EVE Search - Buff T2 Webs!!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Buff T2 Webs!!

» 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 - 1 post(s)
maarud Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.23 16:36:00 - [1] Edited by: maarud on 23/01/2007 16:36:44 We got nice T2 scrams, but T2 webs suck, even bad named ones are better. Can we have T2 webs, with the same stats as T1, but 14km or something please. EDIT Also, make it need Propulsion jamming V, so it doesn't completely nerf some of the faction webs, IV is too easy to get. Thanks Maarud. Proudly a Ex-BYDI member
MuffinsRevenger EmpiresMod	Posted - 2007.01.23 16:37:00 - [2] No! Becous that would make sense!
Torquemanda Corteaz Gallente Infinite Improbability Inc Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.01.23 17:37:00 - [3] are tech 2 scrams and webs even seeded
Sagnius Amarr Caldari Scouting and Intel Group	Posted - 2007.01.23 17:38:00 - [4] Originally by: Torquemanda Corteaz are tech 2 scrams and webs even seeded scrams are 24k -1 point webs, no idea
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.01.23 17:44:00 - [5] OMG!! There's a similar topic on the front page of Ships and Modules, btw: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=464383 From that thead: Quote: Webber II: 1/30 fitting 6 cap 80% 10k Fleeting: 1/22 fitting 4 cap 90% 10k Domination 1/18 6 cap 90% 15k It really doesn't seem unreasonable to make them 90%/and 12k. That still puts them within medium NOS range by the way. I wouldn't mind seeing the cap and fitting go up somewhat more too though as it stands those look in line with how they usually bump up T2. A funkier idea would be to add a Web Specialization skill that extends range or power, but only works on the T2 versions--just like the weapon specializations. I actually like that idea a lot, though it's probably not realistic to expect something that unorthodox. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Araxmas Black Lance Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:10:00 - [6] Originally by: MuffinsRevenger No! Becous that would make sense! Buy this guy a beer. --------
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:11:00 - [7] Originally by: Sagnius Originally by: Torquemanda Corteaz are tech 2 scrams and webs even seeded scrams are 24k -1 point I hope you mean disruptors. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:19:00 - [8] Tend to agree, noone is going to use these things this way. Can't remember last time i fit a stock t1 web anyway and everything btu that is better then this piece of crud tbh. Old blog Originally by: Vriezuh Naz: John is a realist
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:20:00 - [9] nerf the other webs instead - they (all) are too powerful, especially when looking closer at the dimensions: a 90% web simply is twice as strong as a 80%... T1 60% named ++2% T2 70% would be more than reasonable considering stacking - or lower (50-60%) and throw in a specialization skill and yes, MWDs are totally whacked aswell
Kerushi Caldari BIG	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:30:00 - [10] make the t2 warp scrambler +3 again while at it [ [auction] 120 warp scrambler II ]
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:31:00 - [11] Originally by: Roemy Schneider nerf the other webs instead I like this idea too, but then again that might have something to do with me flying almost nothing but frigates. OMG GIB W3B RESIST MODUEL AMA11!1 * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:43:00 - [12] Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Originally by: Roemy Schneider OMG GIB W3B RESIST MODUEL AMA11!1 agreed
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:52:00 - [13] T2 Webs suck because they are a minmatar weapon pure and simple. ~~~~~~~~~ Caldari. It's so easy a Minmatar could do it.
Harlequinn Caldari Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:55:00 - [14] Boost T2 web bandwagon! /signed --Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.--
Shin Ra BURN EDEN	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:57:00 - [15] I think 12 or 13k range, 75% web would make it interesting.
Mordorg Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2007.01.23 19:04:00 - [16] Edited by: Mordorg on 23/01/2007 19:00:38 These have to be improved to at least the level of best named, or have a longer range, with lower speed reduction. Even the skill requirements are higher for the web, which sucks, then that scrams, which are very nice.
F Apparition Minmatar MAFIA Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2007.01.23 19:06:00 - [17] Originally by: Shin Ra I think 12 or 13k range, 75% web would make it interesting. Sounds about right. T2 is meant to have advantages and disadvantages, if i'm not wrong there. A lesser % slowdown for a few KM extra range would be pretty balanced.
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.01.23 19:09:00 - [18] Originally by: F Apparition Originally by: Shin Ra I think 12 or 13k range, 75% web would make it interesting. Sounds about right. T2 is meant to have advantages and disadvantages, if i'm not wrong there. A lesser % slowdown for a few KM extra range would be pretty balanced. Um... I think you'll find that statement only true with regards to AMMUNITION. T2 is meant to be 20% better than it's T1 counterpart. Turrets do 20% more damage (plus spec. skill), for example. Yes. T2 ammo suck for the game balance and always has. Most likely it will continue to do so. - EVE is sick.
Sari Yanma	Posted - 2007.01.23 19:22:00 - [19] Edited by: Sari Yanma on 23/01/2007 19:21:26 I don't like being webbed but I agree. A lower power but bigger range would be a nice T2. A 20km with 60% (or even 50%) power could be an interesting dynamic, for example. Furthermore, Amarr favor medium range. A serie of web with much bigger range and much lower efficiency could be helpful. A 50km / 20% could help keep your target a bit longer into your optimal, and within your tracking.
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO	Posted - 2007.01.23 19:50:00 - [20] Originally by: Sari Yanma Edited by: Sari Yanma on 23/01/2007 19:21:26 I don't like being webbed but I agree. A lower power but bigger range would be a nice T2. A 20km with 60% (or even 50%) power could be an interesting dynamic, for example. Furthermore, Amarr favor medium range. A serie of web with much bigger range and much lower efficiency could be helpful. A 50km / 20% could help keep your target a bit longer into your optimal, and within your tracking. 20km web intersting? Dynamic? Yaaaaa No. Think about it for one second, everyone and anyone can use webbers. You want a ceptor to be able to web AND scram you at 20km? I think not. You want a BS to be able to web an inty tackling? No. You want a huginn to be able to web you at 68km? LOL! Bring it on, my huginn will never die! ~~~~~~~~~ Caldari. It's so easy a Minmatar could do it.
Shigsy Caldari Four Horsemen	Posted - 2007.01.23 20:03:00 - [21] Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO Originally by: Sari Yanma Edited by: Sari Yanma on 23/01/2007 19:21:26 I don't like being webbed but I agree. A lower power but bigger range would be a nice T2. A 20km with 60% (or even 50%) power could be an interesting dynamic, for example. Furthermore, Amarr favor medium range. A serie of web with much bigger range and much lower efficiency could be helpful. A 50km / 20% could help keep your target a bit longer into your optimal, and within your tracking. 20km web intersting? Dynamic? Yaaaaa No. Think about it for one second, everyone and anyone can use webbers. You want a ceptor to be able to web AND scram you at 20km? I think not. You want a BS to be able to web an inty tackling? No. You want a huginn to be able to web you at 68km? LOL! Bring it on, my huginn will never die! how about 20km but say 10%. It would cut out alot of the nanofad because you could catch a bs solo with it Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Sari Yanma	Posted - 2007.01.23 20:15:00 - [22] Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO Think about it for one second, everyone and anyone can use webbers. You want a ceptor to be able to web AND scram you at 20km? I think not. You want a BS to be able to web an inty tackling? No. You want a huginn to be able to web you at 68km? LOL! Bring it on, my huginn will never die! Mmh you're right. 60% might be too much. But I still think a lower power/high range webber might be interesting. Maybe 30% ? A BS webbing an interceptor with 30% web should not be too much of a hassle. Most inty can do 1.5km/s, being webbed to 1km/s is not a killer, and since the BS has a 30% web, it's unlikely he has a 90% too (mid slot are expensive), so the inty should be happy to be 30% webbed at 20km, since he can probably be much closer (short range weapon become viable).
Mesasone Gallente Vogon Deconstruction Fleet Ratel Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.23 20:15:00 - [23] Originally by: Shigsy Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO Originally by: Sari Yanma Edited by: Sari Yanma on 23/01/2007 19:21:26 I don't like being webbed but I agree. A lower power but bigger range would be a nice T2. A 20km with 60% (or even 50%) power could be an interesting dynamic, for example. Furthermore, Amarr favor medium range. A serie of web with much bigger range and much lower efficiency could be helpful. A 50km / 20% could help keep your target a bit longer into your optimal, and within your tracking. 20km web intersting? Dynamic? Yaaaaa No. Think about it for one second, everyone and anyone can use webbers. You want a ceptor to be able to web AND scram you at 20km? I think not. You want a BS to be able to web an inty tackling? No. You want a huginn to be able to web you at 68km? LOL! Bring it on, my huginn will never die! how about 20km but say 10%. It would cut out alot of the nanofad because you could catch a bs solo with it So, instead of going 5000 m/s it would be going 4500 m/s? That'll totally nerf those nano ships. It's great not being Amarr, ain't it?
MysticNZ Solstice Systems Development Concourse	Posted - 2007.01.23 20:36:00 - [24] Dammit, and I just shelled out all that cash on domi webs -=====-
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2007.01.23 20:36:00 - [25] considering how speed is a kind of defense aswell, anything beyond -50% web is evil. it's the MWD, that's causing the problems. -> double all speeds, reduce MWD to +200%
Nir The Doldrums	Posted - 2007.01.23 20:50:00 - [26] Originally by: Shin Ra I think 12 or 13k range, 75% web would make it interesting. Agreed
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2007.01.23 22:35:00 - [27] Originally by: Roemy Schneider nerf the other webs instead - they (all) are too powerful, especially when looking closer at the dimensions: a 90% web simply is twice as strong as a 80%... T1 60% named ++2% T2 70% would be more than reasonable considering stacking - or lower (50-60%) and throw in a specialization skill and yes, MWDs are totally whacked aswell This sounds much better, right now, the differences in web strength is insane, and two webs turn a MWDing nano-phoon into a single-volley kill for a siegemode dread. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Trinity Faetal 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.01.23 22:55:00 - [28] t2 webs are fine as they are. leave it >D -- Enjoy The Silence
maarud Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.24 02:05:00 - [29] Originally by: Trinity Faetal t2 webs are fine as they are. leave it >D O.o Maarud. Proudly a Ex-BYDI member
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.01.24 02:13:00 - [30] make em 90%, 10k range... more range would **** up my stabber _________________________________________________ Breetime
Capt Rob Minmatar Black Omega Security The OSS	Posted - 2007.01.24 02:25:00 - [31] i concurr make em 10k and 90%, thats decent enough
LeroyJenkins	Posted - 2007.01.24 03:32:00 - [32] I would like to see them dynamic 95% at 5 k 90% at 7.5k 80% 10k 60% at 15k going to 40% at 25K and a skill to change the fall off that would give you up to like a 30k range with a shaper fall of near the end of the range. but on the negative make webs and scams effect each other that they reduce the range of each other if fitted to the same ship. again another specialstion that might come as well as a webbing bubble. Very dangerous to use. but can be stratically placed but not within say 30k of a warp bubble and and could possibly be place in in empire..... You could also have a webber bubble for dictors. I know these all have major draw backs but it could make for some interesting new stratergise
maarud Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.24 08:48:00 - [33] Originally by: madaluap make em 90%, 10k range... more range would **** up my stabber Not if they make the skill requirement high enough and keep the % low enough, like 70/75%. Maarud. Proudly a Ex-BYDI member
Waut 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.01.24 17:13:00 - [34] There is no sane reason to fit a tech 2 web at the moment In Soviet EVE, roids pop YOU
Nomakai Delateriel Amarr	Posted - 2007.01.24 17:54:00 - [35] Since webbers are pretty balanced against anything except MWDing "soopa battleships" personally I'd add an idea that we've seen in other places. New "Graviton webber". 13-20km range. 10-50% (50 is probably over the top, but just as suggested upper limit) speed reduction, 20-40% (or maybe even more) added Mass but boosted agility to compensate so it doesn't completely lose maneuverability. Will not nerf base speed by a whole lot, but will be a killer against MWDing ships. Cutting down MWD speed to maybe half or even a third would probably reduce the nano-battleship fad to more acceptable levels. Just a suggestion thou. ______________________________________________ -The more it changes, the more it stays the same. Mankind and all its activities. War and Peace, Love and Hate. Ever changing, ever the same.
Isyel Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.01.24 18:13:00 - [36] Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel Since webbers are pretty balanced against anything except MWDing "soopa battleships" personally I'd add an idea that we've seen in other places. New "Graviton webber". 13-20km range. 10-50% (50 is probably over the top, but just as suggested upper limit) speed reduction, 20-40% (or maybe even more) added Mass but boosted agility to compensate so it doesn't completely lose maneuverability. Will not nerf base speed by a whole lot, but will be a killer against MWDing ships. Cutting down MWD speed to maybe half or even a third would probably reduce the nano-battleship fad to more acceptable levels. Just a suggestion thou. Yeah screw every ship that has to be fast to compete with a BS just for nerfing fast BSs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Originally by: Wrangler We don't want to discriminate anyone! We want both anti-social and social players to grief each other!
John Blackthorn Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.01.24 18:25:00 - [37] T2 webs should be about 15% better than t1 versions in my opinion.. The t1 is 78% at 10km range.. the t2 version should be about 85% and 12km range. I think all the named equipment hsould varry up to 10% better than t1, and t2 should be about 15% better than t1. I think too many times they (ccp) make to big of increase in the stats.
Nomakai Delateriel Amarr	Posted - 2007.01.24 18:27:00 - [38] Originally by: Isyel Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel Since webbers are pretty balanced against anything except MWDing "soopa battleships" personally I'd add an idea that we've seen in other places. New "Graviton webber". 13-20km range. 10-50% (50 is probably over the top, but just as suggested upper limit) speed reduction, 20-40% (or maybe even more) added Mass but boosted agility to compensate so it doesn't completely lose maneuverability. Will not nerf base speed by a whole lot, but will be a killer against MWDing ships. Cutting down MWD speed to maybe half or even a third would probably reduce the nano-battleship fad to more acceptable levels. Just a suggestion thou. Yeah screw every ship that has to be fast to compete with a BS just for nerfing fast BSs. Well, then a weaker model of this but with an increased stacking penalty on iStabs and Nanos. I have no wish to nerf interceptors (except maybe a bit ) but having iStabbathons, iStabbanix and iStabbaphoons flying around and going 4km/s or faster is simply unacceptable. ______________________________________________ -The more it changes, the more it stays the same. Mankind and all its activities. War and Peace, Love and Hate. Ever changing, ever the same.
Ogdru Jahad Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.24 19:20:00 - [39] Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO Originally by: Sari Yanma Edited by: Sari Yanma on 23/01/2007 19:21:26 I don't like being webbed but I agree. A lower power but bigger range would be a nice T2. A 20km with 60% (or even 50%) power could be an interesting dynamic, for example. Furthermore, Amarr favor medium range. A serie of web with much bigger range and much lower efficiency could be helpful. A 50km / 20% could help keep your target a bit longer into your optimal, and within your tracking. 20km web intersting? Dynamic? Yaaaaa No. Think about it for one second, everyone and anyone can use webbers. You want a ceptor to be able to web AND scram you at 20km? I think not. You want a BS to be able to web an inty tackling? No. You want a huginn to be able to web you at 68km? LOL! Bring it on, my huginn will never die! Actually say hello to 5 medium friends of mine :P Whats that i hear you doing ? CURSING? LAWL! Such Profanity... Recons 5 ftw :P and 58.5km nossing for the annoyance. -

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.