These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Can the warp stab be combat-viable without being overpowered?

Author
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#1 - 2013-09-22 04:08:45 UTC
Because I'm a horrible turd that can't not have the last word in an argument, there's now a warp core stabiliser thread.

Right now, the warp core stabiliser is a non-option on combat ships due to the enormous targeting penalty. What if it was a module that you might consider placing one of on a combat ship? A module that would compete with, say, a tracking enhancer for a lowslot?

I'm going to imagine the warp core stab was rebalanced in such a way that some PvP setups would fit a single stabiliser, but the penalty would be harsh enough that two stabs wasn't an option.

- Fleet fights wouldn't be affected much, I'd hope. Stabs don't save you from bubbles, and a small gang is fully capable of stacking two disruption points on a ship. A gang that fits a stab each would be saving more ships if they decided to bug out (calling points would certainly become a very important skill) but I'd hope the stab could be balanced in such a way to give a reasonable penalty to such a gang.

- The kiting/brawling meta would be affected. You can imagine how. A single-point kiting setup'd be unable to lock down a brawler that chose a stab/scram setup. Any setup that uses a scram would be unaffected.

- Slow armour ships that fit a stab would be less likely to be caught at a gate. You can judge whether or not that's a good change yourself. Of course, as fast shield ships generally have more lowslots open, this may favour fast ships much much more.

As shield ships are generally the faster, maybe a change aiming to make brawling or slower ships more viable would lower the targeting penalty of the warp core stab and add a heavy shield penalty. Perhaps stabs can be limited to one per ship, or give the targeting penalty a heavy stacking bonus.

Is the current meta too far in favour of faster ships, kiting and shields? If so, could a warp stab change make both kiting and brawling better options, or swing too far in favour of brawling? Would slower ships generally unable to control range become more viable, especially in solo PVP? Would this be good for the meta, and make a more entertaining game? Would it result in less ship kills? More?

If changing stabs in such a way would improve the meta, how could it be done without making them overpowered? Can it be done? Or is the current meta of 'only fit stabs on non-combat ships' the best way the stabiliser concept can be used?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2013-09-22 04:28:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
The reason Warp Core Stabs were nerfed the way they were was because people used them for sniper-setups.

They warp in at range... shoot... and when a frigate points them they warp off.

Good snipers generally don't care about having a tank.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#3 - 2013-09-22 04:34:52 UTC
Yeah, that's pretty bad. I'm not looking to remove the targeting penalty, mind, just reducing it. I also imagine a stab where you wouldn't fit more than one to a combat ship. Between those two parts, I don't think such a situation would come about again. One, because there'd still be a targeting penalty of whatever strength; and two, because if a ship would fit at most one stab to remain combat-viable (no five-stab setups), a frigate tackler with two points or one scram would still be able to make the tackle.

There's nerfing a mod to take away the potential for abuse, and then there's making it completely unusable. I'm hoping that if handled correctly, a stab mod could improve the meta and make the game more entertaining.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#4 - 2013-09-22 04:45:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
To be honest... I don't see the warp core stab as anything that would "improve" combat. If anything... it's a direct means to avoid combat or avoid committing to a battle.

As for your gripe about shield-fit versus armor fit... generally speaking, shield fits tend to have less raw HP than armor and lack the utility and Ewar armor fits have. In return, shields have more speed and can fit for more damage.
Zappity
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2013-09-22 10:53:22 UTC
I don't understand the point (pardon the pun). You are basically saying that you only want to stay in engagements that you are going to win and warp away from everything else. Except everybody will be doing it.

It would damage solo play badly by making multiple scram or disruptor points mandatory.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#6 - 2013-09-22 13:55:59 UTC
Quote:
I don't understand the point (pardon the pun). You are basically saying that you only want to stay in engagements that you are going to win and warp away from everything else. Except everybody will be doing it.

It would damage solo play badly by making multiple scram or disruptor points mandatory.

Don't insult me. And read the OP, instead of guessing what's in it.

ShahFluffers wrote:
To be honest... I don't see the warp core stab as anything that would "improve" combat. If anything... it's a direct means to avoid combat or avoid committing to a battle.

As for your gripe about shield-fit versus armor fit... generally speaking, shield fits tend to have less raw HP than armor and lack the utility and Ewar armor fits have. In return, shields have more speed and can fit for more damage.

It's not so much a gripe, I was just talking about possible effects of people fitting stabs sometimes. vOv

I'm fully aware that stabs being fittable regularly would be damaging. I'm trying to discuss making a stab into something that you might consider fitting sometimes, instead of never at all. Or if that's even possible without making it into something people'd always fit.

I think it'd be fine, if someone was being clever, for them to say to themselves 'hmm if i take this penalty i might be able to bug out'. I think it's a very similar concept to keeping a flight of dishonour drones spare in a Vexor.

In the case of the drones, you're giving up a flight of combat drones for the flight of EC-600s. You might be tackled be two people. You might tackle someone with ECM. Your drones might die, or they may roll poorly to jam. But you might be able to slip away.

For a balanced warp stab? You're giving up a lowslot and an additional penalty. Maybe the targeting penalties, maybe lesser targeting penalties or something else. You're immune to a single point (please remember I doubt having more than one stab on a combat ship would be balanced without very harsh penalties), but if there's more than one point or you get scrammed or bubbled, the stab won't work.

So the OP is wondering about what the effects of this ~magic balanced warp stab~ would be, and asking if it's possible to balance in such a way. Or even if the meta effects would be desirable.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#7 - 2013-09-22 14:16:37 UTC
It was discussed in another thread a while back.

I would prefer warp mechanics changed slightly, so that rather than having to accelerate to 75% speed, you had to spool up the drive. Points would add to the spool time, stabilizers would decrease it. Spool times could be set at current align times for balance. Perhaps allow for preheating of the drive for limited times to make preparing for an instant warp out an active activity. More points add to the spool time, to a maximum amount which is much higher for an interdictor, dropping a point does not cause them to instawarp.

This would greatly improve the nature of PvP in EVE by reducing some of the binary nature of it. No one engages a fight the dont *know* they can win. If you get people engaging you, 99% of the time you lost when they undocked. Pointing would become more strategic, being held hostage for your pod would require quick decision making on both parties, and backup better be inbound, not someone holding a ship for an hour while a fleet gathers to kill it, and interdictors become good for more than gatecamps.

Koujjo Dian
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2013-09-22 14:33:12 UTC
I'd like to see warp stabs removed from the game completely.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
G0N3 F1SS10N
#9 - 2013-09-22 15:18:41 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Quote:
I don't understand the point (pardon the pun). You are basically saying that you only want to stay in engagements that you are going to win and warp away from everything else. Except everybody will be doing it.

It would damage solo play badly by making multiple scram or disruptor points mandatory.

Don't insult me. And read the OP, instead of guessing what's in it.
Where's the insult?
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#10 - 2013-09-22 16:34:17 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one engages a fight the dont *know* they can win.


Please don't project your insecurities onto others. While most people will not willingly involve themselves in insanely one-sided engagements, you don't learn by never challenging yourself. Some of us do, in fact, take fights that we're not sure we can win; it's only pixels FFS.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#11 - 2013-09-22 17:24:37 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
I'm fully aware that stabs being fittable regularly would be damaging. I'm trying to discuss making a stab into something that you might consider fitting sometimes, instead of never at all. Or if that's even possible without making it into something people'd always fit.

The problem is that the ability to avoid being reliably tackled (with minimal penalties) is such a powerful thing you would be stupid not to take advantage of it (i.e. everyone would fit it).

Sure, it won't help against scrams... but it makes fast, long points useless unless multiple ones are used (which is a problem for some frigates and interceptors with only 2 mid-slots). And, again, this encourages blobbing tactics and puts a rather large crimp on small-gang, solo warfare.

As far as ECM drones go... bear in mind they have penalties as well. You lose potential DPS, they are easily destructible, even 5 of them are collectively not as strong as a "real" ECM mod, and they are not reliable (see: random).
A warp core stab on the other hand is not destructible and always works against 1 disruptor... so it has to pay an additional heavy penalty.

(note: bear in mind that there is A LOT of dislike for ECM drones (and ECM in general) despite their current penalties... almost to the point where some would like to see them nerfed to the ground or removed from the game entirely).
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-09-22 17:47:06 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one engages a fight the dont *know* they can win. If you get people engaging you, 99% of the time you lost when they undocked.


I do...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Zappity
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2013-09-22 21:02:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Commander Ted wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one engages a fight the dont *know* they can win. If you get people engaging you, 99% of the time you lost when they undocked.


