EVE Search - Stasis Webifiers: Problem and Solution

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Stasis Webifiers: Problem and Solution

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 15:57:00 - [1] Before I start, i would like to list a few Axioms that I am operating under. If you do not feel that these axioms are at least close to the truth, then we will have differences of opinion that are unable to be worked through. These are The maximum speed of ships is relativly balanced when dealing with ships fitting a single bonus type and no, or few unstacking bonuses The maximum speed of ships is not balanced when dealing with ships fitting multipule bonus types and no, to large numbers of unstacking bonuses Stasis Webifiers represent, even to the fastest ships, an "on/off" switch for a speed tank. These factors combine to make some ships more or less invincible, and the rest of the ships dependant on their total number of hit points to keep them alive. I am of the inclination that this situation is not in the best interests of the game, and believe, with some simple, yet widespread changes, that we can change all of this for the better. The first part of the problem revolves around webs. Even a single web will take a 10km/s target down to 1kms[providing the web is applied long enough], and with a microwarpdrive running, 1km/s is within the full damage potential of most cruiser weapons, even for ships with low signatures such as interceptors. As such, ships that speed tank typically base their speed on how fast they have to go to avoid being webbed instead of how fast they need to go to avoid enough damage to keep them alive[either to tank with a repair unit, passivly, or long enough to do the job and bug out] The second part of the problem revolves around the number and stacking of speed modules. If webs werent so strong, large numbers of speed modules wouldnt be necessary to avoid enough damage to do the jobs required, and so the strong unpenalized bonuses could be brought into line. The New Webs The first thing we need to do to webs is stop making webs a one size fits all module. Webs need to work at different lengths and different strengths. This nullifies the singular question of fitting for frigates. Which is "do i want to get close?" At the moment this is always no, because every ship has an 85-90% web and once you close you stop miles from your optimal and then get destroyed by battleship or cruiser sized guns. With longer range webs that web less, it becomes important to get close again, and to be able to make the determination about when that is or isnt a good idea. So, without futher adeiu: Frigate Sized Webs: Strength: 75% tech 1, 80% tech 2 Fitting: Same as current Range: 10km Thread Resolution: 80m Cruiser Sized Webs: Strength: 50% tech 1, 60% tech 2 fitting: Same CPU, 50 PG Range: 20km Thread Resolution: 240m Battleship Sized Web: Strength: 25% tech 1, 40% tech 2 Fitting: Same CPU, 500 pg Range: 40km Thread Resolution: 800m "Why the variation between the tech 1 and tech 2 webs in each size?", you say. Well, the difference between the tech 1 and tech 2 variations is now 20% final velocity accross the board. Previously the difference was 60%. Someone who was webbed with a tech 1 web was 2.5 times faster than somone who got webbed with a tech 2 web. Imagine this discrepency between tech 1 and tech 2 guns or propulsion mods?.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 15:57:00 - [2] Edited by: Goumindong on 17/09/2007 15:58:27 Thread Resolustion: WTF is that?!? Thread Resolution is the next nerf to webs. I am sure many of you know how explosion radius works. If not, you should familiarize yourself with the handy missile guide. Thread resolution will work in the same way. If a targets signature radius is lower than the thread resolution of the web then it is webbed proportionatly less. If the targets signature radius is lager than the thread resolutioin, then the target is webbed at the stated percentage. This means that smaller ships and ships using afterburners are much harder to web than ships that are larger or using microwarp drives. Lets look at a few examples. An interceptor with a sig radius of 20 is zooming around with an MWD putting its sig radius to 130. It is webbed by a frigate sized web and gets webed 80%. It is webbed as such because a frigate web webs 80% and has a thread resolution of 80m. Had it been hit by a cruiser web it would have only been slowed down 32.5%[130/240 x .6]. Had it been hit by a battleship sized web it would have been slowed down 6.5%. Now, that same interceptor has swapped for an afterburner. It has a sig radius of 20 and is hit by a frigate web. It is now slowed down by about 20%. The cruiser web, it is slowed down by 5% and the Battleship web a whole 1% speed reduction. The thread resolutions are configured in such a way as that a ship will be slowed down to the maximum by any web smaller than its typical size, by half for any web that is the same size so long as it is not using an afterburner, and by the max by any web of the same size of the ship is using a microwarp drive, by a quarter by a web three sizes larger when using an MWD, and nearly nothing at all when using an afterburner in the same situation. But my INSERT SHIP NAME, you have nerfed it! There will be a number of ships that get better and worse in each situation. But if you think outside current setups you will find setups and combinations that are able to overcome the current builds. Nothing stops you from fitting a frigate web on your battleship, or fitting more than one web. A longer ranged ship that wasnt worried as much about closing[such as a raven] could fit an afterburner and then use that, combined with a long range web, to both delay the closing of a hostile ship, but also to keep damage down once it had closed by using transversal velocity. It can now do this because it is twice as fast as it was normally when webbed by a frigate web, four times when webbed with a cruiser webbed, and 8 times faster when webbed with a battleship web. Some popular picks will likly be: My Blastership! Blaster ships have two options. You can either fit the longer range web and suffer only a slight reduction in closing time against opponents. Or you can fit a shorter range web and once you get in range have near complete range dictation ability. If you are a smaller ship you can fit an afterburner to allow you to get close to bigger ships but make you a bit more vulnerable to smaller ships. My Huginn! Will be nearly as strong as it was before the change, except that now, instead of being able to totaly screw someone at 30km you can also have the option of really screwing them at 60. My Interceptor! Just got a huge boost. As do all frigates and any ship with a small signature radius. My Battlecruiser! Its a good thing that battlecruisers are more susceptable to cruiser sized webs and are so less agile even without using an MWD. Making it less advantagious for them to fit an afterburner is less of a pressing matter because at the moment its 90% web or bust. My Apocalypse! Nope, sorry you will still suck.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 15:58:00 - [3] Secondary Conseuqences Secondary consequences of fitting dilemmas mean a boost to missile based ships. Currently afterburners avoid turrets and microwarp drives avoid missiles. That everyone always fits microwarpdrives means that everyone is fitting to avoid missile damage. Currently signature radius, due to the huge increase from microwarp drives is more or less useless. As more ships start using afterburners to avoid webs, target painters to both make targets easier to hit and to increase signature radius for better webbing becomes more important. Speed in general can be slowed down by fixing the current stacking situation.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.09.17 16:47:00 - [4] Good idea on paper. But it makes interceptors and frigates damned near invulnerable against battleships. And even if they get more "webbed" when running a MWD, if they're still moving 6km/s you're still not taking any damage. Of course, neuts, smartbombs, and webs combined would make for a nice setup...might even introduce the concept of "point defense" to eve. I like it...although it definitely needs some refining. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 16:56:00 - [5] Originally by: Vladimir Tinakin Good idea on paper. But it makes interceptors and frigates damned near invulnerable against battleships. And even if they get more "webbed" when running a MWD, if they're still moving 6km/s you're still not taking any damage. Of course, neuts, smartbombs, and webs combined would make for a nice setup...might even introduce the concept of "point defense" to eve. I like it...although it definitely needs some refining. Drone changes make it easier to field light drones for battleships. If you then start reasonably limiting speed then battleships dont have much of an issue with frigates except that they cannot as easily bring primary dps to bear. Keep in mind, battleships can still fit frigate sized webs, which will web an interceptor completly, and any interceptor not completly will be vulerable to light drones. As opposed to the current version where interceptors never enter the web range of a battleship and so never slow down.
