open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked "Warp Core Stabilizer II" is it really Tech 2?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 16:32:00 - [1]
 

Blatant repost of and old post of mine that I think it is time to discuss again.

Please read original thread over here.
Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Warp Core Stabilizer II the most useless T2 item? I thought all T2 items increased the effectiveness of their purpose. the WCS II doesn't increase the Stability of the Warp Core any more then the rest of the WCS, at best the WCS II is a named item.

WCS I
Scan Res Bouns -50%
Targeting Range Bonus - 50%
Warp Scramble Strength -1

WCS II Current(Create a New Named item with same stats)
Scan Res Bouns -40%
Targeting Range Bonus - 40%
Warp Scramble Strength -1

WCS II Proposed
Scan Res Bouns -50%(Maybe another value?)
Targeting Range Bonus - 50%(Maybe another value?)
Warp Scramble Strength -2


Veliria
Posted - 2009.05.30 17:02:00 - [2]
 

Although I do agree it's a little off compared to other modules, it would make running from a non-bubbled gatecamp even easier.
Two or three of these would mean you need two to three Scrams to nail it.

Maybe if it killed your agility a lot or something...

Bibbleibble
Posted - 2009.05.30 18:20:00 - [3]
 

Why not make it an active module that goes in the midslot? that would match the current pattern of mid slots being active and better versions of low slot modules.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 18:38:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Bibbleibble
Why not make it an active module that goes in the midslot? that would match the current pattern of mid slots being active and better versions of low slot modules.


Maybe an active low slot, precedence there too Armor Plating vs Armor Hardener.
Similar in Mid Slots for Shields, Resistance Amps vs Shield Hardener.

So maybe a Warp Core Hardener?

Bibbleibble
Posted - 2009.05.30 20:00:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Caldari 5
Originally by: Bibbleibble
Why not make it an active module that goes in the midslot? that would match the current pattern of mid slots being active and better versions of low slot modules.


Maybe an active low slot, precedence there too Armor Plating vs Armor Hardener.
Similar in Mid Slots for Shields, Resistance Amps vs Shield Hardener.

So maybe a Warp Core Hardener?


I see your armour upgrades and raise you one set of E-war counters (which Warp stabs are), and propulsion devices, which Warp Core stabs could be considered to be.

ECCM - Mid slot active V Sensor backup arrays - low slot passive
Sensor Booster - Mid slot active V Signal Amplifiers - low slot passive
Afterburner - Mid slot active V Overdrive Injector - Low slot Passive


Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 20:24:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Bibbleibble
I see your armour upgrades and raise you one set of E-war counters (which Warp stabs are), and propulsion devices, which Warp Core stabs could be considered to be.

ECCM - Mid slot active V Sensor backup arrays - low slot passive
Sensor Booster - Mid slot active V Signal Amplifiers - low slot passive
Afterburner - Mid slot active V Overdrive Injector - Low slot Passive


My Original idea was mainly to bring the T2 Warp Core Stabilizer up to counter Warp Scramblers(-2 Warp Strength). At the moment they only counter the Warp Disruptors(-1 Warp Strength).

That and the current Warp Core Stabilizer II is no improvement when it comes to warp stability in comparison to the Warp Core Stabilizer I, It is basically just a fitting improvement, and thus basically a named item level, not a true Tech 2 item.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2009.05.30 20:29:00 - [7]
 

And does warp distruptor II deal -2points ? If not then following your logic of t2 "warp stuff" t2 distruptors will go with 2 points and scramblers 4.
Fine with me.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 20:32:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Valandril
And does warp distruptor II deal -2points ? If not then following your logic of t2 "warp stuff" t2 distruptors will go with 2 points and scramblers 4.
Fine with me.

No but there is 2 sets of attacking items, and only 1 set of defensive items. Thus the defensive items need to scale to defend against both sets of attacking items, or a second set of defensive items created.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2009.05.30 20:37:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Caldari 5
Originally by: Valandril
And does warp distruptor II deal -2points ? If not then following your logic of t2 "warp stuff" t2 distruptors will go with 2 points and scramblers 4.
Fine with me.

No but there is 2 sets of attacking items, and only 1 set of defensive items. Thus the defensive items need to scale to defend against both sets of attacking items, or a second set of defensive items created.
No they don't need to scale unless you will prove me otherwise.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 20:44:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Valandril
No they don't need to scale unless you will prove me otherwise.


Let me guess, you are playing the role of the typical pirate troll of the thread?

Checks the Bio/Info on Valandril/Ex-Mortis, Well I see the pirate part, now lets find out if he's a troll or not.

Can you explain why it shouldn't scale?

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2009.05.30 20:48:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Caldari 5
Originally by: Valandril
No they don't need to scale unless you will prove me otherwise.


Let me guess, you are playing the role of the typical pirate troll of the thread?

Checks the Bio/Info on Valandril/Ex-Mortis, Well I see the pirate part, now lets find out if he's a troll or not.

Can you explain why it shouldn't scale?


Let me guess, you are playing the role of the typical carebear troll of the thread?

Check leftsock/pants on Caldari 5, Well i see the part of carebear, now lets find out if he's a troll or not.

You are the one proposing change, so it's your job to provide arguments. I claim that current system is fine.

alHaytham FTW
Posted - 2009.05.30 21:50:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: alHaytham FTW on 30/05/2009 21:51:31
Delete

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 21:52:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Valandril
Let me guess, you are playing the role of the typical carebear troll of the thread?

Check leftsock/pants on Caldari 5, Well i see the part of carebear, now lets find out if he's a troll or not.

You are the one proposing change, so it's your job to provide arguments. I claim that current system is fine.


Ok personal quips aside.

As you seem to look at Warp Corp Effects as a EWAR item, I'll humor you and look at it from the same perspective.

All EWAR has a ratio of 1 set of items to 1 set of items except for Warp Core effecting items.

ECM Racial vs ECCM Racial
ECM burst vs Backup Arrays
Sensor Damps vs Sensor Boosters
Tracking Distruptors vs Tracking Enhancers

Stasis Webifiers vs After Burners

Now you could argue that Stasis Webifiers also effect MicroWarpDrives, they do, but so do Warp Scamblers, however they effect them in different ways
Thus you have
Stasis Webifiers vs MicroWarpDrives(slows)
Warp Scramblers vs MicroWarpDrives(disables)
(Remember that the Warp Scramblers didn't effect MWDs until recently.)

Now:
Warp Scramblers(-2) vs Warp Core Stabilizers(+1)
Warp Disruptors(-1) vs Warp Core Stabilizers(+1)
This is the only case where there are 2 groups that effect in the same way as the defence defends.

Now either the effects of the Warp Scramblers/Distruptors need to diverge or there needs to be an improvement on the defensive side.

Do we then have Warp Scramblers only effecting MWDs, and thus return to a 1 vs 1 affair, or improve the defensive side so that it is more balanced?

Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
Posted - 2009.05.30 22:38:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 30/05/2009 22:45:21
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 30/05/2009 22:44:30
Obviously everyone knows that the ranges differ between the Ruptor and the Scram. This is in the same way that the ranges differ between two types of offensive weapon (Cruise vs Torps, for example) in such a way that the effect (usually DPS, but in this case Warp Scramble Strength) is better for the shorter range weapon. In the same way that your tank remains the same for either Torps or Cruise missiles, your "tank" stays the same for Ruptors or Scrams. I admit that there are more graduations of difference for the Torp/Cruise launcher, but the overall effect of range/effect exchange for Torp vs Cruise is the same whether for Tech I or Tech II.

How many people fit multiple shield or armour tanks for a bigger buffer against short range/high DPS weapons? The same is true here - if you want to go up against a Scram the fit 2 WCS IIs.

Whether the drawbacks of fitting the WCS to Scan Resolution and Targetting Range are appropriate is a separate matter - I'd prefer to see them apply to Sig Radius personally (maybe 15% for Tech 1, 7.5% for Tech 2 - numbers made up on the spot!) in order that they remain defensive drawbacks and therefore the benefit of going Tech II is relevant.

You'll note that in any case your best defence against the stronger, shorter ranged weapon is maximizing range. Whether you are able to do so or not is down to your fitting and playstyle.

TL;DR: WCS is basically fine, your interpretation of the drawbacks is wrong.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 23:26:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Obviously everyone knows that the ranges differ between the Ruptor and the Scram. This is in the same way that the ranges differ between two types of offensive weapon (Cruise vs Torps, for example) in such a way that the effect (usually DPS, but in this case Warp Scramble Strength) is better for the shorter range weapon. In the same way that your tank remains the same for either Torps or Cruise missiles, your "tank" stays the same for Ruptors or Scrams. I admit that there are more graduations of difference for the Torp/Cruise launcher, but the overall effect of range/effect exchange for Torp vs Cruise is the same whether for Tech I or Tech II.

How many people fit multiple shield or armour tanks for a bigger buffer against short range/high DPS weapons? The same is true here - if you want to go up against a Scram the fit 2 WCS IIs.


Are you trying to tell me that Tech 1 Armor Tank defends exactly the same as a Tech 2 Armor Tank? Because that's what you seem to be inferring. A Tech 2 armor tank can defend against more dps than a Tech 1 armor tank.

Why can't a Tech 2 Warp Core Stabilizer stabilize the warp core better than it's Tech 1 counterpart?

Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Whether the drawbacks of fitting the WCS to Scan Resolution and Targetting Range are appropriate is a separate matter - I'd prefer to see them apply to Sig Radius personally (maybe 15% for Tech 1, 7.5% for Tech 2 - numbers made up on the spot!) in order that they remain defensive drawbacks and therefore the benefit of going Tech II is relevant.


You're quite right hear the drawbacks for the defence are open for discussion too as a seperate matter, my major concern is the Warp Stabilizer does not improve warp stability over it's T1 counterpart.


All other T2 items improve on their T1 counter parts in their primary role. Why is the Warp Core Stabilizer different?

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.30 23:51:00 - [16]
 


Originally by: Caldari 5

All other T2 items improve on their T1 counter parts in their primary role. Why is the Warp Core Stabilizer different?


Because in the last couple of years we've had a whole generation of pirate players whine and cry about not having the ultimate advantage at gate camps. So CCP nerfed T2 WCS and introduced huge ridiculous penalties to all WCS. Now the pirates whine a cry about how nobody ever leaves high sec. Well duh!

Caldari V is right.
/signed

Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.05.31 00:30:00 - [17]
 

/signed

pretty sure they used to be like that, not sure when they changed

Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
Posted - 2009.05.31 08:45:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 31/05/2009 08:58:06
Originally by: Caldari 5
Are you trying to tell me that Tech 1 Armor Tank defends exactly the same as a Tech 2 Armor Tank? Because that's what you seem to be inferring. A Tech 2 armor tank can defend against more dps than a Tech 1 armor tank.

A tech 2 armour tank scales up vs its tech 1 counterpart in the same way as tech 2 weapons scale up against their tech 1 counterparts. It's about the item vs its counter, not the item vs its counterparts.

Quote:
Why can't a Tech 2 Warp Core Stabilizer stabilize the warp core better than it's Tech 1 counterpart?

Because Tech 2 Ruptors/Scrams don't have an increase in scramble strength.

Quote:
You're quite right hear the drawbacks for the defence are open for discussion too as a seperate matter, my major concern is the Warp Stabilizer does not improve warp stability over it's T1 counterpart.

The drawbacks are relevant here because they are the difference between the two tech levels. If the drawback were relevant we would not likely be having this chat.

Quote:
All other T2 items improve on their T1 counter parts in their primary role. Why is the Warp Core Stabilizer different?

As I said, neither the disruptor nor the scram have an increase in Warp Scramble Strength from Tech 1 to Tech 2, so neither should the Warp Core Stabiliser as this is the counter.

A proposal:
As each module goes from Meta 0 to Meta 5 each module gains a 10% increase in Scramble/Stabilising strength. This would mean that for the WCS the stabilisation would go from 1.0 for the WCS I to 1.5 for the WCS II. The same strengths would be the case for the scramble strength of the disruptor, while the scrambler would be 2.0 for the Warp Scrambler I up to 3.0 for the Warp Scrambler II.
I would also propose that the drawbacks for the WCS become additions to Sig Radius, but that is, as we agreed, a separate issue.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2009.05.31 09:19:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Caldari 5
Originally by: Valandril
Let me guess, you are playing the role of the typical carebear troll of the thread?

Check leftsock/pants on Caldari 5, Well i see the part of carebear, now lets find out if he's a troll or not.

You are the one proposing change, so it's your job to provide arguments. I claim that current system is fine.


Ok personal quips aside.

As you seem to look at Warp Corp Effects as a EWAR item, I'll humor you and look at it from the same perspective.

All EWAR has a ratio of 1 set of items to 1 set of items except for Warp Core effecting items.

ECM Racial vs ECCM Racial
ECM burst vs Backup Arrays
Sensor Damps vs Sensor Boosters
Tracking Distruptors vs Tracking Enhancers

Stasis Webifiers vs After Burners

Now you could argue that Stasis Webifiers also effect MicroWarpDrives, they do, but so do Warp Scamblers, however they effect them in different ways
Thus you have
Stasis Webifiers vs MicroWarpDrives(slows)
Warp Scramblers vs MicroWarpDrives(disables)
(Remember that the Warp Scramblers didn't effect MWDs until recently.)

Now:
Warp Scramblers(-2) vs Warp Core Stabilizers(+1)
Warp Disruptors(-1) vs Warp Core Stabilizers(+1)
This is the only case where there are 2 groups that effect in the same way as the defence defends.

Now either the effects of the Warp Scramblers/Distruptors need to diverge or there needs to be an improvement on the defensive side.

Do we then have Warp Scramblers only effecting MWDs, and thus return to a 1 vs 1 affair, or improve the defensive side so that it is more balanced?
As already pointed, t2 distru/scrambler doesn't get additional point for beeing t2 so following your buffing manner, they ought to get +1 point each on t2.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.31 09:37:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Valandril
As already pointed, t2 distru/scrambler doesn't get additional point for beeing t2 so following your buffing manner, they ought to get +1 point each on t2.


Does this mean that they loose their range bonus for being T2?


Now if you want Warp Core Stabilizer II to maintain it's +1 Warp Core Strength, Maybe we should revisit the idea of having a Warp Core Hardener that has a +2 Warp Core Strength? :) Because something needs to be done to balance this out, as it is, it is way too in favour of the attacker.

Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
Posted - 2009.05.31 10:05:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Caldari 5
Originally by: Valandril
As already pointed, t2 distru/scrambler doesn't get additional point for beeing t2 so following your buffing manner, they ought to get +1 point each on t2.


Does this mean that they loose their range bonus for being T2?


Now if you want Warp Core Stabilizer II to maintain it's +1 Warp Core Strength, Maybe we should revisit the idea of having a Warp Core Hardener that has a +2 Warp Core Strength? :) Because something needs to be done to balance this out, as it is, it is way too in favour of the attacker.

The range bonus would be irrelevant against a greater Warp Stab Strength. The advantage is ALWAYS with the defender as all he has to do is stay out of range long enough to warp away. That's another reason why a Sig Strength downside would be more appropriate - it would give tech 2 variants more time to get away due to the increased lock time which having a Tech 2 compared to a tech 1 module would give you.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2009.05.31 10:59:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Caldari 5
Originally by: Valandril
As already pointed, t2 distru/scrambler doesn't get additional point for beeing t2 so following your buffing manner, they ought to get +1 point each on t2.


Does this mean that they loose their range bonus for being T2?


Now if you want Warp Core Stabilizer II to maintain it's +1 Warp Core Strength, Maybe we should revisit the idea of having a Warp Core Hardener that has a +2 Warp Core Strength? :) Because something needs to be done to balance this out, as it is, it is way too in favour of the attacker.
Nothing has to be done, if you don't want to be tackled - fit all lows with WCSes and you will not be tacklable even by 2 ppl. So yeah right, favor the attacker. What you can't do in current system (and praise the lord for that) is to have combat boat fited with wcses because you are ballless creature who always want to be able to escape.
And this is working as intended, either combat fit or wcses, no both at the same time.

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:51:00 - [23]
 

Maybe a fair counter would be that a different WCS is added with +2 strength.
But, it would completely (way more than the current WCS) kill your scan resolution, lock range and worsen your agility.
To top it off, your sig radius would be significantly increased.

It would increase the chance to get scrammed quite a bit, but the increased warp strength might see you through small gate camps.
Against a sizeable force it would still not help you and that's fair IMO.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.01 20:20:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Thenoran
Maybe a fair counter would be that a different WCS is added with +2 strength.
But, it would completely (way more than the current WCS) kill your scan resolution, lock range and worsen your agility.
To top it off, your sig radius would be significantly increased.

It would increase the chance to get scrammed quite a bit, but the increased warp strength might see you through small gate camps.
Against a sizeable force it would still not help you and that's fair IMO.


Apart from the Agility it wouldn't be too bad, make it a MidSlot Item, the current Low Slot item nerfs just about any armor buffer tank, Heck make it an active module too if you want.

Warp Core Hardener I
Mid Slot Item
Sig Radius Penalty 10% ???
Scan Res Bouns -80% ???
Targeting Range Bonus - 80% ???
Warp Scramble Strength -2
Activation 30 ???
Duration 20 ???

Warp Core Hardener II
Mid Slot Item
Sig Radius Penalty 10% ???
Scan Res Bouns -60% ???
Targeting Range Bonus - 60% ???
Warp Scramble Strength -2
Activation 30 ???
Duration 20 ???

Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
Posted - 2009.06.01 21:06:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Caldari 5
Apart from the Agility it wouldn't be too bad, make it a MidSlot Item, the current Low Slot item nerfs just about any armor buffer tank, Heck make it an active module too if you want.

Why not agility?

If by Activation 30, Duration 20 you mean it works for 20 secs and doesn't for 10 and can then be switched on again then that sounds reasonable. I'd suggest that maybe it doesn't break any Scram/Ruptor, but prevents it from working for the 20 sec duration. That way you have to use it pre-emptively but it gives you ample time to warp out.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.01 21:49:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Why not agility?

If by Activation 30, Duration 20 you mean it works for 20 secs and doesn't for 10 and can then be switched on again then that sounds reasonable. I'd suggest that maybe it doesn't break any Scram/Ruptor, but prevents it from working for the 20 sec duration. That way you have to use it pre-emptively but it gives you ample time to warp out.


The primary reason for the module is to get the hell out. If Agility was effected at all it would be a bonus to it, not a penalty.

Activation is the amount of Energy from the Capacitor that it uses.

No Cool down. And it prevents the next cycle of the scram/distupt (considering that the cycle time on these are 5 seconds anyways, theirs no real need to break the cycle).

Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:01:00 - [27]
 

It's massively overpowered and would hand a huge advantage to a defender who already has an advantage. It shouldn't be an instant I-escape button, it should have serious drawbacks including agility and sig radius penalties if it ever came about.

The fact remains that where most other EW modules and their counters (see ECM/ECCM) scale up by about 20% from T1 to T2, you want a 100% increase with no relevant drawback increase.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:13:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Caldari 5 on 01/06/2009 22:13:35
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
100% increase with no relevant drawback increase.


Lets have a look at the drawbacks I had

Current modules in Game:
WCS I
Scan Res Bouns -50%
Targeting Range Bonus -50%
Warp Scramble Strength -1

WCS II
Scan Res Bouns -40%
Targeting Range Bonus -40%
Warp Scramble Strength -1

Stacking 2 of the modules would give you the following
2x WCS I
Scan Res Bouns -75%
Targeting Range Bonus -75%
Warp Scramble Strength -2

2x WCS II
Scan Res Bouns -60%
Targeting Range Bonus - 60%
Warp Scramble Strength -2

And I Had as the Proposed modules
Warp Core Hardener I
Mid Slot Item
Sig Radius Penalty 10% ??? (new drawback )
Scan Res Bouns -80% ??? (more than stacking 2 items)
Targeting Range Bonus - 80% ???(more than stacking 2 items)
Warp Scramble Strength -2
Activation 30 ??? (new drawback )
Duration 20 ???

Warp Core Hardener II
Mid Slot Item
Sig Radius Penalty 10% ??? (new drawback )
Scan Res Bouns -60% ???(Equal to stacking 2 items)
Targeting Range Bonus - 60% ???(Equal to stacking 2 items)
Warp Scramble Strength -2
Activation 30 ??? (new drawback )
Duration 20 ???

So as proven above the new drawback are actually more than the previous drawbacks.

Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:18:00 - [29]
 

Scan resolution and targetting range drawbacks are irrelevant to a ship which is purely about the GTFO as fast as possible. Sig radius is relevant, but a 10% increase for virtual immunity from any ship's scrambling capability at any range? Overpowered.

20% added to the primary effect is all most other EW modules get when jumping from T1-T2. Why should this be different? I stand by my reasoning at the start of this thread where I stated that the range gives the defender the advantage already. If the defender can't get away in the time that the range gives him to do so then he was either poorly situated, half asleep, or attacked with overwhelming force; all of these situations should result in the defender dying. Anthing else and he has a good chance of escape.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:34:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Scan resolution and targetting range drawbacks are irrelevant to a ship which is purely about the GTFO as fast as possible. Sig radius is relevant, but a 10% increase for virtual immunity from any ship's scrambling capability at any range? Overpowered.

20% added to the primary effect is all most other EW modules get when jumping from T1-T2. Why should this be different? I stand by my reasoning at the start of this thread where I stated that the range gives the defender the advantage already. If the defender can't get away in the time that the range gives him to do so then he was either poorly situated, half asleep, or attacked with overwhelming force; all of these situations should result in the defender dying. Anthing else and he has a good chance of escape.


These new items have more drawbacks than combining 2 of the previous item, with the exact same bonus as combining the previous items.

I guess there is no room for discussion with some trolls.

"range gives the defender the advantage already"
Doesn't help when the game spawns you on the other side of stargate within range of said solo attacker, you think I shouldn't be able to fly away just because of where I spawned, which I had no control over?

Please try and think outside the box and about all situations not your narrow view of what should happen.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only