EVE Search - Should WCS and scramblers 'conflict' with each other?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Should WCS and scramblers 'conflict' with each other?

» 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)
Fi Minxia	Posted - 2006.07.27 17:39:00 - [1] Just canvasing opinion, but would it make the game more exciting and tactical if a ship suffered penalties to its WCS strength/scramble strength if it fit both modules simultaneously? Maybe even not being allowed to fit both stabs and warp scrams/disruptors at the same time? WCS have a role to play for travelling and hauling, but combat ships with WCS can almost always 'do a runner' in times of danger, but can still fit a scram to prey upon targets of opportunity at their leisure. The loss of tanking makes little difference if you are just raiding for easy targets while fully intending to run when anything like a fair fight approaches. I dunno, the game would collapse without player piracy/raiding, but at the moment it just seems a little easy to take the coward's path and fit both WCS and scram, and just kill softies with little danger. If WCSs reduced your scramble ability it might make people more inclined to go for broke (defence or offence) or -gasp- work in teams more often. Combat ships should be all-in more often imo. Am I way off here?
Dixon	Posted - 2006.07.27 17:46:00 - [2] this is actually not that stupid... WCS: +1 warp strength -1 scramble strength
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 17:54:00 - [3] Simply disallow running both, and give a lock range bork to the WCS. Sorted.
Stamm Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 17:56:00 - [4] Originally by: HippoKing Simply disallow running both, and give a lock range bork to the WCS. Sorted. Lock range bork? Not going to cut it. My Zealot for example can target way way way past optimal. Nerf the locking range back a bit and I'd still have no issues with stabs.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 17:59:00 - [5] Originally by: Dixon this is actually not that stupid... WCS: +1 warp strength -1 scramble strength Everyone in a group can escape except the tacklers. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Stanis Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.27 17:59:00 - [6] OMG YOU HAVE GOT IT MATE! Can't put WCS and Scramblers at the same time just like Cyno field generators and Cloaks can't fit on recon. I think this would be better then any stacking or other kind of penalty?
Stamm Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:00:00 - [7] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Dixon this is actually not that stupid... WCS: +1 warp strength -1 scramble strength Everyone in a group can escape except the tacklers. Suits me :) I'm the guy on teamspeak whining until someone gets into their interdictor. I hate tackling :P
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:02:00 - [8] Originally by: Stamm Originally by: HippoKing Simply disallow running both, and give a lock range bork to the WCS. Sorted. Lock range bork? Not going to cut it. My Zealot for example can target way way way past optimal. Nerf the locking range back a bit and I'd still have no issues with stabs. Range. 10% per. Your Zealot would have to trade 1 mid per WCS penalty you wanted to offset... And you can't pick and chose, of course. Any EW or ECCM. Sensor boosters or tracking boosters. And so on. You can't fit competing modules/
Kluya	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:02:00 - [9] /signed! I have to admit this is far and above the best idea I've heard so far for this. Good call Fi Minxia - Wonder what Tux would think?
Dixon	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:02:00 - [10] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Dixon this is actually not that stupid... WCS: +1 warp strength -1 scramble strength Everyone in a group can escape except the tacklers. Yeah, I hate those guys...
Stamm Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:04:00 - [11] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Stamm Originally by: HippoKing Simply disallow running both, and give a lock range bork to the WCS. Sorted. Lock range bork? Not going to cut it. My Zealot for example can target way way way past optimal. Nerf the locking range back a bit and I'd still have no issues with stabs. Range. 10% per. Your Zealot would have to trade 1 mid per WCS penalty you wanted to offset... And you can't pick and chose, of course. Any EW or ECCM. Sensor boosters or tracking boosters. And so on. You can't fit competing modules/ I'm sorry but I really can't understand your post. Can you try again please, and be a bit more explicit?
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:06:00 - [12] No. I was quite clear - you can't pick and chose systems, they have to be consistent.
Stamm Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:07:00 - [13] Originally by: Maya Rkell No. I was quite clear - you can't pick and chose systems, they have to be consistent. Ok, then I guess my brain isn't functioning on all thrusters today. I still haven't the foggiest what you are trying to say. :/
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:17:00 - [14] Originally by: Stamm Originally by: HippoKing Simply disallow running both, and give a lock range bork to the WCS. Sorted. Lock range bork? Not going to cut it. My Zealot for example can target way way way past optimal. Nerf the locking range back a bit and I'd still have no issues with stabs. Thats to add a penalty to snipers, not people who would normally fight within scram range.
Stamm Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:19:00 - [15] Originally by: HippoKing Originally by: Stamm Originally by: HippoKing Simply disallow running both, and give a lock range bork to the WCS. Sorted. Lock range bork? Not going to cut it. My Zealot for example can target way way way past optimal. Nerf the locking range back a bit and I'd still have no issues with stabs. Thats to add a penalty to snipers, not people who would normally fight within scram range. Ah, I see!
Azrael Bierce Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:24:00 - [16] I'd think making them active and moderatly cap expensive would be just as useful. They don't work if you've been nos'd/neut'd, and affect your tank/combat ability. Tho I do like making competing systems exclusive.
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:27:00 - [17] That could be cool. Each onlined warp distrupter would give You as many points of warp penalty as they have warp scramble strength. Good idea. Mind control and tin hats
Alex Harumichi Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:29:00 - [18] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 27/07/2006 18:32:06 Originally by: Dixon this is actually not that stupid... WCS: +1 warp strength -1 scramble strength Hmmm, have to say I sort of like this. Being unable to both scramble and stab up would remove most of the silly setups from the game, and still let haulers etc use stabs for what they were meant for (pure defense). The sooner stabbabonds die as a viable concept, the happier I'll be. Added: yeah, a sensor resolution penalty would also be needed, to make the oh-so-boring sniper-with-N-stabs setups a bit less viable
Arkios Odymei Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:33:00 - [19] Originally by: Dixon WCS: +1 warp strength -1 scramble strength I aprove. But scramblers/disrupters should not have a negative warp core strength modifier. That would make them suicide mods. Just the WCS.
Fi Minxia	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:20:00 - [20] Originally by: Jim McGregor Everyone in a group can escape except the tacklers. Well, somewhat true I guess, but tacklers are cheap and know what they are getting themselves into . The best tacklers out there, say a stiletto, cost maybe 7mill, and cheap disposable tacklers like vigils cost nothing. Besides, what tackers were fitting WCS anyway
Pinky Denmark	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:51:00 - [21] I say make a warp delay (you cannot warp because...) of 1-2 minutes after having agressed another player and let wcs stay as they are (with or without coming nerfs) Pinky
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:51:00 - [22] Originally by: Arkios Odymei Originally by: Dixon WCS: +1 warp strength -1 scramble strength I aprove. But scramblers/disrupters should not have a negative warp core strength modifier. That would make them suicide mods. Just the WCS. Dunno, if the scramblers penalised the ship by a need of fitting WCS, it would reduce the most problematic situations. You could no longer both hold down your opponent and be able to escape your self. Mind control and tin hats
Foulis Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:00:00 - [23] Lock range seems... odd to me. The only thing that lock range hits is snipers, and snipers are by definition out of scram range right? So how about something that **es people off universally? Like a 10% sig res reduction. This affects everyone equally but BS the most. Also, haulers don't need to lock so they won't be affected. This isn't to say that I think that WCS are unbalanced, I have no problem with the current system. But if a change is going to be made it should be made in the most effective way possible. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by:** CCP Hammer Boobies
Matarirawr	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:13:00 - [24] Edited by: Matarirawr on 27/07/2006 20:14:50 Originally by: Arkios Odymei Originally by: Dixon WCS: +1 warp strength -1 scramble strength I aprove. But scramblers/disrupters should not have a negative warp core strength modifier. That would make them suicide mods. Just the WCS. I agree with you on this, but just pointing out his post says that WCS should have a positive warp strength and negative scramble. He didn't mention scramblers having a negative warp strength. Edit: fixed typo
Arkios Odymei Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:14:00 - [25] Originally by: Laboratus That could be cool. Each onlined warp distrupter would give You as many points of warp penalty as they have warp scramble strength. I was refering to this, not the OP.
stummer Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:16:00 - [26] i really like this idea, make it one or the other stabs or a scram those i think a secondary penalty should also come from fitting warp core stabs , a rate of fire one comes to mine . to penalise the non tackling wcs stabber user.
Matarirawr	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:17:00 - [27] Edited by: Matarirawr on 27/07/2006 20:17:09 Ah, didn't see that. My bad. To explain why scram having negative warp penalty wouldn't work (to whoever said it)... if it's passive, the user can't warp period without WCS. If it's active, the user just needs to wait for the cycle to end and he wouldn't have a problem using WCS.
Jita Scouter	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:21:00 - [28] Originally by: stummer i really like this idea, make it one or the other stabs or a scram those i think a secondary penalty should also come from fitting warp core stabs , a rate of fire one comes to mine . to penalise the non tackling wcs stabber user. I think the best penalty would be to Signature Resolution. Having Warp Stabs will kill your locking time. So i guess it will be something like this: +1 warp core strenght per WCS -1 scramble strength per WCS -10% Sig resolution per WCS
Arkios Odymei Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:24:00 - [29] Originally by: Jita Scouter +1 warp core strenght per WCS -1 scramble strength per WCS -10% Sig resolution per WCS Cool, but would 10% be good enough to keep snipers from using too many of em?
Matarirawr	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:52:00 - [30] Originally by: Jita Scouter Originally by: stummer i really like this idea, make it one or the other stabs or a scram those i think a secondary penalty should also come from fitting warp core stabs , a rate of fire one comes to mine . to penalise the non tackling wcs stabber user. I think the best penalty would be to Signature Resolution. Having Warp Stabs will kill your locking time. So i guess it will be something like this: +1 warp core strenght per WCS -1 scramble strength per WCS -10% Sig resolution per WCS That would hurt miners, too, though.

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.