These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Module] Tie webs to mass
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Roguetwo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-10-02 19:18:49 UTC
So I've seen some posts regarding web scaling and stuff, and I gotta admit I always thought it was a bit weird that the same web would stop both a frig and a battleship

I propose that webs be given a "maximum strength" value, in mass, which they can effectively stop.

Multiple webs on target should combine to increase the total max strength, such that it will take a group of smaller ships to effectively slow a much larger ship, like lions hanging on the back of an elephant.

Additionally, webs should be split into frig/cruiser/bs tiers, each one having a correspondingly higher max strength (without necessarily having a greater reduction in speed)

I believe this change would mesh particularly well with the new interceptor, eaf (perhaps an additional max strength bonus?), and warp speed changes coming in Rubicon.

Imagine the dog pile effect. your interceptors are able to warp ahead and get a warp scramble, but cant really slow the ship by themselves. then your cruisers and heavier webs start landing, adding their (significantly) stronger webs, until you finally drag the behemoth to a standstill. Finally your heavy guns arrive and you begin the long task of destroying your prey.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#2 - 2013-10-02 20:30:13 UTC
And why do you think frigates should become bad at tackling?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3 - 2013-10-02 21:09:35 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
And why do you think frigates should become bad at tackling?

I don't think it's a question of being bad, but rather a question of mass. If mass effects (little pun there) a ship's acceleration, velocity, warp, etc. then it should certainly come into play with stasis webs and to a lesser degree, warp disruptors and scramblers.

There's probably not a lot you can do with warp disruptors and scramblers, but you could make stasis webs more or less effective depending on the target's mass compared to their own ship.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#4 - 2013-10-02 23:36:16 UTC
Quote:
I don't think it's a question of being bad, but rather a question of mass. If mass effects (little pun there) a ship's acceleration, velocity, warp, etc. then it should certainly come into play with stasis webs and to a lesser degree, warp disruptors and scramblers.


Why are you arguing against a point about game balance with a point about physics (whether or not it's right)?
Taoist Dragon
School of Applied Knowledge
#5 - 2013-10-03 00:15:45 UTC
While I agree to this idea in principle (and I like physics to play a part in eve)

I have to side with Kahega with the game balance being put out of whack if this went ahead. Afterall tackle is one of the things that you can get the new guys to actually do well is a short period of time...this would just make them redundant until they had way more skills.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#6 - 2013-10-03 00:18:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Why are you arguing against a point about game balance with a point about physics (whether or not it's right)?

Because mass is already a factor in many aspects of EVE, ie: closing wormholes, armor weight, velocity, warp speed, etc. So it's not a stretch to inquire why a weapon that's based on slowing a ship wouldn't be affected by mass.

Taoist Dragon wrote:
While I agree to this idea in principle (and I like physics to play a part in eve)

I have to side with Kahega with the game balance being put out of whack if this went ahead. Afterall tackle is one of the things that you can get the new guys to actually do well is a short period of time...this would just make them redundant until they had way more skills.

Nothing's really been proposed beyond just the concept.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#7 - 2013-10-03 01:15:05 UTC
Quote:
Because mass is already a factor in many aspects of EVE, ie: closing wormholes, armor weight, velocity, warp speed, etc. So it's not a stretch to inquire why a weapon that's based on slowing a ship wouldn't be affected by mass.


That is true, and I have nothing against the idea of EVE physics being made more authentic. However, game balance is still a far more important factor than physics authenticity, so if you're going to propose a change then you need to propose a change that will be balanced. Your change as it stands would largely obsolete many smaller hulls.

Quote:
Nothing's really been proposed beyond just the concept.


No, you proposed a specific implementation; bigger ships should be straight up better at slowing a target down than small ships.
Luc Chastot
#8 - 2013-10-03 01:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Luc Chastot
The idea sounds interesting on paper, but it has 2 problems:

1. It makes small gangs weaker. We already have too many blobs.
2. Modules/rigs that add mass passively or when activated.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#9 - 2013-10-03 02:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kahega Amielden wrote:
That is true, and I have nothing against the idea of EVE physics being made more authentic. However, game balance is still a far more important factor than physics authenticity, so if you're going to propose a change then you need to propose a change that will be balanced. Your change as it stands would largely obsolete many smaller hulls.

No, you proposed a specific implementation; bigger ships should be straight up better at slowing a target down than small ships.

I'm not saying that real-world physics should take preference over game balance, just that it should be a consideration. I actually didn't get into any specifics, but if you're interested if my ideas this is what I might suggest:

• An inherent -1 warp strength bonus for cruisers and battlecruisers, and -2 for battleships.
• Stasis webs are 10% less effective against cruisers, 25% against battlecruisers and 33% against battleships.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#10 - 2013-10-03 03:20:29 UTC
Quote:
• An inherent -1 warp strength bonus for cruisers and battlecruisers, and -2 for battleships.


Wait, so...cruisers and up can't even warp without stabs?
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-10-03 03:23:57 UTC
This change makes sense from a realism point of view....

BUT it is a bad idea from a balance point of view. It makes small gangs effectively useless when going up anything larger than them; while large gangs will simply be able to hold a small gang in place.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#12 - 2013-10-03 03:26:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarisen Gream
You could have the real world physics, and allow this set up, if ships that where build around tackling had boosters to their str of their web.

Intercepters could easily tackel a Cursier. 2 for a BC. 3 for a BS and above.

(edit) Level 1 Intercepter skills allow solo tackling of Frigate class ships. Level two allows solo Destoryer tackling. level three Crusiers. Level 4 BCs. Level 5 all other ship types. Adjust this to meet needs or balance. So level one might allow solo web of Frigates and Destoryers.

It would just need to be some nice balace features on ships who's role is to stop other players. And would prevent a Itty from webing a much much better ship just b/c he can web it :D

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#13 - 2013-10-03 03:37:21 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Wait, so...cruisers and up can't even warp without stabs?

Sorry, I meant plus (+).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Roguetwo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-10-03 18:58:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Roguetwo
Wow I didn't expect this to generate so much discussion!

Firstly, I would just like to note that my original idea had no effect on warp scramblers - the point was simply to make single frigate class webs less/ineffective against significantly larger targets

The idea being that small gangs will have more incentive for multiple webs, hunters will need to fit for their prey, and providing an additional niche for medium/large sized tacklers

So, I dug around a bit and found a nice table of ships' masses. after playing around with that, I came up with the following for VERY ROUGH balance points

Frigate web max strength - 12,000,000 kg
Cruiser web max strength - 106,000,000 kg
Battleship web max strength - 1,000,000,000 kg

fittings would be balanced such that dstr/bc could choose to upfit if they expected to be hunting larger prey

these numbers would allow a solo frig to fully web all but the heaviest cruisers while being ineffective against battlecruisers and above while solo cruisers would be able to fully web all but the heaviest battleships.

groups of frigates wishing to hunt battleship or larger prey would expect to bring 10-12 frig class webs (which could of course be on a handful of dedicated web ships) or a couple cruisers and frigs

roughly... i think... based on my data which may be wrong or old... keeping in mind i'm pretty stoned...

as far as i can tell armor will really only come in to play in fringe cases, which is good right? know your enemy, expect fat armor ships to be fat, etc.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2013-10-03 21:24:38 UTC
Why does someone from BNI want to massively nerf newbies?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#16 - 2013-10-03 22:17:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Kahega Amielden wrote:
That is true, and I have nothing against the idea of EVE physics being made more authentic. However, game balance is still a far more important factor than physics authenticity, so if you're going to propose a change then you need to propose a change that will be balanced. Your change as it stands would largely obsolete many smaller hulls.

No, you proposed a specific implementation; bigger ships should be straight up better at slowing a target down than small ships.

I'm not saying that real-world physics should take preference over game balance, just that it should be a consideration. I actually didn't get into any specifics, but if you're interested if my ideas this is what I might suggest:

• An inherent -1 warp strength bonus for cruisers and battlecruisers, and -2 for battleships.
• Stasis webs are 10% less effective against cruisers, 25% against battlecruisers and 33% against battleships.


lol what?!

have u checked ur math? only we know how well u did last time

edit-
but more seriously, it should take 3 disruptors to point a battleship? how many mids do u think frigates have?

this is worse than wanting warp disruption to be chance based.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#17 - 2013-10-03 22:26:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
Quote:
I'm not saying that real-world physics should take preference over game balance, just that it should be a consideration. I actually didn't get into any specifics, but if you're interested if my ideas this is what I might suggest:

• An inherent -1 warp strength bonus for cruisers and battlecruisers, and -2 for battleships.
• Stasis webs are 10% less effective against cruisers, 25% against battlecruisers and 33% against battleships.


Wait, so I voiced a concern that the change would be an unwarranted nerf to frigates, and you further refine the change to be even more unbelievably broken?

Quote:
The idea being that small gangs will have more incentive for multiple webs, hunters will need to fit for their prey, and providing an additional niche for medium/large sized tacklers


If you want to give small gangs an incentive for multiple webs then you need to make all webs worse, not just frigate webs.

"Hunters will need to fit for their prey..." What? You mean, "you need a battleship to tackle a battleship", which is stupid.

Medium/large ships aren't good at tackling for the same reason that frigates can't deal over a thousand DPS.

Quote:
roughly... i think... based on my data which may be wrong or old... keeping in mind i'm pretty stoned...


You know ,you could always refrain from posting suggestions until you're sober. I hear that works better.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#18 - 2013-10-03 22:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Dragon Khamez
Webs have nothing to do with ship mass on account of the fact they interact with the fabric of space, making the ship's mass or inertia unimportant.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#19 - 2013-10-03 22:59:46 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Webs have nothing to do with ship mass on account of the fact they interact with the fabric of space, making the ship's mass or inertia unimportant.


hows that? depending on how webs work:

if space is condensed, a heavier ship will still have a better chance of flying through custard than a small ship, especially if it already has momentum before being webbed.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs