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) |
Grace
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 12:13:00 -
[301]
This post definitely deserves some Dev attention. Webs have been out and largely unchaged since the very beginning of Eve, and many modules and features added and changed. Webs should get a revision
|
Ort Lofthus
Wildlands Heavy Technologies FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 20:53:00 -
[302]
Just had a thought while browsing a "TDs Suck!" whine thread: TDs have issues within web ranges because web kills transversal to such a large degree. Goum's changes also indirectly boost TDs, as they amplify the ability to use ABs to control transversal. Furthermore, they give a significant benefit to the user because he can then slow down so he can track just fine while his oppoent is further behind. Autos improve the range where they are effective and other weapons are not while a laser boat can neuter the tracking of an autoboat to force it to play its game.
|
Artemis Dragmire
Deadspace Armada Lost Children of Eve
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 21:19:00 -
[303]
OP's idea = win
Nerfs speed tanks, but also gives interceptors and assault frigates a boost.
Also makes an AB USEFUL.... and boosts target painting.
Maybe you'd see Minmatar recons actually fitting target painters AND webs.
Great idea.
|
Calvin Firenze
Thanos and Killjoy Productions Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 23:31:00 -
[304]
Edited by: Calvin Firenze on 30/11/2007 23:31:42 My Huginn will love you if the devs like this idea. (80km with recon ships V...what's not to love?)
I approve. ____
Originally by: Morrow Disca You sir/madam, need a big cup of STFU.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 16:38:00 -
[305]
Very good ideas in this thread. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 18:42:00 -
[306]
While I agree that webbing requires tweaking I don't feel the OP's method is the best way to do so.
Thread resolution is an excellent idea though and should be added to the current webbing modules. Add in a script to provide additional range with a very high thread-res (sufficient to ensure it's not an IWIN module vs blaster BS and normal speedtanks).
Finally add a sig-res penalty to non-stacking-penalized speed rigs and modules meaning the more they fit the more effect the scripted webbing has.
Result: speedtanking still works, close range frigates can't be webbed to a halt (thread-res ftw), and while nano-fits still have advantages you cannot buy nigh-invulnerability.
I don't feel we need 3 new modules to achieve what a couple of tweaks can and I don't feel tackling any opponent should ever be impossible for an interceptor to tackle (excluding MS and titans of course). If a new tackling module needs to be released at all it should be a high-slot web and/or scram, balanced by fitting reqs or penalties, to finally allow shield tankers to solo and save Caldari gangs from running out of points during combat.
|
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 04:57:00 -
[307]
Is this just another way for Goons to make their T1 frig blob more effective??
|
Suitonia
Gallente interimo The Crimson Federation
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 23:59:00 -
[308]
great ideas.
---
I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots... |
Finlander09
flaming logistics
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 01:57:00 -
[309]
Theres nothing wrong with WEBS. Dont fix something that aint broken.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 15:44:00 -
[310]
Originally by: Finlander09 Theres nothing wrong with WEBS. Dont fix something that aint broken.
I'd be interested to know why you don't consider them broken.
I can't think of a module that is so universally useful that can in a number circumstances remove 100% of your damage or almost completely strip the advantage of speed or mobility while being so useless at actually stopping people from using excessive amounts of what it is supposed to counter.
Using minmatar ships or speed/mass/agil mods provides almost no bonus unless you do it to extreme levels. The reason for this is the webber, which strikes me as both overpowered and underpowered at the same time.
|
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 21:00:00 -
[311]
uhh.. i fall over this tread a lot of times, could be nice with a dev view on it soon:P
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 22:00:00 -
[312]
Its been read, no reason to create unnecessary hoopla by posting in a thread. The devs cant comment on everything they read, and for various reasons. So its best to just have a good discussion than wonder why a dev hasnt poped in. Especially at this time of year.
