Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Animadversion Tactical Operations Index
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 06:30:09 -
[211] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:OP admits to not flying BS's... thats a bit of a slanted look dont you think?....
Webs on BS's are not what keeps frigs out of larger battleship fleets. First the FC prob wants more BS's or logi, Webs are on dedicated ships, 100's of warrior 2's flying around, dedicated heavy tackle, and the fact that if for some reason the enemey FC takes a particular dislike to your frig good luck dodging all the firepower.... (and tbh there are still a few frigs flying around)
In smaller fleets that just happen to have a BS or 2.... its other ships that will kill a frig... its more likely you'll either be dead or have gotten away by the time a BS locks you.
If... IF.... you find a solo BS or a pair for example that's not ratting.... (cant really think of ever seeing this)... They are going to have gone out their way to have a specific way of killing figs (TC's, Heavy neuts, WEBS, drones, TP's, AND SEBO's) because even after ALL that a frig will prob be able to just disengage quite happilly.
The concern wasn't actually directed at battleships which don't seem to hit frigates whether they are webbed or not; however, that is the counterpoint that most most frequently brought up to debate the arguement, and so the discussion shift over to that. Yes, I recognize that my perspective is "slanted". Even if I used battleships for more pvp purposes rather than just pve I would probably retain the same opinion.
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Animadversion Tactical Operations Index
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 06:36:45 -
[212] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:...clarification blurb and slight rant :D... I think webs are fine as a game mechanic as they allow large powerful ships some defence against much smaller vessels. If you took away webs then the BS pilots would need (and demand) something else that defends against frigs at the cost of a slot, probably some kind of anti-frig secondary armament which would leave the frig in the same place (and pieces). I have argued for a secondary armament option at the expens of a high slot (multiple small guns in place of one of the big ones) to give BS better utility in solo/gang roams and can see some of you points. However I don't think webs are in a bad place right now as a frig can easily get under a BS guns even without prop mods. The web gives th BS a chance but even then it can still survive in very close range engagements.
I think that the battleship's answer to frigates should either be a destroyer/cruiser at close range to prevent small ships from getting under its guns. Either that or another battleship at distance significant enough to hit small ships, or drones ( obviously). Not a module that isn't reciprocated with another counter module, is so ship specific and is without costs. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Animadversion Tactical Operations Index
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 06:42:17 -
[213] - Quote
Jack Carrigan wrote:Reported for redundancy.
Not long ago I posted a redundant post. ISD locked it within 10 minutes. Given the circumstances under which this thread has continued; I would say it is not redundant. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Animadversion Tactical Operations Index
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 06:49:35 -
[214] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:You carry a mobile depot, and when you are attacked by a frig drop it you will definitely last the 60 seconds Unless the Mobile Depot is killed while it's deploying. Done that plenty of times.
That is true, it is stupid of me not to think of that. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
349
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 07:48:28 -
[215] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:You carry a mobile depot, and when you are attacked by a frig drop it you will definitely last the 60 seconds Unless the Mobile Depot is killed while it's deploying. Done that plenty of times. That is true, it is stupid of me not to think of that.
Just carry a few depots in your cargohold then, it will effectively increase the tank on your ship as a result lol.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Arla Sarain
97
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 08:24:24 -
[216] - Quote
This thread is far from redundant.
But Falloff on webs is not a reasonable solution. Perhaps even worse than current mechanics.
Consider 2 ships. The victim has higher speed and is getting webbed. Under falloff conditions, the range at which the victims speed = attackers speed is a critical distance. If the web lands when that distance is shorter, all is moderately good - web will behave just as now and the attacker will catch up to the victim, arguably it will take him LONGER because of the dynamic speed penalty due to Falloff.
If the web lands outside the critical distance, it might as well not have landed - the victim will slow boat outside the falloff range eventually.
The conclusion is that with falloff all you change is that critical distance, and it becomes dependant on the speed of the 2 ships (and inherently from that the starting engagement distance). Right now the critical distance is constant (10km -13km). The falloff perhaps benefits kiting ships even further as they are typically built for speed, hence the critical distance will be shorter (you'll have to get closer to get enough webbing power to stop them)
Segregating webs by size might make sense. But you'd have to consider the PG and CPU of larger ships and perhaps rebalance.
IMO, a non intuitive option is also viable - optimal within a ring. So a web can only be activated if the target is between, say, 5km and 13km. This leaves the critical distance the same as now and alleviates the issue with being webbed at close range and makes it more plausible to rely on sig tank in a brawl. The victim then has a choice - hope he has enough speed over the webber to pull beyond 5km (assume he wants to scram kite, just like now). Or stay within 5km with no web, albeit at the mercy of the attackers' guns. 5km, is perhaps a bit too lenient, and reducing the range to the falloff of blasters would likely make it more reasonable.
A think an important flaw misconception that people have with webs is the assumption that if you get slowed down by 60%, your angular goes down by 60%. According to this guy https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3y922Akj6NkFCtfp8xfwLeUNgDn9xis83z23u19o4g/edit @page 32, experimental results show that a web decreases your angular by 33%. Which is roughly what an AB increases it by. Conclusion being is that your natural sig tank is about the same as with an AB and a WEB on (error being added mass).
Perhaps due to this it should be considered to avoid touching Webs, and look at other things - minimizing AB mass addition, increasing base angular velocity for frigates, etc. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
158
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 09:30:23 -
[217] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:A think an important flaw misconception that people have with webs is the assumption that if you get slowed down by 60%, your angular goes down by 60%. According to this guy https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3y922Akj6NkFCtfp8xfwLeUNgDn9xis83z23u19o4g/edit @page 32, experimental results show that a web decreases your angular by 33%. Which is roughly what an AB increases it by. Conclusion being is that your natural sig tank is about the same as with an AB and a WEB on (error being added mass).
You're using additive and subtractive multipliers interchangeably, which doesn't work. A +25% and a -25% modifier don't cancel each other out.
According to the data linked in that sheet, a 60% webs is a -37% angular, and an AB II is a +34% angular multiplier. That's a net of a -15.6% angular, and that's before accounting for the increased mass from the AB, which would cause an even larger decrease in angular due to the increase in orbit radius due to decreased maximum angular progression speed. Net is probably -15-30% angular, depending on the base mass of the hull in question and the zero-point size of the object being orbited.
|
Arla Sarain
97
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 09:42:47 -
[218] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:A think an important flaw misconception that people have with webs is the assumption that if you get slowed down by 60%, your angular goes down by 60%. According to this guy https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3y922Akj6NkFCtfp8xfwLeUNgDn9xis83z23u19o4g/edit @page 32, experimental results show that a web decreases your angular by 33%. Which is roughly what an AB increases it by. Conclusion being is that your natural sig tank is about the same as with an AB and a WEB on (error being added mass). You're using additive and subtractive multipliers interchangeably, which doesn't work. A +25% and a -25% modifier don't cancel each other out. According to the data linked in that sheet, a 60% webs is a -37% angular, and an AB II is a +34% angular multiplier. That's a net of a -15.6% angular, and that's before accounting for the increased mass from the AB, which would cause an even larger decrease in angular due to the increase in orbit radius due to decreased maximum angular progression speed. Net is probably -15-30% angular, depending on the base mass of the hull in question and the zero-point size of the object being orbited. Good point. The same solution proposal still stands - focus on changing AB mass addition and Frigate agility. The purpose of that is to maintain web strength and keep it as a range dictation tool, without it hampering close range flying. |
Nathan Shavit
Shavit Risk Management
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 15:25:10 -
[219] - Quote
If you believe something is overpowered, USE IT instead of asking for a nerf!
I don't believe webs are too powerful. They are very effective when used properly, but you make it sound like they are a 'win button'. Webs are not broken so please don't fix them.
There is no problem an air strike cannot solve.
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
155
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 16:24:00 -
[220] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: ...
A lone frigate vs a lone battle cruiser should be a stalemate, with neither being able to break the others tank; without the battle cruiser bringing back-up to tackle the frigate down or the frigate bringing back-up to break the battle cruiser's defenses.
...
am i the only one who thinks this is s***** as f*** ?
i know isk isnt supposed to be a balance factor but if you buy and fit a so much bigger ship would you really want to be totally screwed by 2x tech 1 frigs?
there are debatable things about webs but i think we all should wait to see what happens at module tiericide cause its def possible that webs get a variety of changes like weaker webs with less fithig or range etc. esp to meta webs its 100% sure that meta 4 web will get nerfed. |
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
102
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 17:15:28 -
[221] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: ...
A lone frigate vs a lone battle cruiser should be a stalemate, with neither being able to break the others tank; without the battle cruiser bringing back-up to tackle the frigate down or the frigate bringing back-up to break the battle cruiser's defenses.
...
am i the only one who thinks this is s***** as f*** ? i know isk isnt supposed to be a balance factor but if you buy and fit a so much bigger ship would you really want to be totally screwed by 2x tech 1 frigs? there are debatable things about webs but i think we all should wait to see what happens at module tiericide cause its def possible that webs get a variety of changes like weaker webs with less fithig or range etc. esp to meta webs its 100% sure that meta 4 web will get nerfed.
currently its not the web that kills the frigate which is the point the op is missing. The answers are called drones. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 18:05:43 -
[222] - Quote
Drones or neuts..
Webs are more effective on a frigate when the frigate is attempting to establish the orbit. That's when your transversal is screwed for a few seconds where you eat medium gun damage, and are dead or almost dead. Then the drones / neut will finish you off.
Once the frigate has established the oribt, the web alone won't allow the medium guns to track it, even 2 webs (because of sig radius effect on tracking).
I really like the idea of a 'deadzone' for the web, or perhaps an inverse falloff so between 0-5km the effectiveness is cut in half. This will allow you to chase down kiters. |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
543
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 18:29:48 -
[223] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:It has been suggested before. Web nerfs have been called for almost as often as cloaking nerfs.
Didn't they get nerfed already, some years ago? It's my impression that back when I started playing, webs slowed the targets down by -80% or so, with -90% for T2. Current webs are much weaker than that.
Note that I'm not expessing an opinion on whether webs need to be nerfed further or not. I know too little about tackle warfare to have a meaningful opinion on the subject. I'm merely pointing out that they've been nerfed once before. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Animadversion Tactical Operations Index
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 19:30:06 -
[224] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: ...
A lone frigate vs a lone battle cruiser should be a stalemate, with neither being able to break the others tank; without the battle cruiser bringing back-up to tackle the frigate down or the frigate bringing back-up to break the battle cruiser's defenses.
...
am i the only one who thinks this is s***** as f*** ? i know isk isnt supposed to be a balance factor but if you buy and fit a so much bigger ship would you really want to be totally screwed by 2x tech 1 frigs? there are debatable things about webs but i think we all should wait to see what happens at module tiericide cause its def possible that webs get a variety of changes like weaker webs with less fithig or range etc. esp to meta webs its 100% sure that meta 4 web will get nerfed. currently its not the web that kills the frigate which is the point the op is missing. The answers are called drones.
It isn't about webs killing frigates. It is about webs detracting from the primary attribute of frigates that makes their type of gameplay balanced and enjoyable. Honestly dual propulsion defeats most of the larger penalties for webbing anyway. It just doesn't make any sense that frigates have to deal with a module that focuses on stripping their speed down when engaging any type of ship. It reduces the types of gameplay to be had with the class down to narrower elements than usual. It keeps frigates and smalls out of having reasonable roles in fleets, because if a fleet of frigates comes across a fleet of webbing cruisers it is invariably defeated. It makes frigate vs frigate fights less interesting, and its gameplay quality is literally comparable to a module that reduces the hp of vessel by a large percentage. Obviously a module like that would serve to be a disadvantage to large vessels the most. Flying frigates is all about managing heat, vectoring, cap, transversal, angular velocity, ammo, distances, and range. A module that flatly reduces speed reduces the necessity of all of that, and instead encourages frigates to either be really tanky, super kitey ships, or dual prop. Also, you are not the only one who "thinks this is s***** as f***", but you are the only troll left who decided to keep commenting without adding anything to the discussion. It seems that you might be the person who is actually missing the point. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
102
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 19:45:42 -
[225] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: ...
A lone frigate vs a lone battle cruiser should be a stalemate, with neither being able to break the others tank; without the battle cruiser bringing back-up to tackle the frigate down or the frigate bringing back-up to break the battle cruiser's defenses.
...
am i the only one who thinks this is s***** as f*** ? i know isk isnt supposed to be a balance factor but if you buy and fit a so much bigger ship would you really want to be totally screwed by 2x tech 1 frigs? there are debatable things about webs but i think we all should wait to see what happens at module tiericide cause its def possible that webs get a variety of changes like weaker webs with less fithig or range etc. esp to meta webs its 100% sure that meta 4 web will get nerfed. currently its not the web that kills the frigate which is the point the op is missing. The answers are called drones. It isn't about webs killing frigates. It is about webs detracting from the primary attribute of frigates that makes their type of gameplay balanced and enjoyable. Honestly dual propulsion defeats most of the larger penalties for webbing anyway. It just doesn't make any sense that frigates have to deal with a module that focuses on stripping their speed down when engaging any type of ship. It reduces the types of gameplay to be had with the class down to narrower elements than usual. It keeps frigates and smalls out of having reasonable roles in fleets, because if a fleet of frigates comes across a fleet of webbing cruisers it is invariably defeated. It makes frigate vs frigate fights less interesting, and its gameplay quality is literally comparable to a module that reduces the hp of vessel by a large percentage. Obviously a module like that would serve to be a disadvantage to large vessels the most. Flying frigates is all about managing heat, vectoring, cap, transversal, angular velocity, ammo, distances, and range. A module that flatly reduces speed reduces the necessity of all of that, and instead encourages frigates to either be really tanky, super kitey ships, or dual prop. Also, you are not the only one who "thinks this is s***** as f***", but you are the only troll left who decided to keep commenting without adding anything to the discussion.
Flying frigates is all about managing heat, vectoring, cap, transversal, angular velocity, ammo, distances, and range.
Every spaceship in eve is about this. from frigs to dreads.
It keeps frigates and smalls out of having reasonable roles in fleets, because if a fleet of frigates comes across a fleet of webbing cruisers it is invariably defeated
the cruiser fleet doesn't requires webs is what I'm saying to achieve the same outcome vs a fleet of frigs.
What does dual prop have to do with anything? it counters a scram
It isn't about webs killing frigates. It is about webs detracting from the primary attribute of frigates that makes their type of gameplay balanced and enjoyable.
What if its webs that are making frig game play balanced and enjoyable. |
Grim Destiny
Failed Diplomacy
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 22:06:12 -
[226] - Quote
To get rid of webs----or limit them to certain ships would change how the game is played and would only encourage more blobs or rapier alts.
I fly almost exclusively in a frig, and webs are REQUIRED on most ships. Without a web, I would not be able to catch certain ships, or faster ones would burn out of range. Every ship has different attributes. Caldari ships are generally slower, but to make up have weapon systems that are unaffected by tracking disruptors. Gallente ships are slower....but have higher dps guns. Blah blah blah.
The game would be called Kite online if you got rid of webs. ALL cruisers would fit long range weapons and would not be phased by scramming ships due to the limited range.
|
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.08 12:06:42 -
[227] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Enya Sparhawk wrote:On a side note... they should create a smart bomb that doesn't do any damage but instead 'pushes' X amount of mass, X amount of distance away from the center... (A smart 'bump') could make things interesting for a counter for mods that need to be so far away to be active... This deserves its own thread. Right now. Make it so, and you'll have the support of a thousand thousand pilots.
Hmmm... You know something... When I had the idea, I was thinking that this would be related to the webbing calculation I previously mentioned in some way, shape or form (same with any sort of 'bumping' between ships)...
Just not sure how it fits together yet though...
(Stupid broken brain!!)
Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne
Déan gáire...Tiocfaidh ár lá
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
2478
|
Posted - 2014.11.08 12:32:15 -
[228] - Quote
no. stop being so mad. you lost in a fight. deal with it.
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
Join Critically Preposterous today!
|
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
159
|
Posted - 2014.11.08 23:05:31 -
[229] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: ...
A lone frigate vs a lone battle cruiser should be a stalemate, with neither being able to break the others tank; without the battle cruiser bringing back-up to tackle the frigate down or the frigate bringing back-up to break the battle cruiser's defenses.
...
am i the only one who thinks this is s***** as f*** ? i know isk isnt supposed to be a balance factor but if you buy and fit a so much bigger ship would you really want to be totally screwed by 2x tech 1 frigs? there are debatable things about webs but i think we all should wait to see what happens at module tiericide cause its def possible that webs get a variety of changes like weaker webs with less fithig or range etc. esp to meta webs its 100% sure that meta 4 web will get nerfed.
No, you're correct. If a frigate and a BC were a stalemate (any by implication a frigate and BS as well, and possibly a frigate and cruiser too), that means it's simply a numbers game. He with the largest gang wins, period. Terrible way to balance a game, that.
EVE is an enormous game of counters and counter counters. Some of those are unfortunately a bit redundant atm, but a BC with a web counters a frigate, and that's intended. A bomber with a long point, however, is a pretty solid counter to a BC in most cases, however, especially with the recent EHP buff to bombers. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
159
|
Posted - 2014.11.08 23:12:06 -
[230] - Quote
Brainwave: what if we made webs reduce the signature of the target? Not by the same amount as the velocity reduction, of course, but say by 30%? That would push them more in the direction of keeping a target at a particular place on the field, rather than being a raw DPS increase. It would also provide more justification for increasing the bonus from target painters. Tips the balance a bit more towards frigates without killing the way that webs are used for positional control.
It also places them in the realm of scrams, where there are actually tactical situations where scramming the target is a bad idea for damage application (due to MWD sig bloom). |
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
946
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 17:54:31 -
[231] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Brainwave: what if we made webs reduce the signature of the target? Not by the same amount as the velocity reduction, of course, but say by 30%? That would push them more in the direction of keeping a target at a particular place on the field, rather than being a raw DPS increase. It would also provide more justification for increasing the bonus from target painters. Tips the balance a bit more towards frigates without killing the way that webs are used for positional control.
It also places them in the realm of scrams, where there are actually tactical situations where scramming the target is a bad idea for damage application (due to MWD sig bloom).
this doesn't make sense
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |