These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Module Tiericide - Warp Disruption Field Generators

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#301 - 2015-11-21 15:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
In a 1v1 scenario, i see HICs as a non-issue. Worst case scenario, ill just slow boat back to gate. What im most worried about are the HICs with no guns, double plated with sebos waiting on a gate with their gang/fleet/camp etc. Or the one HIC that holds you for 30seconds till the rest of the gang gets there. That is my main concern. I see no counter to that short of blobbing the **** out of them in typical n+1 fashion. Which like you said, is ishtars online all over again.

That is assuming that you are fighting on a gate, and even then that is a long burn back to the gate in an BS or BC unless you are AB fit, plenty of time for hostile reinforcement to arrive on the other side.

This will definitely shift the meta towards AB, I can see oversized ABs on BCs and perhaps on BSs becoming a lot more common. Or more likely people just won't use BSs and BCs for solo or small gang.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#302 - 2015-11-21 16:48:07 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
In a 1v1 scenario, i see HICs as a non-issue. Worst case scenario, ill just slow boat back to gate. What im most worried about are the HICs with no guns, double plated with sebos waiting on a gate with their gang/fleet/camp etc. Or the one HIC that holds you for 30seconds till the rest of the gang gets there. That is my main concern. I see no counter to that short of blobbing the **** out of them in typical n+1 fashion. Which like you said, is ishtars online all over again.

That is assuming that you are fighting on a gate, and even then that is a long burn back to the gate in an BS or BC unless you are AB fit, plenty of time for hostile reinforcement to arrive on the other side.

This will definitely shift the meta towards AB, I can see oversized ABs on BCs and perhaps on BSs becoming a lot more common. Or more likely people just won't use BSs and BCs for solo or small gang.


i still can't believe they haven't said much since the thread started, and it also highlights how poor AB's are that only oversized AB's are talked about. and how broken it is that you can do it.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#303 - 2015-11-21 16:52:10 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:


This will definitely shift the meta towards AB, I can see oversized ABs on BCs and perhaps on BSs becoming a lot more common. Or more likely people just won't use BSs and BCs for solo or small gang.


Which is a shame.

CCP: Here are some new BC changes to make BCs viable again

4 weeks later.

CCP: So we are making some changes that will dumpster BCs again and reinforce the cruiser and below meta


Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#304 - 2015-11-21 17:06:19 UTC  |  Edited by: HandelsPharmi
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:


This will definitely shift the meta towards AB, I can see oversized ABs on BCs and perhaps on BSs becoming a lot more common. Or more likely people just won't use BSs and BCs for solo or small gang.


Which is a shame.

CCP: Here are some new BC changes to make BCs viable again

4 weeks later.

CCP: So we are making some changes that will dumpster BCs again and reinforce the cruiser and below meta



CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • Scripted Warp Disruption Field Generators now Scramble, disabling MJDs and MWDs

    • Wow, one single ship per scripted Warp Disruption Field Generator. And all 40 other will burn away.
    Stitch Kaneland
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #305 - 2015-11-21 17:22:32 UTC
    HandelsPharmi wrote:
    Stitch Kaneland wrote:
    Moac Tor wrote:


    This will definitely shift the meta towards AB, I can see oversized ABs on BCs and perhaps on BSs becoming a lot more common. Or more likely people just won't use BSs and BCs for solo or small gang.


    Which is a shame.

    CCP: Here are some new BC changes to make BCs viable again

    4 weeks later.

    CCP: So we are making some changes that will dumpster BCs again and reinforce the cruiser and below meta



    CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • Scripted Warp Disruption Field Generators now Scramble, disabling MJDs and MWDs

    • Wow, one single ship per scripted Warp Disruption Field Generator. And all 40 other will burn away.



    You should probably read the rest of the thread where I am specifically talking about solo and small gangs. But go ahead and jump into the middle of the conversation like you know something.

    This has little affect on fleets but will make roaming solo/small gangs a major pain in the ass. Not to mention you act like gate campers/fleets have only 1 HIC. Roll

    Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

    Make the Muninn great again!
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #306 - 2015-11-21 17:33:01 UTC
    so does using a WDFG actually prevent you from using normal disruptors or scrams?

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Stitch Kaneland
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #307 - 2015-11-21 17:35:36 UTC
    Harvey James wrote:
    so does using a WDFG actually prevent you from using normal disruptors or scrams?


    I dont think it prevents you from using standard disruptors/scrams (havent tested). When you have a scram with the same range as a linked disruptor though, why waste the mid(s)?

    Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

    Make the Muninn great again!
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #308 - 2015-11-21 17:41:20 UTC
    Stitch Kaneland wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    so does using a WDFG actually prevent you from using normal disruptors or scrams?


    I dont think it prevents you from using standard disruptors/scrams (havent tested). When you have a scram with the same range as a linked disruptor though, why waste the mid(s)?


    it would allow you too scram a cynabal and just point another target until someone else could scram it, this assumes only 1 WDFG ofc, my thoughts being for such powerful abilities shouldn't a drawback be added? also on a physics point of view wouldn't this mod prevent the weaker mods field from projecting through?

    - limit to 1 WDFG per ship (like dictors have)
    - disallow normal points being usable at the same time

    p.s. can rep bots work when normal reps don't?

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #309 - 2015-11-21 20:09:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
    Harvey James wrote:
    Stitch Kaneland wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    so does using a WDFG actually prevent you from using normal disruptors or scrams?


    I dont think it prevents you from using standard disruptors/scrams (havent tested). When you have a scram with the same range as a linked disruptor though, why waste the mid(s)?


    it would allow you too scram a cynabal and just point another target until someone else could scram it, this assumes only 1 WDFG ofc, my thoughts being for such powerful abilities shouldn't a drawback be added? also on a physics point of view wouldn't this mod prevent the weaker mods field from projecting through?

    - limit to 1 WDFG per ship (like dictors have)
    - disallow normal points being usable at the same time

    p.s. can rep bots work when normal reps don't?

    You can also fit up to 6 infinite points. You'd have to sacrifice guns but if you wanted dedicated fleet tackle then I believe it is possible to run all 6 at once. The fitting requirements are not that high. That is also not including standard mid slot point and webs if you really wanted to go all out. So no idea what HandelsPharmi above was going on about.
    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #310 - 2015-11-21 20:34:00 UTC
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    Stitch Kaneland wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    so does using a WDFG actually prevent you from using normal disruptors or scrams?


    I dont think it prevents you from using standard disruptors/scrams (havent tested). When you have a scram with the same range as a linked disruptor though, why waste the mid(s)?


    it would allow you too scram a cynabal and just point another target until someone else could scram it, this assumes only 1 WDFG ofc, my thoughts being for such powerful abilities shouldn't a drawback be added? also on a physics point of view wouldn't this mod prevent the weaker mods field from projecting through?

    - limit to 1 WDFG per ship (like dictors have)
    - disallow normal points being usable at the same time

    p.s. can rep bots work when normal reps don't?

    You can also fit up to 6 infinite points. You'd have to sacrifice guns but if you wanted dedicated fleet tackle then I believe it is possible to run all 6 at once. The fitting requirements are not that high. That is also not including standard mid slot point and webs if you really wanted to go all out. So no idea what HandelsPharmi above was going on about.


    Go ahead and try fitting and running six points with propulsion module, cap booster, and tank. Then remember that remote repairs do not work when any WDFG is active (scripted or not).

    CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #311 - 2015-11-21 21:00:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
    FT Diomedes wrote:
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    Stitch Kaneland wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    so does using a WDFG actually prevent you from using normal disruptors or scrams?


    I dont think it prevents you from using standard disruptors/scrams (havent tested). When you have a scram with the same range as a linked disruptor though, why waste the mid(s)?


    it would allow you too scram a cynabal and just point another target until someone else could scram it, this assumes only 1 WDFG ofc, my thoughts being for such powerful abilities shouldn't a drawback be added? also on a physics point of view wouldn't this mod prevent the weaker mods field from projecting through?

    - limit to 1 WDFG per ship (like dictors have)
    - disallow normal points being usable at the same time

    p.s. can rep bots work when normal reps don't?

    You can also fit up to 6 infinite points. You'd have to sacrifice guns but if you wanted dedicated fleet tackle then I believe it is possible to run all 6 at once. The fitting requirements are not that high. That is also not including standard mid slot point and webs if you really wanted to go all out. So no idea what HandelsPharmi above was going on about.


    Go ahead and try fitting and running six points with propulsion module, cap booster, and tank. Then remember that remote repairs do not work when any WDFG is active (scripted or not).

    I didn't say that it was ideal, just that it is possible and you still have plenty of PG and CPU for fitting tank even with all your high slots full of them.

    Just for example I mocked up a fit below. I am not saying this is ideal I just wanted to see what it was like in terms of CPU PG and cap and it all runs fine. And with 87k EHP and 2641 m/s to boot.


    [Broadsword]
    Damage Control II
    Nanofiber Internal Structure II
    Nanofiber Internal Structure II
    'Dyad' Co-Processor I

    50MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Large Shield Extender II
    Large Shield Extender II
    Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800

    Warp Disruption Field Generator II, Focused Warp Disruption Script
    Warp Disruption Field Generator II, Focused Warp Disruption Script
    Warp Disruption Field Generator II, Focused Warp Disruption Script
    Warp Disruption Field Generator II, Focused Warp Disruption Script
    Warp Disruption Field Generator II, Focused Warp Disruption Script
    Warp Disruption Field Generator II, Focused Warp Disruption Script

    Medium Processor Overclocking Unit II
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender II


    The issue is irrelevant to me anyway as I am purely looking from a solo or small gang perspective, although others in the thread were interested.
    Daemun Khanid
    Corbeau de sang
    #312 - 2015-11-21 22:50:43 UTC
    Love this change. Gives a purpose for hics in lowsec and helps combat the "RUN AWAY" meta. If you see a hic and make the decision to engage you'd better be committed. Far too many bc's running around lowsec with mjd and fit to kill/neut anything fast enough to get inside normal scram range. Its not remotely op, its a new tactical tool for fighting against risk adverse enemies thats still far too expensive for most gangs to risk in large numbers.

    Daemun of Khanid
    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #313 - 2015-11-21 23:28:07 UTC
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Love this change. Gives a purpose for hics in lowsec and helps combat the "RUN AWAY" meta. If you see a hic and make the decision to engage you'd better be committed. Far too many bc's running around lowsec with mjd and fit to kill/neut anything fast enough to get inside normal scram range. Its not remotely op, its a new tactical tool for fighting against risk adverse enemies thats still far too expensive for most gangs to risk in large numbers.

    You must be the first person I've heard complaining about the dominance of BC's in low sec. *chuckles*
    Daemun Khanid
    Corbeau de sang
    #314 - 2015-11-21 23:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemun Khanid
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Love this change. Gives a purpose for hics in lowsec and helps combat the "RUN AWAY" meta. If you see a hic and make the decision to engage you'd better be committed. Far too many bc's running around lowsec with mjd and fit to kill/neut anything fast enough to get inside normal scram range. Its not remotely op, its a new tactical tool for fighting against risk adverse enemies thats still far too expensive for most gangs to risk in large numbers.

    You must be the first person I've heard complaining about the dominance of BC's in low sec. *chuckles*


    Its not dominance, its annoyance. A properly fit and flown bc can be very hard to catch without shipping into a gang specifically fit for the purpose (ussually with ewar.) Lately we just ignore most bc's we see on dscan because you know he's gonna be mjd anti-frig fit. Sneaking a hic on top of them from just outside dscan range will be a nice potential counter.

    Daemun of Khanid
    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #315 - 2015-11-21 23:48:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Love this change. Gives a purpose for hics in lowsec and helps combat the "RUN AWAY" meta. If you see a hic and make the decision to engage you'd better be committed. Far too many bc's running around lowsec with mjd and fit to kill/neut anything fast enough to get inside normal scram range. Its not remotely op, its a new tactical tool for fighting against risk adverse enemies thats still far too expensive for most gangs to risk in large numbers.

    You must be the first person I've heard complaining about the dominance of BC's in low sec. *chuckles*


    Its not dominance, its annoyance. A properly fit and flown bc can be very hard to catch without shipping into a gang specifically fit for the purpose (ussually with ewar.) Lately we just ignore most bc's we see on dscan because you know he's gonna be mjd anti-frig fit. Sneaking a hic on top of them from just outside dscan range will be a nice potential counter.

    So you are flying in frigate gangs and you complain that BCs are an annoyance. Why should a BC not have some defence against a frigate gang. And it is relatively easy to counter that defence, fit a small nos to counter his neut, and use your signature to avoid his DPS.

    Unless you are complaining that your kitey frigate gang cannot engage him risk free with a long point without him MJDing away, in which case I have even less sympathy.
    Daemun Khanid
    Corbeau de sang
    #316 - 2015-11-22 00:05:43 UTC
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Love this change. Gives a purpose for hics in lowsec and helps combat the "RUN AWAY" meta. If you see a hic and make the decision to engage you'd better be committed. Far too many bc's running around lowsec with mjd and fit to kill/neut anything fast enough to get inside normal scram range. Its not remotely op, its a new tactical tool for fighting against risk adverse enemies thats still far too expensive for most gangs to risk in large numbers.

    You must be the first person I've heard complaining about the dominance of BC's in low sec. *chuckles*


    Its not dominance, its annoyance. A properly fit and flown bc can be very hard to catch without shipping into a gang specifically fit for the purpose (ussually with ewar.) Lately we just ignore most bc's we see on dscan because you know he's gonna be mjd anti-frig fit. Sneaking a hic on top of them from just outside dscan range will be a nice potential counter.

    So you are flying in frigate gangs and you complain that BCs are an annoyance. Why should a BC not have some defence against a frigate gang. And it is relatively easy to counter that defence, fit a small nos to counter his neut, and use your signature to avoid his DPS.

    Unless you are complaining that your kitey frigate gang cannot engage him risk free with a long point without him MJDing away, in which case I have even less sympathy.

    Is this thread about hics or is it just a place for you to try and argue something you clearly dont have a clue about.

    Daemun of Khanid
    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #317 - 2015-11-22 00:22:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Love this change. Gives a purpose for hics in lowsec and helps combat the "RUN AWAY" meta. If you see a hic and make the decision to engage you'd better be committed. Far too many bc's running around lowsec with mjd and fit to kill/neut anything fast enough to get inside normal scram range. Its not remotely op, its a new tactical tool for fighting against risk adverse enemies thats still far too expensive for most gangs to risk in large numbers.

    You must be the first person I've heard complaining about the dominance of BC's in low sec. *chuckles*


    Its not dominance, its annoyance. A properly fit and flown bc can be very hard to catch without shipping into a gang specifically fit for the purpose (ussually with ewar.) Lately we just ignore most bc's we see on dscan because you know he's gonna be mjd anti-frig fit. Sneaking a hic on top of them from just outside dscan range will be a nice potential counter.

    So you are flying in frigate gangs and you complain that BCs are an annoyance. Why should a BC not have some defence against a frigate gang. And it is relatively easy to counter that defence, fit a small nos to counter his neut, and use your signature to avoid his DPS.

    Unless you are complaining that your kitey frigate gang cannot engage him risk free with a long point without him MJDing away, in which case I have even less sympathy.

    Is this thread about hics or is it just a place for you to try and argue something you clearly dont have a clue about.

    I and many others are simply pointing out that the HIC long point adversely affects the BC and BS meta which are only just clinging on at the moment with the dominance of stronger classes. I do find it somewhat ironic that someone who flys frigate gangs (dominant in the current meta) is struggling against BCs. I've just pointed out how to counter BCs in my above post, I suggest instead of attacking me you take note unless you wish to continue struggling against BCs.
    Daemun Khanid
    Corbeau de sang
    #318 - 2015-11-22 00:37:22 UTC
    Your counters are misguided. If it were that easy it wouldnt be an issue and your still missing the point. Its not about struggling its about a class/fit that needs a more appropriate counter. Hics are designed to catch things. This change makes them viable at doing so in lowsec. Back on the subject of the actual thread, anything that forces ppl to actually stay and fight is a good thing.

    Daemun of Khanid
    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #319 - 2015-11-22 00:42:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Your counters are misguided. If it were that easy it wouldnt be an issue and your still missing the point. Its not about struggling its about a class/fit that needs a more appropriate counter. Hics are designed to catch things. This change makes them viable at doing so in lowsec. Back on the subject of the actual thread, anything that forces ppl to actually stay and fight is a good thing.

    My counters are tried and tested, and I never said it was easy, but then it shouldn't be fighting a BC in a frigate. But no matter, I am happy if you overlook this as it means more easy targets who don't fully understand the PvP mechanics.

    But anyway to the point of the thread, as for forcing people to stay and fight, what will actually happen as pointed out and as evidenced from tests on Singularity is that the HIC will kite you at range relatively risk free until either he kills you or backup arrives.
    Daemun Khanid
    Corbeau de sang
    #320 - 2015-11-22 01:11:46 UTC
    Moac Tor wrote:
    Daemun Khanid wrote:
    Your counters are misguided. If it were that easy it wouldnt be an issue and your still missing the point. Its not about struggling its about a class/fit that needs a more appropriate counter. Hics are designed to catch things. This change makes them viable at doing so in lowsec. Back on the subject of the actual thread, anything that forces ppl to actually stay and fight is a good thing.

    My counters are tried and tested, and I never said it was easy, but then it shouldn't be fighting a BC in a frigate. But no matter, I am happy if you overlook this as it means more easy targets who don't fully understand the PvP mechanics.

    But anyway to the point of the thread, as for forcing people to stay and fight, what will actually happen as pointed out and as evidenced from tests on Singularity is that the HIC will kite you at range relatively risk free until either he kills you or backup arrives.

    Then your counters are tried and tested against poorly fitted bc's for the job. Keeping you held down until others can get on target is kinda the point. Interceptors, interdictors and hics all serve that specific purpose.

    Daemun of Khanid