open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Afterburners, MWDs, and webs
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.12.16 12:41:00 - [1]
 

One of the things I was pondering recently.

Pretty much every PvP fit I fly has a MWD.

There's one or two niche exceptions (e.g. manticore) but in general, that's one constant.

Thing is, the 'cost' of not fitting one, is often your ship. You just can't afford not to.

And I think in part this is because of stasis webifiers. A web is a pretty binary state module. You're either in 10km, and webbed, or you're staying clear, and maintaining mobility and ability to disengage.

I also realised I basically never fit ABs on PvP fits. Because they're slower than MWDs normally, and you're just as screwed if you're webbed.

So I'd like to propose this idea.

What if, the speed boost an afterburner gave you, was not affected by a web.

So your 300m/sec ship, with 125% afterburner boost, would 675 on afterburner.
And if 90% webbed, your 'base' speed would drop, to a measely 30, but you'd still keep the 375 that the afterburner gave you, for a total of 405.

I think, if this were the case, there'd be situations where I would start using afterburners again. Not all the time, but ... enough.

Clearly I may have missed something, so... if this _were_ the case, what would break as a result?

Jonny JoJo
Amarr
The Imperial Guards
Posted - 2007.12.16 12:48:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Jonny JoJo on 16/12/2007 12:48:53
Originally by: James Lyrus
One of the things I was pondering recently.

Pretty much every PvP fit I fly has a MWD.

There's one or two niche exceptions (e.g. manticore) but in general, that's one constant.

Thing is, the 'cost' of not fitting one, is often your ship. You just can't afford not to.

And I think in part this is because of stasis webifiers. A web is a pretty binary state module. You're either in 10km, and webbed, or you're staying clear, and maintaining mobility and ability to disengage.

I also realised I basically never fit ABs on PvP fits. Because they're slower than MWDs normally, and you're just as screwed if you're webbed.

So I'd like to propose this idea.

What if, the speed boost an afterburner gave you, was not affected by a web.

So your 300m/sec ship, with 125% afterburner boost, would 675 on afterburner.
And if 90% webbed, your 'base' speed would drop, to a measely 30, but you'd still keep the 375 that the afterburner gave you, for a total of 405.

I think, if this were the case, there'd be situations where I would start using afterburners again. Not all the time, but ... enough.

Clearly I may have missed something, so... if this _were_ the case, what would break as a result?



Sounds like a good idea. This would mean Amarr laser ships could benifit from Ab insted of MWD due to cap usage, therefore it has my approval.

I have another idea as well - If you are Warp Scrambled, you cannot warp..... OR Micro Warp drive. Therefore people would go back to using AB's and the Nano age will end!

Zhaine
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2007.12.16 12:49:00 - [3]
 

I like this idea a lot. . . I'd also like it if they introduced that mass increasy thingamy that appeared on test a while ago but was never put in the game.

Steyr Daghan
Thundercats
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.12.16 12:53:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus
<snip>
So I'd like to propose this idea.

What if, the speed boost an afterburner gave you, was not affected by a web.



Good idea. Something needs to be done to make the AB useful again. With the sole exception of deadspace use, there is currently no reason whatsoever to fit an AB to any ship at all, while the MWD as you pointed out is way too common. That's bad.

Gripen
Posted - 2007.12.16 13:02:00 - [5]
 

I see interdictor bubbles as the core reason of mwd "musthaveness". Imho your approach does not change anything.

NoNah
Posted - 2007.12.16 13:02:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: NoNah on 16/12/2007 13:03:10
I don't really like the idea, mostly because of logic reason, ie why would it not apply to the AB - as it's a relative module.

What I however could see, is that Web eliminate MWD's through one of three options A) Heat if you're webbed with your MWD running, it will generate heat. B) It will simply deactivate C) It will go offline if run.

With either of those changes done, you can easily change the webs to say half effectiveness, ranging from 50%(40% on faction) to 80% for best named/t2.

In practice this would make the ship in your example go at:
Base: 300m/s -> 75m/s when webbed by an x5.
Afterburner: 300m/s * 2.25 = 675 -> 168.75m/s
With mwd : 300 * 5.5 = 1650 -> 75m/s when webbed.

Not sure about it, but it makes more sense to me ;)

Originally by: Gripen
I see interdictor bubbles as the core reason of mwd "musthaveness". Imho your approach does not change anything.


I really dislike the concept of bubbles tbh.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.12.16 13:32:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Gripen
I see interdictor bubbles as the core reason of mwd "musthaveness". Imho your approach does not change anything.


Well, i'd always worked on the basis that the reason I need to have a MWD, is so I can get to the gate, or out of the bubble, before I'm webbed and ganked. Once webbed, and in a bubble, you're pretty much dead.

But... I can see situations where it'd remain useful in something with a fairly impressive tank (and it would have, if you didn't have the grid/cap pain of a MWD) you could just fly back to the gate and jump clear.

Lowsec (and highsec for that matter) too, don't have bubbles up.

You're mostly right I think. I mean, there's still many reasons to fit a MWD, but, I still like the idea that e.g. an AF would be able to maintain transverse in web range.

Depp Knight
Evolution
KenZoku
Posted - 2007.12.16 13:33:00 - [8]
 

Love the idea. Would like to see it in practice. In theory things don't always work.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.12.16 13:43:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: NoNah
Edited by: NoNah on 16/12/2007 13:03:10
I don't really like the idea, mostly because of logic reason, ie why would it not apply to the AB - as it's a relative module.

What I however could see, is that Web eliminate MWD's through one of three options A) Heat if you're webbed with your MWD running, it will generate heat. B) It will simply deactivate C) It will go offline if run.

With either of those changes done, you can easily change the webs to say half effectiveness, ranging from 50%(40% on faction) to 80% for best named/t2.

In practice this would make the ship in your example go at:
Base: 300m/s -> 75m/s when webbed by an x5.
Afterburner: 300m/s * 2.25 = 675 -> 168.75m/s
With mwd : 300 * 5.5 = 1650 -> 75m/s when webbed.

Not sure about it, but it makes more sense to me ;)




MWD on whilst webbed, already has enough penalties. More signature when webbed, pretty much means you die. Actually, just being a MWD ship, with the cap penalty of it, often means if you're webbed, you're having a bad day.

Raxxius Maelstrom
Posted - 2007.12.16 13:54:00 - [10]
 

ABs need a serious boost.

I think this idea may work however I think Webs need a serious looking into.

General Coochie
The Bastards
The Bastards.
Posted - 2007.12.16 16:31:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: General Coochie on 16/12/2007 16:56:36
I like this idea. I also think something has to be done to the mwd + web situation.

Currently we have nano setups and close range setups with mwd and web dominating eve this change would nerf the short range setups and nanos wouldn't be the only real counter against the common short range, web, mwd setup.

And I do agree with above poster, webs need looking into don't know if a different AB would solve the problem, maybe... To tired sitting down figuring out different scenarios atm.

Terraform
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.12.16 19:27:00 - [12]
 

This has been a discussion i have had with many of my friends, and we've come to the conclusion that webifiers are in fact THE most overpowered module in Eve Online.

No other module is able to reduce an attribute on the opponents ship by 70-90% with just one module.

My suggestion is, and i'm sure people will yell at me, nerfing the webifiers in such a way, that they only decrease speed by 25-35% instead.

As it stands right now it's either staying out of range, or fit one yourself and fighting your opponent while doing 15m/s, this leaves no room for maneuvering and the fights therefore tend to feel really slow and static.

Just my two cents... rant on!




UGLYUGLY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.12.16 20:11:00 - [13]
 

I'd agree that webs are a fairly overpowered mod. You can use a 90% web with bone bare basic, next to nothing skills. Maybe change it so you have to train a set of skills to get webs up to that strength. lvl 1 starting at 25% or something and lvl 5 finishing at the full potential of the mod.

If webs are made as weak as you suggested, nano ships are going to be alot harder to deal with.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.12.16 20:19:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus
One of the things I was pondering recently.

Pretty much every PvP fit I fly has a MWD.

There's one or two niche exceptions (e.g. manticore) but in general, that's one constant.

Thing is, the 'cost' of not fitting one, is often your ship. You just can't afford not to.

And I think in part this is because of stasis webifiers. A web is a pretty binary state module. You're either in 10km, and webbed, or you're staying clear, and maintaining mobility and ability to disengage.

I also realised I basically never fit ABs on PvP fits. Because they're slower than MWDs normally, and you're just as screwed if you're webbed.

So I'd like to propose this idea.

