Reduce their effect to 50% at the t2 level while industry model has 40% and meta is 45%.

Give them falloff equivalent to their optimal. Industry at 6 km, meta at 7, and t2 at 8 km.

When I. Falloff, a new speed reduction value is calculated based off distance into falloff, every time the module completes a cycle. Cycle time 5s with cap brought down to keep the same cap/s

If anything, one could argue webs were over nerfed the last time round. So your assertion that they need a further nerf is quite frankly, ludicrous.

I am bringing this back again.

I am suggesting:

"Reduce the effectiveness of propulsion systems by 60%-90%" instead of "Reduce maximum velocity by 60%".

Not allowed to post killboard, but could your reasoning be because you recently died to close-range pvp?

OP, why do you want to stop my turret battleship from having any chance at all with hitting something small, fast and close?

I gave you a big list of things you'd be nerfing. You chose to ignore it.

And how does bringing support help if the webs the support ships are using aren't going to slow the target down either?

This isn't real life.

My point stands, turret battleships will be made all but helpless with this nerf vs small, fast ships at close range no matter what they do.

They will go from double web to
web+TP+tracking rigs.

Who the hell uses tracking rigs otherwise?

Some numbers might have to be adjusted. But you also can't ignore the fact that turret tracking in general is the only mechanic that can be exploited both ways (application or mitigation) through piloting alone.

Although all in all, I don't think webs need a nerf. I think small turret tracking needs a nerf, small drones need a sig increase to compensate, and perhaps webs could get a max velocity cap same way Entosis links have/had. The former will allow sig tanking for frigates V frigate when scrammed/webbed, the latter will finally kick the kite meta in the ballsack it deserves, without making further speed upgrades irrelevant (since it will basically add resistance to being slowed by multiple webs before further speed decreases can be noticed)

You must not have rolled melee dps or been up against those that used it properly. Changing of speed is a common melee dps cast/call/action/etc. Either they slow you down or they get a speed boost to be faster.

Eve is an space MMO rpg. This carried over. It can't have the term melee dps since its eve (want to bust balls use the many forms of healz or healer to an eve purist when talking about reps/logi, this bait always works), but same principals apply to tackle, fast response dps, etc. end result the same....you are moving as if in molasses in January and they are buzzing around really fast.


Want to get more modern.....here is how I "webbed" in WoT. I'd shoot out tracks. Only got 1 the repair kit. Use it up on that...well me or someone else would track you again. Game kind of enforced this. My gun sans gold ammo not doing a damn thing otherwise I will cripple your tracks all day long since its the only thing I could hit worth a damn. Sometimes double tracking for the added fun. Turnabout is fair play....this done to me quite often as well.


Don't like webs know or predict what may run them and avoid them. If a brawler...well that running them is cheesy is your pov. Others its not.


The bs bringing support bit...sometimes your support is busy if actually brought along. Nice to have the self help there in that case.

You are aware that putting something like optimal+falloff to web mechanics, something like *no webs* or even *reduce only propped speed* would severely harm the fighting outnumbered gameplay many of us enjoy, that defensive webbing would take a shot to the head and blobbing people to death would see a buff in the end?

No, web mechanics are in a fine place, don't meddle with critical tools for rangekeeping unless you want melee slugfests.

This isn't real life.

My point stands, turret battleships will be made all but helpless with this nerf vs small, fast ships at close range no matter what they do.

Generally in pvp, especially solo pvp, if a blaster boat gets one webbed one is usually screwed. So in a way I agree that it needs tweaking.

Totally curve ball here but i would like to see size to effectiveness implemented ie (e-war only)

Small hulls using web get 60% on small targets 40% on med hulls 20% on large no bueno on XL what so ever. (small pros here would be web drones being a thing when engaging more than you can chew)

Large hulls using web on large 20% med 40% small 60% XL 10%.

Same goes for point / scram


Small hull using it on small give 100% hold using it on med size hulls give 80% chance that it will hold that ship at each new cycle using it on large target give you 60% chance point / scram will hold at start of each cycle. (bring friends or hunt what you can SOLO deal with)


This way i think more ppl would undock and roam with heavier ship to go true solo than now if ship mass ie hull size play role in more profound way than currently is and deliver some deterrent (other than millon dps zillion HP and pulverizing device like titan dd )

Side note i do believe EvE promote blob ware in order of magnitude more over solo play and i don't consider it good or healthy for a game.

My 2c feel free to ignore it.

90% webs are limited to exclusive ships.

As long as there is no end to bumping, I am against any changes to webs because freighters do not have prop mods and require webs.

perhaps think of it another way, why would small ships be able too use a super powerful tool?
maybe webs could be sized :-

small - 35%
medium - 45%
battleship - 55%

maybe webs could have higher fitting and cap consumption scaling with that strength - looks at officer webs massive pg requirement, along with falloff added, and range could be scaled too.

I am, hence why I am calling you out on your damaging nerfs.

I have FC'd harpy fleets while flying a megathron. I literally have owned battleships with more combat experience than you have.

This would render everything under battleships useless.

I think webs are a bit strong and I also think their range is a bit low. I would not support directly nerfing them as I believe they are balanced where they are, but I do think that most pilots, both who are using webs and who are the target of webs, would be happier overall with webs that have a longer range and weaker effect.

But the biggest problem with webs is when the ship has a bonus to the effectiveness of webs. The way the bonus works causes the effect to become far stronger than the 50% bonus would insinuate, with the actual power increase depending strongly on the base web value.

I think that the bonus to web effectiveness should use a diminishing return calculation--I could write up some complex maths for it, or it could just be as easy as having the bonus act as a further speed reduction, for instance a level 5 bonus (+50% effectiveness) would become -50% remaining velocity. Here is how it would affect the modules:

Stasis Webifier I - 50% velocity reduction
Current velocity reduction with skill bonus: 75%
New velocity reduction with skill bonus: 75%

Stasis Webifier II - 60% velocity reduction
Current velocity reduction with skill bonus: 90%
New velocity reduction with skill bonus: 80%

This essentially makes the T2 25% stronger than the T1 with the skill bonus, as opposed to 150% stronger than the T1 with the skill bonus. In either case, it is 20% stronger than the T1 without the bonus.
This change could also allow faction variants to offer a higher speed reduction, instead of only increasing range.




I actually feel that the current web strength is too high because it enables cruiser weapons to easily hit frigates, and even allows battleships to hit frigates with little trouble. Case in point: in incursion vanguard sites, battleships will fit short range large turrets along with usually 1-2 of either stasis webifier, tracking computer, or tracking enhancer. A fleet of ~10 ships (usually 7-8 battleships) will tend to have about 1-3 unbonused webs on a frigate NPC target and maybe a target painter. This is easily above what is needed to deal full damage to the frigate NPC, with no significant loss of damage due to tracking. In fact I recall one fleet I was in that was poorly equipped, often the main target was not webbed at all and would be taking very little damage (probably mostly from the drones), but when I webbed it, suddenly my own turrets began to hit it, and it would perish rapidly as other fleetmembers also began to score hits. These NPC frigates have a speed, sig radius, and hit points comparable to player frigates with prop mod off (as if they were using MWD) and we'd dispatch literally dozens of these in under ten minutes, with only one webifier in the fleet.

I'd like to see a new kind of webifier which has a reduced effect on ships too large or small for it. There could be five or six sizes, allowing anyone to have a preferable web choice that gives them the opportunity to strongly web the right size of ship while still being able to have a weaker effect on other sizes.

Small: 5km range, 1MW powergrid
- strong vs frigates, moderate vs cruisers, weak vs battleships. Easy for frigates to fit+use, short range makes it lousy for battleships to use.

Medium-small: 7.5km range, 5MW powergrid
- fairly strong vs frigates and cruisers, fairly weak vs battleships. Pretty easy for frigates to use but more effective on cruisers.

Medium: 12.5km range, 20MW powergrid
- strong vs cruisers, moderate vs frigates and battleships, weak vs capital ships. Good all-around webifier effective against all subcaps, long enough range for a battleship but low enough fitting for a frigate to use.

Medium-large: 20km range, 90MW powergrid
- fairly strong vs cruisers and battleships, fairly weak vs frigates and capital ships. Pretty easy for a cruiser to mount but too high for a frigate, allows a cruiser decent webbing of battleships or other cruisers.

Large: 30km range, 400MW powergrid
- strong vs battleships, moderate vs cruisers and capital ships, weak vs frigates and supercapitals. High fitting cost for cruisers, grants battleships superior range to make up for their poor maneuverability and grants the strongest webbing of other battleships.

X-Large: 45km range, 1800MW powergrid
- strong vs all capital and supercapital ships, moderate vs battleships, weak vs cruisers. Can be fit to a battleship in order to web a capital and prevent it from speed tanking siege weaponry, or can be fit to a carrier to web battleships at ranges longer than most short range battleship weapons can fire.


Having webifiers like this would force the player to make important decisions when selecting a webifier. It allows for a lot of room to fit oversized webs, so that smaller ships can still web larger ships (at high powergrid cost) while larger ships can still web smaller ships (at reduced range) but having the best effectiveness may come at a cost. It allows webs to maintain the same current strength while also getting more range in some cases, and helps to improve the defenses of frigates, since it will now be more difficult for large ships to web them into oblivion.

Only one really bad idea per thread please. (exception is that 'one line bad ideas thread)

Webs should also cause heat damage to any prop mods they are working against. If a webbed ship overheats to get out of web range the heat damage should be double and the time until it burns out should be cut in half. This would be in line with every space movie ever made where the good guys are trying to escape the (fill in movie specific space ship sucking mechanism) force near the end of the movie. All good captians double down and trash their GTFO thruster stuff when trying to escape the "their pulling us in" thinger. Eve should be no different.