EVE Search - WCS Changes...

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

WCS Changes...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mystii Catalyst Reaction Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.07.23 18:46:00 - [1] Ok, so i've been watching EVE-TV, and (as usual) WCS are the most controversial topic. The peeps on the couch said there should be a percentage chance for your ship to explode upon undock or warp. According to what LeMonde said, your signature radius will increase and your targeting time will increase when using WCS on a combat ship. (If i am remembering correctly...) My idea, is this. When you have WCS fitted, and you get warp scrambled, there is a chance that when you turn to warp, your warp fails. Either that or the WCS has a chance to fail against the warp scram. This would make more sense (to me at least) than slower targeting and a larger sig radius, since WCS involve the warp core, not sensors and such. The closest example would be how ECM functions, i guess. Anyways, just thought i would throw this out, for the forumites to completely pick apart.
Johnishor	Posted - 2006.07.24 01:39:00 - [2] A lot of players don't like the chance aspect of ECM and probably wouldn't like this as well. I find it annoying that some players don't want you to have a chance to get away if you are scrammed, they want to be able to blob any group that is smaller than them without them being able to get away, ever. Almost like they want it even easier to get kills. I do like the solution that the dev talked about though.
hezitationkillz Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.24 06:15:00 - [3] Yeah i dont like the idea of chance (i hate the new ECM where a single scorp can jam everyone at once =/ as well as other BSs with 1 random multispec) i think instead that it should be not to do anything with travelling ships (eg if ur in a hauler or a BS without any weapons) so these can move around more safely due to having no damage output. BUT what should be changed are combat ships should be punished for using WCSs on a combat ship, something along the lines of massive speed reduction and or damage per second (DPS) the signature radius idea sounds nice because 1 WCS is similar to someone target painting you and so this would most likely stop most players considering using WCS, and especially not multiple stabs. Another nice idea would be to not make WCS stack, so that you get the -25% or whatever effect for each stab (or maybe even more if there are 2+) ______________________
Rodge Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.24 09:57:00 - [4] Originally by: hezitationkillz the signature radius idea sounds nice because 1 WCS is similar to someone target painting you and so this would most likely stop most players considering using WCS, and especially not multiple stabs. The issue with the sig radius penalty is that it is more of a penalty for non-combatants than it is for "PvPers". An Iteron V with 5 stabs fitted is going to be over twice as big as usual, so will take half as long to lock and large guns will have no problem hitting it at any range. A speed change would make sense, but once again it hurts people trying to avoid combat. I can't see any WCS change coming in that penalises people who are genuinly trying to avoid combat. Any change affecting things like lock time, lock range, DPS, tracking etc... are suitable penalties for WCS fitting. Sig inappropriate-not eve related -Abdalion [ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
Dolika	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:51:00 - [5] Double the CPU need for WCS and be done with it. Iteron 5 can still easily fit a full rack of them and so can any other hauler and still have some CPU free. It will hurt a combat ship a lot more because a full rack of WCS on a raven would now eat 300 CPU instead of 150 and would make fitting a decent damage OR tank setup a nightmare. The same on a Megathron where it would eat 300 CPU out of 687,5 with maxed skills. So anyone doing that would be unable to fit a rack of T2 425's to gank ppl. Another idea is to have propulsion strength a play in the equasion. We see it in all ships and it does nothing. How about making WCS increase that number and Scramblers have a chance to scramble. For example: A megathron has a propulsion strength of 17 i think. One WCS would increase that by 25% and the 2nd would stack according to stacking formula used for dmg mods, armor hardeners etc... So fitting a 3rd module would still have some effect but fitting any more would be nigh useless and ppl would fit a whole rack of WCS on a BS, ONLY if they genuinely want to avoid combat. We would also need scramblers that fit different ships. Say a 20km frig sized scrambler would have a scrambling power of half of it's engine power (being 4-5). That's roughly 3. And a 7.5 km scrambler would have a 100% chance of scrambling a frig thus having a power of 6. The engine power of cruisers should be raised a bit so a single frig sized 7.5km scrambler could not be able to scramble a cruiser 100% of the time but it would still have a good chance of scrambling. A 20km scrambler attempting to scramble a cruiser would have only a small chance of success. The cruiser would have a 20km scrambler with 50% of cruiser's engine power and a 7.5 km scrambler with 100% chance of scrambling. A BS would also have such scramblers with appropriate fitting requirements. That way we can ensure a small gang of frigates cannot kill a BS so easily anymore because we all know that say 150mm railgun slug hitting a 1600mm armor plate does not have any effect. It's like firing infantry weapons at a tank. You cannot kill a tank with 5.56 mm rounds. You can disable it to a degree but to destroy it you need a bigger gun. There would also be less solo flying and an incentive for teamplay is given because one person cannot be the jack of all trades anymore Interceptors should have a role bonus so they can equip a BS sized scrambler but sacrifice the vaste majority of their grid and CPU or fit a cruiser sized scrambler just as easily as they can fit a 7.5km scrambler atm. That would add further to specialisation and would end nearly invulnerable ceptor gangs who all carry scramblers and still are able to fly @ 5km/s and dish out immense damage. T2 light neutron cannon can easily have a dmg mod of 10+ on a taranis. Some would have to sacrifice guns to be able to stop their targets. Gang would have to diversify. Not like now when they all fit a MWD, 7.5 km scram, full rack of guns and off we go. Just like someone cloned them tbh. What do YOU think?
Zagarath	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:39:00 - [6] Another option would to not allow targeting of other ships with stabs fitted, and you could throw in to the description "Divert's processing power from the ships targeting systems to aid in the compensation of warp core disturbances." Or perhaps simply the weapon's targetting systems, making weapons not function while stabs are equipped. Either way they should not be used in combat, but are fine for haulers and other non combat personel.
res0nance Blind Vengeance	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:04:00 - [7] WCS should simply multiply your locking range by 0.5 for each one you fit, thus making fitting one a viable PVP tactic (for those with no money or no balls), yet fitting multiple being still perfectly fair and reasonably for those trying to avoid combat.
Captain Havoc Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 07:37:00 - [8] The best way to make WCS's bad for PVPers while not effecting those that want to simply move a ship, be non-combatants etc etc is a penalty to lock time per module, say -50% to lock time for each one fitted and more for the named stabs, so if you wanted to try to counteract the use of a WCS you'd need a sensor booster for every stab, sure PVPers may fit one stab and one sensor booster giving them the original lock time the ship has but even then your using 2 slots just so a 1 point scram can't get you, bit of a waste on a PVP ship. and those haulers that want to fit 5 stabs, well they aren't going to be locking anyone anyways and if someone really wants to stop all traffic in 0.0 there's always those things called bubble and interdictors.... ----------------------------------------------- "Acta non Verba" Forums: http://www.eve-link.com/glf
Zarch AlDain The Blackwater Brigade HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2006.07.25 09:41:00 - [9] I was discussing this with my girlfriend last night and she pointed out that the reduction to lock time thing actually penalises her travel badger setup. She uses ECM in her mid slots and stabs in her lows - with the idea being to jam some of the enemy and having the stabs let her warp out even with 1 or 2 tacklers on her. Virtually all of the suggestions above still weaken her setup. Zarch AlDain The Blackwater Brigade Huzzah Federation
Phoenix1	Posted - 2006.07.25 10:25:00 - [10] Edited by: Phoenix1 on 25/07/2006 10:29:32 Edited by: Phoenix1 on 25/07/2006 10:26:27 The penalty with Sig Radius would be a threat for the Hauler and Travelers. Actually i like the idea with that damage thing with Stabs fittet. I would to it so: Every Stab has a special (50%?) chance to hit ur Structure by every undocking and jump through a gate. 1 Hit should be quite hard, like 5 to 10% of Structure. Therefore the more u fit, the less u can travel and fly. Once ur whole structure is gone, ur ship will explode. PvPers who travel a lot could not use few stabs on their ships or have to repair often on an NPC Station. Even if they offline the stabs on the ship, there should be a (smaller, 25%?) chance to damage the ship witch leads sooner or later to the destruction of the ship... For travelers this should be ok, as travels dont go that far. About 20 Jumps should be possible without taking too much damage. The hauler for longer routes could just fit an hull repairer in a med slot. For PvPers who try to avoid that penalty in the same way with a Hull Repair, there maybe should be a really small chance to explode if there are more than 1 stab fittet. The chance could go up same as the penalty on stacking modules. But i think in general that loss of a med slot and nasty repairings should weaken em enough for using stabs.
Wolverine PL Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.25 11:02:00 - [11] Well I think WCS should be: 1. MED SLOT module:] 2. 1 wcs - 20% less speed, 20% more signatur radius (hate vagabonds with 3 stabs) Wcs have to be changed, ships with 5 wcs are making everyone cry.
El Berto Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.07.25 11:58:00 - [12] Originally by: Zarch AlDain I was discussing this with my girlfriend last night and she pointed out that the reduction to lock time thing actually penalises her travel badger setup. She uses ECM in her mid slots and stabs in her lows - with the idea being to jam some of the enemy and having the stabs let her warp out even with 1 or 2 tacklers on her. Virtually all of the suggestions above still weaken her setup. I haven't logged in to check the changes, but I believe the penalties only apply to combat ships (or ships with offensive modules fitted e.g. turrets and launchers). Your girlfriends stabed up badger is safe (dunno if ecm is considered offensive); although my dictor is still a threat, gigide ge (oh the double-entendre possibilities are endless... sorry ).
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.25 12:41:00 - [13] Originally by: Zarch AlDain I was discussing this with my girlfriend last night and she pointed out that the reduction to lock time thing actually penalises her travel badger setup. She uses ECM in her mid slots and stabs in her lows - with the idea being to jam some of the enemy and having the stabs let her warp out even with 1 or 2 tacklers on her. Virtually all of the suggestions above still weaken her setup. Weapon range. Dosn't TOUCH the industrials. (If you wanna play battlebadger, why do you have WCS?)
Dalieus Dakarn Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 13:26:00 - [14] I'd be more willing to go with a reduction in Ship Agility, and tracking/R.O.F. penalty with Stabs fitted. Something to do with the Electronic interference the WCS generates when interfaced with the engines that causes the said Weapons Penalty, and the power that is required to run the WCS takes away power from maneuvering thrusters, rather than speed (decreased speed would mean faster warps in case of Haulers). I'd probably lean more towards an Agility + Rate of Fire penalty than the tracking penalty. It would mean that Missle Boats, such as the Caldari ships, would receive all penalties as well, instead of beating out the Tracking penalty since, well, we don't use Turrets all that often.
Steppa Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.25 13:57:00 - [15] Make WCS an active module that uses a decent amount of cap. Make WCS a high-slot item and thus force a trade for firepower vs safety. Make WCS chance-based. Make WCS a module that can "burn out". Thus, each use would increase a percent chance of failure. Successfully stabilizing a ship against a scrambling attack would increase this percentage more than the small incremental percentage of just turning it on. Thus, in a running battle, you're more and more likely to have a "failure" in this module and have it stop working at the most inopportune time.
Minsc Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.25 15:58:00 - [16] WCS should give a penalty to RoF and tracking on turrets, and RoF and explosion velocity on launchers. Originally by: Sharkbait please for the love of god read the dam stickies
Talion Shar Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.25 20:16:00 - [17] implent a "WCS usage skill". easiest way to stop all ppl from complaing the risk vs reward, wcs vs scrambler thing. WarpCoreStab Usage Rank 7 skill Note: Can not be trained on trial accounts Each level you are able to fit 1 more WCS on your ship. Note: If you fit more then 3+ WCS on your ship, stacking penalty applies. BUT!: To make it fair, warp scrambler needs to be reconstructed too. Warp Scrambler/Warp Disruptor Note: Can not be trained on trial accounts Each level you get starting from a base of 50% scrambling chance +10% warp scram strength. Note: If you fit more then 2+ scramblers on your ship, stacking penalty applies. An explanation of the Note: Can not be trained on trial accounts: Will stop those suicidal ganker, scouts whatever to use the modules.
Nondi	Posted - 2006.07.26 00:32:00 - [18] alright you pirates your all missing the point and thinking about your kill mail. just once try playing carebear and move around low sec, you want R.o.F. and damage decrease, increased lock times, and made into active hi-slots, a hauler T1 usually has 2 hi-slots, most T2 transports have 1 hi-slot, blockade runners usually have 2. so right there hi-slot makes no sense for a hauler to try to escape it will will just cause more guys to pull the plug as they are warping in and still unable to be locked. You want stacking penalties to WCS's how about adding the same to scrams? other then a few event WCS's there all +1 while there are +1,2 and +3 scrams out there, makeing a hauler forced to fit 3 WCS's just to tie a good faction scram. hardly fair. Yes I agree WCS's should be a bit harder to fit, and should be active since a scram is active. but again most of you are thinking of the gank and kill mail. a guy setting up to run does not care about reduced dmg, how about adding reduced dmg to scram's, so you have a actuall tackler to hold him, and a ship to do damage to your prey, you all scream use a scout so why should you be able to solo pirate and do it all? Mystii and others I feel have the best idea so far, makes scrams and stabs either chance like ECM units or make them multipliers, you pirates complain about haveing to pack 4-6 points of scramble, we complain about haveing to set up for 4-6 point of scramble with only +1 stabs. you still have the advantage. maybe the change should be frig, cruiser and BS sized scrams, with stacking penalties, and force the use of similar stabs, 1 cruiser sized scram locks down a cruiser has half effect on frigs due to there small size, only slows a BS unless you got 2 or 3 ships trying to warp scramble them. ok said my peace and vented, but will leave you with this thought, why do you hate WCS's so much? makes you work for your loot or makes you work for your kill mail? perhaps WCS's should be left alone and kill mails removed from game.
Mystii Catalyst Reaction Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.07.26 07:26:00 - [19] The main thing with WCS is they should never be used on a combat fitting. Being used on a hauler is completely fine with me, but when you are trying to lock down a vagabond and it has all its lows filled with WCS, it gets pretty old.
Adia Celeris Finis Lumen	Posted - 2006.07.26 08:32:00 - [20] The largest argument against WCS is the fact that we see Ravens, Vagabonds, Tacklers etc... running around with them on making them irritating to scramble. The question I ask is "Why is this a problem?" Maybe its our fault! Or... if this isn't the way the game is intended to work, fine: fix it as a balance thing. As a merc corp that engages in PvP all the time I HATE warp core stabs. I'm also going to be the first to defend them. They make my job interesting. The fact that I have to sacrifice a mid slot point to keep a target there is part of the fun. The fact that I have to think, work in teams, etc. . . is what makes Eve interesting to me. It is a game where PvP is the focus (or seems to be at least) and groups of five ravens with five WCS running around in 0.0 poding fleets and dodging tacklers is not only annoying, but encouraged. Yeah, it sucks sometimes, but no more than a dread sitting at a station one-shotting battleships, a player gang-warping you to a POS when he asked for help or a group of people tanking sentires and destroying you with a group of megathrons, or for that matter suiciding a raven after scanning your cargo and blowing 350 Million in cargo out of your itteron (happened to a player in my corp who no longer plays). And you know what? All those tactics are irritating and valid. Its what makes Eve interesting. There isn't an "I win button" (well maybe a titan--but still). But the best part about all these tactics (and specifically in reference 1v1)is that in single combat that stabbed ship is going down to an unstabbed ship. Why? Because their setup is such a piece of junk after all those WCS that my two scramblers are going to lock them down and they are going to lose their ship. So a combat ship fits WCS: sure it can run and raid, but you'd be surprized how fast its going to die bubbled or tackled. That person has sacrificed a lot for that ability. And thus maybe we should sacrifice a bit to stop them. Is it irritating? Yes. Does it make me wnat to cry sometimes? Yes. Does it make the game more interesting? Yes. Keep in mind this: These players are already sacrificing massive amounts of damage due to the extremely high CPU costs (A raven can't fit massive modules and NOS when its stabbed...oh nos! not teh cruise missles!) A vagabond is really irritating with 5 Stabs...but its a heck of a lot more irritating with three damage mods and Barrage M. My point is: its balanced. Get over it. From what I've seen the devs know how to balance this game for PvP and there is ALWAYS a counter setup that will beat your setup...no matter how smart you are. And for my final argument: Think of the carebears. If they want to try 0.0 and fit a few stabs on their battleships to avoid--I don't know--warpscrambling angle rats for instance (and yes I HAVE been locked down at a triple Seriphem Spawn by the rats when I had two stabs fitted on a ratting setup) let them. Stop whining about the stabs and fix the problem...mount more scramblers. They are gimping their setup by fitting stabs--no matter what you believe it is actually a bummer to lose a low slot--try gimping yours and you just might catch that stabbed vaga full of nice mods without too much trouble. And lastly in response to the "make warp core stabs a high slot" argument: High slots? Are you high? That's what the world needs! Ravens running around with 6 launchers, 2 stabs, 3 BCU 2's and 2 nanos. That would definitely fix the problem. Trust the devs, if its actually not working as intended they have a pretty good track record of fixing it. CEO Finis Lumen
Digiblast Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.26 09:07:00 - [21] Well I whould like to See some stacking penelty on Warp cores, maybe somthing simular penelty as the cargo expanders have. But then again why not have Stacking penelty on Everything Stacking Penelty On the Turrets, ECM's, Smartbombs, Missiles and other stuff, I know that the ECM's have stacking useage penelty but I talking about just by fitting them.
Xade	Posted - 2006.07.26 11:52:00 - [22] i Think the new jamming and WCS will be based on engine strength of the ship. Each race uses a different type of engine and each size of ship has a different strength. The engine type/sizes stats have been present for a while e.g. Fusion, ion, Magpulse, plasma strength. The jammers will come in racial flavours for jamming each of these engine types and the WCS will come in racial types too which reduce the probability of being warp jammed. The only reason i think this may be the new system is because i once seen it in one of the test builds on the Object inventorywebsite although this still may not be what they are going to implement.
Shao Lyn	Posted - 2006.07.26 11:57:00 - [23] How about just make WCS's take up one of each slot type. So for each WCS you fit, you lose a High, Mid, and Low slot. That should be enough to make their use on combat ships a lil less attractive. Probally hell on the coding though.
King Dave Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.07.26 11:57:00 - [24] make them med slot. And you need to activate them also. That shud be all tbh, chance based means you will have to redo the whole srambling thing, and they alredy tried that, it sucks. ------------------------------- don't speak english... f1, f2, alt-q!
Helganstandt Finis Lumen	Posted - 2006.07.26 16:30:00 - [25] I thought WCS were fine to begin with, but the ones the devs were suggesting on eve-tv sounded reasonable. I think it was 20% to sig radius, and like 20% to lock time per WCS. I could have remembered wrong though. If WCS are going to be changed, I trust the devs to make the right choice, as they have done a pretty good job in my opinion of changing stuff when it needs to be balanced. The things most of you guys are suggesting are pretty....well...dumb I guess in my opinion. The point is to make them a less attractive option for your low slot, not put them out of use entirely. The ECM thing just won't work, because then they'd have to have a chance that if you fit no WCS, you'd get away some of the time, and we all know how bad the random dice roller can be at times. That would **** off PVPers even more than it does now. I think the dev's way is the best way. The 20% extra to sig radius makes it less attractive for expendable frigates, and the 20% lock time makes it less attractive to put 5 of them on a raven. And this way, I can slap one on my mission BS and not suffer a lot (I do it 'cause of the occassional scrambling frigate). My only suggestion would maybe do 10% or 15% instead to lock time. 20% seems a bit much. But I'm sure we could all live with it. ________________________________
DarkElf Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 17:04:00 - [26] To be honest i don't understand why they don't do with stabs what they do with other issues of this kind. if they don't want them so heavily used by combatants then they should vastly incraese the cpu usage on them and give haulers/barges etc a bonus to the cpu usage. they do this with covert ops cloaks, cruise missiles on stealth bombers etc so i see this working with stabs. make it so combat ships can fit a max of 2 with a reasonable combat fitting for the poor ppl who want to use them. Just my opinion De
1Of9	Posted - 2006.07.30 05:04:00 - [27] OK, let's see now ... carebears have WCS's, 1 point per item. pirates, have warp jammers, up to 2 points per item pirates have mobile warp bubbles, where WCS's dont work, pirates have warp disruptor probes, where WCS's dont work .. hmm .. i honestly dont think why change the WCS's ... You whant us all dead, i know .. but give us a break!!!
Shaikar Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.30 07:21:00 - [28] The only reasonable problem I've seen suggested involving WCS is gate/station sniping, as fitting WCS doesn't really effect your sniping ability/power, as they can operate at max effeciency and still be able to warp off if they are somewhow cornered at close range. (Cornered by people incapable of fitting more than scrambler, at that.) This is a problem with sniping and the whole range issue, something CCP have already said is off to be "looked at" - it is not a problem directly related to WCS. If that is wrong, where else are they an insurmountable problem?
1Of9 Artificial Horizons	Posted - 2006.07.31 13:31:00 - [29] Well, i honestly, dont mind changes in the game, but regarding WCS's, all i see is pirates ( or gate campers, etc ) that whant someway or the other WCS's nerfed so they can kill they prey... WCS's is the -ONLY- defense we have, and dont work so good either, if we get trapped in a bubble or some ..
Peoke Caldari Rome SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.02 17:51:00 - [30] what people forget is that groups who use warp cores do so, for when u bring ur 30 man blob after we kill u instead of log we play and fight. even removing warp cores wont do anything different in game u have all u need cov ops interdictors cloacks. removing warp cores wont make they big alliance space safe which is why. they want it. all it will do is just mean when u form the respnce gang well laught and log. without people even getting a chance to fight back. every group who uses em burn eden smash all have to travel throughgates to get there.if up till now u can stop us removing warp cores wont make a diff. all it will do is not let u guys get within 20km and warp earlier. warp cores in this game even the nunbers,

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.