EVE Search - R.I.P. Fun

All Channels

Ships and Modules

R.I.P. Fun

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tobiaz	Posted - 2005.03.09 00:06:00 - [31] I REALLY like these ideas! Escpecially how they will stimulate ships fighting their own classes. Only thing though, it will really gimp the role of the single tackler, but then again, just have more of them.
Nyk0n	Posted - 2005.03.09 00:08:00 - [32] Webbers needed sizeing soooo long ago, about the time when the mwds were sized. I agree completly with this post "should" a frigate be able to stop a ship a hundred times its size??
Taran'li Maren	Posted - 2005.03.09 00:19:00 - [33] I just want to say that webs don't behave like tractor beams, and shouldn't be based on mass. I believe the webbers must work something like anchoring a canister or structure, tacking a ship to a certain point in space. It could be something like an artificial gravity field centered on the target. Making it mass based would make frigates and interceptors poor tacklers. One of their most important responsibilities. Making it mass based would mean that a BS would be able to escape from a frigate fairly easily by webbing it, thus making the frigate practically stationary until out of range of the web (with current ranges in mind, long out of range of a scrambler)
Julien Derida	Posted - 2005.03.09 00:54:00 - [34] I like these changes a lot :D. They would go a long way towards stopping Frigs being obsolete in PvP and also provide a new niche for Cruisers as heavy tacklers. Good post DC :). ---------------------------------------- Artistic Director & Chief Diplomat - FRICK
Zanthiuse	Posted - 2005.03.09 01:00:00 - [35] anything that helps cruisers is good with me. ____________________________ Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2005.03.09 02:39:00 - [36] Originally by: Garramon I love you DC ...in a completely I dont know you kind of non-sexual way. I dont think youve ever made a post I didn't agree with on game mechanics. they call this the m0o effect. once you join m0o you start to pick the game apart and actually say stuff that would benefit everyone; which goes against poplular belief of them being h@x0rx. -------------------- The Nest
Lansfear	Posted - 2005.03.09 04:22:00 - [37] Edited by: Lansfear on 09/03/2005 04:22:00 I hope there is some way for close range ships to continue fighting, if not kiss blasters/autocannons bye bye... I dn't want to give up my blasters.....
Kayosoni	Posted - 2005.03.09 04:49:00 - [38] Edited by: Kayosoni on 09/03/2005 04:54:01 Bring back dualMWD! >.< ----------------------------------- Currently Playing Lineage 2 - Erica Server
Sorja	Posted - 2005.03.09 04:50:00 - [39] Not everybody fits a webber. Especially on ships who shield tank or EW. It's already bad having to fit an EM hardener (0% resistance is bad...), scrambler and shield booster for survivability, or full EW. So if you go short range for max damage and your opponent has sacrified one medslot for a webber, you are in trouble, as it should be. A short range webber (10km) was too short IMHO. When it comes to BSs, I don't see many fitting webbers. These range changes are good for the cruiser class. Longer range webbing means they can take frigates out with their class guns (mediums), which they couldn't do so far (not better with missiles). Add on top of that a well deserved agility increase for cruisers (and MWDs more cap friendly) and we will see truly mixed fleets soon. Aside from the 'chance' factor, which I really hate, I think those web changes are not bad.
ALTNAME	Posted - 2005.03.09 04:57:00 - [40] Interceptors are a problem, CCP is fixing them, by basically providing a counter to an unstoppable offense.
Zanthiuse	Posted - 2005.03.09 05:17:00 - [41] Originally by: ALTNAME Interceptors are a problem, CCP is fixing them, by basically providing a counter to an unstoppable offense. have you ever heard of missles or drones? nos? Interceptors are very easy to counter. don't go thinking for a minute that this is to nerf them. ____________________________ Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms.
Baun	Posted - 2005.03.09 05:40:00 - [42] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Edited by: DigitalCommunist on 08/03/2005 19:37:26 Webifiers Frigate: 5km Cruiser: 7.5km Battleship: 10km Before you scream bloody jihad over these changes, here is the next part: Using a webifier on a ship for which it was NOT designed to be used on, reduces the effectiveness of said webifier. Frigate webifiers would be 100% effective against other frigs. Effective meaning the speed penalty is applied in full. If you try to web a cruiser, you will have only 75% effectiveness. Webbing a battleship is only 50% effective. So using a frigate webifier that does -60% velocity on a Tempest will be the equivalent of -30% velocity. Cruisers would be 100% effective against other cruisers, but only 75% against frigs or battleships. Battleship Webifiers would work 100% against other battleships, 75% effective on cruisers, and only 50% against frigates. I can't be arsed to provide examples of how this would work in a mock-fight, but basically, you dont have one range being the boundary for WIN/LOSE for every single ship or close range fight in EVE. Also, if you know what your target is, and he is set up to fight something else, you gain yet another advantage by having a webifier that is more effective than his. There will also be a clearer distinction between frigate pvpers and frigate tacklers. People will have to decide if they would rather be more effective at stopping targets, or protecting themselves from enemy interceptors. Again, knowing what your enemy is and setting up accordingly is using your head and not some setup that works in all situations. Rants ftw ;_; ps: ya forum crapped out on me This bit on webbers is quite well thought out. It allows blasters to be viable on all ship classes (a longer range ship cannot simply web a taranis/deimos/megathron which then dies before it even gets in optimal range). The Enemy's Gate is Down
Clementina	Posted - 2005.03.09 05:47:00 - [43] One size pwns all warp scramblers that work stochastically outside of their optimals are fine, as warp scramble dosn't decrease one's ability to defend oneself by using guns and electronic warfare, or just running away at sublight speeds. It even makes things easier for tacklers. One size pwns all webbifiers are that get 18 km's of range and work stochastically outside their optimals are a horse of a different colour. They nerf frigates, (and tech one frigates didn't need nerfing), they nerf close range battleships, and the cruiser once again gets the shaft. and it dosn't help tacklers. The enemy only needs to equip one webbifier and the tackler is flying a frigate with all the speed of a construction block. DigitalCommunist is Right.
slip66	Posted - 2005.03.09 06:54:00 - [44] Edited by: slip66 on 09/03/2005 06:55:52 Originally by: Hyey You know DC I love your ideas but there is one bad part to it all. CCP seems hell bent on slower combat if you ask me. Now I agree that a double MWD raven was overpowered(even though I caught plenty myself but that nerf made combat so much slower its painful. Im still to this day bitter because of it, the snail pace of combat now is so aggrivating, and it completely smacked cruisers back down to uselessness. I like the webbifier ideas but as before, CCP seems all for slow inching combat. yup we went from seeing all three ship classes in combat which rocked and gave everyone lots of choices of play style and the ability to help out in some way regardless of wealth or skill lvl. willingness was all you needed, to now where its pretty much back to early days of castor or pre castor where all you saw was BS fleets. I agree fully, IMO they want to remove speed due to the game engine not being able to cope with it on a large scale combat lvl. They killed the 2mwd 10x faster then the megapulse. It also forces players to train skills they currently only have at lvl 1 or two higher up and allows the introduction on new skills to keep pvpers from whining about lack of skills to train. on to digitals excellent post. I think your ideas need to be seriously looked over by the devs.....
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.09 08:23:00 - [45] Don't make it mass-based, because that would give a benefit to heavy ships. Its not like light ships (minmatar) don't have enough difficulties and disadvantages, like low cap, HP, damage, everything etc, compared to heavy ones (amarr, caldari)
Andarvi	Posted - 2005.03.09 08:31:00 - [46] The more I think about it, them more I'm convinced DC's ideas are the way to go. Having class based webbers and scramblers would make all ship types useful again. And having them work at reduced effect against other sized hulls means no ship is immune.
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2005.03.09 08:51:00 - [47] 5km webbing for frigs means no frigs will be fitting close range... i wouldn't wanna go vs a long - med range frig with a webber that works at 5km. Pain is meant to be felt
Altai Saker	Posted - 2005.03.09 08:58:00 - [48] Originally by: Juan Andalusian 5km webbing for frigs means no frigs will be fitting close range... i wouldn't wanna go vs a long - med range frig with a webber that works at 5km. Have to agree... Just toss this new propulsion crap, webbers are fine as they are, scramblers too. Quit changing things for the sake of change, these thing aint broken.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:21:00 - [49] Yup, more i see of it the more i agree webbers should be just left alone altogether. DC's ideas are better then the crap currently thrown on sisi, but still will introduce too much randomness and will constitute a nerf to something that does not need a nerf. What the something is would depend on the actual values put in ofc, but regardless of that someone using some type of setup will be getting shafted for no reason. At this moment, I know of no setup using webbifiers that could be viewed as imbalanced. So, don't chang them at all. Scramblers, well. They could be changed somewhat, but again it nerfs setups that dont need nerfing. Like cap-injector using battleships that do their own scrambling. Those are going to be totally crap with chance-based scrambling introducing an incertainty factor to scrambling that goes beyond the start of the fight. I'd say leave scrambling and webbing alone. The rest makes sense. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
agentsmitty	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:29:00 - [50] Originally by: Altai Saker Originally by: Juan Andalusian 5km webbing for frigs means no frigs will be fitting close range... i wouldn't wanna go vs a long - med range frig with a webber that works at 5km. Have to agree... Just toss this new propulsion crap, webbers are fine as they are, scramblers too. Quit changing things for the sake of change, these thing aint broken. I agree.
Spinal	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:36:00 - [51] If they make these changes i would like to see Nos and Neutraliser range Increase o_O
Shai Faetal	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:50:00 - [52] "yes... let`s change the EW/propulsions of this game, we have so much nothing else better to do" . when will our miner 2's get range bonus . stupid barges with their 15km rage is making me look stupid mining at 12km - (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Raem Civrie	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:52:00 - [53] Basically, the concept of luck-based electronic warfare and propulsion jamming is misguided and wrong. Tying webbers in with ship mass, however, is a good idea. Basically, for a frigate to be webbed by a battleship webber, it'd have to be very close, but conversely, it'd web them so hard that even large blasters could murder them. The rule of thumb basically is that the more skills (player skills and in-game skills) affect combat, the better. When battles are decided by luck and luck alone, something is wrong. Webbers are very delicate and controversial because they completely negate the one defence that frigates have. As such, changing the values of webifiers completely changes frigate combat. Anyway, Digipoo for the win.
Estios	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:53:00 - [54] Originally by: Nafri I also suggested to make EW modules kind Size related, to give people more varity and tactics in their fitting also making BS warp disruptors with longer range like 50km optimal but with an falloff of 20km in both directions (targets under 30km cant get scrambled at all) but Im just dreaming Suddenly changing Mods to be ship sized is ok in theory BUT ...... what happens to all those faction items I have Domination Webs, Domination Disruptors etc etc etc which Ive paid through the nose for, if I suddenly get patched and they are all frigate sized crap I will be raged ,...... a lot. Suggestions for this problem ?? So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2005.03.09 10:24:00 - [55] Originally by: Estios Originally by: Nafri I also suggested to make EW modules kind Size related, to give people more varity and tactics in their fitting also making BS warp disruptors with longer range like 50km optimal but with an falloff of 20km in both directions (targets under 30km cant get scrambled at all) but Im just dreaming Suddenly changing Mods to be ship sized is ok in theory BUT ...... what happens to all those faction items I have Domination Webs, Domination Disruptors etc etc etc which Ive paid through the nose for, if I suddenly get patched and they are all frigate sized crap I will be raged ,...... a lot. Suggestions for this problem ?? Fit them on the ship you want them for before patch day. Pain is meant to be felt
Space Debris	Posted - 2005.03.09 10:30:00 - [56] ^^^^ , I kinda guessed that would be a reply. /me see's EVERYONE fitting their named webs to their Scorps before patch. Maybe they would do it like the MWD so Pattern and Langour become Frig size, X5 becomes Cruiser and Fleeting and Faction become BS ?? The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face
Wahad Bredkebir	Posted - 2005.03.09 11:09:00 - [57] I like the specific size EW module, but peharps would be nice if counter-BS EW fit on cruiser sized ship and counter-Frig/counter-Cruisers EW fit on frigates. This might enhance the role of cruisers in fleet battles. http://minmatars.are.free.fr
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.03.09 12:55:00 - [58] Everything should be class-sized with fitting, cap usage, and skill requirements to match. Been asking for this forever. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.09 13:05:00 - [59] Originally by: Joshua Calvert Everything should be class-sized with fitting, cap usage, and skill requirements to match. Been asking for this forever. Nooooooooo, not the nanofibers tooo ! _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.03.09 13:28:00 - [60] replace webs with a tractor beam :) Yes, that DOES mean that you can't web someone to keep them away. THEN nerf web range. "As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade"

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.