why fly them when bs's can do it better ? The purpose of bs's should be killing anti-frig support (cruisers/hacs) and other bs's Decrease fitting for nosf so it wouldn't get replaced by neutralizers and neutralizers would still do what they should . A other easy fix would be removing nosf puts on flame-resistant suite i like beans
Trind2222	Posted - 2006.09.17 14:47:00 - [203] I like sarmuls ida to nos but i think it shoud have change to drain Havy Nos 100% change to drain Batleship and larger 40 % to drain cruser's and same size ships 20% drain smal ships Medium Nos 100% agens batle ships and lager 100% agenst cruser same size ships 40% smal ships smal nos 100 % to all ship types. So now I think balcing tearm and they say but batle ship shoud be pwn ship think before posting it shoud not be such a ship in game it shoud have it disavanges to.
Sphynx Stormlord	Posted - 2006.09.17 15:48:00 - [204] A possible nos nerf would be to have each nos cycle onle be able to steal a maximum % of the cap left in the ship being nossed, while still being limited by the current amounts stealable. If the limit was, say 10%, then a normal battleship v battleship nos (which would normally steal around 30/cycle) would be unnafected by this limit untill the target had only 300 cap left, which is almost nothing from a battleships point of view. A cruiser, however, whose total cap is much lower, would be affected normally by the nos to start with, but when their cap gets below 300 (maybe 1/3 or a 1/4 of a cruisers cap) then the nos would start operating at reduced effectiveness. Against a frigate, however, the nos would be operating at a reduced level right from the start (frigates mostly have less than 300 cap). Stealing only 10% per cycle would mean that the frigate would not be drained dry at the problematic high speed that would currently happen.
john2 Minmatar Drones of Annihilation	Posted - 2006.09.18 00:20:00 - [205] so what use would a curse be if you kill nos. it be one more unless ammar ship to the pile. wcs are you all forgot some that was in the game for a reason, bubbles can you warp out from them. no would it make a hell of a diffent if you had 8 wcs on. + losing my ship to a 50k frigate get real you could have tank or anything if you did not have wcs. y don t do what they did with jamming when you warp scram % not it work each time
MissileRus	Posted - 2006.09.18 02:14:00 - [206] Edited by: MissileRus on 18/09/2006 02:17:57 nos nerf sucks... clever frig pilots could already avoid 2 heavy nos while killing most normal bs setups. wish i started playing when battleships were more common in pvp and when people didnt always fly in gangs of 10+ now its all frigs and blobbs.. only way to have a good 1v1 bs fight will be/is fighting someone in the same corp. frigates are starting to pop up on my walls now frigate > battleship frigate > 0.0 frigate > carriers frigate > pos oh wait its frigate+vagabond > eve.. --------------------------- 4. i like pizza
Sola Cargo	Posted - 2006.10.05 18:11:00 - [207] WCS Maybe make their effects stackable with diminishing returns, like strength = sqrt(number of wcs): 1 wcs: -1 2 wcs: -1.4 3 wcs: -1.7 4 wcs: -2.0 Over 4 wcs anti-scramble strength should stay -2.0 NOS: Multiply an amount of energy, drained by NOS, by current cap %% of the victim, so if victim is at 33% total cap, NOS will drain 33% of their maximum, while using 100% needed for activation (actually even draining attacker). That will allow smaller ships to NOS energy back and stay at like 10-20% of full cap for current needs (no total "capacitor is empty" shutdowns). Will make NOS usage more intelligent, as well (will need to turn it off sometimes) and make some space for energy neutralizers, too.
Complacency's Bane Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.05 18:25:00 - [208] Edited by: Complacency''s Bane on 05/10/2006 18:25:25 Originally by: MissileRus Edited by: MissileRus on 18/09/2006 02:17:57 nos nerf sucks... clever frig pilots could already avoid 2 heavy nos while killing most normal bs setups. wish i started playing when battleships were more common in pvp and when people didnt always fly in gangs of 10+ now its all frigs and blobbs.. only way to have a good 1v1 bs fight will be/is fighting someone in the same corp. frigates are starting to pop up on my walls now frigate > battleship frigate > 0.0 frigate > carriers frigate > pos oh wait its frigate+vagabond > eve.. OMG is it ALTNAME II? P.S. Mitchman is always right.
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.10.05 19:51:00 - [209] Originally by: SkottE NOS/NEUT are fine, why should a SMALLER ship be able to destroy a BIGGER ship. Try that in real-life see what happens. As for WC's, I hope they get nerfed/fixed. Also for ECM, FIX IT PLZ:.. stfu about real life, nub.
SkottE SkottE Technologies	Posted - 2006.10.05 20:44:00 - [210] Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: SkottE NOS/NEUT are fine, why should a SMALLER ship be able to destroy a BIGGER ship. Try that in real-life see what happens. As for WC's, I hope they get nerfed/fixed. Also for ECM, FIX IT PLZ:.. stfu about real life, nub. As if you have more experience than me at RL do you...? (don't t you dare say anthying about RL combat...) _________________________________________ Want to build Tech2 equipment and ships? Take a look here to find out!



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one 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.

KILROCK'S GIRLY SIDE / WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

ANGEL DEEP CORPORATION

SMACKING IN A TOPIC NEAR YOU / WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

SMACKING IN A TOPIC NEAR YOU / WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

SMACKING IN A TOPIC NEAR YOU / WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS