These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#161 - 2014-11-03 20:27:41 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Niskin wrote:
Myrm versus Frigates


Ha! Wickedc was there in an ishkur! Iv flown with her, she knows her ****.

Yeah I think if the op tried his hand in similar circumstances he might have a different opinion on webs.
they are far from a "LoL frigate!" Button.



I looked at his killboard (he linked it) and I think its cause he sore from a death in ammake where a titian was able to hit him to do dmg. (wasn't a solo titian)
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#162 - 2014-11-03 20:40:24 UTC
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.

Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#163 - 2014-11-03 21:04:25 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
I appreciate the valid points that everyone brought up in this discussion, thank you for bringing your opinions to the table, and helping me reformulated my opinion. My ultimate decision is that webs should scale in capacitor and cpu requirements for larger vessels. They should receive longer range but lesser penalty modifiers on these larger webifiers. Lastly, and most importantly, webs should directly effect the INERTIA MODIFIER of effected ships rather than the maximum velocity. This change will directly tamper with the frigate pilots ability to fly accurately now that his ship handles like a larger ship, this tampering will make it in turn easier to damage the target when he attempts to make alterations to his flight path being that he will turn slower when attempting to make turns and accelerate slower when making these turns, but will not be hindered in his escape because his maximum velocity will remain the same. This type of web will make it more difficult to small ships to remain in tight orbit around larger ships, allow larger vessels to still have some type of range dictation, and will allow frigate pilots to still utilize their two main advantages: speed and signature radius. This will also allow the frigate pilot to have his ship hampered by having to increase the difficulty of flying it like, turning in between cycle times of lager guns as to avoid being hit, choosing the best time to retreat, and also increase the variance of the damage that the frigate takes in close quarters; if, while webbed, the frigate pilot must come to a near dead halt in order to effectively make his turn, this will force him to time when he does so, or face zeroing his transversal and being subject to guns anyway, or dropping tackle; however this will still allow the frigate pilot to keep his maximum velocity and open up more options for combat, rather than being forced to commit once entering scram range. The added range to the larger vessels webs will call for combat against smalls to be more focused on keeping range and narrowing transversal rather than simply making the target as slow as possible. Missiles who are not oriented by transversal might see an actual increase in damage projection now that targets have the ability to be slowed further at particular intervals. Multiple webs won't be as necessary seeing as the ship being webbed can have a lower velocity for much longer than webs as they are currently with this type of web. That being said the increase in fitting requirements for them won't be as penalizing. Factions cruisers and other ships with web bonuses will heighten this effect even greater by even further hindering the ships ability to turn. I hope this idea is more appealing to everyone involved. I am finished responding to this thread and will do it no further.


Edit: Mistaken double post.


simply NO.. Sorry but lack of understanding of mechanics there. If you make the ship suddenly less agile then you ENSURE that the speedy frigate will zip trough and go away fromt he battleship and get safe 100% of the time. You aer just making frigates unkillable.
T
aht was the exact reason why nanophoons were unkillable. They had too much mass to be stopped when they crossed a web zone.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#164 - 2014-11-03 21:12:22 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.


Hmm, messing with scram and web range has the potential to really screw things up. Consider an MWD AF against an MWD cruiser, both with scram, but the cruiser now has scram to 14 km where the AF has it to 9. The AFs already iffy chance at escape is basically gone since it cannot defensively scram past 9km and the cruiser just MWDs back into range. This seems like a very bad idea to me. I get that kitey ships are a bit common these days but dealing with that would probably be better done via other avenues. TBH I don't think kitey ships are as much of a nuisance as you make out, you just need to learn how to catch them, i manage ok and I am a clumsy, shakey handed old fart.

Bullet Therapist wrote:
Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.


The Garmur is so far out of balance that it will most likely be individually dealt with at some point in the future in much the same way the wtfsolopwnbbq version of the dramiel was. Balancing anything else while using the Garmur as any kind of reference is an awful idea.
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#165 - 2014-11-03 21:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
Portmanteau wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.


Hmm, messing with scram and web range has the potential to really screw things up. Consider an MWD AF against an MWD cruiser, both with scram, but the cruiser now has scram to 14 km where the AF has it to 9. The AFs already iffy chance at escape is basically gone since it cannot defensively scram past 9km and the cruiser just MWDs back into range. This seems like a very bad idea to me. I get that kitey ships are a bit common these days but dealing with that would probably be better done via other avenues. TBH I don't think kitey ships are as much of a nuisance as you make out, you just need to learn how to catch them, i manage ok and I am a clumsy, shakey handed old fart.

Bullet Therapist wrote:
Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.


The Garmur is so far out of balance that it will most likely be individually dealt with at some point in the future in much the same way the wtfsolopwnbbq version of the dramiel was. Balancing anything else while using the Garmur as any kind of reference is an awful idea.


I had a somewhat different scenario in mind, where a medium or large size web or scram would have a fitting cost to scale with it's effectiveness, so that a cruiser or larger ship mounting them would be forced to make fitting sacrifices in order to use them, along with somewhat smaller bonus to range than the example you gave. I still think even with the scenario you've made an assault frigate would have an opportunity to escape (if that was his goal) built in by the differential in locking speeds of the two ships. I think that the difference between the scenario that I imagine and current pvp is that frigates would have a smaller, but still existent window to decide to engage in a fight. Moreover, it might serve as an enticement for more players try dual prop/ab fittings outside of faction warfare space.

As far as catching kiters go, the issue I see is that a risk averse player is going to leave the field whenever they see something that can threaten them and these players will only engage what they know they're capable of beating. Players can recognize when they're going to be slingshotted, or what ships can slingshot them.

I know that because of where I've set up shop in the game I don't see the total picture of PVP that eve offers, but I can also say that where I am right now, brawling is dead and speed/range are the absolute kings of small scale pvp. I don't think that kiters are a problem, I just wish that it wasn't the only tactic I ever see.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#166 - 2014-11-03 22:17:55 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Portmanteau wrote:
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.



Assuming that this is a perception that only I, myself, presume to exist is an attempt to undermine the valid consideration of my point. It also begs the question of whether I am really perceiving the problem incorrectly or not. Ironically, your presumption is a perfect example of your accusation. I have almost exclusively flown frigates since I have started this game. While it is feasible to survive larger vessels with good skills and a plan. It is disturbing that all that that plan needs to be disrupted is for the ship to have one specific module. Any ship can make itself invulnerable to that ship class by simply fitting buffer and webs. That option does not reciprocate for frigates, and so you end up with 70 mil worth of frigates just so they can attempt to counter a cruiser hull worth 20-30. If it was just a specific ship class that could do this sort of strategy it wouldn't be an issue, but it is not. Every ship class should be a viable strategy for a specific situation. That is how EVE's meta is supposed to work, but instead frigates end up being their own meta with nothing that they can do that a re-purposed nano cruiser couldn't do better, and then still not be as vulnerable when webbed.



Once and for all 1 web does not make a battleship invulnerable to frigates. In fact it makes almost ZERO difference except for the drones trying to hit you!

Pay attention on the SIGNATURE!! It usually makes MORE effect than the speed on the frigate vs large guns scenario.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Snuffed Out
#167 - 2014-11-03 23:54:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
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.



Your argument is hilariously bad.

There are 3 different types of prop mods. Those are choices that dramatically impact your ships capabilities. There are 4 different categories of weapons, all of which have multiple variants, all of which change how your ship performs and how it should engage.

You have one choice for offensive range control. It's called a stasis webifier.

It is the single most important module in pvp, often times even more effective in pvp than warp disruption itself.

So no, you, and Mags, are both wrong.
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#168 - 2014-11-04 00:04:58 UTC
Phaade 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.



Your argument is hilariously bad.

There are 3 different types of prop mods. Those are choices that dramatically impact your ships capabilities. There are 4 different categories of weapons, all of which have multiple variants, all of which change how your ship performs and how it should engage.

You have one choice for offensive range control. It's called a stasis webifier.

It is the single most important module in pvp, often times even more effective in pvp than warp disruption itself.

So no, you, and Mags, are both wrong.


Nope, prop mods affect range control, have you ever pvp'd before ?... serious question
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Snuffed Out
#169 - 2014-11-04 00:06:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
Bullet Therapist wrote:
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.

Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.



No way should webs be buffed. I agree they should have size / fitting added, with larger ships having longer web ranges. But a 20-30km web (whatever ranges the larger would be) would be absolutely stupid against small targets. If you get webbed to 60% in front of large turrets from 25km, you are a friggin corpse.

Even from medium turrets....your frigate will evaporate.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#170 - 2014-11-04 02:47:15 UTC  |  Edited by: elitatwo
Phaade wrote:
...No way should webs be buffed. I agree they should have size / fitting added, with larger ships having longer web ranges. But a 20-30km web (whatever ranges the larger would be) would be absolutely stupid against small targets. If you get webbed to 60% in front of large turrets from 25km, you are a friggin corpse.

Even from medium turrets....your frigate will evaporate.


Imagine some large web with a linked range of 80km and 75% effectiveness. There must be word for that kind of thing, an attribute of sorts.. I can't wrap my head around it..

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#171 - 2014-11-04 02:52:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
Phaade wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.

Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.



No way should webs be buffed. I agree they should have size / fitting added, with larger ships having longer web ranges. But a 20-30km web (whatever ranges the larger would be) would be absolutely stupid against small targets. If you get webbed to 60% in front of large turrets from 25km, you are a friggin corpse.

Even from medium turrets....your frigate will evaporate.


Read the second post I made, I think it clarifies my earlier statement a little bit. Even a 11km t2 point and a 12 km web would give people a big incentive to fit ewar with a large powergrid requirement.
Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2014-11-04 06:52:58 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
The counter to webs are prop mods. And what is wrong with a couple of ships in your fleet having webs fitted?


Prop mods are not the counter to webs. Simply activating your ab is not effective when your small ship is facing down a larger one. It is literally comparable to the smaller ship having a module that reduces total hp. There is nothing wrong with with a couple of ships in your fleet having webs, but it should be made to be an actual choice, rather than a false one. Get specific ships to do the job, or handicap your normal large ships to do. It isn't balanced to have a one-size-fits-all counter.



I get where you're coming from but I have to agree with him here. AB or more importantly MWD on a smaller ship does well to counter a BS sized weapon platform utilizing a web. Any ship that has equipped more then one web in a solo scenario is doing so to counter small ships. Any cruiser that has fitted a web is likely looking to do the same. Just like how scrams on a cruiser with dual small weapons counters MWD fit dessys and frigs but is usually countered by a dessy or frig with an AB.

If you are really worried about speed tanking you would most likely want to MWD kite anyways. Going in to close range where a web can get you is always a gamble. The pay off being you're risking a ~10m isk ship with the potential for a 30-180m or higher isk kill.

Another solution would be to tracking disrupt them or use ECM drones to try and keep their guns or even their lock off of you.
Luwc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#173 - 2014-11-04 08:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Luwc
lol no.

webs are fine.

smaller ships can also outkite

even when webbed large guns cant track **** at 500m

your post is redundant and your arguments are invalid.

inb4 lock.

edit : cruisers are designed to kill frigs.

180mm + web. legit tactic. can be countered by kiting.

https://zkillboard.com/kill/42154021/

or is your ****** vengeance fit the reason for this post ?

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#174 - 2014-11-04 09:09:13 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.

Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.



No way should webs be buffed. I agree they should have size / fitting added, with larger ships having longer web ranges. But a 20-30km web (whatever ranges the larger would be) would be absolutely stupid against small targets. If you get webbed to 60% in front of large turrets from 25km, you are a friggin corpse.

Even from medium turrets....your frigate will evaporate.



The single largest problem on longer range battleship webs is called VINDICATOR. It would be completely broken.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#175 - 2014-11-04 15:37:35 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.

Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.



No way should webs be buffed. I agree they should have size / fitting added, with larger ships having longer web ranges. But a 20-30km web (whatever ranges the larger would be) would be absolutely stupid against small targets. If you get webbed to 60% in front of large turrets from 25km, you are a friggin corpse.

Even from medium turrets....your frigate will evaporate.



The single largest problem on longer range battleship webs is called VINDICATOR. It would be completely broken.



wonder how hard it would be for a rapier to fit a large web? for a super range web
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Snuffed Out
#176 - 2014-11-04 15:55:10 UTC
Portmanteau wrote:
Phaade 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.



Your argument is hilariously bad.

There are 3 different types of prop mods. Those are choices that dramatically impact your ships capabilities. There are 4 different categories of weapons, all of which have multiple variants, all of which change how your ship performs and how it should engage.

You have one choice for offensive range control. It's called a stasis webifier.

It is the single most important module in pvp, often times even more effective in pvp than warp disruption itself.

So no, you, and Mags, are both wrong.


Nope, prop mods affect range control, have you ever pvp'd before ?... serious question



Reading comprehension.


OFFENSIVE range control = web.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Snuffed Out
#177 - 2014-11-04 15:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.

Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.



No way should webs be buffed. I agree they should have size / fitting added, with larger ships having longer web ranges. But a 20-30km web (whatever ranges the larger would be) would be absolutely stupid against small targets. If you get webbed to 60% in front of large turrets from 25km, you are a friggin corpse.

Even from medium turrets....your frigate will evaporate.



The single largest problem on longer range battleship webs is called VINDICATOR. It would be completely broken.



Yeah obviously that wouldn't be okay....

He has a point though, a large web that had a 12-13km range at the cost of 1500 - 2000 powergrid and possibly more CPU wouldn't be terribly broken.

But links / overheating / faction webs become silly sometimes.

I would like to see some other way to offensively dictate range control though....or maybe a module that counters webifiers in the lows. Or hell even the utility high
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#178 - 2014-11-04 16:16:45 UTC
Phaade wrote:



Reading comprehension.


OFFENSIVE range control = web.




scram
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#179 - 2014-11-04 16:21:02 UTC
I propose that instead of changing webs, OP should learn about staying out of web range and/or fitting to be prepared for combat under webbing.
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#180 - 2014-11-04 17:01:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
As it stands right now webs should probably be buffed, along with target painters, points and scrams. Personally, I think these forms of e-war work really well at the frigate level but should have longer ranged variants for larger sized ships, except the TP, which just needs a flat out buff. Combat has become extremely kitey in the last two years and there really hasn't been anything done to address it. I'm hoping visualizing bookmarks in space puts a little wind back in brawler's sails, but we'll see.

Moreover, ships like the garmur, particularly when the pilot has links and/or implants, would be effectively invincible. As it stands now the garmur flown with RLMLs is as close to a solo pwn mobile as anything is in eve. You can catch them now, and one of the best methods I've found involves using a huginn paired with a lachieses, a tactic which is utterly dependent on webs. It's never easy, and against a competent pilot, you're really just waiting for them to make a mistake.



No way should webs be buffed. I agree they should have size / fitting added, with larger ships having longer web ranges. But a 20-30km web (whatever ranges the larger would be) would be absolutely stupid against small targets. If you get webbed to 60% in front of large turrets from 25km, you are a friggin corpse.

Even from medium turrets....your frigate will evaporate.



The single largest problem on longer range battleship webs is called VINDICATOR. It would be completely broken.


I often use a dual faction web vigilant with a t2 implanted booster. I really don't see how it's broken. The only limitation to such webbing power right now is isk, and for some of us, its not a big limitation. That gives me an 18.8k web range without heat and 23.7k with heat.