Nemain
Amarr
Obsidian Asylum
   |
Posted - 2006.11.19 09:26:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Nemain on 19/11/2006 09:28:06
I'd say the carry one and offline it approach would only work if you have cap charges. As grey area has already said, it's no use if you are jumped mid mission as you cannot get it back on line so defeating the whole reason for having it fitted. I don't know about anyone else but I wouldn't sit there and be shot at while waitin for my cap to recharge, i'd be tanking and so have nochance at all of activating the mod, unless like I said I was using a ship that has cap charges.
Personally, I would have given WCS a complete block on locking so that they are used only for travel. However, the ability to run is still every bit as valid as the ability to prevent it. Now in it's current form, wcs on fast moving combat ships is a nightmare to counter, but to make it so that that any combat ship once webbed and scrambled cannot escape is a little too lopsided. Which is essentially what this nerf will mean, as noone in their right mind will fit them for combat, unless they plan on offlining them then use cap charges to online them and run (then we are back to square one, a vagabond with a cap booster in mids could still operate in a similar fashion as now). In my opinion, like I said, WCS should have a flat out locking block. But to prevent an entirely 1 sided web/scramble fest and prevent PVE alienation, I would sugest a sort of WCS equivilent of ECM burst be introduced. Make it so that it is chance based, uses all your cap, has a 10 minute cycle (then if you are caught again, the attacker deserves to be able to stop you), prevents cap boosters running for 2mins and warps you to a random spot. This would prevent abuse, and even though I suspect the majority pvp of pilots would consider it a waste of a low slot, it would still give the option if you think the odds are stacked against you or you are mission running, as a last ditch attempt to escape (a kind of all or nothing mod). That in my opinion is far more balanced, but i am no doubt wrong :)
|