These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Heavy Stasis Grapplers

First post First post
Author
ZagaBoom
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2016-02-08 12:51:35 UTC
Niraia wrote:
This doesn't make me want to take a battleship out to play any more than faction webs do, and I'm very disappointed that you think otherwise.



^^ This

Webs have no counter and are the single most OP form of E-war in the game hands down barred none. So naturally CCP adds more of them.

The two or three dudes who will drop blap phoenix are totally loving this. Hell if I thought my dread would be worth fielding after the patch I'd love this exclusively for that. What this really looks like to me though is a bonus to Combat Carriers. If true it shows CCP doesn't entirely hate it's vet community but! I don't see it doing anything more than my fed navy would OH.

Quote:
(so no range bonus on Bhaalgorns or strength bonus from Vindicators, and no benefit from gang links).


I reach 22.9 in my combat carrier with a fed navy OH and not losing insane applicability of web at range.

All in all it feels like another Fozzie Gimick. I can't help but wonder if the game wouldn't be better if we stopped incurring collateral damages derived from new and untested modules/ships. At least until we could prove there was a need for the modules/ships in the first place.
ZagaBoom
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2016-02-08 12:53:57 UTC
Freelancer117 wrote:
This was requested by the players for awhile now, thanks for introducing it.

Still waiting for the re-balance of bombs and or bombers versus battleships.

Regards, a Freelancer

ps: there is no hard counter to the Micro Jump Field Generator, please take that into account Cool



I am dieing to know who requested this?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#183 - 2016-02-08 13:00:52 UTC
ZagaBoom wrote:
Webs have no counter and are the single most OP form of E-war in the game hands down barred none. So naturally CCP adds more of them.

Technically, the counter to webs are Overdrive Injectors, Nanofibers, Afterburners and Microwarpdrives.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

ZagaBoom
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2016-02-08 13:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ZagaBoom
Rivr Luzade wrote:
ZagaBoom wrote:
Webs have no counter and are the single most OP form of E-war in the game hands down barred none. So naturally CCP adds more of them.

Technically, the counter to webs are Overdrive Injectors, Nanofibers, Afterburners and Microwarpdrives.



No they're not. Afterburners you could make an argument for if you're talking about oversized. Otherwise webs are a counter to those modules not the other way around. Two things cannot be counter to each other in perfect harmony in Eve. A warp scrambler cannot be countered by an MWD for example, if you try to say "it can burn away" no then range is the counter to the Scram and the MWD is acting as a counter to your scan resolution. Not your web. All those mods come with inherent penalties to their fitting with exception to the AB. The web does not.
ApolloF117 HUN
Cranberrie knuckles
Mordus Angels
#185 - 2016-02-08 13:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: ApolloF117 HUN
ZagaBoom wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
ZagaBoom wrote:
Webs have no counter and are the single most OP form of E-war in the game hands down barred none. So naturally CCP adds more of them.

Technically, the counter to webs are Overdrive Injectors, Nanofibers, Afterburners and Microwarpdrives.



No they're not. Afterburners you could make an argument for if you're talking about oversized. Otherwise webs are a counter to those modules not the other way around. Two things cannot be counter to each other in perfect harmony in Eve. A warp scrambler cannot be countered by an MWD for example, if you try to say "it can burn away" no then range is the counter to the Scram. All those mods come with inherent penalties to their fitting with exception to the AB. The web does not.

When in doubt, use ECM
Mag's
Azn Empire
#186 - 2016-02-08 13:26:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Kenneth Feld wrote:
You need to read twitter, Fozzie said it stacks about an hour ago

https://twitter.com/GrathTelkin/status/696460014685257728
Yep we definitely need to read twitter and not the official release forum, when we want detailed information. Ignore those that don't have or use Twitter. What were they thinking?

As far as the idea is concerned, I'm underwhelmed. Very underwhelmed.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#187 - 2016-02-08 13:33:26 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Haven't seen it asked yet but if this module doesn't get bonuses from links or roles applied to it then does it also circumvent the penalties applied to webs in black holes?

Our current plan is to extend the black hole effect to impact these modules (as well as webbing fighters and webbing drones).

We are aware of potential issues with orbit vectors changing, and are keeping an eye on them. Our internal playtesting has indicated that the effect we're using for this web doesn't generally disrupt orbit vectors by a large margin, but we'll be very interested to see how players find the feel of using these modules and fighting against them using orbit commands once we open up testing on sisi.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Mystical Might
I HAVE THE POWER OF GOD AND ANIME ON MY SIDE
SAMURAI SOUL'd OUT
#188 - 2016-02-08 13:44:45 UTC
@CCP Fozzie

Can you tell us about your / ccps reasoning behind wanting to convert officer webs into these?

Also please don't.
But it'd be interesting to hear the reasoning, if there is any.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#189 - 2016-02-08 13:47:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ncc 1709
any chance of increasing the optimal and reducing the overload bonus ?



officer grapples should have an increased optimal as well as falloff.



also officer webs should stay


also, can the button icon for this modual have a effectiveness displayed? so if its only applying 58% on the target, the icon shows 58%
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#190 - 2016-02-08 14:03:49 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Haven't seen it asked yet but if this module doesn't get bonuses from links or roles applied to it then does it also circumvent the penalties applied to webs in black holes?

Our current plan is to extend the black hole effect to impact these modules (as well as webbing fighters and webbing drones).

We are aware of potential issues with orbit vectors changing, and are keeping an eye on them. Our internal playtesting has indicated that the effect we're using for this web doesn't generally disrupt orbit vectors by a large margin, but we'll be very interested to see how players find the feel of using these modules and fighting against them using orbit commands once we open up testing on sisi.

if they do end up disrupting orbit vectors it would bring them up to balance as on paper they are a little underwhelming
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#191 - 2016-02-08 14:12:46 UTC
So we have confirmed in the code why these modules cause less of a orbit vector disruption than one might expect. It's actually a very unintuitive mechanic behind the scenes, far from ideal. The upshot is that although this isn't a big deal for the Grapplers (since they only cause very slight orbit changes), we may found have an easy solution to the general case of orbit vector changing drastically when webbed or when you turn on a prop mod. Still doing some testing and investigating.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#192 - 2016-02-08 14:38:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So we have confirmed in the code why these modules cause less of a orbit vector disruption than one might expect. It's actually a very unintuitive mechanic behind the scenes, far from ideal. The upshot is that although this isn't a big deal for the Grapplers (since they only cause very slight orbit changes), we may found have an easy solution to the general case of orbit vector changing drastically when webbed or when you turn on a prop mod. Still doing some testing and investigating.

No more 180° degree U-turns when I turn on/off the AB would be really appreciated. Big smile

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Ele Rebellion
Fat Dragon Mining Co.
Darwinism.
#193 - 2016-02-08 15:34:28 UTC
one question.

Vindicator?
Longdrinks
Zero Fun Allowed
#194 - 2016-02-08 15:40:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So we have confirmed in the code why these modules cause less of a orbit vector disruption than one might expect. It's actually a very unintuitive mechanic behind the scenes, far from ideal. The upshot is that although this isn't a big deal for the Grapplers (since they only cause very slight orbit changes), we may found have an easy solution to the general case of orbit vector changing drastically when webbed or when you turn on a prop mod. Still doing some testing and investigating.

Fixing that would take away the advantage a experience player gets from piloting their own ship vs a noob just pressing orbit button. Please dont take away mechanics that allow higher skilled players to shine.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#195 - 2016-02-08 15:41:23 UTC
Ele Rebellion wrote:
one question.

Vindicator?


One answer, read the OP.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#196 - 2016-02-08 15:45:42 UTC
i think it has potential, as there are a lot of people who will ramboi a Battleship in a svipul or other T3D/Frigate. I still see this as a bigger buff to missile BS, as turret BS still have to deal with tracking, and even with 85% reduction @ 1km (for t2), there is still the potential for smaller ships to sig tank them pretty easily. Or they could just hang out at 8-9km, scram kiting. But using this on a torpedo typhoon could have devastating effects on brawling cruisers and certain frigs (if you fit for max application). Which is a good thing.

On the other hand, i'm still alittle split on how a turret BS will make good use of it. Up close, having to deal with sig resolution of the turret+tracking will still make it tricky to hit smaller targets (as intended). So, missile BS were already in a decent spot, and it seems like this is a buff to them, but turret BS might still struggle slightly. Especially with low speed on BS. Even with a t2 100mn AB, most BS barely manage to get by 300-400m/s. Thats not much to range control with, especially against T3D's. Even with a 85% web.

This doesn't touch on the fact other BS might still need a physical rebalance. Things like the tempest fleet doing less dmg than T1. The fleet phoon's gun bonus is all but useless when you have the T1 pest, or the pest FI that offer better turret bonuses/utility. I'm sure there are others, but those are right off the top of my head.

Then we still have the issue with sensor strength being a tad low, when a single griffin or set of EC300's can permajam a BS. Even with ECCM. Although this could just be more related to how poor RNG is used in an EWAR.

Not to mention bombs/bombers needing rebalance.

I think the module has potential, but also don't want to see it as a band-aid to fix an ailing ship class, which has issues with more things than just fighting small ships.
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#197 - 2016-02-08 16:05:30 UTC
If orbital vector recalculation is still a thing when these are implemented they're going to be insanely powerful. Otherwise, these are probably going to be limited blaster, AC and missile hulls. I'm a little mixed on this, I think I'd rather have a comprehensive rebalance of the class first.

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#198 - 2016-02-08 16:56:19 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Just to be clear, this doesn't stack with normal webs?

Very cool idea. I like.



Why wouldn't it stack?

No different then having 2 webs on a huginn

Because Fozzie wrote, "It's seperate from existing Stasis Webs, and doesn't get bonuses from any web-specific bonuses...and no benefit from gang links."

That sounds like it is in a new meta group so it is very possible it won't stack.


Stacking penalties are not about meta group. They are about effect. If two or more EWAR modules grant the same effect, they are usually stacking penalized. See TP or web drones.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
#199 - 2016-02-08 17:14:59 UTC
I like it.

In small gangs they could be quite usefull. If you bring more than one, they add up to usefull strength even deep in falloff.


Range[km]:    18.5km    21.5km    23.5km
Str.[%]:      20        10         5

stacking 2:   37.2      18.6       9.3
stacking 3:   48.62     24.31     12.155
stacking 5:   56.4      28.2      14.1
(approx.readout of OP's graph, hope the math checks out)


They're also quite powerful in collaboration with MJDs/MJFG, given proper piloting skill is involved.
ApolloF117 HUN
Cranberrie knuckles
Mordus Angels
#200 - 2016-02-08 17:20:37 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
i think it has potential, as there are a lot of people who will ramboi a Battleship in a svipul or other T3D/Frigate. I still see this as a bigger buff to missile BS, as turret BS still have to deal with tracking, and even with 85% reduction @ 1km (for t2), there is still the potential for smaller ships to sig tank them pretty easily. Or they could just hang out at 8-9km, scram kiting. But using this on a torpedo typhoon could have devastating effects on brawling cruisers and certain frigs (if you fit for max application). Which is a good thing.

On the other hand, i'm still alittle split on how a turret BS will make good use of it. Up close, having to deal with sig resolution of the turret+tracking will still make it tricky to hit smaller targets (as intended). So, missile BS were already in a decent spot, and it seems like this is a buff to them, but turret BS might still struggle slightly. Especially with low speed on BS. Even with a t2 100mn AB, most BS barely manage to get by 300-400m/s. Thats not much to range control with, especially against T3D's. Even with a 85% web.

This doesn't touch on the fact other BS might still need a physical rebalance. Things like the tempest fleet doing less dmg than T1. The fleet phoon's gun bonus is all but useless when you have the T1 pest, or the pest FI that offer better turret bonuses/utility. I'm sure there are others, but those are right off the top of my head.

Then we still have the issue with sensor strength being a tad low, when a single griffin or set of EC300's can permajam a BS. Even with ECCM. Although this could just be more related to how poor RNG is used in an EWAR.

Not to mention bombs/bombers needing rebalance.

I think the module has potential, but also don't want to see it as a band-aid to fix an ailing ship class, which has issues with more things than just fighting small ships.


please show me a typhoon fitt that is torpedo fitted , full aply and viable in solo pvp