Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
lollerskates
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:16:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Tapal Loth if thay nerf the stabs thay need to nerf the worp jammers also. thar is no reson to nerf stabs. if you cant lock down a ship oooo fracking well. so you dont get that kill for the bords. deal with it or fit more jammers.
Have you ever even PVPed before? The problem is that a ship like a raven can fit 5 stabs without lowing their damage output at all (assuming they didn't have damage mods before), and still fit an effective 6 slot tank or 5 slot tank with an injector. That way he can warp in a range and just shoot at people until he feels like warping out, and it's pretty much impossible to get 6 points on a raven that keeps warping in at 80km, especially if the pilot doesn't want to get caught.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:19:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/07/2006 20:20:49 Andreask14,
That means it counters itself, because the point of WCS is that it allows you to escape. Modules which counter themselves are not good.
|
lollerskates
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:23:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Maya Rkell because the point of WCS is that it allows you to escape.
Exactly, WCS are supposed to let you avoid pvp, not excell at it. I have no idea if someone is flying a brand new geddon home with 8 stabs and a mwd without weapons. However people abuse them and stack them on their PVP setups. It's the most asinine thing someone can do.
|
Sforza
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:26:00 -
[34]
I really donÆt understand this.. how does this get ANYWHERE near solving the fundamental problem of combat ships fitting warp core stabs?
This wont stop a sniper fitting 4 stabs, it wont stop the 4/5 stab BE stylee Raven, it wont stop the double stab/snake set Vaga.
It wonÆt even stop the single stab on an Interceptor.
ThereÆs been lots of valid suggestions for solving this problem.. this lame suggestion doesnÆt address it at all. Triple the cpu cost, offline guns, double the scrambling points of disruptors/scramblers, all have been suggested, but this?
I can only believe that CCP must think that stabs on combat ship isnÆt a problem at all, and that is just as disappointing as this unconvincing and feeble idea.
Sforza
|
Tyler Lowe
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:27:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/07/2006 20:08:36
Originally by: Tyler Lowe Put a +7.5% grid and cpu penalty on all weapons per WCS, and see...
...snipers STILL able to fit 4WCS :/
Yep Deja, that's why I want 10% range. Sure, you can "counter" that. 1 mid each for a tracking computer. And the stacking penalty will mean after 1 that won't keep up either..
same module would fit for 27 TF and 2925 MW with no WCS equiped.
Try fitting 6x 1400mm on a tempest with that grid cost and only 2 lows to work with beyond the slots used to fit WCS. 2x RCU II leaves you at 22698 MW at engineering 5. 6*3906 = 2346, and all of that assumes the pilot is maxed. This is also for tech I guns. If 7.5% isn't enough, up the ante and place it at 10%.
I can see the source of doubt as valid, so the math may need work, but conceptually this still feels like solid ground. J.A.F.O.
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:32:00 -
[36]
The changes LeMonde mentioned were -20% lock speed and +20% signature radius per WCS.
The sig radius penalty is bad on frigates, while the lock penalty is not as severe. I still see Interceptors with one or two wcs viable in combat. That seems to be the maximum number people use on frigates anyways.
Meanwhile, the lock penalty is bad on battleships, but the sig radius doesn't really matter much unless you're getting shot at by dreadnaughts or rage torps. Given that one sensor booster is 60%, it would be able to counter 3 WCS, making 4 WCS Ravens still possible in PVP albeit with a slightly weaker tank.
I agree overall with the penalties Tuxford chose, but they are still slow slot modules. Low slots are utility, and to stop their use in pvp completely, they need to be made medium slot modules on top of the two penalties mentioned. That would be the ideal nerf to WCS, if I had to pick one.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
lollerskates
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:35:00 -
[37]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist they need to be made medium slot modules
Yeah, like they used to be. Who's brilliant idea was it to make them lowslot anyways?
|
lollerskates
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:36:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Nafri they should be active modules which need cap
...You mean like they used to be?
|
Nafri
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:36:00 -
[39]
they should be active modules which need cap, have a capazitor penalty, increase your weight and make your interna worser.
so basicly the more WCS you use, the longer you need to get into warp and the less total cap you have. It also lowers the ability to use mwd/ab.
and of course midslot
From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected]) |
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:44:00 -
[40]
Originally by: lollerskates
Originally by: Maya Rkell because the point of WCS is that it allows you to escape.
Exactly, WCS are supposed to let you avoid pvp...
Yes, the comment was on an idea to make them up ships mass, thus making them counter themselves.
I disagree with the rest of the comment as I allways have. With a reasonable penalty, things will be fine.
Sforza, slashing 50% for 5WCS off sniper and Vaga range will make a HUGE difference.. and the 5WCS raven won't be doing much damage.
DigitalCommunist, maybe the penaltys are designed to ALLOW a few to be used in combat? Ah yes, they are. I don't agree with them, though, because as you note various ships can ignore much of the effect of them in various situations. Range..can't be ignored. By anyone.
lollerskates, yea, I'm seeing a pattern. People wanting a time back which never was. Starting to sound like bleeding Greenpeace.
|
|
lollerskates
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:47:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Maya Rkell lollerskates, yea, I'm seeing a pattern. People wanting a time back which never was.
Are you saying that WCS were never midslot activatable modules? Because they were.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:55:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/07/2006 20:55:48 No, that the thinking that making WCS unusuable in conbat will in any way "improve" combat, when it's just likely to make fighting setups less common, and allow people who are trying to evade camps to use a rack of WCS *and* a rack of nanos or cargo expanders.
|
Andreask14
Sensus Numinis Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:57:00 -
[43]
WCS allow you to escape from an electronic warfare module, the scrambler, nothing else.
They are not meant to make you invincible, nor to provide an unbeatable last resort.
So, if you make them increase your mass, they effectively still counter the scrambler, but you get more and more vulnerable the more you fit, especially if you fit them on ships that use speed as defense, thus making you less effective in combat.
Still, WCS which add mass function perfectly, its just that they limit your reaction time, transversal, and agility, forcing you to either stay and take the pounding, or warp out before too many tacklers come at you.
WCS that add mass make perfect sense, scince they force you to think ahead of your actions instead of having that last resaort ace up your sleeve that everybody thinks to be lame.
If WCS add mass, they wont be viable on frigs or cruisers for thing other than traveling, for which they will still provide the needed safety.
On BC and BS or even bigger they added mass will only force you to be more cautious.
Now add the 20% sig penalty and no ship will be able to efficiently fight with WCS for any length of time, because the enemy locks faster, hits harder, has more low-slot goodies than you and can dictate the range.
WCS should make your ship run for cover, not be the easy way out for every situation.
WCS with MASS and SIG would still fight the scrambler, but nothing else anymore.
Its a good solution. ________________________________________________
Just a quick reminder that "Local" and "Instas" will always be what they are. |
lollerskates
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 20:59:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/07/2006 20:55:48 No, that the thinking that making WCS unusuable in conbat will in any way "improve" combat, when it's just likely to make fighting setups less common, and allow people who are trying to evade camps to use a rack of WCS *and* a rack of nanos or cargo expanders.
Right but the difference is that a ship with all nanos and all stabs isn't going to stick around and fight, and if he does he risks running out of cap and the stabs not working.
I think activatable stabs would be the best thing ever, because if someone sticks around long enough, you can hit them with some neuts and nosses and they're toast. The problem now with 5 stab ravens is they wait until their cap and shields are totally dry and then warp off, where you'd be screwed if you ran out of cap with activatable stabs.
|
Sforza
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:01:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Sforza on 22/07/2006 21:04:04 I agree that your proposed penalty would be an improvement Maya, but I think I'd just like the fundamental question answered.. do the Devs want WCS to be usable in combat situations or not?
If they do want them usable in combat, then these changes are OK I suppose (although no where near as harsh as I'd like). If they do not want them usable in combat, what on earth are they thinking?
Sforza
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:02:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/07/2006 21:04:52 Andreask14,
They are designed to allow you to be more able to leave a hostile situation. By adding mass, they make you less likely to leave a hostile situation. They counter themselves. This is NEVER good.
You're deliverately trying to make them a liability, which was NEVER the intention. In many situations, the added mass will KILL you, since the interceptors will ram you...and you'd of been long gone into warp otherwise.
It's a terrible and short sighted "soloution" which is intended to kill their use entirely.
lollerskates, no, right now he can have stabs OR nanos. Moreover, making nos/neuts warp scramblers is a terrible idea. Nos/Neuts are allready overpowered on many setups - see the *****ing about Domis.
Sforza, they're thinking that options in combat are good.
|
Laboratus
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:02:00 -
[47]
Yea, but then again warp scrambles should increase your sig radious... Mind control and tin hats |
Eximius Josari
Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:02:00 -
[48]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Make WCS hi slot and give haulers +3 utility hi slots.
|
Gierling
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:04:00 -
[49]
I wholeheartedly support this.
At the moment its not so much stabs that are the problem as it is stabs + range with BS. Click Me
And Me |
Tapal Loth
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:07:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Tapal Loth on 22/07/2006 21:08:16
Originally by: lollerskates
Originally by: Tapal Loth if thay nerf the stabs thay need to nerf the worp jammers also. thar is no reson to nerf stabs. if you cant lock down a ship oooo fracking well. so you dont get that kill for the bords. deal with it or fit more jammers.
Have you ever even PVPed before? The problem is that a ship like a raven can fit 5 stabs without lowing their damage output at all (assuming they didn't have damage mods before), and still fit an effective 6 slot tank or 5 slot tank with an injector. That way he can warp in a range and just shoot at people until he feels like warping out, and it's pretty much impossible to get 6 points on a raven that keeps warping in at 80km, especially if the pilot doesn't want to get caught.
its almost inposabul to get 1 or 2 points on it. as any thing taht can get to it will pop prity fast befor backup gets thar. just buy useing stabs you are herting your tank or damage so why nerf them. I use them to rat in low sec to try and get away form pierats. if it is nerfed then it makes it harder to rat wiht out having to worry about pie's as with an incress in sig will make the rats hit harder also.
|
|
Deja Thoris
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:29:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Laboratus Yea, but then again warp scrambles should increase your sig radious...
