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)
Omatje Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.23 11:17:00 - [121] Edited by: Omatje on 23/07/2006 11:25:05 If they really must be nerfed how about this: Penalty: reduces the ships bonusses by 25% (editted for typo) Sig removed, please keep it below 24000 bytes etc.. - Xorus hmm...
Swirled	Posted - 2006.07.23 11:44:00 - [122] I like the idea of giving WCS's an insane CPU useage and then add a reduction bonus to industrials. Much like the CPU useage of the Cov Ops cloak. I reccomend keeping it a low slot, as then it becomes a balancing act for the industrialists, as to whether to fit more stabs or more expanders. As for the PVP side, possibly a new type of WCS that could be fitted onto any ship, but only has half strength. Like 0.5 warp strength, therefore forcing people to fit more and either GREATLY reduce damage, or GREATLY reduce tank. I would suggest having them as a high slot fitting, as then it affects all races (I think) the same. EG if it was low slots, it would affect armour tankers more and then mid slots the shield tankers more. But high slots will affect every race more equally. Thats my two pence anyway. Swirled
Grml Z Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.23 12:01:00 - [123] Originally by: turnschuh Its a low slot module and that will never change. period. WCS were med slot modules in 2k3. I think its a good idea making them med slot, you need a med slot module to counter them(warp disruptor). _____________ High sec mining specialist. _____________ I am a NoOb,and i am proud to be one! :P _____________ i cant speak english
Hertford	Posted - 2006.07.23 12:08:00 - [124] I've always seen the whole WCS issue as being a case of "the modules are too effective". Both the WCS and the Warp Jammers are incredibly effective. There's no chance involved in the mechanics, and there isn't much of a partial effect. On both sides of the warp/anti-warp mechanics, it's an all-or-nothing result. The only way I can see of getting rid of the all-or-nothing aspects is by introducing a whole new mechanism of entering warp. Instead of aligning and building up speed, a ship would need to initiate and power up the warp core, and once the warp core is at 100% you enter warp. Jammers and Stabilisers would then affect how quickly the warp corp charges up, and whilst the core is charging, you can't move. Of course, the easiest way is just to nerf WCS. My personal choice on this is for them to inflict similar penalties as a Sensor Dampener. A Raven with five WCS ends up with a half-hour lock time and 12km lock range sounds about right.
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.23 14:36:00 - [125] I'd rather have lock speed and range then lockspeed and sig tbh... the sig is really over the top. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
IroN HiDE Black Lance Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.07.23 14:46:00 - [126] You know what, I hate em, we all hate em... but with the new ways to tackle in the game I think they are needed. You just have to start flying with an interdicter, or a bubble, i mean common stabbies dont even matter if your stuck in a dictor bubble. We as pvpers should just suck it up, lettem have the WCS's and put the win button down for a little bit.
Irrilian Eve University The Big Blue	Posted - 2006.07.23 14:48:00 - [127] Originally by: Moornblade Why does everyone think WCS are overpowered? Its a question of disproportionate effort. Currently it typically takes a handful of people to lock a single individual down, which is perhaps fine if you were talking about non combatants specially designed and equipped to slip through blockades, but patently thatÆs not the case. Moreover the argument that wcs are a waste of a low slot is a bit of a fallacy as: 1) It forces your opponents to "waste" a mid slot/fly more tacklers/blob. 2) It allows very fast ships to engage in pvp with significantly reduced risk whereas non heavy wcs users have to contemplate a much less favourable risk:reward and adjust their actions accordingly. e.g. stabbabonds. Its just a question of balance, the benefit gained from ôwastingö a fews low slots with a pvp ship is currently too high. - - - The Big Blue, ôExodus realised.ö
Masta Killa BURN EDEN	Posted - 2006.07.23 14:55:00 - [128] I like these changes. My spideysense tells me my torps are gonna hit for full dmg from now on and that I won't even need EW to keep ppl from locking me. Yes, everyone and their mothers fill themselves with stabs. Now they all die! -------------------------------------- "It's like, we show up and UDIE."
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.23 15:00:00 - [129] Originally by: Masta Killa I like these changes. My spideysense tells me my torps are gonna hit for full dmg from now on and that I won't even need EW to keep ppl from locking me. Yes, everyone and their mothers fill themselves with stabs. Now they all die! While I would jump at the chance of having my t2 torps and gasp citadels pound battleships and industrials... I don't think anyone will use them much anymore. Hey, it was good while it lasted eh? Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 15:49:00 - [130] There goes my WCS BPO ME 50 PE 50. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
TZeer Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.23 15:51:00 - [131] Hmmm, Dont think WCS T2 will be much of a use....
Masta Killa BURN EDEN	Posted - 2006.07.23 16:04:00 - [132] Originally by: Kaylana Syi While I would jump at the chance of having my t2 torps and gasp citadels pound battleships and industrials... I don't think anyone will use them much anymore. Hey, it was good while it lasted eh? I... don't understand you. Ps. Citadel torps are capital size. -------------------------------------- "It's like, we show up and UDIE."
Flash Landsraad Nexus Legion Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.23 16:22:00 - [133] I think this might fit them: 1. Make them a med slot module. 2. Have each one seriously screw your agility and acceleration (with no stacking penalty/bonus). This would mean that you can fit WCS, however you have to sacrifice tackling/propulsion gear in order to avoid being tackled, and it seriously nerfs your acceleration and agility meaning you take much longer to accelerate to warp speed. Signature removed due to lack of Eve-related content. -Ivan K Fair enough Ivan, sorry :( - Flash
Tammarr	Posted - 2006.07.23 16:35:00 - [134] People cry when their targets get away at a camp due to not bringing enough scramblers should fit for it -_- People crying that its so hard to get someone to lose a ship in pvp should neither speak, bring more scramblers. You fit low modules to enhance the stability of your core. It takes mids to counter them. So by fitting low you lose damage and/or tank By fitting counter you lose damage and/or tank and the mids have double the effectiness but at shorter range Understanding that not all want to fight some sort of glorified "to the death!" type of battle but would rather retreat and regroup and taking the measures to be able to do so. What is so wrong? The viable options for a nerf to using wcs is not found in making them counter productive to their use. Making the targeting range less: Viable, certainly a good option imho due to the stabilized field hampering sensor strengths, someone will cry over fofs still firing long ranges, add a 25% rof to fof missiles because of missile target aqusition is hampered by the stabilized field as per ship sensors. Simple nerf and still making everything go, except realy cutting into the range and forcing the wcs users in combat to either go close and be targeted&scrambled by the foe and also with longer engagments risk getting sniped at without chance of firing back.
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.23 17:31:00 - [135] Originally by: Masta Killa Originally by: Kaylana Syi While I would jump at the chance of having my t2 torps and gasp citadels pound battleships and industrials... I don't think anyone will use them much anymore. Hey, it was good while it lasted eh? I... don't understand you. Ps. Citadel torps are capital size. Pssssst... I can fly a naglfar and soon pheonix Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.23 17:32:00 - [136] Sarmaul, Yes, signal amps might need addressing. Tyler Lowe, A system where you can fit 2 WCS, 1 fitting mod and still have a normal sniper weapon/damage mod fit...meh. Same goes for just making CPU much higher. It's not enough of a penalty. They can't as easily counter a range one..it's 1:1 with midslots, which are fewer... fairimear, Given I'm advocating a specific nerf...heh. The "merit" of a total nerf to combat fitting REQUIRES that there be a far higher cost to fit scramblers than today. You can't cherry-pick systems and take them drastically out of line with their counters. And no, I don't use WCS. But I don't want to lose the 25%+ of people I kill who fight me AND have WCS on their ships. If they stop fighting entirely (as most would), then I lose a lot of kills. Don't assume. Overall, that would be a drastic change and you'll take all those people and the people they (try and) protect out of 0.0/lowsec. This is NOT desireable. A reasonable bonus will fix things! Heck, change T1 destroyers so they have a hefty bonus to warp scrambling rather than setting on AF's toes in the frigate killing department.
Vurg Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2006.07.23 19:01:00 - [137] Don't know if it has been said already, but I like the idea of each WCS decreasing warp speed.
Masta Killa BURN EDEN	Posted - 2006.07.23 19:45:00 - [138] I'd like stabs to be removed altogether, life would be so sweet then -------------------------------------- "It's like, we show up and UDIE."
Samirol Ore Mongers	Posted - 2006.07.23 20:00:00 - [139] Originally by: Masta Killa I'd like stabs to be removed altogether, life would be so sweet then i think ccp should do it for a week, and crash the forums for a few days, so 50 million threads would pop up all over about WS being unfair
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.23 20:13:00 - [140] Originally by: Masta Killa I'd like stabs to be removed altogether, life would be so sweet then Sure. Warp scrambers would take 100% cap and work for 10s, but hey.
Ghelp	Posted - 2006.07.23 21:09:00 - [141] Keep them the way they are, however, make them high slot modules. That would reduce the ability of ships that are using it to enhance their PVP instead of trying to avoid it.
Ysolde Xen Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.23 21:30:00 - [142] IMO, WCS on a combat ship = BAD but on a hauler/blockade runner = GOOD. I'd like to see nerfs to combat setups but not hauler survivability and the talked-about Sig Rad increase would definitely hurt the haulers. As well as the target lock nerf, what about a ROF nerf or something? ----- It's not a crap ship, you're just flying it all wrong.
Tyler Lowe Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.23 22:12:00 - [143] Originally by: Maya Rkell Tyler Lowe, A system where you can fit 2 WCS, 1 fitting mod and still have a normal sniper weapon/damage mod fit...meh. Same goes for just making CPU much higher. It's not enough of a penalty. They can't as easily counter a range one..it's 1:1 with midslots, which are fewer... Yes, that's true, although more so true for shield tankers than armor tanks. I also think the sniper issue is a seperate one. The penalty can be balanced in any way needed to ensure the module's fitting does not become abusive. My goal in determining what percentage was not to fully eliminate the module, so much as to ensure that fitting more than 2 would be impractical on just about any combat setup. There are many things that should be looked at that are abusive when combined. ECM needs a look-see, tech II ammo should probably be examined (more than probably IMO), and NOS are far too powerful atm, again IMHO. There are many balance problems right now, and it can be tough to distinguish where one problem ends and another begins, since the effects of imbalance are cumulative. There is potentially one other solution I can see, and that is to make the WCS an active lowslot module that would have a similar limitation to what damage controls have: Only one WCS module may be active, cap cost of 1. Tacklers that risk close contact are garanteed to lock someone down, longer range ships are forced to fit two mods or two ships working together if they want to have the same gaurantee, preserving the frigate's tackling role. Further, add a +1 WCS module bonus per level to ships in which this makes sense: Industrials for example. I'm not really married to any one suggestion on this one, but I would like to see solutions that leave both WCS and scrams in the tactics structure. J.A.F.O.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.23 22:50:00 - [144] Originally by: Ghelp Keep them the way they are, however, make them high slot modules. That would reduce the ability of ships that are using it to enhance their PVP instead of trying to avoid it. Again, how does this touch a sniper with 6 1400's, 2 WCS, tank and damage mods? Snipers don't NEED those secondary weapons. Tyler Lowe, well my goal with the range pelanty is to give a meaingful penalty which is very hard to counter or ignore, while leaving it as an option if you're willing to make the sacrifice. I disagree strongly that letting industrials carry much cargo AND multiple points of WCS is good, incidentally...it's strongly abusive, indeed. And making WCS max 1 point limits both the need for tacklers and is insufficient for those people who use them to keep using them at ALL - you'll end up driving even more people out of 0.0/lowsec since even travel setups can't carry a deacent number of WCS.
Plim Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.23 23:18:00 - [145] I haven't fitted a stab on Plim in, well as long as I can remember. But frankly I think this is a cave in to whining idiots. I can see how stabs might be useful for guerilla and solo fighters. They need balancing not nerfing. The problem is that some ships can fit them with virtually no pvp penalty (shield tankers + ECM users etc), while other ships are completely borked by them. ----------------- Victory or death! ... knitting is also an option.
Kitty O'Shay Tharsis Security	Posted - 2006.07.24 00:06:00 - [146] Might as well throw in my latest idea: Why not make propulsion jamming like the other ewar skills? "Warp Destabilization" which requires Propulsion Jamming IV and adds strenght to warp scramblers at 0.5 points per level. So with the spec skills at IV, you'd add 2 scramble points to your scrambler/disruptor of choice. Then leave the WCS module alone, and release WCS II. Then decicated tacklers would have an advantage over someone w/o the spec skill. -- [THARS] is recruiting 1 ebil pirate. Be the one!
Tyler Lowe Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.24 00:53:00 - [147] Originally by: Maya Rkell Tyler Lowe, well my goal with the range pelanty is to give a meaingful penalty which is very hard to counter or ignore, while leaving it as an option if you're willing to make the sacrifice. I disagree strongly that letting industrials carry much cargo AND multiple points of WCS is good, incidentally...it's strongly abusive, indeed. And making WCS max 1 point limits both the need for tacklers and is insufficient for those people who use them to keep using them at ALL - you'll end up driving even more people out of 0.0/lowsec since even travel setups can't carry a deacent number of WCS.[/quote I don't think we're in disagreement on the Industrials so much as I phrased the bonus ambigiously. I prbably should have written "+1 max to number of active WCS allowed". The issue of travel setups could be resolved, I think, by creating a midslot module which functions like the module which allows additional command modules to be fitted. This mod could be given a fairly stiff cpu fitting requirement. Now you have the option of fitting up to 3 WCS at a cost of a mid and 3 lows should you so choose. I have reservations about a range penalty, unless there is a good way to keep that penalty from swinging the balance too far in favor of ecm/drone boats. J.A.F.O.
eLLioTT wave Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.24 02:18:00 - [148] New skill: Warp Core Scrambling Specialisation. +1 scrambling strenght per level, rank 2 skill. Example @ skill level 5: 20K scram = +5 strength, 7.5k scram = +10 strength New Bonus for industrials: +1 warp core stabilisation strength per level yarrrrr
Hanns Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.07.24 03:27:00 - [149] Originally by: Laboratus = More succesful piracy. = Less succesful traders. And this is a bad thing? Real pirates are nigh on extinct, and there are far to many rich Traders/Mission runners out there Originally by: Tuxford a new retribution bonus. +1 med slot per level
Thud	Posted - 2006.07.24 04:22:00 - [150] Originally by: Laboratus = More succesful piracy. = Less succesful traders. Nerf wcs like that: Originally by: Thud Originally by: HippoKing Originally by: Thud Best solution that i ever heard is that you cant fit warp disruptors/srambler and WCS at the same time. So,there would be mutch less combat fittings with wcs. I'd do that and a -20% lock range. Jep,that should work fine. This will make it harder to use wcs on combat fittings,but industrials and rat hunter can still use em.

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.