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)
DrDooma	Posted - 2007.10.08 23:42:00 - [241] Originally by: Goumindong Will it even work based on module activation if the module has to activate on the target to get the bonus? If it instead was penalty based you could just re-apply the module and lose activation the next time, still webbing just as strong as if the penalty was not thereà. The penalty will be applied if modules are installed, regardless if module is active. This discourages fitting broken nanosetup in the first place. Originally by: Goumindong Wait, what? You think this gives advantages to battleships? The primary effect is to severely reduce their DPS against smaller ships that are not nano-ships. I donÆt even wont to argue this point as this is not why you are proposing making 20km and 40km webbers. Please look at the original missile damage website to see the effects it will have on missile and other type of damage to ships.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.09 00:21:00 - [242] Originally by: DrDooma The penalty will be applied if modules are installed, regardless if module is active. This discourages fitting broken nanosetup in the first place. In which case its easily and clearly exploitable. Originally by: Goumindong I donÆt even wont to argue this point as this is not why you are proposing making 20km and 40km webbers. Please look at the original missile damage website to see the effects it will have on missile and other type of damage to ships. Did you even read the thread? Every cruiser is designed to speed tank battleship guns. Every Frigate is designed to speed tank cruiser guns. Webs make this not work, it becomes an On/off module for speed. You are either webbed and dead or you are not webbed and can avoid the dps.
Contusia	Posted - 2007.10.16 11:42:00 - [243] Originally by: Goumindong 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?. Signed! Although some effects should be limited. It is too easy to st ack speed and slowdown effects. It would be balance for 1 weber and 1 speed bouns active, but it would still be unbalanced if several boni/mali affect the target.
Remejiah	Posted - 2007.10.16 19:02:00 - [244] /signed
TimMc Skiddies of Doom	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:18:00 - [245] Sounds interesting, CCP please test it out. /signed.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Uninvited Guests	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:13:00 - [246] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Tempest with dual BS sized webs, 28km scram, my Blasterthron isn't getting anywhere near it. Good, blasters arent the only weapons you can fit on a mega you know. Blastermega needs a nerf. To the op: Great idea. Atleast amarr can now somewhat dictate their range and use that "range bonus" its supposed to have.
Fiachna II	Posted - 2007.10.23 05:15:00 - [247] What about webification fields that affect everyone inside? these could be similar to a dictor's warp disrupt fields. Just an idea.
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2007.10.23 15:38:00 - [248] /signed
Neu Bastian	Posted - 2007.10.24 04:16:00 - [249] /sign. tho if this come through I'll be a lot more nervous in my ceptor would make painters more useful, specially in the Minmatar ships that get a painter bonus.
Arkanjuca Caldari The Undertakers Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:58:00 - [250] /signed Speed in eve is too much crazy non-sense imba atm. I would like to see this kind of speed scale inty > frigates > destroyers > cruisers > battlecruisers > battleships... today its more like: inty > cruisers > battlecruisers > frigs > battleships ... -- "Tackling you in the system next door"

Maalan Caldari Lutin Group	Posted - 2007.10.24 13:31:00 - [251] What if the stasis web simply decreased the agility drastically? The target ship would still be able to reach full speed but now when they change direction they slow way down. If they are trying to orbit closely they will be slowed down like a normal web but the larger the orbit, the less affect the web has. Just a thought.
Redora Gallente Universal Exports	Posted - 2007.10.24 21:11:00 - [252] Edited by: Redora on 24/10/2007 21:16:33 /signed Goumindong's idea. <3 it. And I fly Hyperions. Just means I'll have to land closer, and possibly feature a 20km webby and a 10km webby. Suddenly Tactics are more than "Land, Lock, Liquify." Originally by: Valharu I just do not believe small ships should be effected so weakly by the larger web. If anything I believe you should be able to lock down a smaller ship. I haven't finished the thread, but I felt I HAD to comment on this. Size does not Equal Power over lesser ships. Otherwise we'd all be bowing to ASCN and their ubertitan of pwnage. Just because a ship is big doesn't mean it should be invulnerable to lesser vehicles of destruciton. To return to your example of a Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier, turn back the clock to the pre-atomic era, WWII. There you had Battleships, Cruisers, BattleCruisers, Frigates, Submarines, Carriers.... An entire gamut of ship classes. Each had it's own role, else navies of the time would have been composed solely of Battleships, and would have pounded the crap out of eachother at 25 miles. While it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a BS can pound the everloving fear of God (or the Eve-Gate) out of an approaching frigate, a frigate that is under it's guns should have no fear of a larger vessel. We in Eve just happen to be lucky enough to have our own personal aerial strike teams (drones) to deal with smaller problems. The beauty of Goum's suggestion is that you're not limited to fitting a 40km 40% web on your BS. If you're worried about frigates, and have the spare mids, fit a 10km 80% web. Or a 20km 60% web. The only reason modern day Aircraft Carriers are safe from smaller threats is A) Their escort fleet (This is an MMORPG, perhaps you shouldn't wander about in your expensive toys alone?), B) They mount point defense weaponry, or point defense weaponry is near at hand (AEGIS Cruisers, and the computer controlled, radar guided gatling cannons on the Nimitz.) Merely equating increasing size to increasing capability does not a balanced game make. Else you end up with the current state of affairs, except now the "ZONE OF ZOMG DEATH" for frigates will be a 40km radius sphere, instead of a 10km one. :\ --- Redora http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=543553
Riddick Valer	Posted - 2007.11.03 17:53:00 - [253] /signed This is one of the best ideas I've seen on how to balance ship classes and styles. Not only will roaming frig gangs be fun, but AB AFs might actually be used.
Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.11.03 18:38:00 - [254] If you¦d want a perfect balancing of Webbifiers, you¦d need 2 properties for Engines/Webbifiers that are modified when activating a webbifier: 1. Size of disrupted Space 2. Strenght of the disruption You can compare that vaguely to the grip of a tire and number of tires of a vehicle. Small compact engines would have more "grip" and get less affected by BS-webbers. Frigate sized webbers would have problems generating a "large enough" disruption to affect large propulsion systems of BSs. The actual maxspeedreduction and agility of the target could be calculated out of those 2 valuemodifications. But I¦m too lazy here to explain the details, since posts like mine usualy just drown in the sheer flood of threads the bigger common part of the Forum-community creates anyway. regards
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.03 19:13:00 - [255] Originally by: Skeltek If you¦d want a perfect balancing of Webbifiers, you¦d need 2 properties for Engines/Webbifiers that are modified when activating a webbifier: 1. Size of disrupted Space 2. Strenght of the disruption You can compare that vaguely to the grip of a tire and number of tires of a vehicle. Small compact engines would have more "grip" and get less affected by BS-webbers. Frigate sized webbers would have problems generating a "large enough" disruption to affect large propulsion systems of BSs. The actual maxspeedreduction and agility of the target could be calculated out of those 2 valuemodifications. But I¦m too lazy here to explain the details, since posts like mine usualy just drown in the sheer flood of threads the bigger common part of the Forum-community creates anyway. regards Why should frigates have a worse effect when webbing a larger ship?
Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.11.03 19:38:00 - [256] Why not? You are suggesting the exact opposite. Frigate-sized webbers should webb a BS down to 25% speed while BS sized webbers reduce the speed to just 75%. Especialy the usefullness of the BS-sized webbers you introduced is questionable. While the operate at your suggested range, they in addition have an effect that is quiet questionable in the usefullness compared to other modules, while being relatively useless in most situations you encounter during PvP. Imho this approach of mine offered an alternative to your balancingattempt using the range of the different sized modules. I did not say your approach to the matter is wrong, but I¦m simply convinced that the way you try to balance things is strongly depenadant on the PvP phylosophy you try to realize when making a game. Scissor-Stone-Paper or everything about equaly strong? There are so many things how things can be managed that it is hard to foresee what effects changes have in the long-term-development of PvP-behavior of the community. regards
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.03 19:40:00 - [257] Edited by: Goumindong on 03/11/2007 19:40:15 Because battleships can fit any size web, because battleships have inherent advantages over frigates which if frigates were unable to web them would result in the same problem that currently exists betweens frigates, battleships and ranges < 10km.
Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.11.03 19:53:00 - [258] so where exactly do you see the problem in having BS-sized webbers have more or maybe qual effect on BS than Frig-sized webbers have? Why should a BS sized webber webb a BS just down to 75% speed? Having less effect on Frigs is fine for me, but why make them that weak against BS also?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.03 20:12:00 - [259] Originally by: Skeltek so where exactly do you see the problem in having BS-sized webbers have more or maybe qual effect on BS than Frig-sized webbers have? Why should a BS sized webber webb a BS just down to 75% speed? Having less effect on Frigs is fine for me, but why make them that weak against BS also? Because they have increased range, and short range battleships would be scrwed otherwise. And they need increased range because if they didnt have it there would be no reason to fit bs webbers over frigate webbers.
Arnold Duncan A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.04 16:12:00 - [260] I like the idea but FFS goumin change you sig!!! Every time i see any of your post i have to read it fast to resist on throwing up on my keyboard. ------------------------------ Playing minmatar is "like going down a flight of stairs in a office chair firing an Uzi". Playing amarr is "like going down a flight of stairs in a office chair. P

Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.11.04 18:32:00 - [261] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Skeltek so where exactly do you see the problem in having BS-sized webbers have more or maybe qual effect on BS than Frig-sized webbers have? Why should a BS sized webber webb a BS just down to 75% speed? Having less effect on Frigs is fine for me, but why make them that weak against BS also? 1.Because they have increased range, and short range battleships would be scrwed otherwise. 2.And they need increased range because if they didnt have it there would be no reason to fit bs webbers over frigate webbers. 1.Well, usualy the closerange-BS have webbers themselves. 40km is the limitrange where closerange and longrange meet. 2. Thats the reason why imho BS webber should be superior when webbing a BS over the Frigatewebbers.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.04 18:57:00 - [262] Originally by: Skeltek 1.Well, usualy the closerange-BS have webbers themselves. 40km is the limitrange where closerange and longrange meet. 2. Thats the reason why imho BS webber should be superior when webbing a BS over the Frigatewebbers. That makes zero sense. If a battleship webber is better at webbing a battleship than a frigate webber it becomes impossible to downfit webs to gain an advantage over other battleships at different ranges. As well, it becomes impossible for frigates, which dont have the option of fitting larger or smaller webbers, gain an advantage over battleships in any manner.
Eraggan Sadarr Phoenix Tribe	Posted - 2007.11.04 21:28:00 - [263] Sounds like a good idea Eve Market Scanner
velocity7	Posted - 2007.11.04 21:37:00 - [264] Seems like a fine idea on paper, but will require testing and lots of working around to see how well it fares in actual use.
Ozkar Decimus Corp	Posted - 2007.11.05 06:13:00 - [265] Great idea. Only change I would make is to make the web strengths a bit higher, something like a 10-20% increase above their proposed strengths. Unless of course, they plan on reducing the speed of speed-tanked ships. For the record, I am advocating higher web stregths, and the ship I enjoy to fly the most is a Vagabond =P I have been thinking resently how ther is no way to counter being webbed, and thats what makes something over powered imho. (kinda like damps) But the more I see, the less I expect to see the devs impliment something that people who acually play the game think is a good idea, they tend to get irritated whenever we use a ship for something other than its intended purpose (of course high speed is the vaga's purpose.....) I would make a sig, but that would take time away from hunting.
Adam Weishaupt Minmatar Pyrrhus Sicarii The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.05 06:29:00 - [266] Edited by: Adam Weishaupt on 05/11/2007 06:36:34 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? 1. Fit tempest with artillery, mwd, and quake L 2. Fit tempest with multiple 20km/40km webs + officer scram. 3. ???? 4. profit? Tempest is fastest base battleship, so all I need in my mid slots are sensor boosters, webs, and a mwd, maybe some speed mods/rigs to keep even my webbed speed better than yours, and I've got your BS locked first, webbed first, and I'm outside your non-rail/arty/beam/torps range, hitting you with my max damage ammo and not even worrying about the tracking penalty. This actually, I would enjoy, since I still remember using Quake L at 45km+ and just laughing as people's armor melted. I still resent that nerf... I don't know. Good idea, but I think it would mess with a lot of aspects of combat in ways that are hard to determine without testing. Frigates are fast, so they can already web really quickly. 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. 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.
CrestoftheStars Gemini Sun Frontline.	Posted - 2007.11.05 10:44:00 - [267] Originally by: Redora Edited by: Redora on 24/10/2007 21:16:33 /signed Goumindong's idea. <3 it. And I fly Hyperions. Just means I'll have to land closer, and possibly feature a 20km webby and a 10km webby. Suddenly Tactics are more than "Land, Lock, Liquify." Originally by: Valharu I just do not believe small ships should be effected so weakly by the larger web. If anything I believe you should be able to lock down a smaller ship. I haven't finished the thread, but I felt I HAD to comment on this. Size does not Equal Power over lesser ships. Otherwise we'd all be bowing to ASCN and their ubertitan of pwnage. Just because a ship is big doesn't mean it should be invulnerable to lesser vehicles of destruciton. To return to your example of a Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier, turn back the clock to the pre-atomic era, WWII. There you had Battleships, Cruisers, BattleCruisers, Frigates, Submarines, Carriers.... An entire gamut of ship classes. Each had it's own role, else navies of the time would have been composed solely of Battleships, and would have pounded the crap out of eachother at 25 miles. While it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a BS can pound the everloving fear of God (or the Eve-Gate) out of an approaching frigate, a frigate that is under it's guns should have no fear of a larger vessel. We in Eve just happen to be lucky enough to have our own personal aerial strike teams (drones) to deal with smaller problems. The beauty of Goum's suggestion is that you're not limited to fitting a 40km 40% web on your BS. If you're worried about frigates, and have the spare mids, fit a 10km 80% web. Or a 20km 60% web. The only reason modern day Aircraft Carriers are safe from smaller threats is A) Their escort fleet (This is an MMORPG, perhaps you shouldn't wander about in your expensive toys alone?), B) They mount point defense weaponry, or point defense weaponry is near at hand (AEGIS Cruisers, and the computer controlled, radar guided gatling cannons on the Nimitz.) Merely equating increasing size to increasing capability does not a balanced game make. Else you end up with the current state of affairs, except now the "ZONE OF ZOMG DEATH" for frigates will be a 40km radius sphere, instead of a 10km one. :\ only if it is possible to set 40km webbers on the frigates, this would really spices things up. it would mean that you plan what your going to tackle and that you can still keep your distance to a bs in a frigate, else you will just see bs's (that needs to get close) have 1large,1med and one small webber, meaning no matter what ship they fight they will close in very fast, and the smaller ships have no chance in hell to hold it since a frig can only hold something within 10km, but now they instant pop if they get within the range and they still will after this. so what is needed is the modules to have a decrease in fitting reg when fitted on smaller ships, so that they are usefull for all ship seizes and can be an extra tackling option. but then it would be awsome ^^ ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.05 12:33:00 - [268] 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.
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:25:00 - [269] I support this idea. Unsure about the thread resolution as it hurts shield tanks if it is only down to sig radius, though maybe you have a point considering you dont see many armour tanked nano-ships... Anyway the longer range (lower strength) webs for larger ships makes good sense to me. - Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint! Please read my ideas
Creh Ester	Posted - 2007.11.10 12:51:00 - [270] Edited by: Creh Ester on 10/11/2007 12:52:56 Webifiers should be removed entirely from the game. Together with a number of other types of mods. They are an example of where ccp thinking is wrong from the foundation and up, in terms of what they want to achieve for player and ship roles in PvP. But it's a too great subject to go into here and now. Nerf webbifiers - Yes. (Remove them entirely) Make them more effective on large ships than small - No! Naturally, they should work the other way. 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. There is already way too much crap like that in EVE and ccp continues to add more problems as fixes to problems caused by fixes to problems caused by fixes...



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.