EVE Search - Stasis Web Scaling

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Stasis Web Scaling

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 817	Posted - 2013.07.11 00:09:00 - [1] - Quote Stasis webs suffer from a problem of scaling. In a one on one fight, pretty much everyone will agree that webs are fine. Most ships will only fit a single web; the effect of which can be fought with an afterburner. With double webs you're SOL, but the cost of throwing yet another midslot at it means that being able to make your opponent virtually stop comes at a steep enough price that we don't see it everywhere. However, in fights beyond two members, the above doesn't really apply. In practice, the primary is going to be basically stationary because by the time the stacking penalty kicks in, the target has been webbed too many times to matter - he isn't going anywhere. Because of this, there is no room for tactical movement in a close range fight involving multiple people. The primary is going to be pretty much stationary, period. This causes problems, especially for smaller ships - speed ceases to be a factor in these larger fights entirely. While AFs and other frigate hulls are very popular for solo and very small gang work, larger gangs of them are almost unheard of because of this scaling problem. Thus, I propose a change to webs that will offer additional fitting options and flexbility, maintain the current web balance in low-population fights, while helping to fix the scaling problem. First, introduce a new module that increases the velocity effect of stasis webifiers. Instead of dual webs, I could fit web + web enhancement module to achieve effectively the same slowdown as two stacking webs. These could come in different forms (midslot mods, lowslot mods, utility highs, rigs...) allowing dedicated tacklers to specialize more in making the target not move while not allowing the mere accumulation of more and more general purpose pew ships to remove speed from the equation. Thoughts?
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 2410	Posted - 2013.07.11 00:10:00 - [2] - Quote Kahega Amielden wrote: First, [...] Second? Third? Rifterlings - small gang frigate PvP - lowsec FW operation, newbie-friendly, free ship program; Join today! www.rifterlings.com Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com
Milton Middleson Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 278	Posted - 2013.07.11 00:25:00 - [3] - Quote Are we having a posting CTA? Also, you seem to be missing your follow up point, which I presume based on your comments elsewhere was that webs shouldn't stack.
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 817	Posted - 2013.07.11 00:35:00 - [4] - Quote Milton Middleson wrote: Are we having a posting CTA? Also, you seem to be missing your follow up point, which I presume based on your comments elsewhere was that webs shouldn't stack. You are clearly wrong. Look again.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 191	Posted - 2013.07.11 09:17:00 - [5] - Quote interesting OP i don't see the web enhancement thing as likely to happen though. But i do think webs are too effective as they are so i would call for a strength nerf instead of about 15% at least the off the basic web and increase skill requirement for the T2 web to prop jamming skill lv5 as all T2 mods should need lv5. so T2 web - reduce range down to 9km - increase prop jamming skill to lv5 maybe increase rank to 4 or 5. - weaker web strength by at least 5% Also i think AB's need to be stronger in general - reduce mass of AB by 75% - built in web stacking modifier say 15% against stacking of webs 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.
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 964	Posted - 2013.07.11 10:35:00 - [6] - Quote Harvey James wrote: interesting OP i don't see the web enhancement thing as likely to happen though. But i do think webs are too effective as they are so i would call for a strength nerf instead of about 15% at least the off the basic web and increase skill requirement for the T2 web to prop jamming skill lv5 as all T2 mods should need lv5. so T2 web - reduce range down to 9km - increase prop jamming skill to lv5 maybe increase rank to 4 or 5. - weaker web strength by at least 5% Also i think AB's need to be stronger in general - reduce mass of AB by 75% - built in web stacking modifier say 15% against stacking of webs This will not change anything to current status but requirement for more webs. This will make MWD pointless and oversize AB fits totally OP, the only way to fit properly every single ship, which is already possible in game and makes them rather op: 100mn T3's/attack BC/10MN AB frigates just for a couple examples removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 191	Posted - 2013.07.11 10:53:00 - [7] - Quote Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Harvey James wrote: interesting OP i don't see the web enhancement thing as likely to happen though. But i do think webs are too effective as they are so i would call for a strength nerf instead of about 15% at least the off the basic web and increase skill requirement for the T2 web to prop jamming skill lv5 as all T2 mods should need lv5. so T2 web - reduce range down to 9km - increase prop jamming skill to lv5 maybe increase rank to 4 or 5. - weaker web strength by at least 5% Also i think AB's need to be stronger in general - reduce mass of AB by 75% - built in web stacking modifier say 15% against stacking of webs This will not change anything to current status but requirement for more webs. This will make MWD pointless and oversize AB fits totally OP, the only way to fit properly every single ship, which is already possible in game and makes them rather op: 100mn T3's/attack BC/10MN AB frigates just for a couple examples oversized AB's are easily fixed by making them class specific much like the MJD 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.
Meditril T.R.I.A.D 299	Posted - 2013.07.11 13:02:00 - [8] - Quote I definatelly agree this is an issue! However, maybe just disallowing web stacking is enough. If several webs are used on your ship then only the strongest one should have an effect. The others should be just ignored.
Katia Echerie D4RK M00N RISIGN 0	Posted - 2013.07.11 13:50:00 - [9] - Quote 100% disagree. Webs are fine. If you fly Gallente its pretty much mandatory to have a web, some ships need two. With this **** poor range on blasters and the fat and slow Gallente ships a nerf to webs would mean Gallente ships would be borderline unusable.
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 818	Posted - 2013.07.11 14:01:00 - [10] - Quote Katia Echerie wrote: 100% disagree. Webs are fine. If you fly Gallente its pretty much mandatory to have a web, some ships need two. With this **** poor range on blasters and the fat and slow Gallente ships a nerf to webs would mean Gallente ships would be borderline unusable. Did you even read my post? What about this post would in any way harm Gallente ships?
Onomerous Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 204	Posted - 2013.07.11 15:15:00 - [11] - Quote No What's the point of everyone in the fleet having a web if only one will actually be allowed to work? I don't see anything wrong with what is going on currently. If you are primary, you are pretty much screwed unless you have logi with you (wait a second... could logi be a way to counter the effects of multiple webs + DPS??)
Gorgoth24 Sickology 35	Posted - 2013.07.11 16:16:00 - [12] - Quote I came into this thread with a negative opinion, but after reading your post I've been pleasantly surprised. I fully endorse this +10 Thoughts: It may be constructive to assign slots and numbers to these web-enhancing modules. I would suggest low-slot modules as they seem to be more conducive to small-ship (namely frigate) tackling. And have you given thought to how these modules would affect web-based ships like the hyena, rapier, huginn, and loki?
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 2410	Posted - 2013.07.11 16:20:00 - [13] - Quote Onomerous wrote: No What's the point of everyone in the fleet having a web if only one will actually be allowed to work? I don't see anything wrong with what is going on currently. If you are primary, you are pretty much screwed unless you have logi with you (wait a second... could logi be a way to counter the effects of multiple webs + DPS??) What's the point of everyone in the fleet having a point if only one point matters to keep someone from warping out? Oh! That's right! Redundant points in case one is lost, and spreading points to other non-primary targets too! Seconly, logi can only do so much. Even if theoretically a Scimitar repairs more than the incoming DPS on an AF (to use the example ship from the OP), it is still possible for the AF to simply explode because its 10k EHP simply cannot resist being instantly shot by 10 other ships which track perfectly (due to the stacking webs). Another way to sum up the OP is: "The way webs currently work makes the mechanics of sig radius, transversal velocity, tracking, and explosion velocity irrelevant in fights of over 2-3 people. That's boring and it sucks. Change it." Rifterlings - small gang frigate PvP - lowsec FW operation, newbie-friendly, free ship program; Join today! www.rifterlings.com Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com
Balthazar Lestrane Happy Endings. The Retirement Club 20	Posted - 2013.07.11 16:23:00 - [14] - Quote Assault Frigate fleets are used to counter bomber camps on a regular basis, go play EVE before suggesting crap ideas. Webs are fine.
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 818	Posted - 2013.07.11 16:30:00 - [15] - Quote Quote: It may be constructive to assign slots and numbers to these web-enhancing modules. I would suggest low-slot modules as they seem to be more conducive to small-ship (namely frigate) tackling. And have you given thought to how these modules would affect web-based ships like the hyena, rapier, huginn, and loki? With regards to web-bonused ships - It could be seen as either a buff or a nerf. Most people would probably fit web + web enhancer instead of dual webs, which would lose you the slightest amount of flexibility as you could no longer single-web multiple targets. However, you'd also have the option of two webs + enhancer which would let you effectively double-web multiple targets which you cannot do now. Overall I don't see these ******* with the balance of these ships too much. With regards to numbers and slots: I'd avoid making it a low slot mod. That might make it too easy to fit for too many ships. I'd make it a midslot mod so that it fulfills the same function as a second web...And possibly add rigs towards the same effect? Either rigs or low slots potentially cause problems with web range bonused ships, however.
Milton Middleson Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 279	Posted - 2013.07.11 18:34:00 - [16] - Quote Onomerous wrote: What's the point of everyone in the fleet having a web if only one will actually be allowed to work? A coordinated fleet could use webs to manipulate positioning, e.g. slowing down approaching attackers while the primary attempts to pull range or increase angular velocity, or spreading out an enemy fleet. So having numerous people fit webs would still serve a significant function, completely aside from redundant tackle. (Your notion with respect to logistics is bad; it reduces the primary to a passive role in their own survival).
Ash Katara Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2013.07.11 22:11:00 - [17] - Quote I have never understood that any module effects are allowed to stack. It makes balancing the effects very difficult from a dev standpoint as any fights which become lopsided quickly magnify to make the conflicts one sided. Effect stacking should be reserved for redundancy not ma
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 818	Posted - 2013.07.12 14:00:00 - [18] - Quote It can make sense in cases where the target's defense is not effected (ECM, TDs...) The problem with webs specifically is that in a gang fight, everyone shoots the primary - which means everyone webs the primary - which means the primary will never move, ever. An ancillary benefit to this change is that because webs are no longer necessary on every combat ship in a fleet, you might see some more interesting variety in midslot usage.
Onomerous Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 209	Posted - 2013.07.12 20:21:00 - [19] - Quote Some great ideas... Have specialized roles for people. Awesome. Oh wait... I hope the guy with the point is in the right place. And the guy with the web is in the right spot too. If something doesn't go quite the way we had hoped, well WTF. It's only a ship right? Yeah, let's base our strat around making sure that exactly the right person is in exactly the right spot to do what they need to do when we meet someone to shoot at. We all know your battle plans always work exactly as expected!!! I certainly hope our fleet has a chance to meet your specialized fleet. I suspect you will do very well!! ;)
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 818	Posted - 2013.07.12 21:34:00 - [20] - Quote Someone moving 40% of their base speed isn't going to be going anywhere fast. Unless they have an AB, in which case they'll be moving about their base speed, but will still not be going anywhere quickly. PVP does not depend on your target being completely stationary.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 2281	Posted - 2013.07.12 23:11:00 - [21] - Quote Oh HELL NO... Have you ever fought a 100mn tengu? It travels at 2500 m/s no problem, and with two webs 2500 * ( 1 - .60 ) * ( 1 - .60 * .87 ) = 2500 * .1912 = 478 m/s. If they overheat, they are back up to 1km/s. This change makes holding down oversized AB setups extremely difficult (and it's already pretty difficult). Furthermore, you do understand that webs are stacking penalized? The first web is 100% effective, the second is 87% effective, the third is 57% effective, and the fourth is 28% effective, and the fifth is 10% effective. This means, that the third web is only going to slow you down ( 0.6 *.57 ) = 34%, and the fourth web will slow you down 17%. The fifth web won't matter. By the way, quadruple webbed 100mn Tengu will still be going 10% of it's pre-web speed!!!! That is NOT stationary, although it would be close to it for a non-oversized AB fit. Furthermore, large gangs of frigates and dessies are pretty common. CFC uses an alpha Wolf fleet, Agony often runs public roams of 50+ frigates. I've seen large Harpy fleets, and many other frigate base fleets too.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 2281	Posted - 2013.07.12 23:15:00 - [22] - Quote Kahega Amielden wrote: Someone moving 40% of their base speed isn't going to be going anywhere fast. Unless they have an AB, in which case they'll be moving about their base speed, but will still not be going anywhere quickly. PVP does not depend on your target being completely stationary. This depends on the ships fighting each other. Blap dreads need cruisers to be heavily webbed and painted to hit them. BS's need serious web support if they wish to attack AHACs. A triple webbed frigate can still get under the guns of a BS.
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 818	Posted - 2013.07.12 23:35:00 - [23] - Quote Quote: It travels at 2500 m/s no problem, and with two webs 2500 * ( 1 - .60 ) * ( 1 - .60 * .87 ) = 2500 * .1912 = 478 m/s. If they overheat, they are back up to 1km/s. This change makes holding down oversized AB setups extremely difficult (and it's already pretty difficult). Furthermore, you do understand that webs are stacking penalized? The first web is 100% effective, the second is 87% effective, the third is 57% effective, and the fourth is 28% effective, and the fifth is 10% effective. Given that distinction I'd frankly rather nerf oversized AB fits. The current system is really, really ****. Quote:** This depends on the ships fighting each other. Blap dreads need cruisers to be heavily webbed and painted to hit them. BS's need serious web support if they wish to attack AHACs. A triple webbed frigate can still get under the guns of a BS. I have no idea why you think dreads should be anti-cruiser ships, but even if they were, you can still heavily web stuff under my proposed changes. It's just not automatic. The stacking penalty is more or less nonexistant. The third web is the only one that is meaningfully hurt by the stacking penalty, and at that point the target is basically stationary.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 2282	Posted - 2013.07.13 00:00:00 - [24] - Quote Kahega Amielden wrote: Quote: It travels at 2500 m/s no problem, and with two webs 2500 * ( 1 - .60 ) * ( 1 - .60 * .87 ) = 2500 * .1912 = 478 m/s. If they overheat, they are back up to 1km/s. This change makes holding down oversized AB setups extremely difficult (and it's already pretty difficult). Furthermore, you do understand that webs are stacking penalized? The first web is 100% effective, the second is 87% effective, the third is 57% effective, and the fourth is 28% effective, and the fifth is 10% effective. Given that distinction I'd frankly rather nerf oversized AB fits. The current system is really, really ****. Quote:** This depends on the ships fighting each other. Blap dreads need cruisers to be heavily webbed and painted to hit them. BS's need serious web support if they wish to attack AHACs. A triple webbed frigate can still get under the guns of a BS. I have no idea why you think dreads should be anti-cruiser ships, but even if they were, you can still heavily web stuff under my proposed changes. It's just not automatic. The stacking penalty is more or less nonexistant. The third web is the only one that is meaningfully hurt by the stacking penalty, and at that point the target is basically stationary. Oversized AB's are a very interesting "alternative" use of modules. They require sacrifices to fit, decrease your agility to crap (so you can't turn very well), but also make you very hard to "slow down". I see no reason to nerf these. As for "dreads" vs cruisers. This situation comes up in WH's, where T3 fleets drop on escalation groups. BS's vs AHACs are common site on the battlefields in nullsec, although the inclusion of web/paint ships into fleet doctrines to counter the sig tanking cruisers is more common place now. Finally, the proposal is to allow for a ship to wield dual webs (one web, one web amplifier). If two webs already make a target "basically stationary", then your proposed solution doesn't even solve your complaint (that multiple webs over-immobilize a target). So, why go through all the dev time, to fix ewar that is already fixed by the stacking penalty (because the third web is "meaningfully" nerfed by it)? p.s. And we havent even started addressing Serpentis ships and Marauders? These ships have bonuses to turn your a 60% web into a 90% web!!!! Two of these webs, and you truly are immobilized!
Doddy Dark-Rising 854	Posted - 2013.07.13 00:08:00 - [25] - Quote You realise that if the primary has all the webs on him all his gang mates can do this "tactical movement" stuff, plus webs are stacking penalised so unless you are using 90% webs they will never be essentially stationary like the good old days.
Milton Middleson Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 279	Posted - 2013.07.13 00:48:00 - [26] - Quote Quote: You realise that if the primary has all the webs on him all his gang mates can do this "tactical movement" stuff, plus webs are stacking penalised so unless you are using 90% webs they will never be essentially stationary like the good old days. It takes ~1 standard web to cancel out the effects of an afterburner. Two webs will put you at about a fifth your unwebbed speed. Four will put you at a tenth (so a frigate will be moving at about 120 m/s, a cruiser at around 70 m/s - as a point of comparison, the base speed of a Rokh is 89 m/s). At that point, the number of meaningful actions a player can take in order to mitigate damage through flying their ship is close to zero. You can't pull range, you can't raise angular velocity usefully unless you're dealing with weapons two classes above you, and you can't push attackers off. So yeah, you might as well be stationary. This means brawling ship hulls that trade some tank for extra speed scale very poorly in terms of effectiveness. The sole exception is oversized afterburner fits, which, as noted, require gimping the ship in other ways in most cases and have other significant limitations (e.g. agility, acceleration). And they generally aren't brawling ships.
Arthur Aihaken The.VOID 34	Posted - 2013.07.13 12:07:00 - [27] - Quote How about an anti-stasis module?
Vizvig Savage Blizzard Bright Side of Death 107	Posted - 2013.07.13 14:41:00 - [28] - Quote Just remove all kind of debuff magic from game. It completely obsolete nowadays. Arthur Aihaken wrote: How about an anti-stasis module? How about anti-anti-stasis module and anti-anti-stasis disruptors?
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 818	Posted - 2013.07.13 15:09:00 - [29] - Quote Quote: How about an anti-stasis module? Webs are such a gigantic part of close range combat that it would quickly become mandatory. Either everyone would fit one, only some ships would be able to get away with fitting one (thus relegating those that couldn't to uselessness), or it would be prohibitively hard to fit and not do anything.
Onomerous Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 213	Posted - 2013.07.13 16:15:00 - [30] - Quote Kahega Amielden wrote: Quote: How about an anti-stasis module? Webs are such a gigantic part of close range combat that it would quickly become mandatory. Either everyone would fit one, only some ships would be able to get away with fitting one (thus relegating those that couldn't to uselessness), or it would be prohibitively hard to fit and not do anything. This.
Ash Katara Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2013.07.13 16:32:00 - [31] - Quote I see this issue as two separate issues. First we use multiple Webs to counter ships using Over-scaled MWDs or other very fast ships. Second Webs were nerfed as stacking was overpowered. The solution is also two fold. First, modules across the board should probably be reworked to be ship size class specific. Second webs and other e-war modules need to be re-tuned and stacking removed, highest strength effect is applied, stacked effects used only for redundancy. As it stands now the OP and many other are just trying to address the symptom of a larger and more involved issue. We need to pinpoint the underlying issues which result in the undesired effects we are seeing in-game.
Swiftstrike1 Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black 100	Posted - 2013.07.13 18:11:00 - [32] - Quote Change up webs entirely and nerf their effects a little bit. Don't mess with stacking penalties. Stasis Webifier II - unscripted Target velocity penalty: -25% Target agility penalty: -25% Stasis Webifier II - Velocity script Target velocity penalty: -50% Target agility penalty: none Stasis Webifier II - Agility script Target velocity penalty: none Target agility penalty: -50%
LT Alter TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly 93	Posted - 2013.07.13 20:16:00 - [33] - Quote The idea is interesting but frankly I don't think you grasp one fact in full enough detail. They aren't broken, to say they are perfect is false as well. In all truth, there are many things not perfect in eve, but the thing is the way they work now is so heavily engrained into eve right now that the suggested changes will not be accepted by Eve or the Devs. Many things are broken, ECM being a much bigger problem than webs ever could be. So are many other mechanics. So while your idea is not stupid or unreasonable, I don't really see a need for it or expect it to happen.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.