|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
   |
Posted - 2009.09.03 20:06:00 -
[1]
I miss those days to be honest.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.03 22:16:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/09/2009 22:16:10
 Originally by: Kerfira
All bad players always miss their I-Win buttons when they're taken from them.
FFS, stop using the fail argument.
Total kills while flying something that can be broadly considered a nanoship, pre-QR: ~17-18 (flew a nano-cynabal while drunk for the lols).
Total kills pre-QR: ~2000. If you have to know, at least 20-30 were nanohac/nanorecon solo kills in a plated BC (or, on one occasion, a plated Rupture). More then that in gangs. Total solo losses to a nanoship: 0.
Hm, I don't think it's me lacking the I-win button. Or rather, I don't think it's even a I-win button.
I think you're just bad at playing the game.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.03 23:11:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/09/2009 23:12:37
Originally by: Kerfira
Nano-ships were so popular because they were I-Lose buttons????
No, because they made roaming in a HAC safer then it is now. It was fairly safe - but not invulnerable. Right now you're practically insane if you solo in a HAC of any sort. Except maybe, but just maybe, a Vagabond.
Originally by: Kerfira
The main problem with nano-ships was that making a mistake in one was easily remedied by a simple push of the MWD button. You'd be out of scramble range in a couple of seconds (which is less than the time it takes to lock you), and can safely warp away. In short, it could be flown with something close to invulnerability.
Lol, fail. Making the mistake in one (being webbed) often resulted in dying. Very often, actually. The only thing was that you could pimp it to silly proportions which would make even webs not work very well on you without special counters, but that was rare - polycarbon /T2 fits were common and very killable.
Originally by: Kerfira
People crying over lost I-win buttons is almost as fun as people crying and emoraging over ninja-salvagers 
You fail, simple as that.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 01:37:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ulasim
I miss killing 18km/s crows and claws with a T2 fit unrigged taranis
Gistii B-type dual poly rigged sabres with a 650mm II artycane ;)
I'll never again do so much ISK damage with two volleys. 
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 16:08:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 04/09/2009 14:58:22
nano sucked for everybody who didnt use them.
Not really.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 16:30:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2009 16:31:16
Unfortunately, it's the pimped fits which brought most of the emorage on the forums.
Normal T2 + poly fits were 100% fine and anyone complaining about those was a incompetent loser and will always be a incompetent loser.
But the forums were roaring like everyone and their dog was flying 5B ultrapimped fits which go 20km/s, and CCP in their infinite wisdom, instead of smacking down on the ability to pimp these ships or toning it down to something reasonable and decided to nerf the living hell out of everything, including plain T2/poly fits which were 100% fine to begin with.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 16:59:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Normal T2 + poly fits were 100% fine
*******s they were. 
They were perfectly fine.
The fact that missiles sucked a lot more is something different 
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 17:08:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2009 17:08:22
Originally by: Lindsay Logan
Nano was ****, and I am not a carebear. Its you who are the carebears because now you usually need ot actually commit to a fight 
In a gang, no you don't. There are some extremely clever tactics which still work so well for not having to commit or be at any risk. I've been ganked a few times like that, awesome to watch despite being 100% dead in the water is not very fun. Much worse then nanos, too.
It's just that there are so few solo HAC pilots I see around in space nowdays, it used to be a common occurrence and you'd get interesting fights that way. Nanos still had to commit somewhat; and normal fits would die on a reasonably regular basis.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 18:00:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2009 18:01:37
Originally by: The Djego
Edited by: The Djego on 04/09/2009 17:52:40
I miss a ship class that was suposed to work at extrem short range a lot more. Also the 90% Web. 
That too. Firing close-range is endlessly annoying right now, you have to fit a scram and gimp your tackle at range ability plus a web on top. Would love a 75-80% web, 60% is just stupidly bad.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 18:46:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Red Thunder
I think the ability to disengage easily made pvp funner
People were definitely less afraid to engage.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 20:52:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2009 20:55:09
Originally by: Grimpak
oh well, goodbye nanos, it was fun to kill you
Preety much. I miss it, but it's gone.
Originally by: baltec1
It is no longer a one sided fight when facing a fast ship these days and it is letting me have a great time with slowboats and whacky ideas.
You mean, HACs no longer have to disengage or die (or bring 11ty billion mates, but that surprisingly always works) vs my plated "slowboats". Now they just don't want to fight as a rule
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.05 13:20:00 -
[12]
Originally by: baltec1
No I mean that I can now kill fast targets as apposed to just giving them a beating. In the days of nano it was generaly nano get a kill or flee while slowboats drive them off or die, which was very one sided. HACs still roam around solo and still get the kills, they just dont have a get out of jail free card anymore.
Well, they're sometimes easier to kill (provided you have a scram to stop their MWD, which also has shorter range now) but often refuse to play altogether.
And it was not "generally nano get a kill or flee while slowboats drive them off or die" in my experience when it was a solo affair, but rather the other way around (except vs rapiers and such; they always got to bugger off thanks to range control. Almost always anyway). It's just that they were really good at fleeing. So you had to resort to trickery to land that web, or surprise them with interdiction maneuvers and heat.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
| |
|