EVE Search - The problem with EVE today can be summed to 2 modules (Web and MWD)

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The problem with EVE today can be summed to 2 modules (Web and MWD)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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 (1.237510^9)90^2=(1.0510^6)v^2 solve for v v=SqRt([{1.237510^9}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
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.30 10:14:00 - [31] Originally by: XFreedomX Here is the core issue. These modules are BROKEN, they DO NOT reflect how physics works. lol
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.04.30 10:24:00 - [32] Originally by: Goumindong 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. You did it a long time ago and it still is the best suggestion ever made about webs in these forums or anywhere else. We had a lot of disagreements in this forums, but on this I have to recognize that your solution is simple, effective and brilliant. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Ortos Abyssus Incendia THORN Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.30 10:35:00 - [33] There is no mass in space so the shape and size of a ship should have nothing to do with it's speed. Hence a motheship should be as fast as an interceptor.
Tradesman Mcgee Caldari Derek Knows Us	Posted - 2008.04.30 10:42:00 - [34] There are no problems with MWDs and Webifiers in EVE, therefore any further discussion on the topic is pointless. Keep whining. -------------------------- Research & Trade
Regina Oritomo	Posted - 2008.04.30 11:02:00 - [35] Edited by: Regina Oritomo on 30/04/2008 11:02:53 There is mass,not weight. And yes I play the stinkin game, stop thinking about just the bonused ships, think about what this will do to normal ships with webs and mwd's.
Leon Mustapha	Posted - 2008.04.30 12:11:00 - [36] Originally by: Regina Oritomo Edited by: Regina Oritomo on 30/04/2008 03:12:32 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.) You're right, but you haven't correctly considered the numbers involved. The speed of light is 299'792 km/s, the ships in Eve don't even get within 0.01% of this speed, therefore mass increase due to approaching the speed of light can be ignored.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.30 12:59:00 - [37] Originally by: Leon Mustapha Originally by: Regina Oritomo Edited by: Regina Oritomo on 30/04/2008 03:12:32 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.) You're right, but you haven't correctly considered the numbers involved. The speed of light is 299'792 km/s, the ships in Eve don't even get within 0.01% of this speed, therefore mass increase due to approaching the speed of light can be ignored. Mass, thus inertia cannot be neglected in space, unlike weight. The same goes with friction, and since space has little to do with complete void, friction with cosmic dust etc. is there - think of it as aerodynamic drag. And drag is relative to speed "squared" (speed^2), thus twice the speed equals to 4 times the drag, 10 times the speed = 100 times the drag etc. That's how EVE physics also are calculated, so all ships accelerate way slower when closing their top speeds. Also should drag wasn't there in EVE's physics, then why is there a "top speed" at the first place? Ships should accelerate indefinitely in a straight line, and then we could start thinking what mass reacts like close to light-speeds Webifiers are imaginary ewar vs. the imaginary propulsion system ships use in EVE's imaginary world. Do not over-calculate some "devices" or you screw up the "magic" behind this and every Sci-Fi game. Join the Biggest Greek Corp! www.Mythos-eve.com - Join Mythos Channel in game! Introduce HEAT EMMITERÖ for the Pilgrim
Forge Lag	Posted - 2008.04.30 13:14:00 - [38] The real issue is mobility (and CC aka EWAR) is the most important thing in PvP. It all revolves around catching your prey and evading your predator. Only after that is adressed, the comparison of forces can come into play and that can be easily adjusted by larger blob (since the whole DnD HP vs DPS paradigm removes any risk for superior forces). Another way to adress mobility is having immobile assests in the game that are worth figting over. That's really it. All the idea of EvE as positional naval warfare is destroed once you do not have a way to force your opponent to commit to fight and once the size of blob is unlimited. We can try for more variety (MWD with less agility or with CD, different webs) but mobility will always be broken till EvE2 comes. I suspect devs figured that out and instead of trying to balance speed they implemented totally over the top mods that attempt to reduce speed to on/off state - and failed. Actually - it could work if Webs worked as ECM.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.04.30 13:45:00 - [39] There was a time when I despised nano ships with every fiber of my being. I couldn't ever seem to hit them for any meaningful damage. Then I figured out various ways to at least swat them away and life was fine. Nano ships, like it or not, ultimately fill a vital role in Eve. Combat in Eve will generally vary between just a handful of scenarios - a gatecamp WTFPWNING everything that comes through, a large fleet being met by another large fleet in an electronic version of russian roulette, and small gang combat. I cannot personally think of anybody who actually likes types 1 and 2 - because living and dying is rarely anything you have any meaningful effect on. That leaves small gang combat. The trouble is, if you bring a gang of 5 - 10 battleships into hostile space in 0.0 for very long you're going to attract attention. Eventually the local defenses mobilize and you'll be blobbed to death trying to get your fat slow battleships back to friendly space. Nano ships exist because it makes small gang warfare effective from a tactical standpoint. The super fast ships in the game sacrifice quite a bit to become that way - they generally have little in the form of tank and carry fairly light firepower for their ship class. But, in exchange for individual effectiveness they gain the ability to engage and disengage at will, allowing them to pick and choose battles they wish to be a part of. A gang of nano ships poses no threat to POS's and thus they ONLY thing they can accomplish really is taking out individual or small groups of ships silly enough to be out in the open without sufficient support. Ideas have been bandied about for quite some time on how to solve the problem but in my book, the Nano isn't the problem but rather a solution to a problem. Eve was rapidly becoming a game where the only way to get anything done was to outblob your opponent, and most players aren't terribly satisfied with a form of combat that involves essentially making a dice roll on the fate of their 130+ million isk fleet battleship. In much of the time I've fought nano's I've noticed a trend - when I'm fitted with just a few modules (i.e. heavy neut, web, mwd etc) a single nano ship is fairly easy to chase off. Indeed I have only ONCE been killed by a solo nano ship (an ishtar against my poorly fitted ferrox). Nano ships only start becoming a threat when I'm outnumbered - a scenario that is likely lethal no matter what ship type I'm up against. Nano ships are not invincible - in fact MOST nano ships are quite vulnerable IF you get a hit on them (ever just try shooting at an interceptor MWDin'g STRAIGHT towards you - that armor and shield just kinda dissappears). People have and will continue posting the various tactics and modules you can do to set the conditions to hit a nano ship - it's up to the players NOT in a nano ship to do something about it. Now, when it comes to any proposed MWD/NANO nerf, I'm fairly strongly against it even though I don't fly anything nano. IF there were going to be ANY sort of change I don't think changing the speed bonus would be the key (because that would lead to absolute doom in gate camps - as it stands a MWD just buys you a slim chance at survival). Murdering agility even further stands out as the only "reasonable" option, but I'd still lobby against even this change.
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.04.30 14:59:00 - [40] Originally by: Liang Nuren NO. People WILL power game such a system and WTFPWN all small ships. Once this makes it in, the optimal gang becomes all battleships. -Liang yes please
Raymond Sterns Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.04.30 15:21:00 - [41] I still don't know why we haven't made webifiers like warp scramblers/disruptors. One with 45% at 20km and one with 75% at 7500m (Both T1). _
Ambien Torca	Posted - 2008.04.30 15:24:00 - [42] Edited by: Ambien Torca on 30/04/2008 15:24:15 It¦s interesting how often "nanoships don¦t do much damage" line appears in these discussions. It ain¦t true. Most nanofitted ships that are good at it (vaga, ishtar, zealot for example) deal just as much or even bit more damage than tanked version could for most part. Many ships can only effectively tank with their low slots and it would take most of them to achieve acceptable non-speed tank but it just ain¦t very effective choice anymore it seems. Nanoships do lose a bit in DPS department compared to gank fitted ships but those can¦t tank at all and can¦t avoid enemy either making them much weaker choice overall for most gangs (3 x gyro vaga can if you have top skills and put some decent equipment to it but it¦s supposed to be fast ship). I think CCP made a mistake when they boosted ship HPs while back, it unbalanced BS/BC sized ships compared to cruiser and smaller too much. Not to mention that capital ships are now far easier to use when spidertanking due to enormous hp buffers.
XFreedomX	Posted - 2008.04.30 15:47:00 - [43] I didn't start this thread to be another nano ship thread or complain about how things aren't realistic like some of the reply suggested. It is made to point out that there are two modules (webifier and MWD) which have been at the center of, nerf/balance/adjustment or use what ever word you wish, since the beginning of the game. CCP has mad numerous changes to other modules and ships because of their effect and now they are considering another change (Assault Ship resistance to web). They need to take a good hard look at the way this two modules work before they introduce more change before its too late. Some has said its just a matter of balancing their effectiveness. To which I reply, that is only a patch job. Everytime CCP introduce something new they will have to re-balance these two again. Case in point, the current uproar because they introduced heat. What will happen when they introduce tech III mods which are resistance to heat damage and people can run on overheat constantly? Lets fix these mods now so we can move on to funner stuff!
Nathanial Victor Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.04.30 15:51:00 - [44] I had something to contribute to this thread, ...but i flushed it "one more spam thread will get you a warning. - Thanks Hutch. " isn't a warning of a warning a warning? or just a warning of a warning? didnt he just get 'the warning'? my head hurts
Kali Ananda Minmatar Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2008.04.30 16:12:00 - [45] Here's my advice: Stop posting bizarre threads and go play the game. Kali Ananda POD-U Director
Sirius Problem Darkness Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.30 16:19:00 - [46] Originally by: Ortos There is no mass in space so the shape and size of a ship should have nothing to do with it's speed. Hence a motheship should be as fast as an interceptor. There is indeed mass in space. Weight, which is a measure of the force of gravity on mass is a different story though. I.e. On Earth and in space your mass is the same. However, your weight does change as the force of gravity changes. Given enough time to overcome its inertia, a mothership could be as fast as an interceptor, though it would take much longer than a 'ceptor to reach such speeds. ---- Train more. Whine less.
XFreedomX	Posted - 2008.04.30 16:57:00 - [47] Originally by: Kali Ananda Here's my advice: Stop posting bizarre threads and go play the game. Kali, I am disappointed in you. You POD-U guys are such good pvp'ers what are you doing on this thread with a post like this. Stop reading bizarre threads and go play the game.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.30 17:13:00 - [48] Originally by: XFreedomX 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. All of this is garbage ROLE PLAY. You make no sense. The construct of the game has chosen speed as a primary stat of a ship, there are plenty of ways to increase adn stop fast ships... use tactics... your assertions of broken mechanics are a mistaken sense of ROLE PLAY that should be ignored.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.30 17:21:00 - [49] Agree. Web is too binary in nature, making speed tanks either go on/off, which means people have to fly at obscene speeds to not get webbed in order to speed tank. MWD's are much too powerful compared to AB's, MWD's are the only things that matter. If you don't fit a MWD may as well go home, you're flying at a completely different and slower speed than anyone else. I think any propulsion mod should give you a significant boost in speed, and going from an AB to MWD should give you a much smaller boost, at the cost of some penalties. You may a higher premium for that last little bit of extra peformance, just like in the rest of EVE.
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.04.30 21:27:00 - [50] Edited by: Meridius Dex on 30/04/2008 21:28:43 Double-post -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.04.30 21:28:00 - [51] Edited by: Meridius Dex on 30/04/2008 21:29:09 Originally by: Goumindong 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. Wow, just finished reading that thread and I have to say I'm impressed. Impressed enough to say that's the answer to all your nano problems right there (along with the imminent stacking nerfs to speed CCP already seem to have in the pipeline). -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Tashiell Gao Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.04.30 22:02:00 - [52] lol Tashiell Gao, Minmatar Inside.
slothe Caldari Murky Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.30 22:11:00 - [53] Edited by: slothe on 30/04/2008 22:15:32 ive said for 3 years webs need looking at. webs strength should be reduced.. a lot. in my view the bigger the ship, the more power a web should use and the greater effect it should have. webs should not have uniform effect on all size ships using same capacitor. unfortunately i cant give a solution to the problem, thats up to the devs. but i can highlight the problem.....again :\| i do however like the 2 tier approach suggested above, where the web is stronger the closer to the ship like scramblers / disruptors. sort it out ccp
Hanneshannes	Posted - 2008.04.30 22:13:00 - [54] Aren't stasis fields (in fiction) a field of w/e (energy probably) that stops anything inside it completely but also makes it impossible for anything outside the field to interact with whatever is inside the field?
Ess Erbe Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.05.04 14:16:00 - [55] Someone with a lot more knowledge about game mechanics than I, wouldn't it be a good idea to put a minimal range for the web to work? If a ship is, say, less than 3 km away from you, a web has no effect, wouldn't that work for all? Small ships could get "under the web", ships trying to escape from close range would be webbed, and everyone fighting outside of web range is the same.
Raymond Sterns Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.05.04 14:58:00 - [56] Originally by: Ess Erbe Someone with a lot more knowledge about game mechanics than I, wouldn't it be a good idea to put a minimal range for the web to work? If a ship is, say, less than 3 km away from you, a web has no effect, wouldn't that work for all? Small ships could get "under the web", ships trying to escape from close range would be webbed, and everyone fighting outside of web range is the same. Only if the webber had like a 25km range.
GateScout	Posted - 2008.05.04 17:14:00 - [57] Originally by: XFreedomX Here is the core issue. These modules are BROKEN, they DO NOT reflect how physics works. Originally by: XFreedomX -Each ship should have a max speed limit. (Example: ceptor 10k m/s, BS 2 K m/s etc...) Make up your mind.
Lunch Money Teylas Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.05 07:55:00 - [58] problem with today eve is.... NANO. every ship smaller then BS is nano. Thats the main problem.
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.05 08:14:00 - [59] Originally by: XFreedomX 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... Video games should = balance>realism... Now if this were a space simulator this chat would be totally different.

Pages: 1 2 :: [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.