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,
gfldex	Posted - 2006.08.02 23:45:00 - [31] Tux wrote in a side note that WCS will get a locktime and lockrange penalty and this change is allready on the dev server (chaos). He did not told us how this 20% malus stacks. That will hit snipers and BE the most. If it stacks full we will not see tripple stabbed ferox anymore. How it will effect combat in general is hard to tell. On TQ we have combat preventing coverts ops since quite some time and I doubt it will effect stabberbonds much as they are close range anyway. The change will reverse the imbalance between long range and close range ships but it will stay imbalanced. -- $ 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/;'
Belien Jenton	Posted - 2006.08.03 00:16:00 - [32] I think that Tux's approach is the right one. Considering shortrange ships are more prone to get locked down because they are more or less within range - you don't have to hunt them to get them locked down.. However if shortrange (and combat ships in general) is to be penalized more for using stabs I also vote for the increase in CPU fitting requirements mentioned earlier. In fact why not provide stabs in 3 different sizes ? Frig, cruiser and battleship WCS modules with different fitting requirements ? That way you could penalize specific ship classes according to their role. It works for MWD's and afterburners....
Sal Alo	Posted - 2006.08.03 01:06:00 - [33] Edited by: Sal Alo on 03/08/2006 01:07:32 I really can't believe you want to nerf WCS, when you can use as many scrambles (even fitted in many ships) as you want on a single target! You have scrambles with 2-strenght while WCS has only 1. And you still want a nerf? I'd like to see fair chances for both scrambler/scrambled but what I really think is that a ship that does the first shoot should not be able to use its WCS. Only one ship can scrambled another ship, is another nice idea IMHO (keeping the WCS with 1 strenght) else give out the WCS T2.
Notorious Ned	Posted - 2006.08.03 02:13:00 - [34] Imo, the best ideas I've heard, are: A) If you have WCS fitted, you cannot fit an offensive, Ewar, or tacking module of any kind. B) If you have WCS fitted and you aggress someone, the wcs is disabled for the duration of the aggression countdown or something.
Requiescat Crest Tech	Posted - 2006.08.03 03:04:00 - [35] Edited by: Requiescat on 03/08/2006 03:04:19 i <3 carebears so, according to you people, anyone who ever considers using a scrambler is a pirate? interesting. does that mean anti-pirates are free to attack ISSN? didn't think so. (edit: that would also mean anti-pirates are pirates, since they have to use scramblers to keep pirates from running also... interesting.) to the naysayers: so what if wcs is only +1 and scramblers are +2. my armageddon has 3 mids. do you really think i'm going to put 3 2 point scramblers on it? putting more than one (or two in extreme cases) scramblers on a ship nerfs its combat ability. putting more than one or two stabs on a ship doesn't do very much to its combat survivability, since instead of fitting a good setup (1600mm plate + electrons) on a thorax, noobs can fit neutron blasters and outdamage my real setup with 5 stabs in the lows and (with a fair amount of luck-i do my job fast) warp away when i get them to a point where they're in danger. i have to work very hard to get into range to use my scrambler since i am not an mwd advocate and use t2 afterburners instead, and once i am in range you carebears/miners/non-carebears who are carebearing don't have to activate a module, you don't have to turn on your ab for 30km and pray to whoever will listen that your target doesn't warp before you get to them, all you have to do is click the station and hit warp and you've averted catastrophe. don't tell me about balance. i work 10x harder to kill you miners than you do to mine your precious jaspet in .3, more than half the time i don't succeed, and you have the gall to tell me WCS are balanced? -------=========+=========-------
Shaikar Amarr	Posted - 2006.08.03 04:24:00 - [36] No on has any right to be able to mercilessly slaughter anyone be it carebear, leet pvp fool or anyone in between. Just as they have no right to always be able to escape, no matter what you do. As it is now neither is guaranteed in all situations, which is good. WCS being something you have to activate to get the effect I personally have no real problems with, but the major problem people see to fall back on when pressed about why WCS are so horrifyingly bad has nothing to do with those carebears the vocal minority claim to hate with such a passion. No, it usually ends up with people being able to outfit decent combat ships whilst still having WCS, so they can gank and escape with no problems if things start to go wrong. This isn't a problem with carebears. That's not a problem with WCS. That's a problem with a certain few setups and the "leet pvpers" of low sec ganking, gate camping and other highly skilled enterprise fame. The horror! So, lets not get carried away with delusions of grandeur and horrifying tales of woe relating to the Carebear Conspiracy(TM). Actually, one of the better ideas relating to WCS I saw on the ships/modules forums was that on your ship, the total scramble strength fitted is subtracted from the total stabilising strength (to a minimum of 1...). So, if you fit your ship with 1 warp scrambler and 3 WCS, you have 1 point of effective stabilising should you get scrambld yourself. (3-2 = 1) It stops combat setups being as easily abused (you cannot be able to scramble and escape unless you sacrifice a lot of slots) whilst not making things silly. Thats not my idea, I just can't remember who is due credit.
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard	Posted - 2006.08.03 07:21:00 - [37] It puzzles me how people hate the WCS. I guess its because you have to fit more scramblers to control the prey. We could remove WCS, but then scramblers should be removed also. Its kinda saying plates should go, because it add to the time it takes to kill someone. I like chance based scrambles and I like chance based ECM. Just like i like chance based guns.
Silver Sarena	Posted - 2006.08.03 10:54:00 - [38] How about this idea: WCS have to get thier energy from SOMEWHERE, so why not take it from the weapon's grid? Meaning each WCS that you mount makes you take a Rate of Fire Penalty to all of your weapons, or an outright damage penalty to all weapon mounts? Rate of fire would make more sense because it would affect all weapons ability to handle ammo or recharge, but whatever. This way it would not affect the people who use them defensively at all, (namely the haulers) and the WCS would still remain very much in the game. Because, lets face it, they NEED to stay in the game. As has been said earlier in this thread, they are currently the ONLY way to avoid non-concentual PvP in low sec space. But, if you INCREASE the penalties for mounting WCS you should also increase the benefits of having one mounted, or at the very least decrease the CPU requirments for mounting one. There is my 2 cents.
Shaikar Amarr	Posted - 2006.08.03 23:52:00 - [39] Shouldn't all things like passive enhancers and tank stuff (all the things that don't use cap, eg energised adaptive nano's etc) also reduce your RoF then? (I'm not saying they should, just that if thats the reason given for one module, why don't all the similar modules work like that )
Silver Sarena	Posted - 2006.08.04 01:09:00 - [40] Originally by: Shaikar Shouldn't all things like passive enhancers and tank stuff (all the things that don't use cap, eg energised adaptive nano's etc) also reduce your RoF then? (I'm not saying they should, just that if thats the reason given for one module, why don't all the similar modules work like that ) No, I don't think so. If you did that to EVERYTHING it would apply a double negative to tanking. Meaning, you not only have to give up the slot to tank with rather than a damage mod, you also FURTHER hurt your damage output by simply trying to tank. If you did that to ALL of them I think you would be putting a death nail in tanking at all and everyone would start moving towards pure damage setups. I was just trying to offer a suggestion that made sense in my own little brain to try and appease all of the people that are screaming for the poor defenseless WCS blood, while at the same time keeping it in the game. Like I said before, I don't REALLY think it needs to be modded at all. But, if the devs are going to meddle, as they always seem to be unable to resist doing, then I was only suggesting a way that they could meddle that made sense to me. I'm sure others will have a much better idea than mine, just offering my two cents. Peace!
