Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 06:35:00 -
[1]
Webbies are outdated. With the introduction of t2 disruptors, overheating and the fact that nanos are not going to get nerfed, fitting a web is pointless atm.
Before overheating and t2 disruptors you had orbit at UNDER 20km, now its out to 23km orbit(27km overheated). Webs when overheated reach 13km (domi 19.4k), its just not enough, the game has outgrown webs as they currently are.
For the sake of my argument/ideas, I would like anyone countering or opposed to this to use these guidelines. Take any ship under BC class besides the obvious hugin/rapier/hyenna. Whatever ship you pick set one version up as a nanno and the other, well.. ANY way you want to counter the nano, and by counter I mean kill in one v one. So if its a zealot for example, one nano, the other how ever you choose.
Im aware that their are ships with web bonuses designed to use webs out past orbiting range and any of the following ideas wont take away their roles, only enhance them worst case.
1) Scripts, range and % of webbing
2) Rigs, range and % of webbing
3) Skills, to extend web range, activation cost, % of webbing
4) drastically increase the overheating range, triple the bonus
Any and all of these suggestions would make one v one vialble again. As it is now, a ship cannot kill its nanno varient of itself. If I were to say, fit a tank zealot with the specific goal to KILL a nano vairant of the zealot, I might be able to make him dissengage and warp, but catching and killing him is hopeless. The natural setup would include a web, which SHOULD negate the nanno, but it will NEVER reach him ATM, even the best faction, overheated. Thats broken. My suggestions would not harm eve, nanno would not dissapear, they just wouldnt be mortal.
CCp nerfed WCS because they SAID they wanted a player to have to 'commit' to a fight, and I agree. The counters to nannos should be available on any ship with the right skills and mods fitted. A player who fits a web to counter nanos SHOULD be able to well.... counter nannos, dontcha think?
To sum up I want to stress that I am not anti nanno, I think they are a great addition to the game and in no way would I like to see them nerfed. I just think that the 'gap' is growing too great between nannos and the intended solo counters. Whenever you NEED a specific ship or group of ships, or a battleship sized neut to counter ONE cruiser, something has to be done.
|
Nikita Alterana
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 06:45:00 -
[2]
yes. definitely yes. however, I think there should be some drawbacks to webs, because to be able to destroy an expensively fit ship with one relatively cheap module is rather imbalanced in itself. There are nano-ships, there should be anti-nano-ships. but just being able to stick on a better web would make any nano ship including interceptors completely useless.
could it be...wait...it is! could we finally have found a purpose for the destroyer?! __________________________________________________ |
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 06:58:00 -
[3]
Edited by: JVol on 22/06/2008 07:05:04 The expence of nanos should have ZERO bearing on how effective webs are. CCP increased minumum required orbiting ranges with t2 disruptors (and overheating).Its like webs got left behind. Besides, a tank varient could be more expencive than the nano, it means NOTHING.
The fact that you would have to train more skills for web range, or specialize your ship with 'web rigs' and fit it for anti nano should mean that yes, intys too would die at your hands, but so what? To do so you would be sacrificing any other nich you could setup for.
|
Nikita Alterana
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:06:00 -
[4]
yes but if nano can be countered by ANY ship using ONE module, it will make nanoing completely useless. __________________________________________________ |
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:19:00 -
[5]
Edited by: JVol on 22/06/2008 07:21:09
Originally by: Nikita Alterana yes but if nano can be countered by ANY ship using ONE module, it will make nanoing completely useless.
Are you serious? WEBS ARE SUPPOSED TO COUNTER NANNOS!!!! lol
And btw, I also feel that neuts could use some love as well, same ideas I gave for webs, skills,overheating range bonus and scripts for range would ALSO help close the gap that t2 disruptors and overheating have caused making nanos untouchable to the same ship UN nannoed.
|
Joe Starbreaker
Starbreaker Frigateers
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:53:00 -
[6]
Originally by: JVol For the sake of my argument/ideas, I would like anyone countering or opposed to this to use these guidelines. Take any ship under BC class besides the obvious hugin/rapier/hyenna. Whatever ship you pick set one version up as a nanno and the other, well.. ANY way you want to counter the nano, and by counter I mean kill in one v one. So if its a zealot for example, one nano, the other how ever you choose.
Stop wasting our time. For the sake of my argument/ideas, I hereby impose the following requirement on your subsequent replies: You must offer up a nanoship fitting that can destroy any other ship (other than the huginn/rapier/hyena) with any fitting in one-v-one and can defeat any fleet with any amount of preparation. This will serve as proof that nano-ships are broken. . Seeking frigateers!
|
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 08:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: JVol For the sake of my argument/ideas, I would like anyone countering or opposed to this to use these guidelines. Take any ship under BC class besides the obvious hugin/rapier/hyenna. Whatever ship you pick set one version up as a nanno and the other, well.. ANY way you want to counter the nano, and by counter I mean kill in one v one. So if its a zealot for example, one nano, the other how ever you choose.
Stop wasting our time. For the sake of my argument/ideas, I hereby impose the following requirement on your subsequent replies: You must offer up a nanoship fitting that can destroy any other ship (other than the huginn/rapier/hyena) with any fitting in one-v-one and can defeat any fleet with any amount of preparation. This will serve as proof that nano-ships are broken.
Can we get a moderator to remove this please? Its just agrumentive and offers nothing positive to the thread. thank you.
|
Joe Starbreaker
Starbreaker Frigateers
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 08:45:00 -
[8]
You're an idiot. My post was mocking yours. You do not win a debate by placing rules on those who would argue against you, saying "Anyone countering or opposed to this must prove X, Y, and Z irrelevant items." Nano works fine, it does not beat everything, there are counters to it. Heavy neuts, for example, and Minmatar recons. Your argument is based on the fact that there are ships that nanos can beat (e.g. frigates and cruisers, that are caught alone, away from sentry guns, which are not Huggins or Rapiers) and you want these ships to be able to beat nanos.
If nanos could beat any ship or fleet, they would be unbalanced. Similarly, if every ship and fleet can beat nanos, then the module that allows this to happen is unbalanced. . Seeking frigateers!
|
Najri
DEATH'S LEGION
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 09:14:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Najri on 22/06/2008 09:15:38 the 10km basic range on webs is obscolete and should be increased slightly. To balance nano(-abuse) a new module should be available; the webbifying-PULSE smartbomb <--30km range smartbomb puts any ship to a near stop instantly for the duration of its cycle (does not permanently disable mwd nor do any dmg) |
Kyusoath Orillian
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 12:16:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Najri Edited by: Najri on 22/06/2008 09:20:05
the 10km basic range on webs is obscolete and should be increased slightly. ............
Btw it is NOT balanced that you need ONE particular race of T2 ships to counter all races nano(abuse)-setups
/agree
|
|
Indigosi
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 12:38:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Nikita Alterana There are nano-ships, there should be anti-nano-ships.
heard of rapier ? :P but i agree, the web range should get increased a bit.. or, maby a new type ? like Long Range Webs ? that got 20km range, but only 50% speed reduction ?
|
willschn794
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:13:00 -
[12]
Yes, the web's 10km rang eis obsolete, needs boosting to 13 minimum.
|
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 15:30:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker You're an idiot. My post was mocking yours. You do not win a debate by placing rules on those who would argue against you, saying "Anyone countering or opposed to this must prove X, Y, and Z irrelevant items." Nano works fine, it does not beat everything, there are counters to it. Heavy neuts, for example, and Minmatar recons. Your argument is based on the fact that there are ships that nanos can beat (e.g. frigates and cruisers, that are caught alone, away from sentry guns, which are not Huggins or Rapiers) and you want these ships to be able to beat nanos.
If nanos could beat any ship or fleet, they would be unbalanced. Similarly, if every ship and fleet can beat nanos, then the module that allows this to happen is unbalanced.
Im aware you were mocking me, and Im aware you've decided to call me names as opposed to yet again, staying on topic. You clearly dont get the point Im making, and thats ok, any moron can post here and your continued posts prove that.
There is one module that is made to beat nanos, its called a web. The purpose of this post is to discuss the pro's and cons of updating webs to actually do what they were intended to do, catch fast ships so you can kill them, period. Overheating bonus of disruptors and the base range thay have moved orbiting distances out too far THAT IS WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT, either stay on topic or STFU.
My suggestions wouldnt kill your precious nanos, just keep them in check, as they are clearly out of whack, and everyone who genuinely loves this game knows it. You have ignored the perameters I set forth becasue HAD you stuck to them, you wouldnt have a leg to stand on, and its clear as hell to everyone reading your posts.
In a cruiser one vs one the guy who is using the nano basically is allowed to bring a gun to a knife fight.
|
EadTaes
Veni Vidi Vici. XIII Legio
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 15:45:00 -
[14]
The simplest and best way to fix it is just to add a deceleration to the webber in addition to resetting the new max speed.
Nanos are going to fast right now that when you do web them they simply cruise on inertia out of webbing range. So just having the webber affect the deceleration attributes in addition tot eh max speed it would make it possible to catch nanos. As for getting into webrange is up to you skills and you strategy. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents |
Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 17:04:00 -
[15]
I have mixed feelings on boosting web range, because it would also mess with frigs/inties which are actually supposed to be really fast, and would make AB even less useful for PVP than it already is. So instead I suggest a module with around 30km range + overheat bonus, that increases the mass of the affected ship. Nanos rely heavily on having really low mass, so this will hurt them enough that more conventional tactics become viable, just like ECCM, boosters, etc. counter various types of ewar. This bonus, like everything else, should scale with the target's sigradius somehow, again so inties and non-MWDs arent as heavily affected.
As has been said, the existence of rapier/hugglesis not a valid anti-nano, thats like saying only falcon and rook should be able to fit ECM/ECCM. _________________ [IMAGE REMOVED] -- aka Cpt Bogus -- Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
|
VJ Maverick
Splinter Cell Alfa
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 17:49:00 -
[16]
Any boost to webs will simply proliferate the "arms race" between speed and web. Both of these are already completely out of control, reducing PvP to only TWO tactical considerations: either trying to web or trying to avoid being webbed.
Telling your girlfriend that you play EvE is like telling her about your herpes. Timing is everything. |
Najri
DEATH'S LEGION
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 20:06:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Najri on 22/06/2008 20:06:55
Originally by: Del Narveux I have mixed feelings on boosting web range, because it would also mess with frigs/inties which are actually supposed to be really fast, and would make AB even less useful for PVP than it already is. So instead I suggest a module with around 30km range + overheat bonus, that increases the mass of the affected ship. Nanos rely heavily on having really low mass, so this will hurt them enough that more conventional tactics become viable, just like ECCM, boosters, etc. counter various types of ewar. This bonus, like everything else, should scale with the target's sigradius somehow, again so inties and non-MWDs arent as heavily affected.
As has been said, the existence of rapier/hugglesis not a valid anti-nano, thats like saying only falcon and rook should be able to fit ECM/ECCM.
Originally by: Maverick
Any boost to webs will simply proliferate the "arms race" between speed and web. Both of these are already completely out of control, reducing PvP to only TWO tactical considerations: either trying to web or trying to avoid being webbed.
Yes I think you are both right the range-increase isnt the best solution, but in any case the 'arms race' on behalf of the nano should stop here and there still needs to be more balancing factors added. Only one race of webbonus-ships is the most obvious problem, this could be solved with such a 30km weapon as mentionned above, I emphasise the special smartbomb-idea (instead of decreasing a ships velocity for as long as its targetted this bomb could act like a pulse weapon that increases mass of all ships in its range, for the duration of its cycle.. Also it should be impossible to activate mwd while you use this module) wich could be the most balanced solution as very light ships like frigs would still be able to get out of that range in between cycles and no other ships can reach it meanwhile
Please flame to your hearts content
|
Twin blade
The Triangle Unlimited Horizons
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 20:19:00 -
[18]
If webs get a range boost they need a Nerf to speed as i think its abit overpowerd to have a 90% web be able to hit out past 10km.
I would like webs to have more range at the cost of speed it would still help counter nanos but not fully destroy the set up form the game. Death is great rember where all dying to get there. |
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 20:25:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Ignition SemperFi on 22/06/2008 20:26:44 just like alot of other midslot mods it needs scripting
one for webbing range and one for adding mass.
Then set your default without script would be about 15k while giving it a slight boost to adding mass to a ship while unscripted.
So you could change your web range with a script... 20k for a web is still not that far at all when your nanos can be at like 100k in seconds. Or knock it back to the 10k with the 'adding mass' script but if you can get it in that range his mass goes up significantly.
------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun. |
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 20:31:00 -
[20]
I'd add faloff to webifiers. If overpowered - add a special version of webifiers with faloff, maybe limited to interceptors.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
|
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 20:42:00 -
[21]
I still find it comical that SO many people are worried about the future of nanos. 'Dont increase web range cause it will get rid of nanos!' ROFL A set of skills or a script to get webs out to 20km wouldnt kill the game, it wouldnt negate specialty ships that web out to 40-60km, it wouldnt make intys obsolete either. Just because people CAN train it or fit doesnt mean that everyone will, and we all know that.
|
Bellum Eternus
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 21:35:00 -
[22]
Originally by: JVol Webbies are outdated. <snip>
All of what you say will help with nanos, but it will break all other normal combat, blaster ships specifically. If blaster ships can't get within 1-2km of their target, they can't win, and all of your web suggestions break the use of blasters because opposing ships will be able to hold blaster ships at range for the duration of the fight.
It is also unacceptable for the blaster ship to have to MWD 10-13km while webbed 90% in order to close web range with the target while taking damage and using cap just to start dealing damage at 1-2km. Making webs more powerful to kill nano ships will just break all the existing short ranged non nano combat.
The answer isn't buffing webs or changing any of the ranges or gameplay. The answer is removing all the ship setups that break the gameplay due to speed.
Removing polycarbs and aux. thrusters and halving the speed increase provided by OD2s would be a perfectly acceptable start.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Marcus Gideon
Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 21:54:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 22/06/2008 21:54:18 There's too much argument and throwing of mud for me to bother reading this whole thread...
That being said, why not help Webs by balancing the whole speed system in the first place?
AB make you go faster, by providing more thrust. A Web is like a modified Tractor Beam, and slows you down by tugging and pulling.
MWD make you go faster, by warping you inches ahead of yourself. A Scrambler disrupts the onboard computer and makes locking onto the destination harder.
So why not leave Webs as they are, with a nice hindering effect on ships being pushed through space harder. And make Scramblers have the same effect on an MWD jumping you ahead a few meters. Even your basic Disruptor, which may or may not be useful at a Gate Camp, can affect 24km out. I think that'd be plenty of distance to zap that nasty Inty and take it out.
Ideas
|
VJ Maverick
Splinter Cell Alfa
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 00:50:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Marcus Gideon
So why not leave Webs as they are, with a nice hindering effect on ships being pushed through space harder. And make Scramblers have the same effect on an MWD jumping you ahead a few meters. Even your basic Disruptor, which may or may not be useful at a Gate Camp, can affect 24km out. I think that'd be plenty of distance to zap that nasty Inty and take it out.
Ideas
I have been mulling over a similar idea for months. I think it has merit.
Telling your girlfriend that you play EvE is like telling her about your herpes. Timing is everything. |
Typhado3
Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 00:59:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Nikita Alterana ...... There are nano-ships, there should be anti-nano-ships.....
It's called a huggin. or you could try a claymore it give 45% bonus to webbers/scramblers with command implant.
Quote: Im aware that their are ships with web bonuses designed to use webs out past orbiting range and any of the following ideas wont take away their roles, only enhance them worst case.
If everyone can web you don't need minmatar webbers..... if everyone can web at 30km km then huggins webbing at 100km is pretty much a shiny useless addition.... sorta like target painters in fleet battles. Minmatar already have a poor enough line up of support ships without losing the huggin. If nano gangs are easily countered it won't just effect huggins, as most minny ships can nano are good at nano it will effect all of them and our command ships which are specialized to help nano gangs will also be fealing the nerf.
Now before you say huggins have stronger webs even if other ships have good webs huggins will still rule the webs. Think about it for a second, if I can get any ship to web will I choose the huggin or another ship with just as good lock time and speed that they won't be expecting webs on..... The problem with chasing inties in a huggin right now is the moment any inty pilot sees a huggin they run (seriously I've had 10 man gangs run from me and a raven just cause of fear of huggin). Sure a cautious nano pilot may still run from your average ship if he thinks you've got webs on but it's a hell of a lot better than 100% of nano pilots running from huggins.
pls note when I say huggin I mean huggin/rapier/hyena Thanks for reading to the bottom Typhado
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 01:07:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
All of what you say will help with nanos, but it will break all other normal combat, blaster ships specifically. If blaster ships can't get within 1-2km of their target, they can't win, and all of your web suggestions break the use of blasters because opposing ships will be able to hold blaster ships at range for the duration of the fight.
It is also unacceptable for the blaster ship to have to MWD 10-13km while webbed 90% in order to close web range with the target while taking damage and using cap just to start dealing damage at 1-2km. Making webs more powerful to kill nano ships will just break all the existing short ranged non nano combat.
This. Boosting webs has a number of negative effects: (a) Greatly decreases your likelyhood to survive a camp, both by making it harder to burn back to gates and away from gates (b) makes it easier to blob a faster target, just throw a 90% 20km web and by the time he clears webrange, your buddies are there already (c) breaks all short-range boats (primarily blasterboats, but also AC boats when considered vs pulses/torps),etc. (d) breaks frigate-sized ship piloting in a bad way. Interceptors are already easy to swat out the sky.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 05:06:00 -
[27]
|
Shinithra
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 05:39:00 -
[28]
Personally, I think scripts on the webber much like scripts for the Sensor Booster would be welcomed, but to keep things "sane" perhaps the two scripts could be:
1. +50% range, -50% slowdown 2. +50% slowdown, -50% range
(even sensor booster scrips have drawbacks)
A webber with a 15km range, should not be as effective as one used at very close range and vice versa.
An addition like this would also open up some new nano tactics, like blaster frigates at very close range that can really slow down their oponent alot and yet on the flip side, battleships that may at least have a slightly better chance at killing a nano ship if it can get within that 15km range - maybe....
|
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 05:44:00 -
[29]
15km range ISNT going to cut it, orbiting ranges are out to 27km overheated....
|
Relicc
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 06:20:00 -
[30]
back in the day ships used to have an engine thrust attribute similar to sensor strength or sig radius, I think it was intended for use with web calculations...that could fix your frigate problem depending on how its used if they brought it back. Im all for some kind of web update.
07 Insurgency. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |