open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked AB-MWD-Web system
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Saietor Blackgreen
Armored Saints
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:00:00 - [1]
 

These ideas mostly roam around "nerf nano" and "boost AF" streads, maybe it should be put into separate thread. Here goes:

1) PPL hate nanoships fpr obvious reasons, I do NOT suggest any nerf to them or boost - i'm just no expert and dont wanna discuss it.
2) PPL want AFS boosted for obvious reasons, and ONE of propositions is to make them immune to webs with some limitation (immune when using AB for example, or when NOT using any propulsion jamming modules)
3) PPL often say AB is useless in PVP for long time, and MWD is a must-have module on any setup, which is not much fun.

So, here's idea:

How about changing the webbers so they do not just directly affect top speed of the ship, but rather reduce the effect of MWD? For example (i dont insist on exact numbers):

T1 webber instead of -80% speed should be -50% speed (or even less), and -80% MWD effect. Effectively, T1-webbed ship with T1 MWD engaged should have it's speed reduced to base speed. At the same time, AB effect will not be affected by webber, only the max speed itself, thus +105% bonus of T1 AB will be compensated by -50% effect of T1 web - so again we have ship speed reduced to base speed.

To make long story short, an MWD after webbing should get its effect reduced to the one of AB. Result - MWD will become a device for making very fast dash towards target, rather than an incredible speedtanking.

Pros of such change:
1) AB will become considerably more useful for combat inside web range - a ship with AB can MAINTAIN its speed even when webbed - and I think you'll agree that interceptor on 1000-m orbit is very hard to hit even if it has base speed. MWD OTOH will not - it's sig increase will kill you very fast. And it can be perma-run by any ship, so more cap for E-War, cramble, tank, whatever.

2) AFs will get a buff, effectively - their engagement distance will go into web range, so at least close-combat ones will have their effective DPS increased big time.

Cons:
1) Interceptors may become unbalanced, and, in conjunction with increased scrambler range, which allows grabbing the target momentarily - even more unbalanced. Though I'll leave it to the intie pilots to judge.

2) Vagas will still be Vagas - yet again, I dont see any megaproblem with that.

Discuss? Just dont call me stupid right away, its an idea, not a whine or rant :)

Riho
Gallente
Drop of Blood
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:05:00 - [2]
 

mwd/ab thing i like (and yes... im a nano*** :P). its quite a good idea tbh :) needs some work so some ship wount get the shaft (ceptors) but otherways nice :)

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:09:00 - [3]
 

Problem is, webs only have 10km range. MWD will still be a must have mod for 0.0 ops pretty much. This kinda solves some of the AFs problems though.

Jakus Cemendur
Caldari
Invicta.
Advocated Destruction
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:17:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Jakus Cemendur on 19/11/2007 10:21:18
Why not introduce scripts for webbers? So by default they have a range of 15000 and a velocity reduction of say 50-60%, with 1 script loaded the velocity reduction goes up to 90-95% but range goes down to 10000, with the other script range goes up to 25000 but velocity reduction goes down to 30-40%.

And with MWDs, why not reduce their top speed to a 300/350% boost, and reduce their fittin requirements in line with that. That way the difference between AB and MWDs isn't as huge as it is now and might make AB a viable alternative fitting.

Just random ideas thrown out there.

Aerin Cloudfayr
the evil ones
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:20:00 - [5]
 

What may also be a factor in using webs against MWDs is an increased rate of deceleration vs MWDs specifically? I'm guessing it's normally pretty simple to barrel into and out of web range if you're going fast enough...

Webs really need to be focussed on tackling uber-speed, rate of deceleration and speed reduction should be factored inversley to the ships' MWD speed bonus methinks O.o

Lucre
STK Scientific
Black-Out
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:57:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Jakus Cemendur
Why not introduce scripts for webbers? So by default they have a range of 15000 and a velocity reduction of say 50-60%, with 1 script loaded the velocity reduction goes up to 90-95% but range goes down to 10000, with the other script range goes up to 25000 but velocity reduction goes down to 30-40%.

And with MWDs, why not reduce their top speed to a 300/350% boost, and reduce their fittin requirements in line with that. That way the difference between AB and MWDs isn't as huge as it is now and might make AB a viable alternative fitting.



Or maybe create a hybrid AB/MWD as a single module type with scripts to determine which mode, AB or MWD, it operates in. probably with harder fitting and not quite as good stats as either but gaining in versatility.

(Actually all sorts of possibilities open up on those lines - lasers which can run as beam or pulse - launchers which can fire normal or assault missiles - a tractor-salvager - hardeners with tunable damage type... Once they bring in the idea of being able to change the operating mode of a module, a huge and quite possibly scary new range of possibilities open up!)

Jakus Cemendur
Caldari
Invicta.
Advocated Destruction
Posted - 2007.11.19 11:02:00 - [7]
 

I wouldn't do it in regards to AB/MWD or weapon systems given the fact that the CPU and PG requirements are the way of balancing them, i suggested it for Webs as they are EW.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2007.11.19 11:33:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
These ideas mostly roam around "nerf nano" and "boost AF" streads, maybe it should be put into separate thread. Here goes:

1) PPL hate nanoships fpr obvious reasons, I do NOT suggest any nerf to them or boost - i'm just no expert and dont wanna discuss it.



Good ;)

Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen

2) PPL want AFS boosted for obvious reasons, and ONE of propositions is to make them immune to webs with some limitation (immune when using AB for example, or when NOT using any propulsion jamming modules)



Frankly, a plain mass reduction and the fourth bonus would be fine with me. The thing which irks me about AFs is that it's much less safe to fly one in comparison with a T1 frig. With a Rifter, I can typically just waltz through low-sec gatecamps.

To give you a comparison of warp times (according to EFT, but I find these accurate for warping to somewhere you're not even remotely aligned to):
Rifter/Incursus w/out plate: 3.3s
Rifter/Incursus with 200mm plate: 3.7s
Tristan (no plates): 3.7s
Jaguar (no plates): 5.2s
Stabber: 5.3s
Wolf (no plates): 5.4s
Wolf (200mm RT plate): 5.9s
Ishkur (no plates): 6s
Rupture (no plates): 6.1s
Wolf (400mm RT plate): 6.3s
Rupture with 800mm RT plate: 6.8s

This already invalidates a good part of the AB fits, and makes it much more dangerous to roam around in a AF compared to a frig/interceptor. AB fits suddenly don't make a lot of sense, because you WILL need to MWD back to the gate if you encounter a camp, something a cruiser is typically better equipped to do (meatier buffer if it gets webbed, speed is on par or better then AFs, especially plated ones).

Plus, speed, which I rely on for my tank in a frig, is worse even for the 'speed' AF (Jaguar) - the Rifter, with a AB II, goes 1km/s. The Jaguar 880m/s. MWD speed difference is even worse. I for one like ABs on frigs - because it will (sometimes) enable me to kill people who don't bother to invest in a good webber.

Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen

3) PPL often say AB is useless in PVP for long time, and MWD is a must-have module on any setup, which is not much fun.



Well, the only ships I will not use a MWD on are, as I said, T1 frigs, because I try to speed-tank. Thing is, with webbers as effective they are, if someone's packing a X5/fleeting/T2 web, you're toast.

Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen

T1 webber instead of -80% speed should be -50% speed (or even less), and -80% MWD effect. Effectively, T1-webbed ship with T1 MWD engaged should have it's speed reduced to base speed. At the same time, AB effect will not be affected by webber, only the max speed itself, thus +105% bonus of T1 AB will be compensated by -50% effect of T1 web - so again we have ship speed reduced to base speed.



This would quite definitely shift the balance and improve small & fast ships attacking big ones - so big ships could only really use drones and/or missiles to kill them. In fact, I kindof like that, but that's because I do regularly fly small ships.
However, the thing with MWDs is that, well, if you're speedtanking with a MWD, you're not going into web range anyway.

Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen

Pros of such change:
1) AB will become considerably more useful for combat inside web range - a ship with AB can MAINTAIN its speed even when webbed - and I think you'll agree that interceptor on 1000-m orbit is very hard to hit even if it has base speed. MWD OTOH will not - it's sig increase will kill you very fast. And it can be perma-run by any ship, so more cap for E-War, cramble, tank, whatever.



Basically, a AB-ing frig/interceptor in webrange would have very very good survival odds, possibly too high - because, well, either you'd have light drones or missiles to dispose of the target, or he would dispose of you. I'd rather see webs nerfed to a max of 80% for T2, and T1 being 60%, with T1 AB giving you a say, 120% speed boost and the T2 giving you a 150%. It would be a slight but noticeable improvement.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2007.11.19 11:42:00 - [9]
 

The thing is, while someone from CCP (I forgot) did say the AB is for speedtanking webs give too much of a speed reduction, making the use of ABs even on fastest frigs with top-notch navigation skills very much a gamble - you're hoping the other guy has at best a patterned web, since anything less then 200m/s means that you're getting hit very well.

So people mostly use MWDs which give you more tactical uses in most cases (closing the range fast, powering back to the gate, trying to tackle fast ships for your gangmates) insteads of ABs, simply because speedtanking in webrange is a lie.

On frigs with sub-par speed (I mean, on frigs which are not the Rifter), you're just going to die horribly and that's it.

I'd really love it if it were a requirement to use anti-frig weapons (light drones, assault missile launchers) to dispose of frigs efficently, or clever piloting to reduce transversal (which works infallibly because crusier or BC(!) MWD speed is >> frig AB speed).

Hannibal Xerxes
Posted - 2007.11.19 11:49:00 - [10]
 

Personally I think the simplest way to improve the current situation would just be to make frigs immune to webs entirely unless they have a mwd active. Would really make frigs and dessies more useful. Also maybe lower mwd boost to %300-%350.

Saietor Blackgreen
Armored Saints
Posted - 2007.11.19 12:25:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Frankly, a plain mass reduction and the fourth bonus would be fine with me. The thing which irks me about AFs is that it's much less safe to fly one in comparison with a T1 frig. With a Rifter, I can typically just waltz through low-sec gatecamps.


That's what I said - it will be ONE of the boosts, not the "AF saver"

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Basically, a AB-ing frig/interceptor in webrange would have very very good survival odds, possibly too high - because, well, either you'd have light drones or missiles to dispose of the target, or he would dispose of you. I'd rather see webs nerfed to a max of 80% for T2, and T1 being 60%, with T1 AB giving you a say, 120% speed boost and the T2 giving you a 150%


True, that was one of my concerns - interceptors may become very hard target, because they will be far less vulnerable to neutralizers. Yet their speed, if they chose to fit AB and go into webrange will be far less than what they would have with MWD on 20 km. So drones and missiles will get them better.

OTOH, if inties will get warp Disruptors range bonus, why would they go even close into web range anyway?

***

Anyway, the whole idea is that as for now, a fast ship can speedtank using MWD outside web range. It has very high transversal to avoid turret fire, and very high speed to avoid missile fire, but at the same time it needs LOADS or energy to maintain the speed, reduced agility and giant signature, which means it's speed needs to be really-really high (i.e. nanos and speedrigs).

My suggestion amasses to simple result: a ship with AB should be able to do the same IN web range - maintain close orbit and have high enough speed to be under turret tracking (on that orbit). It will have no increase in signature (even easier to be under tracking) AND have far more energy/fitting to spend on tanking or DPS, thus have similar or even higher surviving chances than MWD-ing one. OFC it will be not as easy for it to flee as for outside-webrange Vaga, but you dont get something for nothing.

No matter what numbers are - MWD should be affected by webber MUCH harder than AB, so that there IS a possibility to work in web range - for a light ship that is.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only