EVE Search - Stasis Webifier II Buff/Balance

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Stasis Webifier II Buff/Balance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bunj GREY COUNCIL Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.23 02:06:00 - [1] The current stats of the stasis webifier II are not in line with the other t2 propulsion jaming modules. The stasis webifer II needs a slight boost to range to make it so. Atm Warp disruptor I 20 km Warp disruptor II 24 km Stasis Webifier I 10 km Stasis Webifier II 10 km What we need is to have a 12 km range on the T2 Web. This will make it balanced with the warp dis II and will also make slower tanked ships more viable in pvp (15.6 km overloaded).
Lorna Loot Nox Eternus	Posted - 2008.03.23 02:09:00 - [2] Edited by: Lorna Loot on 23/03/2008 02:09:43 OR the -15% extra in max velocity bonus is the stasis webifier II's tech 2 bonus. Just maybe. Edit to shut people up: Warp scram gets bonus to range, web gets bonus to targets max speed. Whats wrong with that? --------------------- Nox Eternus is Recruiting, contact me or Sgt Shazz ingame for info.
Lorna Loot Nox Eternus	Posted - 2008.03.23 02:10:00 - [3] Also wrong fourm! --------------------- Nox Eternus is Recruiting, contact me or Sgt Shazz ingame for info.
Zeba Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.03.23 02:11:00 - [4] CCP currently has a hardon for nano ships so good luck with getting that considered for a balance change. As it stands you need a Hyena/Huginn with faction web to counter nanos and I don't see this changing for quite a while. Good thing I have them both trained up on several characters. --------------------- Q: WTF! Why?! A: Because I can. ---------------------
Kruel Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.03.23 02:17:00 - [5] Giving them more range would hurt small close range ships even more. It's bad enough they're 90% and can now be overloaded to 13k range. You wanna make the nanofad worse? Overpower webs some more.
Karanth The Scope	Posted - 2008.03.23 02:29:00 - [6] Originally by: Kruel Giving them more range would hurt small close range ships even more. It's bad enough they're 90% and can now be overloaded to 13k range. You wanna make the nanofad worse? Overpower webs some more. How will buffing a counter make the nanoships more powerful? "Current Earth-Destruction Status"
Rawr Cristina Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.23 02:41:00 - [7] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/03/2008 02:41:47 I wouldn't mind a 'more range, less effect' type of webber myself, but the main reason people choose to fight outside webrange currently is that the 90% webs are so damn powerful 20km web, 50% effect sounds much better to mee imo. ...
sakana North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.03.23 03:17:00 - [8] Originally by: Lorna Loot Edited by: Lorna Loot on 23/03/2008 02:09:43 OR the -15% extra in max velocity bonus is the stasis webifier II's tech 2 bonus. Just maybe. Edit to shut people up: Warp scram gets bonus to range, web gets bonus to targets max speed. Whats wrong with that? Doesnt the fleeting web have the same max speed bonus as t2?
Galen Naranek Royal Navy Industries CryoGenesis Mining Syndicate	Posted - 2008.03.23 03:21:00 - [9] I think webs would be a perfect module for a script implementation. Maybe a base 75% speed reduction and 10 km range (T2) with scripts to either extend the range to 15km or the boost the speed reduction to 90%. Let the pilot choose! ___________________________________ That which kills me makes me deader
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.23 03:24:00 - [10] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 23/03/2008 03:24:37 Originally by: sakana Doesnt the fleeting web have the same max speed bonus as t2? Yes, it does. 90% is a total killer, which is why I always use T2 webs on my setups if possible. Mind you, the reason why I immensely prefer being able to fit the T2 web is price; paying 5M for a fleeting vs 1.3M for a T2... well And no, we do not need longer-ranged 90% webs. I'm not even sure we need 90% webs to begin with... Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Bo Bojangles Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.23 04:04:00 - [11] Eve is my 2nd mmorpg with GuildWars being my first even though it's been said that GuildWars really isn't a mmorpg but i'm not going into all that. What I will say though is that Eve's version of the 'snare', that is the ability to remove mobility from your opponent and/or control the range is infinitely more powerful than what I was used to formerly. In GW the snare came in the form of a hex or condition, which was the healer's responsibility to remove as soon as they were able, but we're only talking seconds. In Eve, the only way to remove the snare, that is for all practical purposes, is to destroy the snarer, which can be somewhat of a problem if you're piloting say the common AC Hurricane and run into the common Arty Huginn. There's a reason why the T2 web didn't receive a range bonus as the disrupter did, it's already quite overpowered. Maybe you're a God tanker but once I'm webbed, my chance of survival goes down tenfold.
Laechyd Eldgorn Karjala Inc. Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.03.23 07:01:00 - [12] t2 stasis webifier optimal 10km -90% velocity falloff ~10km -20...-30% velocity ~24km Would love it. ^^
L70Rogue State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.23 07:25:00 - [13] Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn t2 stasis webifier optimal 10km -90% velocity falloff ~10km -20...-30% velocity ~24km Would love it. ^^ Wouldn't an optimal of 14km be better with 10km fall off? 60% at 24km
L70Rogue State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.23 07:29:00 - [14] Originally by: Kruel Giving them more range would hurt small close range ships even more. It's bad enough they're 90% and can now be overloaded to 13k range. You wanna make the nanofad worse? Overpower webs some more. 13km web is useless against most nanoships that usually stay at 17km+ and many usually hover around t2 disruptor range.
Terraform Synthetic Frontiers Blue Federation	Posted - 2008.03.23 08:36:00 - [15] Webifier is STILL the most overpowered module in the game! NO other module drops an attribute of a ship by 75% other than the webifier, and that's just the normal tech 1 unnamed. No reason to complain about it really, as i see it, increasing the webbing range in the tech 2 webber will cause ships with bonuses to webbing range to become even more powerful, i highly doubt those ships need a boost.
Gaia Thorn Capital Produce Quantum Star Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.23 08:46:00 - [16] Originally by: Terraform Webifier is STILL the most overpowered module in the game! NO other module drops an attribute of a ship by 75% other than the webifier, and that's just the normal tech 1 unnamed. No reason to complain about it really, as i see it, increasing the webbing range in the tech 2 webber will cause ships with bonuses to webbing range to become even more powerful, i highly doubt those ships need a boost. Could have sworn that ECM does a 100% effectiveness on my ship.. And they can do it from 200km+ .. hey go figure
Ralara D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.23 09:31:00 - [17] Originally by: Gaia Thorn Originally by: Terraform Webifier is STILL the most overpowered module in the game! NO other module drops an attribute of a ship by 75% other than the webifier, and that's just the normal tech 1 unnamed. No reason to complain about it really, as i see it, increasing the webbing range in the tech 2 webber will cause ships with bonuses to webbing range to become even more powerful, i highly doubt those ships need a boost. Could have sworn that ECM does a 100% effectiveness on my ship.. And they can do it from 200km+ .. hey go figure ECM: 1) Isn't guaranteed 2) Has a defense against it (ECCM, FOF missiles, Drones etc) -- Ralara / Ralarina
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.23 09:49:00 - [18] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 23/03/2008 09:51:35 Originally by: Bunj The current stats of the stasis webifier II are not in line with the other t2 propulsion jaming modules. The stasis webifer II needs a slight boost to range to make it so. Atm Warp disruptor I 20 km Warp disruptor II 24 km Stasis Webifier I 10 km Stasis Webifier II 10 km What we need is to have a 12 km range on the T2 Web. This will make it balanced with the warp dis II and will also make slower tanked ships more viable in pvp (15.6 km overloaded). Webs need scripts to be honest. Most competent nano pilts never really get into web range and web does not decelerate people fast enough to matter most of the time. But what I think would work is a +100% range, -50% effectiveness web script. So a standard t1 75% web does 37.5% web at 20km (26km with overheating). This means a typical 10kms crow does 6,250 m/s. Seems pretty fine to me as multiple webs are required to slow it down and stop it. T2 90% webs with this scripts would do 45% web at 20km (26km with overheating). So the 10kms crow would be only doing around 5,500m/s which is also pretty fair. Thats only 4-5 seconds to get out of web range so nano pilots can still do their thing, and a conventional gang will have to focus webbing, thus adding more tactics to the game. So rather than solve nanos by a nerf, solve it by a boost by boosting webs via scripts -- Billion Isk Mission
Squatdog DROW Org Brotherhood of the Spider	Posted - 2008.03.23 10:38:00 - [19] An extra 2km range is FAR more beneficial than increased speed impairment, but I guess scripts could be the way to go. [yellow]Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigato
Kagura Nikon Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.	Posted - 2008.03.23 10:43:00 - [20] Originally by: L70Rogue Originally by: Kruel Giving them more range would hurt small close range ships even more. It's bad enough they're 90% and can now be overloaded to 13k range. You wanna make the nanofad worse? Overpower webs some more. 13km web is useless against most nanoships that usually stay at 17km+ and many usually hover around t2 disruptor range. no its not. A 13 km web ovear heats to exaclty 17 km. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kagura Nikon Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.	Posted - 2008.03.23 10:44:00 - [21] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 23/03/2008 09:51:35 Originally by: Bunj The current stats of the stasis webifier II are not in line with the other t2 propulsion jaming modules. The stasis webifer II needs a slight boost to range to make it so. Atm Warp disruptor I 20 km Warp disruptor II 24 km Stasis Webifier I 10 km Stasis Webifier II 10 km What we need is to have a 12 km range on the T2 Web. This will make it balanced with the warp dis II and will also make slower tanked ships more viable in pvp (15.6 km overloaded). Webs need scripts to be honest. Most competent nano pilts never really get into web range and web does not decelerate people fast enough to matter most of the time. But what I think would work is a +100% range, -50% effectiveness web script. So a standard t1 75% web does 37.5% web at 20km (26km with overheating). This means a typical 10kms crow does 6,250 m/s. Seems pretty fine to me as multiple webs are required to slow it down and stop it. T2 90% webs with this scripts would do 45% web at 20km (26km with overheating). So the 10kms crow would be only doing around 5,500m/s which is also pretty fair. Thats only 4-5 seconds to get out of web range so nano pilots can still do their thing, and a conventional gang will have to focus webbing, thus adding more tactics to the game. So rather than solve nanos by a nerf, solve it by a boost by boosting webs via scripts that is the path. But the downside is.. omg Rapiers webbign me at 150 km.. WELP!! WELP!!! ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.23 11:07:00 - [22] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 23/03/2008 11:07:44 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Lord WarATron Webs need scripts to be honest. Most competent nano pilts never really get into web range and web does not decelerate people fast enough to matter most of the time. But what I think would work is a +100% range, -50% effectiveness web script. So a standard t1 75% web does 37.5% web at 20km (26km with overheating). This means a typical 10kms crow does 6,250 m/s. Seems pretty fine to me as multiple webs are required to slow it down and stop it. T2 90% webs with this scripts would do 45% web at 20km (26km with overheating). So the 10kms crow would be only doing around 5,500m/s which is also pretty fair. Thats only 4-5 seconds to get out of web range so nano pilots can still do their thing, and a conventional gang will have to focus webbing, thus adding more tactics to the game. So rather than solve nanos by a nerf, solve it by a boost by boosting webs via scripts that is the path. But the downside is.. omg Rapiers webbign me at 150 km.. WELP!! WELP!!! Thats ok to be honest, since if a falcon can ECM from 200km+, then I have no issue with a theoretical rapier webbing at 150km at half effect with at +100% range, -50% effectiveness script. If the enemy is not tackled anyway all the rapier is doing is helping them warp out faster. I think CCP relise that it is more complex to take out a nanogang than to become one that they will either nerf nano to uselessness or setup web range scripts. -- Billion Isk Mission
astowv Armoured Assassins Synchr0nicity	Posted - 2008.03.23 11:13:00 - [23] make web's innefective on fast moving ships ;) If you go 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13+ (Tri anyone ?) km/s, your web does 90-80-70-60-50-40 % ----
RuleoftheBone Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.03.23 11:58:00 - [24] LOL. Train fitting skills. Use T2 webs and save money over fleetings for CPU. Train Recon V. I'm pretty happy with 40km 90% webbers thank you very much . "Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
Grytok moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.03.23 12:06:00 - [25] Scripted Webs sounds fair enough and no, it won't make Rapier's or Huginns overpowered, as they can't scramble this far. In combination with an Arazu (48km Scram Range) they don't need to load the script anyways, as they reach out that far allready. +100% optimal range, -50% effectiveness sounds good. .
Ki'esha Lorri'en 1st Legion Combat Liaison	Posted - 2008.03.23 12:34:00 - [26] I would rather CCP reintroduce the propulsion strength value with a web stasis module checking against a ships' propulsion attribute to determine its effectiveness. For those that don't know propulsion strength was a value back in Exodus; now you can only see it in the item database. It was never utilized for anything at the time and eventually dropped from view. This could evolve where there are different webs for each propulsion type or scripts to maximize effectiveness; additionally this would allow pilots to increase a ship value through modules/implants to mitigate web stasis effectiveness. Ki' Quote: Odd objects attract fire. You are odd. -Murphy
Winterblink Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.03.23 14:32:00 - [27] Originally by: Lorna Loot Edited by: Lorna Loot on 23/03/2008 02:09:43 OR the -15% extra in max velocity bonus is the stasis webifier II's tech 2 bonus. Just maybe. Edit to shut people up: Warp scram gets bonus to range, web gets bonus to targets max speed. Whats wrong with that? Nothing. And this is the precise problem with people posting ideas to "fix" modules they perceive as broken. They will, almost as a rule, omit pertinent bits of information like this. warp drive active \| nature vraie
Malcanis	Posted - 2008.03.23 14:39:00 - [28] Originally by: Bo Bojangles Eve is my 2nd mmorpg with GuildWars being my first even though it's been said that GuildWars really isn't a mmorpg but i'm not going into all that. What I will say though is that Eve's version of the 'snare', that is the ability to remove mobility from your opponent and/or control the range is infinitely more powerful than what I was used to formerly. In GW the snare came in the form of a hex or condition, which was the healer's responsibility to remove as soon as they were able, but we're only talking seconds. In Eve, the only way to remove the snare, that is for all practical purposes, is to destroy the snarer, which can be somewhat of a problem if you're piloting say the common AC Hurricane and run into the common Arty Huginn. There's a reason why the T2 web didn't receive a range bonus as the disrupter did, it's already quite overpowered. Maybe you're a God tanker but once I'm webbed, my chance of survival goes down tenfold. ECM and Damps are effective anti-scram methods. Most nanoships (and interceptors) are highly susceptible to one or both. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis	Posted - 2008.03.23 14:40:00 - [29] Originally by: Winterblink Originally by: Lorna Loot Edited by: Lorna Loot on 23/03/2008 02:09:43 OR the -15% extra in max velocity bonus is the stasis webifier II's tech 2 bonus. Just maybe. Edit to shut people up: Warp scram gets bonus to range, web gets bonus to targets max speed. Whats wrong with that? Nothing. And this is the precise problem with people posting ideas to "fix" modules they perceive as broken. They will, almost as a rule, omit pertinent bits of information like this. You mean bits of information like: There are long-range, weak-effect (1 point) warp scams, and short-range, strong effect (2 point) ones? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Avon	Posted - 2008.03.23 14:44:00 - [30] Web speed reduction should scale with range. 10km optimal, full bonus. 5km falloff (so 50% effect at 15km, 0% at 20km). (Actually, maybe a 2.5km falloff would be better). Ay, whatever, tweak the numbers, but the concept is sound. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.23 15:28:00 - [31] There are several good suggestions doing the rounds atm. Buffs Scripts: +100% range -50% effect as mentioned here. Hi-Slot variant: stats as the scripted version, benefits mid slot starved Caldari and Amarr and reflects their preference for ranged combat. Addition of fall-off. Nerfs Flat reduction of webbification amount. Counter module that reduces webbification amount Added value to AB's that reduces webbification amount. I'd personally prefer the hi-slot version (two birds one stone) and the buff to afterburners (again two issues solved in one go). I dislike the idea of falloff since it enables both strong close range webbing and weak long-range webbing on the same module and scripts would be almost as bad. I also dislike the idea of a counter module since it would become a "must have" module. Though these are just my personal thoughts on the issue.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.23 16:01:00 - [32] Falloff might work better if the falloff range were much larger than the optimal. So that you're nearly always working in falloff. Side note: it could be skill-based too, so Propulsion Jamming was good for something other than getting into Interdictors. Speaking as a Caldari pilot, a hi-slot webber would be lovely. But imagine the crying in Ships And Modules as Cerbs, Drakes and Ravens become rather more deadly... CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.23 16:14:00 - [33] Ships and modules is always full of tears. Since it's possible to field shield tanking ships in large gangs without tackling equipment and not have it considered overpowered I doubt there would be any major re-balancing issues except possibly tweaking the highs on certain ships.
Karentaki Combat-Evolved	Posted - 2008.03.23 16:15:00 - [34] /signed If CCP wants to reduce the prevelence of nano-gangs in PvP, they need to consider boosting webs rather than nerfing nanos. Simple, nerf basic webs, but make them use scripts: Range script = +100% range Strength script = +50% web T1 Web: - base = 10km 50% web - range script = 20km 50% - strength script = 10km 75% T2 Web: - base = 12km 60% web - range script = 24km 60% - strength script = 12m 80% This reduces the strength of webs, while allowing them to reach greater ranges. For example, that 10km/s crow, when caught with a T2 range web, gets slowed to 4km/s. With 2 range webs, it comes down to 1.6km/s. With 3 it's going at 640m/s by which point it becomes vulnerable to guns and stuff. This means that it's possible to catch nano ships at greater range, but you need more tacklers to do it. I'm pretty sure this is what CCP wanted when they were considering nerfing nano-ships. On the other hand... Would you trust something with teeth but no eyes!?!?! Drainpipe of Doom pilot!
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.23 16:16:00 - [35] Mmmm... Onyx or Broadsword with hi-slot web. The perfect tackler? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.23 16:23:00 - [36] Problem with the script idea is that I web you from 20km then when you get down to 12km I switch script and before you get any real acceleration I have you strongly webbed at 10km. That'd be pretty harsh for many blasterboats.
Karentaki Combat-Evolved	Posted - 2008.03.23 17:04:00 - [37] It takes about 10 seconds to change scripts I think (correct me if I'm wrong) - this is plenty of time for an inty or even a nano-hac to accelerate off out of any web range. On the other hand... Would you trust something with teeth but no eyes!?!?! Drainpipe of Doom pilot!
Christari Zuborov Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.03.23 22:30:00 - [38] There's nothing wrong with nano-ships... There could be an argument for the amount of bonuses you can apply to nano-ships. Command Ship + Gang + Hard Wirings + Implants But, then you'd nerf organized play and organized play should ALWAYS trump solo play.
Cybele Lanier The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.03.24 00:19:00 - [39] Originally by: Ralara ECM: 1) Isn't guaranteed 2) Has a defense against it (ECCM, FOF missiles, Drones etc) Indeed, every other e-war module has a counter-module. ECCM vs ECM, core stabilisers vs scramblers, sensor boosters vs dampeners, targeting computers / tracking enhancers vs tracking disruptors, and so on. But with webs, the only solution is to stay out of range, which seems to force all fast ships to stay at 11km or more on pain of death. --------------- ""Minimum collateral damage" and "Entire star system" do not belong in the same sentence."
Maraleith The Culture Holding Corporation	Posted - 2008.03.24 15:07:00 - [40] Originally by: Cybele Lanier Originally by: Ralara ECM: 1) Isn't guaranteed 2) Has a defense against it (ECCM, FOF missiles, Drones etc) Indeed, every other e-war module has a counter-module. ECCM vs ECM, core stabilisers vs scramblers, sensor boosters vs dampeners, targeting computers / tracking enhancers vs tracking disruptors, and so on. But with webs, the only solution is to stay out of range, which seems to force all fast ships to stay at 11km or more on pain of death. Good point. However, for nanoships which rely upon speed - the counter is the web. At present the stasis webbifier is not powerful enough to counter the ingenuity of people who are coming up with some incredible speed fits. This looks like a viable solution. As for blaster ships; if a blasterthron gets to within 10km of you; you're in a world of hurt. This gives other ships a chance to engage and survive through using scripts.
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.24 15:24:00 - [41] Originally by: Karentaki It takes about 10 seconds to change scripts I think (correct me if I'm wrong) - this is plenty of time for an inty or even a nano-hac to accelerate off out of any web range. If the ship is speed tanking then you really shouldn't be able to slap them with 10km version, unless it's made a little weaker and then close range speed-tanking would be viable. Are you agreeing with scripts not being the optimal idea with that post or disagreeing?
Y3R M4W School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.03.24 17:16:00 - [42] As I see it something needs to be done to allow non-specialized ships to web, if only slightly, at up to scramble range, since at the moment you can stop a ship from warping at 24km and just zoom around at crazy km/s. Speed tanks should ofc remain a valid tactic (since what would minmatar do otherwise ) but it should be counter-able without specific ships. Note: YER MAW! is Scottish for Your Mother.
Karentaki Aliastra	Posted - 2008.03.24 23:10:00 - [43] If you read up you'll see I agree with the scripts. They make webs effective while not being overpowered. For example, you couldn't get a T1 cruiser speed-tanking your drones while still able to keep you tackled with a T1 warp disruptor. You would however need several people with T2 webbers to effectively tackle a well fitted nano-ship that costs 200 million ISK. On the other hand... Would you trust something with teeth but no eyes!?!?! Drainpipe of Doom pilot!
Kruel Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.03.24 23:47:00 - [44] I'm only for giving webs more range if afterburners are made immune to the effects.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.25 00:13:00 - [45] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/03/2008 00:13:50 Originally by: Lord WarATron . T2 90% webs with this scripts would do 45% web at 20km (26km with overheating). So the 10kms crow would be only doing around 5,500m/s which is also pretty fair. Thats only 4-5 seconds to get out of web range so nano pilots can still do their thing, and a conventional gang will have to focus webbing, thus adding more tactics to the game. You do realise how imbalanced this is? A 10km/s Crow is relatively pimped (10km/s is unattainable with T2 gear). So, after one 1.2M module (T2 web) it's suicide to tackle a Hurricane/Rupture/Harbringer/Prophecy for longer then 10s, and god forbid you're trying to tackle one out of two cruisers, because you are going to die horribly. Furthermore, while this doesn't completely obsolete speed setups in 1v1s, it completely and utterly obsoletes them when attacking 2 ships or more. As much as I hate to be kited by nanoships, this is a utterly imbalanced. Longer ranged webs promote blobbing further, and I will never endorse them. Also, make ABs do something about webs - webs need a bloody counter. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kekzanid Black Wolves Rule of Three	Posted - 2008.03.25 00:39:00 - [46] Edited by: Kekzanid on 25/03/2008 00:45:16 Quote: Indeed, every other e-war module has a counter-module. ECCM vs ECM, core stabilisers vs scramblers, sensor boosters vs dampeners, targeting computers / tracking enhancers vs tracking disruptors, and so on. Um, nanofibers, overdrive injectors, microwarpdrive, polycarbs, snakes vs. stasis webs And unlike ECCM, these modules actually have a use other than countering the webs. Tell me, how often do you drop a MWD for an ECCM module? Never, I'd guess.
Julius Romanus Fatalix Inc. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.25 02:33:00 - [47] It hasnt been mentioned on page 2 yet so I'll do it. Webs are at least as broken as snaked rigged claymore'd mindlinked officer speed. 90% webs should never have been introduced. Also, all your ideas acomplish that nerfing the super combo doesnt, is destroying frigate gameplay entirely. 50% 20km webs? Do none of you even fly blaster ships? Let alone frigates? Have fun closing on my harbinger. In fact, the day something like this gets announced i'm immediately training for a geddon. Have fun with THAT and long range webbing.
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.25 15:29:00 - [48] Originally by: Julius Romanus It hasnt been mentioned on page 2 yet so I'll do it. Webs are at least as broken as snaked rigged claymore'd mindlinked officer speed. 90% webs should never have been introduced. Stunning how did we go two pages without.. oh no wait. Originally by: Kruel Giving them more range would hurt small close range ships even more. It's bad enough they're 90% and can now be overloaded to 13k range. Originally by: Rawr Cristina the main reason people choose to fight outside webrange currently is that the 90% webs are so damn powerful Originally by: Galen Naranek Maybe a base 75% speed reduction and 10 km range (T2) Originally by: Cpt Branko 90% is a total killer, which is why I always use T2 webs on my setups if possible. Originally by: Terraform Webifier is STILL the most overpowered module in the game! Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Flat reduction of webbification amount. Counter module that reduces webbification amount Added value to AB's that reduces webbification amount. Originally by: Karentaki nerf basic webs The web is both the most overpowered and the most useless module in the game. This is why almost everyone here is suggesting both buffs and nerfs be made to it. You might even notice some bold text further up the page. Personally: I want to use afterburners, I want to use close range frigates, and I want to get use out of Minmatars stat bonuses. I also want nano-setups to take the same risks the rest of us do.
Sexiest Beast State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.25 16:40:00 - [49] Just to throw it out there . . Max Skills, Maxed Claymore. Huginn, Totally Theoretical Chelm's Modified Reactor Control Unit Chelm's Modified Reactor Control Unit Chelm's Modified Reactor Control Unit Hakim's Modified Stasis Webifier (196.4 km Optimal) [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Ancillary Current Router II Ancillary Current Router II Remainder Grid for other fittings : 437tf and 268.34
Dianeces Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.03.25 17:12:00 - [50] Originally by: Sexiest Beast Edited by: Sexiest Beast on 25/03/2008 16:50:20 Just to throw it out there . . Max Skills, Maxed Claymore. Huginn, Totally Theoretical Chelm's Modified Reactor Control Unit Chelm's Modified Reactor Control Unit Chelm's Modified Reactor Control Unit Hakim's Modified Stasis Webifier (196.4 km Optimal) [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Ancillary Current Router II Ancillary Current Router II Remainder Grid for other fittings : 437tf and 268.34mw Yes, because this is entirely practical and will see use in every day PvP all across Eve now.
Atius Tirawa Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.03.25 17:58:00 - [51] scripts will make my Huggin very very powerful imo. . . -----------
El Alamein Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 19:18:00 - [52] if i see any more modules on my ship requiring scripts i'm going to go on a ******* emo rage attack. so i don't like that idea.
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.26 01:39:00 - [53] Originally by: Atius Tirawa scripts will make my Huggin very very powerful imo. . . I find the idea of Matari recons being able to use their EW at fleet range offensive. Really, shouldn't they be able to reach out to these kind of ranges anyway? Wouldn't it be nice to silence all the whining about target painters by making webbing the "real" Minmatar EW. I haven't given it much thought, can anyone think of any reason why this would be an absolutely horrible idea?
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.26 01:41:00 - [54] Originally by: El Alamein if i see any more modules on my ship requiring scripts i'm going to go on a ******* emo rage attack. so i don't like that idea. Do you like any of the other ideas?
Julius Romanus Fatalix Inc. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.26 04:29:00 - [55] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Atius Tirawa scripts will make my Huggin very very powerful imo. . . I find the idea of Matari recons being able to use their EW at fleet range offensive. Really, shouldn't they be able to reach out to these kind of ranges anyway? Wouldn't it be nice to silence all the whining about target painters by making webbing the "real" Minmatar EW. I haven't given it much thought, can anyone think of any reason why this would be an absolutely horrible idea? We cross signing for 150km neut curses too?? Or is this a min only pipe dream =P
Sexiest Beast State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.26 07:35:00 - [56] the Hakim is an "illustration about how potentially powerfull webs can possibly be. : Dread Guristas Stasis Webifier 12km >> 63km Gallente Navy Stasis Webifier 13km >> 68.3km Dark Blood Stasis Webifier 14km >> 73.5km Domination Stasis Webifier 15km >> 78.8km Overloaded + Claymore (actual skills) (Recon 4) (skirmish 4) Which is entirely practical, achievable and indeed in use. IF you want to add 2km to a TII web and then Faction webs were rebalanced accordingly the numbers just get higher.
Jessica Molla State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.26 13:01:00 - [57] webs are fine, dont you people get it? any change to them, whether its range or power, will inevitably lead to somehow nerfing(destroying) combat capability of blaster boats, that are vitally dependant on webs and mwd.. you wanna do something about nanoships? change stacking penalties on speed modules or do any other of many options you got, but dont destroy webs... this whole discussion is utter stupidity
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.27 18:13:00 - [58] Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 27/03/2008 18:13:47 Quote: We cross signing for 150km neut curses too?? Or is this a min only pipe dream =P I don't think fleet range tracking disruptors would be a problem. But then again this is not an Amarr brigade meeting point. Originally by: Sexiest Beast IF you want to add 2km to a TII web and then Faction webs were rebalanced accordingly the numbers just get higher. This isn't really a problem if you employ any solution except that of adding range to webbers, which without a corresponding nerf is just plain stupid. A separate module or increased range decreased strength script would leave such modules around as "balanced" as they are now. Originally by: Jessica Molla webs are fine, dont you people get it? Well obviously not, we seem to disagree. Originally by: Jessica Molla any change to them, whether its range or power, will inevitably lead to somehow nerfing(destroying) combat capability of blaster boats, that are vitally dependant on webs and mwd.. You seem to have missed the long lists of nerfs suggested to balance such things. A reduction in web strength, an AB resistance to webs, a counter module, these things all strike you as destroying the combat capability of blaster boats? Destroy webs? Make your mind up are the people in this thread unanimously suggesting overpowered buffs or wrecking nerfs? Quote: this whole discussion is utter stupidity Not getting past the thread title is utter stupidity. The suggestions made during this discussion strike me as a lot less stupid than nerfing speed, speed-tanking, and Minmatar in general while leaving afterburners, webs, and close range frigates with problems. In my opinion CCP need to look at webs first, then give it awhile to settle in and show results before tweaking speed and speed-tanking to ensure speed-tanking is viable but not overpowered. Anything else will lead to revisiting previous solutions when they come to fix the remaining problems.
Xacal Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.27 19:07:00 - [59] Webing needs to be nerfed, not boosted. It is too powerful and too short range right now. After they nerf webing, then they can nerf speed a little bit only, to bring things back to balance. Xacal
Bunj GREY COUNCIL Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.29 01:18:00 - [60] Edited by: Bunj on 29/03/2008 01:21:44 Originally by: Sexiest Beast IF you want to add 2km to a TII web and then Faction webs were rebalanced accordingly the numbers just get higher. Thats not correct, if the t2 web has 2km range added to it then it would be in line with the t2 warp disruptor stats but no other modules would need to be changed. As the game is currnetly a t2 warp dis has the same range as a dread gurisras or equivlent disruptor. However the t2 stasis web is 2km less range than the dread guristas or equivlent web. On a seperate point, the argument of increasing web range hurting intys to much does not make sence to me. Yes it would make flying the crow, claw etc a little more dangerous however it would encourage the use of the raptor, stilleto etc which have the bonus to warp dis range. Edit: Alternatlivley for all those people who think the stasis web doesnt need any more range, ccp could nerf t2 warp dis range back to 20km. This would also balance the proulsion jaming mods and would make fighting nanos easier.
Cpt Branko	Posted - 2008.03.29 10:06:00 - [61] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Personally: I want to use afterburners, I want to use close range frigates Buff the afterburner then. Only when AB frigate goes as fast or faster then a MWD-ing cruiser/BC/BS, we can talk about effective use of close range frigates. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Siigari Kitawa	Posted - 2008.03.29 11:18:00 - [62] Originally by: Lord WarATron Webs need scripts to be honest. Most competent nano pilts never really get into web range and web does not decelerate people fast enough to matter most of the time. But what I think would work is a +100% range, -50% effectiveness web script. So a standard t1 75% web does 37.5% web at 20km (26km with overheating). This means a typical 10kms crow does 6,250 m/s. Seems pretty fine to me as multiple webs are required to slow it down and stop it. T2 90% webs with this scripts would do 45% web at 20km (26km with overheating). So the 10kms crow would be only doing around 5,500m/s which is also pretty fair. Thats only 4-5 seconds to get out of web range so nano pilots can still do their thing, and a conventional gang will have to focus webbing, thus adding more tactics to the game. So rather than solve nanos by a nerf, solve it by a boost by boosting webs via scripts NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO DO NOT GIVE WEBS SCRIPTS!!! I hate scripts. They are literally the biggest gimmick ever. They are ways of taking something that should be able to work efficiently on its own and making you need two of them to achieve any sort of reasonable effect. I HATE the fact that I can't have long lock range and high scan res on my stealth bomber without using TWO sensor boosters. I mean come on, seriously. Now you're wanting to put webs on the scripting crutch and it's going to make webs practically USELESS. Seriously, there is no realistic way to implement scripts into an electronic warfare module and have them work effectively. Tracking disruptors are a joke now and target painters are starting to become more and more useful. Don't script webs. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Tarkin8 DOWN THE PIPE Celestial Frontier	Posted - 2008.03.29 12:05:00 - [63] Why not just add a web bubble, Like a warp scrambling bubble, but instead, slows you down -90%
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.03.29 16:34:00 - [64] Buff the afterburner: Suggested already. Web Bubble: Massively overpowered vs any blaster boat, smaller ships, or speed-tank. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Kaben Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.30 16:33:00 - [65] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Buff the afterburner: Suggested already. Web Bubble: Massively overpowered vs any blaster boat, smaller ships, or speed-tank. Scripts also overpowered to blaster boats. Sure a blaster boat will use these, but what good is using them if by the time he gets into range he has little to no armor left.
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.30 16:54:00 - [66] I don't like the script idea much either, but since it would likely come with changes to the base web strength then it would probably be of benefit to blaster boats. The superior tracking of blasters would be more important at close range than today and (since you could use "focus webbing") opponents would have a much harder time escaping. Of course if the blasterboat pilot starts too far away he will end up half dead by the time he gets there but that's pretty much how things are today and the way things are supposed to be. In total it would result in a smaller margin of error when it comes to engagement ranges (which are typically very small anyway) and a greater ability to evade damage at close range since it's guns will track considerably better in comparison than they do now. Of course all of this would depend on the exact numbers used but I'm a firm believer in testing to find the right balance instead of pulling numbers out of my rear.
Doddy	Posted - 2008.03.30 17:08:00 - [67] Originally by: sakana Originally by: Lorna Loot Edited by: Lorna Loot on 23/03/2008 02:09:43 OR the -15% extra in max velocity bonus is the stasis webifier II's tech 2 bonus. Just maybe. Edit to shut people up: Warp scram gets bonus to range, web gets bonus to targets max speed. Whats wrong with that? Doesnt the fleeting web have the same max speed bonus as t2? Lots of top end named modules match their t2 counterparts, i think its more of a case that named warp scramblers are underpowered range wise tbh seeing as they give no adantage in range or effect. If you made t2 webs have the longer range you would really need to nerf their effectiveness back to the t1 level, otherwise you are just making them powerful for the sake of it.
Doddy	Posted - 2008.03.30 17:10:00 - [68] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Originally by: Lord WarATron Webs need scripts to be honest. Most competent nano pilts never really get into web range and web does not decelerate people fast enough to matter most of the time. But what I think would work is a +100% range, -50% effectiveness web script. So a standard t1 75% web does 37.5% web at 20km (26km with overheating). This means a typical 10kms crow does 6,250 m/s. Seems pretty fine to me as multiple webs are required to slow it down and stop it. T2 90% webs with this scripts would do 45% web at 20km (26km with overheating). So the 10kms crow would be only doing around 5,500m/s which is also pretty fair. Thats only 4-5 seconds to get out of web range so nano pilots can still do their thing, and a conventional gang will have to focus webbing, thus adding more tactics to the game. So rather than solve nanos by a nerf, solve it by a boost by boosting webs via scripts NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO DO NOT GIVE WEBS SCRIPTS!!! I hate scripts. They are literally the biggest gimmick ever. They are ways of taking something that should be able to work efficiently on its own and making you need two of them to achieve any sort of reasonable effect. I HATE the fact that I can't have long lock range and high scan res on my stealth bomber without using TWO sensor boosters. I mean come on, seriously. Now you're wanting to put webs on the scripting crutch and it's going to make webs practically USELESS. Seriously, there is no realistic way to implement scripts into an electronic warfare module and have them work effectively. Tracking disruptors are a joke now and target painters are starting to become more and more useful. Don't script webs. To be honest i don't see how his proposal would make webs useless, in unscripted form they would have the same effect they do now .... So basically he wants to give them an extra ability on top. That would suck tho, there is nothing wrong with t2 webs.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.03.30 22:53:00 - [69] Originally by: Doddy there is nothing wrong with t2 webs. I, personally, think that a 90% reduction in speed is massively overpowered. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Delezar	Posted - 2008.03.31 06:09:00 - [70] In my opinion, webs should have different sizes. Something like: Small: 10km range, -90% speed (for best named and t2), 1pg Medium: 20 km range, -70% speed (for best named and t2), 150pg Large: 40km range, -50% speed (for best named and t2), 600pg That will enable most ships to choose which web they want, if they want extra range for a loss of effectiveness. A Huginn/Rapier can either go with the small one and up to 40km range with Recon 5 or just use the large, with some fitting trouble to get a much higher range, but at a big penalty to its effectiveness.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.03.31 06:49:00 - [71] Standard 12km webs would be stupidly damaging to everything not touting heavy tanks and would practically beg for another tackling ceptor buff which would inturn demand another web boost ad infinitum. More web classes and scripts are all nonsensical solutions to problems that don't exist when heat, multiple faction and officer webs exist for the bigger ships and the gang mod is another option, you might as well ask for centurions to augment web range too. The issue of momentum is the only interesting thing mentioned but one that I don't think will ever be satisfactorily solved. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Thelok Mashito	Posted - 2008.05.16 15:56:00 - [72] Edited by: Thelok Ma**o on 16/05/2008 15:59:12 Edited by: Thelok Ma**o on 16/05/2008 15:58:28 Would like to see this change, but add scale to the picture. If a BS uses a web on a smaller target it should reduce the speed on said target to the max amount. Max speed reduction should only happen on like sized/massed objects or smaller. Either that, or gets me a harpoon. Reduce the speed on the target, and drag me along with it. Should do immediate armor/structure damage on both sides, with continuing damage as long as it is employed, and have an ability to tear the ship apart if multiple ships employ it from various points in space.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.05.16 16:06:00 - [73] everything is fine with webbers no need to change
Cortana AI	Posted - 2008.05.16 16:17:00 - [74] Originally by: Lorna Loot Edited by: Lorna Loot on 23/03/2008 02:09:43 OR the -15% extra in max velocity bonus is the stasis webifier II's tech 2 bonus. Just maybe. Edit to shut people up: Warp scram gets bonus to range, web gets bonus to targets max speed. Whats wrong with that? T1 webs can get to same specs as T2 web, T1 warp scrams can't because of range, giving them an extra 2km isn't exactly gonna ruin the game, I actually think it will bring it more into line.
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.05.16 17:06:00 - [75] Originally by: Galen Naranek I think webs would be a perfect module for a script implementation. Maybe a base 75% speed reduction and 10 km range (T2) with scripts to either extend the range to 15km or the boost the speed reduction to 90%. Let the pilot choose! Even though I'm a nanofag myself, I'm signing this. /Signed
Harotak THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.05.16 17:15:00 - [76] Originally by: Thelok Ma**o Either that, or gets me a harpoon. Reduce the speed on the target, and drag me along with it. Should do immediate armor/structure damage on both sides, with continuing damage as long as it is employed, and have an ability to tear the ship apart if multiple ships employ it from various points in space. Best idea I've heard in a LONG time. Ship launches Harpoon, if it hits, it starts to reel in and the ship with less mass/propulsion impulse is the one that moves. Maybe a few harpoon battleships could drag a carrier off a station in less than 60s too......

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.