EVE Search - Sticky:[March] Stasis Webifier Tiericide

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:[March] Stasis Webifier Tiericide

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1465	Posted - 2016.02.13 16:29:20 - [31] - Quote Would you post the cap use per second? Do not run. We are your friends.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2909	Posted - 2016.02.13 23:42:07 - [32] - Quote Tyranis Marcus wrote: Would you post the cap use per second? Going down the list: 1 0.4 1 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Crazy KSK Tsunami Cartel 100	Posted - 2016.02.14 05:49:47 - [33] - Quote at least one of the 3 faction webs that are the same should have lower cap requirement in exchange for cpu or range Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5684	Posted - 2016.02.14 06:42:19 - [34] - Quote This proposal fundamentally underestimates how important the web strength stat is. The faction webs that wind up at 55% may as well be deleted from the game, they are that much weaker than the tech 2 web. On an unbonused hull, it's the difference between 40% speed and 45% (single web), or, if my in-head maths on stacking penalties is right, 18% of base speed (dual 60% web) and 22.5% base speed (dual 25% web). For turrets, that's a big difference in how hard a one-size-smaller ship is to hit. I strongly feel that 55% bonuses on faction webs should be increased to at least 58%. As another point, if the Vindicator bonus didn't exist or had slightly lower numbers (such as 8% per level or 8.5% per level) or was calculated differently (applying a 15% per level modifier to ship speed on ships hit by a web that stacked multiplicatively with webs), you could produce deadspace 62% webs and officer 64% webs. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2910	Posted - 2016.02.14 07:59:11 - [35] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: This proposal fundamentally underestimates how important the web strength stat is. The faction webs that wind up at 55% may as well be deleted from the game, they are that much weaker than the tech 2 web./quote] It is a big deal but it's not always important. Sometimes range is much more important. There are a lot of clearly superior or clearly inferior faction webs, as some (like Federation Navy and Domination) have both high strength and high range, while others have both low strength and low range. Since there are so many faction web iterations, it would be nice to add more variability to them all, as well as price adjustments. Would be neat to have weaker faction webs that were more affordable. [quote=Sabriz Adoudel]As another point, if the Vindicator bonus didn't exist or had slightly lower numbers (such as 8% per level or 8.5% per level) or was calculated differently (applying a 15% per level modifier to ship speed on ships hit by a web that stacked multiplicatively with webs), you could produce deadspace 62% webs and officer 64% webs. Alternatively the calculation could be changed so that higher ship skill values get a diminishing return, but an important point about this is that the web strength bonus is too strong--it gets 90% speed reduction with a single T2 web. There should be deadspace webs with a higher speed reduction value that the Serpentis ships must use to achieve these very high speed reduction amounts. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1467	Posted - 2016.02.14 10:34:46 - [36] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Tyranis Marcus wrote: Would you post the cap use per second? Going down the list: 1 0.4 1 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 Hmm. Thanks. I assume you were able to see the whole table? The image didn't show up as a link for me, so I was stuck with only the first columns, couldn't see cycle times. Do not run. We are your friends.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2910	Posted - 2016.02.14 11:01:10 - [37] - Quote Tyranis Marcus wrote: Hmm. Thanks. I assume you were able to see the whole table? The image didn't show up as a link for me, so I was stuck with only the first columns, couldn't see cycle times. You can see the whole table by right-clicking it and selecting 'View Image', but the table doesn't have a cycle time column anyway. It doesn't really need one, as all webifiers have (and will continue to have) a 5s cycle time, including the officer webs. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13893	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:28:21 - [38] - Quote Hey folks. Thanks for the feedback so far! We've made one adjustment to the plan so far, moving the Dark Blood tackle modules into the same stats group as True Sansha. This will generally mean an increase in fitting costs and an increase in range. As you guys pointed out, this better matches the Blood Raider faction traits. I also want to assure you that the drop rates for these modules will be changing in the same fashion as the other tiericided modules. The new named variations of modules will all have equal drop rates and their combined drop rates will equal the combined drop rates of all the old named modules. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Circumstantial Evidence 258	Posted - 2016.02.14 21:36:04 - [39] - Quote Will anyone fit the "enduring" variant? Cap drain seems... low, on all of these ;)
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1260	Posted - 2016.02.14 21:42:23 - [40] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Will anyone fit the "enduring" variant? Cap drain seems... low, on all of these ;) probably not besides noobs .. maybe cap usage should be increased at least on the T2 version, also think T2 should require level5 skill as all T2 mods/ships should require, but its not applied consistently for some reason, i still think webs need a blanket nerf, 15km on faction is OP T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5689	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:59:58 - [41] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Will anyone fit the "enduring" variant? Cap drain seems... low, on all of these ;) Super budget options are useful. If they wind up at 5000 ISK, RvB and similar entities will use them. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
Gerad Aihaken Keepers of Balance Legion of xXDEATHXx 11	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:38:34 - [42] - Quote I think equalizing the range of tech 2 and meta actually nerfs t2 quite badly. Just by looking at it, I can't find any reasons, why would I put something except Compact or Enduring meta into my fitting? 5% speed reduction difference? Pfew, not that significant. Range difference of overheated meta and T2 -- this is what makes it different now and makes you find additional CPU for fitting and additional ~1m isk for it. Sorry if that was mentioned before, don't have time to look through the entire thread.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2910	Posted - 2016.02.15 00:47:51 - [43] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Will anyone fit the "enduring" variant? Cap drain seems... low, on all of these ;) If you have the CPU to spare and you have no use for it elsewhere, the Enduring is better than the Compact. People will use it for that reason, but 0.6 Gj/s isn't a bad thing to have, especially from changing just one module. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Cearain Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis 1452	Posted - 2016.02.15 12:38:45 - [44] - Quote At the beginning of tier iced you said that no module in the same meta would be worse at the basic function of the module. Here we see meta 8 modules that have both less range and less web strength then other meta 8 mods all for some gain in cpu. I think this makes some of the mods clearly inferior as people can rearrange their rapier fits to save 15 cpu without much effort. But I am wondering if original principal is going to be a abandoned in future modules as well. So for example will imperial navy armor mods still give better resists and the federation ones just be easier to fit. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1467	Posted - 2016.02.17 02:59:33 - [45] - Quote x Do not run. We are your friends.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1467	Posted - 2016.02.17 03:08:49 - [46] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Tyranis Marcus wrote: Hmm. Thanks. I assume you were able to see the whole table? The image didn't show up as a link for me, so I was stuck with only the first columns, couldn't see cycle times. You can see the whole table by right-clicking it and selecting 'View Image', but the table doesn't have a cycle time column anyway. It doesn't really need one, as all webifiers have (and will continue to have) a 5s cycle time, including the officer webs. Yeah, I wasn't even able to do that, and wasn't going to make any assumptions on cycle times in that case. (Been having some interesting computer and internet problems. You should see the juggle I'm doing to log on to Eve right now, until my connection gets sorted out!) Thanks for the repies, anyway. Do not run. We are your friends.
ISD Atomic Dove ISD Community Communications Liaisons 85	Posted - 2016.02.17 10:41:30 - [47] - Quote I've trimmed back a few empty posts, no biggies here. ISD Atomic Dove Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 4985	Posted - 2016.02.17 16:41:27 - [48] - Quote I'm just wondering if there's the potential for adding Deadspace variants of all these modules (not just stasis webs). Since there's already a finite gap between most Faction and Officer versions, I might instead suggest providing similar overall stats to Faction modules but adjust the parameters so you maybe get a 40% web @20km as one option or 45% @18km with another. It would be nice to have options other than simply more strength and range. And with the various Deadspace sub-types it would be easy to accomodate lighter fighting requirements and capacitor usage. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jimy F Aliastra Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.02.17 21:55:40 - [49] - Quote i guess it should look like this ^_^ km / % / cpu 13 60 16 caldari 13 60 16 guristas 14 60 25 federation 14 60 25 serpentist 14 55 16 sansha 15 55 25 khanid (armor tank so hi cpu, apolagize thats not saha but saha is shield tank so shoud have les cpu and not have any comon with webs, armag is khanid wich is balgorn hull, and there is place with 14km web where it fits nice becouse cpu) 15 55 25 dark blood 15 50 16 domination 15 50 16 repiblic
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2921	Posted - 2016.02.18 03:21:04 - [50] - Quote Is there no one else who wants to have a scoped meta stasis webifier put into the game? FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
BobDoLe Senator Fuxi Legion Fraternity. 1	Posted - 2016.02.20 08:08:02 - [51] - Quote Is this an intentional (and huge) nerf to Daredevil (and Vigilant/Vindicator but their cpu are not as tight)? While in current version I fit two meta-4 webs to achieve the 98% speed reduction, after the patch I'll have to replace them with two T2 webs if I want the same effect. The replacement will cost 16 more cpu (22->30), which matters a lot. It should be noted that although a -60% web is marginally more effective than a -55% web, for a daredevil the -60% web is nearly twice as effective as the -55% one (-90% compared to -82.5%).
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2925	Posted - 2016.02.20 10:49:02 - [52] - Quote BobDoLe Senator wrote: It should be noted that although a -60% web is marginally more effective than a -55% web, for a daredevil the -60% web is nearly twice as effective as the -55% one (-90% compared to -82.5%). It should be nerfed even further. Serpentis ships should get no more than 75% slowing from a T2 web. edit: Daredevil can still use Khanid web FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
BobDoLe Senator Fuxi Legion Fraternity. 1	Posted - 2016.02.20 11:22:56 - [53] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: BobDoLe Senator wrote: It should be noted that although a -60% web is marginally more effective than a -55% web, for a daredevil the -60% web is nearly twice as effective as the -55% one (-90% compared to -82.5%). It should be nerfed even further. Serpentis ships should get no more than 75% slowing from a T2 web. edit: Daredevil can still use Khanid web Well, you can test the idea by fitting a meta 0 web (or even a -55% web) in daredevil right now, and try to prove me that the fit is anything but useless.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2926	Posted - 2016.02.20 17:49:51 - [54] - Quote BobDoLe Senator wrote: Well, you can test the idea by fitting a meta 0 web (or even a -55% web) in daredevil right now, and try to prove me that the fit is anything but useless. I'm not sure what you consider bare minimum for operational capacity of a Daredevil, but if I wanted to fly a 60 mil tackler frigate, Daredevil would probably be my first choice. I might go for a Dramiel, though, because that extra speed would be nice and I don't need that web strength. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 1245	Posted - 2016.03.07 08:52:54 - [55] - Quote Having just done a comparison on this, wouldn't it make more sense for the t1 web to have the same 55% effectiveness? Reasoning. t1 has the same fitting costs as the x5 and the same cap consumption as fleeting. If we establish that t1 is the baseline module, then it should be the middle ground as opposed to the bottom of the rung. If the tiericide isn't built in a manner in which t1 is competitive, then why even bother having t1 as it will never be chosen. This is on the premise that cost of the module is a non-factor, and seeing as how the price variation between these modules is at most 2 million isk, I would consider it a non-factor.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2928	Posted - 2016.03.08 15:05:40 - [56] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: If the tiericide isn't built in a manner in which t1 is competitive, then why even bother having t1 as it will never be chosen. This is on the premise that cost of the module is a non-factor, and seeing as how the price variation between these modules is at most 2 million isk, I would consider it a non-factor. Price is always a factor, and for many players 2 million ISK is way too much for a meta stasis webifier. I consider myself in that crowd most of the time but it depends on the hull I'm putting it on. But the meta won't be 2 million for long--it was only up there due to its high popularity back when it was better than t2. Meta 0 won't get chosen because meta 1 is never too expensive. Even for brand new pilots, 50k ISK is easy to come by and that's usually the upper end of what you have to pay if you have access to a trade hub. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
GinBar BALKAN EXPRESS Shadow Cartel 7	Posted - 2016.03.11 20:46:37 - [57] - Quote Devs someone made mistake ? with pricing RF web in LP stores, what is going on ? 80K LP for single RF web, while FN web bpc ( 5 run ) = 60 K LP. Am I crazy or what ? ). And there is no RF web 5 run bpc in LP stores?
Cartheron Crust Matari Exodus 189	Posted - 2016.03.15 19:00:47 - [58] - Quote GinBar wrote: Devs someone made mistake ? with pricing RF web in LP stores, what is going on ? 80K LP for single RF web, while FN web bpc ( 5 run ) = 60 K LP. Am I crazy or what ? ). And there is no RF web 5 run bpc in LP stores? I don't know if it has changed recently but I used to run missions for the gallente corp that offered the 5 run bpc for fed navy webs. At the time the higher level agents only had the ones that offered courier missions and very very occaisonally a security mission. So they still had low average LP payouts. They were around Stacmon and the lowsec area there iirc. So it still took a long ass time to get that LP. Comparatively not really that much better than other L4 agents. Unless you ran the lowsec ones with a Blockade Runner. Still not that great though. And do all LP stores have to have the same offers? =/
Cearain Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis 1459	Posted - 2016.03.16 15:33:41 - [59] - Quote GinBar wrote: Devs someone made mistake ? with pricing RF web in LP stores, what is going on ? 80K LP for single RF web, while FN web bpc ( 5 run ) = 60 K LP. Am I crazy or what ? ). And there is no RF web 5 run bpc in LP stores? I am not saying this is balanced or not, but you also have to consider the amount of isk and cost of tags involved. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
CaesarGREG CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 14	Posted - 2016.05.13 00:22:51 - [60] - Quote Statis Webifer T2 didnt had 12km? now 10km? or i remember somthing wrong

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,06s, ref 20250910/1923
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.