EVE Search - Are webbers to strong?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Are webbers to strong?

» 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)
SasRipper DIE WITH HONOUR	Posted - 2007.02.23 16:21:00 - [1] Are webbers to strong? Ive been asking myself this for the past week and have decided that they are from 75% to 90% is just too harsh. Although my timing of this post is far from adapt with the current nano fad which I myself am part off. However with the coming nerf to nos & mwds webs will most likely become even more effective. There are to many examples of when your webed your ****ed eg:blasterthron vs ac tempest if the thron gets 1 web cycle most likely the tempest is dead eg2: jumping your ship into a small gate camp and trying to burn back onto the gate if you get doubled webed no matter the ship your dead. The so called counters to webs being nos, mwds, and jamming are not effective vs webs Firstly webs have such a small cap usage its nearly impossible to stop a web with a single utility nos or neut. Mwds are extremely cap intensive compared to the tiny cap usage of webs Lastly jamming is very ineffective @ close range with the exception of eccm burst which are extremely cap intensive as well. Why should all the counters be so cap heavy compared to tiny cap usage of webs. I propose a scaling system of webs and a reduction of there strength & increase of there cap costs. I believe changing webs to 50% to 75% would be a fair amount of reduction I also believe that ship size should affect web amount a frig stopping a bs dead is not right, yes I agree with them having impact on there speed but if you truly want that bs stopped you will need a bs to stop it. Making the higher end webs more cap intensive should also be done eg 75% webs can only be used on bs. Opinions plz /me puts on flame suit & ducks \|- My Sig loggedoffskied -\| Save Radar Scanner Man!
nakKEDK	Posted - 2007.02.23 16:32:00 - [2] lol you want webbers nerfed ? :) if u could go back to gate. would any kind of gatecamp be possible? dont think so.. =P
zurich93 SPECTRE Ops	Posted - 2007.02.23 16:35:00 - [3] Originally by: nakKEDK lol you want webbers nerfed ? :) if u could go back to gate. would any kind of gatecamp be possible? dont think so.. =P Thats why you would adapt and learn to bump people off course, i think webs are too stong also for their low fitting + low cap and extreme usefulness in pvp. 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
cinderbrood Caldari The Rat Pack	Posted - 2007.02.23 16:37:00 - [4] Agreed. Bs with torps + dual web = overkill... Intys should not be insta popped by torps imo ;/ So yes slightly over powered but still fun for me :D
Maxine Blade	Posted - 2007.02.23 16:45:00 - [5] Edited by: Maxine Blade on 23/02/2007 16:42:29 I don't agree that the webber should be nerf'd from 75%/90% to 50%. I do agree that the cap usage should be higher per cycle of the webber. Everyone says that the counter to a webber is MWD or Energy Neut, but the cap usage between MWD/ENergy Neut vs. webber is really not a fair ratio. I think they should either increase the cap usage per cycle, or decrease the seconds between cycles. Or they can also increase the range of ECM Burst to match the range of webbers. This would make ECM Burst a more useful module and an effective counter. They can then give a reduction to cap usage as a bonus to ships that are made to tackle (like Inty's or something).
Elane010	Posted - 2007.02.23 16:50:00 - [6] Yea, dosen't seem right a frigate can stop a battleship. Should have a % for what size ship can slow a ship bigger than it, and bigger ships be able to slow a smaller ship more.
Tommy Vercetti A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.02.23 16:54:00 - [7] Originally by: Elane010 Yea, dosen't seem right a frigate can stop a battleship. Should have a % for what size ship can slow a ship bigger than it, and bigger ships be able to slow a smaller ship more. So why would you use a smaller ship as a tackler then? Your basically removing the advantage of a small ship vs a big ship, speed. Originally by: Pestillence It's a game where we fly around in eggs with tubes up our arses. If I want reality I'll go outside.
SasRipper DIE WITH HONOUR	Posted - 2007.02.23 16:57:00 - [8] Originally by: Tommy Vercetti So why would you use a smaller ship as a tackler then? Your basically removing the advantage of a small ship vs a big ship, speed. lock time speed of smaller ship for closing distance ie faster accelation \|- My Sig loggedoffskied -\| Save Radar Scanner Man!
Maeltstome	Posted - 2007.02.23 17:37:00 - [9] Yet another example of a nano-pilot taking a hissy fit about loosing his faction mods. I dont think the ability to nano a ship should be nerfed, however nerfing webbers is exactly the wrong wasy to go. SMall ships are already very prone ot being webbed, and if your going to speed tank, so should be a battleship - deal with it and learn to fly better.
Neuromandis EPSILON TEAM Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.23 18:09:00 - [10] Edited by: Neuromandis on 23/02/2007 18:11:31 I completely disagree. A module that practically stops you at that distance is not overpowered, especially if you compare it with a module that shuts you down (ECM) at 120km+ and modules that drain you capless at 25km (NOS). Webs are fine. If you nerfed its strength, you should up its range (being even more overpowered). What is the point of webbing if the faster ship can escape anyway? Also about battleships: Big deal! You're slow as hell anyway, and you have stuff to defend with. If you DON'T carry a webber, sorry, you have just forsaken the only true anti-frig weapon you have. Try web+drones, and see if that frig will be webbing you for long. And that's coming from a caldari where putting a web is regarded an expensive luxury we usually don't have. Also, battleships are SUPPOSED to have anti-ceptor weapons. That the fight is possible (sometimes ceptors win, sometimes they lose), clearly dictates good balance. The Two-web argument is really really bad, because the two webs could easily be 2 jams (the ceptor would never shoot) or 2 damps (ditto) or whatever. Putting 2 mids on anything IS supposed to severely hamper him, and in the case of error or unluck (i.e. risking coming into web range), kill him. Paper-thin interceptors are supposed to be fragile and their only enemy is tactical errors anyway. As for the Autocannon/blaster comparison, what do you suggest? Of course, if someone takes the tactical advantage on you, you're dead. On the other hand, the Autocannon boat is a lot faster and with greater range, so should NOT relinquish the tactical advantage. The blastership SHOULD have a way to win, the one you presented is a good if not 100% accurate example. Yes, as you have the longer range you should stay away and if you have shorter range, you should try to get into web range asap.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.23 18:24:00 - [11] I think webifiers are too absolute and a bit too short ranged. My idea to Revamp them to nerf 20% (mass, agility, speed, and AB/mwd cap use), but buff their range to 20km would go a long way to balancing them ultimately. Straight velocity penalizing is a bit overpowered and doesnt take into account setups built on speed efficiency. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Zeophyte	Posted - 2007.02.23 18:50:00 - [12] lol funny post, maby the bit about frigs cruiser vs bs webing should get looked into. but asfar as webing getting a nerf ur having a ****ing larf on a raven with rage torps u need 1 web and 2 target painters to make rage torps work GOOD and even then you have NO TANK or a crap one, on a mega/hyp your reduced to using anti matter or fitting dual web or having a support pilot because of the crappy tracking with void.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.02.23 19:04:00 - [13] You could argue that the 75% to 90% progression is not a nice 20% better for best named. But other than that.......
Litus Arowar Amarr Obsidian Asylum Pure.	Posted - 2007.02.23 19:20:00 - [14] webbers are not too strong in my opinion... for one thing, they've been around forever, unchanged... the rest of the game has been changing... perhaps it's other factors that are affecting webs, making them too weak or too strong, not the webs themselves and I'm giving the OP a bit of credit not assuming he lost a nanoship to a dual-webbing inty Albert Anastacia> Like they say, adapt or die. I adapted and now I get to Iwinbutton all over everyones face. Kraven Kor> When I lose a ship to lag / disco / cat-on-fire, well, I'm just @#$%ed.
Karma Coma	Posted - 2007.02.23 19:28:00 - [15] This is all so true. In fact, its not the only injustice in eve! Warp scramblers - "There are to many examples of when your [Scrambled] your **ed" eg: a barge in a belt and a pirate comes in. eg: in the middle of any fight. "blasterthron vs ac tempest if the thron gets 1 web cycle most likely the tempest is dead" - Ok this is the part where you learn that EVE was made so you never have a one-setup rules all type of game. Despite flavours of the month this part has been ensured. And no any AC tempest pilot worth his name would ***a blasterthron pilot... all he has to do is web back, turn on his mwd and, his lower mass / faster speed will get him out and then he can start pumbling the blasterthron from outside his range. People have played eve since beta with webbers and the fact that there has never been a public outcry against them lets you know that the vast majority of eve (99.9%) likes them and that they are here to stay
hydraSlav Synergy Evolved Serenity Fallen	Posted - 2007.02.23 19:37:00 - [16] Edited by: hydraSlav on 23/02/2007 19:36:15 Webbers are weak, cause they don't work as the module is described. Actually, i wouldn't mind seeing webbers at 50% etc, if they actually worked like the description says: Quote: Reduces the maximum speed of a ship... That part is working right now Quote: ...by employing micro energy streams which effectively entangle the target temporarily, thereby slowing it down... ^^ This part is missing. Where is it in the current way the module works? The description clear says "entangle the target", couple with the name of the module "Webifier". The module should slow down the moving ship by entangling it in whatever the RP comes up with.... However atm, webbers only cut the max speed of the target. The target then coasts along, as it would have had the pilot simply reduced speed. Where is the "slowing down" part? We wouldn't need webbers at 90% if they actually did what they are supposed to and "slowed down/entangled" the target in space, instead of simply reducing the max speed and letting it gradually coast along == Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
Neuromandis EPSILON TEAM Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.24 02:21:00 - [17] Originally by: hydraSlav Where is the "slowing down" part? We wouldn't need webbers at 90% if they actually did what they are supposed to and "slowed down/entangled" the target in space, instead of simply reducing the max speed and letting it gradually coast along You have a point there, but I cannot honestly say I know if it would be a good or a bad thing to stop a target pretty much dead in its tracks, I could argue against either. There is one part that has been stated and I agree completely though, going from 75% to 90% is actually a +150% increase in effectiveness (25% speed down to 10% speed), and as such is pretty extremely uber overpowered COMPARED TO THE BASE MODULE. Either tech 1 needs to be better or best named needs to be worse (pretty much like saying Arbalest missile: 10 rof, Tech1 missile 25 rof - completely out of line imho)
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings Myriad Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.24 02:48:00 - [18] Edited by: DubanFP on 24/02/2007 02:45:10 Webifiers require you to get within 10km of your enemy, the countermeasure to webifiers is to keep out of web range in the first place. It's not that hard if you fit/fight right. __________________________
Lucifer Fellblade Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.02.24 02:50:00 - [19] Great, nerf MWD, nerf webs, hey lets remove cap boosters and lower blaster tracking while we're at it. ------
KoramaurALT	Posted - 2007.02.24 03:53:00 - [20] Originally by: zurich93 Originally by: nakKEDK lol you want webbers nerfed ? :) if u could go back to gate. would any kind of gatecamp be possible? dont think so.. =P Thats why you would adapt and learn to bump people off course, i think webs are too stong also for their low fitting + low cap and extreme usefulness in pvp. I don't really know how t1 frigs would be useful in PvP for if they couldn't web things. It gives new players in the game a role in PvP rather than being completely useless. Not exactly certain what use tackling interceptor's would be either if you upped the fitting of webs, as most interceptor's have a extremely tight fit as it is. Also, do you think it's right that say, an Interceptor can bump a Battleship? You think that's a realistic strategy to replace webs?
Tulisin Dragonflame	Posted - 2007.02.24 03:57:00 - [21] Originally by: zurich93 Originally by: nakKEDK lol you want webbers nerfed ? :) if u could go back to gate. would any kind of gatecamp be possible? dont think so.. =P Thats why you would adapt and learn to bump people off course, i think webs are too stong also for their low fitting + low cap and extreme usefulness in pvp. Wouldn't they just get their ship reimbursed if you bumped them?
Mr Peanut STK Scientific INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.02.24 05:38:00 - [22] Originally by: zurich93 Originally by: nakKEDK lol you want webbers nerfed ? :) if u could go back to gate. would any kind of gatecamp be possible? dont think so.. =P Thats why you would adapt and learn to bump people off course, i think webs are too stong also for their low fitting + low cap and extreme usefulness in pvp. That...doesn't...work. Especially against nanophoon pilots like you probably are.
Thatch SniggWaffe Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.02.24 05:47:00 - [23] lollers. what... have we ran out of things to complain about, and webs are the next down on the list? cmon... seriously. nerf webs? have you gone mental? thanks for the chuckle.
FraXy 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.02.24 05:47:00 - [24] Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Originally by: zurich93 Originally by: nakKEDK lol you want webbers nerfed ? :) if u could go back to gate. would any kind of gatecamp be possible? dont think so.. =P Thats why you would adapt and learn to bump people off course, i think webs are too stong also for their low fitting + low cap and extreme usefulness in pvp. Wouldn't they just get their ship reimbursed if you bumped them? And why on earth would they get reimbursed for that? If u don`t want to be bumped then better watch ur six. Please don`t Primary me..
Litus Arowar Amarr Obsidian Asylum Pure.	Posted - 2007.02.24 07:12:00 - [25] Originally by: FraXy quote pyramid you mean watch your twelve nerfing webs is just ludicrous, as has been stated nerfing t1 frigs in favour of making inties more special might work though... say giving inties a web effectiveness boost, capping them out at 90%, while other ships cap out at 80%... but no, even this shouldn't happen without good reason, and there currently is NO good reason Albert Anastacia> Like they say, adapt or die. I adapted and now I get to Iwinbutton all over everyones face. Kraven Kor> When I lose a ship to lag / disco / cat-on-fire, well, I'm just @#$%ed.
Terazuk Amarr FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.02.24 07:16:00 - [26] No -~- Take the above post seriously at your peril -~-
Snikkt Gallente Time Cube Syndicate Daikoku Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.24 08:01:00 - [27] Originally by: Terazuk No You care explaining why, or do you think your two letter answer sufficed? I honestly think that the amount of slowing webifiers do is outrageous, -especially- considering the super cheap cap cost. It's kind of silly that something so cheap, cap-wise can cripple just about everything in the EVE universe. And to those saying the "anti-web" is to stay out of range, sometimes you're in a big ship where your defense is not maneuverability, or speed, but your armor and shields. You cannot avoid a web with shielding. Honestly, most of the people saying "omfg, you guys are retards, they're fine" are most likely griefers, or pirates, where it works to their advantage. ------------------- My opinions (ie, all of my posting here) are not my corporations. Nor should it be taken as such.
Crewman Jenkins	Posted - 2007.02.24 09:50:00 - [28] What about webs that start at 5km range that do 90% slow, then progress to 20km that do 40% slow or some such? Maybe not those exact numbers.
Ren Tales Null Horizon	Posted - 2007.02.24 11:08:00 - [29] I don't think a single web is overpowerd. However, dual webs is just stupid. Inty with a single web = possible to get away. Dual webbed inty = dead. I don't know, webbers seem well balanced until you get two of them going. ----
FraXy 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.02.24 12:29:00 - [30] Originally by: Litus Arowar Originally by: FraXy quote pyramid you mean watch your twelve Nah i meant six as most bumpers usually gets in the rear, atleast from my experience when i`m trying to outrun them Please don`t Primary me..

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.