| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DrDooma
   |
Posted - 2007.10.01 05:04:00 -
[1]
I like you idea but by the same token I like the way current web works and donÆt like crazy speed setups even if they do take skill to pilot.
 Originally by: Valharu
"YOU HAVE to fix the speeds before you EVER THINK to work on webbing. But you have to Fix them in mind of ships speed tanked and non speed tanked."
I like your idea but by the same token I like the way current web works and donÆt like crazy speed setups even if they do take a lot skill to pilot.
What if combination of modules that make speed tank broken had a penalty against webbing and hance not effect other ships?
You can do this by giving each ship web value of 1 and each module that is used in conjunction with lets say WMD + NanoPart-A that increases range of targeting webber by 25% and ships speed by 15% .
So if you can normally web at 10km against normal ship. Against a nano-fit of 1*WMD and 2* NanoPart-A it might be 15km. It also gives more room for balancing the actual ships should they ever needed.
This has a lot of advantages like not having to make different complex webbers that add lag.
|
DrDooma
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 08:48:00 -
[2]
Edited by: DrDooma on 02/10/2007 08:54:28
Edited by: DrDooma on 02/10/2007 08:51:49
Edited by: DrDooma on 02/10/2007 08:51:06
I think this discussion is turning away from the original issue of:
+The maximum speed of ships is not balanced when dealing with ships fitting multiple stacking speed bonuses (paraphrased)æBrokenÆ
It has now become ôwhat type of webs should we add to the gameö
You have suggested using æsignature radiusÆ to determine the effectiveness of new webs which is similar to the way missiles work. This will in effect make shield tanking ships be more prone to web then their Armour counterparts. This is because shield modules increase signature radius. Also why should target painters have any effect on how easy it is to web a ship?
Another problem with even 20km web is that you can warp- scrap- depen with a single ship. To do the same thing now you need at least 2 ships.
For previous post on page 6.
ôYou can do this by giving each ship web value of 1 and each module that is used in conjunction with lets say WMD + NanoPart-A that increases range of targeting webber by 25% and ships speed by 15% ô
Originally by: Goumindong
1. That is a lot harder to do than adding webs using a modified version of an existing game mechanic
2. How in the world is my new mechanic going to add lag?
1 .Why is this harder? We already have signature attribute on every ship. All you doing is adding Web attribute (signature).
2. Webbing will use more math to calculate then missiles. Much more as you need to consider 100 to 200 ship engagements not just small skirmishes. At 40KM single ship can be scrammed and target painted by 20+ ppl. I donÆt know if it realy makes any difference but if it doesà.
As a side note: if you do agree that that the ships and modules are balance as they are then if you look at the missile damage link that you have provided you will see how much more difference even 10 to 20% speed reduction makes in damage to a ship. Hence all ships and a lot of modules will have to be adjusted.
sorry for multiple updates 
|
DrDooma
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:27:00 -
[3]
Edited by: DrDooma on 05/10/2007 02:30:50
Originally by: Buyerr
mwd is a bad thing mkey... they where never supposed to be used for anything then very special situations...
I use them to close the gap between my self and my opponents, get back to gates faster and so on. This is what they were designed for.
ôSpecial situationö  - Like creating safe spots? So someone went out of the way to create 100MWD so that BS went around 1/5th to 1/10th speed of frigs with afterburner? Mining and ratting can be done just as effectively with afterburner and you cant use MWD in plexes and missions. So what is this special occasion?
Originally by: Buyerr
AB's as mwd is now is absolute. no one would use them
so actually i think it would be a good thing (would help alot on the speed problem too
If you are correct then what you are actually proposing is getting rid of MWD or at least reducing their effectiveness. You donÆt need webs to do that.
Originally by: Gartel Reiman
I really really like this idea. It's well thought-out, it's balanced.. it deals with the complaints about speed tanks by giving every battleship the change to be a weaker Huginn...
Turning every BSs into bad Huginns creates balance? 
Most small gang combat takes place at 20KM range as this is the range of warp scrams. If you were to implement even 20KM webber, frigs and interceptors donÆt stand a chance against any ship - (cruiser and up) that webs them.
One of the things that makes Eve unique to most other games is balance; ôBigger does not mean betterö.
I again would like to concentrate on fixing broken speed tanks and discouraging their use rather then creating new problems.
Example of asolution: if item A and B are installed opponents targeting ships web range is increase X%. Similar principal as draw back on T2 ammo û use this get this penalty. Or look on page 6 for my other suggestion.
Experience players should have no problem understanding this. If you dont, please let me know what it is you dont understand and i will explain.
|
DrDooma
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 22:08:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Goumindong
Example of a solution: if item A and B are installed opponents targeting ships web range is increase X%. Similar principal as draw back on T2 ammo û use this get this penalty. Or look on page 6 for my other suggestion.
This is both difficult to implement and exploitable.
This is a complex issue as each individual component and ship by it self are balanced. However when a hand full of ships and certain combination of components get combined together they create broken speed setup.
Sometime complex problems requires complex solutions. Please explain why you think this is complex solution? And how you think it can be exploited when you specifically dealing with just the broken setups?
I would also like to remind everyone that BSs already have one way of dealing with speed tanks by using energy neutralisers that work at 20km.
Question for all who think that giving unnecessary advantages to BSs is a good idea.
Would this solution be just as good if every ship could fit any type of proposed module.
|
DrDooma
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 23:03:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gartel Reiman
... but a gang of half a dozen battleships will be able to fit an effective deterrent against the nanoships.
.
According to you; with proposed changes it will take half a dozen "= 6 BS cannot kill a single nanoship but only if they can web it at 40km.
Currently in order for nanoship to kill a single BS it needs to orbit for a significant time. If you have 6 BS then it needs to stay out of range of all 6 of them. If they all line up 10km from each other with 10km webbers thatÆs 80km total web range (no, not 60, work it out). Even if nanoship changes its orbiting flight path BS can still line up 3 in a row 10km apart which will give them 50km web range (no, not 30km). 50 is bigger then 40 so deterrent is there. To much deterrent, and you will never see nanoship uncloak.
My advice to anyone who agrees with such statements is:
1)Fit your PvP ships properly
2)Practice flying in formation and moving as in unison as a single unit.
3)Fly balanced gangs, BS only gangs deserve to die and always do.
Stop trying to give larger ships unfair advantage of over smaller ships. It ruins balance of bigger is not better and advantages older players and blobing.
|
DrDooma
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 23:42:00 -
[6]
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.
|
| |
|