These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make Warp Core Stabilizers into ACTIVE Modules
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#1 - 2014-05-07 14:22:36 UTC
This is not so much a finished proposal as a discussion thread. I want to discuss the pros and cons of changing Warp Core Stabilizers (hereafter referred to as WCS) from being passive modules to being active modules. Here's the outline of my idea:

  • When fitted, but not active WCS would have zero negative impacts on the ship apart from using up a low slot
  • To compensate for this, they would need to have their fitting requirements re-evaluated
  • PG requirements would be increased. No more 1 PG !!
  • There is no single PG fitting requirement that would be well balanced on every ship, therefore...
  • Small, Medium and Large WCS for different ship sizes

  • The new WCS modules would only need to get 1 cycle off to be effective, therefore...
  • They would have a very significant activation cost. This would make timing important.

  • This would enable Hit and Run warfare like never before, so I have an idea to limit this imbalance...
  • While the new WCS modules are active, they reduce your ship's PG and CPU output by 10% of maximum EACH
  • This would send some of your other modules offline, preventing immediate re-engagement
  • Pilots would have to spend the time to deploy a mobile depot or to cap up to bring their modules back online

    • So there you have it. I am now taking bets on how many posts it takes before someone points out the hole in my idea big enough to sink the Titanic. Big smile

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    Batelle
    Federal Navy Academy
    #2 - 2014-05-07 15:05:29 UTC
    Hit and run works fine already without using WCS. Reduction in CPU and PG as a penalty is interesting, but having those penalties only during an activation cycle is a bit wierd and poses design problems, such as needing you to know the math of which module you want to go inactive, so you can disable it before activating WCS, so that a more critical module does not go offline. Thats bad gameplay design.

    I also don't think there's a strong need to change WCS in the first place.

    I also hope you put your flame-retardant suit on first.

    "**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

    Never forget.
    Bohneik Itohn
    10.K
    #3 - 2014-05-07 15:14:42 UTC
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    This is not so much a finished proposal as a discussion thread. I want to discuss the pros and cons of changing Warp Core Stabilizers (hereafter referred to as WCS) from being passive modules to being active modules. Here's the outline of my idea:

  • When fitted, but not active WCS would have zero negative impacts on the ship apart from using up a low slot
  • To compensate for this, they would need to have their fitting requirements re-evaluated
  • PG requirements would be increased. No more 1 PG !!
  • There is no single PG fitting requirement that would be well balanced on every ship, therefore...
  • Small, Medium and Large WCS for different ship sizes

  • The new WCS modules would only need to get 1 cycle off to be effective, therefore...
  • They would have a very significant activation cost. This would make timing important.

  • This would enable Hit and Run warfare like never before, so I have an idea to limit this imbalance...
  • While the new WCS modules are active, they reduce your ship's PG and CPU output by 10% of maximum EACH
  • This would send some of your other modules offline, preventing immediate re-engagement
  • Pilots would have to spend the time to deploy a mobile depot or to cap up to bring their modules back online

    • So there you have it. I am now taking bets on how many posts it takes before someone points out the hole in my idea big enough to sink the Titanic. Big smile


    This is a perfect example of an idea that might work well in a small corner of eve for a particular gameplay style, but would completely screw over the other 95% of the population and make something that has been a functioning and legitimate part of game mechanics for years unusable for them.

    Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

    Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
    Swiftstrike1
    Swiftstrike Incorporated
    #4 - 2014-05-07 15:14:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
    Batelle wrote:
    I also hope you put your flame-retardant suit on first.

    Flame-retardant suit? Well of course... That's standard forum PPE lol

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    monkfish2345
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #5 - 2014-05-07 15:17:12 UTC
    the game really doesn't need more effective ways to evade combat. and if you do want to be able to evade combat then there needs to be significant drawbacks that makes being the aggressor a compromise.

    changing a stab to this would make it mandatory on all ships. so you could escape combat in most scenarios when things start to go against you. note if your in a situation where you would want to use this as an active module then no change to CPU or PG is going to matter.