Psychodelica	Posted - 2006.08.04 08:37:00 - [41] im reading this and laughing my ass off. u all think how to nerf wcs.. i agree they arent balanced. here is my idea: leave wcs as they are, but boost the scramblers, reduce scrambler fitting reqs and increase scrambler range and strength to 30km with 1 point, 20km with 2 and 10 for 3 points. that should fix the problem and make everyone happy, maybe slightly increase wcs cpu need, say to 40 or 45 units. another idea: introduce new high slot module with average fitting reqs (say BS module?) and above average skill reqs (say propulsion jamming 5) that will disable warp ability of a target ship in range of 100km for 15 sec with activation duration of 20-30 sec to give the target a chance to run away in the 5-10 sec window until the next volley arrives (awsome visual effect is a must for this one). that will give a chance to gank snipers, cuz the inties will have anough time to get to it, and also surprize the wcs *****s that fit 5 stabs on vaga =) that my 2 cent. cheers
Raider Zero Minmatar Federation	Posted - 2006.08.04 14:42:00 - [42] Note to people complaining about WCS: I read all the time about things like, "EVE is a multi-player game. Work in teams." and "EVE is PvP balanced, the way it is supposed to be, PvE balance doesn't matter." I haven't used a WCS in months, for PvP or PvE, but I can say definitively that they do not need a big nerf. People need to stand behind the two quotes above, as those two things seem to be carted out when it helps an argument and buried when it does not. If the game is meant to be played in teams, bring a tackler or two along with your super-damaging whatchamacallit. If PvP balance is all that matters, and balance is decently close right now, then why mess with it severely? The WCS issue will cause a real problem for any players who struggle with certain L3 and L4 missions, let alone L5's if they ever come out. I run a lot of missions, but I understand that PvP balance is more important and I might end up in the collateral damage of the WCS nerf at some point. Basically, I believe that CCP is severely overthinking this. The best fixes are easy- 1.Increase the CPU needs. 2. Increase the CPU needs and add a stacking buff e.g. One WCS takes 30 CPU, second takes 35, third takes 45, etc. 3. Combine 1 and 2. Raising the CPU requirements will be enough to really hamper the combat fitting of a WCS-fitted ship. The whole point is to make it hard to be both ganker and chicken-this would accomplish the task. 4. (and a distant fourth) Make the WCS an active module. I really don't like this one, because it makes a vamp-mobile even more dangerous. BTW, I have several vamp-mobiles so this is not a knock on them.
Mystii Catalyst Reaction Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.04 21:26:00 - [43] Originally by: Psychodelica im reading this and laughing my ass off. u all think how to nerf wcs.. i agree they arent balanced. here is my idea: leave wcs as they are, but boost the scramblers, reduce scrambler fitting reqs and increase scrambler range and strength to 30km with 1 point, 20km with 2 and 10 for 3 points. that should fix the problem and make everyone happy, maybe slightly increase wcs cpu need, say to 40 or 45 units. another idea: introduce new high slot module with average fitting reqs (say BS module?) and above average skill reqs (say propulsion jamming 5) that will disable warp ability of a target ship in range of 100km for 15 sec with activation duration of 20-30 sec to give the target a chance to run away in the 5-10 sec window until the next volley arrives (awsome visual effect is a must for this one). that will give a chance to gank snipers, cuz the inties will have anough time to get to it, and also surprize the wcs *****s that fit 5 stabs on vaga =) that my 2 cent. cheers I like that idea alot. :)
Kahn Mer Torchwood Institute	Posted - 2006.08.05 00:51:00 - [44] Make them active. Add a cycle time so they dont 'kick in' right away (like armor rep hit at the end of the cycle, not beginning). While active they take cap, penalize targetting and all other active mods. Wont harm non combatants, still an option for combatants who are outgunned or trying to get thru a camp (legit withdrawals), but stops the 'rush in and fire til it gets risky, then wave buh-bye' combatants.
FinrodFelagund	Posted - 2006.08.15 13:37:00 - [45] Like I said in teh last, 'we can't lock somone down because they have wcs's and we suck thread' Make it so scramblers dont cost cap. That way multiple scramblers can be carried and used semi easily. For the sake of arguing anyway wcs should come at the cost of being able to fit a disruptor, that way anyone who does use them would need to have a tackler present. Poor vaga :( (anyone ever notice that in the description of warp disruptors it messes with the targets nvavigation computer, and wcs it says compensates for fluctations in the ships warp core?) I personally like it the way it is, but thats just because I abuse the system instead of whine about it. Oh well I expect the less 'core' pirates/carebears and the like will complain post any significant changes.
1Of9 Artificial Horizons	Posted - 2006.08.16 00:41:00 - [46] /signed Originally by: Sal Alo Edited by: Sal Alo on 03/08/2006 01:07:32 I really can't believe you want to nerf WCS, when you can use as many scrambles (even fitted in many ships) as you want on a single target! You have scrambles with 2-strenght while WCS has only 1. And you still want a nerf? I'd like to see fair chances for both scrambler/scrambled but what I really think is that a ship that does the first shoot should not be able to use its WCS. Only one ship can scrambled another ship, is another nice idea IMHO (keeping the WCS with 1 strenght) else give out the WCS T2.
Luc Boye Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.16 05:00:00 - [47] Originally by: Dalieus Dakarn I'd be more willing to go with a reduction in Ship Agility Indys need agility to align for warp. ---
Angeles	Posted - 2006.08.16 11:43:00 - [48] Edited by: Angeles on 16/08/2006 11:45:29 Edited by: Angeles on 16/08/2006 11:44:06 it would be interesting to see how many burn eden players respond to this thread. there could be 25% reduction to weapons or defense systems for those who fit WCS due to the increase in power requirements needed to stabilize the ships warp drive engine. this stabilization has to draw power or resources from something. however i do like the idea of increased sig radius and decreased locking time as this is also a way of diverting resources to the warp drive engine. and they should stack
arutha	Posted - 2006.08.16 11:59:00 - [49] i dont like warp stabs as they are , but understand people in haulers etc near a fair chance to avoid gate camps , but i think what annoys me most about this warping to avoid combat and probably a seperate issue is ships warping with no cap left , i dunno about you but my car wont start without energy and it seems silly that an eve ship can warp of with 0 energy in its capaciter . warp stabs . make them active using energy and a turn of and on module like they where originally . no idea why ccp decided to change them to what they are now .
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard	Posted - 2006.08.16 12:29:00 - [50] Originally by: arutha i dont like warp stabs as they are , but understand people in haulers etc near a fair chance to avoid gate camps , but i think what annoys me most about this warping to avoid combat and probably a seperate issue is ships warping with no cap left , i dunno about you but my car wont start without energy and it seems silly that an eve ship can warp of with 0 energy in its capaciter . warp stabs . make them active using energy and a turn of and on module like they where originally . no idea why ccp decided to change them to what they are now . Actually, I think if you get to 0 cap, you can't warp. Only problems is, you're back at 1+ cap in a second. And you only need 1 cap to warp. About the improvement to scramblers (30km for 1, 20km for 2 and 10km for 3) is just to way out. You sacrifice 1 slot, where I have to sacrifice 3.. Yes, good balance there. THe problem is not WCS balanced with scramblers. Its just solo gankers who won't gimp their setup for an extra scrambler. I understand that, because most amarr ships have at most 3 mid slots.. that 1 speedbooster, 1 scrambler and 1 web. All pretty much needed for the sure kill. You could drop the web and fit 2 scramblers.. As long as you stay in range, the web isn't really needed, you know.
Shin Ra BURN EDEN	Posted - 2006.08.16 13:31:00 - [51] I am one of the foremost experts on warp core stabs. BURN EDEN fully supports and warp core stab nerf, so long as its not thought up by idiots. 20% penalty to scan res and lock range per stab is good. 20% penalty to signiture radius alot good (The first doesnt nerf stababonds enough). Messing up weapon systems is silly as you can equally account for this across the spectrum of weapons (missles vs guns vs drones vs smartbombs vs nos vs neut etc) Messing with speed is stupid (bs pilots don't care). Messing with defence (tanking or EW) is stupid as some ships have neither and again dificult to balance. Scan resolution and lock range seem like the only factors which should be affected by wearing stabs. Although I would like to see sig radius increased too (easier to lock a stabbed target faster). I would also like to see different stabs have different % to scan res, lock range and sig radius. T1 30% Hycolon 25% T2 20% People seem most annoyed when fighting 2v1 or 3v2 and a target has stabs. These things should give you carebears enough of an advantage that you can whine less when you still get your asses handed to you. It should also allow travel setups. Something which I consider to be totally lame, to still exist. Just we won't have to worry about you shooting back anymore. BE have been expecting this for years now. Frankly, we are surprised it has taken CCP to long. Consequently, we have been prepared for this for a long time. This is not a BE nerf, this is a boost to us. This will make killing easier but will have almost no effect on our losses. Love Shin Ra
Celedris Tharsis Security	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:11:00 - [52] Originally by: Shin Ra This is not a BE nerf, this is a boost to us. This will make killing easier but will have almost no effect on our losses. Definitely - if anything, a lock/scan res penalty will just be a nice boost to sensor damps. Oh, and best named WCS is "Halcyon" some foremost expert you are
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.17 18:58:00 - [53] Originally by: Requiescat Edited by: Requiescat on 03/08/2006 03:04:19 i <3 carebears to the naysayers: so what if wcs is only +1 and scramblers are +2. my armageddon has 3 mids. do you really think i'm going to put 3 2 point scramblers on it? putting more than one (or two in extreme cases) scramblers on a ship nerfs its combat ability. putting more than one or two stabs on a ship doesn't do very much to its combat survivability, since instead of fitting a good setup (1600mm plate + electrons) on a thorax, noobs can fit neutron blasters and outdamage my real setup with 5 stabs in the lows and (with a fair amount of luck-i do my job fast) warp away when i get them to a point where they're in danger. What on earth makes you think that you should be able to solo gank anyone and everyone in your geddon? Because you are self centered, that's why. You think fitting WCS doesn't hurt your survivability? So armor plates, hardners, extra reppers, and cap power relays don't boost your tank and thus, help you survive? Face it, your solo gank setup doesn't work against all other possible setups. Paper beats rock, rock beats scisors, scisors beats paper. You want to beat people who fit WCS, then fit more scram, or better yet, get someone else to fly with you in either a cepter or dicter. Hell, even 2 people in T1 frigs can each fit 2 +2 scrams and lock someone down even with 7 WCS. There is no problem with WCS, they are balenced just fine. Move along.
Constantinee Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.08.17 20:04:00 - [54] Originally by: Gaogan What on earth makes you think that you should be able to solo gank anyone and everyone in your geddon? Because you are self centered, that's why. You think fitting WCS doesn't hurt your survivability? So armor plates, hardners, extra reppers, and cap power relays don't boost your tank and thus, help you survive? Face it, your solo gank setup doesn't work against all other possible setups. Paper beats rock, rock beats scisors, scisors beats paper. You want to beat people who fit WCS, then fit more scram, or better yet, get someone else to fly with you in either a cepter or dicter. Hell, even 2 people in T1 frigs can each fit 2 +2 scrams and lock someone down even with 7 WCS. There is no problem with WCS, they are balenced just fine. Move along. ^^^^ this guy is obviously a stab w**** Want a Cheap sig?
Marsha11 Penetrate	Posted - 2006.08.17 23:56:00 - [55] I dont see what the big problem is with WCS. Someone who wacks +4 on you in a crow is using multiple slots to hold you down, therefore how is using multiple slots to try and stay alive a crime? BE and Alektorophobia who are 'known' for stab wearing actually dont fit as many stabs as you guys think. Simply loose the dream that putting +1 on a ship should always be enough and you will find you will be able to hold us down. Nerfing stabs wont change whether we wear them, it will just change the time it takes us to lock you/kill you etc. We will still escape if you continue to put just +1 on us and expect it to be enough. End
Brolly Caldari The Department of Justice	Posted - 2006.08.18 11:03:00 - [56] Lots of good ideas, but the indies seem to have problems with lots of the suggestions. Increasing the CPU is no problem for indies as they have shed load of CPU anyway, as for slower ships and increased radishes, indy's are allready pretty much slow as easy to hit as they come. It maybe a naff idea but...what about excluding indies from the nerfs (besides CPU). This way they still have a chance of survivng and the stabbed PVP can get what they deserve?
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.19 07:57:00 - [57] Edited by: Vicious Phoenix on 19/08/2006 07:59:18 Originally by: Brolly Lots of good ideas, but the indies seem to have problems with lots of the suggestions. Increasing the CPU is no problem for indies as they have shed load of CPU anyway, as for slower ships and increased radishes, indy's are allready pretty much slow as easy to hit as they come. It maybe a naff idea but...what about excluding indies from the nerfs (besides CPU). This way they still have a chance of survivng and the stabbed PVP can get what they deserve? How about NOT doubling the CPU use. My Impel barely has the CPU to fit a full rack of them as it is. The issue of WCS and if they need nerfing is an issue I've been thinking about for a long time. I have seen the view from both sides of the fence, and my conclusion is this: WCS do not need nerf'd. They are fine as is. Why? Every pilot that fits WCS gimps their combat effectiveness. More WCS = less gyro/heatsink/mag stab/BCU/PDU/CPR/hardners/nano/etc. If my opponents want to make themselves less effective in PvP I say let them. Anyone ever heard of an interdictor? They work really well. Also, you can't ask for the nerf of a module just because ONE SHIP (vaga) uses them very effectively. Other ships use them yes, but when most of you say "nerf WCS" you're thinking of a vaga in your head. So how about you all just leave well enough alone and smile when you see an opponent warp off knowing he may have beat you if he hadn't been stabbed out Edit: My vaga has 3 gyros and a pair of PDU's in the lows, no WCS on my ships CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.

Pages: 1 2 :: [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.