Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Kruel
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 16:24:00 -
[361]
Quick & easy fix: Nos shouldn't work when MWD is active. Or alternatively, as has already been mentioned, give nos tracking.
|
Amiable Quinn
Minmatar Lasleinur Production Fimbulwinter
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 17:42:00 -
[362]
Edited by: Amiable Quinn on 17/01/2007 17:39:50 I suspect that the reason why many of the large alliance players have such a visceral dislike for nano-setups is they are outstanding at avoiding/breaking gatecamps.
Territorial control in this game is currently maintained through the use and threat of gatecamps, if hordes of pirates can slip through or avoid the gate-camp mechanic it makes it MUCH more difficult to control territory. I say threat because many folks don't even venture into 0.0 alliance territory because it is too much of a risk to lose their combat ship to a gate camp. As such the IDEA of a gatecamp acts as a detterent, and folks don't have to maintain them 24-7.
Now a decent gate-camp will still take out a nano-ship, but these are rarely maintained 24-7. Joe Solo headed out to 0.0 for a little piracy fun will most likely be able to avoid all but the largest gatecamps in a nano setup.
If nano ships continue to gain in popularity, alliances will need to actually patrol their holdings, with other nano-ships. (Having Nano ships at a gatecamp is not really effective, as the ships will high tail it back to the gate or be in warp well before most of these ships even lock). This will reduce the effective territory that an alliance is able to effectively hold. (Unless they use BoB's vassalization model and just make the tenants deal with them).
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
|
Nicocat
Caldari New Age Solutions
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 17:48:00 -
[363]
Originally by: Amiable Quinn Edited by: Amiable Quinn on 17/01/2007 17:39:50 I suspect that the reason why many of the large alliance players have such a visceral dislike for nano-setups is they are outstanding at avoiding/breaking gatecamps.
Territorial control in this game is currently maintained through the use and threat of gatecamps, if hordes of pirates can slip through or avoid the gate-camp mechanic it makes it MUCH more difficult to control territory. I say threat because many folks don't even venture into 0.0 alliance territory because it is too much of a risk to lose their combat ship to a gate camp. As such the IDEA of a gatecamp acts as a detterent, and folks don't have to maintain them 24-7.
Now a decent gate-camp will still take out a nano-ship, but these are rarely maintained 24-7. Joe Solo headed out to 0.0 for a little piracy fun will most likely be able to avoid all but the largest gatecamps in a nano setup.
If nano ships continue to gain in popularity, alliances will need to actually patrol their holdings, with other nano-ships. (Having Nano ships at a gatecamp is not really effective, as the ships will high tail it back to the gate or be in warp well before most of these ships even lock). This will reduce the effective territory that an alliance is able to effectively hold. (Unless they use BoB's vassalization model and just make the tenants deal with them).
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
No, you are correct, this is most true. Even if I hop into a large bubble, I can still MWD back to the gate I popped out of before the local inty can lock and web me (or at least glide there with my inertia or limp back before the damage dealers annihilate me). They're simply as uncampable as an inty, and people don't like something they can't stop. This is a valid point and I forgot about it.
Now, if we can only do something about those Fountain gates you can't MWD at... ----------------------------
Originally by: Splagada SEED ME DADDY
WTB: Friggin' portrait |
Plymer Ization
Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 18:20:00 -
[364]
Originally by: Raste Edited by: Raste on 17/01/2007 15:14:14
Originally by: Plymer Ization I was just reading the forums, like I do every day, and I came across the Nano-Myrm thread. It makes me wonder, what has caused this massive Nano/I-stab trend where every ship that can fit lots of Nos and a MWD suddenly becomes [fan fiction]
Its almost as though there was some huge change to I-Stabs in the Revelations patch.
Reading your post, I'd suggest that play more, forum less.
Sarcastic flamebait ftw.
And to answer nicely, I have a lot of time between classes to sit around and read, thanks.
|
Leon 026
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 18:34:00 -
[365]
Edited by: Leon 026 on 17/01/2007 18:32:36
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote: You know there's something horribly messed up when a battleship is flying faster than an interceptor.
Why do I see this quoted everywhere when talk goes to nano ships? Is there some particular reason you can't fit istabs/nanos on an interceptor now?
A speed inty will always be faster than a speed battleship. I see 9-12 km/s crows all the time and nobody even thinks twice, but a bs going a blazing 3km/s "flying past all those interceptors" draws comment ... remarkable.
And pray tell, how useful is a solo "speed inty" ? Oh right, it isnt, because it wont be able to kill anything, let alone be able to control it manually during flight.