What if, the speed boost an afterburner gave you, was not affected by a web.

So your 300m/sec ship, with 125% afterburner boost, would 675 on afterburner.
And if 90% webbed, your 'base' speed would drop, to a measely 30, but you'd still keep the 375 that the afterburner gave you, for a total of 405.

I think, if this were the case, there'd be situations where I would start using afterburners again. Not all the time, but ... enough.

Clearly I may have missed something, so... if this _were_ the case, what would break as a result?



What would break as a result: all BS guns. For starters. Additionally, ABs would be a 'get back to gate free' card. No thanks.

Noisrevbus
Posted - 2007.12.16 22:20:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Noisrevbus on 16/12/2007 22:35:45
Originally by: Terraform
This has been a discussion i have had with many of my friends, and we've come to the conclusion that webifiers are in fact THE most overpowered module in Eve Online.

No other module is able to reduce an attribute on the opponents ship by 70-90% with just one module.

My suggestion is, and i'm sure people will yell at me, nerfing the webifiers in such a way, that they only decrease speed by 25-35% instead.

As it stands right now it's either staying out of range, or fit one yourself and fighting your opponent while doing 15m/s, this leaves no room for maneuvering and the fights therefore tend to feel really slow and static.

Just my two cents... rant on!



I'm more in the boat with this guy.

I already hinted of some theories in another thread i think that James Lyrus made as well on a related topic. I see more game balance involved in the speed equations than just speed and web though, but they are the extremes that have set the standard. I would say a simple rebalance both in how MWD and Webs work would suffice.

x Have MWD's be 200% instead of 500% (and remove the signature increase to balance).
x Decrease webs to the average 30-50% module scale, with similar stacking penalties.

MWD's being 2x times as much as AB's but with cap issues, still mean they are twice as fast (that isn't a neglible number) and combined with flat speed modules that will still inflate in the speed equation. If you want a bad example of a thrown out figure, let's say that AB's tend to land ships around 1km/s, as such you would have common MWD figures be around 2km/s. That's still enough to run to a gate or speedtank many things in the game. It would also increase native ships with high base speed values in relation to mass-inflated ships relying the relation between mass and MWD, making sure Interceptors can still reach beyond 2km/s without problems, but putting most non-specialized larger ships at those speeds where speed do not offer a nigh complete immunity until webbed, and virtually no protection when webbed (10km/s - 90% = 1km/s while 2km/s - 50% = 1km/s). It really doesn't have to be more difficult than that.

Once a non-native ship is more likely to push 2-3 km/s (than 5km+), you will have a more sane relation between tracking them without webs and with webs. You will have a more sane relation between webs and tracking disruptors, giving speed-tanked ships available choices to improve their tank versus that anti-module; where they may not fly quick enough to deal with drones or missiles, but can still do what their intention is, make sure that they tank as well against turrests when webbed as they do when not webbed and not using the TD. You will have two modules that essentially cancel out each other, while both of them also have some use outside of that anti-relation (webs are still good for catching ships that do not speed tank, and TD's can still be viable in helping to improve friendly ships fighting a target that may not ideally speed tank, and need the TD to effectively push beyond feasible tracking ranges).

Certain other concepts may need to be rebalanced to cope (the flat speeds of drones comes to mind), but sniping ranges have already seen an overhaul with 2.3, where the relation between sniping and EWar ranges have seen a quite dramatic change, even if i aknowledge that certain EWar (Damps) very much topical to this discussion was nerfed as well. Still instead of EWar base ranges covering perhaps 1/3 of your distance they now cover 2/3. That's a quite substantial improvement to defensive use of EWar against sniping.

All in all, it's a win-win situation if you essentially just cut both MWD and Web (bonuses and drawbacks) in half.

shinsushi
Posted - 2007.12.16 22:40:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Noisrevbus
Originally by: Terraform
This has been a discussion i have had with many of my friends, and we've come to the conclusion that webifiers are in fact THE most overpowered module in Eve Online.

No other module is able to reduce an attribute on the opponents ship by 70-90% with just one module.

My suggestion is, and i'm sure people will yell at me, nerfing the webifiers in such a way, that they only decrease speed by 25-35% instead.

As it stands right now it's either staying out of range, or fit one yourself and fighting your opponent while doing 15m/s, this leaves no room for maneuvering and the fights therefore tend to feel really slow and static.

Just my two cents... rant on!



I'm more in the boat with this guy, i already hinted of some theories in another thread i think that James Lyrus made as well on a related topic. I see more game balance involved in the speed equations than just speed and web though, but they are the extremes that have set the standard.

I would say a simple rebalance both in how MWD and Webs work would suffice.

Have MWD's be 200x instead of 500% (and remove the signature increase to balance).
Decrease webs to the average 30-50% module scale, with similar stacking penalties.

MWD's being 2x times as much as AB's but with cap issues, still mean they are twice as fast (that isn't a neglible number) and combined with flat speed modules that will still inflate in the speed equation.

Once a ship is more likely to push 2-3 km/s, you will have a more sane relation between tracking them without webs and with webs. You will have a more sane relation between webs and tracking disruptors, giving speed-tanked ships available choices to improve their tank versus that anti-module; where they may not fly quick enough to deal with drones or missiles, but can still do what their intention is, make sure that they tank as well against turrests when webbed as they do when not webbed and not using the TD. You will have two modules that essentially cancel out each other, while both of them also have some use outside of that anti-relation (webs are still good for catching ships that do not speed tank, and TD's can still be viable in helping to improve friendly ships fighting a target that may not ideally speed tank, and need the TD to effectively push beyond feasible tracking ranges).

All in all, it's a win-win situation if you essentially cut both MWD and Web (bonuses and drawbacks) in half.


I agree that webs are just way way to powerful, and at the same time they are way way to short ranged. They really need to have longer ranges than they do now so that ships can have a counter for speed.

See anything module you impliment in eve should have a counter-module that works. Currently this just isn't working for speed. ABs, a module very useful for getting in close and out-transversing bigger guns get nailed way to hard by webs, and outside of current web range they don't go fast enough to do that.

I always saw ABs as a way for smaller ships to avoid bigger class turrets. Such as a frig w/ an AB would out transverse medium and large turrets, a cruiser would only out-transverse large turrets, and a BS would not need one. Now a smaller ship would naturally out-transverse a larger turret with base speed, but 1 AB should allow that same vessel to continue to do so with 1 web applied. ABs would also be useful for dictating range but not for closing, and only of ships of comparable class.

MWDs to me mean closing distance. These should have never been sustainable in any type of a useable setup, but damn good at closing distances. I always liked the idea that with a MWD on, your active locked targets would go to 0 because of the interference of your warp engines.

SO I would definately go with the above, reducing webs to effectively cancel out one same meta-lvl AB, and to change MWDs as such.

skipper johnson
Posted - 2007.12.16 23:10:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: UGLYUGLY
I'd agree that webs are a fairly overpowered mod. You can use a 90% web with bone bare basic, next to nothing skills. Maybe change it so you have to train a set of skills to get webs up to that strength. lvl 1 starting at 25% or something and lvl 5 finishing at the full potential of the mod.

If webs are made as weak as you suggested, nano ships are going to be alot harder to deal with.


I like this idea the most, although I would say the best Webbers should be able to do about 50-60% web, but to balance this, they should increase the range. It should also be skill dependant.

Lets clarify.
Normal T1 Web does 10-13km range and 30-40% web. (the lows are with lvl 1, and the highs lvl 4 or lvl5
T2 Web does 12-15km range, and 40-50% web.
Officer/Faction web - 15-18km Range and 50-60% web.

Don't nerf MWD's! This solution is the best fix. I believe it still leaves nano's with flexibility, but gives webbers a better chance. It balances the fighting nano's vs webs brilliantly (if I do say so myself).

Kadoes Khan
Posted - 2007.12.16 23:42:00 - [18]
 

Changing webs doesn't change the fact MWD's are required.

Selene Le'Cotiere
Amarr
Farlight Council
Elitist Cowards
Posted - 2007.12.17 00:16:00 - [19]
 

Well, using this tid-bit from the descriptions for Microwarp Drives:

"The sheer amount of energy needed to power this system means that it must use part of the capacitor output and the shield just to maintain the integrity of its warp containment field."

I don't think it would be to far of a stretch for a Warp Jammer to be able to shut down a MWD. As a Warp Jammer is affecting a ships electronic ability to generate a warp field.


UGLYUGLY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.12.17 01:02:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: UGLYUGLY on 17/12/2007 01:03:07
Originally by: Selene Le'Cotiere
Well, using this tid-bit from the descriptions for Microwarp Drives:

"The sheer amount of energy needed to power this system means that it must use part of the capacitor output and the shield just to maintain the integrity of its warp containment field."

I don't think it would be to far of a stretch for a Warp Jammer to be able to shut down a MWD. As a Warp Jammer is affecting a ships electronic ability to generate a warp field.




Make it so you can't warp with the MWD on? That description just gave me the idea. It wouldn't change things too much, but maybe make people think a little bit harder when they use them.

Increasing the web range could be an additional skill, but the rapier, huggin bonuses might need to be looked at if this would be adopted to keep their maxed out web range about the same as it is now (it think their max we range is well balanced at the moment).

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.12.17 01:03:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: James Lyrus
One of the things I was pondering recently.

Pretty much every PvP fit I fly has a MWD.

There's one or two niche exceptions (e.g. manticore) but in general, that's one constant.

Thing is, the 'cost' of not fitting one, is often your ship. You just can't afford not to.

And I think in part this is because of stasis webifiers. A web is a pretty binary state module. You're either in 10km, and webbed, or you're staying clear, and maintaining mobility and ability to disengage.

I also realised I basically never fit ABs on PvP fits. Because they're slower than MWDs normally, and you're just as screwed if you're webbed.

So I'd like to propose this idea.

What if, the speed boost an afterburner gave you, was not affected by a web.

So your 300m/sec ship, with 125% afterburner boost, would 675 on afterburner.
And if 90% webbed, your 'base' speed would drop, to a measely 30, but you'd still keep the 375 that the afterburner gave you, for a total of 405.

I think, if this were the case, there'd be situations where I would start using afterburners again. Not all the time, but ... enough.

Clearly I may have missed something, so... if this _were_ the case, what would break as a result?



What would break as a result: all BS guns. For starters. Additionally, ABs would be a 'get back to gate free' card. No thanks.



Translation: My solo blasterthron cant pwn everything anymore.

You have a drone bay for a reason. And a heavy neutralizer will screw over any ship smaller than a BS.

If this is implement though, mwd will need a nerf. Perhaps decrease thrust by 25%, and this is coming from a die hard nano-*****.

Selene Le'Cotiere
Amarr
Farlight Council
Elitist Cowards
Posted - 2007.12.17 01:45:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: UGLYUGLY
Make it so you can't warp with the MWD on? That description just gave me the idea. It wouldn't change things too much, but maybe make people think a little bit harder when they use them.
Actually, that's not to bad of an idea either. Kind of like saying, that you have committed to this fight.

Maeltstome
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2007.12.17 01:54:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Selene Le'Cotiere
Originally by: UGLYUGLY
Make it so you can't warp with the MWD on? That description just gave me the idea. It wouldn't change things too much, but maybe make people think a little bit harder when they use them.
Actually, that's not to bad of an idea either. Kind of like saying, that you have committed to this fight.



As soon as you initiate warp, your MWD deactivates after the cycle ends.

Maeltstome
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2007.12.17 01:55:00 - [24]
 

BTW - i'd just be happy if they removed the range Bonus for overheating webs. My vaga would love it, and my stabber would actually get used again.

Don't argue that "you can overheat MWD's too" - overheat web = 10 secs and inrange, overheat mwd = broken midslots and still webbed.

UGLYUGLY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.12.17 02:15:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Maeltstome
Originally by: Selene Le'Cotiere
Originally by: UGLYUGLY
Make it so you can't warp with the MWD on? That description just gave me the idea. It wouldn't change things too much, but maybe make people think a little bit harder when they use them.
Actually, that's not to bad of an idea either. Kind of like saying, that you have committed to this fight.



As soon as you initiate warp, your MWD deactivates after the cycle ends.


Well it wouldn't let you initiate warp, you would have to wait till your cycle ends. Maybe even add a 5 second warp drive recalibration after the mod deactivates. It's just an idea.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.12.17 02:29:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: James Lyrus
One of the things I was pondering recently.

Pretty much every PvP fit I fly has a MWD.

There's one or two niche exceptions (e.g. manticore) but in general, that's one constant.

Thing is, the 'cost' of not fitting one, is often your ship. You just can't afford not to.

And I think in part this is because of stasis webifiers. A web is a pretty binary state module. You're either in 10km, and webbed, or you're staying clear, and maintaining mobility and ability to disengage.

I also realised I basically never fit ABs on PvP fits. Because they're slower than MWDs normally, and you're just as screwed if you're webbed.

So I'd like to propose this idea.

What if, the speed boost an afterburner gave you, was not affected by a web.

So your 300m/sec ship, with 125% afterburner boost, would 675 on afterburner.
And if 90% webbed, your 'base' speed would drop, to a measely 30, but you'd still keep the 375 that the afterburner gave you, for a total of 405.

I think, if this were the case, there'd be situations where I would start using afterburners again. Not all the time, but ... enough.

Clearly I may have missed something, so... if this _were_ the case, what would break as a result?



What would break as a result: all BS guns. For starters. Additionally, ABs would be a 'get back to gate free' card. No thanks.



Translation: My solo blasterthron cant pwn everything anymore.

You have a drone bay for a reason. And a heavy neutralizer will screw over any ship smaller than a BS.

If this is implement though, mwd will need a nerf. Perhaps decrease thrust by 25%, and this is coming from a die hard nano-*****.


Drones are useless on low sec gates where you have aggro: I never get to use them. Ever. No one ever agresses me, as they *always* wait for me to be criminally flagged before engaging me, so as to deny me the extra dps of my drones, plus the extra 350 dps of the guns on me.

That being said, what do drones have to do with a web strength reduction? I still wouldn't be able to hit anything with my guns even if I had use of my drones. BS don't need a 25% decrease in MWD speed. They can barely break 1km/sec with a T2 MWD. How is that game breaking?

The only thing game breaking are nano ships. Webs arn't game breaking either. There is no point in reducing web strength if gun tracking has to be increased in order to compensate for the loss of web performance.

Right now tracking is binary- the target is either webbed, and you can hit it, or it's not, and you can't. There is no in between. Frankly even an 80% web isn't good enough IMO if you're flying a BS. A 90% web is mandatory. Even with a 90% web you can't slow down most frigs and cruisers enough to track them with large guns, particularly if they're MWDing.

Some ships (like the Scorpion, Raven, Tyhpoon, Tempest) have extra high slots that can be used for heavy neuts with little reduction to their total DPS output. Others like the Abaddon, Geddon, Hype, Mega depend on every single gun they can fit to have a decent setup. By design these ships are not very flexible with their setups.

I fly Rokhs, Typhoons, Megas, Hypes, Ishtars, Drakes, Hurricanes, I used to fly Lachesis/Arazus but the damp nerf pretty much erased those ships from my list. Why do you have such a hard on for blaster ships and my flying them?

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.12.17 02:47:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Gamesguy on 17/12/2007 02:49:42
Originally by: Bellum Eternus

Drones are useless on low sec gates where you have aggro: I never get to use them. Ever. No one ever agresses me, as they *always* wait for me to be criminally flagged before engaging me, so as to deny me the extra dps of my drones, plus the extra 350 dps of the guns on me.


No one forces you to criminally flag yourself. If you choose to engage in lowsec then be prepared to suffer the penalties. Or should we buff inties to tank 350 dps because right now they're useless on lowsec gates/stations.

Ship balance is made for 0.0 combat, otherwise half the ships in eve would be useless due to sentries.

Quote:
That being said, what do drones have to do with a web strength reduction? I still wouldn't be able to hit anything with my guns even if I had use of my drones. BS don't need a 25% decrease in MWD speed. They can barely break 1km/sec with a T2 MWD. How is that game breaking?


1km/s for a BS makes the AB useless, which is exactly what happens right now. So it IS game breaking, an entire class of module is useless because of the mwd.

Quote:
The only thing game breaking are nano ships. Webs arn't game breaking either. There is no point in reducing web strength if gun tracking has to be increased in order to compensate for the loss of web performance.


Why not? Whats wrong with upping gun tracking? Or god forbid, tweaking the tracking formula so sig radius has a bigger effect than transversal(currently it does not).

Quote:
Right now tracking is binary- the target is either webbed, and you can hit it, or it's not, and you can't. There is no in between. Frankly even an 80% web isn't good enough IMO if you're flying a BS. A 90% web is mandatory. Even with a 90% web you can't slow down most frigs and cruisers enough to track them with large guns, particularly if they're MWDing.


Thats bull****. A webbed cruiser will be tracked by bs guns mwd or not. Unless its one of those 5billion isk snaked setups, in which case it'll be out of your web range in a couple of seconds anyways.

And did you ever think you werent supposed to track cruisers and frigs with BS guns? You're supposed to have support to deal with their support. And drones and neutralizers are supposed to be the weapons BS use to deal with smaller ships, not their guns.

Quote:
Some ships (like the Scorpion, Raven, Tyhpoon, Tempest) have extra high slots that can be used for heavy neuts with little reduction to their total DPS output. Others like the Abaddon, Geddon, Hype, Mega depend on every single gun they can fit to have a decent setup. By design these ships are not very flexible with their setups.


The mega and the geddon can both fit a heavy neutralizer(the mega much easier than the geddon). Course I'm talking buffer hp setups that dont work when you're sitting on a gate getting shot by sentries. But then again, the ships is not balanced around sentries, just like its not balanced around concord pwning your ship instantly

Quote:
I fly Rokhs, Typhoons, Megas, Hypes, Ishtars, Drakes, Hurricanes, I used to fly Lachesis/Arazus but the damp nerf pretty much erased those ships from my list. Why do you have such a hard on for blaster ships and my flying them?


Blaster BS is everything wrong with this game, they utterly break the ship balance, making everything smaller than it useless(except EW). They turn every fight into "approach mwd, web, turn on guns, click the cap booster every now and then, drag 800 charges into cargo from a med container every now and then", losing? deagress and spam the jump/dock button.

Nanoships are the only counter-balance, nanoships require lots of manual input, not just web f1-f8.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.12.17 02:57:00 - [28]
 

I orbit while webbed around gun-using BS all the time with cruisers, and they miss. And I'm not even using an MWD. Sometimes I use an AB, but usually I don't even have to do that.

How are blaster ships breaking the game? They're so easy to defeat it's comical. Their range of operation is so small that they're very easy to mitigate with 'normal' setups. No nanos required.

ABs are very useful. I use them all the time. On all classes of ships. Cruisers are more useful in 0.0 due to the existance of nano ships. If speeds were around normal MWD speeds (i.e. MWD fit with no speed mods), other ships such as BC/BS could compete and would be more common in 0.0 outside of fleets.

Combat isn't balanced around 0.0 combat. It has to be balanced around all types of combat, including PVE. Your statement just show how self centered and egotistical you really are by assuming such.

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.12.17 03:36:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
I orbit while webbed around gun-using BS all the time with cruisers, and they miss. And I'm not even using an MWD. Sometimes I use an AB, but usually I don't even have to do that.


Thats bull****. What were those BS fitting? 1400mm arty? I hit webbed cruisers just fine with megapulse.

Quote:
How are blaster ships breaking the game? They're so easy to defeat it's comical. Their range of operation is so small that they're very easy to mitigate with 'normal' setups. No nanos required.


Post these "mitigation" techniques that apply only to blasterboats.

Quote:
ABs are very useful. I use them all the time. On all classes of ships. Cruisers are more useful in 0.0 due to the existance of nano ships. If speeds were around normal MWD speeds (i.e. MWD fit with no speed mods), other ships such as BC/BS could compete and would be more common in 0.0 outside of fleets.


You're lying, and you're wrong. Fitting means a ship that fits a mwd will simply run away from you if the fight goes bad, everyone will still fit a mwd.

Quote:
Combat isn't balanced around 0.0 combat. It has to be balanced around all types of combat, including PVE. Your statement just show how self centered and egotistical you really are by assuming such.


Please, you're the one who assumed all combat is in lowsec when you posted that ******ed argument about drones being popped by sentries. And yes, ship balance is based around 0.0. Or else half the ships in eve cant be used because they cant tank sentry guns.Rolling Eyes

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.12.17 04:17:00 - [30]
 

Quote:
You're lying, and you're wrong. Fitting means a ship that fits a mwd will simply run away from you if the fight goes bad, everyone will still fit a mwd.


I'm lying and I'm wrong? Who the f#ck are you to call me a liar? You don't know what I fit on my ships and what I don't. I'm neither lying or wrong. I fit ABs on my ships all the time to kill mission runners in deadspace. At this point I just think you're too f#cking stupid to understand anything about the games mechanics if you're going to make statments like that to even debate these ideas.

Can you possibly be more stupid?


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

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