EVE Search - 20 km webbers?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

20 km webbers?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tisanta Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom	Posted - 2007.02.12 19:37:00 - [1] Is CCP going to implement 20km webbers that do 30% speed reduction? this would be great to slow down nano ships and it would help out all the close combat pilots out there. --- 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
Maxine Blade	Posted - 2007.02.12 19:46:00 - [2] I think they should up the speed on the Webber Drones to catch the Nanos.
mallina Caldari Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.12 20:16:00 - [3] would make sense tbh or just a webber with an optimal of 5km and 30k falloff. it has full power at <= 5k but loses effectiveness upto 30k where it is useless. might even make laserboats good again
Gort Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.02.12 20:23:00 - [4] I think Mallina's idea is a good one. Low-tech sig: "When in doubt, empty the magazine."
zurich93 SPECTRE Ops	Posted - 2007.02.12 20:25:00 - [5] oooo those would be nice on minmatar recon Nope starts here actually :O -----Sig starts here------- <3 Kaemonn eep eep beep heep keep womble... YOU DO NOT POSESS THE POWER TO DISGUINISH MY SIG FROM MY POST MWHAHAHA IBTL
mematar Delictum 23216	Posted - 2007.02.12 20:35:00 - [6] Originally by: Tisanta Is CCP going to implement 20km webbers that do 30% speed reduction? this would be great to slow down nano ships and it would help out all the close combat pilots out there. They are called Officer Webs with ridiculous grid requirements :P
Mr Peanut STK Scientific INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.02.12 21:25:00 - [7] I posted a thread many months ago saying we should have 20k webbers, but people didn't like it then. Now that we have nano-BS, I think that it is much more viable.
Tisanta Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom	Posted - 2007.02.12 21:52:00 - [8] Originally by: Gort I think Mallina's idea is a good one. im malli's pimp so anything she comes up with is my idea. --- 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
zevex	Posted - 2007.02.12 21:55:00 - [9] Nah..Webber drones should just be faster.
MOS DEF Gekidoku Koroshiya Buntai	Posted - 2007.02.12 22:05:00 - [10] There is 25k webbers even. Mizuros and the like. You need a ton of grid and isk tho. Oh and -30% would be pointless really.
Vol Jbolaz	Posted - 2007.02.12 22:06:00 - [11] Originally by: mallina would make sense tbh or just a webber with an optimal of 5km and 30k falloff. it has full power at <= 5k but loses effectiveness upto 30k where it is useless. might even make laserboats good again To have its effectiveness diminish over distance would be unique. I don't suggest creating a new way for modules to work. It may have been nice in the beginning, but the game is too old to create a whole new set of rules. I do agree that scramblers, webbifiers, and nos should work just like directed EW (jammers and painters). They should have an optimal, a falloff, and a chance to hit based on that. You'll need to balance cycle times, but it would make so much more sense and make combat much more enjoyable.
Tisanta Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom	Posted - 2007.02.12 22:06:00 - [12] yeah well 30% at 20km isnt overpowering.. and it is enough to make long distance orbiting fair. --- 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
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.12 22:45:00 - [13] Falloff effects do not work like that. If something is in optimal + falloff of weapons or EW (ECM, damps, etc) you have a chance to miss, you do not get a decreased effect. It works either 100% or 0%. The hit chance is 50% at optimal + falloff and 0% at optimal + 2 * falloff. For example, damperners have with max skills an optimal of 45k and an falloff of 90k. Vs a target at 135k damperners will have a 50% miss chance. When you dampen a target at this range with 2 damps you will depending of your luck either have the effect of (exactly) none, 1 or 2 damps, rolled anew with every activation cycle.
xxWhistler Elite United Corp Antigo Dominion	Posted - 2007.02.13 00:08:00 - [14] Just because things don't work like that doesn't mean they can't. These boards certainly get dogmatic at times. I think this is a great idea. I'm not sure exactly how the numbers work out but we do need to take into account that someone orbiting further out will have lower transversal anyway.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.13 00:11:00 - [15] Originally by: xxWhistler Just because things don't work like that doesn't mean they can't. No. But there is a difference between using an existant effect (falloff) and making a complety new one. You cannot simply throw a switch there.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.02.13 01:07:00 - [16] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: xxWhistler Just because things don't work like that doesn't mean they can't. No. But there is a difference between using an existant effect (falloff) and making a complety new one. You cannot simply throw a switch there. Very true, the falloff modifier isnt something you tweak like that. This means guns, EW and all sort of other goodies are effected in a way you dont want them. Still i think this is pretty much a whine in disguise. If your enemy sacrifices 3* heavy tank/gank for 3* speed with low damageoutput and not much going for em exept speed...why cant you sacrifice on of your ships for a huggin. A huggin is awesome for all sorts of situations. Yes so they can orbit you @ 24km with 5 km/s, why cant you just put 2 damp on em and dont be bothered anymore... _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Arian Snow The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.02.13 01:21:00 - [17] Edited by: Arian Snow on 13/02/2007 01:17:06 That would mean nerfing interceptors too... So NO! I dont remember I dont recall I dont have memory of anything at all!
Shadow Mancer Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.02.13 01:39:00 - [18] Originally by: MOS DEF There is 25k webbers even. Mizuros and the like. You need a ton of grid and isk tho. Oh and -30% would be pointless really. I disagree, 3 of those on Huggin/Rappiers, let's do the math 30kms at recon lvl 5 = 90kms, eventho it's -30% it's far from useless, it'll nanoBS and inties cry tbh. But with faloff idea suggested YEAH it might be way too useless.
Vol Jbolaz	Posted - 2007.02.13 01:40:00 - [19] Originally by: Aramendel The hit chance is 50% at optimal + falloff and 0% at optimal + 2 * falloff. Minor correction. You do not suffer a 100% to hit penalty at optimal + 2 * falloff. You only suffer a 96% to hit penalty. You never suffer a 100% to hit penalty due to range. Meaning, it is very unlikely that you will hit beyond optimal + 2 * falloff, but it is possible.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.13 10:37:00 - [20] Wrecking hits always hit, but this is AFAIK an exeption. It's basically a "natural 20" and bypass all tracking or range hit penalities.
Vol Jbolaz	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:15:00 - [21] Originally by: Aramendel Wrecking hits always hit, but this is AFAIK an exeption. It's basically a "natural 20" and bypass all tracking or range hit penalities. And this is the reason why target painters are so wonderful. It is hard to explain, but I'll use two six-sided dice as an example, and let you reverse engineer from there. Let's say you roll two six-sided dice (2d6) and if you roll an eight or better, then you get a hit. If you roll a 12, you get a wrecking hit. You hit 15 times in 36 (41.7%), and if you hit, you get a wrecking shot 1 time in 15 (6.7%). A target painter gives you a plus one to the roll. Now you hit on a roll of seven or better, and you get a wrecking shot on a roll of 11 or better. You hit 21 times in 36 (58.3%), and if you hit, you get a wrecking shot 3 times in 21 (1 time in 7, 14.3%). Not only does the painter give you a damage boost because you hit more often, it gives you a damage boost because you make wrecking shots more often. Mind you, this is in regards to turrets. Missile damage is different, but painters help there, too. How does this tie to distance? You get a penalty of four to your roll. You only hit if you roll a 12. And, if you hit, you get a wrecking shot 1 time in 1. Eve is not the only game to fall to this problem. I don't know how hard it will be for them to fix the engine, if they ever decide to. And I could be wrong on the logic behind the error, but all evidence to date suggests it suffers from this flaw.

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