Warp Core Stabilizer

The warp core stabilizer doesn’t seem too attractive to me. Any combat ship that uses it to avoid warp disruption could have put on some armor instead! Some of the ships that have shorter targeting ranges will be adversely affected by not being able to target enemies in time, although this is unlikely to be a problem for cruisers whose targeting range tends to exceed the range of the modules.

If you’d rather avoid combat, this module seems like it could avoid tackle. But… wouldn’t flying intelligently with modules like nanofibers to avoid a tackle be better?

Oh and if you’re trying to smuggle something past some null sec systems into a friendly null sec system a warp bubble just laughs at a warp core stabilizer.

Things aren’t looking good for the warp core stabilizer. But maybe they’re meant to avoid tackle in high sec systems? So anyone in their T1 industrials had the option of warp stabs (so that multiple enemies need to tackle them), nanofibers (the choice of trying to not get tackled in the first place), or Cloak and propulsion module (also trying to avoid getting tackled). Or maybe warp core stabilizers are meant for explorers in null sec looking at relic sites who are in hostile territory since they can outrun interdictors at subwarp and +3 warp core stabilization (there is a flaw with this argument, don’t worry I’ll get to it) will allow them to escape a picket with both a warp disruptor and a warp scrambler.

It doesn’t look good for the warp core stabilizer given the alternative options, but at least some argument could be made for them for a specific group of players with a specific playstyle…

Wait, you can’t stack warp core stabilizers. So what’s the point? The one use that some people might have used them for (I don’t like it compared to trying to fast align, but I suppose you could make an argument for the slow reaction speed player) doesn’t even work.

I’m new and not sure this belongs in the PVP since if you’re using this you usually desire no PvP, but let me know if there is a more appropriate place. I am talking about a module which is used in “unwilling PvP” so it sort of fits? Even if the Industrial ship using it would rather not be part of PvP.

Correct, it‘s a niche module for pure travel fits in case you have spare low slots. For haulers, moving ships, maybe explorers. More tank is not always necessary as you don‘t want to get caught as primary defense strategy.

EDIT: plus as refit against nasty NPCs in PvE.


I’m not arguing against modules with niche uses, but it seems even in a niche use, you’d want to stack them

Until you run into insta-lock ships. Hell, I have a Korean fit that can insta-lock with a 42km point…

And this is why nullifier systems are a thing for certain ships. They don’t stop points and scrams from working though…

They are still useful. Just not as useful as they were when you could stack them. CCP is towards more interactive gameplay so passive modules are on their way out… especially ones that don’t have a reasonable counter play.

They still have a point.

You may want, but CCP decided you can‘t anymore and +2 strength is a pretty sweet spot for the module. You can escape long points and normal scrams with the price of only one lowslot, where you needed two before the balance change.

What it is not anymore is a no brain escape from any tackle but HICs, which is a good balance.

You have to realize this is a classic CCP tactic, instead of just removing Warp Core Stabs or whatever other modules, they just make them functionally useless.


WCS were always pretty useless. Only found in a few niche use cases. The change to wcs was largely to remove their viability in those cases as most people didn’t like them.

They are a module that simply shouldn’t be in the game. If they work everyone gets upset with them being used. When they don’t work players are upset with how useless they are.

Back when they were passive modules having a pair in the low slot did save my bacon a few times.

They’re like a lot of fits, you may only really need them on a few occasions but you’re very happy that you have them when you do!

ps- Also remember the new warp stabs reduce your drone bandwidth by 50%! (and that’s just having it installed, not even having it turned on!)

1 Like

Well I’m new so there might some use I’m missing, but no one seem to be describing a use. They don’t even seem workable without stacking.

I respectfully disagree. You might have lots of experience and know why non stacking is a good thing, but you haven’t presented a very convincing argument.

I don’t complain about a niche module, but it should be useful in those cases. And it seems to my three-week old experience that stacking is pretty much needed to be viable.

(space break)
(space break)
(space break)

I think allowing stacking and no change to drone capacity is a fair tradeoff. Low slots are very useful. Industrials and explorers can be use low slots to tank ( damage control, armor modules), powergird ( Power Diagnostic Systems), mobility ( Nanofiber Internal Structures, Overdrive Injectors), or help drones (probably Omnidirectional Tracking Enhancer to help EWAR since if you’re using drone damage amplifier you’re a combat ship and war core stabilizer isn’t even on the table). Warp core stabilizer competes with this and therefore even with stacking and no bandwidth reduction, they don’t look too good.

It seems this was the state of them before I started playing the game and they got nerfed. Well, now it seems pretty worthless. I’d rather just use nanofibers and hope not to get locked. Even if I’m up against a ship with a lock time smaller than my align time (because of bad scouting ahead or something) a nanofiber would allow me to to get away if he lagged 1 to 3 seconds or so and this edge case seems more likely than one where a warp core stabilizer would be of any use.

Of course I haven’t yet experienced any of this. I’m new and just starting to get a hang around of some of the things in the game. I mostly looked at this from theory crafting point of view. Maybe stacking warp core stabilizers was actually OP and veterans know this, but no one seemed to prevent a convincing argument as to why stacking was bad. Anyone stacking them seems to me have a weakened ship since all those low slots got used up.

I have. Skill for safe travel got higher, and more stuff dying (guess so, because I killed a few previously uncatchable ships). Both very positive things for EvE.

A very specific niche use is stealing stuff with WCS fitted to increase chance of successful escape from the scene. :wink:

1 Like

yeah and those were probably the times everyone was complaining about on the forums lol. though even with the change you can still get that +2

1 Like

You’re still sacrificing low slots.

1 Like

If you figured out getting an WCS is not good then don’t fit it. The module got a change recently and is not likely to be get a further pass in the near future.

Eve Online is a game with a lot of information to absorb and it also changes based on what CCP thinks needs to change (some changes most of the playerbase liked, others the player base hated).

Here’s the thing: they were overpowered in a lot of respects. Seriously, prior to the last nerf, CCP had to nerf them because bots in faction warfare would just put stabs in their low slots to farm LP, so CCP made it where you couldn’t contest a site with a WCS on your ship because these sits were meant to be about generating PvP. WCS are about avoiding PvP.

Moving on, the old passive stackable WCS were something frequently used by AFK ratters and botters. CCP has stated they want gameplay to be more active and they also want to do what they reasonably can do to make botting harder.

Coming back to avoiding PvP. Not everyone likes PvP. That’s fine, but on Eve Online, being able to completely avoid PvP isn’t supposed to be an option. CCP has made that clear for years. You’d find players who would put 3 WCS on an Astero and even with a faction scram, you weren’t catching that ship.

When I returned to Eve, I was moving stuff out of low-sec (when I left I was in faction warfare). I literally fitted my Megathron with shield tank and 8 WCSs that allowed me to bust through small gate camps because they needed 9 points of warp scramble strength to catch me. I mocked 2 camps as I went by. I highly doubt that’s what CCP intended for WCSs…

CCP changed WCS because they weren’t working as intended. Just like the change to nullifiers. My biggest complaint to their release was that they didn’t spend enough time on the test server before dropping it… and then had to do a bunch of hotfixes on the live game because of it. But I don’t have any real complaints about the changes to WCS.

You’re new here, so let me give you a bit of information about align time. Align times work on whole seconds. Because of how the coding works, there is no difference in having an align time of 4.1 seconds and 5 seconds. So if that last nanofiber (or IS) isn’t dropping you down into the next level, you’re better off with something else in that slot.

With the advice out of the way, I’ll also point out: this quote explains why the change was good. There is an actual choice here. Do I fit for align time or do I fit to protect myself from 2 points of warp scramble strength for a few seconds? That’s actually a good thing. I think having multiple answers to the same fitting question is a good thing. It allows players to consider how they want to approach the problem instead of just blindly following the meta.

They are useful. Especially on expedition frigates, exploration ships, etc. Not every hunter out there fits a faction scram. And against the hunters who don’t fit faction scrams, you can still get away. Which in all honesty means you’ll get away from most hunters. Yes, there are a lot of bling out there… but its not everyone.

Bare in mind, you can also fit a WCS to a DST (Deep Space Transport which gets a hull bonus of 2 warp core strength (basically a passive WCS). This will give you 4 points of warp core strength for 10 (T1) to 15(T2) seconds, which is enough to break a faction scram.

Let’s also move onto the Venture, the T1 mining frigate. With the Venture, if you use T2 miners (not Deep Cores), you’ll get a mining yield of 8.52 m3/second if you fit a Mining Laser Upgrade 2 in the single low slot. Or you can yield 7.81 m3/second and fit a WCS to keep you alive. Again, you can make a choice: yield or potential survival.

When you look at the expedition frigates (T2 versions of the Venture), you’ll find losing that one Mining Laser Upgrade is even less of a yield change because of stacking penalties. Here, you might want the added safety of that WCS; especially in the Prospect that has no drone bay.

Another consideration with the Prospect and the Venture is that they can be used for gas harvesting. There is no low slot module that improves gas harvesting. So you can either fit a Damage Control unit to have more tank against rats, a nanofiber to decrease your align time from 5 seconds down to 4, or a WCS to save you from a solo hunter who isn’t using a faction scram. Again, choices are good.

TL;DR: Convincing argument points:

  • Warp Core Stabilizer stacking greatly benefitted non-active gameplay like AFK ratting/mining and botting; things CCP doesn’t want.
  • Warp Core Stabilizers (in general) directly countered the intended purpose of faction warfare sites.
  • Warp Core Stabilizer stacking allowed for people to basically avoid PVP and thus damaged the PvP content of the game.

If your counter to the last point is that people shouldn’t have to PvP if they don’t want to, you’re playing the wrong game. Eve is a game unlike any other and that’s why it has such a loyal playerbase. If you don’t like the forced PvP aspect, that’s okay; not every game is meant to cater to you.

WHAAAAT??? Ok, I need to refit my SIgil. I might as well have armor instead of “i’ll travel faster if I can align 0.3 seconds faster”

I’d disagree with this point. Avoiding PVP rather does defeat the point,

But a ship with all those low slots used up would be very vulnerable on paper. You can’t be disrupted by a lone tackle, but can just be one volleyed by anything with 7 small artillery turrets or a few mediums. Or maybe I’m wrong on this since I was wrong on the align time

Probably you don’t realize what I’m talking about here. Imagine 1-2 mil or less ISK worth of thief frigates and T1 industrials here that are only meant to grab some loot (mission item, ganked ship loot, player and npc loot in general and so on) then get away and dock up and that is all they have to accomplish. These are expendable crafts and benefit infinitely more from a WCS (or fully kitted with them in every low slot back before the changes) than any other module.

1 Like

I think the underlying issue is Warp Stabs seem redundant now, since there will always be a hostile player that will be able to negate it’s effect, since any hostiles will assume you have them.

Warp stabs are all but useless on any ship other than the Venture and a few other ships that have a built-in warp stabilization bonus. All it takes is a single player with a faction scram, and you aren’t going anywhere…

1 Like

You’re wrong and I already explained this:

A Megatron only has 4 mid slots and it’s hull bonus are for armor tanking, not shield tanking. The reason I shield tanked it was because I needed just enough tank to survive the beating I took as I aligned to warp out. The 2 camps I went by had 4 to 5 ships, with mostly cruisers (one had a Praxis). But they couldn’t get enough points and scrams on my because of the 8 WCS I had… and remember: this is a battleship so all weapons fully applied.

So, your assumption about being paper thin is incorrect. You just have to fit for shields rather than armor. And you can fit shields on any ship, even those bonused for armor…