Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum
   |
Posted - 2008.10.07 12:16:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Antdung
Yet again i feel the long way around option has been taken here. Wouldn't a simpler solution have been better like giving a webber & webber drones an accuracy falloff??
A T2 Webber with a falloff off 5km :
10km100%
11km90%
12km 80%
13km70%
14km60%
15km 50%
16km40%
17km30%
18km20%
19km10%
Wrong (assuming I'm interpreting your meaning correctly), that's not how falloff works. Asides from the fact that chance to hit as you go further into falloff isn't linear, my understanding is that you expect a 90% web to act as a 45% web at 15km.
It doesn't. What it does act as is a 90% web with 50% chance to take effect. (Chances are this will never change as otherwise any time a ship moved the server would have to recalculate the effects - range changed from 13,354m to 13,353m? OK, web strength changes from 75.114% to 75.131% - and work this out dozens of times per second)
This would be much much worse than what we currently have, since it introduces more chance-based mechanics that will quite possibly determine whether you live or die. A 10km web with 5km falloff would have something like a 2% chance of working at 22km, so if a fast ship was orbiting you with a point on, it would be completely down to luck (1 in 50 chance every 10 seconds) whether your web managed to "hit", at which point you could approach and probably get within 13km before the cycle ended, or not. There wouldn't be any real skill involved from either party, just one side hoping that the random die rolls kept missing and one side hoping they don't. The sad thing about this is that there is no absolute cap on range either, so you could potentially web someone at 35km if they got really unlucky.
Falloff works for turrets because each individual shot has a relatively low effect overall (removing what is generally a small amount of HP) and each shot's chance to hit generally has no relation to whether a previous shot hit. Webs don't fall into this category, as getting a web cycle on someone (especially someone who relies on speed) is a really big deal, it lasts for 10 seconds, and furthermore it is likely that you'll be able to close range meaning that your future web 'shots' will be much more likely, if not guaranteed to hit. Imagine if the chance to miss for turret falloff was rolled every 10 seconds and applied to every shot in that period, and furthermore once you started hitting well you got a bonus to future attempts...
Falloff for webs doesn't work. Mutable strength for webs in some sort of falloff range isn't technically feasible. What could work is multiple models of web with varying ranges and strengths (as per Goumindong's suggesting a while back), so you could fit a long-range low-strength web or a short-range high-strength one.
I am of the opinion that the strength of webs needs to be reduced in general, regardless of any considerations of nanoships or otherwise. 90% webs create a 13km sphere in which the only valid tactic is tank & gank. Signature radius, speed and so forth are almost completely irrelevant when both parties are webbed - hence why even an interceptor can't go within web range of a battleship. This is why AFs are currently useless (since their small signature and relatively high speed compared to large ships don't count for much) and also partly explains the push toward nanoships - if you eschew simplistic tank & gank setups then you need to stay out of web range in order to avoid the enemy forcing this on you.
To my mind a single-webbed cruiser should be very difficult to hit for a turret battleship, and a single-webbed battlecruiser should still be getting noticable damage mitigation (somewhere in the 20-50% area perhaps) from its lower signature radius and higher speed (as compared to a battleship). Obviously multiple webs increase the smaller ships' vulnerability and this is fine and good. I suppose my question (at the end of all this) is how CCP devs view this relationship of sizes.
|