| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Perfect Diamond
   |
Posted - 2008.02.08 22:29:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Perfect Diamond on 08/02/2008 22:34:27
If you get webbed use a stupid ecm. Oh wait ECM kept me from pwning you. NERF IT NERF IT. Stop whining!!!
It's funny how you guys know nothing about programming. Do you know how much lag this would introduce. Auto update every 1/10 sec about how much effect the web would have on the target ship. Brilliance guys, brilliance.
|
Kruel
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 22:44:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Perfect Diamond
It's funny how you guys know nothing about programming. Do you know how much lag this would introduce. Auto update every 1/10 sec about how much effect the web would have on the target ship. Brilliance guys, brilliance.
And that's different from damps, tracking disruptors, ecm.... how?
|
Culitza
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 22:51:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Naviset
This seems like a pointless post.
The web is the way it is because people rely too heavily on the microwarpdrive.
Yes the web stops people from running to the gates but somebody has to die in EVE Eventually. (And most ships you see in 0.0 are too fast to get caught before they hit the gate again anyhow.)
Nerfing webs basically nerfs every gank setup ever, leaving nanos and ubertanks viable.
Slowing a vagabond by 70% with 3 webs (which means a bunch of ships in range and staying close, which probably isnt gonna happen) Is just silly. If a vagabond gets webbed, it needs to be webbed by 90+% to make it even vaguely balanced. (it really should be 99% for a vagabond, thus why rapiers/huginns are one of the only counters).
I dont see why there shouldnt be a binary state of webbed and not webbed. There is for jamming, and there is for targetting range damping (In range/out of range), as with everything else in this game.
I think it'd be far too complicated to rebalance this game with a new web, so it seems somewhat pointless...
A single sensor dampener doesnt provide 90% targetting range damping. So it's not binary .... you need 3 to make it effective. And neither are the rest of the things you said.
To the OP .... you started the worst troll-bating thread yet ... now all the whiners will post screaming at you NERF NANO BOOST WEBS and crap like that ... mistake 
|
Perfect Diamond
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 22:53:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Kruel
Originally by: Perfect Diamond
It's funny how you guys know nothing about programming. Do you know how much lag this would introduce. Auto update every 1/10 sec about how much effect the web would have on the target ship. Brilliance guys, brilliance.
And that's different from damps, tracking disruptors, ecm.... how?
My point has been made.
|
Culitza
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:02:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Perfect Diamond
Edited by: Perfect Diamond on 08/02/2008 22:34:27
If you get webbed use a stupid ecm. Oh wait ECM kept me from pwning you. NERF IT NERF IT. Stop whining!!!
It's funny how you guys know nothing about programming. Do you know how much lag this would introduce. Auto update every 1/10 sec about how much effect the web would have on the target ship. Brilliance guys, brilliance.
No actually you don't know very much about programming ... the complexity of the combat system is already very high with calculations for tracking falloff range updates etc... this would increase the complexity by a very small percentage. The difference would not be noticeable.
|
6Bagheera9
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:15:00 -
[36]
I agree that something needs to be done, I've just not sure what. The central problem is that being webbed means almost certain death for a speed-tanker and that an unwebbed speed-tanker is very difficult to kill. There is no continuity between the outcomes. This comes from our ill-informed concepts of RL dogfighting in which we believe split-second decisions totally decide the outcome. The truth is that there is a lead up to such decisions and that the "twitch" combat imposed by webbers is an exaggeration of reality and thus when implemented strikes us as a little off.
|
Gods Coldblood
Naughty 40
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:20:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Gods Coldblood on 08/02/2008 23:23:40
okie this has to be the biggest joke ever... I'm sorry but hahaha okie i have a question
1 how many of u in here that say web's need a nerf know how to pvp properly?
2. Web's only have a 10km range unless faction, do u still feel this is really bad?
3. How many of you guys just fly 8 mill ships in here i.e inties etc?
4 Do you actually realise what would happen to alot of races/ships if webs got worse.
5. What is your IQ?
If ccp nerfed webs i might as well leave eve cause being gallente id be so screwed in such away that i couldn't even use any ships i love and i won't be the only one who feels like this!!
____________________________
My video
Way of the Warrior : Anxiety |
Dristra
Amarr
Shadows of the Dead
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:20:00 -
[38]
It has been mentioned that weak long range webs and strong close range webs whould be nice, even better is webs with falloff, so they get stronger the closer you get, this way, you can dip just inside web-range, really not slowing down much, and then slowly getting slower as you go closer to your target.
There was this epicly good web thread too, don't know where it is though, would someone necro it please?
Support the introduction of well thought out Amarr solutions!
I believe rats should avoid you if you have high standing with them. |
Atsuko Ratu
Caldari
VSP Corp.
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:21:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Culitza
Originally by: Perfect Diamond
Edited by: Perfect Diamond on 08/02/2008 22:34:27
If you get webbed use a stupid ecm. Oh wait ECM kept me from pwning you. NERF IT NERF IT. Stop whining!!!
It's funny how you guys know nothing about programming. Do you know how much lag this would introduce. Auto update every 1/10 sec about how much effect the web would have on the target ship. Brilliance guys, brilliance.
No actually you don't know very much about programming ... the complexity of the combat system is already very high with calculations for tracking falloff range updates etc... this would increase the complexity by a very small percentage. The difference would not be noticeable.
Protip: Webs, like most modules, have an activation time. Falloff is not calculated until the module is activated again, which is in much longer intervals than 1/10th of a second.
I hate webs because 90% of the time they don't work at all. Unless the target is stupidly *approaching* you, he will simply glide out of range unless you are also nanoed and approaching him. I still fit a web on most of my ships though, just like I fit a MWD and a point 
|
Perfect Diamond
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:28:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Perfect Diamond on 08/02/2008 23:31:25
Originally by: Culitza
No actually you don't know very much about programming ... the complexity of the combat system is already very high with calculations for tracking falloff range updates etc... this would increase the complexity by a very small percentage. The difference would not be noticeable.
Haha,
First, nice alt
Second, allot of those calculations can be stored instead of recalculated.
Third, there would be tons of lag for the module. Wonder why you don't have insta-lock. Because the game is played not only on your computer but through as sever. But by the time the calculation for how much a web slows down an interceptor, the interceptor is out of range. Remember, things don't have to happen in game to the millisecond in real life. For instance damage done while at a certain range can be applied a 1/10 sec after variables have changed. But webbing can not. Once you view yourself outside webrange, eve can't pick you back up and say your suppose to be inside players X webrange. That would just be broken.
|
Khanid Venari
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:34:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Khanid Venari on 08/02/2008 23:35:35
Originally by: Perfect Diamond
Originally by: Culitza
No actually you don't know very much about programming ... the complexity of the combat system is already very high with calculations for tracking falloff range updates etc... this would increase the complexity by a very small percentage. The difference would not be noticeable.
Haha,
First, nice alt
Second, allot of those calculations can be stored instead of recalculated.
Third, there would be tons of lag for the module. Wonder why you don't have insta-lock. Because the game is played not only on your computer but through as sever. But by the time the calculation for how much a web slows down an interceptor, the interceptor is out of range.
Remember, things don't have to happen in game to the millisecond in real life. For instance damage done while at a certain range can be applied a 1/10 after variables have changed. But webbing can not. Once you view yourself outside webrange, eve can't pick you back up and say your suppose to be inside players X webrange. That would just be broken.
First of all ... I have dealt with client-server programming and I know the issues with it. And second of all your argument for 10Hz refresh rates on calculations is not what I had in mind. I thought u said once every 10 seconds not the other way around ... so once on every activation you web for a certain ammount of time calculated at that given time ( when the server gets your message about activating the web ). 10Hz updates would be silly and unneeded. That's why we don't have anything that perma-fluctuates in any game, that would be silly.
Edit: And no they cannot be stored because those calculations don't depend entirely upon your data at that given time, they depend on all the data gathered from each process handling each client that is interacting without at one time in that solarsystem....
|
Stuart Price
Caldari
Havoc Inc
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 01:11:00 -
[42]
They're underpowered AND overpowered at the same time.
NO WAIT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!
No it isn't. Their range is too short but their effect within that range is too great.
Longer range, less effect. If they can point you, you should be able to web them for at least SOME efficiency. Enough to make a difference anyhow.
"I got soul but I'm not a soldier" |
Naviset
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 01:27:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Stuart Price
They're underpowered AND overpowered at the same time.
NO WAIT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!
No it isn't. Their range is too short but their effect within that range is too great.
Longer range, less effect. If they can point you, you should be able to web them for at least SOME efficiency. Enough to make a difference anyhow.
The problem with less effect is the way they stack allowing very fast ships to still go very fast even within web range, and while I dont really like nano ships it would cause problems for vagabonds and a few interceptors and I think the last thing we need is more crappy HACs cause most of em aren't much use anyhow :-P
Theres a difference between making vagabonds slower and arming everyone with a way to *****them all.
If you were going to change webs you'd be best to change them as like 9k optimal 2k falloff or whatever makes you happy but not so much that it actually matters.
|
Stuart Price
Caldari
Havoc Inc
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 02:15:00 -
[44]
As long as they're slowed to a point where:
a) Missile can catch them
b) Drones can catch them (lights catching inties, meds catching HAC's etc at least)
c) You can track them with turrets with ease while they insist on running the MWD
Then its job done. They either try and escape whilst taking heavy damage OR turn the MWD off to take less damage and pray you die first.
"I got soul but I'm not a soldier" |
Noisrevbus
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 02:48:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 09/02/2008 02:54:46
I'm just adding to the general consensus of the thread...
I've mentioned it before, and i'm sure many others have. The problem with nano and web is the extreme relation. Webs remain the only EWar with such extreme values that it's considered a 'must' in smaller number PvP, it is also highly effective by just a single slot devotion. Then compare that to speed, speed itself is fairly fine. Standard slots are fine, and within such reaches nano is fine. The problem come from stacking up with rigs and implants, and that's also why the webbers can remain so effective. It blends into a crazy and volatile mix, where other 'anti speed' or 'pro speed' options are not necessary or useful.
This very narrow approach to speed tanking leave extensive training in, or, stacking up tracking and velocity mods less important. Why devote time into specializing your entire ship setup to augment your weaponry against speed tanking when it requires Webs to even be remotely possible. It also hammer down on Tracking disruptors, when tracking is not important and thus hammer down on ships that can't achieve 'incredible' speeds but are still prone to speed tanking. Should that be solved in the light of the proposed TD changes, then TDs would be both a viable defense (tracking) and offense (optimal); much like ECM, RSD and Webs are capable of providing both offense and defense.
It's a 'Bonnie and Clyde relationship', Nano (Rig/Plant) needs to be effective due to Webs and Webs need to be effective to deal with Nano-stacking. It also becomes much of a rich man's game when many of these highly efficient modules cost a small fortune and rather ridiculous when your standard to good setups have utilities cost more than the ship itself (like tech II fitting frigates). Sure, ISK should give you something, but not an entire dimension, not a terror balance or exclusion from the game mechanics. It's not in proportion. In the end the game loses out since there are not more to it than nano/web vs. web/nano and ISK spent.
|
AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Port Royal Independent Kontractors
Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 03:16:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Perfect Diamond
Edited by: Perfect Diamond on 08/02/2008 22:34:27
If you get webbed use a stupid ecm. Oh wait ECM kept me from pwning you. NERF IT NERF IT. Stop whining!!!
It's funny how you guys know nothing about programming. Do you know how much lag this would introduce. Auto update every 1/10 sec about how much effect the web would have on the target ship. Brilliance guys, brilliance.
Scared of change are we?  Or you just don't want to admit that it makes perfect sense? Take a step back and think through WHY nanoships started, and how the proposed changes to webs would make them less appealing. 
|
Volzir
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 03:39:00 -
[47]
OP: Your argument is sound and valid. While my first knee-jerk reaction was to roll my eyes, I agree that your suggestions have merit. However I have to say that because 10km is extremely short range for cruiser size category and up, and anything fighting inside that size category at that range is going to have issues tracking high speed targets, I don't want to change the webs. It would require a change to tracking speeds on all cruiser and larger sized turret modules.
Member of the second best race in the galaxy. |
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 03:45:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Perfect Diamond
Edited by: Perfect Diamond on 08/02/2008 22:34:27
If you get webbed use a stupid ecm. Oh wait ECM kept me from pwning you. NERF IT NERF IT. Stop whining!!!
It's funny how you guys know nothing about programming. Do you know how much lag this would introduce. Auto update every 1/10 sec about how much effect the web would have on the target ship. Brilliance guys, brilliance.
Oh look dev post Hurr hurr
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 04:16:00 -
[49]
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: Perfect Diamond
Edited by: Perfect Diamond on 08/02/2008 22:34:27
If you get webbed use a stupid ecm. Oh wait ECM kept me from pwning you. NERF IT NERF IT. Stop whining!!!
It's funny how you guys know nothing about programming. Do you know how much lag this would introduce. Auto update every 1/10 sec about how much effect the web would have on the target ship. Brilliance guys, brilliance.
Scared of change are we? Or you just don't want to admit that it makes perfect sense? Take a step back and think through WHY nanoships started, and how the proposed changes to webs would make them less appealing.
Being afraid of change and afraid of change to the worse are two different things,at the moment we have hundreds(if not thousands)of people crying for their one group to be boosted and all else nerfed,since they are paying customers their crying has weight and more times then not pass.
This is the death of most rpgs actually.
This is what happens when a kestrel with thermal missiles declares war on earth |
Arazel Chainfire
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 05:54:00 -
[50]
Ok, I'm getting real tired of all this nonsense.
To everyone who claims that webs aren't stacknerfed, here's some news for you - they are. Why is this not noticed? Because 99% and 90% + (90*.86)% are almost exactly the same. You are either really slow or really slow. Try it one day with some 75% webbers.
-Arazel
|
Kadoes Khan
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 06:02:00 -
[51]
I'm not overly fond of the balancing issues presented by webs right now. Mainly because it's one of those "one modules fits all" situations where every ship fits it and it works the same against every ship. I'm still running a few numbers but I'd like to at least see the idea of having webs increase mass by a percentage rather than reduce speed tested.
-=^=-
"Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity." |
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
Reavers.
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 06:31:00 -
[52]
Messing with webs can be potentially very dangerous for balance. Any changes should be very conservative.
Two important functions that webs play are preventing ships from reaching docking/jumping range and effectively immobilising very fast ships. It is also essential to the functioning of blaster ships (esp. smaller than BS). To this end, they must retain an effective percentage. However, the range can be reduced.
I don't think introducing a chance based falloff is a good idea. But restricting efficiency based on range could work with 3 "binary" tresholds instead of 1; something like this perhaps: 90% at 0-5km, 60% at 5-10km, 30% at 10-15km.
This would both retain the vital functions of an effective webbing while adding more depth to range control (by dividing the critical range into three points) and more resistance to nanos (while not destroying their viability). It would also encourage fitting a second web as a specific counter to nano setups as you would get a 52% reduction at 15km (which also extends farther overheated or with faction variants).
---
CEO
|
Solomon XI
Caldari
Dawn of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 10:42:00 -
[53]
If you screw with webs, you screw Gallente over completely.
Webs are fine as-is.
Learn to PvP.
That is all.
|
joshmorris
Silver Snake Enterprise
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 11:05:00 -
[54]
Tbh i think afterburners should not be effected by webs.
This way some1 could fit a afterburner to be web immune and still travel a half decent speed. ( Afterburner & mwd settups ? xD )
But obviously if you just fit a ab your not getting your uber speed compared to mwds.
If anything that idea is better than just nerfing webs.
Uber idea solves all !! |
Noxious IV
Umbra Congregatio
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 11:47:00 -
[55]
Webs are fine. There are always soloutions to nano ships that exclude webs.
MWD need MASSIVE amounts of cap, slap a Heavy Neut on a vaga and watch them run.
As for nano gangs, the same can be said for any gang. Sure missles can loose damage to fast ships, but use prescion missiles and your fine.
There are more inportant things to talk about, like why i can't add go faster stripes on my sleipnir
|
Merdaneth
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 12:13:00 -
[56]
Webs are part of the speed issue. The whole speed picture in EVE suffers from a lot of all-or-nothing effects. Both highly augmentable speeds and webbers make it a binary issue.
The difference between a MWD and non-MWD ship is so great, that the MWD ship can completely dictate the engagement. An MWD-fitted battleship is faster than most not-propulsion-augmented frigates even.
I would be quite happy with a 50% speed augmentation for an T1 AB fitted ship, and an 150% speed augmentation for a T1 MWD fitted ship, and a 50% speed reduction for a T1 Webifier (with an optimal and falloff of 10km, thus 0% speed reduction at 30km).
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 13:11:00 -
[57]
A lot of people have brought this up.
Webs are too strong, their range is too short, and their effect on smaller ships is too high.
They need to be affected by signature radius imo, then close range weaponry on a frigate won't be suicide. They need to be longer ranged to actually allow the med-range ships to slow that approaching blaster-boat and make it take a little damage on the way over. They need to be reduced in strength because they are a speedtank on/off button.
Yes, speedtanks are currently broken, if their not in your opinion overpowered consider the fact that the client can't keep up with these speeds and neither can light drones or rockets, the game just wasn't designed with such speeds in mind. Weaker, longer ranged webs would allow for slower speeds to make for viable speedtanks... where speed reduces damage and doesn't totally avoid it.
|
Gunner Chick
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 17:35:00 -
[58]
Sure, nerf webs. Lets see, nanofags blow through typical web range now like they are jokes due to the insane speed. If you want to nerf them, you better lower the grid and cpu requirements for neuts cause im not going to sit here and keep silent when 75% of 0.0 warfare results in one of three setups being used. 1. nanofags 2. sniper battleships 3. capital blobs. Its rediculous to state, and yes i fly moms, that it takes a 10+billion fit on tackle gear to catch a nanofag nowadays....
Nerf webs...give me a break.
|
Kruel
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 19:53:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Gunner Chick
Sure, nerf webs. Lets see, nanofags blow through typical web range now like they are jokes due to the insane speed. If you want to nerf them, you better lower the grid and cpu requirements for neuts cause im not going to sit here and keep silent when 75% of 0.0 warfare results in one of three setups being used. 1. nanofags 2. sniper battleships 3. capital blobs. Its rediculous to state, and yes i fly moms, that it takes a 10+billion fit on tackle gear to catch a nanofag nowadays....
Nerf webs...give me a break.
That's why if webs are nerfed, MWDs have to be nerfed at the same time. It's all or nothing. Blistering fast speed or dead stopped and webbed. There's no in-between option for speed in Eve right now.
|
AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Port Royal Independent Kontractors
Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 20:25:00 -
[60]
Originally by: goodby4u
Being afraid of change and afraid of change to the worse are two different things,at the moment we have hundreds(if not thousands)of people crying for their one group to be boosted and all else nerfed,since they are paying customers their crying has weight and more times then not pass.
This is the death of most rpgs actually.
Who the hell are you to say that this is a change for the worse? Maybe you should take a step back and... *gasp* think, about why nanos will be less appealing with the proposed changes.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |