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

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1200
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 14:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
Because i think they were, the only problem with web strength before was the fact that two would be 99%, we only have a few whips with bonuses to make that a reality now and they can still miss with some turrets and some ranges.
normal ships however, two 60% webs is only 80% and speedy ships can still very easily avoid damage.
Im not saying bring back 90% webs, im saying make ONE web 70-80% but the second and third add less so the multiple effect is similar to now without having say 3 webs make over 90% +/-.
currently a signle web for a precious mid at only a max of 60%.... is a bit lame for anything that fights under 5k and the damned webs only go to 10km anyway! Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Whitehound
1506
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 14:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Try neuting your target.
You also better make your suggestions in Features & Ideas Discussion. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1201
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 15:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Try neuting your target.
You also better make your suggestions in Features & Ideas Discussion.
Nah i wanted to discuss webs before making a more defined suggestion. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
1179
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 15:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Whitehound wrote:Try neuting your target.
You also better make your suggestions in Features & Ideas Discussion. Nah i wanted to discuss webs before making a more defined suggestion.
You already have it, and it's a good one. Buff single web, but with high stacking penalty. The current "dual web or nothing" mentality is ample proof why this is needed. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1201
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 15:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Muad 'dib wrote:Whitehound wrote:Try neuting your target.
You also better make your suggestions in Features & Ideas Discussion. Nah i wanted to discuss webs before making a more defined suggestion. You already have it, and it's a good one. Buff single web, but with high stacking penalty. The current "dual web or nothing" mentality is ample proof why this is needed.
The point is a scram does its job and is one slot, if they fit stabs you fit more points.
with webs you start at a low 60% and need something in the region of 5 to get the most and thats STILL less than two 90%.
the slots used to effect sucks, one web on some close range ships means missing even same size targets, and ones with AB just laugh (10mn or over sized 100mn)
thats why the 100mn tengu and variations did so well, they wernt good, webs were crap and strength bonused ships are rare. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Whitehound
1506
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 15:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Whitehound wrote:Try neuting your target.
You also better make your suggestions in Features & Ideas Discussion. Nah i wanted to discuss webs before making a more defined suggestion. No offence, but this is exactly the point of the Features & Ideas Discussion forum. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|

ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
88

|
Posted - 2013.07.06 19:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion. ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
1288
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 20:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
Why? It's a discussion about modules... Oh god. |

Gaara's sniper
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 21:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
use daredevils, vigilants, etc.
|

Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
670
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 21:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Gaara's sniper wrote:use daredevils, vigilants, etc.
Also, fitting stabs, won't help against scrambler shutting off mwd
Using ridiculously expensive ships isn't a solution to webs being bad. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1202
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 21:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Gaara's sniper wrote:use daredevils, vigilants, etc.
Also, fitting stabs, won't help against scrambler shutting off mwd Using ridiculously expensive ships isn't a solution to webs being bad.
exactly, you have to buy a PIRATE ship to get the desired effect of actually stopping some one with a module thats actually designed to do it.
60% is to weak. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg
I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Tryaz
Improvised Tactics
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 22:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
What about removing the stacking penalty on the first 3-5 webber drones?
... No seriously Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden |

Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 00:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
Wait am I getting this right?
People are complaining about webs being too weak?
Target painter adds about 45% to sig radius which makes it 3 times weaker than a web for turret tracking issues.
60% velocity removal is over half the speed, yes the webs were nerfed bad but it was due, rapiers already make kiting impossible, with 80% velocity factor with 2 webs is plenty.
Do you people seriously need to bring target to a dead stop so you can kill it? Stop flying slow armor battleship blobs if you can't handle 1 frigate.
Go back to flying rifters and learn to pvp.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|

Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 00:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
if you wanna change 60 to a higher number... be sure to remember there are several ship with 50% velocity factor bonus.
That is even if changed to 70%, some ship will have 105% speed down webs.
That is simply 0 velocity.
So what about boost webs and keep vindicator's web at 90? The answer is if you boost webs and keep the others at 90%, you are actually nerfing those ships.
So it is not a simple question only realted to webs. |

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 01:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Wait am I getting this right?
People are complaining about webs being too weak?
Target painter adds about 45% to sig radius which makes it 3 times weaker than a web for turret tracking issues.
60% velocity removal is over half the speed, yes the webs were nerfed bad but it was due, rapiers already make kiting impossible, with 80% velocity factor with 2 webs is plenty.
Do you people seriously need to bring target to a dead stop so you can kill it? Stop flying slow armor battleship blobs if you can't handle 1 frigate.
Go back to flying rifters and learn to pvp. While I don't know if I'd go with quite that pugnacious a tone, the general argument is correct. Webs are pretty solid as they are now. Good enough to establish a hard tackle, while still allowing some wiggle-room for the victim so it stays interesting. If you are having problems tracking the same class ship while it is webbed, then there is probably something else going on there - poor gunnery skills, being TD'd, or poor piloting skills.
|

Whitehound
1508
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 07:32:00 -
[16] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Gaara's sniper wrote:use daredevils, vigilants, etc.
Also, fitting stabs, won't help against scrambler shutting off mwd Using ridiculously expensive ships isn't a solution to webs being bad. Demanding a buff to ridiculously cheap modules isn't a solution to fight expensive ships.
See what I did there? Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
7669
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 07:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
webs are fine learn to play
deal with it You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |

The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
118
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 09:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
I wasted years of fighting this particular windmill.
90% webs and extreme lethal close range pvp mechanics where never a problem, they levelled the playing field between nano fittings that could only do limited dps by her speeds and close range fittings, that forced a rather lethal and quick combat style, somewhat counterbalance the lack of gtfo ability.
The idea was that people that you forced into point blank fights couldn't survive this engagement(because they didn't understand the mechanics) and from her perception an web was obvious the item that killed them all the time, since a skilled close range pvper could use it to bend tracking dynamics vie kitting at point blank to his will(what still works with setups outside of web range today) and crushed paper thin tanked nano fittings with peak dps at his range. Between equally skilled close range pvpers it was never a issue, since movement was possible and you need to decide if the sig bloom and giving your opponent the extra applied dps by it was worth the move.
Was it better than scram and 60% web? Yes it was, especially for solo pvp, since it was a lot less restrictive against multiple opponents and a lot less binary than the scram mechanics we have today. Did anything in bigger fights improve? No not at all, since web stacking made the change completely meaningless to them.
On top of it, it made solo/small gang blaster pvp completely useless. Throwing buff after buff at it to compensate for being supposed to fight at a range where the weapon became utterly useless is not good game design but a endless string of bad decisions, because nobody addresses the main problem: That the hulls lack the ability to stay mobile and apply damage properly at her range. Something that is hilarious bad if you directly compare it to nano kitting pvp, where the later even got a gtfo ability, on top of getting the same options to use range, mobility and sig bloom to improve applied dps. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|

Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
159
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 13:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tryaz wrote:What about removing the stacking penalty on the first 3-5 webber drones?
... No seriously
Or increasing their base web strength. I did a post lambasting them a couple months ago. Basically the light, medium, and webber drones, which travel at 3km/s, 2.5km/s, and 1875m/s respectively, have a respective 13.5%, 25.5%, and 46% total speed reduction.
Webbing drones could really use some help. Light drones can't really tag interceptors without luck, and might not even be able to keep them tagged if they do somehow catch them, and most ships capable of fielding 5 heavy webber drones would be much better off using heavy combat drones instead.
Oh, granted you could deploy webbers, slow the target down, hopefully hit them with a shipboard webber before you lose all of your webber drones, suck them in, and then deploy combat drones, but having a friend in an interceptor, which can hit around 4km/s with just an MWD, is a lot more efficient and more conducive to the "bring more friends" meta-gaming going on. |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
190
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 14:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
christ as if having the option of 60% webs on rapiers with 100km range with links or faction webs.... i would think a nerf to web strength and maybe even range is more balanced than the other way around. Also nerf the pirate bonus 90% webs are insanely OP.
All you need is a combo of geddons/curses, arazu/lachesis, Rapier/Huginn, and even a basic link as optional and you can control a fight upto 40km quite easily. which i think is a little OP really
even EAF have the range to do the job Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
774
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 21:12:00 -
[21] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:christ as if having the option of 60% webs on rapiers with 100km range with links or faction webs.... i would think a nerf to web strength and maybe even range is more balanced than the other way around. Also nerf the pirate bonus 90% webs are insanely OP.
All you need is a combo of geddons/curses, arazu/lachesis, Rapier/Huginn, and even a basic link as optional and you can control a fight upto 40km quite easily. which i think is a little OP really
even EAF have the range to do the job
Nerf links. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
774
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 21:16:00 -
[22] - Quote
Also my idea is to add a 20km 30% strength web.
Now kiting ships can be slowly reeled in by some brawlers. However those brawlers than fit these webs will have a competitive disadvantage over close range brawlers that carry 60% webs, since you would need two of these long webs to properly catch a fast ship or give up your scram for a long point, also they use more CPU/Cap.
So now even a oversized ab ship will stay in a semi competitive speed with brawler mwd ships for longer, meaning your tengu can't outrun an entire gang. Also they won't be the ultimate brick wall for people trying to burn back to gate like boosting normal webs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |

Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
120
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 21:46:00 -
[23] - Quote
I never saw the 'good old webs', only ever fought against the new one and personally believe them to be very fine (aside from how links turn tech-II webs into officerwebs) - and I like how they work differently with scram- and pointfits. Also like how certain ships specialize in this from of tackling and result in brawlboats (ashimmu, vindicator etc) with 90% webs and rangebonused ones (bhaal, minnie recon etc) that use the exact same module for rather different purposes. I only correct my own spelling. |

The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 22:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
Longer ranges on webs is bad, since they are far more useful to kitting setups than to close range setups and it gives lokis/rapiers/bahls even more web range. While it might look useful at first, you will end up with a web that is rather useless at point blank(because it is halve as good as the 60% web, that is also useless at sub 5km) while kitting setups can use the mods to easily hold you at range and point blank performance of the mod is no issue for them at all.
As for ultimate brick wall, I think you underestimate mass and interia stats. Ships don't instantly stop with heavy webing, it is the mwd off button that stops them in the tracks. Even with 90% webs nano BS simply slipped out of your webs(the same way like 100mn AB fittings do today) and a nano HAC didn't stop if you hit him with a web, it still moved 500-800m/s in the worst case(after changing directions, and it ended like 50km off if he slipped away) under 90% webs and it was quite a challenge to keep it in web range in something clumsy as a BS. I am all for removing the mwd off button, because it is a terrible binary thing and vastly reduces the effect of piloting skills at point blank.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0809/Thorax_vs_Stabber.wmv
Does this look like static pvp to you(the guy I shoot down is the leader of wrong alliance and did 4 or 5 place in multiple ATs)?
Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|

Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
675
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 01:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Also my idea is to add a 20km 30% strength web.
Now kiting ships can be slowly reeled in by some brawlers. However those brawlers than fit these webs will have a competitive disadvantage over close range brawlers that carry 60% webs, since you would need two of these long webs to properly catch a fast ship or give up your scram for a long point, also they use more CPU/Cap.
So now even a oversized ab ship will stay in a semi competitive speed with brawler mwd ships for longer, meaning your tengu can't outrun an entire gang. Also they won't be the ultimate brick wall for people trying to burn back to gate like boosting normal webs.
Rofl, are you terrible or something?
Brawlers reeling in kiters? Show me on the doll where the pro kiter touched you (and your pathetic gang). |

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
774
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 03:40:00 -
[26] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:
Rofl, are you terrible or something?
Brawlers reeling in kiters? Show me on the doll where the pro kiter touched you (and your pathetic gang).
What is your problem?
There really isn't a way for a brawling ship to catch a kiting vessel if it is already out of scram range. As long as the pilot isn't a ****. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |

Imperishable
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 06:43:00 -
[27] - Quote
this game is balanced for blob vs blob, not 1 vs 1
In case of 1 vs 1, web is definitely too weak. But in blob vs blob, web is just fine |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1205
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 08:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
Imperishable wrote:this game is balanced for blob vs blob, not 1 vs 1
In case of 1 vs 1, web is definitely too weak. But in blob vs blob, web is just fine
Yeah i do have to agree with this a bit, it think the main point is that a single web isnt very effective unless its on a pirate bonused web strength ship. Though just for fun, did you know that ONE 90% web is stronger in effect than 4 normal 60% and that INFINITE normal webs on a target is 4 times weaker in effect than two 90% webs.
A point gets a point on the targted a scram 2 points and mwd cut out - these work great Tracking disrupters and other EW tend to cripple a target ship and are far more effective as they should be on non bonuses ships.
The issue is that the only ships that benefit from current 60% webs are ships that kite at close ranges and that can hit at ~9km well, like auto ships, drone ship and lasers (heck even rails in some setups!)
This is only a discussion im not demanding any web nerf or buff just yet :)
Just to take things a slightly different direction, ever tried webbing at NPC at speed? its quite amusing how little effect it has on the determined, infi-mass rat :P
As the second most important tool for getting a ship kill in most combat isnt it time webbing wasnt so basic, cut and dry?
Perhaps time to split webs up a bit, perhaps have 70% 8km webs and 40-50% webs at 15km? Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg
I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Mycael
Biohazard.
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 08:34:00 -
[29] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Also my idea is to add a 20km 30% strength web.
Now kiting ships can be slowly reeled in by some brawlers. However those brawlers than fit these webs will have a competitive disadvantage over close range brawlers that carry 60% webs, since you would need two of these long webs to properly catch a fast ship or give up your scram for a long point, also they use more CPU/Cap.
So now even a oversized ab ship will stay in a semi competitive speed with brawler mwd ships for longer, meaning your tengu can't outrun an entire gang. Also they won't be the ultimate brick wall for people trying to burn back to gate like boosting normal webs.
And by doing this, you are giving the same option to some hulls often used as kiters. Brilliant. |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1088
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 08:51:00 -
[30] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Because i think they were, the only problem with web strength before was the fact that two would be 99%, we only have a few whips with bonuses to make that a reality now and they can still miss with some turrets and some ranges.
normal ships however, two 60% webs is only 80% and speedy ships can still very easily avoid damage.
Im not saying bring back 90% webs, im saying make ONE web 70-80% but the second and third add less so the multiple effect is similar to now without having say 3 webs make over 90% +/-.
currently a signle web for a precious mid at only a max of 60%.... is a bit lame for anything that fights under 5k and the damned webs only go to 10km anyway!
What? Seriously wtf? I'm guessing you don't witness a lot of dread blapping......
Webs are pretty much the most powerful midslot mod you can have O.o
If anything web stacking should be increased and 90% webs should be nerfed.. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1205
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 08:58:00 -
[31] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: What? Seriously wtf? I'm guessing you don't witness a lot of dread blapping......
Webs are pretty much the most powerful midslot mod you can have O.o
If anything web stacking should be increased and 90% webs should be nerfed..
I think you misread my post or didnt get what i was trtying to say: basically exactly what you said!!!
90% webs are too strong and should not be used as an excuse to the fact that one 60% is pretty sucky for a 10k range ew mod.
a single 90% web is 4 times more effective than 4 60%.
While it works GREAT for blaster ships that use one web, multiples (aka 4+) slow a target so much dreads can gank them in siege.
Im simply asking for the scale of effectiveness better cover a solo brawler with his one web, multiples still worth using on ranged ships like huginns and 90% webs from vindis be reduced so that two is not 99%, Something more sane like 97% after 4 90% are used instead of 2.
Webbing is just all kinds of weird right now and i think its about time to revisit what it really means to web from a weapons AND holding point of view.
One web per ship with stacking removed? possibility. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg
I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 09:58:00 -
[32] - Quote
no you're wrong.
web and scram on a ship without an ab is more effective than before the web nerf web on a ship with an ab is only slightly less effective than pre-nerf see dev blog about it for all the stats. If you unnerf webs then you can't have scrams shutting off mwd's |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1205
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 10:16:00 -
[33] - Quote
A single non bonused web doing more than it does now (current 60% total)
5+ non bonused webs doing less than they do now (current 90% total)
A single bonused web doing less than it does now (current 90% total)
5+ bonused webs doing less than they do now (current 99.9% total)
A guess at some totals that would give the advantage back tho those relying on a web rather than using one to improve dps/range control:
A single non bonused web doing proposed 75% total
5+ non bonused webs doing proposed 85% total
A single bonused web doing proposed 85% total
5+ bonused webs doing proposed 95% total
This is from using a DD and vigi and vindi/kronos vs ships with similar fighting styles having to use a weak sauce 60% web or two. The same stacking formula is not equal on different modules, stacking resistance as is works fine - just not for webs (OR ECM DRONES WHICH GET INSANELY BETTER!)
Thank you all for your input - seems that many think things are fine and less but significant think they need to be looked at. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg
I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
125
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 10:44:00 -
[34] - Quote
Gawain Edmond wrote:no you're wrong.
web and scram on a ship without an ab is more effective than before the web nerf web on a ship with an ab is only slightly less effective than pre-nerf see dev blog about it for all the stats. If you unnerf webs then you can't have scrams shutting off mwd's
Have you ever considered that the devs might have been plain wrong on that, similar as most of the player base? It should have ringed multiple alarm bells if the guys that did complain about the "better close range mechanics" where actually the only guys that did all her pvp at this range(yes the people that utilized super heavy gank setups at point blank, during a age where everybody flown nano). Just search for the thread where CCP Zulu proposed a medium blaster fitted hype to counter tracking issues, and no he was not trolling, but simply not a ideal person for that job, that unfortunately was in charge of rebalancing eve at this time. The reason for this is signature bloom and tracking mechanics, what allowed both high dps and fairly mobile point blank pvp. Actually removing the mwd off button is something I looking forward to see since years, for the sole purpose to bring skilled close range pvp back. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|

Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
209
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 18:28:00 -
[35] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Because i think they were, the only problem with web strength before was the fact that two would be 99%, we only have a few whips with bonuses to make that a reality now and they can still miss with some turrets and some ranges.
normal ships however, two 60% webs is only 80% and speedy ships can still very easily avoid damage.
Im not saying bring back 90% webs, im saying make ONE web 70-80% but the second and third add less so the multiple effect is similar to now without having say 3 webs make over 90% +/-.
currently a signle web for a precious mid at only a max of 60%.... is a bit lame for anything that fights under 5k and the damned webs only go to 10km anyway! Before you suggest something like this think about available counters for webs. Currently to counter 60% web you need AB (actually you need +150% bonus to speed to nullify effect of 60% web), and there is no way to counter 90% web as well as 2x60% webs. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
814
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 18:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
Quote:normal ships however, two 60% webs is only 80% and speedy ships can still very easily avoid damage.
Why do you think that two module activations should be able to completely and totally negate speed as a defense? I would argue that webs are still more powerful than they should be; in engagements beyond a couple people, the primary target's movement is almost completely irrelevant if things are going on within web range. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 18:48:00 -
[37] - Quote
Personnel i love the idea of modules that increase defense against web if longer ranges or higher more avilable webbing strength was available.
Perhaps a low slot mod that increases mass and speed that has a reduced webbed bonus, so a web is only X% effective, but in doing so makes your orbits further out etc
This is exactly the sort of thing i think is missing, other forms of ew have been adjusted and played with, but webs besides a straight up range/strength bonus have changed little since they were last looked at many many years back now.
Range control is a serious factor and it needs more flavour.
The answer cant be "bring a t3 boosted rapier" or a "spam vindis" any time a gang wants to be able to control range.
I wouldnt mind some half bonus hybrid ships, like 5% web range and strength to some ships and so on, heck dare i say it, some rigs that effect those attributes of a module. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
779
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 18:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
What if some webs had there strength boosted and slowed down both the webber and webee?
90% speed reduction to the target and 60% speed reduction to the user? Now if your a slower ship you can stop a fast ship but at the cost of your own speed? In a gang your rapier would be able to shut down any 100mn tengu or cynabal but would loose speed, making it an easier target to pop, but in a 1v1 both sides are now equalized somewhat. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 19:01:00 -
[39] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:What if some webs had there strength boosted and slowed down both the webber and webee?
80% speed reduction to the target and 60% speed reduction to the user? Now if your a slower ship you can stop a fast ship but at the cost of your own speed. In a gang your rapier would be able to shut down any 100mn tengu or cynabal but would loose speed, making it an easier target to pop, but in a 1v1 both sides are now equalized somewhat.
nah cant do that, by the same rational falcons jam themselves HOWEVER being more suseptibel to them.... that i like..
Every web you have active makes any web on you Xx and strong .....same as if: every time a falcon jams it lowers its own eccm strength X amount
interesting :D Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
779
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 19:08:00 -
[40] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:
nah cant do that, by the same rational falcons jam themselves HOWEVER being more susceptible to them.... that i like..
Every web you have active makes any web on you Xx and strong .....same as if: every time a falcon jams it lowers its own eccm strength X amount
interesting :D
Your falcon analogy isn't apt because jamming themselves means they can't jam. Your idea also means that the only real counter to falcons is more jams, but that leaves jamming in the exact same place it is now because jamming the other guys falcon first is still the best way to win an ECM war, however now there is 0% chance of the guy who didn't click the button first of ever getting the edge back.
If having a web makes you weaker to webs that makes no sense. A kiting ship now webbing you in your web range means he is STILL going faster than you and is about to escape. Unless he is going only 50m/s faster than you he is still going to get away. That also leaves the 90% webs as being completely OP and a death sentence for any ship that falls into web range without a web fitted. Also how does being weaker to webs affect 100km rapiers unless you have 100km rapiers to! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 19:42:00 -
[41] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote: A kiting ship now webbing you in your web range means he is STILL going faster than you and is about to escape. Unless he is going only 50m/s faster than you he is still going to get away. That also leaves the 90% webs as being completely OP and a death sentence for any ship that falls into web range without a web fitted. Also how does being weaker to webs affect 100km rapiers unless you have 100km rapiers to!
why are you assuming the only thing on the field for either side with tackle at any time is a boosted rapier/arazu. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
779
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 19:47:00 -
[42] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:
why are you assuming the only thing on the field for either side with tackle at any time is a boosted rapier/arazu.
I am not, I am simply pointing out that your change will leave you with omgwtfbbq tacklers from 100km away with no meaningful drawbacks.
Also your idea will do nothing for other ships other than make a web a mandatory mod to fit if your fighting someone with a web fit, and your reasoning against my idea is flawed. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 20:13:00 -
[43] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Muad 'dib wrote:
why are you assuming the only thing on the field for either side with tackle at any time is a boosted rapier/arazu.
I am not, I am simply pointing out that your change will leave you with omgwtfbbq tacklers from 100km away with no meaningful drawbacks. Also your idea will do nothing for other ships other than make a web a mandatory mod to fit if your fighting someone with a web fit, and your reasoning against my idea is flawed.
why shouldnt a web = a web ?!?!?!?!?!
webs work for cruiser and BC, but for BS or frigates they are underwhelming and combine a cross size difference its basically a waste of a slot in most cases.
i love the pirate ships with the strength bonus because fitting a web means actually holding something for your dps and range. normal webs are weak when compared to say a point.
webs currently FAVOUR rockets, small ranged dps, medium mid or large close (multiples needed in most cases)
The old 90% web i remeber well an d was too strong, but 60% is too weak and has no options to increase its strength (would LOVE a rig for this)
its not been seriously thought of worth improving because, general webs do work, but they could do with being more interesting and more effective outside special epic bonuses. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
779
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 20:21:00 -
[44] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:
why shouldnt a web = a web ?!?!?!?!?!
webs work for cruiser and BC, but for BS or frigates they are underwhelming and combine a cross size difference its basically a waste of a slot in most cases.
i love the pirate ships with the strength bonus because fitting a web means actually holding something for your dps and range. normal webs are weak when compared to say a point.
webs currently FAVOUR rockets, small ranged dps, medium mid or large close (multiples needed in most cases)
The old 90% web i remeber well an d was too strong, but 60% is too weak and has no options to increase its strength (would LOVE a rig for this)
its not been seriously thought of worth improving because, general webs do work, but they could do with being more interesting and more effective outside special epic bonuses.
You said webs should make you vulnerable to webs, that is dumb.
If you don't have a web you will be ******. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
814
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 21:02:00 -
[45] - Quote
I wouldn't mind seeing modules/rigs to increase web strength IF only one web module could be active on a target at a time. This way, in larger engagements 5 random ships with a single web each wouldn't be able to completely stop a target...But a single dedicated tackler can. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2246
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 21:14:00 -
[46] - Quote
1x web reduces your target's velocity to 40%. 2x webs reduces your target's velocity to 19.1% (cause the second web is stacking penalized). 3x webs reduces your target's velocity to 12.6% (cause the third web is stacking penalized).
An AB adds roughly ~165% for a t2 AB (it varies with skills and mods, from +135-195%). Now, the +165% boost from a t2 AB ship, which is then webbed, is now traveling at 1.06 their normal velocity. This is 1.02 for an experimental ab, and 1.18 for a deadspace AB. A second web will then reduce your speed to 50% of original. If you look at these numbers, the AB is superior to a web, which is harder to fit, requires more cap, which also effects your ship rather than an opponents ship. These are almost perfect counters, with the AB being superior for range control.
Your suggestion, with a 70% web (instead of a 60%): 1x web reduces your target's velocity to 30%. 2x webs reduces your target's velocity to 11.7% (cause the second web is stacking penalized). 3x webs reduces your target's velocity to 7% (cause the third web is stacking penalized).
Put that same situation, of a webbed AB ship, and now it is traveling at 0.8 of their normal velocity. This makes the web a superior choice for range control than the AB. And while you can overheat the AB to go 1.05% your normal velocity, this is hardly the range control device it currently is.
So, my question is, why should a web be a superior form of range control than an AB?
IMO, I think the balance is just about perfect at the moment!
|

Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
339
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 03:53:00 -
[47] - Quote
I want, like as has been suggested in this thread, more range/strength variation in webs.
also you all talk like boosters and the web range/strength bonuses on ships dont also need to be addressed.
5km 90% web. 10km 60% 15km 40% 20km 20%
Im not entirely sure if they would get used but they would make some things interesting. Im also not entirely sure that these are the numbers and ranges that are needed. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 08:07:00 -
[48] - Quote
Yeah perhaps i should have made the thread title "webs are boring and too simple and predictable"
Flown a serpentis blaster boat with a 90% web, its pretty great you can not only stop things getting away with apply that high dps.
All the other blaster boats are crying in the corner, hiding from anything but a class size above them to get their actual dps numbers close to the paper dps.
I like the idea above about limited the serious stone wall webbing of 90% to a lesser range, if it means that a softer 15k+ web can exist as well as a 10km web thats more than 60%. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
365
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 10:39:00 -
[49] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Because i think they were, the only problem with web strength before was the fact that two would be 99%, we only have a few whips with bonuses to make that a reality now and they can still miss with some turrets and some ranges.
normal ships however, two 60% webs is only 80% and speedy ships can still very easily avoid damage.
Im not saying bring back 90% webs, im saying make ONE web 70-80% but the second and third add less so the multiple effect is similar to now without having say 3 webs make over 90% +/-.
currently a signle web for a precious mid at only a max of 60%.... is a bit lame for anything that fights under 5k and the damned webs only go to 10km anyway!
Lol no.
In fact, ships with web strength bonuses need a nerf. |

Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 14:13:00 -
[50] - Quote
No, the opposite is true. Webs are still too powerful! After the cruiser buff now almost every cruiser can fit two webs which easily reduces the enemy speed by 80%. This is a death trap for every frigate, including Assault Frigates. Not to mention the bonused ships which can reduce your speed by 90% with just one web.
In my opinion webs should be nerved by either the introduction of a web effect reducing module or rig, or by buffing Assault Frigates with an static web effect reducing bonus. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 14:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
Meditril wrote:No, the opposite is true. Webs are still too powerful! After the cruiser buff now almost every cruiser can fit two webs which easily reduces the enemy speed by 80%. This is a death trap for every frigate, including Assault Frigates. Not to mention the bonused ships which can reduce your speed by 90% with just one web.
In my opinion webs should be nerved by either the introduction of a web effect reducing module or rig, or by buffing Assault Frigates with an static web effect reducing bonus.
i fail to see the problem with a frigate dieing to a cruiser that has the foresight to avoid dieing to a frigate and so fits a second web.
Perhaps the issue here is that webs work the same regardless of mass, perhaps if they did, aka the more mass you have the better a web works on you, type deal, things wouldnt seem so broken when you go outsize of one class when balancing a module like this.
Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 14:36:00 -
[52] - Quote
That should work in reverse of what you suggest.
The more mass something has, the harder it should be to make changes in it's movements.
This effect is currently true for propulsion mods and agility. If webs worked that way it would be the same deal, you either would need more power to get the same slowing effect as on a lighter target, or else the web would have less effects on bigger targets.
I suppose that would be one way to make webs more interesting. Alter their cap use by the mass of what they are affecting. Slowing a frigate should be easy for a battleship, while attempting the reverse should make the frigates power core up and die. The cap use could vary for range too, the further away, the more it takes to get the same effect.
I don't really suggest it, the very idea breaks interceptors, but it would make for interesting tactical choices. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 14:53:00 -
[53] - Quote
Yeah i picked on mass because its more of less directly relates to the ships size class, i didnt mean for there to be any direct relation to the mass factor because you are right when you say that more mass means harder to slow.
Perhaps a modifier like mass or agility that makes the webs strength on the target more or less, like eccm strength vs ecm strength. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2256
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 15:25:00 -
[54] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Yeah perhaps i should have made the thread title "webs are boring and too simple and predictable"
Flown a serpentis blaster boat with a 90% web, its pretty great you can not only stop things getting away with apply that high dps.
All the other blaster boats are crying in the corner, hiding from anything but a class size above them to get their actual dps numbers close to the paper dps.
I like the idea above about limited the serious stone wall webbing of 90% to a lesser range, if it means that a softer 15k+ web can exist as well as a 10km web thats more than 60%.
I see what you mean about an AB would be better than a web, but inside 10k is that really such a bad thing.
A mwd brawler must close to 10k to web then close a further 5k to do some good dps, all while under fire potentially from their target - the answer then is to either fit two webs or a web and dual prop - which seems a bit unfair since the serpentis ships get a single web thats more than 4x as powerful to use their guns.
seems like something needs a tweak when the answer to doing something properly is using a special and some what rare ship, expensive ship.
1.) Serpentis ships, and Marauders have the 90% webs. It is one of their "specialties", and it helps make those ships very unique. They aren't ubiquitously used, and generally make excellent semi-squishy blingy primaries (compared to other ships in their class).
2.) I solo a lot in frigates, and there is a major choice you have to make between fitting AB, MWD, Scram, Web, Point. Kiting setups are fairly easy, as they are pretty much MWD + Pt, and simply try to stay away (but have no tank). A solid brawl fit though has superior range control when fit with AB+Scram+Web. However, the MWD is great for getting into range of a target (or catching it), as well as for general survive-ability. Lucky for us, frigates don't have the slots to fit everything they want, and so you must make fitting decisions. Frankly, I think the current setup is pretty spot on.
3.) "I see what you mean about an AB would be better than a web, but inside 10k is that really such a bad thing." This would be an ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE thing!!!!!!!! Trust me, I've solo'd Ruptures, Stabbers, Vaga's, Rapiers, Thorax, and more in frigate hulls! I have a great combat record, know what I'm talking about, and am not just brain storming for *****'n'giggles. The primary reason for fitting an AB in PvP is to give yourself range control inside of 10 km's. You remove the superiority of an ab over a web, and you remove one of the major reasons for fitting an AB, leaving the AB a generally useless module (unless oversized).
4.) What is the primary reason you want this change? Is it so you can engage frigates in a Battleship? I really get the impression that your annoyed a frigate can fly under your guns. Remember, there is not supposed to be a "I win" setup. You have to chose when to engage, how to engage, where to engage, and what to engage. Every good setup has a weakness (or several), as well as strengths. Please elaborate why this change is even remotely a desired thing!!!
5.) One of the special abilities of minmatar is enhancing web range. If you create "softer" 15 km webs, you suddenly have EAF's and Recons with pretty ridiculous web ranges. Given the "speed" of the rusty race, this needs to be kept in mind. Furthermore, most kiting ships depend on speed and range to stay alive. You catch one, and it gets destroyed faster than a porcelain dolls in a day care center! Adding a ranged web to all ships really attacks that play style, but I don't particularly see that style as overpowered or in need of nerfing. So why do we think longer ranged webs are a good thing?
|

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:03:00 -
[55] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:So why do we think longer ranged webs are a good thing?
You made some good points there and thank you for responding, i will tackle (get it) this one primary.
I dont want longer range webs with the same strength, they must be weaker. If everyone happy as larry with 60% at 10km then we can use that as a sliding scale.
We go up 50% in range we go down 50% in strength (or perhaps a more unbalanced amount like, 25% more range 50% less strength)
I guess i started the thread saying that one 60% is not very effective at stopping a same sized, much less smaller, target gate crashing or stopping it sig tank. In frig VS frig webs dont really do much except stopping escape, dps isnt really that effected unless you stack them or have a strong bonus (DD). Fitting two best webs shouldnt be necessary for damage application for same size targets (esp HAMs!).
I wanted to see if i was alone thinking this, and while im not alone most are happy with how it is.
Theres been some good and interesting ideas to make the business of webbing more interesting and unpredictable so guess its moved more in that direction instead of just upping the webbing a bit.
Anyone who says the DD bonus isnt overpowered is both right and wrong. Those that use it like it because it slams a ships speed into the floor and enable its to hit with its very close guns, but they arnt alone using those weapons, how does everyone else feel about one web from a special ship doing four times as much as one normally does.
look at ecm, we got rid of the mid slot multispec by upping the bonus on ecm ships a lot and reducing the modules effectivness, people seem to agree the falcons works great and random ecm on non ecm bonus ships pretty bad. But look closer, those ecm modules are being increased upto 250% to make effective. Now look at the lowerly popular web, on a strength bonus ship, it goes from 60% to 90%, thats a 500% increase! Well of course webs work on serp ships! dur, right? :P
Im saying that a module as popular and as widely used as the web, should not need a 500% increase to work like its meant to! other brawlers (esp unguided missiles) are left saying wtf. This is what screamed out to me that actually giving up a precious mid slot for just 60% a bit unfair and even with 4 webs you still cant get the 90% that the strength bonused do.
Ive been pvping a long time and in all sizes of ships, this is just one mans opinion, right or wrong, i bring it up for discussion. I certainly feel that having more options when it comes to webbing outside of using an expensive rare ship (which will be primary instantly) is a good way around it. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Meditril wrote:No, the opposite is true. Webs are still too powerful! After the cruiser buff now almost every cruiser can fit two webs which easily reduces the enemy speed by 80%. This is a death trap for every frigate, including Assault Frigates. Not to mention the bonused ships which can reduce your speed by 90% with just one web.
In my opinion webs should be nerved by either the introduction of a web effect reducing module or rig, or by buffing Assault Frigates with an static web effect reducing bonus. i fail to see the problem with a frigate dieing to a cruiser that has the foresight to avoid dieing to a frigate and so fits a second web. Perhaps the issue here is that webs work the same regardless of mass, perhaps if they did, aka the more mass you have the better a web works on you, type deal, things wouldnt seem so broken when you go outsize of one class when balancing a module like this.
The original role of Assault Frigates was to catch light cruisers. Unfortunatelly the recent buff to T1 cruisers completely obsoleted this role. Currently Assault Frigates are just stuck in the middle. If you need speed, you better go with Faction Frigates. If you need dps you better use Destroyers. If you need tank you better take a cruiser, since speed tanking is not possible when double webbed. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:17:00 -
[57] - Quote
Meditril wrote: The original role of Assault Frigates was to catch light cruisers.
A light cruiser wont have that many mids and wont be fitting two webs, and they will still die as per, to a brawler AF.
Dont forget that cruiser got a total redo recently and that t2 ships of lal sizes are next now that BS are done, i expect the 'new' AFs to be far better able to deal with dual web cruisers :) Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|

Sonja Anthari
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:48:00 -
[58] - Quote
Why can't we just make webbing drones useful and buff them like 40-50% increased speed and remove their web's stacking penalties? That would make them actually useful and give a buff to webs like you're wanting. While not really increasing the effect across the board, there's enough ships with drone bays to make use of them if you're hell bent on slowing a target to near zero. Yeah, its giving up damage, but if they buff them correctly then I think it would be a viable trade-off. |

Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
275
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 00:31:00 -
[59] - Quote
Quote:normal ships however, two 60% webs is only 80% and speedy ships can still very easily avoid damage.
I'm going to need a citation for people speed-tanking vs dual web fits, unless we're talking long range guns vs below class ships or something like that. Maybe a really fast ship can mitigate some damage while dual-webbed (I doubt it's meaningful, though), but considering that going really fast generally entails trading in either tank or damage, that hardly seems unreasonable.
Arguably, webs are too immobilizing when stacked, since once a fight scales past a few people on either side, you can generally count on the primary being virtually immobile.
Quote:The primary reason for fitting an AB in PvP is to give yourself range control inside of 10 km's. You remove the superiority of an ab over a web, and you remove one of the major reasons for fitting an AB This is true, and you've also got to consider that you can only have one afterburner. While one afterburner is better than a single web, you can be webbed multiple times, which pretty much negates any speed/sig tank you might be fielding vs a similar sized target (afterburner or no). |

Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 08:32:00 -
[60] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote: This is true, and you've also got to consider that you can only have one afterburner. While one afterburner is better than a single web, you can be webbed multiple times, which pretty much negates any speed/sig tank you might be fielding vs a similar sized target (afterburner or no).
You hit the nail perfectly! This is the main issue. While you can use an AB to mitigate one web. You can't use 2 or more ABs to mitigate several webs. Especially if you run into a blob you get usually tripple or more webbed which basically makes you standing still and therefore die fast.
Maybe we should consider to not allow web stacking which means, only the web with the highest webbing strength will get applied while all other webs should be ignored. (Drones needs to be excluded from this mechanics.) |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |