EVE Search - Stasis Webifiers: Problem and Solution

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Game Development Forum

Stasis Webifiers: Problem and Solution

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 :: one page

Author	Topic
Antaris Xenal Gallente Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.02.22 23:55:00 - [361] Webs are fine as they are. This is coming from a non minny/nano player. (Besides my interceptors.) Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -TheDagda (mods@ccpgames.com)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.22 23:57:00 - [362] Originally by: Hatch the only thing that webifiers need is more range. I'm sick of hearing all the frigate pilots ***** about being webbed and popped. If you don't want to loose your precious ceptor fit a 20k web and orbit at 15k. Speed tankers do need to be brought down, but they need to be brought down with the ability to web further out. increase the effective range and nanno and speed rigs will deminish. If 20km webbers were introduced with no other changes to them then interceptors would just be webbed and popped at 20km[26km overloaded, 34km gang mod+overloaded]
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.23 16:07:00 - [363] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Cpt Branko Well, erm. The very idea of burning back to the gate is to get to a decent speed before people lock you. After 4-5 people apply 60% webs or one of the frigate-sized webs, you're screwed. However, with a MWD, you'll have enough inertia to hit the gate most of the time anyway, because by the time you get locked you already did your first 3-4km and are going 1km/s in a BC. Yea, no. You might be going 700m/s... in an Istab'd/nano'd overloaded BC. Otherwise you are going much slower. You then rely on interia to carry you to the gate. A better way would be to overload an afterburner, get locked much later and cruise to the gate at >100km/s Er, what? 700? Buy a, say, Hurricane. Fit whatever setup you desire (even a single 1600mm RT if you really must have a plated setup) - the non-overheated dual-MAR setup goes 1373m/s with decent (not perfect!) skills. Which will get you to over 900-1000m/s in the 3-4 seconds you have before you get locked&webbed (if webbing ships are in range, etc). Overheating helps greatly, since with a 1956m/s topspeed you'll be going over 1km/s (and most likely 1.5km/s) before anyone webs you, which means you will hit the gate. The single plate setup gives you 1215m/s and 1719m/s with heat, coupled with worse agility, so you're worse at burning back. Originally by: Goumindong Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Frigate : 4 second allign time. Battleship: 23 second allign time. Unplated phoon= **ty. And that is assuming the frigate has no speed mods. And get this, its a battleship versus a single tech 1 frigate. Battlecruiser: 15 second allign time Cruisers: Can actually do it with 9 second allign times. Align times. Hello, transversal control and you're listing (wrong, actually) align times. MWD-ing in one direction is all you really need to do versus slower targets to control transversal. I mean, yeah, you'll orbit someone who's faster then you, sure. Originally by:** Goumindong No, its not. Use the damn tracking calculator, put a couple hundred m/s on a frigate or cruiser and put them up against cruiser and battleship guns. A Megathron with null and max skills will hit a cruiser with 200m/s transversal 60% of the time at 17.5km. And Megathrons have tracking bonuses which means that this is about as good as it gets. Everything else is going to be hitting a lot worse at all ranges. A Geddon/Abaddon peaks at 40% hit rate at 20km. If you are moving away from target, and are FASTER then cruisers, the cruiser is supposed to have said 200m/s of transversal how? Look, it is NOT POSSIBLE to orbit faster targets. Repeat after me: you cannot orbit faster targets. The issue with trying to kill things in a AB frig aren't really webs (I mean, the 90%/86.5% ones are), it's the fact that everything and its dog with a MWD is faster then a AB-ing frig with tank mods (which you must have to avoid getting instapopped/wasted by T1 drones, good skilled T2 drones will melt you though). I've tackled/held down/tanked (by mantaining a 500m orbit) D180mm AC Hurricanes with a Rifter for minutes until they actually learned to simply double-click in space and turn on MWD. At that point, what happens? Instapop ;) It's the speed difference (AB vs MWD) which kills speed-tanking in webrange. Originally by: Guomindong get together 2-3 battleships and the plated ones will ruin any similarly sized active/neuting setup you can throw at them. Provided the 2-3 battleships just stick in their optimal and wait to be wasted ;) Think of the reasons things like Dominixes are incredibly popular for small gangs. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.24 00:19:00 - [364] Originally by: Cpt Branko Buy a, say, Hurricane. Its not your max velocity its the time it takes to lock the ship that makes the difference. Its allign time is 14.8 seconds to get to 3/4 speed with an MWD running and with a t2 mwd you will hit 1488m/s without overloading. This means that you will, when not overloading make 1116 m/s in 14.8 seconds This means that in 1/3 of that you will NOT make half of that, which is 500. So if you are overloading them you are at about 750m/s. Oh hey ** look at that number i gave you. Quote: Align times. Hello, transversal control and you're listing (wrong, actually) align times. MWD-ing in one direction is all you really need to do versus slower targets to control transversal. I mean, yeah, you'll orbit someone who's faster then you, sure 1. You don't need to orbit them 2. You do need to turn the MWD on in order to get accurage allign times. The allign time on an unplated unrigged Typhoon, is 22.4 seconds, its more of on every other BS except the scorpion Quote:** I've tackled/held down/tanked (by mantaining a 500m orbit) D180mm AC Hurricanes with a Rifter for minutes until they actually learned to simply double-click in space and turn on MWD. At that point, what happens? Instapop ;) Only if the hurricane has a 10km web and not a 20km web.
Darth Pheonix Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.04.01 14:45:00 - [365] Webs are too strong in Eve. Which is why no one goes into web range, because it forces them to tank. The only ships that can tank in pvp are either battleships or heavy interdictors. Everything else melts to the massive blobs people bring. Webs need to be nerfed, then nanos will be less prevailant. Take the current webs and reduce their effectiveness to a 25% speed reduction, 90% is just too devastating.
0raven0 Point-Zero SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.01 18:00:00 - [366] This would actually make the Target painter bonus on the minimatar recons useful as it would make their webs more effective correct? If so this not only takes away the invulnerability from speed tanks while allowing speed tanks to still be viable, but it also fixes the useless bonus on minmatar recons for TPs. ------ Quote: tuxford: AT LEAST ITS SPEELED CORRECTLY tuxford: spelled* Oveur: rofl
Goumindong	Posted - 2008.04.01 19:54:00 - [367] Originally by: 0raven0 This would actually make the Target painter bonus on the minimatar recons useful as it would make their webs more effective correct? If so this not only takes away the invulnerability from speed tanks while allowing speed tanks to still be viable, but it also fixes the useless bonus on minmatar recons for TPs. Yes, on targets which had a signature lower than the thread resolution on the web, that was exactly the idea. http://eve-files.com/dl/154147 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Vote Goumindong for CSM[/url]
Johho Bulon Freelancer Union Unaffiliated	Posted - 2008.04.06 11:53:00 - [368] Truly awesome idea and an interesting thread Goumindong. I wasn't close to being convinced when I started reading but I think what you propose would revitalise gang combat by quite some degree. I'd love to try it out. /signed. --------------- Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war. -- Ernest Hemingway
Acidictadpole White Moon Industries	Posted - 2008.04.07 02:56:00 - [369] Goumindong, you have a great idea going here. And I am thrilled to see that you're following it through it's 13-14 pages it's at currently with answers to all the questions and counter-arguments that have been given. I have an idea to go along with it, as well as a question. In many cases of explaining to people in this thread how it will affect nano ships, you seem to still head towards the on/off switch with regards to speed tanking. Not necessarily disallowing the ship to engage, but still taking away the effectiveness of being able to dodge turret fire and missiles. I agree that it's the major problem is that they can do that so easily, but I don't see how this idea still doesn't remove the idea of speed tanking altogether. In all of your examples how it actually helps the nano-problem, you've shown that it always brings the target down to a velocity that can make it killable by turret fire and missiles, effectively killing the tank still at 40km now instead. It's definately something that will need to be refined so that it doesn't break it to the point where noone will use it, but rather increase the disadvantages of fitting / activating the mwd by more than the unused sig radius. Also, I was thinking about some way to help out the nano's a little bit with regards to not being stuck with only an MWD when they get webbed. And I had what I believe to be a really silly idea, but just because I think it's silly doesn't mean it can't be changed to work or isn't a great idea to begin with. But make the MWD and AB a single module, and have a script to increase it's output to that of an MWD and have it then incur it's penalties on the ship using it. Also, while unscripted it's a simple AB. This will probably never come into play since there's so many seeded items using the MWD such as gistii and things (even though they could be changed into a gistii a-type script) that nobody would want to do it in the database.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.07 04:10:00 - [370] Originally by: Acidictadpole ... Oh man, i lost a reply to this. So, im just going to say, check the values that speed gives in terms of damage reductions on weapons when fitting an AB instead of an MWD. MWD's are more for tactical movement, and afterburners for adding transversal to be hit less. You wont be able to speed tank as well with an MWD, but you can't now anyway. You will be able to range tank better though. Vote Goumindong for CSM

Bellum Eternus Death of Virtue Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.04.07 06:19:00 - [371] Goumindong- Could you write a post explaining how you see a scenario play out between blaster ships vs. other types of ships with your new system? Specifically, 1v1s or small gang PVP between ships of like class, and mixed classes for small gang combat. Deimos vs Zealot, Astarte vs. Sleipnir/Nighthawk etc., Blasterthron vs. Raven or Typhoon. Stuff like that. Additionally, small gang stuff like Blaster Hype, Blasterthron, Hurricane vs. Raven, Dominix, Drake. I guess I just can't wrap my head around how your system would work when using 'traditional' (non-nano) ships in traditional solo and small gang PVP where blaster ships are concerned. I keep thinking about it from different angles, as you've described your system, and I just can't come up with a workable scenario where blaster ships are still worthwhile/viable. Perhaps I'm just missing something in your design that you would more fully understand since you created it. Either that, or you just don't know anything about blaster ships and their operating requirements, and your system would just totally erase them as a class. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.07 13:05:00 - [372] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Well, to start with you have to understand that with the current mechanics the blaster ships except the battleships listed are going to lose those 1v1 engagements because the other ship will be much faster than them and never come into range. In most cases though its going to come down to specific fits. An MWD on the blater ship will allow it to trundle through longer range webs easier, and once it gets closer its going to closer faster. E.G. Lets say you want to close 10km from 15km to 5km in your blasterthron. This will take you currently, 2km of uninhibited MWDing[so you will make about 300m/s] and 8km of 90% web. Under the new mechanic you would be running either 2km uninhibited and then 8km of 80% web, or 10km of 60% web[so you will accelerate a bit slower, but will be much faster for the majority of your closing]. And once you are there you get to fully exploit your tracking and damage advantages, because now you can really move to increase transversal once you have closed, unless the target has better tracking than you and an afterburner. But that is unlikely since blasters have great tracking, only the Muninn as an AC boat gets a tracking bonus. And if he is fitting an afterburner, then he will not be able to keep range nearly as well as he could previously. Cane vs Raven/Dominix/Drake is going to lose right now just due to the tank/gank abilities of each, but with a 20km web and an afterburner the cane can now both get close to the raven and dominix and avoid turret fire and/or torpedo fire while still dealing damage. It will probably still have problems with a drake though. Thron vs Raven or Phoon is another tricky one, and again its currently losing simply due to the fact that the raven and phoon are so strong at the moment. Hyperion is another issue, since the hyperion in a 1v1 can more easily take advantage of its repping advantage[which is still king in BS 1v1s] and it has a 2nd med for either 2 webs or an afterburner. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Acidictadpole White Moon Industries	Posted - 2008.04.13 23:21:00 - [373] I do really like this idea and think the devs should put a work in progress stamp with this since i think it might be a decent change.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.14 01:14:00 - [374] Stop resurrecting a essentially horrible idea. The idea that ships should not be allowed to disengage from combat is quite simply a horrible idea which needs to be buried and let rot. The whole premise of the thread is based on 'extreme speed setups are imbalanced'. If they really are, then extreme speed setups are the issue. Changing fundamental mechanics of EvE is quite definitely NOT necessary in order to fix them. IF they're broken in the first place (and I don't really think so). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Vance Black Caldari ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.14 01:56:00 - [375] its a Goumindong idea, therefore it sucks --------------------------------- Your clone is mine
Acidictadpole White Moon Industries	Posted - 2008.04.14 02:09:00 - [376] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/04/2008 01:26:17 If they really are, then extreme speed setups are the issue. Changing fundamental mechanics of EvE is quite definitely NOT necessary in order to fix them. Nano's have two ways to go right now, they will most likely be toned down like they have been in the past, or other ships will be given a method to give them a tough time. Right now a nano vs. non-nano engagement is rather silly, they take out the huginn's and rapiers with near impunity (if there are any of these 100mill isk ships there to begin with) then any ceptors that get too close to them also die because the ceptors main advantage of being able to orbit is completely negated by the targets speed. Currently a ceptor would need to move at around 1.75-2x the HAC's speed to keep it's transversal high enough on the parallel movement just to avoid being hit. And if the ceptor wishes to slow him down for the rest of his gang to catch up, he needs to traverse into web range of his own. What this fix would do is allow larger ships to reach out a little farther with their longer range webs (and also take up ship-size PG) and slow the ships down a little bit.. But it's also a double-edged sword and gives the HAC line a little bit more of a defense against ceptors (since you'd be able to web them from farther out, maybe slowing them down enough so that you can't get caught by them in the first place.) Originally by: Cpt Branko The whole premise of the thread is based on 'extreme speed setups are imbalanced'. Things nano's can do that non-nano's cant: -Disengage. If a ship is moving at sub 1km/s, it's rare they'll be able to disengage without any external help. -Deal with Ceptors. As stated, reaching a required transversal while chasing a nano ship is REALLY hard. And once you are within range of their webs, they are within range of yours.. And guess what lasts longer in that fight. -Not get hit. High transversal, check. Outrunning Explosion Velocity, check. Yet in most cases he's able to deal a relatively high amount of damage back.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.14 02:38:00 - [377] Edited by: Goumindong on 14/04/2008 02:43:14 Originally by: Cpt Branko The idea that ships should not be allowed to disengage from combat is quite simply a horrible idea which needs to be buried and let rot. It is not that ships should not be allowed to disengage, but the rate at which they do so has fundamentally broken the game. Small ships will still be faster than larger ships, they will just be less faster. But then again, they will also have the ability to use speed to out-transverse enemy guns where as now none do at all. Quote: Would there be any requirement for them at all with long-range webs? Just bring the bigger blob and focus web with 20kms and everything from ceptor to battleship stays there and melts. An inty with a 20km web on it would barely be slowed down at all. An inty with 3 very little more than current. An inty with an afterburner would be slowed down 6.25% per web before the stacking penalty. Which means it might get slowed down 10% with the application of 3 webs. That still leaves the ship going much to fast to be hit by guns, with a signature radius much to small to be effectively hit by missiles and able to maneuver easily through your battleships and battlecruisers to apply 10km 80% webs and get ever closer. If the battleships have light drones the inty can take them out easily enough[depending on the size of the gang though inties should not be immune to battleships] and then the only thing stopping the inty from killing the BS is any repair units it might have. The change will actually make smaller ships much more powerful than they are currently by limiting their ability to take damage.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.14 02:50:00 - [378] Originally by: Acidictadpole Right now a nano vs. non-nano engagement is rather silly, they take out the huginn's and rapiers with near impunity I have probably killed 1 B isk in polycarbons using stuff like Ruptures and Hurricanes. I think you have no clue what you're talking about. Yeah, nano-blobs work differently, but in any smaller gang situations your statement isn't even nearly true. Originally by: Acidictadpole any ceptors that get too close to them also die because the ceptors main advantage of being able to orbit is completely negated by the targets speed. Which is precisely why I've been able to kill nano-stabbers with a freaking rifter, they're not controlling anything once you web them... unless they web back. Which suggests that FOTM vagabonds are prefectly balanced beacuse they are typically not fit with webs. Originally by: Acidictadpole Currently a ceptor would need to move at around 1.75-2x the HAC's speed to keep it's transversal high enough on the parallel movement just to avoid being hit. You need to web them. I know, risking tacklers to web people is risky, but eh, that's what they're for. A good part of nanoships run webless anyway. Primarily Vagabonds which everyone whines about. Originally by: Acidictadpole And if the ceptor wishes to slow him down for the rest of his gang to catch up, he needs to traverse into web range of his own. Well, duh, I've ran from people in a cane (who were flying nano-crap too) simply because they wouldn't want risk anything to actually come and web me. Always funny when it happens. Originally by: Acidictadpole What this fix would do is allow larger ships to just pwn everything. Fixed. Besides, heavy ships got heavy neuts. Giving them long range webs (in addition to the fact that some of them actually have more spare mids) means they just massacre everything. 250% webs (24km range heated, yay) and a heavy neut are simply a guaranteed* kill, nothing more, nothing less. Without requiring tacklers at all. Originally by: Acidictadpole Originally by: Cpt Branko The whole premise of the thread is based on 'extreme speed setups are imbalanced'. Things nano's can do that non-nano's cant: -Disengage. If a ship is moving at sub 1km/s, it's rare they'll be able to disengage without any external help. Agreed. For <1km/s. The only sub 1km/s ship which I pilot is a AB Wolf (AB Rifter does 1.2km/s with heat on). Armour tanked Hurricane moves at 1.37+km/s roughly, and 1.96-ish overheated, plated Typhoon at 1.38km/s and 1.98km/s overheated, and I don't have max nav skills. Originally by: Acidictadpole -Deal with Ceptors. As stated, reaching a required transversal while chasing a nano ship is REALLY hard. And once you are within range of their webs, they are within range of yours.. And guess what lasts longer in that fight. Conventional ships deal with ceptors very well if they get in webrange and a good part of them can kill a un-pimped ceptor out of webrange too (case in point being Harbringer and Hurricane). Originally by: Acidictadpole -Not get hit. High transversal, check. Outrunning Explosion Velocity, check. Yet in most cases he's able to deal a relatively high amount of damage back. Lies, lies, and damn lies. Unless you're talking abour ratting ravens/drakes (or outtraversing battleship guns which, if webs were not broken, you should be able to do anyway), you're not 'not getting hit' is a big fat lie. BCs/HACs do the job of hitting nano-hacs amazingly well, and if you have any clue how transversal works you do know that, well, in EVE (which is btw horribly broken realistically) transversal goes both ways (a Vagabond orbiting a, say, another Vagabond which is stationary both have the exact same angular velocity which translates to turret tracking. Incidentally, the MWD-ing one gets more hits on him due to sig radius.) Naturally, if you fly in big blobs and can disengage damaged ships you wouldn't notice, but nanoships get hit. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.14 02:52:00 - [379] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/04/2008 02:54:05 Originally by: Goumindong An inty with an afterburner would be slower then a battleship with a MWD, which means that it's not out-traversing anything. As out-traversing requires orbiting, the shock.. You've just explained the fundamental issue with afterburners and MWDs. Seriously, stop with pretending that your idea boosts small ships in any way; it boosts BCs to a degree and BS immensely. I realise you like pushing your agenda in ships&modules and game development forums, but don't sell it like it's the ultimate wisdom of EvE, the Balance, and Everything. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.14 03:17:00 - [380] Edited by: Goumindong on 14/04/2008 03:20:38 Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/04/2008 02:54:05 Originally by: Goumindong An inty with an afterburner would be slower then a battleship with a MWD, which means that it's not out-traversing anything. As out-traversing requires orbiting, the shock.. You've just explained the fundamental issue with afterburners and MWDs. Seriously, stop with pretending that your idea boosts small ships in any way; it boosts BCs to a degree and BS immensely. I realise you like pushing your agenda in ships&modules and game development forums, but don't sell it like it's the ultimate wisdom of EvE, the Balance, and Everything. A cruiser with an AB would be slower than a bs with an MWD. But wait, a cruiser with an AB under a 20KM web will be going roughly 70% of its final velocity, and a battleship with a MWD will be going roughly 40% of its final velocity. And a battleship locking a cruiser with an AB will take at least 3 times as long as the cruiser locking the BS, so that the cruiser locks and reduces the opponents speed much faster and is able to close, not even mentioning the agility difference. And if the Cruiser is running an AB and a 10km then it gets even trickier. Take a 2 short range cruisers vs BS example. One cruiser has a 20km web, one cruiser has a 10km, both have points, both have afterburners. The battleship can only web one and the cruiser lock much faster reducing the speed of the battleship to under the speed of the cruisers. Once the 10km web lands the cruiser can easily orbit and damage the battleship where it has only its drones to damage the cruisers. I know the whole "lol 2v1" thing, but currently this ends with the cruisers dead and the battleship a bit into armor assuming well set up cruisers and battleship. A sader with zero speed mods except a 1 MN AB II goes 1498 m/s. Faster than the fastest battleship with an MWD and with an align time of 4 seconds instead of 23+[mwding battleship]. A 20km web on it will web it 6% a 10km web will web it 20%. Your battleship will take forever to lock the thing. Your BS will have to be very very far away before it would be unrealistic that the inty could not avoid your weapons before it tackled you and even then the amount of energy you would expend in doing so would probably be deadly especially against a ship that had 3 meds. Vote Goumindong for CSM

Acidictadpole White Moon Industries	Posted - 2008.04.14 06:11:00 - [381] Originally by: Cpt Branko Which is precisely why I've been able to kill nano-stabbers with a freaking rifter, they're not controlling anything once you web them... unless they web back. Which suggests that FOTM vagabonds are prefectly balanced beacuse they are typically not fit with webs. I fly a vaga, a web is possible but I don't fly with one. I have however seen plenty of other nano ship fits on killmails and I know that a majority of them will have webs. I agree that being slowed down by that much 20km out is going to be annoying, but you need to stay out of that range anyway for a reason you mentioned yourself.. Neuts. 21km range they'd exceed the range of their web.. And I've been neuted before in the vaga, I'm usually able to disengage easy and get out with no worries about the mistake I made about engaging or getting within neut range. Quote: Lies, lies, and damn lies. As I said, I fly a vaga with pretty decent gunnery skills.. Sometimes I need to slow down a little to hit people from 22km orbiting, but that's not the case usually. I think you need to be less condescending about whether I understand how stuff works in EVE.. And more open to a change in YOUR gamestyle for the sake of balance.
Arakidias Murky Inc. Power Of 3	Posted - 2008.04.30 07:13:00 - [382] I'm sure it has been said more than once, but I like the way this indirectly boosts target painters.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.30 12:58:00 - [383] no problems with webs, faction have different stats, use them not too expensive webs are fine
Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.04.30 16:55:00 - [384] I prefer simple solutions to complex ones. Adding a whole bunch of new webbifiers and equations will just make more of a mess. CCP has already introduced a system to modify mods: scripts. Change Webs to use scripts to balance between range and effectiveness. eg. a stock 50%/11km scram + a distance booster changes it to a 25%/22km webifier + a strength booster changes it to a 75%/6km webbifier. Sure, one 25% web won't do much against a 6km nano boat (6 * .75 = 4.5km) but put four together and get (6 * .75 * .75 * .75 * .75) = 1900k/s, which is slow enough for normal ships to do damage against but keeps the speed tank from being completely nuked. Since 22km is also about the range of a 1pt scram, tackle frigates continue to be effective in small gangs. It also adds a real bonus to non-minmatar web boats; where the "150% of 11km" bonus really isn't that much for the Ashimmu, now reaching from 22->33 is much more impressive. And for the elite, throwing a scripted faction web on a Huginn will be the bomb. +100km webs would make sure any enemy interceptor will have to be very, very careful about messing around with your gang. //// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad) "Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.04.30 17:01:00 - [385] Originally by: Alz Shado I prefer simple solutions to complex ones. Adding a whole bunch of new webbifiers and equations will just make more of a mess. CCP has already introduced a system to modify mods: scripts. Change Webs to use scripts to balance between range and effectiveness. eg. a stock 50%/11km scram + a distance booster changes it to a 25%/22km webifier + a strength booster changes it to a 75%/6km webbifier. Sure, one 25% web won't do much against a 6km nano boat (6 * .75 = 4.5km) but put four together and get (6 * .75 * .75 * .75 * .75) = 1900k/s, which is slow enough for normal ships to do damage against but keeps the speed tank from being completely nuked. Since 22km is also about the range of a 1pt scram, tackle frigates continue to be effective in small gangs. It also adds a real bonus to non-minmatar web boats; where the "150% of 11km" bonus really isn't that much for the Ashimmu, now reaching from 22->33 is much more impressive. And for the elite, throwing a scripted faction web on a Huginn will be the bomb. +100km webs would make sure any enemy interceptor will have to be very, very careful about messing around with your gang. Webs are stacking penalised. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.04.30 17:03:00 - [386] Originally by: James Lyrus non-scriptedWebs are stacking penalised. Better? //// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad) "Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand
Chomapuraku Caldari Templar Republic R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.04.30 17:49:00 - [387] Edited by: Chomapuraku on 30/04/2008 17:52:02 Originally by: Acidictadpole Nano's have two ways to go right now, they will most likely be toned down like they have been in the past, or other ships will be given a method to give them a tough time. Right now a nano vs. non-nano engagement is rather silly, they take out the huginn's and rapiers with near impunity (if there are any of these 100mill isk ships there to begin with) then any ceptors that get too close to them also die because the ceptors main advantage of being able to orbit is completely negated by the targets speed. Things nano's can do that non-nano's cant: -Disengage. If a ship is moving at sub 1km/s, it's rare they'll be able to disengage without any external help. -Deal with Ceptors. As stated, reaching a required transversal while chasing a nano ship is REALLY hard. And once you are within range of their webs, they are within range of yours.. And guess what lasts longer in that fight. -Not get hit. High transversal, check. Outrunning Explosion Velocity, check. Yet in most cases he's able to deal a relatively high amount of damage back. QFT. nano's have already been toned down, now we just need a means of letting other ships give them trouble. i think that the changes suggested by the (no-good, lousy troll of a) goon allow for that to happen with as much tactical ease as the nano gangs themselves ideally, i think these changes in relatively vanilla anti-nano gangs (slightly specialized for nanos) should be able to take out all but the fastest nano setups, but to seriously challenge any nano gang (like a command-ship boosted, vaga-heavy, poly-carbed nano gang with overheated faction mwd's on the fastest of them. nano at the cost of all else), these changes, in combination with web-specced marauders and huginns, buffed precision missile-throwers, tracking-happy gunners, and command-ship bonuses, (basically, anti-nano at the cost of all else) should be evenly matched, and neither side should, by virtue of sheer speed or sheer e-war power, be able to completely trounce the other side without the other side giving them a serious fight. btw: what about the idea of buffing minnie or caldari missile boats by allowing them highly-specialized anti-nano (low dps, but high explosion velocity, missile velocity) setups that require all of their slots? Originally by: Crimson11 Crimson11: What the hell happened? WarGod: Some breaking occurred, the Alt Key was involved, that's about all we know.
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.04.30 17:51:00 - [388] I can't believe such a great idea came from a Goon.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.30 19:06:00 - [389] Originally by: Chomapuraku btw: what about the idea of buffing minnie or caldari missile boats by allowing them highly-specialized anti-nano (low dps, but high explosion velocity, missile velocity) setups that require all of their slots? You already have this in medium sized pulse lasers. Except its probably much more effective. If you can't keep the targets from leaving engagement range in 3 seconds you can't do much to change the situation. Vote Goumindong for CSM
PirceHat	Posted - 2008.04.30 20:45:00 - [390] Edited by: PirceHat on 30/04/2008 20:45:33 The one problem I see with this is for interdictors. There sig radius means they will get absolutely destroyed by cruiser webs. Maybe give them back there 25% speed?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.