|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Imaos
    |
Posted - 2008.06.18 12:18:00 -
[1]
As the discussion pops up again and again in Ships & Modules:
ABs need some help. (M in MWD is mandatory)
ASs need some help. (Not good in their role. What is their role?)
Web. (AS and Web immunity and resists)
My proposal is to make the webs signature based (like explosion radius). It could be called 'Web mesh size'.
Ships smaller than the mesh size would have a reduced speed penalty.
Examples:
Stasis Webifier I:
Mesh size: 40m
x5 prototype I engine enervator:
Mesh size: 36m
fleeting propulsion inhibitor I:
Mesh size: 35m
Stasis Webifier II:
Mesh size: 35m
There could be a new line of webbers with longer range, but also bigger meshes.
Example:
Long range webifier I:
Optimal: 20km
Mesh size: 400m
Max velocty bonus: -75%
Now you could choose long range web and vulnerable to close range AB ships or able to web close range, but vulnerable to MWDing ships orbiting outside currrent standard web range.
Now you have an AB as tactical choice.
Assault ships:
If webs are signature size based. Assault ships could be made useful again if they got sig radius bonus as 4th bonus. (Keeping their current high mass) Now they can approach under fire and web and work as anti destroyer/dictor. By keeping their high mass they don't infringe on the interceptors role.
Imaos
------------------------------------------
 Originally by: NoNah
My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari.
|
Imaos
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 14:19:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan
Generally everybody hovering in the 10-20k range suffers, because they can be webbed where they couldn't be before.
I chose 20km as example as you are well in heavy neut range and 20-24km+ is a favorite range for MWDing around and keep a point. Maybe instead of a web pack a tracking disruptor as a new option. Also a MWDing frig still has only ~50% of the penalty of my long-range web (with Interceptor l1). So you are only facing 25% slowdown in a skilled interceptor (Less slowdown with a halo set). The only problem I with the long range web is the Vagabond. It might need to get a little smaller signature as it is now.
Imaos
------------------------------------------
Originally by: NoNah
My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari. |
Imaos
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 08:54:00 -
[3]
I think scripting would make the webber too flexible with mesh size. With the mesh sizes I proposed you have the choices between AB and MWD and fighting range which you change at a station. The web with scripts is only one slot and you don't even need to dock to change.
Webs are really powerful in the ranges they work. Making them more flexible would give them more power than they need.
On the other hand you don`t need to further reduce effectivity on the longer range web if the mesh size is already at battleship level. A frigate with MWD on only drops to 2/3 speed . With reduced speed penalty on the 20km web it is almost useless.
If you really want it scripted make scripts affect range vs. speed modifier, but keep the mesh size based on the base range of the module.
I still prefer the static mesh size only adaption as it is much simpler and scripts could yield some ugly nerfs.
Imaos
------------------------------------------
Originally by: NoNah
My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari. |
Imaos
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 09:09:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Wannabehero
Good idea in theory, similar proposals have been made before.
Much more simply accomplished by scripting webs for range vs. speed reduction
Stasis Webifier II
20km -> 50% speed reduction
10km -> 75% speed reduction
5km -> 90% speed reduction
something like that.
Script webs!
Scripts are bad. mkay? The idea was to kill multiple problems at once. This is also not an anti-'nano orbiting me out of webrange' thread. It is more a help small ships and AB thread.
Web range scripting feels like scripting hybrids to blaster or railgun to me. I prefer less reconfiguring in space and more rock, scissor paper and stations/out of combat refitting.
The mesh idea was also to help Assault ships and Afterburner a little. Keeping a strong short range web that works on all ship sizes doesn't help there.
Btw. I think it is far more simple to add signature to the web module than make lots of charges to load into the web.
Imaos
------------------------------------------
Originally by: NoNah
My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari. |
Imaos
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 15:40:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Goumindong
E.G.
Sorry. Didn't find your thread, but I think we only need mesh or thread resolution vs. range and not less speed also as it kinda multiplies that way.
I also think the modules shouldn't be different sized as they are ewar modules and you should be able to choose long range/bigger mesh or short range/dense net when fitting your ship (of any size).
I also think the 2 sizes are enough and the big one you supposed is too much fitting for effect. If they had the same fitting you'd open more choices and not only for bs.
Imaos
------------------------------------------
Originally by: NoNah
My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari. |
|