I do...


Absolutely. The losses are educational and the wins are rewarding and actually take skill (rather than just skills).

HiddenPorpoise wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Quote:
I don't understand the point (pardon the pun). You are basically saying that you only want to stay in engagements that you are going to win and warp away from everything else. Except everybody will be doing it.

It would damage solo play badly by making multiple scram or disruptor points mandatory.

Don't insult me. And read the OP, instead of guessing what's in it.
Where's the insult?


I'm not sure either. I did read the OP and specifically addressed a couple of points of concern. Perhaps you could do the same - what about solo?

The agility penalty concept is interesting. It would hurt kiters a lot.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#14 - 2013-09-22 21:11:57 UTC
To repeat a point that someone else already made, stabs are for escaping and/or avoiding combat. The idea of a "combat-viable" warp core stabiliser is similar to e.g. a target painter than only paints you. You wouldn't redesign a WCS to be combat viable any more than you would redesign a doomsday weapon to mine asteroids.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#15 - 2013-09-22 23:25:26 UTC
I'd like to see larger size scramblers and disruptors with a bit more range and a higher scram value, too high in powergrid to fit to a destroyer or assault frigate, but viable on a cruiser and pretty easy for a battleship. Could be something like this:

Heavy Warp Scrambler:
75MW - 30tf - 12,500m - scram value 3

Heavy Warp Disruptor:
50MW - 60tf - 30,000m - scram value 2

Along with this there could be a larger warp core stabilizer with lower penalties to allow bigger ships an easier time fitting them. This way large ships might find it easier to flee from small ships, while it wouldn't make it any easier for them to flee from large ships. I also think capital ships should all have a warp strength of at least 1.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Zappity
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-09-23 04:20:06 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd like to see larger size scramblers and disruptors with a bit more range and a higher scram value, too high in powergrid to fit to a destroyer or assault frigate, but viable on a cruiser and pretty easy for a battleship. Could be something like this:

Heavy Warp Scrambler:
75MW - 30tf - 12,500m - scram value 3

Heavy Warp Disruptor:
50MW - 60tf - 30,000m - scram value 2

Along with this there could be a larger warp core stabilizer with lower penalties to allow bigger ships an easier time fitting them. This way large ships might find it easier to flee from small ships, while it wouldn't make it any easier for them to flee from large ships. I also think capital ships should all have a warp strength of at least 1.


There are already faction scrams and disruptors with increased point value - how would these differ? I think we're getting to the pointy end of the discussion now.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#17 - 2013-09-23 16:12:00 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
To repeat a point that someone else already made, stabs are for escaping and/or avoiding combat. The idea of a "combat-viable" warp core stabiliser is similar to e.g. a target painter than only paints you. You wouldn't redesign a WCS to be combat viable any more than you would redesign a doomsday weapon to mine asteroids.



This is their current function due to their inbuilt limitations. Without the drawbacks that cripple combat ships, they would get used for harassing tactics, warping in and killing a target and escaping again. They would also allow more fighting, though less kills, as more PvE ships would be willing to try and fight and run if they can't win, rather than warp off without question as soon as a neut shows up in system.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#18 - 2013-09-23 16:22:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
If we need to change the balance of fast ships vs slow ships (something you have not established), giving slow ships a "get out of any fight free" card is quite possibly the least interesting way to do it.
Quote:
Along with this there could be a larger warp core stabilizer with lower penalties to allow bigger ships an easier time fitting them. This way large ships might find it easier to flee from small ships, while it wouldn't make it any easier for them to flee from large ships. I also think capital ships should all have a warp strength of at least 1.


...Why should big ships find it easier to flee from small ships?
Mascha Tzash
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2013-09-23 16:30:06 UTC
On the one hand, everything has a countermeasure.
On the other hand, points are kinda mandatory to force someone into a fight and (somehow) punishing the player who wants to stay out of combat for his/her own reasons.

I think there will never be a solution that everyone likes.

To bring in a quick idea:
Make WCS an active module AND make it work like the cloaking devices (either the WCS or everything else). As long as your agression timer is up the WCS-Module can't be active. The penalties stay the same or are even more severe.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#20 - 2013-09-23 18:18:55 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
a doomsday weapon to mine asteroids.

NB4 Chribba

I'm right behind you

12Next page