open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked would webs be overpowered if they do -90% like before the nanonerf?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Denise Le'Slut
Posted - 2011.08.04 22:30:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Denise Le''**** on 04/08/2011 22:33:17
would they be?

I played a long time before webs were nerfed down from giving a max speedreduction of 90% to 60%, that happened along with reworked nanofibers, inertia stabs and overdrive injectors. Polycarbon rigs were nerfed too, additionally the speed bonus gained from all kinds of MWDs was standardized to a fixed value. Until the rebalance, Phoons or Domis doing 5-8km/s in ridiculously low orbits were pretty common.

I can't remember exactly if they also nerfed snakeset effects, but i guesstimate that was the case.

The nanoage was over.

Considering (only!) webs, i still think that nerf was too harsh, best example being blasterboats, unable to pin down an enemy sufficiently enough for closerange DPS brawling. And alongside that, one of the few remaining solopvp opportunities went poof into thin air (Gallente were quite good at this before the nerf, noone cried about how much blasters suck, or blasterboats being OP in general).


I surely don't think closerange frigates should be able to slow a BS down to 10% of its speed with a single mod and vice versa, but balancing this issue could have been done through e.g. mass-relative cap consumption and/or sig-based speed reduction.

Not whining here, but what are your thoughts?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.04 23:24:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 05/08/2011 01:33:47
Giving them back 90% strength would remove the purpose the nano nerf gave to afterburners (and, to some extent, an increased effectiveness of smaller ships against bigger guns).

At any rate, the problem isn't really the web itself — it's the scrambler change that came along with it.

The idea was that the post-nerf web+scram would do the same as the pre-nerf web+scram: slow your target down by 90%. And it actually did just that. However, there was something else that was somehow lost in the process, and which had a pretty important part in the balance of things: the MWD sig bloom.

Before the patch, web+scram left a ship trundling along at 10% its max speed and a 6× larger sig radius (if they kept their MWD running) or at 2% their max speed, if they turned that MWD off. Either way, your guns had to deal with an insanely easily target to track. After the patch, that sig bloom was lost: using the scram to knoch off that last 30% speed also meant that you removed the bloom that made the target so easy to track, and there was no longer an “extra off” stage where the target was moving a just 10–20m/s, which would have much the same effect.

Effectively, that scram change meant that close-range tracking had become 1/5th of what it was before the patch. This is what left blaster boats in the lurch, not the reduced effectiveness of webs.

edited to fix horrid copy-paste editing failure Xb

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.08.05 00:49:00 - [3]
 

Tippia nailed the OP's question so hard, it's gonna have to go smoke a cigarette and then hit the ER.

Zeerover
Wolfsbrigade
Posted - 2011.08.05 01:18:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Tippia

Effectively, that scram change meant that close-range tracking had become 1/5th of what it was before the patch. This is what left blaster boats in the lurch, not the reduced effectiveness of webs.


Good analysis, but you also need to include the substantial buff that projectile weapon systems received after the nano-nerf, dealing selectable & capless damage at long ranges.

This makes any Projectile setup preferable to a blaster setup. Rupture over Thorax, Cyclone over Brutix, Myrms with ac etc., and on top of that clear advantage arty is off-the scale more useful than rails, so much so that any railfit boat becomes a lolmail.

Baraka Saibot
Posted - 2011.08.05 03:08:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Baraka Saibot on 05/08/2011 03:08:43
Originally by: Tippia
that clear advantage arty is off-the scale more useful than rails, so much so that any railfit boat becomes a lolmail.



I wouldn't say that artillery has a clear advantage. Rail guns have more dps, less powergrid use, somewhat better overall range and tracking.

Obvious Forum Troll
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:54:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Baraka Saibot
Edited by: Baraka Saibot on 05/08/2011 03:08:43
Originally by: Tippia
that clear advantage arty is off-the scale more useful than rails, so much so that any railfit boat becomes a lolmail.



I wouldn't say that artillery has a clear advantage. Rail guns have more dps, less powergrid use, somewhat better overall range and tracking.


No, that's my job!

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2011.08.05 09:11:00 - [7]
 

It would be a bad idea. 90% webbing is a massive step change in combat dynamics. You had a 'zone of death' where getting webbed would just destroy you, so a lot of effort had to be spent either staying clear, or closing up.

Now, combat's a little more flexible, and ... well, people can still move.
25% speed is slow, but 10% speed practically stationary.

Denise Le'Slut
Posted - 2011.08.05 09:52:00 - [8]
 

Thank you for clarifying that, i totally forgot about the change regarding scrams and the resulting change in closerange tackle regarding the absence of sigbloom.

I guess it's just to easy to conclude from Serpentis' awesomeness compared to Gallente to find the culprit being just the webs.

Red zeon
Caldari
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.08.05 11:14:00 - [9]
 

nano aint dead, my solo pvp ship does allmost 12km/s :P

NoNah
Posted - 2011.08.05 11:16:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Red zeon
nano aint dead, my solo pvp ship does allmost 12km/s :P


If said ship is cheap, has no tracking issues, is virtually immune to cap warfare and has mass enough to bring you out of any temporary web, I agree. Nano is still alive!

Noisrevbus
Posted - 2011.08.05 12:44:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: NoNah

If said ship is cheap, has no tracking issues, is virtually immune to cap warfare and has mass enough to bring you out of any temporary web, I agree. Nano is still alive!


Without delving into it himself, NoNah brings up my main gripe with any web buffs in today's environment.

With old-school nano your speed-to-mass relative would often allow you to coast, as the web effect was never immidiate, and drift out of trouble. You can comparatively see how it works today (especially among those stubborn enough to continue running new-school kite/range nano out of trend) when you solo vs. multiple or small gang vs. larger and small tackler with webs or a wild rapier appear on grid. Instead of looking at tracking for blasters, and looking at the stopping-power of a web to any form of post-nano nano you can see how improving webs would utterly smother the last pants of breath from such concepts. Webs may not be as strong as a tracking-modifier, but they are as strong as ever (if not even more so) on ships that rely on speed and range for survival. Personally, i'd rather see Blaster issues resolved elsewhere, than further limiting speed-range mitigation as larger tactical options. Nano may be outdated and breathless, but it's variety still enrich the game.

Lady Go Diveher
The Independent Troll Society
Posted - 2011.08.05 12:47:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Templar Dane
Tippia nailed the OP's question so hard, it's gonna have to go smoke a cigarette and then hit the ER.


This. ROFLPWND the discussion.

I feel there is a place for ships which currently get the web RANGE bonus to pickup a strength bonus, too. You'd get a Gallente based fleet that actually has a hope in hell of catching and pinning something, as well as applying more DPS (3km optimal FTW!).

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:05:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Tippia


Effectively, that scram change meant that close-range tracking had become 1/5th of what it was before the patch. This is what left blaster boats in the lurch, not the reduced effectiveness of webs.


I've never bought this explanation. Well, actually I do, it's exactly right, but it's not that simple. Erm. Yes, the maximum possible transversal within scramble range got a LOT higher. But what does this mean? The key is how this relates to actual damage application. And, frankly, it's pretty straightforward to control your transversal against a webbed/scrammed same-size target such that you're still applying basically all of your EFT DPS - meaning that there is no fundamental tracking problem for blasters - when used against same-size or larger ships.

The problems only arise when you're dealing with smaller, faster targets that can dictate transversal on you and get to ~500 m under the tracking of your blasters. But almost everyone agrees that increasing the viability of small ships was a good thing. So we can't increase tracking and have medium blasters whacking frigates out of the sky, can we?

But why not? Med ACs and med lasers can do it. Laserboats and AC-boats may not have the tracking of blasters (although TE-fit AC boats often will, and more!), but they can use their vastly superior range to reduce rad/s and whack the frigates instead. Why should blasters be the only weapon system to have neither the range nor tracking to effectively apply DPS to smaller-size ships?

So people moved away from blasters, even overlooking blasterboats' inflexible damage type, slow hulls and terrible range, because blasters don't have the flexibility to engage the same range of targets that lasers, and ACs in particular, do. And to apply any DPS to even the right-size targets they have to go into suicide range. And when they do, your average armour-tanked blaster boat does less DPS with far less tracking than your average shield AC boat - meaning that shield AC boats are better than blasterboats at being blasterboats.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.05 13:33:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Laserboats and AC-boats may not have the tracking of blasters (although TE-fit AC boats often will, and more!), but they can use their vastly superior range to reduce rad/s and whack the frigates instead. Why should blasters be the only weapon system to have neither the range nor tracking to effectively apply DPS to smaller-size ships?
Actually, medium and large autocannons track just as well as same-tier blasters out of of the box, and ACs even have tracking-boosting ammo on top of that. So even before you add in the now next to mandatory TEs used with projectile turrets, blasters are looking bad in comparison.

Of course, the idea is that those blasters should have higher base DPS and thus have a larger "DPS buffer" to lose before they get worse than ACs and pulses, but the problem with that theory is that the DPS buffer isn't nearly large enough, and the damage falloff, both due to range and to tracking, is so severe that they have an utterly minuscule engagement window where that higher DPS comes into play.

For those interested, I'd also refer to these graphs (and the further elaboration a couple of posts further down) to how narrow that supposed advantage actually is, and how much the tracking and range advantages of the other weapon systems quickly overcome a the "more DPS buffer" of blasters.

Von Kroll
Caldari
Kroll's Legion
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:19:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Gypsio III
Laserboats and AC-boats may not have the tracking of blasters (although TE-fit AC boats often will, and more!), but they can use their vastly superior range to reduce rad/s and whack the frigates instead. Why should blasters be the only weapon system to have neither the range nor tracking to effectively apply DPS to smaller-size ships?
Actually, medium and large autocannons track just as well as same-tier blasters out of of the box, and ACs even have tracking-boosting ammo on top of that. So even before you add in the now next to mandatory TEs used with projectile turrets, blasters are looking bad in comparison.

Of course, the idea is that those blasters should have higher base DPS and thus have a larger "DPS buffer" to lose before they get worse than ACs and pulses, but the problem with that theory is that the DPS buffer isn't nearly large enough, and the damage falloff, both due to range and to tracking, is so severe that they have an utterly minuscule engagement window where that higher DPS comes into play.

For those interested, I'd also refer to these graphs (and the further elaboration a couple of posts further down) to how narrow that supposed advantage actually is, and how much the tracking and range advantages of the other weapon systems quickly overcome a the "more DPS buffer" of blasters.


Between laser and projectile buffs, CCP made their job of balancing hybrids about 100 times more difficult. Good points gents!

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.08.05 15:25:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 05/08/2011 15:35:49
Originally by: Baraka Saibot
I wouldn't say that artillery has a clear advantage. Rail guns have more dps, less powergrid use, somewhat better overall range and tracking.


Because you've never used both or you're just trollin.

4 T2 1400mm with regular ammo and perfect skills will outdps your 7 or 8 rails mega/hype every day.

Try it instead of EFT'urbation.

@OP

I think blaster and gallente hulls need more a huge range bonus for webs/scram rather than strengh since no one wants to commit to a fight, and commit means less than 15km.

Blaster platforms need either a huge speed bonus while using mwd (over 900% instead of 600 with cap/radius reduction or he'll cap out/be in structure before he's in range) either web/scram range bonus (100% ??? ) or a little of all those? -think huge tests are needed.

[out of thread]
Then look at the guns tracking issues and dps(tracking comes from the guns only and not the ship), maybe some ammo tweaks? [/out of thread]

You already have some dedicated ships with web strength and they work a little better than those who haven't but they all have the same issue: get in range to apply the dam thing before you're in structure or caped out.

Mini T
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.05 16:46:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Mini T on 05/08/2011 16:48:59
Good Lord, where do I train Mega Math skills so I can continue to play this game!

The physics knowledge needed makes my brain hurt!

(on a non-related note I think my character has a thing for the OP)

s0lar pulse
Posted - 2011.08.05 22:42:00 - [18]
 

@ Gypsio III

Infact! I made that argument in a thread not to long ago. I had no issues with medium blasters, being able to track frigates. Mainly, because I knew it would not deal with the main issue. Which, was range. No matter how well you can track. Ment nothing if you could not apply damage, which is what many pilots main problem is with Gallente/blasters. I would even be willing to give Gallente cruisers a 90% webifier bonus and Serpentis like damage bonuses. But! Not a increase in velocity or changes to anything that would make that possible. Including changes to Rigs and Armor plates, because I knew it would not change much. Kiting would still be king solo and range in fleets. Most frigates have setups that can kite Gallente ships under scram range anyways (small-railgun, small-autocannons, small-pulse lasers), so you would need that 90% stasis webifer bonus. Tracking alone would not cut it, so I threw it out there for my own amusement. Knowing it would fix nothing, but most pilots believe tracking is an issue for some strange R3T@RDED reason.

Gypsio III, I'm starting to think you're coming to a better understanding of pvp. @ a fundamentally different level. You're starting to think like I do! I dont know if that is a good or bad thing.

@ Zeerover

Your argument is baseless. Minmatar ships had capless weapon systems, selectable damage type and had ships able to engage @ range before the changes. That is a FACT! The only ships that were added to range heaven, was the Hurricane, Rupture and Tempest to a lesser extent. MInd you, Pandemic Legion was using beam lasers and Artillery for the most part. Even before those changes happened. Long range pvp has changed and it has effected long range turrets. @ the moment, Artillery has even obseleted Beam Lasers. That has alot more to do with the current enviroment, fleet doctrines and less to do with the weapon systems. You could have a fleet of rail-Megathrons and they would do very well. By the way! The only ships that seems to use beam lasers these days is the Zealot (boost beam lasers?).



ANYWAYS!

Clearly, in the past. Minmatar ships always had an advantage over Gallente in the cruiser class.So, that has not changed. Gallente dominate T2 frigates and Minmatar dominate destroyers and T1 frigates. Gallente also had and still do have better battleships for solo pvp. So, in effect. Nothing has change as far as solo pvp. Even with 90% stasis webifiers. Gallente cruisers always had a very hard time catching nano-cruisers, while the Galletne frigate class would have a easier time engaging other frigates, but harder time dealing with cruisers and above. The stasis webifier changes did increase frigates viability and decreased larger vessels ability to engage frigates. I did have a scare @ the time, thinking like many did. Assault frigates would be overpowered, but neutralizers countered them well. Atleast ships that have the high slots available to use a neutralizer. Infact! Neutralizers are a good alternative to stasis webifiers.

@ Swynet

In a recent thread. I was referencing the Vigilant. How I used it and the most important module, pilots tend to used on that ship. The "Federation Navy Stasis Webifier". Why? If 90% strength was the be all, end all. Why even bother paying so much more for a module that does'nt increase stasis webifier strength? Obviously, it was because of range. Infact! 90% stasis webifier strength was nice if you had issues tracking cruisers, but anyone with half a brain would take a range bonus over a strentgh bonus on most Gallente ship. I even went so far as to say all Serpentis ships are not as good as Sanshas ships, in terms of damage and tank. Mind you, the strength bonus makes alot more sense for battleships.


-proxyyyy

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2011.08.06 01:47:00 - [19]
 

Proxxy, your grammar has always hurt my eyes. It's like reading an old school telegraph. 'gallant cruisers have always struggled. Stop. Beam lasers are only still used on the zealot. Stop.'

Your comment on beam lasers vs. Arty was interesting. I've wondered about it myself.

s0lar pulse
Posted - 2011.08.06 04:57:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
Proxxy, your grammar has always hurt my eyes. It's like reading an old school telegraph. 'gallant cruisers have always struggled. Stop. Beam lasers are only still used on the zealot. Stop.'

Your comment on beam lasers vs. Arty was interesting. I've wondered about it myself.[/quote

Nice Goggles I was thinking abot purchasing one of those but I do not have enough AUR = )


-prox4

Hiroshima Jita
Posted - 2011.08.06 17:42:00 - [21]
 

There are three things that have to be accounted for.
#1 Frigates need to be viable.
#2 Blaster ships need to be viable.
#3 It should be difficult to pin someone down.

#1 is self explanatory. If frigates die too quickly their value as a class goes down, which is a bad thing for the diversity of EVE. Frigates die right now to larger ships fit to kill them so decreasing their survivability is bad.

#2 is self explanatory. Somehow, blaster boats should be competetive with other ship types.

#3 isn't so obvious. Anybody who remembers the old nano days will be able to explain it. The old way things were for anything not fit for fighting within web range was-
Am I webbed? (y/n)
(If y) Am I going to coast out? (y/n)
(If y) I am going to die.
Now there's a ton of **** going on with AB, Web, Scram so that getting tackled isn't such a black and white proposition.

Personally I think blasters could use a tracking and damage bonus. There is some % boost that could happen that would leave them neither OP or UP. Of course there are hundreds of ideas on how to fix blasters. Some of them are really dumb and alot of them would probably fix the problem in one way or another. CCP just needs to pick one. And then they need to try to not overboost the things.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2011.08.07 02:20:00 - [22]
 

How about some outside the box solutions? Buff web drones and TP drones. Give them some serious hitpoints and speed and buff their ewar strength. Kill the web "instawarp" effect.

This wouldn't replace some other needed changes, but would give more tactical options. These particular drones have needed some help for a while.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.07 09:49:00 - [23]
 

QR changed a lot more than just web strength and MWD killing scrams.
Speeds on all frigates and cruisers were tweaked, AB/MWD attributes changed and if I remember correctly some masses were tweaked as well.

It set out to kill the nano > all, regardless of ship choice, and it succeeded beyond expectations. You can still nano, but it won't work particularly well unless you use a ship that meant for it like a Vagabond.
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
How about some outside the box solutions?.....

You really don't like Amarr do you? Smile They have fewer mids for the all important speed control and have less overall drones than all but Caldari .. despite being the "second drone race" (ie. have ships with bonuses).
It is a good idea, but would end up making Matari so stupidly strong compared to everything else that you could remove Gallente/Amarr entirely (exaggeration for effect Very Happy).

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.07 10:29:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Effectively, that scram change meant that close-range tracking had become 1/5th of what it was before the patch. This is what left blaster boats in the lurch, not the reduced effectiveness of webs.


It is more like 1/20 of the tracking if you figure in sig bloom + 4 times more effective webs as you didn't fight targets that just stopped once you webed them(aka ganking a player less experienced to point blank pvp). Even then it doesn't come close to a fair comprehension, since it also massively reduced the ability to dedicate range at web ranges(since web range is still a lot higher than your actual combat range with blasters was).

Blaster pvp only did work with flawless damage projection(forcing targets into reviving 102% of your dps), suitable range control at web ranges and the ability to deal with undersized tacklers by brute force instead by range. A part of the blaster concept was flying a ship that is easy to catch but hard to hold since going with it toe on toe within web range was very unhealthy.

Pretty much all of this was lost after the QR change and is not really recoverable with tracking or dps alone since they still would be unable to do proper range control at point blank or defend his own mobility within scram and web range against tacklers.

Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2011.08.07 13:17:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
How about some outside the box solutions?
When this all happened back in QR a number of us pointed out ways the tracking formula could be modified to better take into account the sizes of ships up close (think of 'falloff' but in reverse).

Probably would never happen though.


 

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