open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Webs overpowered?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

echohead
Posted - 2008.02.09 21:17:00 - [61]
 

I have not read the whole thread. But I find it really funny that this thread is 5 posts below "Nerf MWD"

Max Warg
Caldari
Chosen Path
Posted - 2008.02.09 23:12:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: Max Warg on 09/02/2008 23:16:36
This reminds me of another issue that was warp core stabs. You needed a whole bank of scrambelers to catch ships was the complaint (as if using a bunch of slots for stabs didn't suck, because if you were cought you had nothing but a paper hull). So now were going to be asked to mount 3 webs just to make hitting a fast ship viable?? A web with 30% effectivness would be usless as a way to hit a smaller target especialy if your a gun boat. Lets make another module just about usless.

The module is strong, it has to be to get any real effect especialy when the fast ship only needs to orbit out of web range as a 100% counter to it. What would be the new counter to fast ships? As for nanoed ships being dead as soon as there webed is not an automtic death sentance. How many here have put a web on something only to have it pass by you as it decelrates and almost be out of web range. I've had plenty of targets power out of web range and escape. On the flip side i've escaped that way my self. The realtion ship works well. Now a days mount a web or be dead (its almost a manditory Med slot fit), oh and if a smart pilot stays out of web range your still dead (speed tank FTW).

Recons with webs and a 40k range are rarere then nano gangs. You might see a huggnin or two in a gang once in while (becoming more comman as the only really good counter). Entire gangs of of nothing but nano fitted ships is far more comman.

Fix speed not the web.

The game would be so much more fun if we all had to use small fast MWD ships to catch a target??

goodby4u
Valor Inc.
Valor Empire
Posted - 2008.02.10 00:54:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Being afraid of change and afraid of change to the worse are two different things,at the moment we have hundreds(if not thousands)of people crying for their one group to be boosted and all else nerfed,since they are paying customers their crying has weight and more times then not pass.

This is the death of most rpgs actually.


Who the hell are you to say that this is a change for the worse? Maybe you should take a step back and... *gasp* think, about why nanos will be less appealing with the proposed changes.
I like the fact webs are extremely affective but at a cutoff,if anything I would happily allow a change for longrange webs to be 20km-24km and have 50% effective,however giving them falloff is far too complicated and WILL cause some lag,anything that causes lag and is complicated I hate.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.02.10 00:58:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Being afraid of change and afraid of change to the worse are two different things,at the moment we have hundreds(if not thousands)of people crying for their one group to be boosted and all else nerfed,since they are paying customers their crying has weight and more times then not pass.

This is the death of most rpgs actually.


Who the hell are you to say that this is a change for the worse? Maybe you should take a step back and... *gasp* think, about why nanos will be less appealing with the proposed changes.
I like the fact webs are extremely affective but at a cutoff,if anything I would happily allow a change for longrange webs to be 20km-24km and have 50% effective,however giving them falloff is far too complicated and WILL cause some lag,anything that causes lag and is complicated I hate.


Perhaps you should go back to WoW then, EVE is a complicated game. The "lag" created by a falloff mod is extremely minimal. The calculations for a web would be no different than an extra gun. Should we remove destroyers from the game because they create "lag", too?

As it stands, webifiers are the cause of nanos, not the solution. Maybe you just can't get that through your head.

welsh wizard
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
Posted - 2008.02.10 00:59:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: 7shining7one7
....


Yes, all 3-5 year old players with combat experience think nano-ships are balanced. It's just all the new players that have it wrong.

Rastigan
Caldari
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:13:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic

As it stands, webifiers are the cause of nanos, not the solution. Maybe you just can't get that through your head.


No, the ability to engage or disengage with little risk is the reason for nanos..
Webs are the only way to take that choice away from them..

goodby4u
Valor Inc.
Valor Empire
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:18:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: goodby4u on 10/02/2008 01:24:04
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Being afraid of change and afraid of change to the worse are two different things,at the moment we have hundreds(if not thousands)of people crying for their one group to be boosted and all else nerfed,since they are paying customers their crying has weight and more times then not pass.

This is the death of most rpgs actually.


Who the hell are you to say that this is a change for the worse? Maybe you should take a step back and... *gasp* think, about why nanos will be less appealing with the proposed changes.
I like the fact webs are extremely affective but at a cutoff,if anything I would happily allow a change for longrange webs to be 20km-24km and have 50% effective,however giving them falloff is far too complicated and WILL cause some lag,anything that causes lag and is complicated I hate.


Perhaps you should go back to WoW then, EVE is a complicated game. The "lag" created by a falloff mod is extremely minimal. The calculations for a web would be no different than an extra gun. Should we remove destroyers from the game because they create "lag", too?

As it stands, webifiers are the cause of nanos, not the solution. Maybe you just can't get that through your head.
Never played wow and never will,personal insults do nothing but destroy the reputation of the person using them.

As for the taking away of stuff,i think you do not understand,atm we do infact have a lag issue,adding things that increase even just a little bit of lag is bad...One extra turret?Actually thats accurate,but once you enter the realm of hundreds of ships that little piece of lag turns into freezing.

My solution is simpler and makes sure this lag doesnt enter the game.

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:29:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: goodby4u

As for the taking away of stuff,i think you do not understand,atm we do infact have a lag issue,adding things that increase even just a little bit of lag is bad...One extra turret?Actually thats accurate,but once you enter the realm of hundreds of ships that little piece of lag turns into freezing.

My solution is simpler and makes sure this lag doesnt enter the game.


According to that logic we should remove all drones then, since they cause far more lag than ships.Rolling Eyes

And the zealot/moa/eagle/ferox buff should be removed, for the good of the lag. In fact destroyers should be removed, since they have so many guns.

Go away troll.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:30:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: goodby4u
Edited by: goodby4u on 10/02/2008 01:24:04
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Being afraid of change and afraid of change to the worse are two different things,at the moment we have hundreds(if not thousands)of people crying for their one group to be boosted and all else nerfed,since they are paying customers their crying has weight and more times then not pass.

This is the death of most rpgs actually.


Who the hell are you to say that this is a change for the worse? Maybe you should take a step back and... *gasp* think, about why nanos will be less appealing with the proposed changes.
I like the fact webs are extremely affective but at a cutoff,if anything I would happily allow a change for longrange webs to be 20km-24km and have 50% effective,however giving them falloff is far too complicated and WILL cause some lag,anything that causes lag and is complicated I hate.


Perhaps you should go back to WoW then, EVE is a complicated game. The "lag" created by a falloff mod is extremely minimal. The calculations for a web would be no different than an extra gun. Should we remove destroyers from the game because they create "lag", too?

As it stands, webifiers are the cause of nanos, not the solution. Maybe you just can't get that through your head.
Never played wow and never will,personal insults do nothing but destroy the reputation of the person using them.

As for the taking away of stuff,i think you do not understand,atm we do infact have a lag issue,adding things that increase even just a little bit of lag is bad...One extra turret?Actually thats accurate,but once you enter the realm of hundreds of ships that little piece of lag turns into freezing.

My solution is simpler and makes sure this lag doesnt enter the game.


The "issue" shouldn't be "solved" with a broken game mechanic. Balancing (and I use this term lightly) this tactic is necessary, I think we can all agree. If it means a tiny bit more lag, so be it. It's hardly an issue though, as many mods already have these "complex" calculations that have to be re-entered into the server rapidly.

goodby4u
Valor Inc.
Valor Empire
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:33:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Edited by: goodby4u on 10/02/2008 01:24:04
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: goodby4u
Being afraid of change and afraid of change to the worse are two different things,at the moment we have hundreds(if not thousands)of people crying for their one group to be boosted and all else nerfed,since they are paying customers their crying has weight and more times then not pass.

This is the death of most rpgs actually.


Who the hell are you to say that this is a change for the worse? Maybe you should take a step back and... *gasp* think, about why nanos will be less appealing with the proposed changes.
I like the fact webs are extremely affective but at a cutoff,if anything I would happily allow a change for longrange webs to be 20km-24km and have 50% effective,however giving them falloff is far too complicated and WILL cause some lag,anything that causes lag and is complicated I hate.


Perhaps you should go back to WoW then, EVE is a complicated game. The "lag" created by a falloff mod is extremely minimal. The calculations for a web would be no different than an extra gun. Should we remove destroyers from the game because they create "lag", too?

As it stands, webifiers are the cause of nanos, not the solution. Maybe you just can't get that through your head.
Never played wow and never will,personal insults do nothing but destroy the reputation of the person using them.

As for the taking away of stuff,i think you do not understand,atm we do infact have a lag issue,adding things that increase even just a little bit of lag is bad...One extra turret?Actually thats accurate,but once you enter the realm of hundreds of ships that little piece of lag turns into freezing.

My solution is simpler and makes sure this lag doesnt enter the game.


The "issue" shouldn't be "solved" with a broken game mechanic. Balancing (and I use this term lightly) this tactic is necessary, I think we can all agree. If it means a tiny bit more lag, so be it. It's hardly an issue though, as many mods already have these "complex" calculations that have to be re-entered into the server rapidly.
Broken?Weaker webs that have a longer range is broken?How so?

As for the radical assumptions that i want to take all out that creates lag,thats untrue however if theres an alternative that creates less lag and is as good/better then the one that creates lag....Well then,whats the problem?

Lastly,personal insults subtract not add gamesguyWink

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:39:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: goodby4u
Broken?Weaker webs that have a longer range is broken?How so?

As for the radical assumptions that i want to take all out that creates lag,thats untrue however if theres an alternative that creates less lag and is as good/better then the one that creates lag....Well then,whats the problem?

Lastly,personal insults subtract not add gamesguyWink


How is adding a long range web but keeping the short ranged web anything but a nerf for nanos? So its not as good or better.

goodby4u
Valor Inc.
Valor Empire
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:42:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: goodby4u
Broken?Weaker webs that have a longer range is broken?How so?

As for the radical assumptions that i want to take all out that creates lag,thats untrue however if theres an alternative that creates less lag and is as good/better then the one that creates lag....Well then,whats the problem?

Lastly,personal insults subtract not add gamesguyWink


How is adding a long range web but keeping the short ranged web anything but a nerf for nanos? So its not as good or better.
Its a nerf to blaster boats aswell,the falloff thing is the same thing...A nerf to nanos.

Whether you want it or not a nerf to nanos is coming,whether its in this form or another when a tactic is used by so many roaming gangs like this its going to get nerfed.

Oh and this would also be a boost to amarr as range means more.

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:46:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: goodby4u
Broken?Weaker webs that have a longer range is broken?How so?

As for the radical assumptions that i want to take all out that creates lag,thats untrue however if theres an alternative that creates less lag and is as good/better then the one that creates lag....Well then,whats the problem?

Lastly,personal insults subtract not add gamesguyWink


How is adding a long range web but keeping the short ranged web anything but a nerf for nanos? So its not as good or better.
Its a nerf to blaster boats aswell,the falloff thing is the same thing...A nerf to nanos.

Whether you want it or not a nerf to nanos is coming,whether its in this form or another when a tactic is used by so many roaming gangs like this its going to get nerfed.


Says you?Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Oh and this would also be a boost to amarr as range means more.


Ya lets obsolete gallente blasterboats, great idea!

goodby4u
Valor Inc.
Valor Empire
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:49:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: goodby4u
Broken?Weaker webs that have a longer range is broken?How so?

As for the radical assumptions that i want to take all out that creates lag,thats untrue however if theres an alternative that creates less lag and is as good/better then the one that creates lag....Well then,whats the problem?

Lastly,personal insults subtract not add gamesguyWink


How is adding a long range web but keeping the short ranged web anything but a nerf for nanos? So its not as good or better.
Its a nerf to blaster boats aswell,the falloff thing is the same thing...A nerf to nanos.

Whether you want it or not a nerf to nanos is coming,whether its in this form or another when a tactic is used by so many roaming gangs like this its going to get nerfed.


Says you?Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Oh and this would also be a boost to amarr as range means more.


Ya lets obsolete gallente blasterboats, great idea!
Says history,they will go the way of gankergeddons and nos domis,if its used too much it will be nerfed.

Blasterboats wont be obsolete,this will move the range of pvp out to a possible 20km which means amarr will have a niche,this doesnt mean the mega cant mwd into range it will just take longer.

marie blueprint
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:02:00 - [75]
 

QFT please,please,please for the love of god stop asking for nerfs.

Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari
State Protectorate
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:03:00 - [76]
 

I have this crazy idea that webs could become less functional the closer your target is to you. They'd be used for closing distance, not holding things immobile (solo anyway, in gangs a minnie recon would just sit at the edge of their web range and things would freeze). Who knows, maybe we'd see some afterburner fitted speed tanking ships orbitting @ 500m keeping up transversal and relying on higher tracking to overcome bulkier ship classes. v0v

QuantumPhysics
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:46:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: QuantumPhysics on 10/02/2008 05:02:01
Edited by: QuantumPhysics on 10/02/2008 04:47:44
Let me begin by stating that I am minmatar.

Let me also state that nerfing webs/nano would effectively nerf the following ships (ships listed apply only to Minmatar):

huginn (both web and nano)
rapier (both web and nano)
hyena (both web and nano)
vagabond
interceptors
interdictors
stabber
Minmatar frigates
Hurricane (in some cases, depends on how it is fitted)
Sleipnir
Claymore

The ships I have just listed are widely considered the "best" of Minmatar. Nerfing nano and webs, 2 things that the most effective Minmatar ships heavily rely on, you are effectively nerfing the Minmatar race.

Let me also state a few of the many possible solutions to this, if there were a nerf:
1. Overhaul the entire Minmatar race, change most of the ships bonuses/slot layouts/everything, change the general specialization of Minmatar
2. Delete the entire Minmatar race from EVE
3. Leave Minmatar as it is, do not buff it after the nerf

Note that all 3 options would logically result in the resignation of a great deal of Minmatar pilots who have invested time, money, and sp into specializing in nano. This, however, could be resolved by allowing Minmatar characters to transfer sp from "nerfed" areas (i.e. Minmatar-specific skills and nav. skills, etc.) to an area of another race's sp specialization.

Also I would like to point out that the "nano" trend has already had a considerable nerf (due to the nanophoon). I find it highly difficult to find a reason for me to continue to play eve if all this time i have been training, both sp-wise and pilot experience-wise in nanoships, and then it gets nerfed/balanced, what have you.

I would like to conclude my opinion by stating that CCP cannot simply hit the "nerf-button/nerf-bat" on nano -- that primal solution won't work this time -- it has been too engrained into the eve culture to do so. A more complex resolution must take place, such as changing minmatar's specialization.

P.S. Do you have any idea how hard it is to effectively fly a nanoship in real combat? I'm not talking wannabe's who call themselves nano***s. I'm talking people like 0utbreak. People like Blacksheep. (People like goons :D). If you don't know how hard it is, ask Gilgi.

goodby4u
Valor Inc.
Valor Empire
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:32:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: QuantumPhysics
Edited by: QuantumPhysics on 10/02/2008 05:02:01
Edited by: QuantumPhysics on 10/02/2008 04:47:44
Let me begin by stating that I am minmatar.

Let me also state that nerfing webs/nano would effectively nerf the following ships (ships listed apply only to Minmatar):

huginn (both web and nano)
rapier (both web and nano)
hyena (both web and nano)
vagabond
interceptors
interdictors
stabber
Minmatar frigates
Hurricane (in some cases, depends on how it is fitted)
Sleipnir
Claymore

The ships I have just listed are widely considered the "best" of Minmatar. Nerfing nano and webs, 2 things that the most effective Minmatar ships heavily rely on, you are effectively nerfing the Minmatar race.

Let me also state a few of the many possible solutions to this, if there were a nerf:
1. Overhaul the entire Minmatar race, change most of the ships bonuses/slot layouts/everything, change the general specialization of Minmatar
2. Delete the entire Minmatar race from EVE
3. Leave Minmatar as it is, do not buff it after the nerf

Note that all 3 options would logically result in the resignation of a great deal of Minmatar pilots who have invested time, money, and sp into specializing in nano. This, however, could be resolved by allowing Minmatar characters to transfer sp from "nerfed" areas (i.e. Minmatar-specific skills and nav. skills, etc.) to an area of another race's sp specialization.

Also I would like to point out that the "nano" trend has already had a considerable nerf (due to the nanophoon). I find it highly difficult to find a reason for me to continue to play eve if all this time i have been training, both sp-wise and pilot experience-wise in nanoships, and then it gets nerfed/balanced, what have you.

I would like to conclude my opinion by stating that CCP cannot simply hit the "nerf-button/nerf-bat" on nano -- that primal solution won't work this time -- it has been too engrained into the eve culture to do so. A more complex resolution must take place, such as changing minmatar's specialization.

P.S. Do you have any idea how hard it is to effectively fly a nanoship in real combat? I'm not talking wannabe's who call themselves nano***s. I'm talking people like 0utbreak. People like Blacksheep. (People like goons :D). If you don't know how hard it is, ask Gilgi.
Tbh this is the main reason ccp wont nerf speed tanking yet,people afraid of their fotm boats becoming useless are now putting their foot down,I do however feel sorry for pilots that have been playing minmatar before nanoing became fotm.

As for the useless stuff,yes the frigates and vaga will become somewhat useless but claymore and sleipnir?No these can function properly without nanoing just as the rapier and huggin,dont believe me?none of the other races(besides the nano curse)nano their recons,so the minmatar recons will still be viable...And the command ships/bcs will still have a use because of their punch power with a good tank.

And ccp will never let you change your specialization,and if they do there will be a massive amount of ammarrian players constantly sending petitions.

7shining7one7
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:51:00 - [79]
 

all this whine about nano fits, and web are

a) cause you don't know how the game works in relation to it.

b) cause your mad that someone who had a better fit killed you because your fit sucked to counter it

c) because your lobbying either because your a low sp char that wants to make things easier for yourself or because you want a one fit fits all scenarios type of game.

none of these whines are based in actual game facts, but mostly just take the form:

a) twisting certain details and omitting certain aspects, weither deliberately or just because you hadn't realized it, and

b) going on a rant about why your right using the aforementioned as "proof".

c) directing ccp to nerf it "because your right".

d) hoping ccp believes you.

e) ??????

f) hoping to profit.

stop dreaming, ccp won't wreck the game just cause you don't understand how to play it.

goodby4u
Valor Inc.
Valor Empire
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:03:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: 7shining7one7
all this whine about nano fits, and web are

a) cause you don't know how the game works in relation to it.

b) cause your mad that someone who had a better fit killed you because your fit sucked to counter it

c) because your lobbying either because your a low sp char that wants to make things easier for yourself or because you want a one fit fits all scenarios type of game.

none of these whines are based in actual game facts, but mostly just take the form:

a) twisting certain details and omitting certain aspects, weither deliberately or just because you hadn't realized it, and

b) going on a rant about why your right using the aforementioned as "proof".

c) directing ccp to nerf it "because your right".

d) hoping ccp believes you.

e) ??????

f) hoping to profit.

stop dreaming, ccp won't wreck the game just cause you don't understand how to play it.
So your going to tell me most of the roaming gangs out there ARENT using nano fit?Because as it seems thats how RZR and TRI operate and extremely affectively at that.

7shining7one7
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:09:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 10/02/2008 06:16:41
no i'm saying there are many viable counters and as long as there are viable counters there is no problem.

if there were no counters and they were completely invincible, then it would be another matter.

but that's not the case.

many nano ships turn to fine space dust every day in eve.

but you can't just fit an omni tank and sit around hitting f1-f8 and expect to beat every strategy that way.

so use the counters instead of going to the forum mobile and wanting ccp to change things for you because you don't want to use the counters to beat their strategy on the field. but want a 1 fit fits all so you can just beat any strategy with some arbitrary fit, regardless of the effort put into it by the opposing force.

because that's essentially what threads like these are asking for. cleverly disguised as "a genuine problem".

goodby4u
Valor Inc.
Valor Empire
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:17:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: 7shining7one7
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 10/02/2008 06:11:54
no i'm saying there are many viable counters and as long as there are viable counters there is no problem.

if there were no counters and they were completely invincible, then it would be another matter.

but that's not the case.

so use the counters instead of going to the forum mobile and wanting ccp to change things for you because you don't want to use the counters to beat their strategy on the field. but want a 1 fit fits all so you can just beat any strategy with some arbitrary fit, regardless of the effort put into it by the opposing force.

because that's essentially what threads like these are asking for. cleverly disguised as "a genuine problem".
There are counters for nano ships,ive listed them on more then one occasion,however when you get a gang of nano boats(usually between 10-30)you cannot counter every nano boat without either asking half your allience/corp to train minmatar or gimping your own gang,the fact of the matter is if you have 2-3 huggins in your gang against said group they will get roasted first,then your gang is useless against them.

And if the **** does hit the fan and the nano gang for any chance can be killed they will just run,no commitment no minimal losses.

7shining7one7
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:25:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 10/02/2008 06:33:56
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 10/02/2008 06:11:54
no i'm saying there are many viable counters and as long as there are viable counters there is no problem.

if there were no counters and they were completely invincible, then it would be another matter.

but that's not the case.

so use the counters instead of going to the forum mobile and wanting ccp to change things for you because you don't want to use the counters to beat their strategy on the field. but want a 1 fit fits all so you can just beat any strategy with some arbitrary fit, regardless of the effort put into it by the opposing force.

because that's essentially what threads like these are asking for. cleverly disguised as "a genuine problem".
There are counters for nano ships,ive listed them on more then one occasion,however when you get a gang of nano boats(usually between 10-30)you cannot counter every nano boat without either asking half your allience/corp to train minmatar or gimping your own gang,the fact of the matter is if you have 2-3 huggins in your gang against said group they will get roasted first,then your gang is useless against them.

And if the **** does hit the fan and the nano gang for any chance can be killed they will just run,no commitment no minimal losses.


no.. there are much better counters against full fleet nano's than just going in with 2-3 hugins...

you can't deal with nano fleets the same way you would deal with single or triple nano's.

think outside the box.. various types of ecm on specific targets, lots of small tacklers, certain drones en masse, certain command ships with certain bonuses. varous remote modules to increase.. various things, certain small damage dealers, and i'll let you fill in the blanks.. *hint* nano fits go pop if you hit them hard enough with a volley at the right time.

there are plenty of ways to take down nano fleets, and i'm looking forward to you exclaiming "eureka i figured it out Wink"

offcourse the nano gangs don't want you to know them, so they keep their mouth shut, continue steamrolling your omni fits, and pray that ccp won't nerf nano due to the whiners.

and not cause nano fits are imbalanced, just cause a lot don't even contemplate the counters but just go on the whine train and believe the whiners while continuing getting steamrolled as a result.

Solomon XI
Hidden Souls
Posted - 2008.02.10 07:50:00 - [84]
 

^^^ WHAT HE SAID!

Nano fleets are -easy- to beat down if you know how to. A little ECM, a Rapier or two, and look... those nano'd ships simply fall.

Webifiers don't need a NERF at ALL. They're perfectly good as they are now. Just because you cant use them properly or constantly get rolled by someone using them doesn't mean they need a nerf. You just need to learn how to PvP properly. Twisted Evil

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2008.02.10 10:23:00 - [85]
 

Please note: Nanosetups are not the only reason webs need changing. Why must every thread get hung up on the defense or complaint about this current flavor of the year?

Wouldn't it be nice to use all those frigate weapons that have ranges below 15km?
Wouldn't it benefit the game if Minmatar speed meant an advantage beyond the current fad?

They don't need buffing, they don't need nerfing, but they certainly need changing.

Ryysa
Mission Fail
Posted - 2008.02.10 10:52:00 - [86]
 

Haven't read the whole thread, but to clear up one common misconception.

Falloff does not directly decrease effectiveness.
It gives a module a percentage chance to activate at all.

To quote my EW guide:
Originally by: Ryysa
A module has a 100% chance to hit from 0km to it's optimal range. At optimal+falloff the chance to hit drops to 50% and at optimal +2xfalloff it is 0%. This means that at optimal+falloff there is a 50% chance that the module will fail and not do anything.

To determine the chance of success in falloff range, we use the following formula:
C = 0.5^((R-O)/F)^2)
Where R is the range from you to the target, O the optimal range of the module, F the falloff range of the module and C the chance of success.
As a result, you will get a multiplier. This is a chance multiplier. In case of jammers, just multiply the calculated chance by it. In case of other modules, this will simply show you the chances of the module succeeding at a given range.


What this means, that yes, over a long period of time, a module is 50% less efficient at optimal+falloff, but if you take smaller granularity, is basically means that the module will activate half the time.

Thus giving webs falloff will make it a game of complete random, you will just wait until it activates ONCE, then zoom to the target...

Utterly pointless.

Zarin
Posted - 2008.02.10 11:35:00 - [87]
 

If they reduced their effectiveness they would need to double to triple their range. At the moment their effectiveness is 0% outside 10km so...

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.02.10 22:05:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf


Wouldn't it be nice to use all those frigate weapons that have ranges below 15km?
Wouldn't it benefit the game if Minmatar speed meant an advantage beyond the current fad?



This, basically.

Even some cruiser weapons are considered violently substandard, because they involve entering webrange.

You can expect a frigate that enters webrange to die in very short order indeed at the moment. They're not very tough, they have no tank, they survive by being hard to hit.

1 web changes this, and it does.

A frigate at 15km on the other hand, is MUCH better, because it's a least likely to survive long enough to do it's job, be it tackling or whatever.

Webs with falloff, yes, they'd be chance based. Which may mean that you slow them down for a bit, frequently enough to stay within range of your warp disruptor and weapon systems.

Or maybe not, depending on how fast your ships are, and how far of of your optimal it is.

But it takes it to a variable effect, rather than the current situation, where _ANYTHING_ with mobility has to stay out of that 10km (well, 15km really) that means it just dies.

And please, take your nanoship trolling somewhere else. There's a lot of arguments either way regarding that FoTM, but that's not the point of this thread.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.02.10 22:06:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: echohead
I have not read the whole thread. But I find it really funny that this thread is 5 posts below "Nerf MWD"


Why does that suprise you? It's actually related - webs are high speed reduction modules, that 'everyone' fits in PvP, because under 10km they're extremely powerful.

MWDs are speed boost modules, that 'everyone' fits in PvP, because if they get webbed, especially without a speed mod THEY DIE.

The two problems, believe it or not, are related. It's not about the speed vs. anti-speed, it's about two modules that because they're SO MUCH better than any of the alternatives, they reduce the diversity of PvP.

Vahligmarr
Minmatar
Tribal Core
Posted - 2008.02.10 23:55:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: Vahligmarr on 10/02/2008 23:58:51
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: echohead
I have not read the whole thread. But I find it really funny that this thread is 5 posts below "Nerf MWD"


Why does that suprise you? It's actually related - webs are high speed reduction modules, that 'everyone' fits in PvP, because under 10km they're extremely powerful.

MWDs are speed boost modules, that 'everyone' fits in PvP, because if they get webbed, especially without a speed mod THEY DIE.

The two problems, believe it or not, are related. It's not about the speed vs. anti-speed, it's about two modules that because they're SO MUCH better than any of the alternatives, they reduce the diversity of PvP.


signed! if a game comes to this state, there should be done something. maybe a bit draconic, but without those module types, the game would be more fun.

sorry off topic a bit: after relizing this, it suddenly reminded me of a quite similar game - Magic The Gathering. Shocked
(believe it or not, deck building and ship fitting have so many similarities)

the trading card game magic the gathering had/has the same curse: wheenie (speed) <-> mana/hand destruction (web)....


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