|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.11 23:55:00 -
[1]
"What a stupid thread. (..)
If I rig for speed I'm behind enemy lines, solo or only in a small gang. Now, 0.0 space isn't "solo-player space". You are supposed to have friends there. Work as a team and suddenly it's easy to kills a nanoship."
Wait a moment here; if 0.0 space isn't "solo-player space", why are you defending setup which allows you to do precisely the thing you are not supposed to be able to do, i.e. operate solo in 0.0 space?
If you demand people to group in order to fight you in 0.0, then by the same token you should be unable to operate there without group yourself. Pick one or the other, rather than apply different rules to yourself and the others o.(
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.12 00:15:00 -
[2]
Edited by: j0sephine on 12/01/2007 00:13:38
"Sorry, should have been clearer. I meant 0.0 space isn't solo-space for the people living there. If you're in 0.0 you are trying to achieve something as a group, at least most people living there belong to a 0.0 corp/alliance...or you're the ebil pirate fighting those guys, in which case you'll be heavily outnumbered lots of times, so you need speed."
If you are "ebil pirate fighting in 0.0 space" then you live in that space and should play by its rules like everyone else. You don't *need* speed, you *want* it because it allows you to do the very thing you deny these "0.0 people" ... and you want it for no other reason but your unwilingness to be arsed.
And if you can't be arsed to play in group, don't dictate others they should be playing in a way you wouldn't want to play yourself. Because how are you going to justify it..?
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.12 00:42:00 -
[3]
"So..to summarize it a bit...what could be done?"
If you wanted specifically hit the stabs and nanofiber setups...
* inertia stabs currently remove fraction of mass. switch it to fixed value, similar to how armour plates affect the weight. This way stabilizer which has significant effect on light ship would have far smaller effect on large ship. For large ships there could be perhaps 'medium' and 'large' modules with matching fitting requirements.
* nanofiber structure / overdrives are at the moment opposite -- they add fixed speed bonus, which means they have far larger effect on large ships, than they give the smaller ships. Change it to fraction of ship base instead, with stacking penalty that ensures the speed growth remains linear with multiple modules fitted rather than expotential.
... that's of course in case there was actually intention to adjust how these modules work. Not entirely sure if that's desirable tbh o.O;
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.12 15:33:00 -
[4]
Edited by: j0sephine on 12/01/2007 15:31:20
"Nanoships are the perfect antiblob weapons..."
It's actually more complicated, and rather silly when you look closer at it... even in this thread. According to people defending this particular tactics:
* nano-setups are blob counters * "want to kill a nano-ship? blob up!"
... if we accept both these comments as true, then you have situation where this kind of tactics is some sort of self-propelling blob catalyst. I.e. the more people use the nanoships the more they force others to blob which makes more people use 'anti-blob' nano-setups which in turn forces people to blob up even more if they want to counter it... in the long run if blobbing is considered harmful, then the nanosetups are having negative effect on the game by encouraging the blobbing... with no real benefit offered in return.
Then you have another aspect -- because the whole "just blob up!" advice is really just nano-pilots blowing smoke up people arses so they can still have their anti-blob fun and the only real counter to nano-setup is another nano-ship, when you get people to actually realize it then it becomes world where ultimately everyone and their dog runs the same flavour of the month (or blob, because they didn't get the memo yet or are still believing the "just blob up!" smokescreen) ... and really, the game where everyone runs the same thing isn't very exciting. We've been there quite enough times already by now --;;
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.12 16:56:00 -
[5]
"2600/4000 is 0.65 200/340 is 0.58. So in fact its EASIER to hit it than to hit a typhoon at its common speed without MWD.
Please learn how game works. Really."
... so, uhmm. Let's see what you did there.
You compared:
(mwd-affected signature * target painter) / mwd speed = 0.65
vs:
non-mwd speed / signature = 0.58
... i.e. two completely different operations. While if we put non-mwd numbers to your first equation we get:
(320 * 1.3) / 200 = 2.08
Please learn how the math works..? Really...
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.12 18:08:00 -
[6]
"Yes indeed Nerf the only advantage of minmatar! So those unimaginative players can kill everything with there I win setup!"
If nano-setups are "the only advantage of Minmatar" then it means that's all the Minmatar players are using. How are then the kills they score with such single "i win" setup any more imaginative?
Pot, meet kettle...
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.12 18:14:00 -
[7]
"Ok i Really missed that on the explanation. Anyway that shows tah a single target painter compensate for the nanosetup. And so many people say there is no way to counter a nanosetup. A single module is enough!"
Uhmm no; it shows the nano-setup with MWD blasting is roughly 3+ times harder to hit than the regular battleship moving at its base speed. All the target painter is doing there is modification of hit chance from ~0.5 to 0.65 (30% increase) but it's by no means compensating for the extra speed advantage.
In order to compensate, the equation of "mwd speed * painter / signature" would have to be equal to "base speed / signature" ... while these numbers are 0.65 and 1.6 respectively (nearly 2.5x advantage to speed setup)
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.12 19:32:00 -
[8]
"Small and medium turrets can track nanophoon's easy... Hell slap a couple of tracking mods on a BS and they can toast them too. I don't know quite how tracking works but even with orbit velocities of 4km/s Medium Guns can still track me, and I've been driven off by a solo ArtyPest packing the low end Large Arties with about 4 tracking mods in mids and lows despite orbiting him at about 3500m/s and with a tracking disruptor on him he was scoring hits approximately 2/3s of the time."
Out of curiosity, did any of these setups actually manage to kill you? (without any kind of external assistance)
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.12 19:46:00 -
[9]
Edited by: j0sephine on 12/01/2007 19:44:01
"No... But they didn't die etiher. Your point is?"
Same issue people have with stabbed setups. If one side in the fight has two outcomes: "die or not die" and the other side has two outcomes: "kill or not die", then there's inherent lack of balance here that's beyond obvious.
or in less words -- the worst outcome for the nano setup is what's the best outcome for ship facing them. Go ahead and try to explain how it's "working as intended" -.o
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.13 02:11:00 -
[10]
"The nanoship sacrifices firepower and tanking power (it can only speed tank missiles and drones) for the ability to solo. A dual rep Domi, or tempest is a much more powerful ship than a nanophoon or domi. The only difference is that you can't effectively solo in those ships."
Except if one ship does something that another cannot do then it'd be that first ship that's actually "more powerful" in situation at hand.
Or to put it in another way: more firepower or stronger tank are theoretical superiority. People fly the nanosetups instead because they turn out superior in practice ... the practice which in addition to calculations of dps and tank ability also takes into account the risk of dying and involved loss.
"Although it is hard to kill a nano ship without a rapier or huginn, it is very easy to force them to disengage."
And it's very easy for the nano ship to disengage when they choose so. So we have a setup able to pick weak targets and easily run if the odds are turned against them. Are you sure this is right direction for EVE to follow? If it is, i have to wonder why people choose to complain about ctrl-q'ing when facing unfavourable odds etc. After all it's the very same unwilingness to lose one's ship in situation where one doesn't have the upper hand...
"Nanoships are a step in the right direction for EVE as well. Every single patch pushes EVE PvP away from solo and small gang PvP towards blobs. Nanosetups that allow soloing are good."
See above. Add to it another consideration: this isn't by any means discouraging blobs. In the long run this is merely encouraging blobs of nano ships.
That's because currently nano ships have upper hand when facing current model of slow, heavy hitters. When a nano ship is answer to fighting nano ships *and* allows to be effective against slow ships, switching to them is no brainer and eventually most of playerbase is going to head that route. At which point you start to experience the very same thing we got with regular setup over last couple of years -- people gathering up in numbers to ensure they can outdamage the other side running the same setups.
Or in other words; you can consider interceptors a prototype of nano ship, in the sense they allow(ed) to roam and strike targets fast like no other ships in EVE. One could also make semi-silly argument their damage level is low to the point where it isn't that far off from current nano ships, for further similarity.
Did it automagically made people roam in small gangs of interceptors? No, these who could would roam in packs of 20-40 to ensure they can kill anything on their way, single enemy interceptors and small packs of such included. This is that 'right' direction your EVE is heading to, except it's gangs of 20-40 nano-battleships zipping around. Why? Because they can and because it's safer this way than zipping around just as 1-2 nano-ships.
|
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.13 02:55:00 -
[11]
"There's plenty of ships that can do this already, none of them are nanosetups."
More specifically..?
"As for willingness to lose your ship.. this isn't a chivalrous game."
Precisely; hence why you're only going to see the safe setups like nano ships grow in numbers, to the point where they start to form blobs themselves.
We already had it with the mwd stacking and then with the stabs. At certain point the number of ships running this sort of setup reaches critical mass where pretty much no one can really kill anyone without getting 5:1 odds just to prevent them from running away, and then the whining volume on the forum reaches comparably untolerable level, and the changes to mechanics follow. May as well learn something from the history rather than repeat it yet again o.O;
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.13 03:32:00 -
[12]
Edited by: j0sephine on 13/01/2007 03:30:27
"so what would you suggest?"
You have skipped page 3 of this thread, at least... because it's posted there ^^
although suggestions posted there are one approach (adjusting the hull modules in a way that affects large ships rather than smaller) Quite different --and am not sure if not more desirable-- way would be to hit the cap drain modules with *velocity threshold* effect similar to how explosion velocity works... i.e. mechanics where the greater is the speed vector between both ships involved, the less effect from cap draining modules.
Done this way, it could throw a spanner into the 'orbit at full speed while both nossing to death and getting the cap to keep going' approach, while not removing possibility of doing either of these separately. A side effect would be reduced impact of heavy neutralizers on small and/or naturally fast ships though, which for some would be a blessing and for some a reason to complain. Like usual :s
"then when they run into a regular fleet, end up spread out all over the battlefield and get pwned or run away they can ask their FC why the hell they all had to fit nano setups instead of tanks / regular setups "
Wait; we have people using here the ability to "counter the blobs" by small packs of nano ships as primary argument why nano ships are needed. What makes you presume they are out of sudden going to fight on terms of the classic blob, nevermind lose? (other than wishful thinking)
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.13 05:25:00 -
[13]
Edited by: j0sephine on 13/01/2007 05:23:07
"i like the idea of hull mods affecting BS's different than smaller ships. but with rigs/implants/gang effects/boosters you are STILL going to see fast battleships."
Of course; but the difference becomes if you will, like difference between what used to be pulse-geddon with all lows of the heatsinks and not even old stacking penalty applied, and the same geddon with the same guns but the damage mods conforming to current stacking model. A (relatively) fast battleship isn't a problem per se, what may be considered one is battleship-sized interceptor in terms of speed of agility (and especially when sporting battery of heavy nos to boot)
"the variable nos per speed or vs smaller targets is also an option (and one i can be somewhat sympathetic w/). but if we gonna attack nos, lets attack nos, not mix it in w/ speed setups."
I like the nos tweak better myself but i can't say with any certainty if focusing strictly on it would be best route. Since the 'problem' is mostly combination of high speed *and* the nos, perhaps effective solution would be also looking at both factors and tweaking each of them a bit rather than just one of them selectively and hard.
Luckily for me 'tis something for Tux to solve and take the flack for :s
"its vagaphobia all over again. its not overpowered, its not a win button, its a niche setup nothing more."
Like flying with warp stabs- oh, wait ;s
for all the arguments how it's balanced because it makes people give up all the precious lows which means no tanking ability yadda yadda... sounds familiar? ... the number of people who did choose them over questionable benefit of more damage or better tanks was rather overwhelming.
"when something is overpowered it needs nerfed. something is overpowered when its pro's far outweigh its cons and their aren't any viable countermeasures. In this case sacrificing your entire setup to be fast is definitely a big 'con' and there are a multitude of coutermeasures."
Sacrifice and countermeasures are base for theoretical nerfs or lack thereof, but generally something is deemed overpowered when it becomes close to mandatory (in the sense you are given odd stares if it's revealed you are not using it) ... in other words this is something that's judged by how the game population feels about it. Similar to how sacrificing your entire setup to fit rack of stabs wasn't generally found a big enough 'con' to not use them, and the widespread use led to equally widespread whining and consequently to the nerfs.
"ppl also dont like that its outside the box, they aren't used to fighting it."
Oh please. it's not "outside the box" when it's been a recurring theme in one slightly different version or another for what, two+ years now? People don't like to lose and they'll always try to maximize their chances to escape. (be it through stabs, logging or increasing odds to run out of scrambling range) There's nothing "outside the box" about it, 'tis the basic survival instinct and the ego at stake, combined ;s
"But nothing is wrong with speed setups. they are fun... AND risky."
I think we can cut the bull here, there's no need for it ^^
The setups are preferred because the risk of death is reduced, not increased. People play in ways that allows them to minimize their risk... and if they can delude themselves they're "underdogs fighting the odds and sticking it to the man" while at it, then that's the bonus that makes it fun ;s
(i like the intie hunts and taking apart large targets with small ship is entertaining as heck, but i'd have to be mad to consider that more risk than taking that battleship single-handedly through enemy territory in regular combat setup. *That* is risky, perhaps even insanely so ¼¼;
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.13 17:00:00 -
[14]
"Something that is mandatory is overpowered? There's way too many modules and weapons that are mandatory in eve.. they aren't overpowered at all."
I didn't word it in the best way possible, but perhaps it was a mistake to hope the meaning isn't too difficult to grasp. There's items in game which can be considered mandatory if one wants to secure a kill (way to deal damage and something to pin the enemy down) ... and then there's items which are not technically required but are nevertheless fitted by everyone and the kitchen sink because they're considered noticeably more optimal choice than any possible alternative.
It's the latter case that suggest something may be wrong with the module/combination thereof in question.
"Simply they are effective at what they do and hence people use them."
Precisely; something that's more effective than anything else you could fit instead may be (relatively) overpowered. It's not rocket science.
"As for being widespread.. the raven is the most commonly used BS in all of Eve, more than twice the combined of other BSes. Does that make the raven overpowered?"
Raven is most commonly used NPC battleship due to how effective she is while requiring little training to reach that performance. There's been numerous threads about how overpowered that makes both her and the missiles. And yes, it got the missiles nerfed, it brought the extra skills to missile branch to require larger investment of skillpoints etc. I wouldn't be very surprised if some further tweaks to Raven and/or missiles happened at some point down the road because like you point out, she's still considerably more effective in certain areas than other ships of her class.
"If all the whiners keep asking for everything that is unique and special to be nerfed to oblivion.. why not go play another less complex game where theres no combat tactics used, just enemies sitting back pressing F1-F8.. oh wait, that's what blob pvp is all about. Stupid."
"Stupid" part would be passing this sort of judgement with no personal experience of the matter at hand. If you think fleet combat is all about pressing couple keys and there's no tactical element involved... you might want to educate yourself.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.14 16:16:00 -
[15]
"P.S.P.S. Nanoships get really owned by lots of small ships."
About anything dies to large pack of enemies, not like that's some unique extra kind of weakness nanoships have.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.15 15:59:00 -
[16]
"Me and an enemy nanophoon decided to have a ****ing contest earlier. We both went about the same speed. What I did was fly away from him and drop my speed below optimal until he got close, then dropped a field of heavy drones in his face.
(..)
So, no more whining about nano ships. Get creative with drones and the deployment of drones."
So, what ship were you in that allowed you to move at the speed of nanophoon and deploy a number of heavy drones..? I mean you aren't trying to say what's already been said in this thread, that in order to fight nano-ship you need a nano-ship yourself? :s
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.15 18:27:00 -
[17]
"I too was in a nanoship, yes. But the idea is to make the nanoship charge at you. When he gets close and starts to pull up for his orbit (say at 40km away or so), drop the drones and send them after him. He should run smack into them. =P"
And how do you suggest to put enough distance between a nanoship and yourself to make them charge you so you are able to deploy drones etc... when the other ship is moving 3-5 km/sec faster than your own ship? Short of them being dumb and trying to charge you from warp-in that's 80+ km away to begin with, that is...
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.15 18:30:00 -
[18]
Edited by: j0sephine on 15/01/2007 18:32:03
"That nanoships aren't more invincible than any other ship."
This doesn't work. Here's your logic process:
* nano-ships have far easier time running away than regular ships * nano-ships and regular ships are both vulnerable to EW * nano-ships and regular ships are equally vulnerable, period.
(it ignores the aspect where these ships *are* less vulnerable, to achieve desired effect you're trying to sell)
edit: "Mind you, unless nanoship has faction disruptor, and you have mwd fitted, you can just mwd in a direction with 1 cap inj boost, and he'll drop out of orbit, and you'll be able to warp off, or you can do it the other way around, and get him webbed."
Agility/acceleration difference *and* speed difference. Very much like trying to web light missile nano-crow while flying rocket plate crow. As long as the other pilot has as much brain as you do, you can forget it. If they're more stupid (say, pressed f1-f8 and went afk) then well, it's not the setup that allowed you to get there but the pilot's shortcoming.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.16 15:26:00 -
[19]
"I wish all ppl had this attitude >.<"
It appears people in this thread do have this attitude: "closest thing you're going to get to a solopwnmobile* right now, and a little too risk-free for general roaming for my personal taste" ... yet strangely enough this is the point you've been argumentative about.
*) and to quote Oveur from another thread, "battleship wasn't mean as solopwnmobile" ... read whatever you want into it.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.16 15:34:00 -
[20]
"People that complain of nanoships are 99% of time one of the following:
-Too narrow minded to accept that fighting is 100% about choosing a fight -Too narrow minded to accept tha tothers may not like the simple I have more tank than you so i Win game - Too Selfish to play in gang.
really Learn to play!"
Am afraid if works both ways. Just see:
People who defend the nano-setups are 99% one of the following:
- too narrow minded to accept the risk of not being 100% able to pick the fight - too narrow minded to accept that others may not like the simple you can't catch me so i either win or run game - too selfish to play in gang
... should i tell you to heed your own advice, then..? I don't think so, but then maybe you could at least keep it on some sort of respectful level.
"How about light webber drones with high speed?"
These weren't put in the game when Sisi tests showed small ships were too vulnerable to them.
|
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.16 15:49:00 -
[21]
"I guess, what i am trying to say is that, NanoBS, while overpowered in some ways, spice up the game of "I have the bigger blob than you" game, which has totally ruined solo/small scale pvp in 0.0. Honestly, if you go anywhere in 0.0 to get a fight atm, how high are the odds that you won't be outnumbered at least 3:1, before people "agree" to fight you?
The game mechanics are really broken atm in eve, you need to bump people off gates just to kill them etc, because of insane hp bonus or you need a huge gang to kill someone => more blobs. Also ppl logoff instantly, so you have 40 seconds to kill them => again more blobs."
It's pretty true but then am afraid this isn't really game mechanics that are broken* it's the people who play the game that want to avoid the risk as much as possible -- so you get the blobs to ensure the upper hand, which leads to increased focused damage that nothing can tank, which leads to hp changes which means anything solo has hard time achieving anything etc... the nano ships in this mess ain't helping at all because they are just slightly different aspect of the same core problem, i.e. people trying to avoid loss at all cost.
Consequently i don't like the nano ships because they're reinforcing further what's wrong with the game... while people defending them try to do it under disguise this is actually good. And i believe that's a mistake in the long run, and it'll screw up the mechanics even further if left unaddressed :/
*) or rather, the mechanics are currently warped thanks to the attitude of people who play. in other words, we're all victims of our --generic term-- own attitude :|
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.16 16:55:00 -
[22]
"your attempt to use reverse logic is at least.. pathetic. You relly never had first order logic classes in your life don't you?"
Am not reversing anything here. This is to point out you can apply identical opinionated judgement to arguments both pro and against the nano setups. I.e. if unwilingness to play in gang using regular setups is "selfish", then the same applies to identical unwilingness to play in gang that makes people opt for the nano setups. Etc.
Oh and while i didn't indeed take any kind of formalized debate classes, am quite aware arguments ad personam are generally less effective than addressing the point at hand, since they tend to show lack of valid counter-point.
"The speed option is not narrow mined because having a chance to escape do not esclude the chance of stay andf die. Also it does not esclude the chance of playing as the opthers like while allowing to play as you like."
Afraid "narrow minded" is opinion, not a fact. If you are willing to attach personal opinion to something in attempt to make it an argument, you lose the right to complain about being subjected to the same.
Regarding the "chance of playing as the others like while allowing to play as you like" -- this is not the case, since like pointed out multiple times by now the only real counter to nano ships are nano ships themselves. I.e. when you insist to be allowed to utilize these setups, you're essentially forcing people to choose between "play by my rules and fly nano ship too or die" which is hardly different from what you're complaining about.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.16 17:01:00 -
[23]
"I am nost insulting anyone, He/She/it just tried to subvert my post in a way that was unacceptable. No real arguemnt was used on that post and was only degenerative to the discussion.
My post was just a statement that this type of tactic bring up nothing to the discussion."
Funny you would say it, since it was a copy of your own post. By the same token your 'l2play narrow minded nubs' was just as pointless and degenerative; thank you for realizing the point i was making.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:27:00 -
[24]
"edit: unless they applied a huge penalty to agility..."
They already do -- working MWD/AFB increases mass of the ship by ~50% which has direct effect on the agility... except the multiple unstacked inertia stabs offset that and then some.
|
|
|
|