|
Yan Zerbaetun
|
Posted - 2007.12.21 10:37:00 -
[313]
I think statis webs should not tied to a fixed component, but rather something deployable and temporary. For example, you can have a stasis web deployment module with stasis web charges. When deployed, the web has specified range of XXXXkm with some falloff and a maximum flight time of XXX seconds. This changes up the battle dynamics a bit. 1) For those who rely on statis webs to kill prey, there will always be a recurring cost to maintain supply as well as the need to reload their modules. The more you web, the more you must manage and the more you pay. 2) The effects of a stasis web would be limited (by radius) to a definite location in space, giving both parties some option as to whether they want to remain in the area of effect or wish to escape. 3) Maximum flight time as well as a reload time would create various windows of opportunity or weakness on the battelfield as no one person can maintain the advantage of the web at all times. Evenutally, you either run out of flight time or charges.
Balancing out the various attriutes and effects of statis web mods would be required, but I think this method creates much more variety on the battlefield than the linear mathematics that makes stasis web an on/off. No one player should hold complete advantage all the time. |
Dristra
Amarr Shadows of the Dead The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:37:00 -
[314]
/Signed
I really like and support these ideas, i even linked web-whining threads from ships and modules to it.
Support the introduction of well thought out Amarr solutions!
I believe rats should avoid you if you have high standing with them. |
Yargo Metash
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 20:38:00 -
[315]
I like this idea. Keeps the tackler role while allowing speed to still be viable.
I eagerly hope this makes it to the testing stages or at least influences webs currently.
/signed
|
Minsuki
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:19:00 -
[316]
This makes too much sense not to be at least tested.
|
Brother Welcome
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 10:47:00 -
[317]
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.
I don't think the suggestion is to boost speed tanking, but rather to rebalance webs so extreme speed stacking becomes necessary thus allowing a nerf to speed tanks. How I read it is these go hand in hand. I like the suggestions. The numbers might need fiddling, but the system is ingenious and doesn't introduce any new magic-mechanics.
|
Brother Welcome
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 10:48:00 -
[318]
Edited by: Brother Welcome on 10/02/2008 10:48:18 oops double post
|
Kaian Voskhod
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 14:48:00 -
[319]
just read the op
greatest idea EVER !
Battle Ships unable to kill frigates ? GREAT ! Try to shoot a fly with a Gun ...
|
Dristra
Amarr Shadows of the Dead The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 09:14:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Kaian Voskhod just read the op
greatest idea EVER !
Battle Ships unable to kill frigates ? GREAT ! Try to shoot a fly with a Gun ...
This.
This idea is soo good and thought out that its a sin not to at least try it out...
The op have already shoot down any argument to why it whould not work out.
Support the introduction of well thought out Amarr solutions!
I believe rats should avoid you if you have high standing with them. |
|
Blutreiter
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 10:17:00 -
[321]
/Signed
Nicely thought out, I can see this actually working.
Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sh*t up
Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 12:20:00 -
[322]
This is a great idea and I hope it does get implemented some day. It would add ALOT of dimension into battles.
/signed -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 12:57:00 -
[323]
Horrible ideas.
Reasons: (a) Makes it quite impossible to disengage/run away from a BS in a, for instance, BC (you either have a MWD and get webbed fully or have a AB and are way slower), and your web reaches to 20km range, his reaches to 40km, distruptor reaches to 24km, and makes it very hard for a non-nano cruiser to disengage given the relative speed differences between a BS and a cruiser. (b) Makes blobbing more popular - since once you have a web on someone, or multiple webs, there's much less chances of the person getting away, and then you can bring reinforcements at will without danger of said people disengaging. This is one of the inevitable consequences of long-range webbing in general. (c) Ultimately makes battleships with extra midslots even better at being be-all end-all vessels for small gang combat.
Positive sides are only really making frigates/interceptors more desirable for speed-tanking turrets with a AB.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 13:14:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Horrible ideas.
Reasons: (a) Makes it quite impossible to disengage/run away from a BS in a, for instance, BC (you either have a MWD and get webbed fully or have a AB and are way slower), and your web reaches to 20km range, his reaches to 40km, distruptor reaches to 24km, and makes it very hard for a non-nano cruiser to disengage given the relative speed differences between a BS and a cruiser. (b) Makes blobbing more popular - since once you have a web on someone, or multiple webs, there's much less chances of the person getting away, and then you can bring reinforcements at will without danger of said people disengaging. This is one of the inevitable consequences of long-range webbing in general. (c) Ultimately makes battleships with extra midslots even better at being be-all end-all vessels for small gang combat.
Positive sides are only really making frigates/interceptors more desirable for speed-tanking turrets with a AB.
a) Making it hard to disengage is bad? why? This is good. BTW The BS cant just disengage that easy either. If they are both in 20km range the BC will web the BS harder wich means BC will have higher speed.
b) You mean nano gangs have to switch to ships that cost more and risk more instead of being able run 99.99% of times when things go bad? This is good.
c) Battleships already are because they have huge tanks and heavy neuts. Web or not battleships *****everything within 24km. This change atleast gives frigs and cruisers some more room play within 10km also. Right now its like an on/off die switch to get within 10km of something thats bigger then you. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 13:26:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
a) Making it hard to disengage is bad? why? This is good. BTW The BS cant just disengage that easy either. If they are both in 20km range the BC will web the BS harder wich means BC will have higher speed.
Yeah, neither can disengage. Is it good? Not really, because eventually the BC will get stopped by heavy neuts.
Bigger is better already, and will be even more so when you cannot disengage unless nano-ed.
Of course, I guess that PvP should teleport you to a arena where only one fighter is allowed to leave alive, because running away is bad.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
b) You mean nano gangs have to switch to ships that cost more and risk more instead of being able run 99.99% of times when things go bad? This is good.
You mean the BS blobbers finally get to kill something every single time someone engages one of them?
I see more blobs then nano gangs anyway. So EvE should be a game of 'stay docked until you can bring more BS' and hit & run should be out of the window, because anyone who can bring ten ratting-fitted BS or hotdrop a carrier is guaranteed kills? Well, that's crazy.
I'm quite sick of seeing people who drop bait in a belt, then after someone carefully goes in to tackle it at a 16-17km distance in a cruiser/BC, 5 BS and no tacklers appear, because, OMG, why should we fly anything but a BS?
And now they should automagically get kills? Awesome plan.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
c) Battleships already are because they have huge tanks and heavy neuts. Web or not battleships *****everything within 24km. This change atleast gives frigs and cruisers some more room play within 10km also. Right now you can try to run away from a properly-fit BS if you're lucky.
Fixed it for you.
However, of course, why should we make anything capable of even running away from a BS? Ships should just explode, the big bad battleship is here.
Also, heavy neuts still mean that a frigate/cruiser/BC sized ship is dead, because when you cannot web or speedboost and the BS can, do you know the angular velocity in relation to the BS? 0 rad/sec if he has any clue.
On the other hand, a frig (cap injected or lucky), cruiser (cap injected or lucky) & BC can try to run away from a solo BS even if he has a heavy neut fitted.
However, instakill of anything smaller is of course a better thing for EvE.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 14:08:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
You mean the BS blobbers finally get to kill something every single time someone engages one of them?
1. Learn to use a scout 2. Nano gangs blob exactly the same way, BUT nano gangs can run much easier when they get outnumbered. Both are blobs.
I dont see a problem in making it a bit riskier for nano.
-------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Conrad Rock
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 17:40:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Horrible ideas.
Reasons: (a) Makes it quite impossible to disengage/run away from a BS in a, for instance, BC (you either have a MWD and get webbed fully or have a AB and are way slower), and your web reaches to 20km range, his reaches to 40km, distruptor reaches to 24km, and makes it very hard for a non-nano cruiser to disengage given the relative speed differences between a BS and a cruiser. (b) Makes blobbing more popular - since once you have a web on someone, or multiple webs, there's much less chances of the person getting away, and then you can bring reinforcements at will without danger of said people disengaging. This is one of the inevitable consequences of long-range webbing in general. (c) Ultimately makes battleships with extra midslots even better at being be-all end-all vessels for small gang combat.
Positive sides are only really making frigates/interceptors more desirable for speed-tanking turrets with a AB.
wow, replying to poster without a clue about Eve PVP
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 18:46:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Horrible ideas.
Reasons: (a) Makes it quite impossible to disengage/run away from a BS in a, for instance, BC (you either have a MWD and get webbed fully or have a AB and are way slower), and your web reaches to 20km range, his reaches to 40km, distruptor reaches to 24km, and makes it very hard for a non-nano cruiser to disengage given the relative speed differences between a BS and a cruiser. (b) Makes blobbing more popular - since once you have a web on someone, or multiple webs, there's much less chances of the person getting away, and then you can bring reinforcements at will without danger of said people disengaging. This is one of the inevitable consequences of long-range webbing in general. (c) Ultimately makes battleships with extra midslots even better at being be-all end-all vessels for small gang combat.
Positive sides are only really making frigates/interceptors more desirable for speed-tanking turrets with a AB.
If the battleship has a 40km web at 40% with a thread resolution of 800and the bc a 60% web at 20km, maybe the BC should be content with not being slowed down much and so able to get in really close to the battleship to get under its guns? Or maybe it should overload its web until its over 24km and hope the BS isn't overloading his scrambler?
If you think that needing less forces to force an engagement promotes blobbing, i don't know what to say. One of the main problems in combat today is that you cannot force an engagement against nano ships without either
A: Minmitar Nano-webbing cruisers B: Skirmish Warfare Mindlink Command pilot C: A whole bunch of pilots.
This is because the nano-ships are so fast they kill tacklers by reducing transversal and ganking them
So basically, the only way to kill nano-cruisers is to fly a nano-cruiser. Be a nano-specialized gang mod bonus producer, or blob them.
Also, since currently, the battleships with extra med slots are undervalued, wouldn't a boost to these ships[like the tempest], be a good thing?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 18:54:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Cpt Branko [
Bigger is better already, and will be even more so when you cannot disengage unless nano-ed.
No, it wont, because the meta fitting considerations change. A battleship that fits a 10km web will be stronger against frigates, but will be a sitting duck against a cruiser that wants to say outside of 10km that has a 20km web and an afterburner. That Cruiser will target the battleships drones, kill them and then pick the BS to death with out-transversing its guns. But that cruiser will be weak against an afterburning frigate or mwding cruiser with a 20km web, since they wont get hit much by the 20km and will be packing a 10km web as well. Now, that battleship as well will be vulnerable to 20km webbing and 40km webbing battleships. And those to afterburning cruisers and frigates[though for the 20km web, less so on the cruisers].
basically the meta fitting consideration is no longer "bigger is better", but "bigger is better against any one specific threat it looks after, smaller is better against more generalized threats, microwarpdrives are better against smaller, afterburners are better against similar or larger"
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.19 21:01:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Rubbish.
Any BS with a heavy neut will own everything from frigate to battleship, and cruisers wanting to stay outside 10km (and has a 20km web + AB) will be toast before it ever gets out of distruptor range at even partially webbed AB speeds.
No, it wont. A 60% web on a BS means its going 400m/s. All afterburning cruisers go faster than that. The cycle time on a heavy neut is long enough to run the AB and web on cruiser without fear of inturruption.
A 60% web on a cruiser still means its going fast enough to avoid large turret DPS. It will be slowed by 30%. Giving it roughly 2-300 m/s of transversal on the battleship if the BS is attempting to reduce transversal, which, with a sig rad of 120 instead of 400 is equivalent to a battleship orbiting at 1000m/s without an MWD.
Pretty much the only reason battleships destroy cruisers is due to 90% webs. That isn't to say if a battleship comes up against a cruiser it shouldn't win, it just shouldn't so easily as it does now.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |