Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nivada
The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 11:35:00 -
[1]
I have an idea for a new warp core stabilizer system:
First get rid of the passive you get +2 warp core strength thing, and replace it with an active system. What I propose is you can fit ONE warp core stab and this warp core stab will be an ACTIVE module. When activated it will reduce your maximum number of possible target locks to 0 and reduce your capacitor generation by 100% and use X% of your maximum capacitor per cycle. While active the stab will begin generating warp strength points at some rate (obviously testing would be required here.) When your warp strength becomes > than the number of points on you, you can warp out. This means that if your ability to escape combat will be based on your ability to tank (ie if you can tank for the 3 minutes necessary to generate enough points you live if you can't you go pop.) As opposed to oh you fitted 8 warp stabs nothing can catch you. These penalties would be for people that use them on combat ships (transports discussed below). Now fitting the mod won't give you any penalty (other than losing a low slot) but using the mod will be more difficult. The cap restrictions mean that if they nos/neut you you probably won't live long enough to get out. Plus it means you can't just say "oh bugger it" and immediately GTFO. You'll have to survive a certain amount of time proportional to the number of points on you.
Industrial/Transports should have some mitigation to the penalties. The idea being that they should be able to run a better tank while generating points to give them a fighting chance. Something like a smaller capacitor generation penalty (would have to be tested.) Then end result should be the same as above (basically be if you can tank long enough then you can get through the gate camp.... if you can't well maybe you shoulda had a scout) but the mitigated cap penalty should make the ship more survivable while generating points than the combat one (after all it's the job of an industrial to try to move stuff and as such should be able to tank better with warp stabs than a combat ship.)
For transports: Transports are basically modeled to use warp stabs... after all most tanks can't last forever and if you can't warp out (even if they can't kill you) the bad guys will win cuz you're stuck and transports are meant to move stuff. If you're stuck you can't move stuff pretty simple. The tanking transport (occator for gallente) should have a slow point build up (same as an industrial) but a better tank. The speed one (viator) should have a faster point build up (possibly twice as fast) but obviously a weaker tank.
Summary: This will remove the "I got a bunch of stabs you can't catch me unless you have 20 points idea" AND give people that don't want to fill up their lows with nothing but stabs a fighting chance to live as long as they can tank the DPS. It will shift survivability away from a simple low SP mod (current warp stabs) and more towards mods who's effectiveness is based on how much SP you have invested in .... yeah you guessed it tanking .... wow tanking mods increasing survivablity... crazy.
Well what do you think?
|
Chewie Soloh
SkillzKillz United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 11:42:00 -
[2]
No
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Do Or Die And Live Or Try The Kano Organisation
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 11:45:00 -
[3]
So boost nos/neut to be the I-Win mod? And the new 'must have in pvp*.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Stabs are good as is. Kill combat ships (so you are dedicated to the fight) and makes transport ships "safer".
|
Nivada
The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 11:53:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes So boost nos/neut to be the I-Win mod? And the new 'must have in pvp*.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Stabs are good as is. Kill combat ships (so you are dedicated to the fight) and makes transport ships "safer".
First off Nos/Nuet can be used to prevent a warp out with or without this system due to the no cap = no warp thing.
Second with or without the nos/nuet turning on the stab will probably make you run out of cap while tanking anyway. It won't make nuet/nos "must haves" or "I-win" would just make him go down faster (something they do already anyway)
You know the iteron V has 5 low slots? that's 10 points under the current system....... that means 10 ships with 1 point disruptors or 5 ships with 2 point scrams (the scram being VERY difficult to use due to the 7.5km range) means they're not "safer" they're unfreaking stoppable for a very small amount of ISK/SP investment.
|
Venkul Mul
Vikramaditya DO JAJA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 12:30:00 -
[5]
You have made several mistakes:
First: Warp cores Stabilizer max strenght is 1, so a Iteron V at most has 5 point of stabs, while max strenght for Warp Jammers is 2, so you need 3 of those to jam a totally stabbed iteron.
Second: "capacitor generation by 100% and use X% of your maximum capacitor per cycle" so when the WCS strenght is high enough you have no cap and can't warp, smart.
Third: most industrials and even transport have very limited tank and you want them to be there getting pounded for "ie if you can tank for the 3 minutes necessary to generate enough points you live if you can't you go pop". With the current system a pilot using only WCS is losing his tank or the possibility to nano his ship, but at least get the possibility to warp away immediatly.
With your system he lose that possibility with a very hypotetical gain. Essentially a ship with 1 point will kill it as between lag, module activation delay and the time to complete the stabilizer cycle(s) the ship will be a beutiful wreck before warping.
Essentially you want to make a already weak module even weaker. Thank you, but NO.
|
Siltan
Beeta Production
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 12:44:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Siltan on 14/03/2008 12:45:47
Originally by: Nivada Edited by: Nivada on 14/03/2008 12:10:09
You know the iteron V has 5 low slots? that's 10 points under the current system.......
I might be wrong, but its 1 point / stab under the current system, the T2 versions are also only 1 point (used to be 2 but nerfed)
the +2 warp core strength thing that was mentioned is on the transport ship blockade runners only.
If you fill your lowslots with WCS it costs you the 137% cargo space bonus (iteron v as mentioned), so you actully have to make 3 trips to move the same amount of goods.
I would certainly like to see blockade runners changed as thier bonus is now uselss with hic's, interdictors and now long range scrams on interceptors (remember they get a range bonus so it aint 7.5km anymore) wether making it immune to bubbles is possible or overpowerd im not sure, but in thier current state they suck.
|
Nivadi
Reaver Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 12:55:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Nivadi on 14/03/2008 12:56:15 Sry wrong char this is nivada
Originally by: Venkul Mul You have made several mistakes:
First: Warp cores Stabilizer max strenght is 1, so a Iteron V at most has 5 point of stabs, while max strenght for Warp Jammers is 2, so you need 3 of those to jam a totally stabbed iteron.
Second: "capacitor generation by 100% and use X% of your maximum capacitor per cycle" so when the WCS strenght is high enough you have no cap and can't warp, smart.
Third: most industrials and even transport have very limited tank and you want them to be there getting pounded for "ie if you can tank for the 3 minutes necessary to generate enough points you live if you can't you go pop". With the current system a pilot using only WCS is losing his tank or the possibility to nano his ship, but at least get the possibility to warp away immediatly.
With your system he lose that possibility with a very hypotetical gain. Essentially a ship with 1 point will kill it as between lag, module activation delay and the time to complete the stabilizer cycle(s) the ship will be a beutiful wreck before warping.
Essentially you want to make a already weak module even weaker. Thank you, but NO.
Your right sorry could have sworn it was +2 strength.
As for your other points Industrials never had tanks because most people never tanked them... they said i have WCS's why should i tank? An itty V WITH a tank and one low reserved for could tank VERY well considering it has 4 low slots left and 5 med slots. EFT says i could get 17k effective HP with a combo of Extenders/Plates and armor/shield resistance mods (just threw it together in 5 mins imagine what i i could do if i sat down and worked out a tank. And don't get me started on what the occator could do with it's resistance bonus per level......
As for you're argument about the "when WCS strength is high enough you have no cap" the point of that is to make a cap on how many points you can generate. Depending on the value of X this could be upwards of 50 points. The idea is to use your skill and have your tank hold out long enough w/o losing your cap before you generate enough points. This would require ALOT of testing to find the correct values. IE. for a transport you could reduce the generation penalty to 10% with transports III and set x = 2% (arbitrary numbers.) So you could generate roughly 50+ points before your cap runs out assuming you're not running anything with cap. OR you could run a tank and get like 10 points before your cap runs out. OR you could cycle the repper so that you get 20 points before your cap runs out. This is something you would have to work out (the UI should show you the number of points on you and how many you're generating per sec.) Then you tank accordingly trying to balance between your capacitor and your tank and working survive long enough to generate the correct number of points. IMO I'd rather my tanking/cap management skills (both in game and playerwise) decide if i survive versus a question "well did i pack enough WCS to out point them?"
|
Nivada
The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 13:04:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Siltan Edited by: Siltan on 14/03/2008 12:45:47
Originally by: Nivada Edited by: Nivada on 14/03/2008 12:10:09
You know the iteron V has 5 low slots? that's 10 points under the current system.......
I might be wrong, but its 1 point / stab under the current system, the T2 versions are also only 1 point (used to be 2 but nerfed)
the +2 warp core strength thing that was mentioned is on the transport ship blockade runners only.
If you fill your lowslots with WCS it costs you the 137% cargo space bonus (iteron v as mentioned), so you actully have to make 3 trips to move the same amount of goods.
I would certainly like to see blockade runners changed as thier bonus is now uselss with hic's, interdictors and now long range scrams on interceptors (remember they get a range bonus so it aint 7.5km anymore) wether making it immune to bubbles is possible or overpowerd im not sure, but in thier current state they suck.
You're right we'd have to come up with something for dictors and Heavy dictors.......
|
Vanessa Vale
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:28:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Nivada 11.5km which is JUST BARELY outside NON-FACTION web range (10km) which means that one mistake trying to tackle a combat ship and i either go pop or have to run almost directly away from the webber which 9 times out 10 means i go well outside of 11.5k and i lose my point. Either way i'll
No. 10 km is IN web range. Same as 11.5.
Personally I'm tired of seeing ratting ravens and drakes with 1 WCS but I guess that's what ccp wants.
|
Xonja 2zero
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 15:23:00 -
[10]
Warp Core Stabs seem balanced to me for once. Apart from a smartbombing stab-a-batteship they are useless on combat ships now, while they do just what they're supposed to on industrials.
What might be an interesting addition is a counter to the other propulsion jamming module, for which there is currently none: The ubiquitous web. It could have the same penalties as WCS, while giving a certain percentage of web immunity. (Yes, i shamelessly borrowed that from the AF proposition.)
It would help industrials that get tackled get back to the gate. The aggressors would have to decide whether to send all tacklers at once to slow it down enough, or have some hold back to re-tackle on the other side - in which case the amount of WCS also fitted might be enough to escape.
So there, gatecamp successful, supplies denied. Hauler pilot happy, at least not all is lost.
Disclaimer: i'm a pirate, so don't get any funky ideas about vested interest.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |