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 - 2007.11.10 13:28:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Creh Ester Edited by: Creh Ester on 10/11/2007 12:52:56 Webifiers should be removed entirely from the game.
No, that would completly ruin all balance in the game. Large ships would be worthless.
Quote:
What has "naturally" and nature to do with anything? Well, a lot. Going too much against "nature" in all these ships and modules is what is de facto the basic cause of all the magic, semi-exploit opportunities that always eventually pops up in EVE with every change and then "need" to be nerfed because most players by virtue of being a creature living in a natural world with boundaries for everything stemming from natural laws, "magic" advantages rightly seem "unbalanced" and unfair.
This makes little sense. Its also wrong.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 13:35:00 -
[272]
Somebody must have said it but... What about scrpts on web ?
+75% range / -75% effectivness -75% range / +75% effectivness 2isk
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 13:36:00 -
[273]
Edited by: Goumindong on 10/11/2007 13:37:37
Originally by: Adam Weishaupt
1. Fit tempest with artillery, mwd, and quake L 2. Fit tempest with multiple 20km/40km webs + officer scram. 3. ???? 4. profit?
1. Fit tempest with artillery, mwd, and quake L 2. Fit tempest with multiple 20km/40km webs + officer scram. 3. Get killed buy a cruiser or frigate with an afterburner 4. Cry for your officer scrambler
Quote:
But, why do I fly a Minmatar recon anymore? Or a Paladin? Or a Bhaalgorn? Those were nice ships. Those ships have families. You heartless jerk.
Because web strength is dependant on two things. Thread resolution and range. Longer range webs will not web small ships well, hence the need for web range bonuses to increase the range of the smaller webs with low thread resolutions to web them.
Quote: Webbing outside that range to break speed tanks, well, not bad, but there are other ways to break speed tanks - kill their cap, or use specialized webber ships, webber drones, etc.
The idea is to stop a speed ship from being "either you have a minnie recon or you cant compete" To bring a speed tank back to reducing damage instead of reducing all damage.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 13:37:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Somebody must have said it but... What about scrpts on web ?
+75% range / -75% effectivness -75% range / +75% effectivness
No one had said it[idea was posed before scripts were dreamed up], but i want to keep long range webs away from frigates, which means it wouldnt work. Since now we would have a mechanic that lets them get closer
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 13:43:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Given the upcoming changes in Rev 2.3, what are the thoughts on applying the new scripting mechanics to modify the existing stasis webbers to something similar to the OP suggestion? Setting the current stasis webifier module to default at 20km/50% web strength (60% strength for T2) and then introducing a half range/double strength script and a double range/half strength script to feed in might be a more straightforward approach than introducing a whole range of new T1 and named modules and blueprints. Additionally it would avoid the economic consequences of there being a glut of unwanted 10km webs on the market and a scarcity of the 20km and 40km modules when they were initially introduced and before producers were able to fire up their production lines, and would be less likely to incur the wrath of people who spent many milions of ISK on faction and officer webs for the range advantage they provide - these webs would have their default range and strength modified in line with the modifiers to the standard webs to retain a clear advantage.
The one potential issue I see with this approach is that perhaps allowing ships to freely pick and choose their scripts to suit the battlefield situation, as opposed to forcing that decision to be made in advance at the fitting screen could become a little overpowering. Sub-10km tacklers would still be vulnerable to a battleship with a web (and more battleships might begin fitting webs because of the versatility provided), and small ships could swap their script out and web at 40km which the OP seems opposed to. However in the former case the frigate-sized tackler is still less vulnerable than under the current system (webbed down to, at most, 20% of its maximum speed and less if not using a MWD, as opposed to 10% for T2 webbers under the current system)The latter could be solved by modifying cap use requirements on the scripts and modules so a frig trying to use a web with anything other than the short range script, or a cruiser activating a web with the long range script loaded would find the capacitor requirement crippling.
Because then the ships with longer range webs arent vulnerable to frigates as they ought to be.
|
Naviset
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 13:52:00 -
[276]
This idea:
a) Nerfs the blasterthron to hell. It has nothing to do with not being able to web enough, it has to do with BEING webbed at 40kms away meaning you'll just fruitlessly chase your target forever while never outrunning them.
b) a 40km web would be standard on most short range ships to dictate range so shortrange fighting in anything but a torp raven and a geddon would pretty much be suicide. (As if short range fighting, which is the most exciting to me, needs to be less viable. This just encourages blobs and sniping)
c) If a 40km web becomes standard, battleships have next to no defense against anything that moves faster than warrior IIs (And even then intys kick the crap out of light drones usually)
d) Battlecruisers take a huge nerf, by being easily webbed by BS sized webs without having the grid to fit one themselves.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 14:17:00 -
[277]
I have addressed all these issues. Megathrons should not be solo-pwn mobiles. While a 40km web on a Geddon and a Mega means it takes the mega a bit longer to close, it also means that when the Mega is close to the Geddon the Geddon will actually have trouble hitting the megathron!
Each ship gains in some ways and loses in others.
|
Flawliss
Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 20:44:00 -
[278]
/Signed again
Also the OP has explained the Blaster mega vs other BS in past posts, and explained the advantage of specific webs and using afterburners vs MWDs. i still think its the most solid idea for Webs i've ever heard. And the most workable, interesting, and tactically engaging fix for speed, close range and long range fits.
|
Terapie
Mucho Dolor The Insomniacs
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:21:00 -
[279]
I like the ideea...needs to be tested and probably refined but it`s a good one ;) And it the first one that it`s not "nerf that...i can`t kill it with my drake"
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:59:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Goumindong I have addressed all these issues. Megathrons should not be solo-pwn mobiles. While a 40km web on a Geddon and a Mega means it takes the mega a bit longer to close, it also means that when the Mega is close to the Geddon the Geddon will actually have trouble hitting the megathron!
Each ship gains in some ways and loses in others.
No. The Blasterthron loses on every front. It takes damage while closing range, it continues to take damage once it gets within range of using it's own weapons, and the Geddon will not miss at short range, as both ships have to be completely still in order for blasters to hit anything.
You don't fly a blasterthron. That's fine. I don't expect you to actually understand how they work, why they work, and why a long ranged web, even at half strength, would ruin blasterthrons completely.
Blasters don't work at 20km, or 15km, or 10km. They work at 4km or less. Null is not an option, as it erases 50%+ of your DPS while ruining your tracking to boot.
This change would be great for missile ships. You can web at 20km, use AB/MWD to keep at range, while lobbing capless missiles in with zero tracking penalty. No thanks.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
|
Sofring Eternus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 17:28:00 -
[281]
The scripts might work for webbers if they increased cap use at the same time as range.
+100% range +200% activation -50% threading = 20km 3 cap/s and whatever thread size. --- ΞνΞ ΘΠLІΠΞ Amarr dont need Grr... and RAWR is definately too much, but some Oomph would be nice. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 18:11:00 -
[282]
Edited by: Goumindong on 13/11/2007 18:13:54
Originally by: Bellum Eternus , as both ships have to be completely still in order for blasters to hit anything.
This is false, also the lasers have it invariably worse.
Quote: Blasters don't work at 20km, or 15km, or 10km. They work at 4km or less. Null is not an option, as it erases 50%+ of your DPS while ruining your tracking to boot.
This is also false. Null does 28.5% less dps than Void, not 50%/ This equates to about 15-20% of your dps. That will run all the way out to 11km before falloff hits. 11km being twice as far as 5km could take a full half tracking penalty and still hit the same, but it doesnt. Neutron blasters will null hit half falloff at 27km. Which is fairly decent, and only at that point will your DPS be so reduced as you claim.
|
John Blackthorn
Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 21:11:00 -
[283]
An interesting observation a few weeks ago while flying my Huggin.
I double webed a typhoon off the gate, I apprch, and mwd.
He mwd's away from the gate and was still able to out run me...
Go figure, something is borked!
And it's happend several other times as well...
|
Kruel
Blunt Force Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 16:17:00 -
[284]
Hmm, nice ideas Goumindong. I was hoping for a similar "fix" to be used on Nos instead of what CCP gave us. Your idea would also indirectly boost target painters, which is good since they mostly suck atm. Caldari would be happy too I imagine.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 16:31:00 -
[285]
Excellent thread with some solid ideas and a lot of good discussion.
These fixes may not be the precise ones needed, but they are worthwhile considerations to addressing real problems.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 19:03:00 -
[286]
What ever happed to propulsion strength and racial engines? Wouldn't that add some depth to this whole webbing and scramming business? -AS
The Real Space Initiative (Forum Link) |
General Coochie
New Justice Minuit.
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:46:00 -
[287]
Very intresting. I think you have some good points there. I hope CCP takes a look at this and consider it. It would make eve more interesting and bring more viability I think to ships that needs to not get into close combat. Signature removed - please reduce your signature graphic height to less than 120 pixels - Jacques([email protected]) |
Varrakk
Chosen Path
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:35:00 -
[288]
How about anti-capital webs and scramblers?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:44:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Varrakk How about anti-capital webs and scramblers?
You mean webs and scramblers? Yea, those already exist.
|
Varrakk
Chosen Path
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:57:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Varrakk How about anti-capital webs and scramblers?
You mean webs and scramblers? Yea, those already exist.
No. Need special webs and scrams to tackle a capital ship. Not very plausible that a frig can web a carriers propulsion system, thats much bigger then the frigate itself. Not to mention their warp drives.
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:27:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Somebody must have said it but... What about scrpts on web ?
+75% range / -75% effectivness -75% range / +75% effectivness
No one had said it[idea was posed before scripts were dreamed up], but i want to keep long range webs away from frigates, which means it wouldnt work. Since now we would have a mechanic that lets them get closer
that can be avoided. Just make the long range scrip use too much cap for frigates to use. For example Multiply the Period of activation by 5 and multiply cap usage by 10 also when using that script. That way only bigger ships will be able to use it.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:30:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Goumindong I have addressed all these issues. Megathrons should not be solo-pwn mobiles. While a 40km web on a Geddon and a Mega means it takes the mega a bit longer to close, it also means that when the Mega is close to the Geddon the Geddon will actually have trouble hitting the megathron!
Each ship gains in some ways and loses in others.
No. The Blasterthron loses on every front. It takes damage while closing range, it continues to take damage once it gets within range of using it's own weapons, and the Geddon will not miss at short range, as both ships have to be completely still in order for blasters to hit anything.
You don't fly a blasterthron. That's fine. I don't expect you to actually understand how they work, why they work, and why a long ranged web, even at half strength, would ruin blasterthrons completely.
Blasters don't work at 20km, or 15km, or 10km. They work at 4km or less. Null is not an option, as it erases 50%+ of your DPS while ruining your tracking to boot.
This change would be great for missile ships. You can web at 20km, use AB/MWD to keep at range, while lobbing capless missiles in with zero tracking penalty. No thanks.
how about dropping your Void and getting faction ammo for same damage and being able to hit even a cruiser orbiting you? LEarn to use WELL your ship before telling others they don know how to use it.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Redd Lenses
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 17:54:00 -
[293]
There should also be a strength attribute. This would make it so smaller webs have less of an effect on larger ships. Then, you really have to choose what web to fit. Do you fit to slow down battleships or frigates?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:16:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Somebody must have said it but... What about scrpts on web ?
+75% range / -75% effectivness -75% range / +75% effectivness
No one had said it[idea was posed before scripts were dreamed up], but i want to keep long range webs away from frigates, which means it wouldnt work. Since now we would have a mechanic that lets them get closer
that can be avoided. Just make the long range scrip use too much cap for frigates to use. For example Multiply the Period of activation by 5 and multiply cap usage by 10 also when using that script. That way only bigger ships will be able to use it.
But it also means that there is no fitting question when dealing with webs, since every web is as good as any other you can fit against frigates and not have any vulnerability to long range ships.
Since one of the goals is to stop ships from being "solopwn" and having weaknesses against different ships and styles even in areas that might be their specialty[for instance, short range], having every large ship both be able to web agaisnt frigates and to web against battleships seems like a step in the wrong direction.
For instance, the Geddon/Mega combat. If the Geddon doesnt have as much as a disadvantage compared to the Megathron when the mega gets close due to being able to change to an 80% web and reducing transversal down to the point where the mega cant extract more DPS advantage from tracking, then the range advantage of the Geddon stops being a disadvantage at short range, and the tracking disadvantage stops being important at battleship levels[almost as it is now, since a webbed target goes nowhere, you pretty much always hit once a ship slows down] since with longer ranged webs ships will be entering the typical 10km web range at lower velocities and wont have the period of high tranversal associated with slowing down close to a target.
I like scripting, but i dont think its a good idea here, since scripting works with modules that have overlapping effect and these webs would, by intent, have non-overlapping effects
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:17:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Redd Lenses There should also be a strength attribute. This would make it so smaller webs have less of an effect on larger ships. Then, you really have to choose what web to fit. Do you fit to slow down battleships or frigates?
We have been over this, this would make frigates useless.
|
Hamcraft
Bombshell Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:23:00 -
[296]
agreed that the game does need webbers that have increased range with decreased strength, either thru the use of scripts or by introducing new modules. there just aren't enough huginns and rapiers, and people trained for them, to counter overpowered nano gangs.
|
Royaldo
Gallente DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 12:25:00 -
[297]
could i get a short version? will frig webs work on frigs only? or will frigs still be able to web larger ships, im esp thinking about bs.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 12:28:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Royaldo could i get a short version? will frig webs work on frigs only? or will frigs still be able to web larger ships, im esp thinking about bs.
Short version:
Webs work based on targets signature radius Shorter range webs have higher webbing value and are able to work better on ships with smaller signature radius Shorter range webs have no penalty to larger ships.
|
Royaldo
Gallente DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 12:35:00 -
[299]
Edited by: Royaldo on 21/11/2007 12:36:08
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Royaldo could i get a short version? will frig webs work on frigs only? or will frigs still be able to web larger ships, im esp thinking about bs.
Short version:
Webs work based on targets signature radius Shorter range webs have higher webbing value and are able to work better on ships with smaller signature radius Shorter range webs have no penalty to larger ships.
and why do you feel the need for this change? sry but this will make it easier for people to get a clear summary.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 13:14:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Royaldo Edited by: Royaldo on 21/11/2007 12:36:08
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Royaldo could i get a short version? will frig webs work on frigs only? or will frigs still be able to web larger ships, im esp thinking about bs.
Short version:
Webs work based on targets signature radius Shorter range webs have higher webbing value and are able to work better on ships with smaller signature radius Shorter range webs have no penalty to larger ships.
and why do you feel the need for this change? sry but this will make it easier for people to get a clear summary.
Because
1. Webs are an on/off switch for speed, they should not be 2. Because of this, true speed tanks are near impossible to create, they should not be. Currently speed tank means "staying out of range and running if the opponent can out dps you] 3. Because of this, larger ships are too strong against smaller ships when smaller ships are not set to stay outside of web range 4. Becasue of this, afterburners are a useless module, becasue you cannot dictate range.
The goal is to make fitting options for smaller ships more reasonable by forcing larger ships to make real choices dealing with engagement range and size. A battleship with a mwd 10km web will be very good against frigates, but will get outranged by cruisers fitting cruiser sized webs, alternatly if the BS fits a cruiser sized or larger, afterburning cruisers would be more able to get under its guns. The goal is to allow smaller ships to be usefull in combat by fitting for different tactical options without obsoleting larger ships.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |