EVE Search - Afterburners, MWDs, and webs

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Afterburners, MWDs, and webs

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Depp Knight Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.12.17 05:25:00 - [31] I believe a frig with an ab should go faster than a cruiser with a mwd. A cruise with an Ab should go faster than a bs with mwd. Just makes sense.
Ereman Sarat	Posted - 2007.12.17 06:37:00 - [32] Seems a possible solution could be to simply tweak AB speeds a bit higher. Right now, it seems to be about 40% or so of a an equivalent MWD? At least it is on my Hyperion. I admit I wish it gave a bit more oomph. (yes, my nav skills are maxed.. but even if they weren't, the comparison would still be relevant, though not necessarily directly applicable)... Another possible solution would be to lower all ships mass a bit... which would effectively get the same results, if I understand the game mechanics correctly. ES PS On the other hand, increasing speeds reduces other things, like drones. If you can outrun the drones, the drones have problems. Etc.
Hreik	Posted - 2007.12.17 06:57:00 - [33] im not even a year old in the game yet, and i love it. yes i agree that mwd's are a must in pvp if your alone. if your in a gang all of you don't need an mwd in the settup., lots of people seem to try and make balancing arguements about ships and modules and seem to totally forget that the game isnt solely made for single pirating. and, the problem with webbing and mwd's is here because thats how players have sa***aurded themselves from getting blown up but still being able to fight. And even if you nurf mwd or webbers players are going to find some other mainstay angle to use that turns the battles into something other than an all out brawl because its safer and more cost efficient. nurfing it wont fix the problem , people will just start whining about the next thing that people use extensively.
Destructor1792 Minmatar Federal Enforcement of the Abyssal Realm Black Scope Project	Posted - 2007.12.17 08:38:00 - [34] Biggest problem i see is if you nerf webbs, then you have a massive problem with nano'd ships! Nerf MWD's or even AB's and you have a problem with bubbles (dictor or mobile). Ways around this ? Prehaps certain ships get specially bonuses for set modules, but then everyone will just train up for those instead and we're all back to square one. Change the way webs work ? How though ? Have them increase/decrease certain aspects of the ship so if you're webbed and you activate a MWD or AB, it cause your speed to drop by however much the AB/MWD speed boost percentage would give instead of increase it? That solves the nano/web problem.. Now with bubbles.. just add an AOE so webs only get a 10% of their full use when activated inside of one. MWD's still work (although not quite as good) and the victim still has a chance of making it out. that's my thoughts.. now i need a coffee ______________________________________ *Bringing The Fun Back* I Have No Fear, Fear is for the weak.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 09:17:00 - [35] Originally by: James Lyrus Clearly I may have missed something, so... if this _were_ the case, what would break as a result? Afterburners. There would no longer be a reason to fit an MWD on the majority of ships if you recieved over a 50% web strength reduction on the sole basis of fitting an afterburner. I like simple changes too, but i dont think that this simple change would have the desired effects. A ship with an afterburner could dictate range inside of web range against a ship with an MWD. Fast and small ships would be ridiculously strong, since with an afterburner they would no longer have a weakness. maybe something a little more complicated, such as this, instead.
Altterra	Posted - 2007.12.17 09:26:00 - [36] My point in this discussion isn't so much the fact that MWDs are bad, OR the webs are bad. I'm just stating that when someone uses a web on their ship, and the opponent mostlike does as well, it turns into a 12m/s fight, where all you do is sit alongside eachother and wait for one to blow up. It removes a LOT of tactical maneuvers, and makes the fight appear somewhat dull. THAT is most of my concern, sure you get your adrenalin-rush, but imagine the rush if you were able to actually move around a bit during the fight...
Liu	Posted - 2007.12.17 09:44:00 - [37] Originally by: Brea Lafail I propose falloff for webs (reduction in speed penalty, not chance-based). e.g., 90% reduction @ 5km, 50% at 10km, something like that. Makes it less of a binary dead/not-dead thing. this. 60% reduction, 5km optimal, 5 km falloff, making the module marginaly useful up to 15 km. have nammed and T2 have better stats. for example, domi web could be 90% reduction, 5 km optimal, 10km falloff, making it marginaly useful up to 25 km, but with a great strenth reduction from 15 km and further. Originally by: Apertotes tbh, boot.ini was overpowered and needed a nerf
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 09:53:00 - [38] Falloff is a terrible idea for webs. It does not work the way you think it works.
Kunming The Coalition Of Buccaneers Mercenary Services	Posted - 2007.12.17 10:07:00 - [39] I'll like to see those AB changes on SiSi so we can see how it works in practice. All in all sounds like a nice idea but theory aint the same in practice... Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
Liu	Posted - 2007.12.17 10:18:00 - [40] Originally by: Goumindong Falloff is a terrible idea for webs. It does not work the way you think it works. how does it work then? Originally by: Apertotes tbh, boot.ini was overpowered and needed a nerf

Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.12.17 11:23:00 - [41] Quote: I'm lying and I'm wrong? Who the f#ck are you to call me a liar? You don't know what I fit on my ships and what I don't. I'm neither lying or wrong. I fit ABs on my ships all the time to kill mission runners in deadspace. At this point I just think you're too f#cking stupid to understand anything about the games mechanics if you're going to make statments like that to even debate these ideas. Can you possibly be more stupid? Concession accepted. You wouldnt've fit an AB if you had a choice. Thats like saying passive targetters are useful in 0.0 because I use them on my alt scout to suicide gank in empire.
Kalidann Caldari Appetite 4 Destruction	Posted - 2007.12.17 12:04:00 - [42] making it so you can't MWD while being scrambled would break most inties. (Not my 35km malediction though =D )
Jonny JoJo Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.12.17 12:43:00 - [43] Edited by: Jonny JoJo on 17/12/2007 12:43:50 Originally by: Kalidann making it so you can't MWD while being scrambled would break most inties. (Not my 35km malediction though =D ) Actually, putting MWD off with a scram would boost inties since their target cannot nanomwd away. A Inty with both a MWD and a AB can switch over after laying down a point, and give the victom a resonable chance to fight the inty off. i have to say, having a scram changed so that it disables MWD sounds like the best idea, rather than all these complecated mass crap stuff Refresh to see next Real Life CCP sig(16 total)
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.17 12:55:00 - [44] Originally by: Jonny JoJo i have to say, having a scram changed so that it disables MWD sounds like the best idea, rather than all these complecated mass crap stuff Hello? It's deleting MWD from the game effectively. Have you ever been not scrambled while scrambling someone? Stupidest idea ever. Rifters!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 18:17:00 - [45] Originally by: Liu Originally by: Goumindong Falloff is a terrible idea for webs. It does not work the way you think it works. how does it work then? as you increase in falloff you increase your miss chance. Such a 5+10km web would hit 50% of the time at 15km. Which effectivly makes it a 50km web that activates 5-10 seconds later. It can also web decently out to 20km since at 1.5x falloff its going to be hitting about 25% of the time. As soon as a web landed you would have caught your prey which effectily extends its range out to the distances it can hit with its falloff.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 18:19:00 - [46] Originally by: Jonny JoJo i have to say, having a scram changed so that it disables MWD sounds like the best idea, rather than all these complecated mass crap stuff 1. Its a terrible idea, if you thought med slots were important now, imagine them with MWDs that simply dont work within 24+km of another target. Everyone would need an MWD and an AB on non-fleet ships. An MWD to get back through past bubbles, and an AB to have a hope of doing anything when scrambled. 2. What complicated mass crap stuff?
Liu	Posted - 2007.12.17 18:20:00 - [47] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liu Originally by: Goumindong Falloff is a terrible idea for webs. It does not work the way you think it works. how does it work then? as you increase in falloff you increase your miss chance. Such a 5+10km web would hit 50% of the time at 15km. Which effectivly makes it a 50km web that activates 5-10 seconds later. It can also web decently out to 20km since at 1.5x falloff its going to be hitting about 25% of the time. As soon as a web landed you would have caught your prey which effectily extends its range out to the distances it can hit with its falloff. are you sure? then, painters on falloff do not paint always? they just work chance based? i was pretty sure that my painters worked as far as optimal + 2xfalloff, but with reduced strentgh. Originally by: Apertotes tbh, boot.ini was overpowered and needed a nerf
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.12.17 18:41:00 - [48] Originally by: Gamesguy Quote: I'm lying and I'm wrong? Who the f#ck are you to call me a liar? You don't know what I fit on my ships and what I don't. I'm neither lying or wrong. I fit ABs on my ships all the time to kill mission runners in deadspace. At this point I just think you're too f#cking stupid to understand anything about the games mechanics if you're going to make statments like that to even debate these ideas. Can you possibly be more stupid? Concession accepted. You wouldnt've fit an AB if you had a choice. Thats like saying passive targetters are useful in 0.0 because I use them on my alt scout to suicide gank in empire. Agreed. Originally by: UGLYUGLY I'd agree that webs are a fairly overpowered mod. You can use a 90% web with bone bare basic, next to nothing skills. Maybe change it so you have to train a set of skills to get webs up to that strength. lvl 1 starting at 25% or something and lvl 5 finishing at the full potential of the mod. If webs are made as weak as you suggested, nano ships are going to be alot harder to deal with. Woohoo, more useless skills. Serieusly, even if they cost 2-3 mil investment i would still train em all to 5. It would be a major boost to high sp characters. The lower-med sp characters will roll over and die. Awesome! _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 19:12:00 - [49] Originally by: Liu are you sure? then, painters on falloff do not paint always? they just work chance based? i was pretty sure that my painters worked as far as optimal + 2xfalloff, but with reduced strentgh. Absolutly 100% sure.
Liu	Posted - 2007.12.17 19:50:00 - [50] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liu are you sure? then, painters on falloff do not paint always? they just work chance based? i was pretty sure that my painters worked as far as optimal + 2xfalloff, but with reduced strentgh. Absolutly 100% sure. then, how does my painter aggro rats flawlessly up to 70/80 km? it should miss sometimes, i guess, but it doesnt. Originally by: Apertotes tbh, boot.ini was overpowered and needed a nerf

James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.12.17 19:55:00 - [51] Originally by: Liu Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liu are you sure? then, painters on falloff do not paint always? they just work chance based? i was pretty sure that my painters worked as far as optimal + 2xfalloff, but with reduced strentgh. Absolutly 100% sure. then, how does my painter aggro rats flawlessly up to 70/80 km? it should miss sometimes, i guess, but it doesnt. You can aggro rats with a civilian blaster. Y'know, the one of the newbie ship that just about reaches as far as your own toenails. You don't have to 'hit' to do that. All ewar in falloff isn't reduced in effectiveness, they have a hit/miss chance that's exactly the same algorithm as the turret one. (although, in effect, the miss chance x ecm percentage change, approximately means you can consider falloff as reduced ECM power) -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
Liu	Posted - 2007.12.17 19:58:00 - [52] Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Liu Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liu are you sure? then, painters on falloff do not paint always? they just work chance based? i was pretty sure that my painters worked as far as optimal + 2xfalloff, but with reduced strentgh. Absolutly 100% sure. then, how does my painter aggro rats flawlessly up to 70/80 km? it should miss sometimes, i guess, but it doesnt. You can aggro rats with a civilian blaster. Y'know, the one of the newbie ship that just about reaches as far as your own toenails. You don't have to 'hit' to do that. All ewar in falloff isn't reduced in effectiveness, they have a hit/miss chance that's exactly the same algorithm as the turret one. (although, in effect, the miss chance x ecm percentage change, approximately means you can consider falloff as reduced ECM power) great. then forget about web falloff . yet, i think it was the best solution if falloff worked the way i thought it did. Originally by: Apertotes tbh, boot.ini was overpowered and needed a nerf
Brea Lafail	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:05:00 - [53] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liu Originally by: Goumindong Falloff is a terrible idea for webs. It does not work the way you think it works. how does it work then? as you increase in falloff you increase your miss chance. Such a 5+10km web would hit 50% of the time at 15km. Which effectivly makes it a 50km web that activates 5-10 seconds later. It can also web decently out to 20km since at 1.5x falloff its going to be hitting about 25% of the time. As soon as a web landed you would have caught your prey which effectily extends its range out to the distances it can hit with its falloff. Note that I explicitly said in my post that web falloff should be reduced effectiveness, not chance to hit. That would be silly. Chance-to-hit works well for the other ewar with falloff, but, as you've pointed out, for webs it would be horrid. Would require extra work to implement as it does not operate on the same formulas as other falloff modules, but if CCP can afford over 9000 hours in MS paint just for new graphics, they can write a few new lines of code.
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:15:00 - [54] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Jonny JoJo i have to say, having a scram changed so that it disables MWD sounds like the best idea, rather than all these complecated mass crap stuff 1. Its a terrible idea, if you thought med slots were important now, imagine them with MWDs that simply dont work within 24+km of another target. Everyone would need an MWD and an AB on non-fleet ships. An MWD to get back through past bubbles, and an AB to have a hope of doing anything when scrambled. 2. What complicated mass crap stuff? Actually the idea isn't that bad if changed a bit. It's a MicroWARPdrive afterall so it should be affected by scram. Why not reduce MWD-speed to AB-speed when scrammed, meaning like 140% speed and 140% sig . Momentum should play a role so speed isn't dropped instantly, but slowly. 1. Inties could use their scram bonus to keep their MWD running. 2. Blasterboats could still close-in fast. The slightly bigger sig is the drawback for a fast approach. Maybe the cap-penalty needs a second thought then (no penalty? 5%? 10%?). Most ships would be better off with an AB while Inties and Blasterboats would still benefit from MWD.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:18:00 - [55] Originally by: Knoppaz Actually the idea isn't that bad if changed a bit. It's a MicroWARPdrive afterall so it should be affected by scram. No, its still a bad idea and balancing by some stupid ideal revolving around realism is still terribly dumb.
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:23:00 - [56] Did you even read the whole post or just the first sentense?
6Bagheera9 Slacker Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:53:00 - [57] Originally by: Knoppaz Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Jonny JoJo i have to say, having a scram changed so that it disables MWD sounds like the best idea, rather than all these complecated mass crap stuff 1. Its a terrible idea, if you thought med slots were important now, imagine them with MWDs that simply dont work within 24+km of another target. Everyone would need an MWD and an AB on non-fleet ships. An MWD to get back through past bubbles, and an AB to have a hope of doing anything when scrambled. 2. What complicated mass crap stuff? Actually the idea isn't that bad if changed a bit. It's a MicroWARPdrive afterall so it should be affected by scram. Why not reduce MWD-speed to AB-speed when scrammed, meaning like 140% speed and 140% sig . Momentum should play a role so speed isn't dropped instantly, but slowly. 1. Inties could use their scram bonus to keep their MWD running. 2. Blasterboats could still close-in fast. The slightly bigger sig is the drawback for a fast approach. Maybe the cap-penalty needs a second thought then (no penalty? 5%? 10%?). Most ships would be better off with an AB while Inties and Blasterboats would still benefit from MWD. I favor something along these lines. I think that the best solution would be to do the following. 1. General nerf to webb strength (90% is too much) 2. MWD speed boost is now penalized when when the ship is scrammed. 3. Boost AB speed boost. I am being deliberately vague with regard to the exact numbers because I don't honestly know what combination would produce the desired effects. CCP would have to do some testing to see what tweaking is needed to make AB viable general pvp modules and MWD more oriented towards dedicated speed tanking ships and very close range ships (ie. blaster).
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 21:12:00 - [58] Originally by: Knoppaz Did you even read the whole post or just the first sentense? I did, and its still stupid, did you even think about the repurcussions or did you just post?
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2007.12.17 22:08:00 - [59] Yes, I did think about it. Maybe not all aspects, but that what this forum is for.. discussion, right? So why exactly is it stupid or what part is stupid from your point of view. Just saying it's stupid means nothing. Maybe I see your point if you feel like telling me..
Emperor D'Hoffryn No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.12.17 22:57:00 - [60] Originally by: Knoppaz Yes, I did think about it. Maybe not all aspects, but that what this forum is for.. discussion, right? So why exactly is it stupid or what part is stupid from your point of view. Just saying it's stupid means nothing. Maybe I see your point if you feel like telling me.. warp scramming a blaster boat should not keep it at range...its kinda silly. No need for a web anymore, just the warp scrams. Originally by: Snuggly It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.