These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Stasis Web Scaling
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#21 - 2013-07-12 23:11:28 UTC

Oh HELL NO...

Have you ever fought a 100mn tengu?

It travels at 2500 m/s no problem, and with two webs 2500 * ( 1 - .60 ) * ( 1 - .60 * .87 ) = 2500 * .1912 = 478 m/s. If they overheat, they are back up to 1km/s. This change makes holding down oversized AB setups extremely difficult (and it's already pretty difficult).

Furthermore, you do understand that webs are stacking penalized? The first web is 100% effective, the second is 87% effective, the third is 57% effective, and the fourth is 28% effective, and the fifth is 10% effective.

This means, that the third web is only going to slow you down ( 0.6 *.57 ) = 34%, and the fourth web will slow you down 17%. The fifth web won't matter. By the way, quadruple webbed 100mn Tengu will still be going 10% of it's pre-web speed!!!! That is NOT stationary, although it would be close to it for a non-oversized AB fit.

Furthermore, large gangs of frigates and dessies are pretty common. CFC uses an alpha Wolf fleet, Agony often runs public roams of 50+ frigates. I've seen large Harpy fleets, and many other frigate base fleets too.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#22 - 2013-07-12 23:15:04 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Someone moving 40% of their base speed isn't going to be going anywhere fast. Unless they have an AB, in which case they'll be moving about their base speed, but will still not be going anywhere quickly.

PVP does not depend on your target being completely stationary.


This depends on the ships fighting each other. Blap dreads need cruisers to be heavily webbed and painted to hit them. BS's need serious web support if they wish to attack AHACs. A triple webbed frigate can still get under the guns of a BS.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#23 - 2013-07-12 23:35:53 UTC
Quote:
It travels at 2500 m/s no problem, and with two webs 2500 * ( 1 - .60 ) * ( 1 - .60 * .87 ) = 2500 * .1912 = 478 m/s. If they overheat, they are back up to 1km/s. This change makes holding down oversized AB setups extremely difficult (and it's already pretty difficult).

Furthermore, you do understand that webs are stacking penalized? The first web is 100% effective, the second is 87% effective, the third is 57% effective, and the fourth is 28% effective, and the fifth is 10% effective.


Given that distinction I'd frankly rather nerf oversized AB fits. The current system is really, really ******.

Quote:
This depends on the ships fighting each other. Blap dreads need cruisers to be heavily webbed and painted to hit them. BS's need serious web support if they wish to attack AHACs. A triple webbed frigate can still get under the guns of a BS.


I have no idea why you think dreads should be anti-cruiser ships, but even if they were, you can still heavily web stuff under my proposed changes. It's just not automatic.

The stacking penalty is more or less nonexistant. The third web is the only one that is meaningfully hurt by the stacking penalty, and at that point the target is basically stationary.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#24 - 2013-07-13 00:00:34 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Quote:
It travels at 2500 m/s no problem, and with two webs 2500 * ( 1 - .60 ) * ( 1 - .60 * .87 ) = 2500 * .1912 = 478 m/s. If they overheat, they are back up to 1km/s. This change makes holding down oversized AB setups extremely difficult (and it's already pretty difficult).

Furthermore, you do understand that webs are stacking penalized? The first web is 100% effective, the second is 87% effective, the third is 57% effective, and the fourth is 28% effective, and the fifth is 10% effective.


Given that distinction I'd frankly rather nerf oversized AB fits. The current system is really, really ******.

Quote:
This depends on the ships fighting each other. Blap dreads need cruisers to be heavily webbed and painted to hit them. BS's need serious web support if they wish to attack AHACs. A triple webbed frigate can still get under the guns of a BS.


I have no idea why you think dreads should be anti-cruiser ships, but even if they were, you can still heavily web stuff under my proposed changes. It's just not automatic.

The stacking penalty is more or less nonexistant. The third web is the only one that is meaningfully hurt by the stacking penalty, and at that point the target is basically stationary.


Oversized AB's are a very interesting "alternative" use of modules. They require sacrifices to fit, decrease your agility to crap (so you can't turn very well), but also make you very hard to "slow down". I see no reason to nerf these.

As for "dreads" vs cruisers. This situation comes up in WH's, where T3 fleets drop on escalation groups.

BS's vs AHACs are common site on the battlefields in nullsec, although the inclusion of web/paint ships into fleet doctrines to counter the sig tanking cruisers is more common place now.

Finally, the proposal is to allow for a ship to wield dual webs (one web, one web amplifier). If two webs already make a target "basically stationary", then your proposed solution doesn't even solve your complaint (that multiple webs over-immobilize a target). So, why go through all the dev time, to fix ewar that is already fixed by the stacking penalty (because the third web is "meaningfully" nerfed by it)?

p.s. And we havent even started addressing Serpentis ships and Marauders? These ships have bonuses to turn your a 60% web into a 90% web!!!! Two of these webs, and you truly are immobilized!
Doddy
Excidium.
#25 - 2013-07-13 00:08:41 UTC
You realise that if the primary has all the webs on him all his gang mates can do this "tactical movement" stuff, plus webs are stacking penalised so unless you are using 90% webs they will never be essentially stationary like the good old days.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#26 - 2013-07-13 00:48:35 UTC
Quote:
You realise that if the primary has all the webs on him all his gang mates can do this "tactical movement" stuff, plus webs are stacking penalised so unless you are using 90% webs they will never be essentially stationary like the good old days.


It takes ~1 standard web to cancel out the effects of an afterburner. Two webs will put you at about a fifth your unwebbed speed. Four will put you at a tenth (so a frigate will be moving at about 120 m/s, a cruiser at around 70 m/s - as a point of comparison, the base speed of a Rokh is 89 m/s). At that point, the number of meaningful actions a player can take in order to mitigate damage through flying their ship is close to zero. You can't pull range, you can't raise angular velocity usefully unless you're dealing with weapons two classes above you, and you can't push attackers off. So yeah, you might as well be stationary. This means brawling ship hulls that trade some tank for extra speed scale very poorly in terms of effectiveness.

The sole exception is oversized afterburner fits, which, as noted, require gimping the ship in other ways in most cases and have other significant limitations (e.g. agility, acceleration). And they generally aren't brawling ships.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#27 - 2013-07-13 12:07:42 UTC
How about an anti-stasis module?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
#28 - 2013-07-13 14:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Vizvig
Just remove all kind of debuff magic from game. It completely obsolete nowadays.

Arthur Aihaken wrote:
How about an anti-stasis module?

How about anti-anti-stasis module and anti-anti-stasis disruptors?
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#29 - 2013-07-13 15:09:38 UTC
Quote:
How about an anti-stasis module?


Webs are such a gigantic part of close range combat that it would quickly become mandatory. Either everyone would fit one, only some ships would be able to get away with fitting one (thus relegating those that couldn't to uselessness), or it would be prohibitively hard to fit and not do anything.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#30 - 2013-07-13 16:15:44 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Quote:
How about an anti-stasis module?


Webs are such a gigantic part of close range combat that it would quickly become mandatory. Either everyone would fit one, only some ships would be able to get away with fitting one (thus relegating those that couldn't to uselessness), or it would be prohibitively hard to fit and not do anything.


This.
Ash Katara
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2013-07-13 16:32:26 UTC
I see this issue as two separate issues. First we use multiple Webs to counter ships using Over-scaled MWDs or other very fast ships. Second Webs were nerfed as stacking was overpowered.

The solution is also two fold.

First, modules across the board should probably be reworked to be ship size class specific. Second webs and other e-war modules need to be re-tuned and stacking removed, highest strength effect is applied, stacked effects used only for redundancy.

As it stands now the OP and many other are just trying to address the symptom of a larger and more involved issue. We need to pinpoint the underlying issues which result in the undesired effects we are seeing in-game.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#32 - 2013-07-13 18:11:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
Change up webs entirely and nerf their effects a little bit. Don't mess with stacking penalties.

Stasis Webifier II - unscripted
Target velocity penalty: -25%
Target agility penalty: -25%

Stasis Webifier II - Velocity script
Target velocity penalty: -50%
Target agility penalty: none

Stasis Webifier II - Agility script
Target velocity penalty: none
Target agility penalty: -50%

Maybe don't nerf their effectiveness, but I would definitely like to see some sort of ewar for reducing the agility of a target ship if for no other reason than we currently have modules and rigs that can buff agility, but nothing offensive to reduce agility.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
LT Alter
Ryba.
White Squall.
#33 - 2013-07-13 20:16:48 UTC
The idea is interesting but frankly I don't think you grasp one fact in full enough detail. They aren't broken, to say they are perfect is false as well. In all truth, there are many things not perfect in eve, but the thing is the way they work now is so heavily engrained into eve right now that the suggested changes will not be accepted by Eve or the Devs. Many things are broken, ECM being a much bigger problem than webs ever could be. So are many other mechanics. So while your idea is not stupid or unreasonable, I don't really see a need for it or expect it to happen.
Previous page12