Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Actually that's a myth.
It's your angular velocity that is the real tracking figure.
Which is based on transversal/distance
So the closer you are the lower the speed needed for a certain angular.

Hate how people don't get that then wonder why they get popped at large ranges.


As for Frigates vs BS.
CCP themselves have said large ships (BC & BS) are too weak compared to the other ship classes and the amount at risk.
And want to address this my making BC & BS better in some way, they are just working out the best way to do this without tipping the balance in the other direction.
So making BS even more vulnerable to frigates is just not going to happen.

Guns are Binary. You don't have some form of Guns (Missiles & Drones on appropriate ships included) you die.
Tank is binary.

There are lots of things that are 'required' on a PVP ship. Trying to argue that webs (That aren't required on fleet or even most gang PVP ships actually) are somehow the out of balance item by being required when PVPing, but needing guns & tank & prop mods and...... isn't.
Yea.....

Show me on the doll where the evil webbing carrier touched you.

Binary utility.
Guns are compulsory for the purpose of damage.
Tank is compulsory for the purpose of survival.

What you are saying is like saying everything can be seen in Red if you narrow down the frequency/spectrum.

If you get Damps your counter is to get in range.
If you get a TD your counter is to adjust your flying patterns.

Scram, Web and ECM are On/Off. Their hard counter is to not be in range to get them. Kitey frigs dominate because of this. You win the fight if you don't get in range of this and that's not difficult.

As far as I can tell, he'd like smaller ships to web harder than bigger ships who he thinks should web further.

ergo, Freighters will get web/warped faster.

I think that the battleship's answer to frigates should either be a destroyer/cruiser at close range to prevent small ships from getting under its guns. Either that or another battleship at distance significant enough to hit small ships, or drones ( obviously). Not a module that isn't reciprocated with another counter module, is so ship specific and is without costs.

That is true, it is stupid of me not to think of that.

This thread is far from redundant.

But Falloff on webs is not a reasonable solution. Perhaps even worse than current mechanics.

Consider 2 ships. The victim has higher speed and is getting webbed. Under falloff conditions, the range at which the victims speed = attackers speed is a critical distance. If the web lands when that distance is shorter, all is moderately good - web will behave just as now and the attacker will catch up to the victim, arguably it will take him LONGER because of the dynamic speed penalty due to Falloff.

If the web lands outside the critical distance, it might as well not have landed - the victim will slow boat outside the falloff range eventually.

The conclusion is that with falloff all you change is that critical distance, and it becomes dependant on the speed of the 2 ships (and inherently from that the starting engagement distance). Right now the critical distance is constant (10km -13km). The falloff perhaps benefits kiting ships even further as they are typically built for speed, hence the critical distance will be shorter (you'll have to get closer to get enough webbing power to stop them)

Segregating webs by size might make sense. But you'd have to consider the PG and CPU of larger ships and perhaps rebalance.

IMO, a non intuitive option is also viable - optimal within a ring. So a web can only be activated if the target is between, say, 5km and 13km.
This leaves the critical distance the same as now and alleviates the issue with being webbed at close range and makes it more plausible to rely on sig tank in a brawl.
The victim then has a choice - hope he has enough speed over the webber to pull beyond 5km (assume he wants to scram kite, just like now). Or stay within 5km with no web, albeit at the mercy of the attackers' guns. 5km, is perhaps a bit too lenient, and reducing the range to the falloff of blasters would likely make it more reasonable.


A think an important flaw misconception that people have with webs is the assumption that if you get slowed down by 60%, your angular goes down by 60%. According to this guy https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3y922Akj6NkFCtfp8xfwLeUNgDn9xis83z23u19o4g/edit @page 32, experimental results show that a web decreases your angular by 33%. Which is roughly what an AB increases it by.
Conclusion being is that your natural sig tank is about the same as with an AB and a WEB on (error being added mass).

Perhaps due to this it should be considered to avoid touching Webs, and look at other things - minimizing AB mass addition, increasing base angular velocity for frigates, etc.

Good point.
The same solution proposal still stands - focus on changing AB mass addition and Frigate agility.
The purpose of that is to maintain web strength and keep it as a range dictation tool, without it hampering close range flying.

am i the only one who thinks this is s***** as f*** ?

i know isk isnt supposed to be a balance factor but if you buy and fit a so much bigger ship would you really want to be totally screwed by 2x tech 1 frigs?

there are debatable things about webs but i think we all should wait to see what happens at module tiericide
cause its def possible that webs get a variety of changes like weaker webs with less fithig or range etc.
esp to meta webs its 100% sure that meta 4 web will get nerfed.