These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerf Webs
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#121 - 2014-11-03 17:35:56 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Portmanteau wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Mag's wrote:
I would say if anything, webs were nerfed too much in the last pass on them. So to suggest they need nerfing more, simply smacks of ignorance of current mechanics and their uses.


Lol, couldn't disagree more.

Why would you ever fit a brawling ship wihout webs? Why would you ever fit a large solo ship without webs? You wouldn't. Without webs you are dead before you undock. Certainly doesn't make for interesting tradeoffs when fitting.

Yes, webs are OP as **** relative to other modules. So much so that they are baked into the game; pvp balance is based on their existence.


You are mistaken, you have just failed to appreciate that webs are perhaps more important than other modules because they affect range control, the same is true of prop mods. The fact that webs or prop mods are considered before 95% of other mods when fitting a ship does not mean they are OP, it is merely a reflection of how important range control is in PvP. By your logic weapons are even more OP since "when would you ever fit a solo ship without weapons"

Mags is right, if anything they got over nerfed last time, you just need to learn how to deal with it.


That is not the argument, you have not read the thread. It is not solely their over consideration that attributes to their dis-balance, propulsion modules are scaled to the ship size. Webs are not. If you want to avoid being webbed, the frigate needs to optimize its fitting requirements by fitting a 10MN AB to survive being webbed. A Cruiser/Battle Cruiser/ Battleship hull needs only to a fit a web, and at the same requirements that a frigate does. Your conclusive argument is invalid seeing as that does not apply to the suggestion.



issue being that all ships have been updated with the current web cost. but I'm no longer against this because it would be more cpu for my cpu starved ships that don't fit a web.


A ship that is starved for cpu should not be able to fit an item that simply counters an entire ship class. You can literally compare that to smalls having a weapon that counters the sole advantage of battleships having enormous amounts of ehp.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#122 - 2014-11-03 17:36:05 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Notorious Fellon wrote:
Nerffing webs would seriously make brawling BS's useless, and would make them way too vulnerable to small ships that cost almost nothing.

We have to at least give BS's a chance against small ships. Webs make that possible. Unless we are going to give them a few extra high-slots that are somehow restricted to small guns I don't see a way to remove Webs.

Many ships like the Mega would become not worth flying.


I have already suggested that the tracking of these things be increased to compensate for the lack, but still. Using neuts is a more balanced and well thought out counter than webs, which are diversity defeating.


you realize how much tracking would have to be increased to counter a single web? It would make every turret based ship op



It is a thing that is mathematical not skill based thing that is hampered by bad game mechanics, and balance can be found.



both tracking and webs are mathematical based and skill based. So I don't know which one you are talking about.

Is it that it would be bad mechanic to make my abbandon track a frig as if it had a web on the frig always?
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#123 - 2014-11-03 17:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
neuts heavy only take 10 more cpu and give the gtfo ability out to 25km. at the large size
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#124 - 2014-11-03 17:39:25 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Portmanteau wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Mag's wrote:
I would say if anything, webs were nerfed too much in the last pass on them. So to suggest they need nerfing more, simply smacks of ignorance of current mechanics and their uses.


Lol, couldn't disagree more.

Why would you ever fit a brawling ship wihout webs? Why would you ever fit a large solo ship without webs? You wouldn't. Without webs you are dead before you undock. Certainly doesn't make for interesting tradeoffs when fitting.

Yes, webs are OP as **** relative to other modules. So much so that they are baked into the game; pvp balance is based on their existence.


You are mistaken, you have just failed to appreciate that webs are perhaps more important than other modules because they affect range control, the same is true of prop mods. The fact that webs or prop mods are considered before 95% of other mods when fitting a ship does not mean they are OP, it is merely a reflection of how important range control is in PvP. By your logic weapons are even more OP since "when would you ever fit a solo ship without weapons"

Mags is right, if anything they got over nerfed last time, you just need to learn how to deal with it.


That is not the argument, you have not read the thread. It is not solely their over consideration that attributes to their dis-balance, propulsion modules are scaled to the ship size. Webs are not. If you want to avoid being webbed, the frigate needs to optimize its fitting requirements by fitting a 10MN AB to survive being webbed. A Cruiser/Battle Cruiser/ Battleship hull needs only to a fit a web, and at the same requirements that a frigate does. Your conclusive argument is invalid seeing as that does not apply to the suggestion.


The bigger ship gets the same benefit from the web in terms of speed reduction yes but then it has bigger guns that will struggle to hit even a webbed ship of smaller class in many cases, that is balanced.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#125 - 2014-11-03 17:44:33 UTC
Portmanteau wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Portmanteau wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Mag's wrote:
I would say if anything, webs were nerfed too much in the last pass on them. So to suggest they need nerfing more, simply smacks of ignorance of current mechanics and their uses.


Lol, couldn't disagree more.

Why would you ever fit a brawling ship wihout webs? Why would you ever fit a large solo ship without webs? You wouldn't. Without webs you are dead before you undock. Certainly doesn't make for interesting tradeoffs when fitting.

Yes, webs are OP as **** relative to other modules. So much so that they are baked into the game; pvp balance is based on their existence.


You are mistaken, you have just failed to appreciate that webs are perhaps more important than other modules because they affect range control, the same is true of prop mods. The fact that webs or prop mods are considered before 95% of other mods when fitting a ship does not mean they are OP, it is merely a reflection of how important range control is in PvP. By your logic weapons are even more OP since "when would you ever fit a solo ship without weapons"

Mags is right, if anything they got over nerfed last time, you just need to learn how to deal with it.


That is not the argument, you have not read the thread. It is not solely their over consideration that attributes to their dis-balance, propulsion modules are scaled to the ship size. Webs are not. If you want to avoid being webbed, the frigate needs to optimize its fitting requirements by fitting a 10MN AB to survive being webbed. A Cruiser/Battle Cruiser/ Battleship hull needs only to a fit a web, and at the same requirements that a frigate does. Your conclusive argument is invalid seeing as that does not apply to the suggestion.


The bigger ship gets the same benefit from the web in terms of speed reduction yes but then it has bigger guns that will struggle to hit even a webbed ship of smaller class in many cases, that is balanced.


Yes, that is balanced, but the fact that the cost for doing so is so low, is not.
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#126 - 2014-11-03 17:44:36 UTC
Also, damage controls, invulns, resistance mods of all kinds, scramblers... all one size fits all, it is not like the web is special or unique in this. It's just that some mods are better balanced as one size fits all... webs are one of these.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#127 - 2014-11-03 17:45:28 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
neuts heavy only take 10 more cpu and give the gtfo ability out to 25km. at the large size


They are still scaled to the ships size. Which makes them appropriate.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#128 - 2014-11-03 17:47:06 UTC
Portmanteau wrote:
Also, damage controls, invulns, resistance mods of all kinds, scramblers... all one size fits all, it is not like the web is special or unique in this. It's just that some mods are better balanced as one size fits all... webs are one of these.


Those modules you mentioned don't serve for negating the usefulness of an entire ship class. Webs are not balanced as a one size fits all.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#129 - 2014-11-03 17:49:31 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
neuts heavy only take 10 more cpu and give the gtfo ability out to 25km. at the large size


They are still scaled to the ships size. Which makes them appropriate.



so is the plan to increase cost to larger web sizes or decrease the cost for smaller ones? Even if they do have a different fitting scale a med neut neuts the same amount no matter the size of ship it is placed on.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#130 - 2014-11-03 17:50:35 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Portmanteau wrote:
Also, damage controls, invulns, resistance mods of all kinds, scramblers... all one size fits all, it is not like the web is special or unique in this. It's just that some mods are better balanced as one size fits all... webs are one of these.


Those modules you mentioned don't serve for negating the usefulness of an entire ship class. Webs are not balanced as a one size fits all.



what class of ships is being negated?
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#131 - 2014-11-03 17:50:38 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:


Welcome the land of, "Trolling without even reading the thread". I have explained many times before that neuts are a diverse and scaled weapon, that has specific benefits and consequences that can be used against all ship classes. Neuts are fine, if I died to neuts I'd say "next time I'll bring a cap booster", with webs my choices are, "next time, I'll fit a HG Snake set with Loki links and a deadspace AB."

Oh ffs.
you don't need boots
you don't need dead space fit

halos are better if you're in web range.

And webs work on everything


I will keep the halos thing in mind, are you using them in either of those engagements? Gf btw.
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#132 - 2014-11-03 17:52:07 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:



Yes, that is balanced, but the fact that the cost for doing so is so low, is not.
[/quote]

You realise of course that modules that use "scaled up" power and CPU requirements such as guns/plates etc are balanced against modules such as scram web DCU with one size fits all fitting requirements ?
If you mess with web fitting requirements then CCP will just revisit hulls' power and CPU availability when standard fits become impossible to fit. Of course, what's more likely is that they just won't bother with your idea as it just creates problems while attempting to solve a problem that only exists in your head.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#133 - 2014-11-03 17:54:52 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i would advocate a web strength nerf say a T2 web should max out at 45%


No, that is not the point of the thread, in spite of its title, webs need to be reclassed entirely, simply dropping the effectiveness of all webs by a flat rate is making a broken mechanic worse by giving too much advantage to the frigates.


frigs can still be neuted, scrammed and then multiple webbed or the serpentis webs which would be 67.5% ..
beside the small ships should be fast .. its too easy to slow fast ships down and AB ships are too slow with just one 60% web on it..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#134 - 2014-11-03 17:55:55 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
neuts heavy only take 10 more cpu and give the gtfo ability out to 25km. at the large size


They are still scaled to the ships size. Which makes them appropriate.



so is the plan to increase cost to larger web sizes or decrease the cost for smaller ones? Even if they do have a different fitting scale a med neut neuts the same amount no matter the size of ship it is placed on.


Yes, that is similar to the plan, and yes neuts do neut the same amount of cap regardless of what ship it is on. But neuts of larger classes have longer range and lower cycle times. This still counters the frigates, but leaves them with reasonable chance for survival if they manage capacitor well.

My suggestion is to increase the effective range of these larger class webs, but increase the pg/cpu/cap of them and decrease the effectiveness. My suggestion is not, "make webs not as good' so frigates rule everything.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#135 - 2014-11-03 17:57:51 UTC
Portmanteau wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:



Yes, that is balanced, but the fact that the cost for doing so is so low, is not.


You realise of course that modules that use "scaled up" power and CPU requirements such as guns/plates etc are balanced against modules such as scram web DCU with one size fits all fitting requirements ?
If you mess with web fitting requirements then CCP will just revisit hulls' power and CPU availability when standard fits become impossible to fit. Of course, what's more likely is that they just won't bother with your idea as it just creates problems while attempting to solve a problem that only exists in your head.

[/quote]

The insulting is not necessary. Scrams and Distruptors do not universally disrupt the ability of a ship class to survive.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#136 - 2014-11-03 18:01:20 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i would advocate a web strength nerf say a T2 web should max out at 45%


No, that is not the point of the thread, in spite of its title, webs need to be reclassed entirely, simply dropping the effectiveness of all webs by a flat rate is making a broken mechanic worse by giving too much advantage to the frigates.


frigs can still be neuted, scrammed and then multiple webbed or the serpentis webs which would be 67.5% ..
beside the small ships should be fast .. its too easy to slow fast ships down and AB ships are too slow with just one 60% web on it..


Even with that being said. A simple flat nerf is not the answer. I only titled this thread that to gain more attention to the thread; because more considerate and carefully worded titles are less viewed, people only view and comment on threads when they think their way of life is in danger, not when they are interested in hearing and new proposal.
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#137 - 2014-11-03 18:03:48 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:


The insulting is not necessary. Scrams and Distruptors do not universally disrupt the ability of a ship class to survive.


It's not an insult, you are seeing a problem where there isn't one. I am largely a frig pilot and I have no issue with larger ships fitting webs at the same cost as my frig since I realise other modules on their ship have been balanced against this fact.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#138 - 2014-11-03 18:04:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Portmanteau wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:



Yes, that is balanced, but the fact that the cost for doing so is so low, is not.


You realise of course that modules that use "scaled up" power and CPU requirements such as guns/plates etc are balanced against modules such as scram web DCU with one size fits all fitting requirements ?
If you mess with web fitting requirements then CCP will just revisit hulls' power and CPU availability when standard fits become impossible to fit. Of course, what's more likely is that they just won't bother with your idea as it just creates problems while attempting to solve a problem that only exists in your head.



The insulting is not necessary. Scrams and Distruptors do not universally disrupt the ability of a ship class to survive.



scams and distruptors are the only thing with bubbles that universally disrupt anythings ability to survive. As a web will just help your opponent get away faster.
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#139 - 2014-11-03 18:08:25 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:

scams and distruptors are the only thing with bubbles that universally disrupt anythings ability to survive. As a web will just help your opponent get away faster.


Yeah I was wondering about that too, stopping any ship from escaping seems pretty universal to me Ugh
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#140 - 2014-11-03 18:13:30 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:


Welcome the land of, "Trolling without even reading the thread". I have explained many times before that neuts are a diverse and scaled weapon, that has specific benefits and consequences that can be used against all ship classes. Neuts are fine, if I died to neuts I'd say "next time I'll bring a cap booster", with webs my choices are, "next time, I'll fit a HG Snake set with Loki links and a deadspace AB."

Oh ffs.
you don't need boots
you don't need dead space fit

halos are better if you're in web range.

And webs work on everything


I will keep the halos thing in mind, are you using them in either of those engagements? Gf btw.

Yes, mid grade for both both.
the proteus was on the way to save this poor typhoon i was euthanizing but the phoon isn't strictly relevant to the thread.
The exact fit used on both.

[Ishkur, Ralph King-Griffin's Ishkur]

Adaptive Nano Plating II
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Small Armor Repairer II

1MN Afterburner II
Warp Scrambler II
Small Capacitor Booster II,Navy Cap Booster 150

Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Light Ion Blaster II,Void S
Light Ion Blaster II,Void S
Light Ion Blaster II,Void S
(Fednavy antimatter for PoPing their drones asap)

Small Ancillary Current Router II
Small Anti-Explosive Pump II


Hobgoblin II x 5
Warrior II x 3

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=