Umm, go away, the adults are discussing stuff.
|
Tapal Loth
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:40:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Tapal Loth on 22/07/2006 21:41:00
Originally by: Deja Thoris
Originally by: Laboratus Yea, but then again warp scrambles should increase your sig radious...
Umm, go away, the adults are discussing stuff.
why not if you whant to scaramble some one why not let thar sig get biger allso. it wuld even things out a bit. it makes sence.
|
Ma'at Bastet
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:47:00 -
[53]
Like every change in Eve; some will cry, some will die, life will go on...
I don't PvP myself but do regularly fit WCS for two reasons 1) Non-combative travel through low sec 2) 1-2 for some of the tougher Lvl 4 missions with lots of DPS and scramblers. Allows me to solo even if a warp-out or two is needed. Looks like this will be a lot more challenging now. No problem I'll just change tactics a bit to adapt!
While I don't like my missioning setup being penalized, I think CCP has come up with a reasonable compromise to discourage WCS use in combat. This won't stop snipers but it certainly helps remove the coward factor from would be pirates that abuse WCS modules.
Also, this new approach opens the door to releasing WCS variants with lvl 1 strength but slightly decreased penalties; or significant penalty decreases with higher fitting cost. The possibilities are many. This strategy could be applied to a releasable Tech 2 WCS as well (assuming it would be strength lvl 1 as well). I like the thought of that
|
Kitty O'Shay
Tharsis Security
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:48:00 -
[54]
Hmmm, numbers:
Mega: (Sig Analysis 4, Sensor Booster II) Sig radius: 400m Scan resolution: 174mm
With 2 nerfed WCS: Sig radius: 560m Scan resolution: 109mm
Raven: (Sig Analysis 4, Sensor Booster II) Sig radius: 460m Scan resolution: 163mm
With 2 nerfed WCS: Sig radius: 644m Scan resolution: 97mm
That's assuming the WCS penalty is applied before skill bonus. --
[THARS] is recruiting 1 ebil pirate. Be the one! |
Andreask14
Sensus Numinis Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 21:49:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/07/2006 21:06:14
stuff
Yes, increasing ship mass with WCS will make them more difficult to use and might get you killed more.
That is exactly what is wanted, to make WCS less of a now brainer.
MASS doesnt make WCS counter-themslves, scince they will still fend off scrambler. That is their function, nothing else, to fend off scramblers.
They are NOT meant to be a fool-proof life-saver, which they are now, instead, they are the counter to scramblers, not to bumping.
See, its not like one or two WCS would double your mass, but 5 would double your mass and signature.
THIS MEANS
that the MORE protection you would want from scramblers, the more risk you will have to take of being shot before being able to warp, YET you would still be able to warp of the enemy wouldnt have enough scramblers,
THUS
added MASS via WCS gives the tacklers more TIME, and if you choose to add WCS to a combat setup, you would have to plan your retreat more carefully, because you will take longer to warp out, giving the enemy more TIME to balst you, despite not being able to scramble you.
MASS doesnt counter WCS, its only makes using them more risky, which is good. ________________________________________________
Just a quick reminder that "Local" and "Instas" will always be what they are. |
Darktec
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 22:01:00 -
[56]
*sigh*
Why not just go with the idea of your ship getting blow up when you undock? At least thats less severe that the stupid ******* things you ppl are suggestiong?
STABS ARE FINE THE WAY THEY ARE.
atm they are for hit and run tactics, A VIABLE TACTIC .
If/when they get the nerf bat that will eliminate this all together, take for instance a stealth bomber, it uncloaks , fires, but before it can recloak it gets scrammed. stabs help is RUN AWAY as they are not intended for head to head pvp. With this stupid penalty that ppl want, they are even more useless than they already were.
Like I said before, I give it a week or two on tranq and it will be reverted. |
Foulis
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 22:08:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Leumas Ebmocnud Why are WCS's such a problem? if someone chooses to compromise their damage / tank thats their choice i`d say.
Not everyone finds it enjoyable to 'definitely' lose their ships. I really dont see the problem with them.
If your in a gank squad, then fit every ship with a Scram, problem solved.
----
Cake > Pie - Imaran
Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 22:28:00 -
[58]
Hit and run tactics work just fine without WCS. WCS simply put padding on the edges, and let failures of PVP compete with the rest of EVE. Your example of Stealth Bomber getting scrambled is mighty funny. If you're getting yourself scrambled in a cloaking frigate with 100km range, you deserve to die a truly horrible death for your incompetence.
Originally by: Darktec Like I said before, I give it a week or two on tranq and it will be reverted.
Put your money where your mouth is. :]
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
Jim McGregor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 22:30:00 -
[59]
/me wonders if the few tech 2 wcs's will be without penalties...
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
ParMizaN
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 22:32:00 -
[60]
*\o/*
sig edited for lack of pink really PINK -eris |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |