EVE Search - OMGOMGOMG WCS Nerf

All Channels

Ships and Modules

OMGOMGOMG WCS Nerf

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Istaklain	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:35:00 - [61] Poor industrial pilots.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:38:00 - [62] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 22/07/2006 22:38:50 Originally by: Istaklain Poor industrial pilots. Yeah, that decreased locking speed and increased sig is really going to hurt them. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade Curse Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:41:00 - [63] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 22/07/2006 22:38:50 Originally by: Istaklain Poor industrial pilots. Yeah, that decreased locking speed and increased sig is really going to hurt them. The increased sig radius might. Doing more damage with larger missiles and getting better hits with guns means they might blow up before they are able to warp away now. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:42:00 - [64] WTS****abond TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:43:00 - [65] Originally by: Andreask14 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. It makes them MORE no-brained. As in, brain dead to use them. The modules SOLE purpose is to let you leave hostile situations. If it makes it harder, they screw their OWN function over. "Oh, they work against scramb.." No, that's the effect. Their PURPOSE is to let you leave hostile situations. There is a critical difference you seem to be ignoring there. "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" Yes, because you get to PLAN when you jump into a camp. ... Oh wait, you don't! Nerfing the non-combat ship uses of WCS is something nobody else in this thread is asking for, I'd note. If you want them removed from the game, be honest and ask for that. Don't try and pretend that a module which nerfs itself is a good idea. Again, how often do you use a capacitor flux coil?
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:47:00 - [66] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 22/07/2006 22:38:50 Originally by: Istaklain Poor industrial pilots. Yeah, that decreased locking speed and increased sig is really going to hurt them. Locking speed is irrelevant. It's the sig radius that will kill the indies. Bigger sig means: More damage from missiles. More hits from turrets. Faster locking on tacklers. = More succesful piracy. = Less succesful traders. = More hostile enviroment. = No real penalty for pvp, as both stats are rather irrelevant for other ships, except tacklers and ities. = Huge penalty on smuglers/miners. Mind control and tin hats
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:48:00 - [67] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 22/07/2006 22:56:24 Edited by: Jim McGregor on 22/07/2006 22:55:01 Edited by: Jim McGregor on 22/07/2006 22:54:38 Originally by: Hoshi Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 22/07/2006 22:38:50 Originally by: Istaklain Poor industrial pilots. Yeah, that decreased locking speed and increased sig is really going to hurt them. The increased sig radius might. Doing more damage with larger missiles and getting better hits with guns means they might blow up before they are able to warp away now. True. I guess they want some kind of penalty to combat ships that hurts. Maybe they should just make it -20% rof or something if they really want to make them useless for pvp'ers. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
SFX Bladerunner Mercurialis Inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:49:00 - [68] Edited by: SFX Bladerunner on 22/07/2006 22:50:22 Originally by: Luigi Thirty I don't get what's wrong with WCS. If I'm in a frig trying to from 0.0 to highsec, I really don't want to run into a noob LOOK AT MY CRUISER LOL IT PWNS J00 pirate with a 1-point scrambler and get killed. I'd rather not have to stop at all. increased sig radius sucks... WCS should only affect pvpers that use them.. not travellers __________________________________________________ History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.. [MINC]<IAC> member.
xplosiv	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:50:00 - [69] Edited by: xplosiv on 22/07/2006 22:55:35 there needs to be no half mesures with this, WCS are for running, weapons are for fighting, you should't have both, 1 or the other and i fully welcome a totaly ban to WCS online at the same time as any ECM, NOST or NEUT, GUN and MISSILES. Having penaltys to lock range, lock speed and sig radius are not a good road to go down as this would afect the inocent, like haulers trying to use tractor beams.
Moornblade Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:50:00 - [70] Edited by: Moornblade on 22/07/2006 22:57:13 Why does everyone think WCS are overpowered? At best, a WCS = 1 20km Scram, and thus it means your exchanging a low slot for a mid slot. Seems fair to me. At worst, 2x WCS = 1 7.5km Scram, which means trading 2 low slots for a mid slot. Seems _very_ fair. WCS do nothing but gimp your ship. What's overpowering about them? If anything, WCS should work against bubbles.... but that's another debate. Frankly, this thread sounds like it is full of ez-mode pirates. If you wanna be able to catch someone, you should really have to work for it. Bring multiple interceptors. Have everyone mount scrams. And if you're worried about snipers, bring some EWar. At best, CCP should introduce long range scrams. Like 40-80km. But I can't understand why people are so against hit-'n'-run tactics; the only conclusion I can come to is this is not about sniping, but more about low-sec gate camps. Frankly, if you're worried about sniping, jump to a safe spot. What; are you worried about people sniping your gate camps? Reeks of hypocrisy. Or worried about people sniping defensive positions on POS? Nonsensical. WCS are fine, and they give a neat tactical element (hit-n-run) to a game that is otherwise all about NOS-SCRAM-WEB-TARGET PRIMARY-PEW-PEW-PEW repeat.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:50:00 - [71] Originally by: Sarmaul WTS****abond Will be interesting to see if it affects price. The ship used to be able to run away when double webbed and having 1 warp disruptor on it before, but after this change, it will just go pop if that happens. Unless its still worth it to fit wcs on a vagabond.. people will probably do some math on that one. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:55:00 - [72] Originally by: xplosiv there needs to be no half mesures with this, WCS are for running, weapons are for fighting, you should't have both, 1 or the other and i fully welcome a totaly ban to WCS online at the same time as any ECM, NOST or NEUT, GUN and MISSILES. Okay. You won't be able to online any defence, cap or grid modules with a scrambler fitted of course. ... Yes, of COURSE both changes are ridiculous, but when you start making exceptions to the Eve rules for modules you don't like, you open a door which you'd really be far better off not opening. Moreover, I disagree with your assertion. With a reasonable penalty, it'll be fine.
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:56:00 - [73] I'll see how signal amps counter the penalty, and you might see the cost of halo implants begin to rise :) TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Tyler Lowe Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.22 22:58:00 - [74] Edited by: Tyler Lowe on 22/07/2006 23:03:53 Alrighty. I've done some quick(ish) math and looked at some setups, skill modifers, weapon modules, and it looks like, in order to be practical fitting a single WCS, troublesome at 2, and crippling at 3 WCS, the penalty if a CPU/Grid penalty were to be used on WCS should be: 10% penalty to weapons systems Grid/CPU example modules (all fit at weapons upgrades 5, advanced weapon upgrades 5): Grid .......................0 WCS.....1WCS.....2WCS.....3WCS 1400mm I:............2925......3217.....3539.....3893 1200mm I:............2722......2994.....3294.....3623 425mm I:.............2250......2475.....2722.....2994 350mm I:.............1687......1856.....2042.....2246 Tachyon Beam I:.....3375......3712.....4083.....4492 MegaBeam I:..........2925......3217.....3539.....3893 Siege Launcher I:....1575......1732.....1905.....2096 Cruise Launcher I:...1125......1237.....1361.....1497 CPU 0 WCS 1WCS 2WCS 3WCS 1400mm I: 33.75 37.12 40.83 44.92 1200mm I: 31.50 34.65 38.11 41.92 425mm I: 52.50 57.75 63.52 69.87 350mm I: 45.00 49.50 54.45 59.89 Tachyon Beam I: 45.00 49.50 54.45 59.89 MegaBeam I: 41.25 45.37 49.91 54.90 Siege Launcher I: 60.00 66.00 72.60 79.86 Cruise Launcher I: 45.00 49.50 54.45 59.89 I posted the modified figures for all of the large long range weapon modules since the concensus is that long range battleships are the biggest issue when combined with WCS in multiples. Are the penalties in line at 10%? J.A.F.O.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:03:00 - [75] Crap, this thread is going to become a mile long, isnt it? --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:05:00 - [76] Originally by: Jim McGregor Crap, this thread is going to become a mile long, isnt it? I think your first word summed up what this thread is going to become ;) TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Toaster Oven	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:08:00 - [77] Don't really like the suggestions I've seen so far Increase mass - Hurts indies and other non combative ships Decrease gun optimal/falloff - No effect on missile and drone boats Increase weapon grid/cpu - No effect on drone boats Personally, I'd like WCS to give -20% to scan resolution and -20% to sensor strength with no stacking penalty affecting multiple modules. Fit 5 of them and your sensor strength would be about 1/3 of it's normal value, making you highly susceptible to jamming. Not a problem if you plan on running but a big problem if you want to stick around and fight.
fairimear Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:16:00 - [78] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: xplosiv there needs to be no half mesures with this, WCS are for running, weapons are for fighting, you should't have both, 1 or the other and i fully welcome a totaly ban to WCS online at the same time as any ECM, NOST or NEUT, GUN and MISSILES. Okay. You won't be able to online any defence, cap or grid modules with a scrambler fitted of course. ... Yes, of COURSE both changes are ridiculous, but when you start making exceptions to the Eve rules for modules you don't like, you open a door which you'd really be far better off not opening. Moreover, I disagree with your assertion. With a reasonable penalty, it'll be fine. Maya you comented b4 on how people should not post ideas that are basicaly requests for them to be removed from game. well tbh you should stop moaning about every theory that has been put up about how thye will be nerfed, because tbh you are just moaning about the nerf full stop imo. Something is finaly going to be done about probably the most unbalancing module in the game. Granted penaltys may work, but most are pointless as they will lead to the same affect as making them only onlinable with non-combat modules, because if they dont make them totaly redundant for pvp they may as well leave them. the merit of a total nerf to combat wcs fittings has much merit as it dose not have a penalty that would affect logisitcal gameplay as you previously mentioned about the movment penalty sujested. it has no affect on people who do not wish to be in combat moving out. it does however stop people like you(obvious you do) fitting wcs when they know they aim to be in a combat situation that could turn hostile.
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade Curse Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:18:00 - [79] Originally by: Toaster Oven Increase weapon grid/cpu - No effect on drone boats Nos would of course be counted as weapons here too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fire 59 Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:22:00 - [80] Sod a -3 or -5 % penalty, give a -25% penalty per wcs to rof, simple choice, fight or travel fit, none of this fight til im too scared and must run like girly man malarky. Iron and G eat babie's , my views are my own, they do not refect my corp or my alliance
Grimpak Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:24:00 - [81] Originally by: Moornblade Edited by: Moornblade on 22/07/2006 22:57:13 Why does everyone think WCS are overpowered? At best, a WCS = 1 20km Scram, and thus it means your exchanging a low slot for a mid slot. Seems fair to me. At worst, 2x WCS = 1 7.5km Scram, which means trading 2 low slots for a mid slot. Seems _very_ fair. uhm.. correction: to stop a ship with 1 WCS you need 2 points, with 2 WCS you need 3 points. ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
PeeWee Pee	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:30:00 - [82] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Sarmaul WTS**abond Will be interesting to see if it affects price. The ship used to be able to run away when double webbed and having 1 warp disruptor on it before, but after this change, it will just go pop if that happens. Unless its still worth it to fit wcs on a vagabond.. people will probably do some math on that one. not really dude. this change will make sure you wont be able to run away unless you fly a ***abond. i wager you one million isk price gonna straight up thru da roof.
Istaklain	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:49:00 - [83] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 22/07/2006 22:38:50 Originally by: Istaklain Poor industrial pilots. Yeah, that decreased locking speed and increased sig is really going to hurt them. Badger II with 2 wcs gives you a sig radius of about 350. I'd say thats going to hurt them a lot.
nahtoh Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 23:55:00 - [84] Originally by: Andreask14 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. Great then you screw up non-combat uses of stabs...haulers already take age to align, they are also pretty easy to lock as well... Don't forget the non-combat use of stabs...range and scan res nerfs allow comabt uses to be effected but not the non combat uses. ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Wintermoon Interstellar eXodus	Posted - 2006.07.23 00:01:00 - [85] Simple solutions. Just massively increase the CPU need on WCS. Haulers have an endless supply of CPU. Fitting a full rack of them would mean probably maxed out CPU grid for everyone that tries it.
Dahin Euphoria Released Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.07.23 00:17:00 - [86] Originally by: Sarmaul so long as it's optimal range :) nice one.
Xeios	Posted - 2006.07.23 00:24:00 - [87] Its probably been suggested before, an you all prolly didnt like it, but surely if you were to leave them as they are but limit the number a ship can fit to say 2 at most,it would still allow them to be used for skirmishing, hauling etc. It would also mean that its alot easier to scram someone that uses them if you are expecting it. If you really feel that that isnt enough, something as simple as making them an active module again (but in the low slot this time) and have them use an ammount of cap.
Commander Nikolas Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.23 00:29:00 - [88] Everyone keeps talking about how this affects PvP. After thinking about these changes awhile, this isn't going to affect pvP set-ups that much. However think for a moment about how this will affect haulers. 20% greater sig, they will be much easier to lock and destroy before making it to warp. This is just another change to help gate snipers. I agree with the ever popular 25% RoF penalty or making them an active mid slot item with 100 cap used per 5 second activation.
Double TaP The Establishment	Posted - 2006.07.23 00:44:00 - [89] The important thing here is that it has no negative affect on someone trying their best to just travel, especially haulers. Seen 1 or 2 ideas in this thread that i like. The grid/cpu increase one especially. If you can only fit half as many guns with a couple of WCS there goes your dps and your alpha. Not to mention trying to fit a tank on top of that. But wtf does a badger care if it cant fit that oh so special gun in the highslot. PS. Making them increase mass is a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE idea.
DUFFMANX D-Generation X	Posted - 2006.07.23 01:08:00 - [90] Edited by: DUFFMANX on 23/07/2006 01:08:37 For idea that would'nt make life horrible for indies i was think of the following- -25% targeting range make them 75 cpu and 1 grid to fit Its a nice balance for stop campers, and close range pilots like stababonds, and leave a nice margin for a light tank and stabs on indies. Originally by: dimensionZ The biggest threat we ever had was xirtam mining plagioclase in aridia ...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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