These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Does anyone else think Warp Core Stabilizers penalize the wrong thing?

Author
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#1 - 2016-09-16 03:13:10 UTC
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.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#2 - 2016-09-16 04:10:32 UTC
Triple the align time, and triple the cap requirements for warp. Per WCS. Even then, it doesn't have much of an impact on frigates.

Or, make WCS active modules with a non-trivial cap cost so that you have counter-play to them that isn't stack more points.
Walter Pryst
Pryst Services Corp
#3 - 2016-09-16 04:28:51 UTC
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.

You can call me Walt

Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
#4 - 2016-09-16 06:15:51 UTC
If you're putting your faith in 'stabs, you're probably doing something wrong.

Make such an agility nerf part of the 'spatial anomaly' that is a Faction Warfare Plex?

Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze

This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

motie one
Secret Passage
#5 - 2016-09-16 08:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
Chance Ravinne wrote:
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.



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.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2016-09-16 08:41:20 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Agree here. When i use WCSs i don't care about my scanres or targeting range.

I only remember one case when i thought 'damn WCS'. It happened when i was moving my Rattlesnake couple jumps over 0.0 space and found serpentis shipyard on the way. Thinking that it would be cool to spend couple minutes killing it while i'm here i found that i cannot do anything because of WCSs. And continued my moving.

Mechanically speaking linking scanner to engine protection is pretty strange. On the other hand when you protect something from external factors you usually make it bigger, tougher, bulkier, slower. So yes, WCS affecting agility/speed/warp speed/capacitor needed for warp makes sense.

It can be added here that currently WCS have no place in active PvP/PvE because most of the time penalty is 'too hard'. Changing WCS to something other can make people use these modules more often and for other purposes than 'i'm outta here'.

For example: sniper fit with WCS to GTFO if failed and let others point you. Currently it does not work but if WCS affects agility for example then it's different story.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
Transgress
#7 - 2016-09-16 13:42:33 UTC
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.

Brown Pathfinder
Black Spot on Parchment
#8 - 2016-09-16 14:07:18 UTC
Man if they did that you could see pvp fleets fitted with warp core stabs, just warp out when you taken enough damage Twisted
The scan res nerf does have a point imo... maybe you could nerf the cargo capacity of the ship or something if you want to change the down side of warp core stabs..
Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
Ronins
#9 - 2016-09-16 16:11:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonn Duune
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.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

Adolph Weltschmerz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2016-09-17 22:46:19 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
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.




This. If too many hackers get away, just use more scrams.
oiukhp Muvila
Doomheim
#11 - 2016-09-17 23:35:54 UTC
Adolph Weltschmerz wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
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.




This. If too many hackers get away, just use more scrams.



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


Petranese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2016-09-18 00:37:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Petranese
So, why do Warp stabs bother you?
1. FW plexers use cheap ships with fits unusable for actual PVP combat. If they warp out you already won. Why do they bother you? Just because you can't get another entry on your killboards? I don't get it honestly. If you really want to kill them just use more scrams, it's not as if you were restricted to 1 point, and each scram you have requires them to fit another 2 stabs, which means they will run out of low slots far sooner than you. And of course there's a faction scram with 3 points...

2. Industrials, explorers and miners? These ships are commonly warp-stabbed, so when you're hunting them you should always bring extra point. In other words, if you're hunting butterflies, you can't complain your beartraps won't work. These ships are fragile and harmless once you stop them, so you don't need that extra tank or DPS you would normally need.
You can bring dictors/HICs to pin down deep space transports, you can bring smartbombing battleships to catch explorers.

Like everyone knows there are taxi interceptors and stealthy frigates carrying around hundreds of millions in their cargo holds, yet so few people actually realize there are extremely effective means to extract ISK from their cold hulls.
Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#13 - 2016-09-18 02:36:50 UTC
Just use a dual scram Maulus Navy Issue. Shocked

Rage Guy
Heimatar Hull Mining Group
#14 - 2016-09-18 07:43:53 UTC
So, because some people engaging in FW are too inept to bring enough scram points to counter a very tiny fraction of specialized fits, you suggest a change to core game mechanics instead?

Yeah, that'll probably end up well. Roll
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2016-09-18 12:01:23 UTC
Jonn Duune wrote:
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.


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.
gregora mai
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#16 - 2016-09-19 13:16:56 UTC  |  Edited by: gregora mai
Best thing to solve this issue in FW: Inhibit activation of turrets/Smartbombs and inhibit launching drones when you have any fittet stab. Voila: No one could use them in FW to Plex like hell!
Another thing could be: Allow Interdictiors and their bubbles in Plexes. If it would be the only place where you can use them it would not be OP, perhapst :)
Piugattuk
Perkone
Caldari State
#17 - 2016-09-20 12:08:05 UTC
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.
gregora mai
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#18 - 2016-09-20 14:01:04 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:
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..


You have no idea about LS PVP, have you?
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#19 - 2016-09-25 21:27:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nya Kittenheart
Chance Ravinne wrote:
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.


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.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#20 - 2016-09-26 01:11:54 UTC
No, I don't.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

12Next page