| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:31:00 -
[1]
Edited by: DigitalCommunist on 08/03/2005 19:31:39 I'm going to throw in my two isk in regards to the propulsion jamming changes on sisi. I looked at the values that were posted, and I didn't have any major beef with them. When I came on sisi, I looked at the stats and found that named webs now have differences in range as well as speed penalty.
The top web, a fleeting propulsion, with maximum skills has an 18km optimal range. This means 100% effectiveness at webbing within 18km.
I had a lengthy debate (or more like argument) with Meridius who was moaning that the pulse nerf gimps the Crusader totally. I argued that fitting 4 dual light beam instead of pulse is easy and works just as well, if not better. So I went on Sisi, where I can fly a Crusader, and I fit one up with 4 modulated dual light beam, mwd, disruptor, and crap relays. Standard tackle setup.
I had four interceptor fights, first one was a taranis. He webbed me at 15k and I gave a big "WTF?", and since I had not seen the new stats I figured he either got stupid luck on the chance roll, or had a faction web. My dual light beam with 15km optimal still tore him to bits at 2km. Lasers ftw.
Second fight was a crow, he webbed me at 19km but died before his missiles even hit. Crusader > *
Third fight was a malediction, he webbed me but I won because he was using dual light pulse and therefore had to get close first.
Fourth fight, same pilot, malediction again, this time he won cause his dps was slightly higher with rocket launcher. Again I got webbed at 15km
So figuring I was either a) going insane, or b) ccp was, I docked and checked the stats.
30km optimal on a warp disruptor with skills? GOOD. 18km optimal on a webifier with skills? BAD.
Lets look at why this blows as many chunks as it does..
For interceptors, short range guns are effective only under 2km, medium range guns are anywhere from 7-12km and long range can be considered 12km-20km. Unless you have Medium Beams fitted with radio, or 280mm with carbonized lead, you won't hit very much past 20km, so those would be the sniping ranges.
For cruisers, close range is under 10km, how close depends on whether you use blasters, proj or laser. Medium range would be rails or artillery with antimatter/emp, so around 15km. Long range would be beyond 25-30km and sniping would be 45km+
For battleships close range is 12k or less, medium is 30-40km, long range is 50km+ with sniping as 80km or more.
The problem with this is that there is only one module to slow down speed, and speed is what dictates the outcome of a close range fight. If you're using blasters, you want to get close, fast. If you're using rails, you don't want the guy to get under your optimal. Right now on Tranquility, 10km is is a decent range to use for webs because it works for all 3 classes of ships. Although for interceptors its kind of bad because web overlaps the medium range combat distances, so you won't see anybody stupid enough to fit antimatter on 150mm for an optimal of 7km
That means interceptors don't have a medium range. So if we're changing the way propulsion jamming works, why not change it for the better and not the worse? 18km is insane, it overlaps into cruisers medium range zone. One range for all ships is insane to begin with.
What getting webbed means with these changes:
Battleship - your inertia won't take you close enough anymore, guaranteed death. Cruiser - not enough speed or inertia, barely took you closer once you were webbed at 10k. Interceptors - usually have enough speed to get close to target even after webbed at 10k, now you'll be vulnerable and ineffective for a much longer time. Completely kills short range combat once people start fitting beams + web.
My suggestions:
Class specific webifiers and warp disruptors.
Disruptors
Frigate: 15km Cruiser: 20km Battleship: 25km
All of them do -1, and the bigger class ones take more grid, cpu and cap, so in theory you could cram on a cruiser disruptor on your frigate but it WILL gimp your setup, same with battleship disruptor on a cruiser. With the speed frigates do, having an extra 5km range is not a big incentive, especially if your setup is gimped.
With skills your range can increase, but named tech 1 versions will only benefit you with lowered cap and cpu use. This way we don't get everyone going around with the same 40km disruptor on every ship
|

DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:32:00 -
[2]
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 _____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |

Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:32:00 -
[3]
? mhh thats no fun
but maybe more comming soon  Wanna fly with me?
|

Tyrrax Thorrk
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:37:00 -
[4]
The webifier stuff you suggest sounds good, too long range bad :<
Regarding scramblers/disruptors, aren't they luck based ? i.e. you can just warp out if you tank someone scrambling you for a while, and there's always a chance of escape no matter by how many you get scrambled 
Hate the scrambler changes if they're going to have it like that..
|

magickangaroo
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:38:00 -
[5]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Webifiers Battleship Webifiers would work 100% against other battleships, 75% effective on cruisers, and only 50% against frigates.
heya do u mean that against a frig for example that by 50% efectiveness it only slows it by 50% of what it could do or only has a 50% chance of activating and webbing?
|

DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:40:00 -
[6]
Edited by: DigitalCommunist on 08/03/2005 19:40:35
Originally by: magickangaroo
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Webifiers Battleship Webifiers would work 100% against other battleships, 75% effective on cruisers, and only 50% against frigates.
heya do u mean that against a frig for example that by 50% efectiveness it only slows it by 50% of what it could do or only has a 50% chance of activating and webbing?
Not chance, it means it will do -45% velocity on a frig if its a -90% battleship web
still enough to get pwned but you have a chance of either getting closer or moving farther out to escape _____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |

Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:42:00 -
[7]
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  Wanna fly with me?
|

Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:42:00 -
[8]
Most of what you say sounds reasonable to me, except 15km range on frig warp disruptors. That kind of hurts inty's that fit for an optimal of 20km.
|

DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Most of what you say sounds reasonable to me, except 15km range on frig warp disruptors. That kind of hurts inty's that fit for an optimal of 20km.
20km on an inty would be like 70km on a battleship, the different disruptor ranges correspond (rougly) to the medium combat ranges on each class with frigs slightly above medium and battleships slightly below _____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |

Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:46:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Nomen Nescio on 08/03/2005 19:50:42 All good, except I would move penalty even thurther, such that bs webs a frig - 20% effectiveness, same with frig web on bs.
Or make webs to count sig / sig. Such that frig webbing frig = 100% range, 100% speed penalty. Frig on bs = 300% range, 20% speed penalty.
Its not like I dont like the idea of different classes of webs, but to be honest I have very little hope that new classes of mods will be added to the game. They still even didnt add nanofiber II, not to mention dozen of new webs.
We have to work with current set of mods.
|

Garramon
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:48:00 -
[11]
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. ------------------------------------------------
 |

Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:50:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Nomen Nescio on 08/03/2005 19:58:22 As for the scramling, I just suggested:
A) Scramlbers have -2 strength, -25% cap to fit penalty, range is limited only by your targeing range, cap to use: 1, cycle: 60 seconds.
B) Distruptors have -1 strength, - 15% cap to fit penalty, range os limited by your targeting range., cap to use: 1, cycle: 180 seconds.
C) Once you activate you scramlers or distruptors, YOU ALSO can't warp for full cycle, no matter how many stabs you have.
Stabs +1 strength. All math works like now - scrambled or not. Cap penalty is not stackign with MWD penalty, meaning mwd + scramlber = still -25% of cap, or mwd + distruptor = -25% or, 2 scramlers + mwd = -50%
Which will allow people to fit for battle and have a battle, or fit for run and run. Thats 1 on 1 os closer. Because no1 will fit even 3 scramlbers on 1 ship.
And if you come to a blockade you wont run anyway.
But in a battle, man. you want 80 km bs on bs - no problemo. Just make sure that once you hit distruptor you yourself will live for 180 seconds.
PS Boys from my engine room made a good point. So the scramlbing range should be:
your_targeting_range * enemy_sig / your_sig
|

Namelesz
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 19:59:00 -
[13]
omg, what did you do with DC? and when did you replace him with this character that has well-thought out ideas???
-Namelesz
"I never run away. I merely advance in the opposite direction." -Judicator "She was so dumb, the smartest thing to ever come out of her mouth was my *****." |

Selim
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 20:12:00 -
[14]
DC ftw.
|

Cummilla
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 20:45:00 -
[15]
We can toss a coin on the "value for the game" of the EW changes. *shrug*
But quite frankly, i've still yet to see a viable "why is this being fixed when it's not broken" counterargument in regard to propulsion changes.
I think tOMB needs to just do the EW stuff as planned and call it a day...forget about changing the propulsion stuff.
All the mmorpg's I've been in have declined because and when devs are evidently so bored or enraptured by whining segments of the playerbase that they feel the need to start nerfing or changing stuff that is ostensibly not broken. Eve's developers would do well to heed the experiences of others in these matters.
|

Atandros
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 20:51:00 -
[16]
Totally, absolutely excellent ideas.
|

Meehan
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 21:42:00 -
[17]
Personally, I'd be alot happier if webs were removed from the game alltogether and some other option introduced for BS needing to take care of MWD frigates.
|

Kronarty
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 21:49:00 -
[18]
What about giving webifiers a MN rating like MWD's and AB's have?
Including the oversized penalties, so if you web a frig with a BS sized web it takes it a while to stop it, while a frig webber would hardly have any effect on a BShip (as a frig MWD). I always found it stupid that a 100 tons frigate can launch a "tractor beam" of sorts and make a 100k tons BShip stay in one place. Physics and all that...
|

Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 21:54:00 -
[19]
On second thought, I don't like these ideas, nor do I like CCP's ideas...
I like how EW works on tranq right now.
|

DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 22:00:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz On second thought, I don't like these ideas, nor do I like CCP's ideas...
I like how EW works on tranq right now.
What happened to you man, you used to be cool... ¼_¼ _____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |

Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 22:08:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 08/03/2005 22:15:41
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz On second thought, I don't like these ideas, nor do I like CCP's ideas...
I like how EW works on tranq right now.
What happened to you man, you used to be cool... ¼_¼
I just haven't been the same since they took away everything I loved...moving fast, and finding safepots.
|

Weirda
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 22:24:00 -
[22]
AWESOME Ideas DigitalCommunist! Could somebody please make sure that the DEV read this and comment/at least TRY to impliment it in some way? Weirda SO HATES the "one size fit all" nature of EW ATM - it makes little sense. 
Maybe post a link to this in the propulsion change sticky or you sig DC? 
Oh - and can Weirda have corpse back while you at it - the thought of m0o molesting it somewhere in deep 0.0 is too much to bear...  -- Thread Killer
<END TRANSMISSION> |

Mikelangelo
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 22:53:00 -
[23]
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
Excellent idea. But I think your slowdown percentages are subjective. Why not make them actually ship mass based.
Example: An Apoc has a mass of 107,500,000 kg. A Vigil has a mass of 1,125,000 kg. Roughly a 10:1 ratio of mass.
Apoc uses a webber on a Vigil. Well, since the Apoc has a mass 10x more than the Vigil, assuming 100% webbing, then the Vigil isn't going nowhere.
Vigil webs Apoc. That's like a mosquito trying to lasso a charging bull. You can get the lasso around it's neck, but good luck trying to slow it down.
The energy requirements for a small ship trying to web a MUCH LARGER ship should be obscene. How could a ship with 10x LESS mass actually slow down a much larger ship, given that it has lower reactor output too.
Webbing should take ship mass into consideration. So in effect, yes, I think DC is right. Webbing should be class based.
But on the other hand, if you were in a frigate, you could web a battleship and use the webber to make one(or more) really fast turn, and increase your transversal velocity to insane levels. That would be cool. Use webs to maneuver.
|

Sergeant Spot
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 23:00:00 -
[24]
I've mixed feelings on some issues with small ships, but there is one thing I am firm on:
Small ships, including basic frigs, should have valuable pvp functions. Currently a noob in a tier three basic frig in serious pvp can expect to die a few times (and maybe a lot depending who he is facing...), but with proper tactics and leadership such a noob can provide important and very valuable support to his team in pvp. This is vital for the health of Eve. While I have no problem that noobs must train for months to access the high end ships (just like I had to...), there should be useful functions that they can provide even while still noobish.
On a related note, all ship types should have 'real' functions.
However, one thing that has always mildly annoyed me is that elite frigs need fear nothing except other elite frigs (and even those they can avoid if they want to...). Even so, its a mild annoyance, and I have no 'brillant' change to offer. When I fly anything except a frig or shuttle in 0.0, I am timid, because I know how seriously vulnerable I am. Put me in an elite Frig (or any nimble frig to be honest...) and I have no fear except for warp bubbles. I suggest no change to this, as I have no better idea, but sometimes I think the elite frig pilots get off to easy....
|

Hyey
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 23:18:00 -
[25]
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. ~~ Hyey
I just payed 15 dollars this month just to be able to respond on the forums... stupid cancellation error.
|

jamesw
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 23:23:00 -
[26]
Personally I dont give a damn about disruptors, as they don't reduce your combat effectiveness in any way. I would like a guaranteed range for them to work in, but other than that they don't bother me.
The 18k webber, however, is crap. The changes suggested above by DC make sense. Put them on Sisi for a day so we can at least test them!!! -- jamesw Rubra Libertas Militia
Originally by: RollinDutchMasters I fly a dominix, its like a portable blob in a can
|

DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 23:34:00 -
[27]
yeah my % values and numbers are subjective, you can easily do it by mass of the ship for a more accurate result
in my suggestions, destroyers and battlecruisers would need to be lumped together with one category, which defeats the purpose of having intermediate classes  _____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |

Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 23:46:00 -
[28]
Think I mentioned a similar idea in the EW thread where I said web could work in such away that it didn't get a 100% web (that is 50% speed reduction or whatever the numbers are now on the testserver) instead it would get somewhere between a 0 and 100%. Can't you just see it
DigitalCommunist webs you slightly for -5.3% speed increase
Could also just vary the distance dependant on the ship you are trying to web so if you try to web a Battleship you'd get 18km range and if you try to web a frig you get 7.5km range and even make it dependant on signature radius I know how all you guys love that  __________ Capacitor research |

Sergeant Spot
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 23:54:00 -
[29]
The main issue that concerns me on changes to webbing and scrambling is that "tackler" has been one of the few important functions that a noobish player can do in serious pvp.
If the skills needed to be tackler are changed, how will this affect future noobs who want to get involved in serious pvp?
As stated above, I approve of having folks work towards high end gear use, but a new player should be able to provide 'desirable' support to combat team.
|

Damajink
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 00:03:00 -
[30]
Very good ideas, size based webs and disruptors are the best way to go about the changes.
|

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" |

lythos miralbar
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 14:07:00 -
[61]
Quote:
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.
That doesnt sound right..
Ok fair enough a firgate webber should be less effective against cruisers or BS's because more power is required to stop them..
BUT.. if you slap a BS webber on a frigate it should be twice as effective as normal, so instead of 60% reduction you'd get a 90% reduction..
That would make more sense..
|

Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 14:28:00 -
[62]
I don't think I get what the problem is. In my opinion it is that 18km webbing range might not be that big deal in battleships fight but concerning frigates it is fricking huge. Long range with frigates is somewhere between 30 and 40 km so a 18km webbie with 9km falloff is very ****** up for frigates.
Making it so that a battleship is only 50% effective at webbing a frig would help a little in this respect but a frig could still web a frig from 18km which is just wrong imho. That's why I'm gonna repeat my idea that I mentioned earlier in this thread.
Webbers optimal range (possibly falloff to) should be based on the ship you are trying to web. When webbing a frig the optimal could be 7.5km, for webbing a cruiser it could be 12km and for webbing a battleship the optimal would be 18km. What's good about this well there would be no need for different sizes the, you couldn't web a frigate from 20+ km. What's bad about this, well a frig could web a battleship from 18km where the battleship would have to be lucky to web the frigate from that range. __________ Capacitor research |

Vigilant
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 14:50:00 -
[63]
Hey, I got a suggestion..... Don't change Webs and Scram's at all Just change the other EW (Sensor Damps and MultiSpecs)
Webs and Scrams don't have any problems now....
|

Sunflare
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 15:38:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Vigilant Hey, I got a suggestion..... Don't change Webs and Scram's at all Just change the other EW (Sensor Damps and MultiSpecs)
Webs and Scrams don't have any problems now....
I agree, But if they do have to change them, I think that maybe webbing percentage/range should go on both: ship to ship mass, and signature radius. IE. a battleship tries to web a interceptor, as the interceptor has a really small radius compaired to the bs's the battleship's webber cannot get a good lock onto the ceptor until it gets into the 5-8k (maybe less/more?) range. When it does get a lock being that the bs's mass is 100x the ceptors the ceptor would come to almost a dead stop. Another example is ceptor on ceptor, being close to same sig rad. and mass they would have farther locking range, but less effect on each other.
Any good? 
|

spiritfa11
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 19:47:00 -
[65]
Im coming into this topic kind of late, but what about having webs increase the mass of the ship webbed. Since it doesnt make sense that a 1k ton frigate can stop a 100k ton battleship if the webs were changed to make some sort of gravity field as Taran suggested, that increased the mass of the ship webbed you would effectively reduce agility and speed. The closer the 'webbing' ship is to the 'webbed' ship the more mass is added(stronger the grav field becomes) and the less agile and slower the webbed ship becomes. Ill leave the math to someone else if they want to play with some numbers on whether or not this could work. Im just bad at math.  ---------------------
I'd like to do your sig. You may contact me in-game |

Kronarty
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 20:21:00 -
[66]
OK, throwing an idea around here, for the sake of brainstorming, I don't really know if it is a good one:
What if webber and scrambler range were determined by the target ship and not the ship carrying them?
BS could be webbed from 20 kms while frigates only from 10?
Add to this class specific webbers (frig 25%-cruiser 50%-BS 75%)
(numbers more or less random)
This would pose some interesting scenarios, such as several small ships webbing a large one with their less efficient webbers while staying outside the larger one webbing radius, perfectly showing the advantages of maneouverability against a slow lumbering opponent?
It is possibly a dumb idea but I am too lazy to think of reasons against it, that I leave for the all of you, shoot.
|

Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 20:40:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Kronarty OK, throwing an idea around here, for the sake of brainstorming, I don't really know if it is a good one:
What if webber and scrambler range were determined by the target ship and not the ship carrying them?
BS could be webbed from 20 kms while frigates only from 10?
Add to this class specific webbers (frig 25%-cruiser 50%-BS 75%)
(numbers more or less random)
This would pose some interesting scenarios, such as several small ships webbing a large one with their less efficient webbers while staying outside the larger one webbing radius, perfectly showing the advantages of maneouverability against a slow lumbering opponent?
It is possibly a dumb idea but I am too lazy to think of reasons against it, that I leave for the all of you, shoot.
I just said that. __________ Capacitor research |

Kronarty
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 23:16:00 -
[68]
damnit, that's true...
wrote post while offline and just came here and posted when i got online.
stop stealing my ideas, mkay? 
|

Baun
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 23:22:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Dust Puppy I don't think I get what the problem is. In my opinion it is that 18km webbing range might not be that big deal in battleships fight but concerning frigates it is fricking huge. Long range with frigates is somewhere between 30 and 40 km so a 18km webbie with 9km falloff is very ****** up for frigates.
Making it so that a battleship is only 50% effective at webbing a frig would help a little in this respect but a frig could still web a frig from 18km which is just wrong imho. That's why I'm gonna repeat my idea that I mentioned earlier in this thread.
Webbers optimal range (possibly falloff to) should be based on the ship you are trying to web. When webbing a frig the optimal could be 7.5km, for webbing a cruiser it could be 12km and for webbing a battleship the optimal would be 18km. What's good about this well there would be no need for different sizes the, you couldn't web a frigate from 20+ km. What's bad about this, well a frig could web a battleship from 18km where the battleship would have to be lucky to web the frigate from that range.
This amounts to a nerf of something that does not need nerfing, close range BS turret platforms (blasterthron, autocannon tempest). There is already no reason to fly them so do you really think anyone will bother if they can just be webbed at 20km such that they *might* get into optimal range by the time they blow up?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|

Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 23:44:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Baun
This amounts to a nerf of something that does not need nerfing, close range BS turret platforms (blasterthron, autocannon tempest). There is already no reason to fly them so do you really think anyone will bother if they can just be webbed at 20km such that they *might* get into optimal range by the time they blow up?
Aye that is true but as things are now then this wouldn't really change anything. And frigates are hurt more imo with this change.
ps. Baun, perchange a fellow Icelandic Ender's game fan  __________ Capacitor research |

Shreven Bulks
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 23:44:00 -
[71]
God damnit, CCP, I've heard of some of the people you offer jobs...give DC a job. Just because you all know eachother doesn't mean you should tolerate the current grouop content people going on nightly benders. I haven't seen DigialCommunist post something that sounded stupid...um...ever. I think he could save all your asses, because he actually has some idea of how to make things work better...and he expresses his idea with less hateful venom than I do, which is admirable in a way.
DC for DEV!
|

Ukiah
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 00:07:00 -
[72]
I hate to derail another excellent and articulate thread enumerating both the reasons why there should be no propulsion changes and the number of players who are against these changes, but I have to ask a rhetorical question....
Does anyone really, REALLY, think Hammer or TomB is listening?
I mean, all due respect, it's not my game, it's their game and they can do with it as they please, but one begins to wonder, given their silence on the matter, if they even care what the subscriber's think of these changes. It seems like they listen to the 'whiners' regarding an imbalance and immediately come up with 'Teh SolutionÖ' and go full bore implementing it, player opinion be damned.
There have been many, many changes that the subscriber base at large has been against, but because of the shared love of everything else in the game, we all shrug it off and adapt.
One begins to wonder at what point we reach critical mass on unwanted, senseless changes.... As someone else mentioned, it's been the death knell for many a MMO's.
|

Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 00:38:00 -
[73]
They likely realize that the posters on the forum represent one small nonrepresentative subset of the total games audience.
Good for some feedback, but just because the forum may want to do something doesn't necessarily mean that its good for anything but that segment.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |

Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 02:22:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 10/03/2005 02:24:35 Gierling, look arround.
Some of the best PvPers in the game are here. We KNOW - better than CCP. This is a truism about these games, because we simply have more TIME than CCP do, collectively. No, we may not allways agree but when we can - and I think DC is on the right track here - CCP should stop and consider.
Either that or leave webs alone. Scrambler changes I could take or leave. I like the EW changes.
And yes, I was being sarcastic about the tractor beam but it WOULD work :P
"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" |

Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 03:24:00 -
[75]
So, that only means that we can speak from the perspective of the bang-and-gank crowd.
CCP Still has thier heads above water with this, we may not like it but it is thier game and they will do what they think is best.
Somewhere in Iceland they may be sitting around saying "Have you seen how high mineral prices are, we need to get people to cut down on PVP'ing and back to sucking veld in 1.0"
You may not LIKE it, but its thier decision...
Heck I have a vague feeling that some of the known playbalance issues are kept in for as long as they are due to metaplot concerns. (To represent the different factions gaining the upper hand for a short period of time).
It would suck if that were the case, but like I said its CCP's baby and they will do what they think is best... whats best for EVE isn't necessarily whats best for EVE PVP... Which is what this forum seems to focus on.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |

Joe
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 03:30:00 -
[76]
Theres been Bs Class Webs in the game now for a few months, with ranges of 30-40km.
I wonder how future patches will effect these allready ingame...
Taranis WholeSale Deals. |

Gileas
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 05:43:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Gileas on 10/03/2005 05:46:03 Edited by: Gileas on 10/03/2005 05:44:54 On the subject of class-sizing the webbers, couldn't they be sized much like ab and mwd: 1MN, 10MN, 100MN? If not exactly that relationship, then maybe something similar? Then the higher sized ones could have their tracking reduced to bring them in line with weapons for the appropriate-sized class of ship. Kind of a tractor-beam concept.
|

Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 05:55:00 -
[78]
WOULD YOU LIKE SOME CHEESE WITH YOUR WHINE MR COMMUNIST? ------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |

DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 06:39:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Jim Raynor WOULD YOU LIKE SOME CHEESE WITH YOUR WHINE MR COMMUNIST?
Missle nerf is coming, shouldn't you be stockpiling? 
_____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |

Exavier Macbeth
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 08:23:00 -
[80]
I like this post and throw in my support... quite a few ideas in here that I would love to see implimented. Especially if it makes the smaller ships (which I enjoy flying) a bit more useful.
Originally by: Gierling So, that only means that we can speak from the perspective of the bang-and-gank crowd.
Ummm this isn't true... I actually am a miner/industrialist and would love to see some of these changes... of coarse I think i have more SP in EW than I do in Gunnery... Either way if called upon to fight for my corp it would give a miner like me something useful to outfit for as I am obviously not good at aiming turrets at ppl :)
|

Ukiah
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 15:54:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Gierling They likely realize that the posters on the forum represent one small nonrepresentative subset of the total games audience.
Good for some feedback, but just because the forum may want to do something doesn't necessarily mean that its good for anything but that segment.
You do realize, don't you, that us 'bang and gank' people keep mineral prices higher than NPC rates?
And another thing, if you're not pvp'ing, then this change doesn't affect you anyway, so why do you have an opinion on the matter? That would be like me complaining about ME research nerfage on BPO's or something.
|

Attrezzo Pox
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 17:29:00 -
[82]
w3rd the webs are way tardballed. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |