| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ath Amon
   |
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:16:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky
So sure, keep the nano bit, but they should fold a lot faster. Much like the stab changes, nanoships should have someting hurting them - making them great for 1v1/2v1 but unable to sustain the fight for long periods.
What you mean like the need for cap to run their MWD? 4 heavy nos isn't enough to sustain that brute. You need a cap booster. And what do they need? CHARGES! So a consumable item that is required to operate your setup at maximal efficiency.
4 heavy nos actually is enought, you need charges to sustain mwd when opponent is out of cap, when you are out of nos range or nosed
also with rigs that reduce mwd cap compsumption is now easier to keep them running
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:22:00 -
[32]
Edited by: j0sephine on 18/01/2007 11:19:24
"agianst guns, pure speed form an MWD helps nothing since your signature goes up same ammount."
For crying out loud why do you keep spreading the same misinformation after it was already shown in the other thread it's not true? --;;
The base increase of sig radius and the speed is equal but skills, modules and implants/hardwiring all add different extras to the MWD boost amount, which makes typical nano-ship benefit from extra speed considerably more than they are penalized by the signature increase.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
MASS HOMICIDE
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:28:00 -
[33]
Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 18/01/2007 11:19:24
"agianst guns, pure speed form an MWD helps nothing since your signature goes up same ammount."
For crying out loud why do you keep spreading the same misinformation after it was already shown in the other thread it's not true? --;;
The base increase of sig radius and the speed is equal but skills, modules and implants/hardwiring all add different extras to the MWD boost amount, which makes typical nano-ship benefit from extra speed considerably more than they are penalized by the signature increase.
But a nanoship with AB would be far better and (expluding implants and rigs) the MWD nanoed ship is equivalent to a nano non MWD ship on difficulty to hit with turrets when you consider the much closer range that that would be able to orbit!. Just pointing that people just see huge speed numbers and don't see they mean nothing all by themselves!
I playu with fast ships all the tiem and i knwo very well that its true that if I want to not be hit by turrets ai should turn my MWD off.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:37:00 -
[34]
"But a nanoship with AB would be far better"
It would be harder to hit by the guns. It would be much easier to get caught though, and it's the easiness of escape that makes the mwd nano-ships valuable. So no, it wouldn't make it 'better' because it'd be giving up the very factor which currently makes it 'good'.
"and (expluding implants and rigs) the MWD nanoed ship is equivalent to a nano non MWD ship on difficulty to hit with turrets when you consider the much closer range that that would be able to orbit!."
Except when you orbit at the much closer range you're failing easy prey to a webifier which grinds you to halt... and at the ranges that ensure safe margin from getting webbed and where you can orbit with MWD on... even the simple boost from acceleration control skill means 20-25% improvement compared to the ship not running the MWD.
|
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:02:00 -
[35]
Let's make all ships into semi-stababonds so we all pick our fights and run when we dont like the odds
Let's don't do that...i agree with the statement that battleships shouldn't by any means be faster then interceptors, they're completely breaching the niche of fast tacklers...( a nanophoon with one or two sensorboosters is a marvellous tackler). A few possible solutions....
- Make NOS signature and webbers mass dependant
- Give nanofiber modules a % increase (5% speed increase instead of +20m/s)
- Give inertia stabs slightly lower attributes (nerf them by 20% or so)
Basilisk Fitting Link |
Flame Thrower
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:22:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Mindblank
Nano pilots kill their crew... just imagine a BS with thousands of crew zipping about like an interceptor. All the people in the ship will be squished! No responsible captain would like to have that on their conscience.
Not with the inertial dampeners....
Make it so #1...
|
Tryphid
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:54:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Tryphid on 18/01/2007 12:51:14
oops.. alt post
Originally by: J Valkor
Edited by: J Valkor on 18/01/2007 06:31:28
Wait... you find it acceptable that to kill 1 BS takes a small gang? With 1 or 2 BS as support?
Heaven help you when the nanoships realize they can group up.
Yes. I find it completely appropriate that it should take a small gang to tackle a well setup battleship. A small group of tech 1 frigates (we're talking 3 or 4) should NEVER in my opinion pose a threat to a well setup battleship, short of being able to tackle it and stop it runnning away for a limited amount of the time. It is entirely appropriate that it should take 1 battleship as a damage dealer to dispose of the target, and 2 if you want it done quickly.
I see nothing wrong with that.
I concede that battleships should not be faster than interceptors. Perhaps a boost to frigate and interceptor base speed is in order as a solution.
And give a boost to turret tracking.
Let's get some speed on!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |