Ships & Modules

So looking at how much FW players complain about stabbed plex farmers, and even thinking back to my own experiences filling exploration frigates with warp core stabs to evade hunters, doesn't it seem like the lock time/range penalty kind of does... nothing?

I mean, when you're building a ship 100% for evasion, whether it's plex farming or exploration hacking or PI or whatever, you don't need to lock anything, and the stuff you do lock isn't particularly time sensitive.

Wouldn't it make way more sense to create an actual penalty for stabs that caused you to make a real tradeoff?

For instance, what if stabs gave you a penalty to AGILITY?

Now when you fit stabs, you are making a real choice. Your ship can escape from warp disruption, but it will be much harder for you to actually get into warp. If you aren't already aligned, you might die or get bumped before you can escape. And if you're orbiting a beacon/hack can, or just warping gate to gate to gate, that penalty will cause an inconvenience... a real price for being immune to most points or scrams.

Stabs need to have some penalty, or they'd be an auto-include in certain real PVP fits. But it's a matter of what penalty makes sense, both for discouraging easy-out PVP and risk-free PVE.

Part of the problem here is the dual use of stabilizers. For FW plexers , increasing align time makes sense. However if you are using them for a more intended use, like safely hauling assets through lowsec, this penalty has real implications. For safe transport you often want to maximize both stabilizers and align time. Enough stabilizers to avoid the fast tackle of a gate camp, and enough agility to be gone before the rest of the lot lock you

Increasing align time hurts haulers in a big way.

If you were to make a change, it would need to keep that in mind and also ensure ships fit with stabilizers are inherently less combat viable.

Evasion is a valid choice of tactic, as is combat.

This is EVE, so of course some will complain that someone is "cheating" because they are not playing their way.

Don't fall into the trap of suggesting balancing through self entitlement.

Nothing to see here, except that.

There is no justification for nailing the mouse to the floor, in a game of cat and mouse. Unless you are a self entitled cat.

The current penalty is there to stop you from using them in PvP without gimping yourself.
Given that we don't see them all that often in PvP I'd say the penalties are working just right thanks.

If you are going to go that route. I would suggest the following changes:

Warp core stabs:

* Remove the signature resolution penalty

* Remove the lock range penalty

* Implement agility reduction (baseline 50% reduction, reducable by 5% per level of skill in using WCS)

Haulers/Industrials

* Get a role bonus to ignore agility reduction of WCS.

I'd argue against giving a warp cap penalty, because in reality that benefits the ship more often that it doesn't, because if it doesn't have the cap to warp to the destination, it basically creates an instant perfect safespot.

I think this would be a better option than changing an existing mechanic that is working as designed.

Just use a dual scram Maulus Navy Issue.

At the same time, it means that the stabbed ship is travelling slower because doesn't travel at max warp velocity for as long as an unstabbed ship.

Maybe penalties towards warp speed/cap. A tradeoff between travelling faster and travelling safer.

Man people just want to gimp things to the point where working for your meal is easy, as it is now WCS do a lot to gimp you now you want to stack more penalties on top of the one's existing, no way, they are the only thing that helps t-1 ships stay alive in low sec, stack that kind of penalty on and you already make a ship that's a big aluminum can totally useless.

The ability to move is the only thing keeping Indy ships alive and they are already slow to align and get to warp speed.

I humbly disagree with you,people are already trading EHP,align time and/or dps to increase their evasion capability ,lock range penalty come as a second slap.

From a competitor point of view looking at exploration for example,an evasion fitted astero cannot compete for juicy cans he doesnt have the lock range for cherry picking the good one, he can t neither attack or defend because it ll be either outdps/or outtanked by other fits.Only thing u can do as an evasion fit is fly away if you have competitors.

From a hunter/killer point of view things are more annoying as you ll need multiple scrams to put him to the ground,but in my opinion you are taking the wrong approach to solve evasion fit problem ,may i suggest you to use insta lock and alpha instead of multiple scrams?

As i stated earlier people are already making compromises to fit such modules,but they also come with easily exploited weakness.I dont think aggraving the penalties would have a positive outcome but i may be wrong.