| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
    |
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:31:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 16/06/2008 06:39:37
Okay, I'm tired so I'll try to keep this short and to the point. I make no claims to eloquency or coherence due to exhaustion, but here goes:
Nano/speed setups are taking the fun out of the game for many of the players. Simply put, they're overpowered; one should not be the next best thing to invulnerable against most conventional ships and setups. Even assuming you can hit a nanoer in the first place, its speed will usually allow it to escape the moment it is taking fire. In certain circumstances speed setups can be destroyed, but these usually require significantly more skill, numbers, and\or effort than it does to fly nanos in the first place. In short, the risk vs. reward is fubar.
In addition, nanos make many ships and setups obsolete, rendering them largely useless on the battlefield. For those who are specialized in said ships and prefer those playstyles, it makes the game largely unplayable. (Here is where nanoers will chime in with the "then adapt!" mantra that is so widely touted, but understand that just because you enjoy flying nanos or the ships and setups and blobs that counter them doesn't mean that everyone else does. This is a game - if doing the things necessary to win isn't fun then people will simply quit and go play something else instead.)
Proponents of nanos will, no doubt, come in here and state that nanos are required because of capital hotdrops and blobs, and I will even agree to a small extent. Capital hotdrops and blobs have become more prevalent, so people have taken to using a mechanic--nanos--that destroys the fun of sub-capital, non-blob PvP as a method to avoid dying to them. (While I personally believe something should be done about the prevalence of capital ships anywhere but highesc, that's a discussion for another thread.) Whenever any suggestion is made to weaken nano setups, certain reactionaries will immediately state that PvP would be impossible without nano/speed setups. I maintain that the opposite is true - there would be more PvP with reduced effect of nano/speed setups. There are many people, myself included, who don't play much because they don't enjoy flying nanos, don't enjoy fighting nanos (I don't like flying a rapier, don't enjoy having to drag a gang around with me 23/7, and the ships I prefer to fly aren't good at countering nanos, bar the tempest). However, there would be more risk, back to the level that obtained in 2005 and 2006.
In any case, I personally think speed tanking should still be viable, but slower. I'd like to see maximum speeds reduced to something more reasonable, perhaps in the range of 2.5-3km/s for HACs. Doubtless some people would say that such a "slow" ship would be utterly destroyed today, but that's large because the ships that would be chasing would be faster too. Nerf speed setups somewhat and it levels the playing field. Speed setups, at least for certain ships, were perfectly viable before the nano buff, even with the "slow" 3km/s velocities they could achieve. As an example, the old 3km/s vagabond from before the nano buff was a perfectly balanced ship. It was fast, but not to the point that it couldn't be caught. It also couldn't perma-sustain its MWD, and its guns had to track their targets. All of these combined to make a very good vessel which was also the top-selling tech II ship of its time--people would pay as much as 200 million ISK for one!
This change, may, however, require an adjustment to certain other ships to become viable, as the web range of the huginn and rapier is far enough to be a major problem. If the web range of these ships was reduced to 20km at the same time as speed tanking is reduced, then it should go a long way in helping keep things in line.
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:32:00 -
[2]
Anyway, I need to get to bed. I really started to ramble there at the end, and I apologize. I may come back and clean this up and provide more supporting information tomorrow if I'm not too frazzled by the time I get off work.
TL;DR
Nanos are overpowered. They make other ships obsolete, encourage blobbing, and destroy the normal PvP their proponents say they encourage.
Reduce the max speeds achievable and you will bring them into balance, though this may require a rebalance to the Minmatar recons and EAS as well.
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Feng Schui
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:36:00 -
[3]
Please, for the love of all that is holy, nerf the crap out of speed setups. I had a webbed vagabond outrun my T2 Valkyries.. wtf?
Project:Gank
Pilgrim Guide
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:55:00 -
[4]
holy hell batman! the first nano whine thread in here
oh, and NO
|
Dlardrageth
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 07:02:00 -
[5]
Not in favour of a plain nerf, but some rebalancing might be in order, I think.
 |
Kasheem Cetanes
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 07:40:00 -
[6]
If you Nerf Nano, you Nerf Minmatar into uselessness. End of Story. Next?
|
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 07:55:00 -
[7]
Hell no.
Thumbs down.
______
Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 10:55:00 -
[8]
So in addition to nerfing the speed of my Rapier, you want to nerf it's effectiveness with webs too? What a fantastic idea, I can't see anything wrong with it. 
If you think the Huginn/Rapier is overpowered, don't try to mask your whine as a nanoship whine.
|
Yosarian
MediaCataclysm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 11:15:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Wrayeth
Edited by: Wrayeth on 16/06/2008 06:39:37
I don't like flying a rapier, don't enjoy having to drag a gang around with me 23/7, and the ships I prefer to fly aren't good at countering nanos, bar the tempest
Right... 
|
chi phong
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 11:59:00 -
[10]
shut up
thumbs down
|
|
Sonreir
Band of Builders Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 12:44:00 -
[11]
Agreed. It should be damn near impossible to run an MWD non-stop. There's your fix for this one.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 12:46:00 -
[12]
No we dont need to push the game even further towards blobbing.
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON.
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 13:04:00 -
[13]
Flying some nano ships myself, i know that there are currently only two ships that i have realy to fear.... the Minmatar Recons. In my Opinion nanos are imba because every player who has not trained minmatar recons will have problems to counter them.....
.... my idea is to introduce a mod for the webber whitch increases webbing range significantly....while on the other side makes it impossible to fitt a decent tank or something in that direction ... this would lead to more the less balanced possibilities to counter nanos for all players while not nerving nanos at all...
Cuchulin
|
Lt Graco
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 14:24:00 -
[14]
There's an area effect everything else...why not an area effect web?
|
Red Thunder
Most Wanted INC
G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:33:00 -
[15]
there is no problem here....stop moaning that your insured raven with 20mil isk of fittings cannot kill my fragile 250mil uninsured vaga....
Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines |
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:44:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Cuchulin
Flying some nano ships myself, i know that there are currently only two ships that i have realy to fear.... the Minmatar Recons.
You're either a bad nano pilot or you don't fly nano. You're missing a couple on that list of yours.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:49:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Pezzle on 16/06/2008 15:49:31
This topic does merit serious consideration. The issue itself is quite complex and impacts well beyond analysis of the ships used to 'nano' alone. The balance factors of the nano phenomenon are not correct at the moment. I am not sure how much support can be expected for the issue, but it has my general support.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:51:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 16/06/2008 15:53:20
No support here. As you say Wrayeth, I'm going to say exactly what you thought I'd say - imbalance in 0.0 warfare, defensive advantage of sovereignty tools, capital hotdrops, jump-bridge hotdrops - these are your culprits, since they've made nano the ONLY technique that can work in that environment and you don't handle this problem by removing the ability for players to play the game, you handle it by rebalancing the problems with the environment itself and ensuring that defense-advantage is toned down to allow other techniques to have a chance again.
I'd suggest (seriously) you take a look at Faction Warfare Wrayeth, maybe even join up and give it a go. See the sorts of ships and techniques people are playing there and have some fun.
If nothing else it'll help bring some balanced perspective back. But at the moment I'm completely opposed to any gameplay change inspired by the knock-on symptoms of the broken 0.0 sovereignty system.
There is nothing wrong with the risk/reward balance of nano-ships.
The issue is with the environment that ensures that nothing BUT nano ships can have a reasonable competitive chance. You used to be in Morsus Mihi Wrayeth, tell me with a straight face that ANYTHING except a nano gang can pass through Morsus space secured by anchored bubbles, jump-bridged capitals in cyno jammed systems, and the constant threat of the uberblob near instantly appearing through the twisted miracle of sovereignty architecture in response to any incursion around that space.
I'm not knocking Morsus Mihi mind - they played the game, they built an epic defensive trap that is admirable in its sterile efficiency - but if the game allows the kind of uber defensive playstyle where you are dead unless you can burn out from gates at 4000mps + then you cannot point at nanos as the problem. They are simply a symptom of a specifically broken play environment and that is the thing that needs fixing.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Dlardrageth
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 16:13:00 -
[19]
You may have a point there, Jade, agreed. But what about the part of EVE-O that is not 0.0? I know it is often conveniently forgotten that some people live there, too...
Moreover, if you argue that the "nano-phenomenon" is absolutely necessary due to some... mhm... "broken 0.0 game mechanics", that does not really make (assuming for the sake of the argument, the "equally" part may be way off) an equally broken/unbalanced game feature justifiable. I didn't read the OP as calling for a massive swing with the nerfbat. But it is a frequently made observation that not only Minmatar ships, which by their background are kinda entitled to it go "the nano way" these days. It's not any more that it is two or three ships only that are popular for "nano setups".
Thus if it is legitimate to address the issue of EVE-O going into the direction of "Capitals Online", it is IMHO as legitimate to fear the same for "Nano Online". Even if we might not be there yet, stating that it is required to counter some inherent 0.0 problems and that would be that is the wrong way IMHO.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 16:44:00 -
[20]
Jade you are wrong.
"imbalance in 0.0 warfare, defensive advantage of sovereignty tools, capital hotdrops, jump-bridge hotdrops". If we take all of those out of the equation the performance imbalance still exists. You are not arguing to the point raised. The issue here is nano being a performance imbalance, not cyno jammers and jump bridges.
|
|
Hastur DragonTooth
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 16:52:00 -
[21]
Two thumbs down.
Nano ships are not immune to destruction. Just bring the right tools to the table. If they're flying scissors, find a friend who flies a rock. A cry for a nerf is not a substitute for a friend with a curse, rapier or any of the other counters available to you.
.. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:22:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
No support here. As you say Wrayeth, I'm going to say exactly what you thought I'd say - imbalance in 0.0 warfare, defensive advantage of sovereignty tools, capital hotdrops, jump-bridge hotdrops - these are your culprits, since they've made nano the ONLY technique that can work in that environment and you don't handle this problem by removing the ability for players to play the game, you handle it by rebalancing the problems with the environment itself and ensuring that defense-advantage is toned down to allow other techniques to have a chance again.
Reducing the viability of other techniques can in no way reduce the viability of nanos. You are saying that nanos are too powerful because capitals are too powerful! That is ********.
Its especially apparent because "nanos" is not something relegated to small gangs. Just look at BoB, they don't fly frigates anymore because there is no frigate that does anything better than a HAC or Recon.
You will never be able rebalance 0.0 space to make nanos less valuable than they are without directly nerfing the ships and increasing the number of counters. You could remove all capital ships, POS, Sovereignty, etc etc etc from the game and it would just make nano-ships more powerful.
The only thing keeping tactics other than nano-ships viable is sovereignty and infrastructure, and they are still a problem.
 |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:25:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth
Two thumbs down.
Nano ships are not immune to destruction. Just bring the right tools to the table. If they're flying scissors, find a friend who flies a rock. A cry for a nerf is not a substitute for a friend with a curse, rapier or any of the other counters available to you.
Ahh yes, the "guys guys, nano ships are fine, just fly nano-ships as a counter!" defense.
Do i have to spell out how dumb that is?
As well, with most ships, we define "a counter" as something that will kill the target "especially well". But when defending nano-ships, "a counter" is always defined as "the only thing that might have a chance of killing the target if the target is competent".
|
Grann Thefauto
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:39:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Grann Thefauto on 16/06/2008 17:42:23
Nanos are super fragile already, at most they have 10k HP. They can't do all that much damage either. The best is probably the vaga which puts out 300 dps at around 15-20km. They're essentially equivalent to a very well tanked Drake in DPS and tanking ability, the difference being that it requires multiple BCs (and sometimes even BSs) to take out a Drake whereas it only requires one only good and properly fit anti-nano ship to take out a Vagabond. See for example the Garmonation videos on eve tube.
No support here.
