| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenessa
D00M.
Triumvirate.
   |
Posted - 2006.09.23 15:42:00 -
[1]
I really think that WCS need a serious nerf attaching to them. Maybe not so much for industrial ships and even not for combat ships that are just being moved from one location to another. But they seriously need tweaking for ships that are going to engage in combat. I changed corps 3 months ago and I've seen more combat in that time than I did in all the corps I was in before that and WCS are becoming a serious problem and are letting people get away with far too much in 0.0
We're starting to see Inty's with WCS, sniping eagles with them too, the list is endless, people are crucifying their combat effectivness out there all in the attempt to save their backsides and fit as many WCS as they can with no drawback.
As I said I realise certain ships need stabs but I think using a stab in combat has to come with a pretty nasty drawback.
I think a good idea would work something like this :
25% increase in locking time
25% reduction in tracking speed / missile launcher fire rate
these would of course stack if you had more wcs fitted. The end result would be that industrials venturing into 0.0 would lose nothing, nor would ships just being moved around, but it would vastly improve the quality and quantity of 0.0 combat, and maybe just maybe the people using the stabs would realise their ships fight much better and kill much faster than they thought.
|
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2006.09.23 16:19:00 -
[2]
Known issue, being solved in Kali.
...
Check out my hot items! |
Lienzo
|
Posted - 2006.09.23 16:31:00 -
[3]
Having been on both sides of the coin, I tend to think a lot of mechanics around evasive warping are fairly predictable for groups which do not yet have access to dictors, or which operate in losec.
One notable detail is the lack of viable mid-range or even longish range possibilities. If you have vessels with operating capacities outside 20km, you always need some kind of escort, which is actually fairly reasonable.
However, the kind of system I would like to see is two-fold.
1)I would like to see a long range 30-60km warp scrambler added to the pool. It can either come in two forms, or four forms for each engine type. Warp core stabs in this case can also be specialized. Thus, mid-range warping is hit or miss, and ships can attempt to fit specifically to counter specific other fits. For example, you could easily fit a Raven or Armageddon specifically to trap and kill a Dominix. We could also add a minimum range to longer range versions of older modules.
2)Short range, and tackling oriented ships should gain a new innate utility: Anytime a ship is within a specified range of another, neither ship should be able to engage warp. The effective proportions range can be governed by any of the following:
-signature radius - MWD becomes a high risk tackling tool
-ship class or mass - jump drive calibration disruption
-or even propulsion strength - core interaction, like river barges that pass too close
Then basic tackler frigates will not need to fit scramblers on their few midslots, and can better seek to disable or tank in that dangerous range. Larger ships would gain the advantage of their larger proportions and greater warp disruption range, though obviously not as great or effective as a dictor bubble. T2 tacklers could get an innate bonus to the net effect of their stats while keeping the same stats.
|
SUNscatcher
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
|
Posted - 2006.09.23 16:47:00 -
[4]
this is a retarded thread. there is nothing wrong with WCS and its an area that is at least balanced. IF ccp would release Large warp bubbles a lot of the complaints vs wcs would go away. |
Audri Fisher
Caldari
The Keep
THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2006.09.23 21:29:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Jenessa
I really think that WCS need a serious nerf attaching to them. Maybe not so much for industrial ships and even not for combat ships that are just being moved from one location to another. But they seriously need tweaking for ships that are going to engage in combat. I changed corps 3 months ago and I've seen more combat in that time than I did in all the corps I was in before that and WCS are becoming a serious problem and are letting people get away with far too much in 0.0
We're starting to see Inty's with WCS, sniping eagles with them too, the list is endless, people are crucifying their combat effectivness out there all in the attempt to save their backsides and fit as many WCS as they can with no drawback.
As I said I realise certain ships need stabs but I think using a stab in combat has to come with a pretty nasty drawback.
I think a good idea would work something like this :
25% increase in locking time
25% reduction in tracking speed / missile launcher fire rate
these would of course stack if you had more wcs fitted. The end result would be that industrials venturing into 0.0 would lose nothing, nor would ships just being moved around, but it would vastly improve the quality and quantity of 0.0 combat, and maybe just maybe the people using the stabs would realise their ships fight much better and kill much faster than they thought.
a sniping eagle is pretty much defensless inside 30km.
Having said that, I hardly ever fit WCS. damage control mods and shield tanking take way to much cpu 
|
Soratah
Amarr
Ubiqua Seraph
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 05:00:00 -
[6]
This is a "I want to gank things easier and cant think outside the box"
Although I'd never want to sacrifice tanking/damage potential for the assurance of escape it still should be a tactical option available for pilots wishing:
1) Sniping uses these heavily to provide additional chances of escape should sniping spots be compromised.
2) Allow Recon ships to pick and choose engagements they can easily escape from
3)Provide additional tactical methods in PvP (e.g. hit and run)
Agreed with earlier posts, these are balanced.. Just fit more scramblers or go for shorter range and fit a 2-strength scrambler.
|
Darksaber64x
Ecchi co.
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 08:13:00 -
[7]
Disagree with WCS needing a nerf.
If they were to be nerfed though, I would think an interesting way of doing it would be that the WCS would need to be activated to be used, but caused, say, 50% longer warp time. Multi-stabbed ships would sure take a while to get out in that case.
|
Jenessa
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 09:32:00 -
[8]
I think the point I'm trying to make here is that WCS are destroying the 1v1 art of PVP. In order to get a kill now you have to assume whoever you are fighting has at least one WCS and maybe more. Since you cant really fit nothing but scramblers you're forced to start hunting in groups. Of course when that happens it turns into a gank fest and the person getting attacked ends up being melted on the spot.
Then of course when that happens you have people screaming in local and in the forums on how they got "ganked" and how unfair it is that they get attacked by so many ships and have no chance to fight back.
CCP have made no secret they want battles to last longer one of the ways this can be achieved is to lessen peoples need to hunt in groups and a good way to do that is to make stabs a serious hinderance to people who are considering fitting them to their combat setup.
|
Louis DelaBlanche
Cosmic Odyssey
Chorus of Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 12:15:00 -
[9]
although this is one of many many threads on the subject, & another in which the OP is complaining they cant solo gank ppl anymore (sorry if im wrong but thats how it reads). Im gonna add my 2cents to the discussion.
I agree that in combat scenario WCS need to be addressed (nerfed in regards to WCS many seem to use as meaning made redundent so i wont say that). Perhaps make it so that like with jumpgates, if you aggress someone they dont work for a period of time. Would mean if you dont wanna fight u can leave & if you do wanna fight u cant rely on ur rack of WCS to escape.
At least the OP of this thread isnt calling for a universal "nerfing" which is a nice change.
|
Jenessa
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 13:41:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Louis DelaBlanche
although this is one of many many threads on the subject, & another in which the OP is complaining they cant solo gank ppl anymore (sorry if im wrong but thats how it reads). Im gonna add my 2cents to the discussion.
I agree that in combat scenario WCS need to be addressed (nerfed in regards to WCS many seem to use as meaning made redundent so i wont say that). Perhaps make it so that like with jumpgates, if you aggress someone they dont work for a period of time. Would mean if you dont wanna fight u can leave & if you do wanna fight u cant rely on ur rack of WCS to escape.
At least the OP of this thread isnt calling for a universal "nerfing" which is a nice change.
Actually "solo gank" is pretty much a contradiction in terms. I'd always understood the term "ganking" to mean many people attacking one person. The point being made here is that 1v1's are not really encouraged these days by the use of stabs.
|
TuRtLe HeAd
The Bratwurst Burglars
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 14:51:00 -
[11]
Yes it needs sorting, However I still feel locking times aint gonna do Squat.
I seriously think more drastic measures are required, for each 1 WCS taht you fit 1 High slot is Locked out.
There needs to be a fair solution that means people who don't actually want to die can still fit 7 to a megathron as part of a travel setup without being penalised for transport. Yet being penalised for Combat.
I still think the best solution was the same as the answer to ABS and MWD's Have a 1mn, 10mnn and 100mn Sized WCS with fittings to match. If the CPU/ PG was high enough on the relaveant modules PvP would be impossible.
The Problem is Players using them to protect themselves if they get in to deep. Its nothing to do with nerfing legit travel setups.
P.S.
Fitting Stabs to an Inty is not cool. |
Valharu
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 16:06:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Valharu on 24/09/2006 16:09:38
I think part of the issue is how they work. Its a all or nothing situation.
If Warp Scramblers and Warp Core Stabalizers were based on you Engine Strength, I think we would see a much different situation.
Each point of Engine Strength has value, if I had a 5 point engine backing a scrambler, against a 12 engine strength ship, it would extend the warp time of a ship going into warp only so much. Since the Scrambling ship had a lesser value, it would have a negitive modifier to how long it could extend the warp of the other vessel
But if you had a 18 engine value and were trying to warp scramble the ship with a 12 engine value, it would have a added bonus to extending the time that the ship could go into warp.
This way its not so cut and dry, and not a instant win or lose button.
And it would make combats happen more often in some situations and make it more exciting as in you only have so much time to fight befor they break lose. BUT you will fight for if you have a lesser or greater engine output, you have extended how long it will take them to get into warp.
Realisticly there is no reason a Frigate should be able to hold back a Battleship from warping but several frigates together could slow it down for some time even if it had a few WCS on it.
I came up with this off the top of my head and I am sure it could use some tweaking but I think it would make better game play and realistic at the same time.
|
Weps Oner
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 17:03:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Weps Oner on 24/09/2006 17:04:25
I'm not in to pvp yet, however, if i read the complaints correct, they are about whether attackers fit wcs just in case they can escape if things go bad.
Why not disable wcs entirely once you attack =first= ? Or even when you attack at all. It'll be fight OR run, but not both.
(humz, alt char.) Weps.
|
ragewind
Caldari
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 17:23:00 -
[14]
WCS are far to weak as it it is.
befor you rant a T1 frig with a couple of scramblers can lock down a carryer or dread so we have a ship with a tiny power system that is meant to power a disrupter that can stop the warp engines of something so large it can uses said friget as engine fule.
thats why player fit WCS save millions of isk from a few hundred K frig fleets
------------------------------------
Dragon the patch to optimise EVE.
Welcome to Tranquillity the optimised snail
Please wait 4 minuets to jump war targets
are 2 seconds away. |
Amarr Citizen 13513
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 21:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Jenessa
I think the point I'm trying to make here is that WCS are destroying the 1v1 art of PVP.
Yeah, you fail right here. EVE is balanced for fleet combat, not 1v1s.
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 11:03:00 -
[16]
So, you're saying if we banned WCS tomorrow, all ganking would stop?
Sheesh, and I thought I was naive...
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grytok
|
Posted - 2006.09.25 12:12:00 -
[17]
Let things straighten up.
1. If there are Scramblers, then there has to be also DeScramblers (WCS)
2. 1vs1 is not the intention of this game, so build up a group with Tacklers and Damagedealers working together
3. Fiiting WCS is always a drawback even without nerfing WCS -> less tank, less damage-mods, less power etc.
Just my 0.02
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |