With faction scrams, the 2pts is useless. … Waste of a low slot.
Now I have 100s of these worthless things all around new eden.
4 Likes
Good, it now became official.
3 Likes
i also think is trash
i think the you can put as many as you want but if ■■■■ your fit design is waaaay better
2 Likes
Can ■■■■■■■ “pro” “hunters” count ? really can they count .
Is not like I can put any amount of WCS as much as I want to be 100 % safe. At most I can put 4 and render my ship total combat ineffective.
But you know , and this may be shocking to you guys. GET ANOTHER GUY TO HUNT.
You can get as many as you want to. Can I get as many WCS as I want to ??NO
■■■■■■■ hypocrites.
2 Likes
I miss the variability of a fit for a hauler or travel fit where it was unknown as to the number of WCS’s used. Now it is predictable at +2 and whatever the hull bonus is. I do not think that is good. Whenever I fit WCS before it was a commitment to run like my hair was on fire because of target lock time.
Fun times.
I would like CCP to explain the thoughts behind this change. Seriously.
The test server had +3. Why not here?
4 Likes
This makes me quite happy, the worst module in the game is now worse 
They were always trash just now CCP finally helped you realize it with the change. Do what I always did with em when I killed someone and got them as loot: sell them to stupid people or reprocess and make something better with the materials.
1 Like
I like the warp stab change. I like the fact that it’s an active module, like that it now only takes one module slot and like that it now has a heavy penalty for drone boats too.
I just don’t like how predictable it is at +2.
Please CCP, give faction WCS +3 strength. Make things less predictable.
2 Likes
Make them cycle permanently, with small cap usage but a 30% cap reduction on activation so you lose 30% of your cap with one, 50% with 2, 63% with 3, 75% with 4. ie you divide your cap by two every two modules.
T1 give +1, T2 give +2.
Split faction in two : enduring (corelum/gallente) and enhanced(corpum/amarr) . core is based T2 (T1 fit) but cap usage and cap effect of enduring/restrained ; corp is based T2 but +1str and compact fit.
T1 consumes 10 GJ every 10 s ; enduring consumes 5 GJ every 10s. T2 consumes 15 GJ/10s.
“restrained” only reduces cap reduction by 20.6%, so it halves the cap usage every 3 modules instead of 2
deadspace is like T2 but +2 strength
Remove the bandwidth reduction and add a drone speed and damage reduction instead. -50% seems good, -40% for restrained/faction, -45% for T2
2 Likes
I would prefer to see this as well. Then ships could use the same drones as without the module, except much less effective. And none of that ‘half a drone 2.5Mbit/sec bandwidth’ nonsense.
Warp Core Stabs underpin flawed game theories involved in eve online.
“WCS give +1 to warp stability” what is flawed with this statement? Simple it is n+1, when your game revolves around n+1 you have a boring game.
The only counter to WCS outside of null sec is to n+1 point. How boring, how brain dead.
With the new changes players can pay to avoid this broken game play with a faction scam.
I am suprised CCP went this direction with WCS when the entire monetisation of eve is based around n+1 game theory. I am pleasantly suprised, I suspect heavy influence of a competent csm.
1 Like
The change is brilliant.
It actually means I will try for Magnates now.
Yay. Go CCP.
just more nonsense to make things more difficult, not more fun
2 Likes
example of stats for active constant modules
| CPU | PG | cycle duration (s) | modules to halve your cap | cap reduction | warp strength | cap usage | passive drone speed/damage reduction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 2 | -29.29% | 1 | 10 | -0.5 |
| restrained | 33 | 1 | 10 | 3 | -20.63% | 1 | 12 | -0.4 |
| compact | 24 | 1 | 10 | 1.8 | -31.96% | 1 | 12 | -0.55 |
| enduring | 33 | 1 | 10 | 1.8 | -31.96% | 1 | 5 | -0.55 |
| T2 | 37.5 | 1 | 10 | 1 | -50.00% | 2 | 20 | -0.6 |
| fed | 37.5 | 1 | 10 | 3 | -20.63% | 3 | 5 | -0.4 |
| imp | 24 | 1 | 10 | 1.8 | -31.96% | 3 | 20 | -0.4 |
| storyline | 24 | 1 | 10 | 2 | -29.29% | 2 | 10 | -0.3 |
| core | 46.875 | 1 | 10 | 2 | -29.29% | 4 | 20 | -0.4 |
| corp | 37.5 | 1 | 10 | 1.5 | -37.00% | 4 | 40 | -0.4 |
2 Likes
What’s more brain dead is change after change after change that makes things so imbalanced its depressing.
For example - in your n+1 math == where is the counter to pilot trying to counter your n+1 points?
oh wait - there isn’t any because CCP doesn’t add counter balance anymore. That is braindead.
I agree with you. Several threads with hundreds of posts have discussed this at length. You’re not going to find too many open minds on this forum, just a lot of edgelords hiding behind alts who don’t want to have to work for their kills.
The way it was before was better. It was a fitting choice to fit x number of cores. The counter was x+1 number of points, and it was always easier to have more point in a gang then more stabs on a ship. But no, the gate campers need to be able to kill STs and DSTs effortlessly too.
Your nullblock and pvp entrenched CSM at work >.> /puke
8 Likes
This is pretty much it.
Those who actually make and move things are now at significantly more risk just to make F1 killboard padders happy.
5 Likes
The solution is obvious.
The solution is obvious. Remote warp core stabilizers.
1 Like
CCP didn’t go far enough: WCS should burn itself out after one use and require repairing.
