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)
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.04.30 21:22:00 - [391] /signed I've disagreed in the past with Goum on the issue of Amarr balancing, but on this one I believe he is really onto something great. Combine this new take on webs with a stacking penalty nerf of speed (along with altering ODs so they reduce agility along with increasing speed) and I believe we have your entire nano issue resolved. And, as a bonus, we see the end to the all-encompassing ubiquity of MWDs, the return of ABs as valid fitting modules, and - best of all - the return of legitimate 'medium range combat'. Kudos to you, sir, for a well-thought-out solution. Here's hoping the devs are watching... -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
DogSlime Caldari Wilde Cards	Posted - 2008.05.01 01:24:00 - [392] Only just noticed this thread (a bit late ) Anyway, it seems like a cool idea. Just wanted to sign. Hopefully CCP will see virtue in this idea.
ceyriot Induseng Enterprises R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.05.01 03:53:00 - [393] yeh, I see this as a really good idea... Although, i don't think you mentioned webber drones? Faction Store
C0NRAD 21st Raiders Regiment TWISTED INFECTION	Posted - 2008.05.02 12:21:00 - [394] I totaly agree with this, post especially on the instances i see most web/speed abuse. Assaultships - currently an Af attacks anything bigger than it and it gets webbed up, and brought in to optimal of what ever weapons the ship has, which in 80% cases results in death. Under these rules A battleship with a large web isn;t goign to do squat. But a battleship witht he small web due to the signature effect would only say bring a 60% speed reduction on the assaultship leveling the fight but not screwing the assaultship sideways. Now these changes woudl work wonders if a few other issues are addressed. 1 - Nanoships are fine untill they get gang mods/inplants which do not stack added and they pass the 6kms mark. Past this there untouchable. 2 - WEB STACKING - i.e if 1 battleship web does 40% reduction, the next web applied to u should stack other wise dual web battleships will enjoy the same level of webbing they currenlty have at 40km. great idea tho
Natsume Chidori	Posted - 2008.05.07 20:17:00 - [395] Originally by: C0NRAD WEB STACKING - i.e if 1 battleship web does 40% reduction, the next web applied to u should stack other wise dual web battleships will enjoy the same level of webbing they currenlty have at 40km. Since the second web would be reducing the current speed instead of the base speed, if webs are stacking nerfed it would take three to accomplish the same power of webbing, not two. And honestly, I have no problem with that since the ship is giving up 3 mid-slots and using powergrid/CPU.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.08 03:10:00 - [396] Velocity is already a stacking penalized attribute. Such two 40% velocity penalties will create roughly a 60.88% reduction in velocity. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.05.08 06:58:00 - [397] Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 08/05/2008 07:02:29 I have read the first 2 pages and think this is a good idea but the extreme web ranges would introduce more problems than it would solve. it would make nano ships die out and make eve online to Battleships Online. e.g. a phoon with 4 mids and cap independent weapons could fit 2 of those bs webs and pop nano ships in seconds with cruise missiles and drones and minmatar recons would have insane web ranges. this would also mean that a cruiser fitted with faction web that has 5 km more range could overload it for a cycle or two and catch nano ships up to 30km by itself. it would make cruiser sized ships useless, because their strengh is agility and speed.
OrangeAfroMan Minmatar AnTi. Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.05.08 18:57:00 - [398] I like this idea a lot; adds a ton of diversity, just thinking about all the new options I'd have gives me a hard on :] ---------
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.08 23:41:00 - [399] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 08/05/2008 07:02:29 I have read the first 2 pages and think this is a good idea but the extreme web ranges would introduce more problems than it would solve. it would make nano ships die out and make eve online to Battleships Online. e.g. a phoon with 4 mids and cap independent weapons could fit 2 of those bs webs and pop nano ships in seconds with cruise missiles and drones and minmatar recons would have insane web ranges. this would also mean that a cruiser fitted with faction web that has 5 km more range could overload it for a cycle or two and catch nano ships up to 30km by itself. it would make cruiser sized ships useless, because their strengh is agility and speed. Nano ships would not be as bad off as you think, a BS web will slow a cruiser down less than 10% if its using an AB or no propulsion mod. A vagabond with 2 LSE's will be slowed down a whole 8.25%. The key is that leaving the engagement is not always as valuable, but avoiding dps is and you will be able to avoid DPS against all sizes of webs with these changes. Though the numbers might need to be tweaked a bit because it was put up before heat. But the speed reductions are not so devastating as you think. Vote Goumindong for CSM
PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik Gallente aurorae pacificas	Posted - 2008.05.09 00:15:00 - [400] Had a long think about this- definately an improvement on the current mechanics Goum. It would be a good boost to medium ranged engagements. Just look at ammo sales, its 60% shortest/highest dps- 30% ranged and probably around 10% of all the in between range/damage types. BOOST URANIUM HYBRID AMMO!!!! The actual stats would have to be worked upon on sisi, but overall I think the OP concept of different sized webs beats the falloff argument. 1. More choice based consequence in module selection 2. More variation to ranged warfare (both med and short range gets boosted here) 3. Speed tanking is reduced but not nerfed to oblivion 4. ABs get a much needed boost

Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.05.09 07:13:00 - [401] Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 09/05/2008 07:14:05 I understand your point but here are mine -AB are too slow to pass a camp. those change would then result in: -you will nerf the mwd on every cruiser sized ship, because they wont be able to effectivley disengage fast enough to get away and that is the most important point about cruisers (also of smaller ships). -you will buff camps, where you already got a heavy dictor as addition. -it will make every fight the same, warp in, engage and hope enemy is dead before you but only if you can pass a gate alive to reach your target system. maybe you can get higher transversal with ab, but when another hostile ship warps in there will be no chance of escape anymore. -an incredible nerf to cruiser sized stuff. as a cruiser sized ship, you will then either fit an AB and die to the next camp/gang or fit an mwd and die to the next dual webbing bs that will have its mwd on its own. -you will heavily force cruiser sized ships to fit BOTH, an AB and a mwd crippling them more. -and imho it is strange that a bs cant web a frig effectively but a frig can web a bs with much more mass. -welcome battleships online
arbiter reformed	Posted - 2008.05.09 19:30:00 - [402] heres a free bump cos its one of the best ideas ive seen in ages ive been thinking along these lines aswell at the moment speed tanking ships are very unbalenced as a soon to be vaga pilot i no ill be part of the problem but untill an idea like this comes in what else are ppl ment to do to combat speed tanks. i think this is a much better idea than simply nerfing speed tanks. cummon ccp weve been talking about how unhappy we are about this for ages get a move on and start gettin these ideas in the game asap (img)http://www.newedenfederation.com/g2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=222&g2_serialNumber=1&g2_GALLERYSID=3a6c5f3b24af15bc969d5a415cd78229(/img)
arbiter reformed	Posted - 2008.05.09 19:39:00 - [403] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 09/05/2008 07:24:42 I understand your point but here are mine -AB are too slow to pass a camp. those change would then result in: -you will nerf the mwd on every cruiser sized ship, because they wont be able to effectivley disengage fast enough to get away and that is the most important point about cruisers. look at your resolution of bs webs and the sig of mwding cruisers! -you will buff camps, where you already got a heavy dictor as addition. -it will make every fight the same, warp in, engage and hope enemy is dead before you but only if you can pass a gate alive to reach your target system. maybe you can get higher transversal with ab, but when another hostile ship warps in there will be no chance of escape anymore. -an incredible nerf to cruiser sized stuff. as a cruiser sized ship, you will then either fit an AB and die to the next camp/gang or fit an mwd and die to the next dual webbing bs that will have its mwd on its own. -you will heavily force cruiser sized ships to fit BOTH, an AB and a mwd crippling them more. -and imho it is strange that a bs cant web a frig effectively but a frig can web a bs with much more mass. -welcome battleships and frigates online cummon these cruiser sized ships are reaching rediculous speeds a vaga shouldnt be able to go 13kms and not have a weakness this web idea is a viable way of making speed tanks not be all end all of tanking and roaming gangs. i mean how many vaga kills have u had recently. i can see how hac pilots will be annoyed by this, but all ships should have a weakness. (img)http://www.newedenfederation.com/g2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=222&g2_serialNumber=1&g2_GALLERYSID=3a6c5f3b24af15bc969d5a415cd78229(/img)
Astria Tiphareth	Posted - 2008.06.19 13:28:00 - [404] (hope this doesn't count as a necro, it's not been that long) As someone who was busy trying to improve the balance between ABs and MWDs, giving them both a PvP role to try and approach this problem from another angle, and gave up due to intransigence and lack of workable ideas, I have to say to Goumindong, well done for coming up with this. Even if it doesn't take off, it gives me hope that some are trying to improve the game. I also agree with your axioms by the way and resulting conclusion. (also as a thoroughly off-topic spelling/grammar thing aimed solely at informing rather than criticising, it's 'without further ado' for reasons best known to someone else ) ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Hatch Bug-Blatter Beasts of Traal	Posted - 2008.06.19 13:33:00 - [405] how about increasing the range, but like fall off, the further you get from the ship, the less of an effect it has and beyond a certain point, it doesn't do anything. 10k = 95% speed drop 15k = 80% speed drop 20k = 65% speed drop 25k = 30% speed drop 30k = you've got to be kidding right? I think this moddel would put them more in line with t2 scramblers and they could complement them very easily in this instance.
Straight Chillen Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.06.19 16:42:00 - [406] this is an incredibly well thought out idea here. And it coudld be exactly whats need to restore balance in the game. As far as topic of making it falloff based, i would rather have the method posted here, because if its falloff based, the server has to constantly calculate the webs strength, where as with different siezed mods, all that has to be calculated is the stacking and the resulting speed.
Dristra Amarr Shadows of the Dead Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.24 22:21:00 - [407] Originally by: arbiter reformed Originally by: Cpt Cosmic Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 09/05/2008 07:24:42 I understand your point but here are mine -AB are too slow to pass a camp. those change would then result in: -you will nerf the mwd on every cruiser sized ship, because they wont be able to effectivley disengage fast enough to get away and that is the most important point about cruisers. look at your resolution of bs webs and the sig of mwding cruisers! -you will buff camps, where you already got a heavy dictor as addition. -it will make every fight the same, warp in, engage and hope enemy is dead before you but only if you can pass a gate alive to reach your target system. maybe you can get higher transversal with ab, but when another hostile ship warps in there will be no chance of escape anymore. -an incredible nerf to cruiser sized stuff. as a cruiser sized ship, you will then either fit an AB and die to the next camp/gang or fit an mwd and die to the next dual webbing bs that will have its mwd on its own. -you will heavily force cruiser sized ships to fit BOTH, an AB and a mwd crippling them more. -and imho it is strange that a bs cant web a frig effectively but a frig can web a bs with much more mass. -welcome battleships and frigates online cummon these cruiser sized ships are reaching rediculous speeds a vaga shouldnt be able to go 13kms and not have a weakness this web idea is a viable way of making speed tanks not be all end all of tanking and roaming gangs. i mean how many vaga kills have u had recently. i can see how hac pilots will be annoyed by this, but all ships should have a weakness. I agree, and how useful are Tech 1 cruisers anyways? the positives of this fix still outwheights the negatives all in all. Support the introduction of well thought out Amarr solutions! I believe rats should avoid you if you have high standing with them.
Natalia Kovac Minmatar Phoenix Tribe	Posted - 2008.07.28 12:52:00 - [408] I believe it's time to bump this thread in response to the horrendous proposed speed nerfs. Goum, what do you think of them if you are still around that is. Oh btw, I think your idea is good. The only thing is that ABs would probably need a boost so they do 200-250% instead of the pathetic 120% currently.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:51:00 - [409] I support OP 100% After I wrote all this for another thread I opened, I realized his solution is amazingly well thought out. Only thing I don't agree with are the ranges. They are longer than they need to be to serve their intended purposes. Webs should be counters to AB's and MWD's at ranges where at-tier long-range and short-range turrets cross over. Exception being frig mods need to be able to tackle BS's outside large smartbomb range. Perhaps there should be no frig web. Cruiser and frig PG sizes, but no frig aimed web. I also wouldn't mind increasing the thread resolutions and strengths proportionately by ~25% to give MWD's more relevance. Narrow slowdown range for BS webs. Great idea man I can see three pretty neatly defined relationships: 1) Long range guns suck PG and you usually can't fit MWD and active tank on them. 2) BS short range guns like web range, but not much closer. 3) Short range guns don't suck PG and you usually need that MWD to get into range. Could it be that: 1) MWD was intended as a tactical module for closing large distances necessary to engage short range guns. 2) Long range gun users would like a module for allowing their at-tier guns to hit an at-tier MWD user. 3) Fittings are appropriately sized so that short-range gun users and long-range gun users still lock horns in a meaningful way even when one of them is at their tactically disadvantageous range. If so, the different sized webs seem to be on the right track. I would suggest that the ideal solution accomplishes the following: 1) At tier ships will be able to hit at-tier ships, with varying effectiveness. 2) Tacklers will be able to tackle 3) MWD's, a tactical module for closing distance, won't be a speed-tanking module for an at-tier ship to be invulnerable at close ranges, when the MWD has already closed the range it was designed for. At-tier webs should become relevant at ranges where the at-tier progression from long-range to short-range guns begin to overlap, since this is the point where the short-range gun user doesn't need the MWD as badly and where the long-range guns will already be hitting poorly. "Tackler" here will refer to a small ship webbing a big ship. For this relationship to work, a smaller web should have greater impact on a larger ship than on an at-tier ship. MWD increases sig radius by ~500%, so sig radius is a very good way to tune the application towards affecting tactical mods more than damage reducing mods. AB's should be a little be effective when webbed at tier. MWD's should have about the same effectiveness as AB's at tier when webbed at tier. Sig radius goes up from frigates to cruisers to BS's at a ratio of about 1:3:9 Sig radius by 500% when MWD'ing. Someone tweak the math, but basically I'd say if you make webs twice as strong as you want and give them the "thread resolution" of double their intended target, they will work magically. A 280m web hits a MWD'ng Thorax twice as hard as a non-MWD Thorax, but he's going five times as fast, so he now goes 2.5 times as fast as without speed mod. A 280m web hits a AB'ng Thorax only at the same rate as a non-AB Thorax, and thus it's still going twice as fast as without speed mod. An 800m web hits a MWD'ng Mega twice as hard as a non-MWD Mega, but he's going five times as fast, so he now goes 2.5times as fast as without speed mod. An 800 web hits a AB'ng Mega only at the same rate as a non-AB Mega, and thus it's still going twice as fast as without speed mod. Somehow that looks beautiful to me, and doesn't even need to consider the mass ratio. MWD's get slowed down more, but are still more effective than AB's and have tactical advantages. AB's are speed without tactics and are more meaningful against webs. At-tier guns should be hitting at-tier ships in pretty much all circumstances if you have a web. Tacklers can tackle. Beautiful
Tovran Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:31:00 - [410] This is how webs should be changed. This mechanic would have many beneficial effects. Firt it would boost mid-range combat. Second it would improve ship fitting diversity and tactical thinking. As it stands it is one web, every ship pretty much fits it without a second thought and there is no thought necessary. With this you really have to think about your fit, what your web selection makes you strong against and what it makes you weak against, how you can use other mods/drones to compensate for these weaknesses. I think with the fix to stacking penalties, the cap/boost changes to mwds (not the reactivation delay although the scram thing is also sort of neat) and the nerf of polycarbons/snakes it would end up with about the perfect speed for game mechanics. Also the frigate speeds boosts are very nice. However, I would suggest bringing overdrives back to normal/close to normal as a ship fitting mwd and 3 speed mods was never really a problem. Also the changes to agility may have been really heavy handed for some ships. This would put high skilled inty pilots just at about a level where precision light missiles on a good skilled characater would hit for around half damage, and specialised turret fits for fast tracking can hit them, while allowing for avoidance of heavy missiles and cruiser turrets while under mwd, around 5.5-6km/s. Personally feel that is about perfect, and HACs will still be significantly slower with stacking changes (very reasonable speeds) that can still speed tank effectively (2.5-3km/s or about 4km-4.5km/s for a vaga). I seriously feel CCP should give this idea some thought. I also may have to repost my thoughts later if this thread gets buried again, as there is way to many garbage posts flying about at the moment and it would be shame if this was not seen. Perhaps someone should write this up as a proposal for the CMS to bring up?

Deserak Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.31 01:43:00 - [411] I love this idea, Devs do this please.
Kyusoath Orillian Viziam	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:42:00 - [412] i still support this idea
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.12 20:24:00 - [413] This idea has suddenly become more relevant with the speed change rollback on singularity. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2008.08.12 21:57:00 - [414] Originally by: Tarminic This idea has suddenly become more relevant with the speed change rollback on singularity. When reading the devblog I was disappointed to see it borrow so lightly from this thread. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Myrkala Minmatar Aurora Acclivitous	Posted - 2008.08.17 08:37:00 - [415] I heartily agree with you Goum, it might need a little tweaking. I also like it because gives people in small ships a chance. A battleship can probably tank the dps frigate <-> cruiser assuming variety of SP. A battleship will however have a harder time killing small fast ships which in web range. (Light Drones will still work nicely though.) A battleship can probably still kill it but at least this gives small ship gangs a chance without having to fit for heavy jamming. That is, small ships can now orbit/fly in webrange enabling them to use their short ranged weapons with decreased risk, allowing them to stay there for longer to do actual damage. This will also increase the use of Target Painters, a method of EWAR that I feel has been lacking too much compared to other ECM and hasn't seen much use, I think people mainly use them with capships. (Caldari is still best.) Tying the sig radius to webs was a great idea Goum, as well as the re-balancing, a similar solution might possibly be reached with Scripts for Stasis Webifiers. \o/ "Ruppie ain't no puppie."
Flawliss Gallente Pilots of True Potential	Posted - 2008.09.15 06:10:00 - [416] CCP should really be reading this closely, and deeply concidering the excellent suggestion, the good discussion and the right first attempt at a fix. This Should be part of the rebalance because it is Balanced, and damn good.


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.