EDIT: Also, nano gangs are one of the few truly viable counters to blobs, which I think most people would agree, need to have something to fear.
 |
Kesper North
Epiphyte Mining and Exploration
Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:53:00 -
[25]
Support. I can't stand nanogangs.
|
Merroki
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:07:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Merroki on 16/06/2008 18:07:09
Not true. Disco BS > frig blob, and so should bombs, once they fix those..
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:07:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Grann Thefauto
Edited by: Grann Thefauto on 16/06/2008 17:42:23
Nanos are super fragile already, at most they have 10k HP. They can't do all that much damage either. The best is probably the vaga which puts out 300 dps at around 15-20km. They're essentially equivalent to a very well tanked Drake in DPS and tanking ability, the difference being that it requires multiple BCs (and sometimes even BSs) to take out a Drake whereas it only requires one only good and properly fit anti-nano ship to take out a Vagabond. See for example the Garmonation videos on eve tube.
No support here.
EDIT: Also, nano gangs are one of the few truly viable counters to blobs, which I think most people would agree, need to have something to fear.
1. There are only a handful of nano ships that have 10k EHP. Its pretty much the Zealot. The rest have between 16 and 25.
2. It takes a single BC to take out a drake. Well at least any drake that is useful. More correctly, it takes a frigate to kill a drake.
3. Garmon fighting idiots does not make nano-ships balanced.
4. Nano ships are not counters to the blob. Nano ships are the blob. Just like all the fools that said titans were the solution to blobs. Just like any other overpowered tactic it will become the blob.
|
Xrethan
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:40:00 -
[28]
OP described the problem with nano's well. I think at least partial solution could be putting all speed enhancing modules and rigs to same stacking category. For example, after rigging the ship with 2 polycarbs, you could only fit 1 more od/nano/istab to low's before the stacking penalty nullifies the bonuses gained. So mass/velocity/agility would all be on same category. |
Synapse Archae
Demonic Retribution
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:47:00 -
[29]
NOT SUPPORTED.
Nano ships are ridiculously expensive, and should have abilities to match their cost.
I'm talking minimum 300m each. Most people I know who fly them are broke, and you'd be surprised how often, and how EASILY they can be lost if the pilot isnt paying 100% attention all the time.
Nanoships are stronger than regular yes, but they cost twice as much, and require 10 times the skill and concentration to fly.
That's not broken.
- - - Originally by: CCP Garthagk
While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON.
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:47:00 -
[30]
Quote:
You're either a bad nano pilot or you don't fly nano. You're missing a couple on that list of yours.
I said they are the only real problem ! Ok novadays you can ad the Hyena...... but these are the only ships that make me running imediatly if they appear on my scanner....
But back to topic. I don't say that the Nanoships themselfs are broken. But my opinion is still that there are to less counters. The advantage and the protection of a nanoship its is speed. So a classical countership would be one which can kill the speed. All classical slow and well tanked ships can't do that (and thats absolutely ok!). At the end it is always the same....if a nanogang appears you have to jell for some minmatar recon pilots... These are good counterships, but you need these spezialised Pilots that have invested the skilltime in these recons. On the other hand the most interceptors are of course realy good nanoships with high speed and if they work in groups of 4 or 5 they alone can kill a ****load of ships. So you can train the interceptors of almost every race to have a decent nanoship but you need to train the minmatar recon to have a well counter ship .... that is in my opinion what is broken here !
Cuchulin
|
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON.
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:54:00 -
[31]
Quote:
Nanoships are stronger than regular yes, but they cost twice as much
Ok you are right the best nanoships which outrun all the other "low cost" ceptors and whatever else can be incredibly expensive. But if we stay at the ceptors for example, then you can have a nice nanoship for .....lets say 40 - 50 Mio Isk..... it will not make 14 km/s but it will also do the job ! 4 or 5 of them can kill for example a BS out of a group of slower ships which costs much more....
Cuchulin
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:15:00 -
[32]
It's broken, boost something to counter or nerf it |
Parsival
The Avalon Foundation
Delta.Green
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:36:00 -
[33]
Fix the blob then fix nano, otherwise people are going to be even less likely to travel solo/small groups looking for PvP.
As a Minmatar Recon pilot 20km webs and a nano nerf would make me cry, for Matari Recons it'd just about make them good only for refining down for the minerals .
 |
Grann Thefauto
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:40:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Goumindong
1. There are only a handful of nano ships that have 10k EHP. Its pretty much the Zealot. The rest have between 16 and 25.
2. It takes a single BC to take out a drake. Well at least any drake that is useful. More correctly, it takes a frigate to kill a drake.
3. Garmon fighting idiots does not make nano-ships balanced.
4. Nano ships are not counters to the blob. Nano ships are the blob. Just like all the fools that said titans were the solution to blobs. Just like any other overpowered tactic it will become the blob.
Yeah now that I look back most HACs at least have 16-25k EHP, assuming they fit large t2 shield extenders (which is not necessarily a good idea if you want to be hard to hit).
Sure you can kill a drake in a frig, but that would have to be one of the stupidest drake fittings ever if it can't even tank 100 dps. Nano ships reasonably fit however are much more likely to die to frigs than any reasonably fit BC is. I've seen Drakes tank Battleships in pvp with ease. Granted they're not doing much damage, but thats my point with nanos. They're mainly tank and unless you're very highly skilled there's little gank there without severely curtailing your speed.
If there are enough idiots flying nano ships to make 4 long videos, why are so many people complaining? Seriously, if you can fit a rupture to specifically solo kill nano's whats the issue? You're not going to stand much of a chance against a tanked BC with a gank fit like that, but if you exploit the weaknesses of nanos there's nothing to really worry about, nanos will simply run.
The real problem is that in the age of EFT people are so obsessed with DPS that they forget tracking, and other concrete considerations like ewar, cap, and range. I've lost enough nano ships myself to know that they take a ton of skill to fly well and you MUST choose your targets or you die. The issue isn't an unbalance really, its just that people don't realize that you can't use the same tactics on a tanked BS that you would on a vagabond.
I'll agree, some blobs are nanoed to oblivion (espeically FW ones), but a blob overly specialized like that is susceptible to the same problems as any other overly specialized gang.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:30:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Cuchulin
:post:
Keep proving me right. I wasn't talking about the Hyena.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:31:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Grann Thefauto
Sure you can kill a drake in a frig, but that would have to be one of the stupidest drake fittings ever if it can't even tank 100 dps.
The frigate does not have to do DPS to kill the drake. You do not understand how combat works in 0.0. DPS on the winning side is rarely an issue, its keeping the other side from leaving which is.
Quote:
Yeah now that I look back most HACs at least have 16-25k EHP, assuming they fit large t2 shield extenders (which is not necessarily a good idea if you want to be hard to hit).
It is however, ******** to not do so if you can.
Quote:
If there are enough idiots flying nano ships to make 4 long videos, why are so many people complaining? Seriously, if you can fit a rupture to specifically solo kill nano's whats the issue? You're not going to stand much of a chance against a tanked BC with a gank fit like that, but if you exploit the weaknesses of nanos there's nothing to really worry about, nanos will simply run.
Balance is not achieved by assuming idiocy on one side and competence on the other. You must assume both parties know what they are doing. Otherwise when people who are competent come along, the imbalanced will be exploited.
The "nanos will simply run" is exactly the problem.
As an aside: How many times does he fail that we do not see? Videos often skew perceptions of the players ability. Kil2 for instance, who we see making a number of cool videos has only a 1.5:1 battleship kill/death ratio. Is he good? Probably, but he still dies a lot. We have three pretty awesome videos from him, and if they were any indication he would have a 10:1 k/d ratio or something equally ridiculous.
Quote:
The real problem is that in the age of EFT people are so obsessed with DPS that they forget tracking, and other concrete considerations like ewar, cap, and range. I've lost enough nano ships myself to know that they take a ton of skill to fly well and you MUST choose your targets or you die. The issue isn't an unbalance really, its just that people don't realize that you can't use the same tactics on a tanked BS that you would on a vagabond.
yes, that is exactly it. You choose the targets. No one else does. There is no way to dictate an engagement against a nano-gang without superior numbers of nano-ships. If your nano-gang sticks around and dies, then that is you being foolish and not them being accomplished.
Quote:
I'll agree, some blobs are nanoed to oblivion (espeically FW ones), but a blob overly specialized like that is susceptible to the same problems as any other overly specialized gang.
Not really, no. Because nano-gangs do not need to specialize. They will bring ewar, cap warfare, long range webs, logistics, DPS, the works. But you can't force them to engage. And that is the crux of the problem
|
Duncan Darkeye
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:41:00 -
[37]
Quote:
Originally by: Cuchulin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep proving me right. I wasn't talking about the Hyena.
Maybe not I am the bad nano pilot here ... if you have the omgwtf counter nano tactic then tell us little noobs your wisdom and if you argue right i will shut up and will accept that everything is alright with the nano stuff.....
Cuchulin
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON.
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:42:00 -
[38]
posting with the wrong alt 
|
Merroki
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:45:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Merroki on 16/06/2008 20:46:47
Originally by: Synapse Archae
Nano ships are ridiculously expensive, and should have abilities to match their cost.
While I agree with this in principle, we have to remember that this is a game, and that implies everything needed to maintain a perception of fairness (I'm not saying equality) on all sides.
Things that with ridiculous cost (in currency or time) should obviously provide benefit. But in a game, one can only provide so much benefit before the perception of fairness is lost. Often, the best solution to this is to have less benefit per unit cost, as the cost increases. In other words, 100mil to 150mil gives less benefit than 50mil to 100mil. If pitching a 150mil against a 50mil results in an absolutely no contest match (c'mon, who wants to play a game where the game guarantees a predetermined outcome?), the fix is simple! Just decrease the benefit gained for increments of higher cost vs increments of lower cost.
Things with ridiculous cost will still provide benefit. Things with low cost will still have some semblence of chance.. thus we can satisfy
Originally by: Synapse Archae
Nano ships are ridiculously expensive, and should have abilities to match their cost.
without removing all the fun and challenge from a game.
So I'm saying: Yes, spending to rig up your ship should be rewarded in a bit more advantage (inversely proportional to how much you've already spent), but that advantage must never reach a point where it is usually classified an exploit in most every other game ("If I do this right, I am effectively invincible in the majority of situations, and for all the rest as well if I just avoid those.").
The problem with nanos is it fits right into both "effectively invincible in the majority of situations", and easily being able to "just avoid" the rest by choice.
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON.
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:45:00 -
[40]
Quote:
Not really, no. Because nano-gangs do not need to specialize. They will bring ewar, cap warfare, long range webs, logistics, DPS, the works. But you can't force them to engage. And that is the crux of the problem
\signed
|
|
Hegotu Alecto
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:51:00 -
[41]
id say no, there are already counters to nanos, take my raven its an anti-nanofag battleship. my cruise missiles speed is just over 9000km/s with a 30 second flight time, thats the equivalent to 250km+, they come near me and in a few salvos there dead, especially vagabonds, and running dont help them as my missiles are generally faster than they are and including most inties except the real good ones (though they are nightmares to kill).
most gangs tend to have a few huginns/rapiers with them and the cost is huge, my nano vaga cost me a whopping 250m isk to fit minimum. the ship = 80-90m
t2 nanos are a few million each
overdrives 1.5 i think
the rigs are 50-60 EACH (polycarbons)
guns tend to be around 2-3m
fits in general ur speaking 10-15 million.
 |
Grann Thefauto
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:04:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Goumindong
The frigate does not have to do DPS to kill the drake. You do not understand how combat works in 0.0. DPS on the winning side is rarely an issue, its keeping the other side from leaving which is.
I've mainly done low sec small gang war fare and FW recently, so I understand the basic idea of tackling something. I think we were talking about different things however since a frig does stand a reasonable chance of killing a nano ship, but not normally any conventional fit.
Originally by: Goumindong
As an aside: How many times does he fail that we do not see? Videos often skew perceptions of the players ability. Kil2 for instance, who we see making a number of cool videos has only a 1.5:1 battleship kill/death ratio. Is he good? Probably, but he still dies a lot. We have three pretty awesome videos from him, and if they were any indication he would have a 10:1 k/d ratio or something equally ridiculous.
Valid point, and he does lose some ships in some of the videos, however its still a 15mil ship taking down 100+ mil nanoed hacs.
Originally by: Goumindong
Not really, no. Because nano-gangs do not need to specialize. They will bring ewar, cap warfare, long range webs, logistics, DPS, the works. But you can't force them to engage. And that is the crux of the problem
Ah, so I think I understand now. I still disagree however. I don't see why a gang or a ship lacking significantly in DPS and tank should be forced to engage anything. The nano's one real advantage over others is the ability to run but it does pay significant costs for that. Sure you can have EWar on a nano ship, but its going to cost you and it won't be sustainable.
I don't fly in 0.0 so I could be way off, but if the main goal of being in 0.0 is capturing and holding territory you're much better off with a conventional fleet; as nanos for the most part are meant to harass and weaken, but don't have the staying power of a well balanced camp.
In my experience in low sec though the real problem with nano ships is that people just haven't gotten over EFT.
Perhaps a better anti-nano change would be to boost sniping/targeting so that 300km is no longer safe.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:31:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Hegotu Alecto
id say no, there are already counters to nanos, take my raven its an anti-nanofag battleship. my cruise missiles speed is just over 9000km/s with a 30 second flight time, thats the equivalent to 250km+, they come near me and in a few salvos there dead, especially vagabonds, and running dont help them as my missiles are generally faster than they are and including most inties except the real good ones (though they are nightmares to kill).
most gangs tend to have a few huginns/rapiers with them and the cost is huge, my nano vaga cost me a whopping 250m isk to fit minimum. the ship = 80-90m
t2 nanos are a few million each
overdrives 1.5 i think
the rigs are 50-60 EACH (polycarbons)
guns tend to be around 2-3m
fits in general ur speaking 10-15 million.
Yep.
Cerb pilot, Hvy missiles betweem 9000 - 9700 mps. 218- 220 kms max range.
Most Vaga pilots would be hard pressed to get the hell out of the way or those things. No tracking issues and hard as hell to speed tank. and there you go.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:36:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Grann Thefauto
I've mainly done low sec small gang war fare and FW recently, so I understand the basic idea of tackling something. I think we were talking about different things however since a frig does stand a reasonable chance of killing a nano ship, but not normally any conventional fit.
A frigate does not have a reasonably chance of killing a nano-ship. The nano-ship zeros out transversal, pops the tackler, and warps away.
Conversely a frig does have a reasonable chance of killing a conventional ship. Apply scram, orbit, hope reinforcements get there before you die.
Originally by: Goumindong
Valid point, and he does lose some ships in some of the videos, however its still a 15mil ship taking down 100+ mil nanoed hacs.
And? There needs to be benefit to increased isk expenditure, the benefit is simply too high. Cruisers are too marginalized. Furthermore, the cost difference is not relevant. You could spend more on that rupture than a standard t2 nano-ship and fit a fleet of them and you still won't be reaching the efficiency levels that nano-ships gain from readily available goods.
Originally by: Goumindong
Ah, so I think I understand now. I still disagree however. I don't see why a gang or a ship lacking significantly in DPS and tank should be forced to engage anything. The nano's one real advantage over others is the ability to run but it does pay significant costs for that. Sure you can have EWar on a nano ship, but its going to cost you and it won't be sustainable.
They are not lacking in DPS or Ewar. 2 Falcons, 2 Vagabonds, 2 Rapiers and you have 1000 DPS to 25km and you will be out of any fight before anything large can even lock you. As gang sizes increase start adding Zealots and your DPS keeps going up.
Quote:
I don't fly in 0.0 so I could be way off, but if the main goal of being in 0.0 is capturing and holding territory you're much better off with a conventional fleet; as nanos for the most part are meant to harass and weaken, but don't have the staying power of a well balanced camp.
Nano's don't have the staying power of a heavily battleship/cap oriented strategic gang no. But for gate camps? Loads better. If anything big comes in, and you are not in nano-ships, you have a chance of dying. A nano-gang can disappear into space and then reform after the threat has passed.
In terms of fleet effectiveness, nano-ships are no slouches either. They are hands down the best support ships in the game. The wealthiest alliances(in terms of personal wealth) will have fleet compositions that look like this
Caps/BS/Recons/HACs/HICs/cov-ops
They won't have interceptors they will tackle with HACs and HICS.
Quote:
In my experience in low sec though the real problem with nano ships is that people just haven't gotten over EFT.
In low-sec there are three fundamental differences.
1. No bubbles: Speed is less important when you can warp to 0 on every gate.
2. Gate guns: 150-300 DPS to 150km with infinite tracking...
3. Stations: Anyone can dock at these
And just to get the ad-homs out of the way. I fly nano-ships. I do this **** because its effective. I am the high skillpoint wealthy(not technically) pilot that is just the ones to abuse these types of mechanics and I do, all the damn time.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:37:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Farrqua
Yep.
Cerb pilot, Hvy missiles betweem 9000 - 9700 mps. 218- 220 kms max range.
Most Vaga pilots would be hard pressed to get the hell out of the way or those things. No tracking issues and hard as hell to speed tank. and there you go.
Explosion Velocity
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:48:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Farrqua
Yep.
Cerb pilot, Hvy missiles betweem 9000 - 9700 mps. 218- 220 kms max range.
Most Vaga pilots would be hard pressed to get the hell out of the way or those things. No tracking issues and hard as hell to speed tank. and there you go.
Explosion Velocity
Touche`
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 22:33:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Duncan Darkeye
Quote:
:post:
Keep proving me right. I wasn't talking about the Hyena.
Maybe not I am the bad nano pilot here ... if you have the omgwtf counter nano tactic then tell us little noobs your wisdom and if you argue right i will shut up and will accept that everything is alright with the nano stuff.....
Cuchulin
No thanks. I usually prefer not to give the nubs who don't know better free information. The fact of the matter is you are missing pretty flagrant non-Minmatar vessels that every nano-pilot should look to kill as soon as possible.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 22:59:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Pezzle on 16/06/2008 23:03:21
People must get over the notion that spending lots of money = game balance. It does not. Balances are maintained by limitations. In EVE, isk is effectively limitless.
The reason your Vagabond is entitled to better than say, a rifter, is because it is more difficult to use (training) and at this point a lesser effect of scarcity. It has nothing to do with the isk you spend.
For the same reasons, some modules are entitled to perform better than others. In fact they add drawbacks as additional balance factors on T2. Higher fitting costs, or power usage per cycle, penalties to other areas more difficult to use and so on. That is how item and ship balance is (or should be) maintained. Officer gear is not entitled to be more potent than other gear because it costs more, the balance factor of scarcity is used.
Now the problems come in when combinations of modules and ships infringe on other roles to the point that ships that would fill those roles become obsolete, or nearly so. This is where some attempt to justify performance with cost. Considering we each have what amounts to a printing press to churn out money when we wish that argument must be rejected. Couple that with the gaming factor that every ship should have a role that it excels at above others (more balance issues) and you should see the problem.
Ishtars moving at 9k are unbalanced not because they move fast but because they eliminate the need for other ship classes. There are many many other issues tied directly to these simple underlying concepts.
Ships become more powerful and durable as they grow larger. These ships also get slower and less agile. As they grow smaller they become more agile, faster, less durable and less powerful. We have a wide array of modules available that allow us to push the envelop in one direction or another. If a larger ship can, by any means, be more potent (or so equal as to make distinction nearly irrelevant) than a smaller in every comparable category then there is an imbalance. The same can be said of a smaller ship to a larger.
There are others issues, such as risk and the withdraw ability I will not touch on right at the moment. Let me close with this.
Ships and ship classes have their place. Nano can exist in this spectrum and be perfectly acceptable. If throwing money, which |