Barthezz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.17 17:05:00 - [6] Wait, you actually want to boost speed tanking? As if its not out of control enough? If you want to mix it up a bit, I'd say lower the optimal range (between 5-10km) and add a falloff of 10km. But the fall off is not an 'on / off' switch but actually makes webs less effective. Which means at 15km you'll web at 50% of the strenght and at 5km you'll web at 100% of the strength. --- Dev's give us a lag-update!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 17:15:00 - [7] Edited by: Goumindong on 17/09/2007 17:17:45 Originally by: Barthezz Wait, you actually want to boost speed tanking? As if its not out of control enough? If you want to mix it up a bit, I'd say lower the optimal range (between 5-10km) and add a falloff of 10km. But the fall off is not an 'on / off' switch but actually makes webs less effective. Which means at 15km you'll web at 50% of the strenght and at 5km you'll web at 100% of the strength. Falloff doesnt work that way. Falloff works in that it will hit half the time. So instead of "on/off" at 10km. It will be "on/off" at 15km with a bit less certianty. The nerf to webs is necessary to keep speed tanking afloat before you reduce maximum possible speeds. Currently there is nothing wrong with speed tanking at the point where single stacking modules and effects are being applied. It is only until you start adding multipule non-penalized boosts[mass, implants, gang mods] that speed tanking starts to become too powerufl.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.09.17 17:16:00 - [8] Edited by: Vladimir Tinakin on 17/09/2007 17:18:14 Originally by: Barthezz Wait, you actually want to boost speed tanking? As if its not out of control enough? If you want to mix it up a bit, I'd say lower the optimal range (between 5-10km) and add a falloff of 10km. But the fall off is not an 'on / off' switch but actually makes webs less effective. Which means at 15km you'll web at 50% of the strenght and at 5km you'll web at 100% of the strength. Thats not a bad idea either, though the calculation might not help lag that much. I think his idea was attempting to penalize sig-magnifying MWDs and encourage ABs, while allowing small ships to get close-in. Currently if you get under 10km of anything you're coming to a halt and killed, so anything speedtanking is built to orbit at over 15km. This helps address that by letting gangs throw (less effective) webs farther out, while at the same time if you're using an AB (and consequentially doing mere-mortal speeds) you can move around with more impunity and even get up close. A simple falloff might work though...it even has a falloff currently; just needs to be tweaked. Edit: oh yeah. he's right--its hit or miss with standard falloff. Actually, I can't think of a module in eve that works on a sliding scale in terms of effectiveness...the closest thing is damage, but thats more of an after-the-fact calculation applied to the target's hitpoints than a variable state of effectiveness. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 17:21:00 - [9] ED: Lets say you take an MWDIng interceptor at 160 sig and apply two cruiser webs to it. This comes out to a 60% reduction in speed at 20km. So a MWDing interceptor would go from 10km/s to 4km/s which is plenty enough for a MWDing frigate to then get closer and web the thing with a frigate web.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 17:21:00 - [10] Originally by: Barthezz Wait, you actually want to boost speed tanking? As if its not out of control enough? It's not that simple, nor is the proposal. Speed fits are an issue, but so are webs, and the two things build on each other more than they cancel each other out. Yes, speed fit ships would have less to fear from - the smallest sized - webs. But they'd have more to fear and more unpredictability to deal with when it comes to webbing in general, because of the longer ranges available on most ships. Anyway, I'm not sure about any of the specific numbers, but I really like the structure of the idea and would love to see some of make it to sisi for testing some day. * * * 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

Kataclismo Gallente The Dragon Consortium SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE	Posted - 2007.09.17 17:49:00 - [11] Web is a switch on/off for speed tank... all you need is to stay away from it Also an ECM scorpion is an I WIN button in 1x1 combats against ANY SHIP except capitals. You want to nerf ECM too? IF THERE IS NO FUN, THERES NO NEED TO BE DONE PLAY ΞνΞ ΘΠLІΠΞ "Info: It is much more efficient to talk to yourself in person than via the chat system."
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.17 18:04:00 - [12] That is one of the best possible solutions for the speed balance on eve. The line of thinking is precise and correct. Speed currently is an all or nothing. That makes AB useless and make people speed tanking, go to EXTREEME speed tanking. The graviton beam that appeared not long ago in SISI is already a step on this direction. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Life Machine Caldari Caldari Navy Raiders Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.09.17 19:13:00 - [13] honestly, I think this is one of the smartest ideas to come out of this forum in a long time... its also better than all the "next mirror?" and "nos whine" threads...thank god some people actually still want to help put forward ideas that improve balancing and game play. Great idea dude, I'd love to see some form of this implemented in the not-too-distant future.
Barthezz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.17 19:51:00 - [14] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 17/09/2007 17:17:45 Falloff doesnt work that way. Falloff works in that it will hit half the time. So instead of "on/off" at 10km. It will be "on/off" at 15km with a bit less certianty. The nerf to webs is necessary to keep speed tanking afloat before you reduce maximum possible speeds. Currently there is nothing wrong with speed tanking at the point where single stacking modules and effects are being applied. It is only until you start adding multipule non-penalized boosts[mass, implants, gang mods] that speed tanking starts to become too powerufl. Currently webs dont work the way you want them either. Doesnt mean they cant work that way, and my way would be that going into falloff makes them less effective, not an 'on/off' chance-thing. Considering both implementations will require coding, doubt mine requires more then yours. And a speed tank doesnt work with 'single' modules (just an mwd or just overdrives), it becomes an issue when you combine mods / implants / rigs. Take a crow with 2x overdrives + 2x poly carbs + gistii mwd (yes expensive) does 8800m/s without gang bonuses OR implants. Take a sabre 2x overdrive + 1x 1mn mwd t2 does 4500m/s without gang bonuses OR implants. A vaga with 3x overdrive + 2x poly carbs + 1x 10mn t2 mwd does 5000m/s. Gang bonuses and implants arent even taken into account in any of these setups. Should I really continue? Nerfing webs really wont help this situation, if anything I feel webs need a buff (in the form of falloff), with falloff (the way I described, e.g. less effective in falloff range) you basicly say speed tanks are in danger too while not nerfing them into oblivion. Anyways, I want them to fix lag not change mods. --- Dev's give us a lag-update!
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.09.17 20:18:00 - [15] I'm sure they have a ton of people looking at lag The only problem with falloff as you describe it is that it becomes a unique module in eve--its effects become variable depending on your exact distance from the target. Nothing else works like that--it either hits, misses, affects the target in some discrete manner or doesn't affect it at all. In fact it might add to the lag, since constant calculations would be required to determine what the effect is at any given moment. It would be kind of cool to see a ship slowly claw its way out of a web range, but its one more bit of info to relay to both clients. Never mind if the effects become stacking nerfed (which I doubt they'd be). I think this suggestion is pretty workable, although I'd personally be harsher in the webbing % and drop the thread resolution some--battleship webs as described could web a MWD mega or a carrier a little bit (25-40% isn't much) but be useless for anything else. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2007.09.17 20:31:00 - [16] Originally by: Barthezz Originally by: Goumindong <Stuff about webs> <More Stuff about webs> I think Guomindong wants to nerf both webs and speed tanks at the same time. Nerf just webs, and speedtanks become even more insane. Nerf just speed, and the speedtank becomes pointless. Nerf both, and do it right and you can retain viable speedtanks without it being a binary outcome. IF speedtanking and webbed THEN dead, ELSE very very hard to kill is the current state of affairs. I'd prefer IF Speedtanking and webbed MAYBE dead, ELSE hard to kill. -------------------------------------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
B Glorious	Posted - 2007.09.17 20:57:00 - [17] While I felt uneasy with the idea at first, I actually think this could work very well. Thumbs up.
Harris Warspite Developments	Posted - 2007.09.17 22:00:00 - [18] I like the idea in that it presents more variability in fitting. You've thought through a lot of the angles and presented it will and on first reading it seems a good idea. The idea that there is no fitting option to a web (it's either fitted and works to a given % or it isn't fitted at all) does seem a little lame given the complexity of the game. Your idea gives a reason to 'think' much in the same way that you can have less scramble strength for greater range with disruptors/scramblers at the moment. I did always think however that webbers shouldn't be so effective against larger ships. Could your idea be adapted so that for instance, a frigate webber wouldn't be so effective against a battleship (due to mass etc, but using your thread sizes somehow) where as a battleship sized webber would web a frig for a maximum value. Using your numbers (with battleship webbers being less effective from the off, but having greater range) this may not overpower their use against frigates. Any ideas on that? (if your idea covered it already with 'thread' sizes then sorry, I'm tired at the moment).
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 22:50:00 - [19] Originally by: Harris I like the idea in that it presents more variability in fitting. You've thought through a lot of the angles and presented it will and on first reading it seems a good idea. The idea that there is no fitting option to a web (it's either fitted and works to a given % or it isn't fitted at all) does seem a little lame given the complexity of the game. Your idea gives a reason to 'think' much in the same way that you can have less scramble strength for greater range with disruptors/scramblers at the moment. I did always think however that webbers shouldn't be so effective against larger ships. Could your idea be adapted so that for instance, a frigate webber wouldn't be so effective against a battleship (due to mass etc, but using your thread sizes somehow) where as a battleship sized webber would web a frig for a maximum value. Using your numbers (with battleship webbers being less effective from the off, but having greater range) this may not overpower their use against frigates. Any ideas on that? (if your idea covered it already with 'thread' sizes then sorry, I'm tired at the moment). I thought about that, but not I only could i not find a game play justification to let larger ships coast through webs, but i could not find a mechanic that is already present in the game that would work to reduce the effect of frigate webs on battleships but not frigate webs on frigates. The only thing i could think of would be an intertia penalty with a big mass reduction. The mass reduction would mean that even with the interia penalty frigates would slow down very fast, but not for Battleships. But as it stands right now battleships are near impossible to stop with webs as it is, they will coast for kilometers even when not going all that fast[web any NPCing BC that is mwding towards you, or see the old threads about nano-battleships to see] and does nothing to do with a ship "overpowering" the web. The other option would be to make a web a thrust reduction on the propulsion mod, but that also screws afterburners and means that you wont be able to slow someone past their base speed. Battleships already have plenty of weapons against frigates[missiles, downsized weapons, drones], making frigates less effective against battleships doesnt really accomplish much.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.17 23:56:00 - [20] To the OP: no way in hell. Tempest with dual BS sized webs, 28km scram, my Blasterthron isn't getting anywhere near it. Same with armor tanked Rokhs with extra mids, Dominix with extra mids, Ravens, Scorpions... Two T2 40% webs and my ship is stuck to a crawl. No thanks. Bellum Eternus [Vid]Blood Corsairs - Day One

Trishan Green Men Incorporated	Posted - 2007.09.18 00:16:00 - [21] Ok, first it looked bad, then I finished reading it and it looked quite decent. Then I thought about it and what the OP really means is: Don't wanna get into web range? Now web range is coming to you. Nerf speedtanks! Nerf minnies! Boost amarr!
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.18 00:24:00 - [22] He just wants to get rid of speed tanks, which is fine. Nerf speed mods and make them stack big time. Anything that will stop a speedtanked ship will completely ruin a 'normal' ship. Bellum Eternus [Vid]Blood Corsairs - Day One
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.09.18 01:05:00 - [23] This is actually a refreshingly good idea ;)
Synseer Minmatar Generals Of Destruction Syndicate	Posted - 2007.09.18 03:16:00 - [24] As a Huginn pilot, I approve of this thread. plus, I may finally start using that tp bonus on my ship.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.18 03:29:00 - [25] Edited by: Goumindong on 18/09/2007 03:31:35 Originally by: Bellum Eternus To the OP: no way in hell. Tempest with dual BS sized webs, 28km scram, my Blasterthron isn't getting anywhere near it. Same with armor tanked Rokhs with extra mids, Dominix with extra mids, Ravens, Scorpions... Two T2 40% webs and my ship is stuck to a crawl. No thanks. Originally by: Trishan Ok, first it looked bad, then I finished reading it and it looked quite decent. Then I thought about it and what the OP really means is: Don't wanna get into web range? Now web range is coming to you. Nerf speedtanks! Nerf minnies! Boost amarr! Despite the beutiful Irony of these posts togother, ill ask two questions. Why are minmitar with typically more meds for webs not at an advantage? Why dont you web the tempest back? and/or do it with a ship fitted with an afterburner. Two BS sized webs would slow an MWDing BS down to 40% of its previous speed, an afterburning battleship down to 66% of its normal velocity. Why does it take a faction scrambler to make this work? Why doesnt the tempest dual web you now at 10km, and then peg themselves there at that range while you are moving 1.2% of your max velocity? Why dont you use 20km webs?
Crausaum Ixion Defence Systems The Cyrene Initiative	Posted - 2007.09.18 06:11:00 - [26] This is a good thread with good ideas. It solves some of the minor problems that EVE is currently experiencing and enhances the feel of combat in a lot of ways. The Developers would do well to read this thread. --------------------------- absit iniuria verbis
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.18 06:47:00 - [27] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 18/09/2007 03:31:35 Originally by: Bellum Eternus To the OP: no way in hell. Tempest with dual BS sized webs, 28km scram, my Blasterthron isn't getting anywhere near it. Same with armor tanked Rokhs with extra mids, Dominix with extra mids, Ravens, Scorpions... Two T2 40% webs and my ship is stuck to a crawl. No thanks. Originally by: Trishan Ok, first it looked bad, then I finished reading it and it looked quite decent. Then I thought about it and what the OP really means is: Don't wanna get into web range? Now web range is coming to you. Nerf speedtanks! Nerf minnies! Boost amarr! Despite the beutiful Irony of these posts togother, ill ask two questions. Why are minmitar with typically more meds for webs not at an advantage? Why dont you web the tempest back? and/or do it with a ship fitted with an afterburner. Two BS sized webs would slow an MWDing BS down to 40% of its previous speed, an afterburning battleship down to 66% of its normal velocity. Why does it take a faction scrambler to make this work? Why doesnt the tempest dual web you now at 10km, and then peg themselves there at that range while you are moving 1.2% of your max velocity? Why dont you use 20km webs? Because a faction scram allows the Temp to fight waaay out of range of Neutron IIs. A Temp dual webbing, even with faction 15km webs, won't hold a Neutron II fit blaster ship far enough away that it won't be able to damage it, while with your proposed webs, you will be able to reduce a ships speed from 30km out while flying a BS, thereby putting a blaster BS out of effective range. Dual web Temp webs me at 8-9km, I'm still killing it. Even at 14-15km, I can still hit with Null. Temp dual webbing me at 20-24km, with a 28km scram for buffer, using Barrage with falloff rigs, I'm not touching it. It's even worse with Other ships. Scorp, triple web, armor tank and torps. Not much DPS, but so what? I'll never hit you at 20-24km. Same with the Raven. Same with the Rokh- 30km with Null, armor tanked, dual webs, 28km scram. MWD Drake, armor tanked with dual webs, holds a Myrm/Brutix down, way out of range, flings missiles at it from range and picks of Myrm drones as they traverse the 20km to attack. No thanks. Huginns/Rapiers with 20km base range webs? LOL? x300% bonus at Recon 5? 60km web range? Furthermore, you're designing everything around solo 1v1 combat. What happens when you get 4-5 ships on one target and web it down to nothing from 60km away and fling cruise missiles at it while it's stuck in a dictor bubble? The whole concept is absurd. The concept doesn't scale, it's grossly imbalanced towards short ranged combat, and all it will do is increase the use of nano/damp gangs that are already so prevelant in 0.0, only there will be less nanoing around to keep range, and just a bunch of webbing. Next. Bellum Eternus [Vid]Blood Corsairs - Day One
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.09.18 07:04:00 - [28] I like it, implement this! - Recruitment open again-
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.18 07:19:00 - [29] Originally by: Bellum Eternus ... This is a mess of contradictions. It assumes you cant web them yourself[hyperion has 5 med slots too]. It assumes that no one has the range to hit them. It assumes you are flying alone, yet states that it doesnt scale into larger gang combat. i am not worried about a huginn webbing someone from 60km away, 2 webs is 80%. They can do this right now with faction equipment except their webs are 90% apiece instead of 80% in aggregate, and they dont have any issues with webbing smaller ships. Quote: Furthermore, you're designing everything around solo 1v1 combat. What happens when you get 4-5 ships on one target and web it down to nothing from 60km away and fling cruise missiles at it while it's stuck in a dictor bubble? Webs have stacking penalties, you dont see this right now because the stacking penalty on the second 90% web means you are at 1.1% of your max velocity instead of 1% of your max velocity. 4-5 ships would have roughly the same effect as 1-2 ships webbing you now. So 4-5 ships web you from 60km instead of 1 ship webbing you from 10 while another damps your lock range to 5km.
RaTTuS BIG Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.09.18 07:37:00 - [30] Also - when you add drugs to the equation - it's even worse, drugs are effectively unstacked so pop a pill and go mental speeds [how's that supposed to work ?? drugs make you go quicker ??? ] -- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve & RaTTuS Home



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: 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.