And we arent talking about 3km/s BSes, we're talking about those that go 5-8km/s. -------
Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings |
Christopher Multsanti
Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 18:45:00 -
[366]
Originally by: Leon 026 Edited by: Leon 026 on 17/01/2007 18:32:36
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote: You know there's something horribly messed up when a battleship is flying faster than an interceptor.
Why do I see this quoted everywhere when talk goes to nano ships? Is there some particular reason you can't fit istabs/nanos on an interceptor now?
A speed inty will always be faster than a speed battleship. I see 9-12 km/s crows all the time and nobody even thinks twice, but a bs going a blazing 3km/s "flying past all those interceptors" draws comment ... remarkable.
And pray tell, how useful is a solo "speed inty" ? Oh right, it isnt, because it wont be able to kill anything, let alone be able to control it manually during flight.
O RLY?
It's great being Amarr that flys Minmintar aint it?
EVIL SYNNs > Bob are the best, we have to pay them to use the plexs...
|
Leon 026
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 22:35:00 -
[367]
Clicking orbit != manual flight. -------
Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings |
Nicocat
Caldari New Age Solutions
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 23:22:00 -
[368]
Originally by: Leon 026 Clicking orbit != manual flight.
I only use orbit in my nanoship half the time anyway. Most of it's trying to dance around a gang while picking apart one ship at a time. Flying these buggers is hard. ----------------------------
Originally by: Splagada SEED ME DADDY
WTB: Friggin' portrait |
Arian Snow
The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.01.17 23:48:00 -
[369]
okay people keep on bringing in RL exambles but this is a computergame so RL physics do not apply. But in the spirit of things here is my RL anology.
It is and never will be an advantage for a truck to have more space for structural upgrades than a Ferrari... so putting in 7 nanos on a BS should not be 7*times better than putting one nano in an interceptor. It is as simple as that. It does not matter if its in space or not. A Truck thats got 10 times more mass than a ferrari will allways weigh ten times more if the same materials are used!
So being able to boost BS's speed and agility as you can now makes no sense as long as you cant boost smaller ships with less lowslots with the same efficiency!
A stacking penalty would solve that pretty much! I dont remember I dont recall I dont have memory of anything at all! |
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 00:06:00 -
[370]
Came across a 10km/sec nano-typhoon on Sisi today, granted that's probably the very best you can achieve, but is that really what was envisioned for Battleships?...I doubt that somehow. ----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
|
Halafian
The Graduates
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 01:36:00 -
[371]
Can sentry drones do much with nano-ships? Or do they go too fast to shoot?
|
Eka Maladay
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 02:51:00 -
[372]
If you think Nano-Domi/Phoon are bad, wait till you see a Nano-Machariel.
|
Angelic Resolution
Arcanum Defence Forces
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 04:00:00 -
[373]
I went against a nanophoon 3 days ago, only reason I won was because my missiles kept firing after he sucked me cap dry. Drones couldn't keep up with him at all as he was going so fast and I doubt guns could have hit him either. TBH it'll get to the point where nano's turn into the kind of module that offline when you start firing weapons - so that your ship doesn't recoil out of control.
|
Ravelin Eb
Minmatar Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 04:30:00 -
[374]
I detect a vast amount of whinge in this thread, has anyone thought of using a webber? As a nanophoon pilot myself i understand alot of peoples negative views on this sort of gameplay, to be honest they are quite easy to deal with, any fast ship can tackle us. stabber, vaga, huginn/rapier, any inty, most af's and frigs. the average speed you will find a nano ship travelling at is around 2.5-3.5k/s which isnt that draw droppingly awesome. how some of you act its as if every nano pilot youve come across has a full grade snake set, and imo if they have spent the amount of isk to gain the upperhand they deserve not to die. People need to dry their eyes. its not as if its easy either, theres always the the risk of being bumped by a roid or a station, and you cant use them on gates or anywhere with sentrys. the dps is also frankly rubbish. so please take a look at the bigger picture.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 04:35:00 -
[375]
Im sorry but a battleship going twice as fast as a standard interceptor is just dumb. You shouldnt be able to get such speeds in a massive ship with massive amounts of hitpoints.
As mentioned above. Its not the question of existence of a counter or not. The question is, are there accessible counters? I mean sure you CAN counter a fast vagabond with a 30km recon web but 1% of gangs have one of those with em. So this would mean you pretty much safe 99% of times and can opt not to engage once you see that 1% counter on your scanner.
Lets take another example. There was a suggestion about amarr balancing and doing something special to lasers. The idea was let lasers penetrate through armor and do small amounts of hull damage. The poster thought this was a great idea because you could counter it with dc and hull repper. But its a horrible idea for balance because there would be too few ships fitting hull reppers just in case they would meet an amarr ship in a longer battle.
Nano setups has to get a nerf and I think i feel it coming.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 09:53:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Ravelin Eb I detect a vast amount of whinge in this thread, has anyone thought of using a webber? As a nanophoon pilot myself i understand alot of peoples negative views on this sort of gameplay, to be honest they are quite easy to deal with, any fast ship can tackle us. stabber, vaga, huginn/rapier, any inty, most af's and frigs. the average speed you will find a nano ship travelling at is around 2.5-3.5k/s which isnt that draw droppingly awesome. how some of you act its as if every nano pilot youve come across has a full grade snake set, and imo if they have spent the amount of isk to gain the upperhand they deserve not to die. People need to dry their eyes. its not as if its easy either, theres always the the risk of being bumped by a roid or a station, and you cant use them on gates or anywhere with sentrys. the dps is also frankly rubbish. so please take a look at the bigger picture.
A what? a web?!, of course! why did no-one think of that before!....
What really happens is this:
*nano-ship gets in web range through error/stupidity* *webbed* *nano-ships momentum carries it straight through and beyond web range*
...reading the entire thread helps save a lot of time (yes this has already been pointed out many pages back)...
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 10:19:00 -
[377]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Kagura Nikon Hit and run is attacking the weakest point on the main combat force and withdraw before you can be counter engaged effectively. The best example was the Luftwaffe tactics during ww2, where their faster planes would dive upon allied planes hit them hard and withdraw immediatelly, since they were no match in continuous low level combat.
We want Hit and Run, not guerrilha tactics, thjat do not require speed, but stealthness.
You said it yourself - "the weakest point". You do not saw such tactics used against an concentrated enemy force as it is possible with speedsetups.
Basically, the problem is that the hit & run tactics in eve are too effective atm. The air combat example is actually good to show this. In order to utilize their hit & run tactics the german fighters needed an height advantage, used this to makee a strafing run and then disengaged. If it would be like in eve they would meet at even height and then fly circles around the other planes.
A nanoship vs normal ships combat is more like fighters vs bombers, exept that the "bombers" are fighters, too.
If nanoBS would not have inty-like agility and could only make strafing runs because orbiting at high speed isn't possible you wouldn't see nearly as many complaints about them.
Yes that could work, but since the first and second HP upgrades a single pass wont kil anything. The only ship that can kill another ship in 1 volley is a Tempest shoting 1400mm at a cruiser.
But i Kind of agree that would be enough balanced that nanoships would need to move in and out of the scramble range to make a second pass. That would make them unable to lock an enemy in fight. So it would be fair.. both sides can decide to bug out...
Can you be satisfied with that?
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
kaike
Minmatar Darklite inc
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 10:26:00 -
[378]
Not only a Tempest any other good *sniper* fitted BS can do that ex:Meastrom whit 8 x 1400 II and tracking ect can also kill in 1 volley.... thats not the point :(
But it seems the nano gang's are getting poppulair and it's hard to stop them .
Alt of :padraig animal |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 10:51:00 -
[379]
Originally by: kaike Edited by: kaike on 18/01/2007 10:25:00 Edited by: kaike on 18/01/2007 10:24:37 Not only a Tempest any other good *sniper* fitted BS can do that ex:Meastrom whit 8 x 1400 II and tracking ect can also kill in 1 volley.... thats not the point :(
But it seems the nano gang's are getting poppulair and it's hard to stop them .
Only way is 2/3 full tackle ships and nos...even then it's a hard job.
I was just pointing that if nanoships were made to make single busrt passes only , they would have zero effect since they cant kill anything on single pass, not even a t1 cruiser.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:28:00 -
[380]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon But i Kind of agree that would be enough balanced that nanoships would need to move in and out of the scramble range to make a second pass. That would make them unable to lock an enemy in fight. So it would be fair.. both sides can decide to bug out...
Can you be satisfied with that?
Oh, a possibility of a consensus?
Yes, it would at least make them balanced IMO. Their advantage of high survivability would be balanced by a high survivability of their target.
NanoBS would be able to overcome this by flying in pairs, of cource and timing their flybys so always 1 WD the target, but that would be IMO ok because that would actually require a bit of skill and teamwork.
|
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:16:00 -
[381]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 18/01/2007 12:13:30 Straight line speeds of several km/sec would be fine, re-balances things while allowing high speed 'strafing runs' as you say. But I suppose they would have to change MWD's so that they 'lock' your velocity vector, not sure if that is possible with the current engine...
edit: unless they applied a huge penalty to agility... ----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:27:00 -
[382]
"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.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:36:00 -
[383]
Originally by: j0sephine "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.
Well, I would say ĉhugeĈ as in make it bigger still, but then I suppose straight-line acceleration and agility aren't really separately distinguished in the game, which would result in a severe effect on the straight-line acceleration of non-nano ships...
Perhaps the solution is simply a stacking penalty on nano-fibres and inertia stabs, but not on overdrive injectors, i.e. if you want the extreme speed, you have to use overdrives and take the corresponding drop in agility, limiting to near straight line 'strafing runs'.
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:38:00 -
[384]
They would simply have to flag the -inertia bonus of nanofibers and instabs for the stacking penality. It would almost half the agility bonus for a ship with 6 of them. Maybe reduce the bonus itself a bit as well if that isn't enough.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:47:00 -
[385]
I think a simple stack nerf, standard one would be enoughYou would hardly ever had more than 35% agility boost. That would be failry satisfactory I think, sicne would not affect small ships that already use only 2 or 3 speed mods.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
Shayla Sh'inlux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:54:00 -
[386]
Or remove the agility bonus from Nano's and then give Overdrives a slight agility penalty.
Originally by: "Cy4n1d3"
You can't PVP with 4 mids.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 15:12:00 -
[387]
That would be too much and completely gimp smaller ships using nanofibers. The desired effect is that the number of low slots do not make large ships better for high speed combat than smaller ships.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
Shayla Sh'inlux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 01:46:00 -
[388]
Why would that "totally gimp" them? It's not as it's THAT much agility loss since, you know, smaller ships don't exactly fit 4 or so.
You want to be faster, sure. Sacrifice some maneuverability; makes perfect sense.
Originally by: "Cy4n1d3"
You can't PVP with 4 mids.
|
Aizhan Ushrakhan
The Sword and The Shield
|
Posted - 2007.02.02 02:15:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Arian Snow Edited by: Arian Snow on 18/01/2007 00:04:54 okay people keep on bringing in RL exambles but this is a computergame so RL physics do not apply. But in the spirit of things here is my RL analogy.
It is and never will be an advantage for a truck to have more space for structural upgrades than a Ferrari... so putting in 7 nanos on a BS should not be 7*times better than putting one nano in an interceptor. It is as simple as that. It does not matter if its in space or not. A Truck thats got 10 times more mass than a ferrari will allways weigh ten times more if the same materials are used!
So being able to boost BS's speed and agility as you can now makes no sense as long as you cant boost smaller ships with less lowslots with the same efficiency!
A stacking penalty would solve that pretty much!
This nano thingy is way out of control, but seriously like he said a truck shouldnt go as fast as a Ferrari or an F1-Car..the inty can go higher than the nanos BSes but thats just it ..it has very low mass ..a BS has huge mass but its goin faster than anything else apart from inties. Nerf it aldy. Yes there are counters to the nanos but we are talking about unbalanced game play favouring this silly speed tanked BSes. And yes they cost a small fortune but seriously think about it people.. do u want to see your shiny porsche outrunned by an 18 wheeled truck? Thats just sick. |
Sionide
|
Posted - 2007.02.02 03:47:00 -
[390]
Quote:
This nano thingy is way out of control, but seriously like he said a truck shouldnt go as fast as a Ferrari or an F1-Car..the inty can go higher than the nanos BSes but thats just it ..it has very low mass ..a BS has huge mass but its goin faster than anything else apart from inties. Nerf it aldy. Yes there are counters to the nanos but we are talking about unbalanced game play favouring this silly speed tanked BSes. And yes they cost a small fortune but seriously think about it people.. do u want to see your shiny porsche outrunned by an 18 wheeled truck? Thats just sick.
This argument is purely an aesthetic reasoning. In otherwords an 18 wheeled truck shouldn't be faster than your porsche because you like the look of the porsche better (it's "shiny" [sic]). Yes, the design of the porsche was for speed, while the 18 wheeled truck quite obviously wasn't. However, that reasoning now does not stand since if someone "nanofied" their BS then it was designed to go fast.
The porsche and 18 wheeled truck analogy also fails due to the fact that the 18 wheeled truck will not be as fast as the porsche because of the constraints on earth (i.e. gravity and mass - hence friction, etc). These things do not apply to space, and thus only the thrust of the MWD/AB and mass would have a place in the equation. So, if the thruster is great enough to deal with the mass it is thrusting on (which a BS-sized MWD is designed for), then by this reasoning there is no problem for the speed it should be able to reach.
Now an argument if they are overpowered is another statement altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |