Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 13:33:00 -
[61]
webs are not supposed to counter nanos, face the fact it is time to thing outside the box and use braincells! dont be lazy, fit your ships against nano fits. you can even fit a raven against nanos but you have to use your braincells to do so!
good luck using your brain too bad the average eve player has none
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 23:39:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Endless Subversion Not supported. It's an awful idea. Webbing is already borderline broken for how insanely powerful it is, the last thing eve needs is everyone able to web at ridiculous ranges.
Agreed
@OP, please use your brain for a minute and think about why everyone stays outside of webrange.
I'll give you a hint: It's because slowing someone down to 10% of their speed with a single module is ridiculous in every way, and renders speed completely ineffective within it's range.
The bottom line is webs simply have far too much stopping power. Giving them range on top of that stopping power is only going to break the game since it would be completely overpowered; increasing the range but drastically reducing the stopping power however seems more ideal.
(ie: 30-40km webber w/ 20-30% speed reduction + bonus to strength on certain blasterboats) ...
|
JVol
Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:06:00 -
[63]
Kinda funny that everyones SO concernd about the fate of their precoius nanos at the expence of EVERY other ship in the game. This OP wasnt ONLY about webs, its about the extended orbiting ranges now the norm in the game. Ranges have grown from 19km to 23-26km while webs were given 3km! lol.. comon, EVEN nano F*gs, should pick up on this short comming (doubt it tho). For those who keep flinging minor insults at me instead of discussing the WHOLE op, keep tryin, ive got skin like a freakin rhino..keep it on the tpoic at hand tho
"Webs need to be brought up to speed with current orbiting ranges, period"
|
Flawliss
Gallente Pilots of True Potential
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 12:29:00 -
[64]
Best web and speed suggestion i've ever seen:
http://eve-search.com/thread/597162/page/1
Read it, love it. Enjoy
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 15:12:00 -
[65]
Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 19/07/2008 15:14:09 Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 19/07/2008 15:13:49 Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 19/07/2008 15:12:44
Originally by: JVol Kinda funny that everyones SO concernd about the fate of their precoius nanos at the expence of EVERY other ship in the game. This OP wasnt ONLY about webs, its about the extended orbiting ranges now the norm in the game. Ranges have grown from 19km to 23-26km while webs were given 3km! lol.. comon, EVEN nano F*gs, should pick up on this short comming (doubt it tho). For those who keep flinging minor insults at me instead of discussing the WHOLE op, keep tryin, ive got skin like a freakin rhino..keep it on the tpoic at hand tho
"Webs need to be brought up to speed with current orbiting ranges, period"
You don't fly nanos, do you?
You don't orbit at 23-26km with t2, you orbit at 15-20km... because having it too exact would mean that: 1. opponents can escape the scram range with (overheated) mwd, 2. getting to the excellent orbit takes time, and your target can simply warp off during that period 3. overheat destroys your modules fairly quickly
Adding such webs would make nanos pointless AND nerf close range ships, ceptors and pretty much everything below BS. Instead ask for a nanonerf that doesn't brake the game on so many different levels.
|
Jade Mitch
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 15:57:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Jade Mitch on 19/07/2008 16:01:13
Nanos just need an agility penalty.
Webs need a complete overhaul. They should be high powered launcher modules that work like missile bays only manufacturing their own ammo from cap energy. Shoot a self guiding energy ball at a ship while it's in range. The ball sticks to the ship and slows it down even as it drifts out of range. Then you can catch up to it and shoot again, if necessary. Each charge can last a few seconds and skills would increase both range and effectiveness of the charges.
|
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 11:38:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Nikita Alterana to be able to destroy an expensively fit ship with one relatively cheap module is rather imbalanced in itself
No it isn't. We'll be arguing next that we ought to have modules or ship fits that allow people to warp away saving their expensive ship from the evil cheap warp scramblers.... Oh wait....
Funnily enough, CCP have on several occasions made a point of saying that new or old, rich or poor, you can still win fights in EVE. I for one do not want EVE to go the way of WoW, where just because you're a 4 year old player with lots of money (equivalent of grinding to level 70) you can beat everyone else due to expensive ships.
Personally I get a little tired of the incessant back and forth about nano-ships. One side claims they're invulnerable (they're not, but they can run away well), the other side claims there are loads of counters (there aren't, unless you call a counter making it run away, see above - killing them takes specific stuff, and that's a big red flag when it comes to game design).
CCP changed WCS because they 'want players to commit to fights'. Address nano from that perspective and we might achieve something.
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.
I still like this one, though that 'nasty inty' might feel about it differently when the only thing keeping it alive is speed. ABs would need some serious work to allow this to work, which if you're not careful sends us right back where we started. So how about this: T2 frigs (yes, AFs as well) get a bonus to AB speed per level or a role bonus, thus ensuring that ABs can't be abused on the bigger ships.
I still feel that ABs are a neglected black sheep that need an overhaul anyway, and it's about time they were useful in combat. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 11:58:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 20/07/2008 11:59:37 Made a new post to cut down on the long text, as this is sort of separate. In essence I think the issue comes down to whether speed-tanking is appropriate, and on what ships. Note that nanos are not intended to speed tank though many can; the primary goal is to be able to run away from fights you can't win. Nanos evolved in 0.0 where it was/is the best way to avoid fights with huge blobs.
Addressing the problem such that you can speed-tank but have to commit to the fight is tricky. Changing interceptors so that they can still go fast is one way, but we also have to consider MWD and AB usage more generally.
In Marcus' proposal, fitting an AB lets you go fast unless webbed, fitting an MWD lets you go fast unless scrambled or webbed. Unfortunately, blaster boats need to get close to do anything at all. They therefore don't want to get webbed at 10km, and they don't want to get scrammed at 24km either. Relying on a pilot being dumb enough not to spot you doesn't sound that wise a career move.
In the OP's proposal, webs can amongst other things go further, making the blaster boat's job that much harder.
To be honest, I'd be tempted to integrate both ideas but with an additional component, that of falloff. I'd reduce the actual optimal range and have a long falloff with a reduction in speed damping the further out you go.
Three people webbing or scramming you at range will still cut your speed down (thus nicely in line with the CCP 'a group of T1 frigs can still kill an expensive T2 ship'), and if you are in a blaster boat, you can get close and only be fully slowed once you hit their optimal range. After that, it's balance time to ensure it all works in terms of numbers, and I leave that to CCP. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
Adeena Torcfist
Caldari Dark Underground Forces
|
Posted - 2008.07.21 21:37:00 -
[69]
a nice webbing moduel, using scripts, high slot only.
actually mmight make caldari more effective in PvP. a lot of caldari ships, i see have a useless high-slot anyways. Stealth bomber comes to mind when using dampners.
|
Akiba Penrose
The Movement
|
Posted - 2008.07.21 22:51:00 -
[70]
Originally by: JVol 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.
The slower ships will always have problem killing faster ships. To fix this all the ships in eve has to have the same speed. Never gonna happend.
A tanked ship might have problems killing a nano ship because it can disengage, but the nanoship cant kill the tanked either. So a nano Zealot vs a tanked Zealot is a draw. (the sacriliege is the only ship i can think of where the nano version can kill the tanked one, because of the missile/speed combination)
Btw, there is allready 13km web in the game. Should they be boosted to 17km then?
|
|
JVol
Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 08:24:00 -
[71]
Looks like webbers are viable once more when the new changes come thru! HOOYAaaa ccp!!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |