Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 02:26:00 -
[1]
There have been many patches trying to balance the effect of these modules. There seems like no end to them and every time there is an adjustment you end up with more complains.
Now CCP is toying with giving AF resistance to webifiers *sigh*. Please stop and reconsider before it goes too far.
Here is the core issue. These modules are BROKEN, they DO NOT reflect how physics works.
Webifier: Does it not seem strange that a inteceptor can web and stop a carrier (1000 times its mass) using the same amount of cap it would to stop another ceptor?
Micro Warp Drive: Greater thrust equals greater acceleration, not greater top speed. Top speed is limited by structure integraty or technology to maintain survivable gravity within the ship.
CCP needs to fix the way these modules work before trying to balance the effect.
Webifier: -Add script with power rating. Higher power rating draws more cap and has greater stoping power. Factor in the mass of the ship. (Example: A Power Rating Script capable of slowing down a Capital ship should stop a ceptor dead in its track, the engine shooting out of its nose kind of stop instant 0 m/s) -Add chance for miss with distance and ship size. (Smaller the ship and farther it is away greater chance of losing lock)
Micro Warp Drive:
-Each ship should have a max speed limit. (Example: ceptor 10k m/s, BS 2 K m/s etc...) The use of MWD or AB just get you to top speed faster. It may take a BS 60 sec to reach top speed with MWD while a ceptor can reach it in 2 sec. -You can have module which effects this limit.
I think CCP should start with this correction before trying to balance speed or we will be here for a long time...
|
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 02:47:00 -
[2]
Originally by: XFreedomX Here is the core issue. These modules are BROKEN, they DO NOT reflect how physics works.
Physics has nothing to do with space-ship-looking-like-submarines-in-molasses-known-as-space (AKA, EvE).
Quote: Webifier: Does it not seem strange that a inteceptor can web and stop a carrier (1000 times its mass) using the same amount of cap it would to stop another ceptor?
Yes.
Quote: Micro Warp Drive: Greater thrust equals greater acceleration, not greater top speed. Top speed is limited by structure integraty or technology to maintain survivable gravity within the ship.
Sigh.
Quote:
Webifier: -Add script with power rating. Higher power rating draws more cap and has greater stoping power. Factor in the mass of the ship.
No. We don't need more scripts, and we don't need this.
Quote: (Example: A Power Rating Script capable of slowing down a Capital ship should stop a ceptor dead in its track, the engine shooting out of its nose kind of stop instant 0 m/s)
NO. People *WILL* power game such a system and WTFPWN all small ships. Once this makes it in, the optimal gang becomes all battleships.
Quote: Each ship should have a max speed limit. (Example: ceptor 10k m/s, BS 2 K m/s etc...)
No, they shouldn't.
I hate to plug Goumindong (God knows we've had enough rumbles on these forums), but his web suggestion was much better. Hopefully he'll be along any minute now to post a link to it.
BTW, like 40 something tries to respond to your post... the server kept logging me out.
-Liang --
Originally by: Blake Abadon, Morsus Mihi insirgency caused the turn arround in the war against bob, when they forced the MM capital fleet to move back to defend their homeland.
|
Papa Gwan
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 02:53:00 -
[3]
Well, as you can tell from my most recent post, I think webifiers do need some change. Not the Web itself, rather, there should be an Anti-web module that can be fitted to your ship. Lets be honest, an Interceptor's only real defense is speed; you web it, it's d-e-d DEAD!
My proposition would be to add a Web Nullification Array which, when activated, would make your ship unable to be webbed while consuming a ton of Capacity OR make it passive increase your speed while webbed while consuming no Cap.
There are some pilots that just like smaller vessels and these are the funnest to fly. They work great in mobs but solo, they can easily be destroyed if the enemy pilot knows what they are doing.
My two noob cents.
|
DubanFP
Caldari Four Rings Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 02:58:00 -
[4]
Edited by: DubanFP on 30/04/2008 03:01:57
Originally by: Papa Gwan Well, as you can tell from my most recent post, I think webifiers do need some change. Not the Web itself, rather, there should be an Anti-web module that can be fitted to your ship. Lets be honest, an Interceptor's only real defense is speed; you web it, it's d-e-d DEAD!
My proposition would be to add a Web Nullification Array which, when activated, would make your ship unable to be webbed while consuming a ton of Capacity OR make it passive increase your speed while webbed while consuming no Cap.
There are some pilots that just like smaller vessels and these are the funnest to fly. They work great in mobs but solo, they can easily be destroyed if the enemy pilot knows what they are doing.
My two noob cents.
Or you can do what any nano-ship with a half a brain does & fight outside 15km. Guess what? That nullifies the webifier entirely! Anyone who gets webbed by a normal ship in a ceptor deserves to lose their ship. Anyone who thinks a nanoship is impossible to kill doesn't know how to use a huginn.
Things work as they are. The trade off of nanoships is you sacrifice power for survivability. Why should a ship built for survivabillity be overpowered by a ship that costs 1/10th as much? I'm a Huginn pilot. Sure they cost a bit but don't tell me nano-ships are invincible. The last time i flew one i killed 3 ceptors in one sitting, and any nanoship is little more then target practice if you know what you're doing. _______________
ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR |
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:05:00 -
[5]
Originally by: DubanFP
Or you can do what any nano-ship with a half a brain does & fight outside 15km.
I'm sure you mean 24km - those heavy neuts are painful.
-Liang --
Originally by: Blake Abadon, Morsus Mihi insirgency caused the turn arround in the war against bob, when they forced the MM capital fleet to move back to defend their homeland.
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:06:00 -
[6]
I think the two words you were actually looking for that describe the problem with Eve today are "lazy" "whiners".
---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Regina Oritomo
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:07:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Regina Oritomo on 30/04/2008 03:12:32 Here goes my answer to some of these issues. (Physics Major in college)
1.Webifier: Does it not seem strange that a inteceptor can web and stop a carrier (1000 times its mass) using the same amount of cap it would to stop another ceptor?
When you look at the relative speeds that you're slowing the ships the webifier makes sense, you are taking a cap going 100m/s and slowing it to 10m/s and an interceptor from 10km/s to 1km/s. While the mass of the carrier is significantly higher, speed has a much higher impact then mass as the formula used to calculate force is F=mv^2/r for a circle. Thus it makes sense that it would take the same ammount of force to slow massive ship slow moving ship as a ship going much faster that is much less massive.
2.Micro Warp Drive: Greater thrust equals greater acceleration, not greater top speed. Top speed is limited by structure integraty or technology to maintain survivable gravity within the ship.
You are correct, greater thrust does equal greater acceleration; however, as we approach the speed of light you mass starts to approach infinity, therefore you will reach a point where in order to continue accelerating you will need more force to accelerate your greater mass.(Ever notice how at your ships top end of it's speed range it's acceleration slows down? this is why.)
I'll agree there are issues but they're alot more deep seated then just this. More basic balance issues then anything, unfortunately theres nothing basic about them. Hope this helps.
|
DubanFP
Caldari Four Rings Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: DubanFP
Or you can do what any nano-ship with a half a brain does & fight outside 15km.
I'm sure you mean 24km - those heavy neuts are painful.
-Liang
True, nuets are nasty though getting cap busted is relatively rare since the nos nerf. _______________
ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR |
Lil Mule
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:16:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Regina Oritomo Edited by: Regina Oritomo on 30/04/2008 03:12:32 Here goes my answer to some of these issues. (Physics Major in college)
1.Webifier: Does it not seem strange that a inteceptor can web and stop a carrier (1000 times its mass) using the same amount of cap it would to stop another ceptor?
When you look at the relative speeds that you're slowing the ships the webifier makes sense, you are taking a cap going 100m/s and slowing it to 10m/s and an interceptor from 10km/s to 1km/s. While the mass of the carrier is significantly higher, speed has a much higher impact then mass as the formula used to calculate force is F=mv^2/r for a circle. Thus it makes sense that it would take the same ammount of force to slow massive ship slow moving ship as a ship going much faster that is much less massive.
2.Micro Warp Drive: Greater thrust equals greater acceleration, not greater top speed. Top speed is limited by structure integraty or technology to maintain survivable gravity within the ship.
You are correct, greater thrust does equal greater acceleration; however, as we approach the speed of light you mass starts to approach infinity, therefore you will reach a point where in order to continue accelerating you will need more force to accelerate your greater mass.(Ever notice how at your ships top end of it's speed range it's acceleration slows down? this is why.)
I'll agree there are issues but they're alot more deep seated then just this. More basic balance issues then anything, unfortunately theres nothing basic about them. Hope this helps.
To the OP - with respect to realism, you dont want to have to factor in acceleration, top speeds with gravity wells of celestial objects. The laws of physics in space are not uniform and simple throughout but very complex. Getting close to an object the size of a planet changes the rules you mentioned in your post. Lets not even get into the discussion of what is gravity anyway since Quantum theory cant be reconciled with the theory of relativity. -----------------------------------------------
People enjoy flying Amarr for the same reason they like being tied up in leather, whipped and called names
|
Regina Oritomo
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:19:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Regina Oritomo on 30/04/2008 03:20:10
Originally by: Lil Mule
Originally by: Regina Oritomo Edited by: Regina Oritomo on 30/04/2008 03:12:32 Here goes my answer to some of these issues. (Physics Major in college)
1.Webifier: Does it not seem strange that a inteceptor can web and stop a carrier (1000 times its mass) using the same amount of cap it would to stop another ceptor?
When you look at the relative speeds that you're slowing the ships the webifier makes sense, you are taking a cap going 100m/s and slowing it to 10m/s and an interceptor from 10km/s to 1km/s. While the mass of the carrier is significantly higher, speed has a much higher impact then mass as the formula used to calculate force is F=mv^2/r for a circle. Thus it makes sense that it would take the same ammount of force to slow massive ship slow moving ship as a ship going much faster that is much less massive.
2.Micro Warp Drive: Greater thrust equals greater acceleration, not greater top speed. Top speed is limited by structure integraty or technology to maintain survivable gravity within the ship.
You are correct, greater thrust does equal greater acceleration; however, as we approach the speed of light you mass starts to approach infinity, therefore you will reach a point where in order to continue accelerating you will need more force to accelerate your greater mass.(Ever notice how at your ships top end of it's speed range it's acceleration slows down? this is why.)
I'll agree there are issues but they're alot more deep seated then just this. More basic balance issues then anything, unfortunately theres nothing basic about them. Hope this helps.
To the OP - with respect to realism, you dont want to have to factor in acceleration, top speeds with gravity wells of celestial objects. The laws of physics in space are not uniform and simple throughout but very complex. Getting close to an object the size of a planet changes the rules you mentioned in your post. Lets not even get into the discussion of what is gravity anyway since Quantum theory cant be reconciled with the theory of relativity.
Agree, just giving a general overview of why things are the way they are.(Though I wouldn't mind guns working more like they realisticly would in space- infinite range; baring cosmic dust, solar wind, gravitational tidal forces, etc etc )
|
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Out of Order
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:22:00 -
[11]
Heavy nuets only hurt in a cruiser.
In a frigate, just make sure you fit a small cap booster and you'll be fine 9 times out of 10. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit.
|
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:23:00 -
[12]
To the point that implementing this system larger size ship will pawn smaller size ship. They do now if they have NEUTs which has longer range then webifer as Liang yourself have pointed out, so stopping a smaller ship instantly if he is webbed doesn't change the outcome.
Like to point out that I propose also that the web lock has a change of miss based on the ship size and distance so even if you are webbed to a stop, you can escape. Ceptor which get in web range of a BS deserves to die so lets not talk about that case.
For the physics major's point on relative speed. You totally miss the point. Current system has a ship spend the same amount of cap reducing a mothership from 100 m/s to 10 m/s as it does an interceptor. If that seems okay to you.....
|
Regina Oritomo
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:31:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Regina Oritomo on 30/04/2008 03:41:56 No i didn't miss the point. I can do brainy math even at midnight, here goes. the diferential in speed is the big part. the change in velocity for the interceptor is 9000m/s, for the mothership 90 m/s. if we square both of these we can divide both of them by 90 which leaves us with 100 and 1 respectively. When you square them that gives you a ratio of 8100:1. what this means is that for a ship of the same mass it should take 8100 times the ammount of force to slow a ship from 10k/s to 1k/s as it does from 100m/s to 10m/s. the mother ship is approximately 1100 times the mass of it's respective interceptor. As such in reality the webber should only work at 1/8 effeciveness on the interceptor as it does on the mothership. be happy it's not so.
(example) If we consider R to be equal for both of them and an equal force we can see how velocity is effected on an interceptor based on slowing a mothership from 100 m/s to 10 m/s.
setting the equations equal: mv^2/r=mv^2/r
cancel the r's mv^2=mv^2
imput m for the mothership and interceptor, and v for the mothership (1.2375*10^9)*90^2=(1.05*10^6)*v^2
solve for v
v=SqRt([{1.2375*10^9}*90^2]/[1.05*10^6])
leaving us with: v=3089m/s
so in theory it would only change the interceptors speed by apx 3k/s
(Bad math because these are relative to a base speed of zero so the actual effect will be less then changing 3089m/s)
|
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:39:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Regina Oritomo No i didn't miss the point. I can do brainy math even at midnight, here goes. the diferential in speed is the big part. the change in velocity for the interceptor is 9000m/s, for the mothership 90 m/s. if we square both of these we can divide both of them by 90 which leaves us with 100 and 1 respectively. When you square them that gives you a ratio of 8100:1. what this means is that for a ship of the same mass it should take 8100 times the ammount of force to slow a ship from 10k/s to 1k/s as it does from 100m/s to 10m/s. the mother ship is approximately 1100 times the mass of it's respective interceptor. As such in reality the webber should only work at 1/8 effeciveness on the interceptor as it does on the mothership. be happy it's not so.
*Sigh* lets try this. Should not stoping a vagabond going at 10k m/s to 1k m/s take more energy the a ceptor going at 10k m/s to 1 K m/s?
|
Regina Oritomo
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:46:00 -
[15]
Technically yes, but as i've already shown eve is not physics realistic, what you're basically asking for is a webifier that is based on how much force it exerts, bad idea large nano ships would become invincible and motherships and titans will end up being slowed even more then they are right now.
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:47:00 -
[16]
RL physics <> Eve. These arguments are pointless
The OP makes assumptions about space game "technology" that, to him, are unrealistic, but for laughs, lets continue with assumptions. Perhaps the technology behind webbers affects an aspect of the space/time continuum that hinders the ability of a craft to move through space, regardless of its mass, dimensions, or shape. ---- Train more. Whine less.
|
PsychoBones
Sons of Plunder.
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:47:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Sirius Problem I think the two words you were actually looking for that describe the problem with Eve today are "lazy" "whiners".
Y'know, I clicked this thread to post pretty much this exact sentence. Damn you and your faster forum posting. ________________________________________
|
DubanFP
Caldari Four Rings Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:52:00 -
[18]
You have no consideration on how the webifier & MWD work. MWDs don't increase you're speed AT ALL. They are Micro-warp-drives, they bend time & space around them to increase the perceived speed to an outside observer. Of course this bending makes you seem much larger to the outside world, but to the ship within you're still traveling at your original speed. They are probably size dependant because they are precision modules that want to effect the ship itself rather then the space around it. Very precise.
Webifiers warp time & space within your enemy's propulsion systems to decrease their efficiency. They screw with the system making them only X% as efficient as they once were. They don't just brute force catch the ship. Rather by warping space they decrease the ability of the ship and don't have to stop a ship's force completely.
Also until you get remotely near the speed of light speed won't affect your ship at all. You won't reach a point your ship can't take the force because it's all about acceleration.
Now that IÆve destroyed every point a couple of you have said SCREW EVERYTHING I'VE SAID SO FAR. Like everyone else I want to play a game that's fun, enjoyable, and balanced not necessarily realistic. Gameplay > Realism. And from a gameplay perspective IÆve already made my point.
_______________
ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR |
Regina Oritomo
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:57:00 -
[19]
So to sum it all up, everything is relative, who cares, we don't know, never will, so just play and have fun.
|
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 03:58:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Regina Oritomo Technically yes, but as i've already shown eve is not physics realistic, what you're basically asking for is a webifier that is based on how much force it exerts, bad idea large nano ships would become invincible and motherships and titans will end up being slowed even more then they are right now.
Large nano ship will not become invicible, only to smaller ships. Lets take an example of effect: - A Hyena will be able to web ceptors and not too effective in stopping vaga - A Rapier will be able to stop a vaga but not as effective against a nano tempest. Its effect against a command ship will be in between.
|
|
Meridius Dex
Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 04:08:00 -
[21]
Webs need to be removed from the game entirely. I wouldn't have said that six months ago, but the longer I play this game, the more I believe this to be true.
As a corollary to this, speed must be nerfed soon, along with all the attendant, broken speed ubertanks. There must be a stacking nerf implemented to the point that top speeds do not break the basic mechanics of the game in regards to weapon modules (turret tracking and missile effects).
Top speeds should still be attainable to certain intended ship classes, yet still be within the realm of reason, wherein their top speeds do not make them completely invincible to other modules. And don't tell me there aren't ships flying around in EVE like this right now; I live in zero sec and see them every day.
Paramount among all these considerations must be a nerf to MWD. This module is the sole reason there IS NO "medium range combat" in EVE. All fights are either at long-range sniper or short-range blaster distances. You could scale MWD module attributes according to ship classes or have their acceleration dramatically affect maneuverability, either way reducing their ubiquity.
Isn't it absurd that MWD has drastically imbalanced EVE to such an extent that ABs are essentially extinct and have no role in any form of PvP?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Devs have mentioned in the past that any time any one module is being used by everyone in a game that it suggests there's a game imbalance. Well, guess what... -- Meridius Dex --
Amarr = EVE on Hard setting |
Regina Oritomo
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 04:09:00 -
[22]
Originally by: XFreedomX
Originally by: Regina Oritomo Technically yes, but as i've already shown eve is not physics realistic, what you're basically asking for is a webifier that is based on how much force it exerts, bad idea large nano ships would become invincible and motherships and titans will end up being slowed even more then they are right now.
Large nano ship will not become invicible, only to smaller ships. Lets take an example of effect: - A Hyena will be able to web ceptors and not too effective in stopping vaga - A Rapier will be able to stop a vaga but not as effective against a nano tempest. Its effect against a command ship will be in between.
And that means the rapier will do what to frig and destroyer sized ships? Stop them completely in their tracks. Bad idea, and yes battleships would become invincible, unless of course you bring another battleship with a web set for battleship capping, then zomg we have battleship eve (basically what happens is you neuter small ships more then they are right now)
|
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 04:17:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Regina Oritomo
Originally by: XFreedomX
Originally by: Regina Oritomo Technically yes, but as i've already shown eve is not physics realistic, what you're basically asking for is a webifier that is based on how much force it exerts, bad idea large nano ships would become invincible and motherships and titans will end up being slowed even more then they are right now.
Large nano ship will not become invicible, only to smaller ships. Lets take an example of effect: - A Hyena will be able to web ceptors and not too effective in stopping vaga - A Rapier will be able to stop a vaga but not as effective against a nano tempest. Its effect against a command ship will be in between.
And that means the rapier will do what to frig and destroyer sized ships? Stop them completely in their tracks. Bad idea, and yes battleships would become invincible, unless of course you bring another battleship with a web set for battleship capping, then zomg we have battleship eve (basically what happens is you neuter small ships more then they are right now)
Seriously, do you play this game? A Rapier will kill a frig and destryoer sized ship now. And why would you need to web a MWD BS unless you have another BS to kill him with?
|
Natasha Kinsikor
Void Engineers
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 05:13:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Natasha Kinsikor on 30/04/2008 05:15:02 VIIIIIIIIDDDDEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOO GGGGGGAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEE
For ****'s sake what kind of idiot tries to argue reality in Eve?
It's like trying to call Counter-strike a realistic tac simulator.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 05:22:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Goumindong on 30/04/2008 05:22:27
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I hate to plug Goumindong (God knows we've had enough rumbles on these forums), but his web suggestion was much better. Hopefully he'll be along any minute now to post a link to it.
Here you go
Stasis Webifiers: Problem and Solution
Anyway, the key is balance. And that means balancing small ships against larger ships as well as within their own classes. My system might not be perfect, but i think its on the right track for what needs to be done in the area to make ship size differences matter more.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Furb Killer
The Peacekeeper Core
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 06:22:00 -
[26]
Allthough his solutions arent perfect, i agree with the problem. It just doesnt make sense your opponent can remove 90% of your speed. Two opponents and you basicly cant move anymore. It should be possible imo to move your ship in close range fights. And right now that is impossible since you have at least one web on you.
An afterburner gives a speedboost and should consume a lot of cap for that. A mwd gives an enormous speedboost, and should be really a short term module, one or two cycles for a huge speedboost, and with nerfed web that should be to get away or not. Increasing cap usage wont work, then people just add more cap injectors. So make them get heat damage always, or disable ability to use cap injector with mwd, or something like that. Just stop them from being able to perma run a mwd, an AB is for that.
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 06:53:00 -
[27]
Originally by: XFreedomX
Micro Warp Drive: Greater thrust equals greater acceleration, not greater top speed. Top speed is limited by structure integraty or technology to maintain survivable gravity within the ship.
Has public education gone this wrong? Stop referencing real-life physics. First, your understanding of physics fails. Second, they have no impact on how the game performs, at all.
|
Thoris Levithar
Gallente Gadget Factory
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 06:54:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Meridius Dex Webs need to be removed from the game entirely. I wouldn't have said that six months ago, but the longer I play this game, the more I believe this to be true.
As a corollary to this, speed must be nerfed soon, along with all the attendant, broken speed ubertanks. There must be a stacking nerf implemented to the point that top speeds do not break the basic mechanics of the game in regards to weapon modules (turret tracking and missile effects).
Top speeds should still be attainable to certain intended ship classes, yet still be within the realm of reason, wherein their top speeds do not make them completely invincible to other modules. And don't tell me there aren't ships flying around in EVE like this right now; I live in zero sec and see them every day.
Paramount among all these considerations must be a nerf to MWD. This module is the sole reason there IS NO "medium range combat" in EVE. All fights are either at long-range sniper or short-range blaster distances. You could scale MWD module attributes according to ship classes or have their acceleration dramatically affect maneuverability, either way reducing their ubiquity.
Isn't it absurd that MWD has drastically imbalanced EVE to such an extent that ABs are essentially extinct and have no role in any form of PvP?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Devs have mentioned in the past that any time any one module is being used by everyone in a game that it suggests there's a game imbalance. Well, guess what...
While I don't want to see webs removed, their effectiveness should be reduced by a good amount. There were (or are?) propulsion strength points at some time in the data of ships, why not re-introduce them and use them for the "new" webs? Like
BS: 25 propulsion points BC: 20 pp Cruiser: 10-15 pp Frigate: 5-10 pp
Now a web could, instead of being a flat x percent, just reduce a number of propulsion points and thereby reduce max possible velocity. A single web should perhaps take 5 points...by doing so you also reduce the effect of webs on larger ships, which is what the OP seems to want (and I agree with that :)
I totally agree that MWDs should be changed. I would replace the cap penalty with an agility penalty (sig penalty is ok and should stay). Also, the speed boost should be lower, perhaps for a max boost of 300% or so.
|
Crawler
Gallente Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 07:04:00 -
[29]
actualy i really like the ideer of ships using more power to stop largerships. so a battleship stopping a frigate shoudnt use only little power but yet more to stop a ceptor since it got more powerfull engines. actualy you should be able to chose a web factor at the expence of cap so the total cap use should be a mix of (web factor)*(taget size) using that formula
you would just have to chose a good size definition _____________________________________________ yawnnnnn |
Feyran Loa'thin
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 08:53:00 -
[30]
re: the title
OH RLY? i'd have picked "SOVEREIGNTY" and "POS" as the two things that make EvE shit tbh... when the End-game is the most boring part of your gaming life, then that just taints every hour you ever spent playing.
Quote: "To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost." - Gustave Flaubert
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |