These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What if webs only reduced radial velocity?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#61 - 2015-01-23 19:00:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
This goes hand in hand with my target painter idea. They should have a tracking feature such that painters on larger ships don't track as well as on small ships. That way a frigate would be on an even playing field when locked in combat with a BS.



This post makes me want to slap you with a minki whale.


I have cameras in your bedroom. You don't have one.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2015-01-23 19:14:43 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:


I have cameras in your bedroom. You don't have one.


Its outside

Seriously though OP, this idea will mean turret BS cant do **** to cruisers and below.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#63 - 2015-01-23 19:15:49 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
OK, so you want to ensure a BS can't track you (even if your webbed) as long as you stay and fight.

It would be less load on the server if you just requested webs to be removed from the game. It would have the same net affect. (assuming no frig would run from a BS after your web change - being that it would make zero sense to do so).

Already explained that this is not aimed at BSs and what can be done to rectify the effect on BSs.

And lets not pretend to be a computer science level engineer and talk about server load. Just stop.

Deacon Abox wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
a post critical of the OP

Careful. It appears he's hunched over his keyboard every waking hour of the day defending his nifty idea with vigorous vigor. You may get hurt.Straight


I have only one waking hour of the day, preceded by 8 hours of sleep. If you paid more attention in your "investigation" of me (because you are a bloody creep and all for caring to spend your time to find out when I post or not), you would notice that.



Pretend to be a computer expert??? Me??? Never. I don't think it takes a computer expert to figure out that removing a module from the game (typing slowly here just for you - g i v i n g t h e s e r v e r l e s s p o s s i b l e t h i n g s t o d o) would lessen it's load. (pretend it's laundry day suddenly you never had sox to wash ever again, it would reduce your washing maching loading). That's not high end systems analysis, it's realising having one less thing to do gives you less to do.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#64 - 2015-01-23 19:19:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:


I have cameras in your bedroom. You don't have one.


Its outside

Seriously though OP, this idea will mean turret BS cant do **** to cruisers and below.



If me and him are in agreement then we are correct. I understand just about everything and he understands just about nothing. When we agree, absolutely nothing has been missed.

Some of my ideas have been losers also. Sometimes it just worlks out that way.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#65 - 2015-01-23 19:23:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:


I have cameras in your bedroom. You don't have one.


Its outside

Seriously though OP, this idea will mean turret BS cant do **** to cruisers and below.



Could you do me a favor and pan your Stretch Armstrong action figure about 34.6 degrees to the east so I can get a clear view out of your window. That's some fish. I recommend grilling in foil w/ a pat of real butter, a little lemon and some dill.
ashley Eoner
#66 - 2015-01-23 19:52:22 UTC
Sigras wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Sigras wrote:
The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier...

The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could make the claim that they're too good at their job, but that idea seems crazy silly to me...

What I would like to see is their range reduced to 7,500 m and their strength buffed to 65%, Then I would like to see tractor beams be able to pull people in/pull you you toward your target depending on mass.

This would finally give blasters a fighting chance instead of asking every ship that comes by if they would like to please come into web range.

Awful idea that would have far reaching effects FAR beyond just the simple frigate vs BS pvp we're talking about here ALL kinds of combat would be screwed with. It'd be totally awesome to lose a fleet to one frigate because no one can hit it because it's moving in a brain dead way that anyone could do... PVE wise Incursions sleepers ratters etc will all be about impossible with this change.

As for blasters L2 prop mod or warp in point...

you realize that 7,500 m = 7.5 km right? thats only a 25% reduction? also frigates would be in much greater danger with a tractor beam pulling them in...

But thanks for the tip about prop mods... I never thought of that before! that should totally help my megathron catch that atron orbiting at 15 km /sarcasm

Your response is hilarious because it shows how clueless you are.

You just gave an example as to why this is a dumb idea but you for some reason seem to think that this actually bolsters your case.

In PVE Webs are used to slow down the swarms of frigates and cruisers not to keep them from getting away. This change would make webs useless and render most ships useless for ratting. If you think ishtars are popular now....

Incursions would be wrecked and I'd want nothing to do with sleepers after this change.

Quote:
I've explained in preceding discussions that my intention was not to hurt BSs but to hurt ships of the same sizes and described a way to avoid affecting BSs.

It would only hurt PvE because you'd rather sit in a blingy ship to maximise efficiency.
That's not a counter argument.

I've never said this wouldn't turn some things upside down. That is the point of this.
It doesn't matter what your intent is the results are the complete breakage of pvp and pve so you can "turn things upside down". CCP would be forced into months/years of work trying to rebuild the game around one of it's core modules. No it's an incredibly bad concept.

You didn't describe crap other then "why shouldn't a frigate have an iwin button against BSs?" Your "counter" is for the frigate pilot to be lazy and for all the BS pilots to bring more friends. That's just bad game design.

I was going to say "insulting me is not a counter argument" but really your blingy ship comment has absolutely nothing to do with my point. It's not even in the same galaxy of what I was talking about. it's like you have no idea what you're talking about so you're resorting to some sort of bingo card of EvE insults.

It's a useless idea that breaks the very foundation of the game and for what? So things can be turned upside down? From a game design standpoint nothing you said was intelligent.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2015-01-23 20:09:20 UTC
I just thought of a way to execute the idea much more easily: have stasis webifiers "crush" the affected ship's signature radius, so that a webbed ship moves slower but also has reduced sig. If the sig reduction is a lot smaller than the speed reduction, it can still help the webbed ship maintain a speed tank without being likely to be abused as a defensive mechanic. Or I might be missing some easy loophole here.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Arla Sarain
#68 - 2015-01-23 20:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
ashley Eoner wrote:


It's a useless idea that breaks the very foundation of the game and for what? So things can be turned upside down? From a game design standpoint nothing you said was intelligent.

You are still on about battleships.

I've explained how to avoid problems in that regard and explained why this is a good idea.

Just because you can't appreciate the opportunity this offers doesn't make it a useless idea. It only makes you narrow minded.

If you'd actually read you will notice why this makes sense from a game design point. Unless you insist on continuing being biased.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#69 - 2015-01-23 20:13:20 UTC
As long as it works both ways. Penalty to burning away and also approaching. That way I can lock frigs into an orbit that still 10-14 km away.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2015-01-23 20:17:19 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:


It's a useless idea that breaks the very foundation of the game and for what? So things can be turned upside down? From a game design standpoint nothing you said was intelligent.

You are still on about battleships.

I've explained how to avoid problems in that regard and explained why this is a good idea.

Just because you can't appreciate the opportunity this offers doesn't make it a useless idea. It only makes you narrow minded.

If you'd actually read you will notice why this makes sense from a game design point. Unless you insist on continuing being biased.


Except if we go with that, battleship now just got an insane boost to application VS anything not webbed without having to apply a web. The relatively low tracking they currently have would not matter much if you give them a low gun sig so you would just break something else.

The fact is, getting webbed by a battleship now slow you down to a crawl to punish you for having flow within range so the BS can hit you. If you let the small ship keep his transversal but then also reduce the gun sig so they can hit stuff again, then anything is easyer to hit even without a web applied so you have to re-figure out all the stats of all ships to rebuild a new balance state just because somehow you think you should still be fast while your propulsion system is getting disrupted as long as that velocity is no away from the disrupter.
ashley Eoner
#71 - 2015-01-23 20:53:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Arla Sarain wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:


It's a useless idea that breaks the very foundation of the game and for what? So things can be turned upside down? From a game design standpoint nothing you said was intelligent.

You are still on about battleships.

I've explained how to avoid problems in that regard and explained why this is a good idea.

Just because you can't appreciate the opportunity this offers doesn't make it a useless idea. It only makes you narrow minded.

If you'd actually read you will notice why this makes sense from a game design point. Unless you insist on continuing being biased.

Where was BS even mentioned in your quoted spot? Based on the ignorance you've displayed in this thread I'm not surprised you think only battleships use webs....

You've explained that you explained but you never actually really explained anything other then your assurance that you have explained why your suggestion is a fantastic idea. You have refused to respond to any of my points with anything resembling substance and repeating "I've already explained" isn't explaining anything.


You're suggesting an incredibly bad idea that breaks large aspects of the game and when your idea is criticized for that your response is to call me narrow minded. Look in the mirror because you're the one being narrow minded bub.


EDIT : Your cornucopia of ideas would break pretty much every aspect of eve. Any singular idea that causes the need to redesign almost every other aspect of the game is a bad idea.

At that point you might as well demand they scrap the game and redo everything because that's about the same amount of work as what your idea would cause.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#72 - 2015-01-23 21:16:21 UTC
Wait a minute..... I got an idea. How about a webbifier that is supposed to slow a ship down just slows it down. All the other effects of a slower ship apply normally. The ship will just act naturally, but at a slower rate.

From a game design point of view this makes incredible sense. Nothing will have to be messed with. The ship will just slow down.

Anyone else like this idea?
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#73 - 2015-01-23 21:24:23 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Wait a minute..... I got an idea. How about a webbifier that is supposed to slow a ship down just slows it down. All the other effects of a slower ship apply normally. The ship will just act naturally, but at a slower rate.

From a game design point of view this makes incredible sense. Nothing will have to be messed with. The ship will just slow down.

Anyone else like this idea?

It's so crazy it. Just. Might. Work!!