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)
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:24:00 - [1] SpiralJunkie on evetv just said that they had insider information on changes to the WCS system. By the way he made a point that Burn Eden wouldn't like it, I guess nerf More info later maybe
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:25:00 - [2] so... its a guessing game? ill go for some targeting penalty! .
Leumas Ebmocnud	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:28:00 - [3] 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.
Nafri Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:32:00 - [4] 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. 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 18:37:00 - [5] Range. It makes sense.
lofty29 Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:45:00 - [6] Originally by: Maya Rkell Range. It makes sense. Stabageddon is still in the clear though. As is a torp raven --------------------------- Originally by: HippoKing ...I suck at forums
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:46:00 - [7] Originally by: Maya Rkell Range. It makes sense. good one, i'll second. However would it be max ship targeting range or missile fight time/turret optimal and falloff range? or could it be something simpler like signature rad increase or decreased scan resolution? would be cool if you just got like a dampened effect for each fitted wcs (no stacking nerf)! .
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:47:00 - [8] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/07/2006 18:48:30 Ah, missed that. Missile explosion radius penalty too. And tbh no ship will be immune to a hefty range penalty. Certainly not the two REALLY abusive uses of range, the T2 snipers and the 5 WCS Barrage M Vagabonds. Revenal, weapon range - optimal and falloff both (as they're important in different proportions for different weapons, nerfing both is the only possible way to be fair). Lockrange you can overcome easily with sensor boosters. Weapon range...is a lot harder.
Azerrad	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:51:00 - [9] I still vote for a small RoF penalty per WCS. 3-5% maybe.
Solarienne Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 18:52:00 - [10] Well as a corp director who says 'If it is meant to haul - use WCS, otherwise stand and fight!' I hope that the nerf is directed more at making it harder to FIGHT in a wcs ship, but not harder to just use them for protecting hauled goods. I always see pirates retorting about 'taking precautions' to haulers and WCS are one of em :P In short - Nerfing combat use of wcs YAY, nerfing Defensive aspects (pure running set ups on expensive goods haulers such as Blockade Runners) BOO! But as we know nothing - Heres to seeing what happens ;) Eitherway everyone will have to just adapt or die ;) Solarienne Join the FrontierRecruit channel ingame for job oppurtunities in 0.0! POS Managers WANTED!
cytomatrix Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:41:00 - [11] RoF penatly. :P
dabster Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:42:00 - [12] No huge shockar really eh..the devs said when they were in Vegas that they wanted a change (nerf) to the "usefulness of wcs in combat". About timeÖ. ___________________________ Brutors Rule! My Eve-vids; Click.
Luigi Thirty Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:49:00 - [13] 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.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:49:00 - [14] Originally by: cytomatrix RoF penatly. :P Yea, like snipers will care...they can still alpha you.
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:52:00 - [15] THEY MAKE YOUR HEAD ASPLODE!
Bean Doodle Wasteland Industries Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:53:00 - [16] RNU FOR TEH HILLS!!!!!1!11!1!!!1!11!1!1!! TEH HILLS HAEV TNIFIOLS HTAS T2¦!!1!11!!!!!11!! oh, and ibtl btw... Woohootles
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:55:00 - [17] More seriously: 20% more sig, 20% less targetting speed per stab fitted I think the sig penalty is a bit too huge personally
Sobeseki Foran CharacTech Services	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:55:00 - [18] 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. There is nothing wrong with WCS in that scenario, assuming you dont intend to fight. ~Sobe
Tyler Lowe Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:55:00 - [19] I had a few ideas about how to nerf these effectively, and in each case I've recieved very good reasons why the penalties I had in mind wouldn't work well. So how about this one: Fitting penalties on all weapon systems, both grid and cpu. We all know what a nightmare it can be to arrive at a competitive fitting even at max egineering, electronics, weapons upgrades, and advanced weapon upgrades skills. Put a +7.5% grid and cpu penalty on all weapons per WCS, and see how competitive a combat ship remains with the loss of one or more lowslots and in many cases, complete inability to mount tech 2 weapons, or even many of the tech 1 weapon systems to which they have become accustomed. Fitting 1 wcs on a combat ship becomes difficult in this case, fitting 2 throws you back to newbie fitting status, fitting 3 or more may push you into a smaller weapon class to mount anything at all. The advantage to this penalty being, there's no good way to compensate, and haulers/ blockade runners are completely unaffected. J.A.F.O.
Darktec Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:57:00 - [20] Originally by: HippoKing More seriously: 20% more sig, 20% less targetting speed per stab fitted I think the sig penalty is a bit too huge personally Personally i think it will go live for a week, then it will be reverted.
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.22 19:57:00 - [21] Originally by: Sobeseki Foran 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. There is nothing wrong with WCS in that scenario, assuming you dont intend to fight. Gorram alt.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:00:00 - [22] I think Vagabonds might go down in price when this goes live... maybe. Its still a very good ship though, but getting double webbed will definently mean death now. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Komoku	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:02:00 - [23] Personaly I liked that random explosion idea
lollerskates Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:04:00 - [24] 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. If you can't get away from a cruiser in a friggate you're doing something wrong.
Deja Thoris Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:06:00 - [25] Originally by: HippoKing More seriously: 20% more sig, 20% less targetting speed per stab fitted I think the sig penalty is a bit too huge personally Not enough imo. 1 sbII overcomes 3 stabs.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:07:00 - [26] 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..
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:10:00 - [27] so long as it's optimal range :) TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:10:00 - [28] Originally by: Deja Thoris Originally by: HippoKing More seriously: 20% more sig, 20% less targetting speed per stab fitted I think the sig penalty is a bit too huge personally Not enough imo. 1 sbII overcomes 3 stabs. That is having a stab fitted gives you 20% more sig radius on your ship. A 5 stab raven is bigger than any dreads
Tapal Loth	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:10:00 - [29] 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.
Andreask14 Sensus Numinis Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.22 20:13:00 - [30] WCS should raise your sig and your mass by a good margin. This way, you will take longer to align and get up to speed to warp, while being easier to lock and shoot at. This would leave you very vulnerable if you ever decided to actually engage someone when having WCS fitted. 20% Sig and 20% mass per stab added i say. ________________________________________________ Just a quick reminder that "Local" and "Instas" will always be what they are.
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
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 ...
Ryysa Total Failure	Posted - 2006.07.23 01:38:00 - [91] if they get nerfed on pvp setup ships, then they should also be nerfed enough for carebear setup ships. That's just imo... instasafespotting carebears with 2+ wcs and cloak are just so sad. All about target jamming
eLLioTT wave Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.23 02:16:00 - [92] Edited by: eLLioTT wave on 23/07/2006 02:16:46 -50% targetting range + -50% tracking penalty + -50% missile&turret rof + -50% missile&turret damage + -50% range on ALL ew modules + -50% chance of ecm working + -50% chance of drones engaging target when told to... PER WCS MODULE no stacking penalty :D
murder one Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.23 02:18:00 - [93] Originally by: eLLioTT wave Edited by: eLLioTT wave on 23/07/2006 02:16:46 -50% targetting range + -50% tracking penalty + -50% missile&turret rof + -50% missile&turret damage + -50% range on ALL ew modules + -50% chance of ecm working + -50% chance of drones engaging target when told to... PER WCS MODULE no stacking penalty :D works for me =] Because I said so...
eLLioTT wave Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.23 02:20:00 - [94] forgot to add... + 1% chance of warp core operating inside a bubble :p cmon gotta give them stab monkeys something back :P for balance and all that
Pepperami Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.23 02:24:00 - [95] Good suggestions elliot.. but shouldn't you be on holiday? [Art of War][- V -]
Jezeret	Posted - 2006.07.23 03:20:00 - [96] I think the Sig Radius idea is not going to be popular at all, for the reasons mentioned here, it actually places more risk on thin-hulled haulers and the like than combat ships who are designed to tank out for a while. Pilots will still jump in, snipe, and warp out when their shields or armor are down, it will mean they are there for about 5-10 seconds less, i.e. the total time saved in gaining a lock, it still means they can warp out when the mood so takes them. I think the Cap-based idea is probably going to be more viable in the long run.
Zanarkand Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.23 03:34:00 - [97] WCS if fine. WCS is fine. WCS if fine. Don't fix something that isn't broken.
Greystar Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 03:40:00 - [98] Diddnt read all 4 pages so sorry if i nicked someones idea but. Make WCS take like 100 CPU each or something. Haulers have hella CPU so they can still use em, and so can other ships setup for traveling. But for combat, it would gimp you. Also make them a highslot item. terrorist, ingame to
Gray Carmicheal Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 03:55:00 - [99] Originally by: Greystar Diddnt read all 4 pages so sorry if i nicked someones idea but. Make WCS take like 100 CPU each or something. Haulers have hella CPU so they can still use em, and so can other ships setup for traveling. But for combat, it would gimp you. Also make them a highslot item. I agree, this prolly would work out best, to make them highs or midslots that cost CPU by the boatload. Only one sig image please - Cathath
Gray Carmicheal Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 03:55:00 - [100] Edited by: Gray Carmicheal on 23/07/2006 03:55:29 Oops Only one sig image please - Cathath
gfldex	Posted - 2006.07.23 04:40:00 - [101] The changes still dont take into account that shield tanked ships can have stabbers and field a propper tank while this is not possible for armor tanks. Maybe the same penalty as cap relays would help here. But we then have to take the jammer tanks into account. You still dont have to tank your enemy if he cant shoot you and if he shoots you say good by and warp off. Jammers have to be effected then too. A flat CPU increase would make this balancing issue even worse. I would like to see that WCS switch modules like scramblers, webbers and ECM off. I cant hold me so you cant hold me either. -- $ perl -n -e 'print "Stop blameing pirates! Oveur is the root of all evil!\n" if m/podkill\|lost my ship\|gank\|gate camp\|Verone/;'
Father Weebles Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 04:44:00 - [102] or how bout WCS take up high slots?
gfldex	Posted - 2006.07.23 04:52:00 - [103] Originally by: Father Weebles or how bout WCS take up high slots? Two WCS for a hauler sounds not so good to me. And Burn Eden would have to train for minmatar ships. That would be a bit to harsh. -- $ perl -n -e 'print "Stop blameing pirates! Oveur is the root of all evil!\n" if m/podkill\|lost my ship\|gank\|gate camp\|Verone/;'
Tribunal Darkblade Technologies Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.07.23 06:08:00 - [104] Eh, I would expect warp scramblers to gain the same kind of negative. "We can't all be heroes, because somebody has to sit on the curb and applaud when they go by." - Will Rogers
Da'Neth Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.23 06:11:00 - [105] Edited by: Da''Neth on 23/07/2006 06:14:25 Edited by: Da''Neth on 23/07/2006 06:13:41 Originally by: Xeios 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. wcs are not broken but if it must be fixed her is a good way to do it I like this but with a few changes. ok we all agree taht making the sig biger for hallers is hardly fair it big enuff as it is. so make 2 versons of WCS one will be like thay are now but give it a big cpu needed to fit then give a bonis to hallers for the cpu need. or make this verson only abul to fit to the hallers. the second verson wuld be an active WCS in low or mid slot dose not matter. now it wuld not do much to the snipers or hit and run person( I have seen them go down ez enuff). but it will help counter the I will fight for a bit and if I am not winning I will run(we all agre this is more anoying. and this usaly hapens when thay run out of cap) so if you run out of cap you cant worp off.make them cost like running an actife tank. or make them a hi slot and active. if you whant to use them use up the wepons slot to do so. or make them so you just insta worp the directon you are faceing for 50k at the cost of all your cap that is the inportant part it cost you all your cap. ok this one is not so good but the others are good. --- join the DA click above
BlackHorizon	Posted - 2006.07.23 06:40:00 - [106] Edited by: BlackHorizon on 23/07/2006 06:43:17 The main issue with WCS is that it gives close-range shield tanking ships an unfair advantage. Snipers with a full rack of stabs, are a problem too, but to a lesser extent. My solution: make WCS simply half "anti-power diagnostic units" -3.75% shield recharge rate -3.75% capacitor recharge -2.5% grid -2% shield hp -2% capacitor capacity per WCS with no stacking penalty. This has little to no penalty for haulers. RP-wise, it's clear the ship's capacitor, shield and reactor grid must be diverted to keep the warp core stablized. Also, increase CPU usage from 30 to 40 per WCS, with named variants taking -3 CPU per grade. A raven with 5 stabs would then have 18% slower shield recharge rate, 18% slower capacitor recharge, 12% less grid, 10% less shields, and 10% less capacitor capacity, and require 50 more CPU to fit.
eLLioTT wave Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.23 07:04:00 - [107] Originally by: Pepperami Good suggestions elliot.. but shouldn't you be on holiday? Yup, just hired a plane this morning and went for a fly with my brother in law around Sydney harbour, a few orbits around the city and down the coast a bit (hes a pilot) lots of fun. Seriously with my idea, i know 50% is too extreme for a lot of people (even though it would be really good) but what about a 10% version or something, just to make it more fun for all. Think about the tournament and how much fun that looked, now think about having that sort of fun normally and to keep your target in place u only needed one scrambler. how much nicer is that! Idealy people would have honor and when they engaged in a fight they would fight to the end not try to warp off if it turns against them. But as most people don't have said honor we need scramblers but really should only need 1. Please see recent crying ecm thread also as these two issues are probably the most important factors that ruin peoples fun in eve currently. CCP PLEASE RESPOND (we love it when you post in a thread cos it shows us you care about our fun!)
hellwarrior Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 07:37:00 - [108] Originally by: Zanarkand WCS if fine. WCS is fine. WCS if fine. Don't fix something that isn't broken. S T F U wcs are broken and so is your brain. GO MINE SOME VELDSPAR yarrrr
Thud	Posted - 2006.07.23 08:09:00 - [109] 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.
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 09:17:00 - [110] 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.
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 09:17:00 - [111] Originally by: gfldex Originally by: Father Weebles or how bout WCS take up high slots? Two WCS for a hauler sounds not so good to me. And Burn Eden would have to train for minmatar ships. That would be a bit to harsh. Possibly give the haulers another 2 utility highs. As for Burn Eden, ravens have 2 spare highs you know
Thud	Posted - 2006.07.23 09:35:00 - [112] 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.
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.23 09:44:00 - [113] Something you seem to be forgetting is that it is only the T1 indies that have crap-loads of CPU - the T2 ones have far less. TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.23 09:49:00 - [114] 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. Its not really a good solution. In a small gang, only the tackler would be unable to fit wcs. The rest could, and we would be back to the same situation as before with people running away. It would affect solo pvp'ers, thats about it. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Rexthor Hammerfists Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.23 09:53:00 - [115] making wcs medslots owuld ruin every combatwcssetup, but at the same time it would b a good thing for industrialists. imo making them medslots is the best thing. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Ling Xiao	Posted - 2006.07.23 09:58:00 - [116] CCP, why are you nerfing legit use on indies more than abuse on pvp ships?
Grimpak Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.23 10:00:00 - [117] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists making wcs medslots owuld ruin every combatwcssetup, but at the same time it would b a good thing for industrialists. imo making them medslots is the best thing. I agree with this one. ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
Christopher Multsanti Euphoria Released Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.07.23 10:29:00 - [118] Edited by: Christopher Multsanti on 23/07/2006 10:29:17 lots of good suggestions for penalties, I am not sure which is best, but what is clear is that, the current changes are not good enough. This does not really hinder people using WCS's in combat, please Dev's listen to the suggestions in this thread and make the needed changes. Edit: my typing sux. <Kurenin> Oh hello Christopher Exploitisanti!
turnschuh Eye of God	Posted - 2006.07.23 10:59:00 - [119] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists making wcs medslots owuld ruin every combatwcssetup, but at the same time it would b a good thing for industrialists. imo making them medslots is the best thing. No, it would be unfair because badger could fit 6 WCS and still cargo expanders. The hole idea of making it a different slot modules is stupid, its against the hole module concept and would not work. Its a low slot module and that will never change. period.
turnschuh Eye of God	Posted - 2006.07.23 10:59:00 - [120] Edited by: turnschuh on 23/07/2006 10:59:44 <double post>
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.
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 06:09:00 - [151] Here's a recap of what I posted in this thread: 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.
Blueshell	Posted - 2006.07.24 07:59:00 - [152] That's a good one, wcsabs as medslot modules. On the other hand, if you have plenty medslots and want to run instead of fight anyway, what's the difference? I think its better to simply nerf the combination wcstab and sniping by making the damage out small at firts only gaining strength after a few shots. In this way the target will have a chance of escaping but can still be killed while afk.
eLLioTT wave Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.24 08:12:00 - [153] Edited by: eLLioTT wave on 24/07/2006 08:12:56 Originally by: Blueshell That's a good one, wcsabs as medslot modules. On the other hand, if you have plenty medslots and want to run instead of fight anyway, what's the difference? I think its better to simply nerf the combination wcstab and sniping by making the damage out small at firts only gaining strength after a few shots. In this way the target will have a chance of escaping but can still be killed while afk. the problem is ECM = med slot and currently ECM = win button. Hence you dont need to fit any tank if you have enough ECM. Even simpler solution than all of this: With WCS fitted you are covops-cloaked (without the dissapearing part). Think what you cant do in a covops with cloak on, thats how this works. Simple, effective, encourages fighting OR running (not both). Doesn't need slot change or change to the module itself (apart from its effect). Also make a message appear (like when you dont have enough pg to fit an item) when you fit wcs saying "with this module fitted you will not be able to activate any modules" (i think thats the same as being cloaked (or are ther modueles you can turn on cloaked?)) maybe give a bonus to industrial ships with a bonus allowing wcs and active modules :)
Admiral Pelleon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 08:45:00 - [154] Make a midslot WCS reduce armor repair rate, and make a lowslot WCS reduce the shield recharge rate. _______________________________________________ * United Territories Space Command * -"Conquest Through Industry"- UTSC FTW!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [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.