EVE Search - Nano NERF alternative for all.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Nano NERF alternative for all.

» 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)
The Mach Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:06:00 - [1] Edited by: The Mach on 31/07/2008 02:22:07 Damps. Work on a falloff based system. ECM. Work on a falloff based system. Seem like nerfed systems that are quite effective still? Why not make webs a falloff based weapon? Don't flame yet.... Proposal. (For the purpose assume all items be T2.) Web does 60% webbing at 10km... but the effectiveness dies from there (allows nanos to be effective but risky now) At 20km the web would do 40% webbing ( 8km/s Sac would still go 4800m/s orbiting at 20km) At 30km the web would do 30% From 30km to 50km the webbing goes from 30% - 0% (50km is the point at which a web is no longer effective at all.) It's all a game of balance, with this idea nanos still have their place BUT there is now a risk involved. Risk vs Reward Please Post constructive comments I will edit in good ideas that further balance the nano problem.
Karien Kahi Mohala	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:07:00 - [2] Originally by: The Mach Damps. Work on a falloff based system. ECM. Work on a falloff based system. Seem like nerfed systems that are quite effective still? Why not make webs a falloff based weapon? Don't flame yet.... Proposal. (For the purpose assume all items be T2.) Web does 60% webbing at 10km... but the effectiveness dies from there (allows nanos to be effective but risky now) At 20km the web would do 40% webbing ( 8km/s Sac would still go 4800m/s orbiting at 20km) At 30km the web would do 30% From 30km to 50km the webbing goes from 30% - 0% (50km is the point at which a web is no longer effective at all.) It's all a game of balance, with this idea nanos still have their place BUT there is now a risk involved. Risk vs Reward Please Post constructive comments I will edit in good ideas that further balance the nano problem. AWESOME idea. ----------------------------------------------
Domitian Elagabalus	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:09:00 - [3] Originally by: The Mach Edited by: The Mach on 31/07/2008 02:07:13 Damps. Work on a falloff based system. ECM. Work on a falloff based system. Seem like nerfed systems that are quite effective still? Why not make webs a falloff based weapon? Don't flame yet.... Proposal. (For the purpose assume all items be T2.) Web does 60% webbing at 10km... but the effectiveness dies from there (allows nanos to be effective but risky now) At 20km the web would do 40% webbing ( 8km/s Sac would still go 4800m/s orbiting at 20km) At 30km the web would do 30% From 30km to 50km the webbing goes from 30% - 0% (50km is the point at which a web is no longer effective at all.) It's all a game of balance, with this idea nanos still have their place BUT there is now a risk involved. Risk vs Reward Please Post constructive comments I will edit in good ideas that further balance the nano problem. I'm all for that.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:12:00 - [4] People would just migrate to ships that can hit from beyond web falloff range. Nano Cerbs, Ishtars, and so forth.
D0ny1 Caldari Wing 4213	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:13:00 - [5] Edited by: D0ny1 on 31/07/2008 02:17:47 I think this or something similar is worth consideration. I would like to see the 'speed tank' remain a viable ship fit, but something does need to happen to address 'ludicrous speed' fitted ships. edit: I am not a fan of some of the solutions the current speed related blog proposes. It looks like grabbing a meat cleaver and chopping away at the problem when a more surgical and precise solution is needed.
The Mach Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:14:00 - [6] But then you have a chance to get away ;)
Leiko	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:14:00 - [7] wouldn't be able to get a disrupt on you from that range
Ringo Jeicha Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:16:00 - [8] Originally by: Dirk Magnum People would just migrate to ships that can hit from beyond web falloff range. Nano Cerbs, Ishtars, and so forth. Yeah but transversal speed is much smaller at those kinds of distances, so ppl should be able to hit nanoships then. --- Braaaiiinnnsssssssssss
Rataro	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:16:00 - [9] Originally by: The Mach Edited by: The Mach on 31/07/2008 02:07:13 Damps. Work on a falloff based system. ECM. Work on a falloff based system. Seem like nerfed systems that are quite effective still? Why not make webs a falloff based weapon? Don't flame yet.... Proposal. (For the purpose assume all items be T2.) Web does 60% webbing at 10km... but the effectiveness dies from there (allows nanos to be effective but risky now) At 20km the web would do 40% webbing ( 8km/s Sac would still go 4800m/s orbiting at 20km) At 30km the web would do 30% From 30km to 50km the webbing goes from 30% - 0% (50km is the point at which a web is no longer effective at all.) It's all a game of balance, with this idea nanos still have their place BUT there is now a risk involved. Risk vs Reward Please Post constructive comments I will edit in good ideas that further balance the nano problem. I like the idea.
Saint Lazarus Spiorad ag fanaiocht	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:17:00 - [10] I think it your numbers would make it unfair but the idea is great just think it should be alot less effective, say useless at 30k , more effective up close and less effective inbetween but all thats not important, the IDEA is -----------------
The Mach Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:23:00 - [11] Edited by: The Mach on 31/07/2008 02:24:03 Your right the numbers are up for debate of course, it all about finding balance. Remember however, at 30km you can only slow a ship down 30%, NOT enough to kill him by any means. BUT you can get away... maybe
PooPooPlater Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:26:00 - [12] Originally by: The Mach Edited by: The Mach on 31/07/2008 02:22:07 Damps. Work on a falloff based system. ECM. Work on a falloff based system. Seem like nerfed systems that are quite effective still? Why not make webs a falloff based weapon? Don't flame yet.... Proposal. (For the purpose assume all items be T2.) Web does 60% webbing at 10km... but the effectiveness dies from there (allows nanos to be effective but risky now) At 20km the web would do 40% webbing ( 8km/s Sac would still go 4800m/s orbiting at 20km) At 30km the web would do 30% From 30km to 50km the webbing goes from 30% - 0% (50km is the point at which a web is no longer effective at all.) It's all a game of balance, with this idea nanos still have their place BUT there is now a risk involved. Risk vs Reward Please Post constructive comments I will edit in good ideas that further balance the nano problem. VERY intresting idea, think something like this might work >>> CCP look here
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:34:00 - [13] It's not a new idea at all, quite old actually, but a good idea nevertheless. Needs some work on ranges/effects, but other than that, "oldies & goldies". _ THE APPRENTICE \|\| mineral balance \|\| nanofix
Schalac Caldari Brotherhood of Wolves	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:53:00 - [14] What of the specialized web ships? How would you work off of that? Also webs aren't going to be the counter to MWDs but scrams are. Originally by: dev blog by CCP Nozh Warp scramblers (the close range ones), are due for a complete makeover. Our current idea is to have MWD's deactivate as soon as they get hit by their effect, and continue to be disabled until the effect is lifted. The way I picture it is intys will now have more use out of their scrams and separation of points will be drastic. Where before you could all fit a disruptor and have a bunch of points adding up to keep the ship there. Now you will need scrams to not only keep them there but to keep them stationary. This in my opinion adds a who different dynamic to PvP. Now not only are the separation of scrams and rupters important, but also who has the webs to slow down the people who fit AB instead of MWDs. It is interesting on SiSi right now. The chat goes all over the place but the best thing I can say is mass people log in and try it. Also there was small talk of inty and AF gangs being very viable in certain situations. I think all in all fleet warfare is in for a drastic change and the outcome could be great.
D0ny1 Caldari Wing 4213	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:54:00 - [15] Edited by: D0ny1 on 31/07/2008 02:55:18 Edited by: D0ny1 on 31/07/2008 02:54:39 The crux of the OP's idea that I like is that a speed tank ship(nano) which comes into warp disruption range takes some risk from ships other than only hyenas, rapiers, and huginns. If you want to fit 'counter-nano' on a drake for example, you fit 3 webs that can put a nano ship which comes into warp disruption range at risk from the drake's missiles.
PooPooPlater Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:02:00 - [16] Always a way around everything in eve, i agree that the specialty web ships should get an effective boost from this. Rapier would be MORE effective at longer ranges?????
Schalac Caldari Brotherhood of Wolves	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:42:00 - [17] Originally by: D0ny1 Edited by: D0ny1 on 31/07/2008 02:55:18 Edited by: D0ny1 on 31/07/2008 02:54:39 The crux of the OP's idea that I like is that a speed tank ship(nano) which comes into warp disruption range takes some risk from ships other than only hyenas, rapiers, and huginns. If you want to fit 'counter-nano' on a drake for example, you fit 3 webs that can put a nano ship which comes into warp disruption range at risk from the drake's missiles. It's scrams that slow down a MWD now not ruptors. Actually I think that webs should be scaled differently than what they propose. Originally by: dev blog from Nozh Webifiers Currently when youÆre webbed itÆs pretty much game over unless youÆre doing more DPS or have a better tank. The 90% speed reduction makes combat too static and predictable when webifiers have been applied. To address this, webifiers in our proposed changes have been reduced in effectiveness down to between -50% and -60%. Ok the 50-60% effectiveness I can deal with. But lets add to this, with skills. Maybe with a tier two propulsion jamming skill(s). Say a new web module that can only be used with advanced propulsion jamming skills. Each level of this skill will add 2-5% to the effectiveness of the web. With a max of -70% to -85% speed reduction. It is still lower than the -90% that is currently in place but it adds another tactical advantage. I think the +2% would probably be better with the new changes going on in the game. Now for the second skill I would add something that will increase the range of warp jammers. This would effect 2 modules. Scrams and ruptors. This is a tricky equation because 20km jam is long way to run already if you are slow. But remember that disruptors don't effect MWD and webs are now weaker. So what is a few extra km added to them. Scrams though, this is where this skill will shine. Now not only are you able to stop them from warping but at a 10% increase per level you will be able to scram them, if I did my math right, from outside of normal smart bomb range at level 5. For those that don't like that idea, a new scram that can only be used with this skill could also be added. Just a thought. Now for the skill ranks I would say 5 for the web change and 8 for the jammer change.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:59:00 - [18] Originally by: Ringo Jeicha Originally by: Dirk Magnum People would just migrate to ships that can hit from beyond web falloff range. Nano Cerbs, Ishtars, and so forth. Yeah but transversal speed is much smaller at those kinds of distances, so ppl should be able to hit nanoships then. is not... angular velocity will be less but transversial will be the same. learning what terms mean is ftw! I like the op Idea, but thinking slightly less range 20km max (+ a few km with overload)
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.31 04:07:00 - [19] talk about Alt abuse ...
Schalac Caldari Brotherhood of Wolves	Posted - 2008.07.31 04:12:00 - [20] Originally by: Rawr Cristina talk about Alt abuse Alt's ... WHERE???
Schalacs Whore	Posted - 2008.07.31 04:13:00 - [21] I look better than Rawr Cristina.
Schalac Caldari Brotherhood of Wolves	Posted - 2008.07.31 04:14:00 - [22] Originally by: Schalacs ***** I look better than Rawr Cristina. I agree.
Faife Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa	Posted - 2008.07.31 04:19:00 - [23] i'm 100% for the idea of falloff range on webs + all other modules. - -
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.31 04:55:00 - [24] Originally by: Schalac Originally by: Schalacs ***** I look better than Rawr Cristina. I agree. pssshh you're only saying that since you have the same BG! ...
Schalac Caldari Brotherhood of Wolves	Posted - 2008.07.31 06:33:00 - [25] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Originally by: Schalac Originally by: Schalacs *** I look better than Rawr Cristina. I agree. pssshh you're only saying that since you have the same BG! HA!!!!!!! all my alts have the same BG, except 3, and I only have 17 alts... One slot open if anyone wants to sell me a character that can fly a titan, so I can steal that ***. It's ok if you don't another 6 months to a year and I'll be able to steal one with my own characters... It sucks though spending all this money on titan training skills... it's taking me much longer than evemon predicted because I keep changing their skill training to fit my more present needs of playing someone else. Oh and don't research my corp history and hope to find my titan stealing alts. Those two have zero connection to me, past corps, wallet journals or even same space I've been in. I will tell you this though, one of them is in an alliance with 2 of the titans I am training them for.... I will post the fraps of it when I actually accomplish this goal of mine.
Lui Kai Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.31 06:39:00 - [26] Edited by: Lui Kai on 31/07/2008 06:41:41 The problem with this idea is that it doesn't address the central issue of nanos. Being able to hit a nano isn't the problem - there are solutions in game to this right now. Granted, this change would make those solutions more viable, and a good thing, but the underlying problem of nanos would still exist: A nano can't be forced to engage unless the pilot is stupid. The reason so many people liked/hated nano fits, and the reason it's become "required" for most gangs now - it is impossible to trap a nano pilot that has more than 3 firing neurons, until they commit. Any other ship/fit type, this is not true of. There are other ships/fits that are difficult to engage against their will, but the nano is the only fit that is nearly impossible to engage against their will. Edit: I'll amend the above by saying that if interceptors were capable of outmatching a nano's speed, combined with your proposed fix, that would represent a fix towards the underlying problem. ---------------- Ambulation Answers
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.07.31 06:45:00 - [27] Originally by: The Mach Edited by: The Mach on 31/07/2008 03:10:06 Edited by: The Mach on 31/07/2008 02:22:07 Damps. Work on a falloff based system. ECM. Work on a falloff based system. Seem like nerfed systems that are quite effective still? Why not make webs a falloff based weapon? Don't flame yet.... Proposal. (For the purpose assume all items be T2.) Web does 60% webbing at 10km... but the effectiveness dies from there (allows nanos to be effective but risky now) At 20km the web would do 40% webbing ( 8km/s Sac would still go 4800m/s orbiting at 20km) At 30km the web would do 30% From 30km to 50km the webbing goes from 30% - 0% (50km is the point at which a web is no longer effective at all.) It's all a game of balance, with this idea nanos still have their place BUT there is now a risk involved. Risk vs Reward Please Post constructive comments I will edit in good ideas that further balance the nano problem. That system would mostly prevent blasterboats from ever reaching their targets before getting wtfpwned. Unless you modified blasterboats to be the fastest ships around, but minmatar pilots wouldn't like that... ------------------------------------------
Kano Sekor Amarr The Movement	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:21:00 - [28] WTB 30 km webber zomg thats not a nerf thats a tremendous boost! ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bo Bojangles Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:25:00 - [29] Yeah i hate the idea. Why does everyone want to be a Rapier? You do this then everyone will be webbed all the time, even you. Being webbed is no fun. And the fellow above me is right. Blasterboats would just have a hell of a time ever doing any damage and my AC's wouldn't fair much better. If I ever managed to close at an effective range to use my AC's, it's doubtful that I'd ever get out. 'Sides you'd have to give the Rapier/Huginn some other role entirely as it's bonus would be rendered useless. I mean sure, it'd be able to web from 150 out or something but then,.. what good is that?
Stygian Knight	Posted - 2008.07.31 09:58:00 - [30] i like the idea

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.