So here's my proposed solution: Bubbles get a point strength of 1 each (maybe 2 for HIC bubbles. The MWD/cloak trick and interdiction nullifiers go away and warp core stablizers get substantial changes. The new WCSs are an active module with very low cap requirements (think damage control). There is no penalty to fitting this module (beyond the PG/CPU you need to slap it on your ship), but when the module is active, all EWAR, damage (to include drones), and remote assistance modules cease to work. This module would not increase warp core strength until the end of its cycle, at which point it increases it by 1 and its cycle time doubles. The first cycle would be in the ballpark of 20 seconds or so, next is 40 seconds, then 80 seconds etc. This module would also negate the impact of scrams on MWDs/MJDs once it reaches great enough strength. Overall, this is designed to prevent any ship from being completely safe, while also giving every ship at least a chance to get away as lonv as they fit it, thereby bringing warp prevention in from both extremes.

People have been asking for a bubble nerf for ages.

It's one of the most OP thing in the game. Absolutely absurd and i have been playing since 2004.

A dic bubble should have a strength of 1 and a HIC bubble a strength of 2. Bubble that overlap onto other bubble should still have the same strength and not add-up to discourage bubble-spam but encourage spreading out the bubbles to catch more ships (instead of 50 bubbles in the same spot).

Wanna catch a supercarrier or titan? You have to use a HIC + script and not some guy in a 50 million isk dic that bubble spam.
Wanna catch a proper travel-fit capsuleer? Bubble him + have some fast locking ships with points (i beleive we have ships with bonuses to point distance... hmnnnn).


What does this mean? It means that if you are going to start running WCS then you have to suffer or counter the debuff it gives. Also it would encourage people to travel, maybe use mobile depot to refit for proper pvp, etc.

Maybe give a -% to MWD/AB to bubbles to even things out.

Active WCS without current debuff? Yeay, now i can go PvP, and fit a "Get out of disruptor" button. Seriously, as long as you don't try to enguage brawl ships with scrambler, it means you can't get destroyed. So, no.

Also, about the "no remote" part: someone caught in a campgate is alone. Nobody wwill try to remote him. Then it is not a debuff.

Also, about the "thing cycle, and warp core strength keep going up": no. Just afk 10-15 minutes on a deep safe, then engage people as much as you want, because you are not unscrambable, and number of enemies won't matter. Just don't get volleyed and you'll be fine.


TLDR: No, we don't need a module that much unbalanced.

Long, long ago... when Warp Core Stabs had just been introduced...

- battleships used them. A lot. Players would load up the low-slots of their BSs with them... snipe at a range where only frigates and probers were a threat... and then warp away as soon as said frigate(s) tackled their battleship.
------- the only counter to this tactic was to use frigates with a minimum of 4+ mid-slots so that they could fit 3+ warp scramblers (6+ points of disruption).
And it still wasn't enough because many battleships have 7 or even 8 low-slots.

That is when the DEVs introduced the harsh range and locking speed penalties.


Today... in a time when...

- fleet warping to a probed place is on the chopping block
- MicrojumpDrives exist
- superfast ships, kiting, and range tactics are the "rule," not the "exception"

... I say that Warp Core Stabilizers should NOT be buffed. They already do what they do best; help a person avoid being pinned down in the first place.
But... like everything... it is still no guarantee against people who planned and committed more than you did (see: if your opponent put more effort and/or committed more people into his/her tactics, he/she are probably going to beat whatever counter you devise).

I've notived a few people mention potential issues with multiple WCSs. Maybe it could be solved with some sort of stacking penalty where more stabs = longer cycle time.

I've notived a few people mention potential issues with multiple WCSs. Maybe it could be solved with some sort of stacking penalty where more stabs = longer cycle time.

I think HIC bubbles should stop MJD's
I also think HIC bubbles should be bigger.

*can only fit one of this module*
Much simpler solution and since it scales over time there is no need for more than 1.
Bubbles should have a higher strength than 1 obviously. But the ability for ships to have a combat fit, engage and then execute a disengage over time if they can survive the incoming fire is actually a good thing. Not a bad thing.

People have been asking for a bubble nerf for ages.

It's one of the most OP thing in the game. Absolutely absurd and i have been playing since 2004.

A dic bubble should have a strength of 1 and a HIC bubble a strength of 2. Bubble that overlap onto other bubble should still have the same strength and not add-up to discourage bubble-spam but encourage spreading out the bubbles to catch more ships (instead of 50 bubbles in the same spot).

Wanna catch a supercarrier or titan? You have to use a HIC + script and not some guy in a 50 million isk dic that bubble spam.
Wanna catch a proper travel-fit capsuleer? Bubble him + have some fast locking ships with points (i beleive we have ships with bonuses to point distance... hmnnnn).


What does this mean? It means that if you are going to start running WCS then you have to suffer or counter the debuff it gives. Also it would encourage people to travel, maybe use mobile depot to refit for proper pvp, etc.

Maybe give a -% to MWD/AB to bubbles to even things out.

Step 1: Fit a vindicator with a full rack of the new WCS
Step 2: Undock from a trade hub and flash suspect
Step 3: When the heat gets too extreme, activate all the WCS and warp away in 20 seconds with 8 WCS

Good job, station games only last 20 seconds now instead of a full minute.

Actually this proposal solves your argument already. You can't just skip off as soon as a frigate tackles you. Because you have to turn all offensive modules off. You can't receive remote reps, and you can't rep someone else.

Scrams and Disruptors would then become similar to other weapons that have a short and long range variant, and should also come in small, medium, and large sizes for dealing with larger and more stable ships.

Now it's possible to try to fight without being 100% boned as soon as something arrived on grid. Ratters might even try their luck and more PvP be had by all, if not more kill mails.

When you are sniping, you are not RRing or being RRed.
And by the time the frigate reaches a sniping battleship (or is less than 50km away), the battleship is already making (or has already made) moves to leave.

So no... using the proposed Warp Core Stabs isn't dangerous at all. It just adds an extra step.


Mike... there is so much wrong with that.

People would not "stay and fight" if they were given more opportunities to escape. The exact opposite would happen. People would not stay at all unless they were sure they could actually win.
I mean honestly... would YOU stay and fight in a min/maxed ratting ship that is hardnened against only two damage resistances... unsure if the hostile has more friends on the way?

The reason that warp disruption mechanics have stayed binary is because people are psychologically pretty binary when it comes to conflict and combat. They either run and avoid it altogether... or they prepared for it in the first place and fight.
There has to be some way to reliably FORCE people to stay.

This whole discussion is simply amazing.

It's a pvp game folks. PVP consent occurs when you push the Log In button. You know what warp bubbles are and how they work so figure out how to deal with them.

What's the logical end game after this game mechaninc falls?? Replace lasers with non lethal flashlights? Rubber projectile ammo? Happymatter charges that are comprised of space paint?

Can a thread be locked because it goes against the soul of the game? If so, then please lock this thread.

I hate the mechanics that dictate running before you even attempt to engage.

Of course, my ships use omnitanks these days thanks to the reactive armor hardener. You don't even have to tackle me, I'm in a Maurader most of the time.

I am not all that risk adverse though. I don't just throw away ships, it's the absolute nature of tackle that makes it not with the risk of an encounter for me, and the fact that I prefer PvE and there is no win condition for me in a PvP fight. I lost at least time, and usually my ship with it, with nothing in the encounter for me to gain.

The reason tackle mechanics are as they are is because it's not enough for most people to win. They have to stroke their Epeen while they are at it with kill mails.

Binary tackle is fine if your goal is to make kills, but not if you want more people to fight.

It isn't the mechanics that dictate anything. It is YOU who are deciding whether it is worth it to stay and engage or not.

If a player is losing, or thinks he/she is going to lose, he/she WILL attempt to run away.

There really isn't an "in-between" with regards to this.


In other words... you have prepared for a fight.


So basically... unless you are SURE you can win or have a high chance of escaping if things turn out badly... you won't engage in the first place.

Congrats. You have just proven what I have been saying (and repeated in the first quote of this post).


Ship-on-ship PvP is about scoring kills.

I fight people to kill people.

I wage war to cause destruction and economic loss.

I am not shooting at people to waste ammo.
I am not interested in e-Bushido honor "let's stop when we hit hull."
I WANT EXPLOSIONS AND BLOODSHED!

And guess what? The game was (and still is) based on that premise.

All your idea does is increase the need and requirements for blob and alpha-strike warfare. And no one wants that.

This sounds like a nerf to solo pvp and yet more encouragement to blob as if there wasn't enough already. Totally unsupported