These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Talos: 90% webs at every gate?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#81 - 2011-10-31 18:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
Tanya Powers wrote:
MukkBarovian wrote:
Every roaming gang we take out will have a Talos. Every gatecamp. Every time we leave the home system to PVP and we're not rolling frigates or cloakies. Shield or Armor tanked.

Why?

Because 90% webs are deadly to jump into. When we put a serious fleet together there are specific ships needed. Dictors/Scout/Tackle Frig/3+ Logis/command ships... When all is said and done it isn't always workable to ask someone to spend 100 mil on a daredevil so **** can't get back to the gate. The people who can fly them may be doing other vital tasks. Now all we have to do is grab some idiot noob out of our blob of idiot noobs with some pocket change and BC 3 + Gallente Cruiser 3 and we're set.

Anybody feel like flying down to Catch USTZ?

Course for a serious camp nothing can beat multiple daredevils each being boosted by two remote sebos, a couple light dictors with delayed bubble, a loki/claymore, and some mid sized sebod arty boats. Dramiel won't make it back through that.



You can already fit double web on hulls with double hp Talos will have.
2x 60% webs have more impact on targets than 1x 87% web, why people don't do it?



This is why I think it's overblown. I've encountered many dual stasis webifier Drakes being boosted by a gang linked Loki. Some pilots in Advocated Destruction use to do it alot in Old Man Star. Mind you, The Drakes weren't doing 1200 damage per second, but it's not a big deal.

I'll wait until they're on Tranq before I come to a definitive conclusion. But! When I was told about the new battle-cruiser and their bonuses (like a week ago and I wasn't paying any of it much attention). I thought this was a bad idea...

With that all said. Packs of these roaming around low sec will be deadly. THISISNOTAGAMEWTFDAMAGE! That's the kind of thing that blasters would need to do to be very viable. But! It's such a scary thought to have ships like this roaming around. Pretty sure it would hurt solo pvp, which is why I don't want a damage boost.

-proxyyyy
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#82 - 2011-10-31 20:11:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
I understand you point of view, however what else can be done on blaster hulls other than give them range to actually be worthy flying over projectiles ships?

Tremendous speed buff under AB or MWD (with sig radius bonus) to actually catch something and "try" to apply dmg with regular web or keep the crap range, strap some dmg here some tracking there witch makes it not more people desire those over canes, and specially after the projectiles T2 short range ammo being overbuffed.

Then you pick a single ship in the game you throw in the possibility of using 90% web strength and that's it, oceans of tears because maybe they will do some kills in solo pvp.

Every one knows P vs P in eve is more about P vs P+P+P sometimes more. so in my opinion buff that blaster hull with web bonus and then make theory crafts in relation to 1 on 1 is irrelevant.
Desudes
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2011-10-31 23:41:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Desudes
Muad 'dib wrote:
according to eft: a ship going 101m/s with one 90% web will go 10m/s and with two will go 2m/s.

The same 101m/s ship with a 60% web goes 41m/s, with two webs goes 21m/s with 3 goes 14m/s and with 4 goes 12.

So a talos with two 90% webs will slow a target by approx 98% (99% with 3) thats quite significantly better than an umlimited amount of normal strenght webs due to stacking.

Since its not faction or t2, thats why above i said it should be a half bonus of 5% for a 75% web and even thats a bit generous since the other teir 3 BC only get weapon bonuses.


By the time someone is going under 50m/s it shouldn't matter. Why? Because you should have someone sitting on the gate that can MWD bump his ass away if he somehow has the tank to withstand your gank traveling that slow.

Most gate camps I've run into have failed to catch me due to not employing either a sebo'd cepter with disrupter sitting on the gate, or failure to bump.

I'd rather see the Talos with a range bonus then slow speed bonus as if its using the web bonus its going to have 1/3 at best its brothers range. Going half vindi bonus, half recon bonus would also make some sense, and add a bit of variety.



Anyone going 10% their usual speed with MWD shut off (you've got a scram, right?) is a sitting duck.

Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you desu?
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#84 - 2011-11-01 00:42:08 UTC
Cambarus wrote:

Given how the new tier3s are going to be flown (or how they're supposed to at least) this kind of a really, REALLY big deal in terms of balance. You've got a ship class that's paper thin, that's supposed to use its speed and its range to tank the things it fights, and yet one of these ships (the talos) can't actually do anything past 20km. It damn well BETTER have an absurd bonus for what it can do close range, or else the damn thing will NEVER get used over it's much more survivable-by-virtue-of-range counterparts.

As for the whole issue of 90% webs in gatecamps, if you've got a bunch of people camping a gate, and you have no scout, and you jump into their gatecamp, you SHOULD die. The idea that damn near any small fast ship can slip by a group of any size with no risk at all is absurd.

Also, 90% webs on everything was a problem, especially after the nano nerf. 90% webs on one battlecruiser with the ehp of a t1 cruiser is not a problem.


I never complained about the 90% web bonus. I'm just pointing out that Tanya apparently wants blasters to be Pulse v2.0, in which case, why not just use pulse and leave blasters their niche?
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#85 - 2011-11-01 05:58:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Ain't none of you motherfuckers ever making it back to the gate again.


As usual, Mfume says it right. But I wonder how well the Talos will hold up to gate gun fire.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Tesh Sevateem
Cherry Candy Mountain
#86 - 2011-11-01 08:11:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tesh Sevateem
Wacktopia wrote:
Tesh Sevateem wrote:
Wacktopia wrote:
To be honest if you get two normal webs on you then you suffer the same issue so I think your point is moot.
And what do you think two 90% webs will do to a ship?


Probably about 95% web. About the same as 90% web. Because of diminishing returns. The effect will be that "you're not getting back to gate".

Point I'm making is; 90% web will make a massive difference for a solo ship but not a massive difference for a fleet because after 2-3 webs on you it doesn't really change a thing.

The tank of the Talos is so low that it is an unlikely choice for a solo gate camp. Even then the range of web and targeting speed will limit effectiveness. In a gang it will be a nice addition but nothing unique.
"Probably" will get you killed. The difference between using 60% webs and 90% webs is immense. And it's not just about "using two webs to counter", because using two 90% webs will simply stop your ship. A 2200 m/s AB Dramiel will go 220 m/s with just one web. Using two and it's tugging along at 49 m/s. What are the chances of this ship making it back to the gate?

To illustrate the difference, check these numbers (using EFT data):

60% webs on 2241 m/s ship
0 webs = 2241 m/s = 100% speed = 0% cumulative web
1 web = 896 m/s = 40.0% speed = 60.0% cumulative web
2 webs = 429 m/s = 19.1% speed = 80.9% cumulative web
3 webs = 282 m/s = 12.6% speed = 87.4% web

90% webs on 2241 m/s ship
0 webs = 2241 m/s = 100% speed = 0% cumulative web
1 web = 224 m/s = 10.0% speed = 90.0% cumulative web
2 webs = 49 m/s = 2.2% speed = 97.8% cumulative web
3 webs = 24 m/s = 1.1% speed = 98.9% cumulative web

So, you'll notice that a single 90% web outperforms a massive three 60% webs. And stacking just two 90% webs will cause any ship to come to an almost complete halt.

The difference is anything but trivial.

That said, I still think it should retain the 90% web bonus. Keeps things interesting.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#87 - 2011-11-01 15:29:59 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Cambarus wrote:

Given how the new tier3s are going to be flown (or how they're supposed to at least) this kind of a really, REALLY big deal in terms of balance. You've got a ship class that's paper thin, that's supposed to use its speed and its range to tank the things it fights, and yet one of these ships (the talos) can't actually do anything past 20km. It damn well BETTER have an absurd bonus for what it can do close range, or else the damn thing will NEVER get used over it's much more survivable-by-virtue-of-range counterparts.

As for the whole issue of 90% webs in gatecamps, if you've got a bunch of people camping a gate, and you have no scout, and you jump into their gatecamp, you SHOULD die. The idea that damn near any small fast ship can slip by a group of any size with no risk at all is absurd.

Also, 90% webs on everything was a problem, especially after the nano nerf. 90% webs on one battlecruiser with the ehp of a t1 cruiser is not a problem.


I never complained about the 90% web bonus. I'm just pointing out that Tanya apparently wants blasters to be Pulse v2.0, in which case, why not just use pulse and leave blasters their niche?

Tanya was being sarcastic. The argument (s)he was actually making was that the reason that the talos deserves such a seemingly over the top bonus is that the pulse and AC tier 3s already HAVE absurd bonuses that let them do insane things. Being able to get 100km falloff (or even optimal for the pulses) is a MASSIVE improvement over what the talos gets, so the talos, in turn, needs something massive to compensate. If we don't let it buy a nice car and a fancy suit, it'll have nothing over its friends who have, erm... "longer reach with their guns".
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#88 - 2011-11-01 17:15:34 UTC
I have the opinion that many of the new BC's in their "current" state are going to be extremely broken. 90% webs should not be present on anything but the most elite blaster hulls, enter serpentis ships...

As stated a zillion times before, a dirt cheap 1300+ dps hull will have some rather large negative effects on the world of eve even if it does not have a web bonus. Add in the 90% web coupled with 220ms+ base speed and you have a ship that is just asking to get nurfed in the near future.
Gazmin VanBurin
Boma Bull Corp
#89 - 2011-11-01 17:44:05 UTC
And I still think its goign to be hilarious when squads of 6-8 destroyers come in and gank waves upon waves of these new BCs. there is a reason I laugh when I see BSs when im in a pilgrim gang, tracking disrupt the other 3 and kite the Talos not to hard.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#90 - 2011-11-01 18:11:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Gazmin VanBurin wrote:
And I still think its goign to be hilarious when squads of 6-8 destroyers come in and gank waves upon waves of these new BCs. there is a reason I laugh when I see BSs when im in a pilgrim gang, tracking disrupt the other 3 and kite the Talos not to hard.


So true.

And then you see Amarrian pilots but mostly Minmatar pilots, crying rivers on hybrids rebalance threads.

Hilarious when their ammo is getting even more smoked wtfpownuberbuffed....
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#91 - 2011-11-01 18:39:39 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

As stated a zillion times before, a dirt cheap 1300+ dps hull will have some rather large negative effects on the world of eve even if it does not have a web bonus.


A Brutix can do 1k, a Astarte can even do the 1.3k today just fine and both got zero effect on eve.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2011-11-02 01:37:44 UTC
According to the latest batch of stats, goodbye 90% web, hello tracking bonus. Along with some other nerfs.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#93 - 2011-11-02 09:08:27 UTC
Can't say I am surprised. Looking at the numbers posted above, a 90% web seemed pretty OP. ofc, you would still have had to get in range to use it. But it would have been beyond facemelting. More like head-exploding Hakuto-shinken Fist of the North-Star Kenshiro on a rampage stuff.

...

ok, maybe I'm exaggerating. But not by much.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#94 - 2011-11-02 09:13:03 UTC
Jill Antaris wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

As stated a zillion times before, a dirt cheap 1300+ dps hull will have some rather large negative effects on the world of eve even if it does not have a web bonus.


A Brutix can do 1k, a Astarte can even do the 1.3k today just fine and both got zero effect on eve.


Yeah, people spend far too much time worrying about raw EFT numbers and far too little on how easy it is to apply that damage.
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#95 - 2011-11-02 09:58:53 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
according to eft: a ship going 101m/s with one 90% web will go 10m/s and with two will go 2m/s.

The same 101m/s ship with a 60% web goes 41m/s, with two webs goes 21m/s with 3 goes 14m/s and with 4 goes 12.

So a talos with two 90% webs will slow a target by approx 98% (99% with 3) thats quite significantly better than an umlimited amount of normal strenght webs due to stacking.


Its a quite insignificant difference. as its just a difference of about 10m/s. Either way, "the ****** won´t make it back". Its kinda the same argument like eft warriors use when they increase dps on missions ships to maximum, and while they really do 50 dps more, they are still need the same amount of volleys to kill their targets.

You need as much web as you need to achieve your goal. And while a 90% web is sleightly better than two 60%, its still just safes you a mid slot.

Remove insurance.
Lexmana
#96 - 2011-11-02 10:10:22 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
It damn well BETTER have an absurd bonus for what it can do close range, or else the damn thing will NEVER get used over it's much more survivable-by-virtue-of-range counterparts.


I thought blasters were supposed to have face melting dps. Surely, blasters do more damage at point blank than lasers? I can see blasters with damage bonus rather than trying to mold them into second grade auto cannons or lasers. It makes them situational sure, but thats a good thing since it adds gameplay variety and cater to a different (daredevil) play style.

Cambarus wrote:
As for the whole issue of 90% webs in gatecamps, if you've got a bunch of people camping a gate, and you have no scout, and you jump into their gatecamp, you SHOULD die. The idea that damn near any small fast ship can slip by a group of any size with no risk at all is absurd.


Having zero chance of escaping is as absurd as always escaping. It makes the game too predictable and less interesting to play.
Lexmana
#97 - 2011-11-02 10:18:31 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
As stated a zillion times before, a dirt cheap 1300+ dps hull will have some rather large negative effects on the world of eve even if it does not have a web bonus.


I agree but I wouldn't be too surprised if certain industrial ships gets a slight HP boost to somewhat counter this. We also have the destroyer buff to consider.
Elistea
BLUE Regiment.
#98 - 2011-11-02 10:39:30 UTC
I rly like how ppl here always whine about things which are still not yet determined and/or in existence.
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#99 - 2011-11-02 10:43:44 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Can't say I am surprised. Looking at the numbers posted above, a 90% web seemed pretty OP. ofc, you would still have had to get in range to use it. But it would have been beyond facemelting. More like head-exploding Hakuto-shinken Fist of the North-Star Kenshiro on a rampage stuff.

...

ok, maybe I'm exaggerating. But not by much.



You exaggeration a mile actually. It was a brutix with a bit more speed and gank as a trade off for lower EHP. Without the drones and the web bonus, you will hardly see this in space outside suicide ganking, because it combines a even weaker tank with the far worse tracking of large blasters compared to medium ones. There is no reason to fly a 30M more expensive Brutix, that is actually even weaker than his tier 1 counterpart for close range pvp, while you already hardly see a brutix today.
Aamrr
#100 - 2011-11-02 11:24:47 UTC
Right -- because large blasters don't have a range advantage over their medium counterparts at all. That'd be crazy.