Just admit CCP doesn't want warp core stabilizers

As someone who lives full-time in LowSec, there are already far too many “uncatchable” ships/ship builds in the game, or tactics to make ships uncatchable. The fact that they nerfed 1 can’t-catch-me module, to such outrage, only goes to show how entitled the carebear player is.

I think next they need to decouple time-to-warp from agility, so that adding i-stabs only gives you a marginal decrease in time-to-warp.


As someone who constantly moves thru low or null. It really pisses me of, how salty are “elite PvP’ers” because they need to make some sort of effort to pad their killboard with free kills. It’s more pathetic than miners complaining about gankers. There is no “uncatchable” ship. It’s already well documented and explained how to catch sub 2s ships in LS. It’s also possible to decloak covop ships at gates. There are only lazy so called “hunters”. They cry loud enough that we see changes like making WCS useless or ECM changes.

There was clear counterplay around WCS. But it’s easier to whine than change fit or bring friends.


Ugh, yeah, killboard warriors are the worst. Personally I’d like to see killboards removed. Not only do they promote a crappy playstyle, but they also provide far too much intel.

My friend, I think you need to pay more attention to other people’s use of quotation marks.

jUsT MoVe To LoNdOn BrUh

“It’s possible” is actually a meaningless statement. “It’s possible” that a meteor will fall on my car one day. I’m still not interested in including that contingency in my insurance coverage.

I think the issue you’re having here is framing. You’re trying to frame a 1% chance as “it’s possible and therefore perfectly balanced, stop whining” and I’m simply being realistic about the actual probabilities of catching ships utilizing CovOps cloaks and MWD+Cloak tricks. I’m talking about actual, daily gameplay, not edge cases.

1 Like

Somehow I get idea that you are trying to say “there shouldn’t be a way to escape and this will be perfectly balanced”.

Some percentage from thin air used to make your statement more convincing. Might look nice. But without actual examples it’s worthless assumption. No. I’m not in a mood for a pointless slap fight and I won’t explain how to make proper gate camp.

1 Like

Then you would be wrong, and also committing the logical fallacy known as “false dichotomy”.

Look at that long write up. What a long, convoluted mess, utilizing exploitation of the server tick system and jump into and out of and into and out of the same gate just to catch a ship who’s operator only has to press F1 to cloak. You call this “balanced”, but what you’re doing in reality is just shifting the burden of effort onto PvPers. You’re not complaining, of course, because all you have to do is lazily press F1, meanwhile anyone who wants to catch you has to exert inordinate amounts of effort to do so.

There are already plenty of safety mechanism for solo travelers in EVE Online. CovOps cloaking ships (which are still nigh uncatchable - convoluted and complicated edge cases notwithstanding), and even ships that don’t get CovOps bonus can still exploit game mechanics in order to do MWD+Cloak trick. There is also cyno’ing onto citadels and instantly docking.

The window of opportunity to catch people in such situations is vanishingly small, and as we’ve seen, requires a tremendous amount of effort navigating convoluted and obscure server-side mechanics on the part of hunters. When you have to exploit the server in order to catch someone, this is indicative of a very real, fundamental flaw in the way risk is built into the game.

Changing the mechanics of WCS was a step in the right direction, and I hope CCP continues along that path.

I find that, usually, when people say things like this, it’s because they realize they’ll lose any further debate on the matter.

1 Like

No. It’s not. Blindly nerfing and removing gameplay mechanics not good way of balancing the game. It’s not even balancing.

I didn’t call anything balanced. While I do agree with you that amount of effort needed to catch covops or sub 2s ships is bit excessive. While other side only needs to make some ship/fitting compromises. But this has nothing to do with WCS changes. ECM changes and WCS nerf. Clearly shows direction CCP is going and I don’t think it’s good direction.


Isnt even what happened.

Youre just sore because you actually have to DO something. The module itself is now far more useful.

Guess you dont fly BRs much if you think otherwise.

I don’t. I bring extra scram and kill them.

Also can’t understand how making something useless on most ships that it worked before and making it marginally viable on few selected hulls. Turns it into “far more useful”.

1 Like

So… you are complaining that other people are too stupid to use them properly, and this is CCP’s fault. Huh. What a wierd angle.

Again, someone being stupid isn’t CCP’s fault.

I think the key issue with the warp core stabilizer is that it didn’t also come with adjustments to scram’s; +2 strength basically negates a single scram.

Easiest solution is to prevent players from using multiple scrams on a single ship, provide some rigs to further crank up warp strength at the cost of ship agility (or actually introduce a new stat to increase the time to warp).

Should be a trade off though, if you are guaranteed a warp the enemy should be given more time to shoot; all modules need to carry penalties.

Faction scram works just fine. Making WCS useless on ships without warp core strength bonus.

I think that’s fine for a 70m+ module… on what is likely a frigate; even more reason to add in a rig that can provide a bonus IMHO.

I honestly think warping and agility should be separated, with agility making up maybe 25-50% of the effect. So you don’t gain much from istabs but also don’t lose much from armor.

Yeah; I only mentioned ship agility because currently there doesn’t exist an actual statistical mechanic to negate just warping (this means more overall work).

Mass and agility are basically the key factors; would be nice to have a new set of modules to affect the raw tasks though. Warp Disrupters add +X% to time to warp rather than a straight up jam, Scram’s effectively act like ECM for it.

In short, I agree with your opinion.

This would “fix” the issue with bumping; ship has 5 second “warp initiation” time, bumping could only add a second or two if alignment/agility was half or less of the effect.

They could then move to a system where 1 pt of disruption would increase time to warp by X%age of WIT, until a cap which causes complete jamming, with bonused tackling ships being able to completely jam warping regardless of this cap. WCS could decrease WIT. So now it’s not “all or nothing” except in certain cases.

Lots of options here.

Ganker looters became easy to catch , also wasn’t one ganker against wcs so much so he wrote it into his code .:laughing:

Just undock and consider the ship lost, it feels better when you actually get back in one piece.
If you can’t afford what you fly ( meaning always having 3 or 4 iterations of the same ship ready to go ) then just don’t undock. No one is forcing anyone to undock and there’s the Project Discovery if you get bored.
If you don’t want to lose ships that bad then don’t play the game, that way you win.

1 Like

This is why flying a t1 fit t1 frigate with your skills very high can be a lot of fun. I fly a heron into losec to run data and relic sites. Replaceable, and fun(of you like running data sites lol).


Yeah, data sites, relic sites… it’s all good. I like it all. EVE has lots of interesting things to do, that’s why I, someone who’s usually pretty blasé about most things these days and with a high level of attention deficit, am still playing this game. Games don’t usually stay installed on my PC for long, most of them bore me after a few hours that’s why I like Open-World games.
Frigates are fun but I prefer Destroyers, I may be wrong but they’re especially built to bring the battle to the enemy instead of running off to momma.
As for ‘replaceable’ I myself would now use the words ‘expendable’, ‘throw-away’ ships, just really to be considered ‘ammo’.
CCP values Destruction over players’ gameplay satisfaction and it’s easy to know why so if you know that going into the game then a ship loss should really only feel like so many fired rockets.
A friend I play in another game with didn’t know about EVE and wanted to play it after I asked him to check it out on YT today. He wants to play it and has installed it, although he’ll need to buy better memory sticks for his PC… But I told him right off the bat: “This game isn’t easy and you’re going to lose a lot of ships so don’t get attached to them”.
And now, with Warp Core Stabilizer modules good for the recycling bin ( reprocessing dumpster ) the ships are even less important than the fun to be had losing them.

1 Like

This is why people hate PVE players. You’re not entitled to escape anything. It’s a game where you can lose. At best, you are only entitled to a mildly fair chance at an attempt to be able to escape or avoid fights using your knowledge, skill and ship load-out. Maybe. It’s up to CCP Games. You’re actually entitled to jack squat. If they want to make this game a space MOBA, they can do that.

This is the type of person who would whine about Uno Reverse cards being OP.