First Local, Next Warp Core Stabs?

Where did CCP said that realism was the goal with EVE Online? :thinking:

If you’re fitting them to a combat ship, then yes you’re preparing yourself to lose and run away.

If you’re fitting them to a hauler you want to rush from A to B and hopefully not get caught, none of those combat penalties matter.

But you’re still fitting to suck as a hauler. You could be fitting speed/agility modules to reach your destination sooner or cargo expanders to improve your profit from the run. You’re making your ship worse to compensate for your lack of skill at using the other methods for avoiding tackle, and you’re rewarded for that lack of skill with a very high chance of escaping!

Any gate camp worth their salt is going to have insta-locking tacklers. So no amount of speed or agility mods are going to help you get away if they want to catch you.

Cargo expanders on a ship that ends up dead, just means more loot for the killers.

If your goal is to make sure you make the trip without getting captured and killed, the only real option is to make sure they can’t Scram you.

1 Like

Speed and agility are to make you finish the cargo run faster, meaning more ISK per hour. They’re not to avoid tackle, that’s supposed to be done by using scouts, watching the map and choosing a good route, etc. Same thing with cargo expanders, you’re supposed to be good at EVE and never land in the gate camp in the first place which means you can use your low slots for increasing your profit per run instead. WCS, on the other hand, only function when you have failed and jumped into a gatecamp. They make your ship worse when you’re good at EVE and better when you suck, and that shouldn’t be a thing that exists.

In the last weeks I’ve succcessfully went form Hek to Jita through Rancer. It’s a great short-cut! Not always in a ship, but sometimes in a ship. More in a pod, though, because I was well aware of potential disco battleships at gates … which weren’t around most of the time, though. Sometimes, not always.

Greetings to Hettie, who keeps watching the gates. o/

In general, what matters to campers is destroying the target before it is safe.

The higher “the bar of entry” to kill targets,
the less campers there will be,
but the bigger those fewer camps will grow.

Related: Highsec Wardeccers.

The only campers who don’t care about WCS and tank are those big enough already. Making it harder for less people to achieve the same as the big groups means less groups overall, because those interested in doing it will join those few successfully doing it already.

More successfull groups means more growth overall, compared to only a few groups sucking up those who are willing to join big groups … and those aren’t actually quality people most of the time, btw. All the players who would love to join small groups are completely left out.

There’s a reason why, nowadays, you don’t really get to see actual solo campers anymore and why it devolved to WarpCoreStab-fitted battleships using disco or big fleets of campers who can’t be evaded anyway.

WarpCoreStabs need to go.

They’re harming solo campers and small groups, but not the big ones. Having more smaller entities is beneficial for the whole eco system, because that’s where the most growth happens. Any and all changes meant to increase survivability are harming the “lower and middle classes” of the ecosystem the most, while the “1%” don’t need to give a ■■■■.

WCS and tank are there to increase the chance of survival, which is an increased chance of survival against solo or small entities. The big groups don’t need to give a ■■■■ about people fitting tank or WCS, because they already obliterate targets before they can warp off.

Everyone else needs to make sure the target stays put until it’s destroyed.

Removing WCS will allow for an environment in which solo and small time campers can thrive. They absolutely don’t need to be replaced. What needs to be replaced is the idea that people, who require WCS to achieve what they want, need to be around.

Not more…LESS PVP is the way to go…

BAN PVP IN HIGH COMPLETELY

0/10, please put more effort into your next trolling.

1 Like

Nah, what needs to be replaced is the concept that EVE is a haven for PvPers who suck so bad at PvP that they absolutely need weak, fat targets to be handed to them because they are too too lazy to counter a game mechanic that’s been in play for years.

“Hey I can’t kill this guy, and my friends can’t hold him down, so wait, I know, let’s cut off the legs of all my intended victims so I can pretend to be a badass fighter!”

Seriously, all the HTFU and “adapt or GTFO” and “L2P” goes right out the window whenever the lameass gankers get a sniff of weaker, easier targets to hunt.

Learn to PvP. Ask for changes that make PvP more interesting and more rewarding. Fight real fights.

Stop making up bullshyte to try and justify your need for weak, easy targets so you can continue to be rewarded for being bad at PvP.

Stop enabling CCP to continue to make EVE a cesspool of bad game design and playerbase destroying mechanics. Demand better PvP. Demand better game mechanics. Stop begging for handouts.

3 Likes

Alternatively, the targets should stop sucking at EVE so badly that they need to fit WCS in the first place. You can criticize the gankers all you want, but the people who need to use WCS are pathetic failures who should be ashamed of how badly they suck.

1 Like

please put more effort into stalking every post of me…you fail sooo hard in it…

I see your point, perhaps logical is a better word than realistic. The overall point is still valid though: uninventing things is not an appropriate way to balance something, innovation and invention are.

For example, CCP could choose to reduce gate camping in game. The traditional way to do this would be to nerf something like webifiers. It would work, but it pisses off people who invested in that pathway.

A better and more logical way to achieve that objective would be to develop a counter, like a decoy. Players could pop the decoy through the gate to get a look at the other side, say.

Could gankers counter this? Yes, of course, but that’s the point. A change in tactics would be enough to deal with decoys, people don’t have to rip their ships apart to respond. Decoys could have other uses too, like being used to lure rats away from a site or masking the size of a fleet.

It’s all about the evolution, baby.

seriously? maybe this was pre-nerfs to warpcore stabs when everyone used to have them on any and every ship in a fight, but not now. 1 wcs doubles your locking time and halves your locking range just having 1 fitted and theres so many ways to nullify the use of a wcs thats 1 of them is even allowed in high sec. stop sucking at pvp and get a HIC pilot today and even you can kill someone with 8 wcs.

You can already do this with an alt character, CCP doesn’t need to do anything here.

There’s no need for “evolution, baby” when you can already do this, baby.

Yes, that’s exactly the point. WCS cripple your ship for doing anything but running away after you’ve failed to avoid a fight. If you stop being terrible at EVE and learn how to use the superior tools you don’t need to cripple yourself with WCS.

Yes, you just need 500 alts and you too can win at EVE…
You don’t see the issue here or how the constant ‘just use an alt’ kills EVE.

You really need just 1 to do what that guys wants, but you’re free to slippery slope that argument all the way down.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.