Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 16:39:02 -
[1] - Quote
As in only the speed at which the target can move away from the webber, but not transversally.
Currently 1) if you are webbed, tracking and sig tanking become irrelevant - it is difficult to achieve the necessary angular velocity to avoid being hit even when orbiting at 500 unless several gun sizes above or long range guns. 2) Dual web means game over. Unless you can out tank your opponent and out DPS them. 3) Game is really just who can fly faster in a straight line and who can deal more damage out to web range.
If this was added 1) The rate at which you can disengage (burn away and get out of web range) is still limited as now 2) your maneuvering around the target is not limited, which makes it less about who flies faster in a straight line and more about who is better at keeping note of the relative ship directions in order to place themselves at a favourable angular velocity 3) Dual web only makes it harder to escape than when with a single web, not a win button. 4) Targets can still be constrained entirely in all directions, but need 3 webbers in orthogonal directions. 5) Web drones could add an interesting dynamic because they orbit the target hence the radial direction changes.
Challenges 1) Currently dual web is a BS strategy against frigs; without it BSs would never hit frigs. It could be argued that BSs could engage at longer distance to reduce the tracking penalties, as well as other practical considerations - if frigates burn towards the BS they will get blapped; taking a different route around the BS will take longer to tackle or even low relative velocitys which will cause the frig to never catch up. Plenty BSs can reach 1.5km/s.
2) Radial velocity is relative, so if this was applied it would affect the webber as well. Instead of making an absolute restriction to radial velocity only apply it to the positive, i.e. when moving away, and leave the negative part uncapped, so if both targets are moving closer (intentionally or not) there are no speed penalties.
3) computation and vectors - shouldn't be a challenge because we already get a reading on radial velocity and whilst the vector changes in global space, it is always the same in relation to the 2 bodies. The advantage this brings is that instead of explicitly looking for which direction the ship has or doesnt have the speed penalties in relation to global space, you just look for the direction the webber is in - a lot easier.
4) need to track which web relates to which radial velocity - the advantage of absolute penalty is that it depends only on one body. Radial velocity exists between 2 bodies. For multiple aggressors you'd need to keep track of every radial velocity and a relevant web.
Food for thought. |
Lloyd Roses
803
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 16:57:54 -
[2] - Quote
So you could still make us of webs for a gatecamp or gank, but you can't use them anymore to defend yourself in your CBC against that swarm of frigs.
Nifty thought.
You're wrong on 500m - dualwebs - BS weaponry. It works because the moment you put/release dualwebs on that frig, it adjusts it's orbit distance by burning directly away or towards you, thus tracking largely doesn't matter. It's not an iWin button since you can simply avoid it by orbiting the BS manually, thus he will never have a chance to hit you with anything but a wrecking shot.
Overall, -1
I GÖÑ Sleipnir
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
1142
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:11:19 -
[3] - Quote
You want to remove the freighter webbing? |
Iain Cariaba
937
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:19:12 -
[4] - Quote
So, basically, you don't like how math works, so you want to toss math entirely out of the game? How does the math work that will enable you to maintain your speed in regards to how fast you move in a circle but slows you down when you try to move in not a circle?
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
794
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:20:51 -
[5] - Quote
This goes hand in hand with my target painter idea. They should have a tracking feature such that painters on larger ships don't track as well as on small ships. That way a frigate would be on an even playing field when locked in combat with a BS.
|
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:31:22 -
[6] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:So, basically, you don't like how math works, so you want to toss math entirely out of the game? How does the math work that will enable you to maintain your speed in regards to how fast you move in a circle but slows you down when you try to move in not a circle? Same way the math works now.
Radial and Transversal are orthogonal components to absolute speed with pythagoras relationship. Right no webs cap both components by capping absolute speed.
My proposal caps only one component (radial) and not transversal, allowing the latter to reach the same value as absolute. |
Battle BV Master
Executor BV Sovereign Infinity
68
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:36:43 -
[7] - Quote
Have you all hit your **** heads? This game has already turned into frigate online. You wanna give them more advantages?
The training time, ISK invested (and risked once you engage) should be at an advantage against something a 1 hour old toon can get for free in a rookie system!
Sheeze guys I love frigs, cheap, fast and the lot. But asking it to stand a chance solo against a well fitted and piloted BS is beyond silly. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3298
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:39:31 -
[8] - Quote
Did someone declare it "F&I Silly Posting Day" and not put out a devblog to that effect?
I mean, every day in F&I is Silly Posting Day but this strikes me as especially illogical.
Moreover, I'll take this as a "nerf webs" thread and thus redundant. |
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:43:18 -
[9] - Quote
Battle BV Master wrote:Have you all hit your **** heads? This game has already turned into frigate online. You wanna give them more advantages?
No.
The goal is to allow some maneuvering when webbed and stop the combat from being a linear push pull.
I have not proposed anything as compensation to BSs and cruisers because should this ever happen, compensating is trivial - reduce the signature resolution of larger guns. It is part of tracking formula, not the actual tracking number (which you wouldn't have to change and hence remove physical meaning), and can tailor effortlessly. |
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:45:57 -
[10] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Did someone declare it "F&I Silly Posting Day" and not put out a devblog to that effect?
I mean, every day in F&I is Silly Posting Day but this strikes me as especially illogical.
Moreover, I'll take this as a "nerf webs" thread and thus redundant. You just demonstrate that there are no bitter vets.
Only bitter clueless people, whose sole purpose to exist online is to hunt down other people and try hard to belittle them with sarcasm and witty responses.
It only works when you have a clue.
|
|
Iain Cariaba
937
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:47:03 -
[11] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:So, basically, you don't like how math works, so you want to toss math entirely out of the game? How does the math work that will enable you to maintain your speed in regards to how fast you move in a circle but slows you down when you try to move in not a circle? Same way the math works now. Without changing the way math works, physics says your idea is not possible.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 17:48:34 -
[12] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:So, basically, you don't like how math works, so you want to toss math entirely out of the game? How does the math work that will enable you to maintain your speed in regards to how fast you move in a circle but slows you down when you try to move in not a circle? Same way the math works now. Without changing the way math works, physics says your idea is not possible.
I've explained why it works.
Your turn to explain why it doesn't work and not be a smartass by giving some ambiguous general explanation. |
Sigras
Conglomo
994
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 19:05:06 -
[13] - Quote
The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier...
The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could make the claim that they're too good at their job, but that idea seems crazy silly to me...
What I would like to see is their range reduced to 7,500 m and their strength buffed to 65%, Then I would like to see tractor beams be able to pull people in/pull you you toward your target depending on mass.
This would finally give blasters a fighting chance instead of asking every ship that comes by if they would like to please come into web range. |
ashley Eoner
393
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 19:34:39 -
[14] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier...
The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could make the claim that they're too good at their job, but that idea seems crazy silly to me...
What I would like to see is their range reduced to 7,500 m and their strength buffed to 65%, Then I would like to see tractor beams be able to pull people in/pull you you toward your target depending on mass.
This would finally give blasters a fighting chance instead of asking every ship that comes by if they would like to please come into web range.
Awful idea that would have far reaching effects FAR beyond just the simple frigate vs BS pvp we're talking about here ALL kinds of combat would be screwed with. It'd be totally awesome to lose a fleet to one frigate because no one can hit it... PVE wise Incursions sleepers ratters etc will all be about impossible with this change.
As for blasters L2 prop mod or warp in point... |
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 19:46:13 -
[15] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Sigras wrote:The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier...
The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could make the claim that they're too good at their job, but that idea seems crazy silly to me...
What I would like to see is their range reduced to 7,500 m and their strength buffed to 65%, Then I would like to see tractor beams be able to pull people in/pull you you toward your target depending on mass.
This would finally give blasters a fighting chance instead of asking every ship that comes by if they would like to please come into web range. Awful idea that would have far reaching effects FAR beyond just the simple frigate vs BS pvp we're talking about here ALL kinds of combat would be screwed with. It'd be totally awesome to lose a fleet to one frigate because no one can hit it... PVE wise Incursions sleepers ratters etc will all be about impossible with this change. As for blasters L2 prop mod or warp in point... No one in a fleet would be able to hit a frigate?
Yes they would. |
ashley Eoner
393
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 19:48:35 -
[16] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Sigras wrote:The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier...
The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could make the claim that they're too good at their job, but that idea seems crazy silly to me...
What I would like to see is their range reduced to 7,500 m and their strength buffed to 65%, Then I would like to see tractor beams be able to pull people in/pull you you toward your target depending on mass.
This would finally give blasters a fighting chance instead of asking every ship that comes by if they would like to please come into web range. Awful idea that would have far reaching effects FAR beyond just the simple frigate vs BS pvp we're talking about here ALL kinds of combat would be screwed with. It'd be totally awesome to lose a fleet to one frigate because no one can hit it... PVE wise Incursions sleepers ratters etc will all be about impossible with this change. As for blasters L2 prop mod or warp in point... No one in a fleet would be able to hit a frigate? Yes they would. Yes we know doctrines always fly a wide variety of ships fitted in a wide variety of ways to deal with everything possible yup.....
Also fleets are never small gang either with a couple ships.
Yes you could sit here and be like "OMG NUB PROPERLY SERTUP YOUR FLEET DO DEFEND AGAINST THIS!!"....and every other possibility in the world. I just see this as a stupid idea with no positives but far reaching negatives. |
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 19:51:12 -
[17] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Sigras wrote:The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier...
The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could make the claim that they're too good at their job, but that idea seems crazy silly to me...
What I would like to see is their range reduced to 7,500 m and their strength buffed to 65%, Then I would like to see tractor beams be able to pull people in/pull you you toward your target depending on mass.
This would finally give blasters a fighting chance instead of asking every ship that comes by if they would like to please come into web range. Awful idea that would have far reaching effects FAR beyond just the simple frigate vs BS pvp we're talking about here ALL kinds of combat would be screwed with. It'd be totally awesome to lose a fleet to one frigate because no one can hit it... PVE wise Incursions sleepers ratters etc will all be about impossible with this change. As for blasters L2 prop mod or warp in point... No one in a fleet would be able to hit a frigate? Yes they would. Yes we know doctrines always fly a wide variety of ships fitted in a wide variety of ways to deal with everything possible yup..... Also fleets are never small gang either with a couple ships. Yes you could sit here and be like "OMG NUB PROPERLY SERTUP YOUR FLEET DO DEFEND AGAINST THIS!!"....and every other possibility in the world. I just see this as a stupid idea with no positives but far reaching negatives. I've explained the positives.
Doctrines fly a specific type of ship typically. That's why they are doctrines.
You wouldn't need specialised fits.
Closest webs are is 10km. The BSs have to spread out within this range and catch the frigate at 0 angular or 0 transversal. Having high angular against every enemy entity in a fleet is difficult. |
Bill Lane
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
81
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 20:06:18 -
[18] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:As in only the speed at which the target can move away from the webber, but not transversally.
Currently 1) if you are webbed, tracking and sig tanking become irrelevant - it is difficult to achieve the necessary angular velocity to avoid being hit even when orbiting at 500 unless several gun sizes above or long range guns. 2) Dual web means game over. Unless you can out tank your opponent and out DPS them. 3) Game is really just who can fly faster in a straight line and who can deal more damage out to web range.
If this was added 1) The rate at which you can disengage (burn away and get out of web range) is still limited as now 2) your maneuvering around the target is not limited, which makes it less about who flies faster in a straight line and more about who is better at keeping note of the relative ship directions in order to place themselves at a favourable angular velocity 3) Dual web only makes it harder to escape than when with a single web, not a win button. 4) Targets can still be constrained entirely in all directions, but need 3 webbers in orthogonal directions. 5) Web drones could add an interesting dynamic because they orbit the target hence the radial direction changes.
Challenges 1) Currently dual web is a BS strategy against frigs; without it BSs would never hit frigs. It could be argued that BSs could engage at longer distance to reduce the tracking penalties, as well as other practical considerations - if frigates burn towards the BS they will get blapped; taking a different route around the BS will take longer to tackle or even low relative velocitys which will cause the frig to never catch up. Plenty BSs can reach 1.5km/s.
2) Radial velocity is relative, so if this was applied it would affect the webber as well. Instead of making an absolute restriction to radial velocity only apply it to the positive, i.e. when moving away, and leave the negative part uncapped, so if both targets are moving closer (intentionally or not) there are no speed penalties.
3) computation and vectors - shouldn't be a challenge because we already get a reading on radial velocity and whilst the vector changes in global space, it is always the same in relation to the 2 bodies. The advantage this brings is that instead of explicitly looking for which direction the ship has or doesnt have the speed penalties in relation to global space, you just look for the direction the webber is in - a lot easier.
4) need to track which web relates to which radial velocity - the advantage of absolute penalty is that it depends only on one body. Radial velocity exists between 2 bodies. For multiple aggressors you'd need to keep track of every radial velocity and a relevant web.
Food for thought.
Ok, so for those of us out there who quite frankly are a little...slow with these fancy mathematical stuffz, could you explain simply why this would not be a bad thing for a BS pilot? Personally, I hate that a battleship is so nearly defenseless against frigs. And blasters...I love them, but range is a pain. It would seem to me that not slowing angular velocity would COMPLETELY screw BS over. So in normal non-mathematical speak, could you explain to me why/if I'm wrong here?
I understand that making ships too OP would be game breaking and areas must be sacrificed, but it's insane to me that you train up to fly a battleship well and you just get screwed by frigates because your guns can't track them. You shouldn't have to fit a 1.5k m/s ship to counter it. Maybe I'm getting into the bittervet range. Training for 5 years gets you nowhere against a new character that has trained for a quick atron with a scram lol.
http://www.militarygamers.com/
|
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 20:09:13 -
[19] - Quote
Bill Lane wrote:
Ok, so for those of us out there who quite frankly are a little...slow with these fancy mathematical stuffz, could you explain simply why this would not be a bad thing for a BS pilot? Personally, I hate that a battleship is so nearly defenseless against frigs. And blasters...I love them, but range is a pain. It would seem to me that not slowing angular velocity would COMPLETELY screw BS over. So in normal non-mathematical speak, could you explain to me why/if I'm wrong here?
I understand that making ships too OP would be game breaking and areas must be sacrificed, but it's insane to me that you train up to fly a battleship well and you just get screwed by frigates because your guns can't track them. You shouldn't have to fit a 1.5k m/s ship to counter it. Maybe I'm getting into the bittervet range. Training for 5 years gets you nowhere against a new character that has trained for a quick atron with a scram lol.
You are not wrong.
BSs would be hit the hardest.
It is possible to rectify by reducing their ship size turret signature to adequate levels. Because this number is consistent for all turrets of the same size its quicker than changing tracking.
The change is not aimed to hurt BSs. It is meant to offer more flying patterns for ships of same size at close to mid range. |
Bill Lane
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
81
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 20:12:04 -
[20] - Quote
Ok that makes more sense, thanks.
http://www.militarygamers.com/
|
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3303
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 20:25:19 -
[21] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Your turn to explain why it doesn't work and not be a smartass by giving some ambiguous general explanation.
... Really? |
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 20:39:33 -
[22] - Quote
What is not the way it works? I've explained why it works and all the reply held was that I was wrong with no explanation.
Absolute speed is the hypotenuse in a right angled triangle where transversal and radial speeds are the sides, which all conform to the triangle rules that are well established.
Under the proposal one of the sides is capped by the web. At 0 degrees the hypotenuse is the same as this side. From then as the angle increases to 66.4 degrees the hypotenuse goes from the dimension of the side to another dimension (maximum speed) whilst the side is still constrained. The perpendicular side increases as well. At 66.4 degrees absolute speed is at max, radial is still at 40% (webbed), and transversal is whatever is needed. Between 66.4 and 90 absolute speed is max and the radial decreases. Transversal reaches absolute speed at 90 degrees. When orbiting radial is negative and is hence not subject to changes as explained in the OP.
This is also not a logical fallacy. Geometrical at most.
I am not changing maths. I am switching the sides of the triangle which are affected by the web. All other constraints are maintained.
Logical fallacy is the ambiguous replies you kids spout.
Make an excel graph if you want. |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
19
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 21:14:19 -
[23] - Quote
I'd prefer it if just about all weapons projected outside of web range, with nerfed tracking of course.
but that's just me, I find brawling very boring. |
Odeva Pawen
Aideron Robotics
16
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 21:49:08 -
[24] - Quote
So, what you want is a web that controls how much the target can move towards and away from you? |
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 22:08:14 -
[25] - Quote
Odeva Pawen wrote:So, what you want is a web that controls how much the target can move towards and away from you? TL:DRd it.
The only trouble is if it does it both ways then it affects the aggressor as well. Which is why in the challenges section I suggest that it only affects the positive bounds and not the negative (when moving towards) |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
358
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 22:56:05 -
[26] - Quote
So, let me get this straight... An orbiting ship (Ship A), under the effects of this web, would have it's actual, UI displayed velocity changed but it would not be going any slower around the webbing ship (Ship B)? Presumably without any change in orbital radius. So, Ship A has a hypothetical velocity of 500m/s pre-web at an orbit of, hypothetically, 2500m. It is then webbed by Ship B and it's speed is reduced to 300m/s, it's orbital radius is unchanged, but it's still orbiting with the same speed? So, it is going slower and not going slower at the same time.
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
12
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 22:58:05 -
[27] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier...
^^ This, and yes, tractor beams would be awesome and definitely fill a void. |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 23:06:35 -
[28] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:So, let me get this straight... An orbiting ship (Ship A), under the effects of this web, would have it's actual, UI displayed velocity changed but it would not be going any slower around the webbing ship (Ship B)? Presumably without any change in orbital radius. So, Ship A has a hypothetical velocity of 500m/s pre-web at an orbit of, hypothetically, 2500m. It is then webbed by Ship B and it's speed is reduced to 300m/s, it's orbital radius is unchanged, but it's still orbiting with the same speed? So, it is going slower and not going slower at the same time.
the web affects the max speed, and to be actually orbiting at 2500 in, say an interceptor, you're going not near your max speed. The orbiting inty can take the hit to max speed because its already orbiting at the max speed its agility will permit while orbiting close. So its not going slower, but the ship has been slowed. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
358
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 23:15:30 -
[29] - Quote
Zimmer Jones wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:So, let me get this straight... An orbiting ship (Ship A), under the effects of this web, would have it's actual, UI displayed velocity changed but it would not be going any slower around the webbing ship (Ship B)? Presumably without any change in orbital radius. So, Ship A has a hypothetical velocity of 500m/s pre-web at an orbit of, hypothetically, 2500m. It is then webbed by Ship B and it's speed is reduced to 300m/s, it's orbital radius is unchanged, but it's still orbiting with the same speed? So, it is going slower and not going slower at the same time.
the web affects the max speed, and to be actually orbiting at 2500 in, say an interceptor, you're going at not nearly your max speed. The orbiting inty can take the hit to max speed because its already orbiting at the max speed its agility will permit while orbiting close. So its not going slower, but the ship has been slowed. "In 'hypothetically speaking', the implication is 'This is not going to happen, though. It's only conjectural, suppose...." Obviously, I need to clarify for those people who do not perform well at reading and comprehending at the same time. I didn't say it was an Inty. It could very well be a Drake. Or a Vindi. Or a Reaper. The point being that, as I understand, if you are orbiting at whatever range that allows you to reach whatever max speed, your speed will be reduced below maximum without a change to orbit distance or your relative velocity as you orbit whatever ship you happen to be orbiting. |
Arla Sarain
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 23:20:21 -
[30] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:So, let me get this straight... An orbiting ship (Ship A), under the effects of this web, would have it's actual, UI displayed velocity changed but it would not be going any slower around the webbing ship (Ship B)? Presumably without any change in orbital radius. So, Ship A has a hypothetical velocity of 500m/s pre-web at an orbit of, hypothetically, 2500m. It is then webbed by Ship B and it's speed is reduced to 300m/s, it's orbital radius is unchanged, but it's still orbiting with the same speed? So, it is going slower and not going slower at the same time.
Viscosity physics aside
Absolute speed in relation to another body can be decomposed into 2 other speeds. One that is in the direction of the ship (negative or positive). As in if you draw a line from 1 ship to another ship. In this direction, the speed is called radial. Perpendicular to that is other component and its called transversal. If the angle is such that the absolute speed is in parallel to one component, then the other component is zero. This doesnt happen in practice because of viscosity physics and the prerequisites for orbiting, but thats digressing.
What I am suggesting is to make webs only affect the former component - the speed at which the ship can move away from another ship.
From your example, the ship orbiting at 500m/s will continue to orbit at 500m/s if its a perfect orbit. But if it changes angle and starts moving away from the aggressor, the speed at which it will be able to move away from him is capped to 300m/s. This doesn't mean that its absolue speed is 300m/s, just the speed in the direction of the line between the 2 ships. The transversal is the other component and in this example a maximum of 400m/s transversal could be maintained. This gives a radial velocity of 300m/s as your example permits, a transversal of 400m/s and absolute of 500m/s. The ship is moving at 500m/s, but only at 300m/s away from the other ship.
No math has been broken. If you put transversal and radial on your overview and check your speedometer you will notice similar things. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |