EVE Search - Imbalance ... the Nano-Inertial Battleships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Imbalance ... the Nano-Inertial Battleships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 09:57:00 - [1] Originally by: Laboratus With the T1/T2 gear, the speeds wont exceed 2-3km, and that is still not problematic. Pre-kali they did. Now they do not thanks to he new instabs and more importantly MWD speed rigs. 3 of those give a 45% speed boost. Quote: An I-stab/nano battleship contributes nothing in gangs larger than 5-10, since any sized sniper squad will eat them alive before they have a chance to do anything. Thats not really an balancing argument since the same is the case for any closerange ship. Also, small nanoship gangs work just fine.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 11:42:00 - [2] Originally by: Laboratus Please do share your setup. Without a snake set and a full rack of nanos/I-stabs my domi goes a touch over 2km/s. With a snake set and speed hardwiring plus ofcourse a full faction fit it goes about 4. Do share. Bolded it for you this time. "Pre-kali they did. Now they do not thanks to he new instabs and more importantly MWD speed rigs. 3 of those give a 45% speed boost." Also, considering I can get an Armageddon - which is HEAVIER than a domi - to 2.8 km/s with 4 LH nanos, 2 LH instabs and a t2 100MN MWD maybe you should start training nav and acc con past lvl 2 and stop using t1 equipment. With 3 vent rigs this goes up to 4100 m/s.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 11:56:00 - [3] Edited by: Aramendel on 23/01/2007 11:58:57 It is, exept for a proper setup nanoship, because they are extremly hard to kill, as Montaire explained multiple times. Yes, it onvolves a bit of isk to set it up, but it's far far less than the "OMG 2 BIL!!!111" people tend to shout here. About 200 mil, in fact. And it gives nanosetups a considerably bigger boost than any other ship gets with that amount of isk. Bar frigates, that is, but those tend not to have the dps, nospower and range of nanoBS. Originally by: Laboratus In systems where gates are not on planets, but somewhere on their own orbit around the sun, you only have one vector of approach. When you see 10 people in local and do not find them on scanner anywhere in the system, would you fly to the single other object which is out of scan range?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 13:20:00 - [4] Inties tend not to have the dps, nospower and range of nanoBS. Blasterthrons tend not to warp so fast that you need a sensorboosted inty to have a chance to catch them.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 16:22:00 - [5] Originally by: Nicocat He was using a brutix with rails. He hit me reliably time and again with the things and eventually wore down my shields. Read "eventually". Was he doing this while getting nossed/heavy droned/torped (if phoon) by you or while you were just orbiting him doing nothing?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 17:07:00 - [6] Because nanoBS operate within warp disrupting distance? If they couldn't keep a target from warping away I personally wouldn't have much of a problem with them.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 17:43:00 - [7] Originally by: Ryysa 3 mwd/ab speed rigs would multiply your max mwd speed by 1.52 (1.15^3). Actually, no, they don't. The increase the effeciency of your MWD by 52%. This isn't the same as you MWD speed, however, because on top of this speed boost you get also your normal speed. So the effective speed boost you get is less than this. How much it is depends how large the boost from the MWD gets in percentages (and how low the ships mass gets). On a nanodomi with 2 instabs and a t2 MWD it's about 46%. On a typhoon with a core-x, 3 instabs and the 2 5% MWD speed implants the effective boost will be probably more around 50%. For example: assume for simplicities sake a ship mass of 100k tons (for 100mn MWD = 100% effeciency), t2 MWD, lvl 4 acc con With rigs: 100% + 550% * 1.2 * 1.52 -> 1103% of base speed Without rigs: 100% + 550% * 1.2 -> 760% of base speed 1103/760 -> setup with rigs has 1.45 times the speed of the setup without them. --------- I would agree with your general conclusions, though.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 18:45:00 - [8] Edited by: Aramendel on 23/01/2007 18:42:31 Originally by: Ryysa Why do you match mass etc to just support your theory? Because it is easier to make an easy-to-understand example this way. And it is not theory, it is plain out fact. I am/was quite aware that the effective speed boost is not exactly 45%, but lies between 45 and 50% depending on what setup you use. I used 45% (the lower number of this range) and not 46.745262% or 50% because I didn't want to overexeggerate things and wanted to keep it simple. But, since you insist, a "real world" example: Typhoon, LH 4 nanos, 2 instabs, t2 MWD, lvl 4 acc con, lvl 5 navigation, 5% speed and 3% MWD effeciency implant Base speed: 322.9 m/s ((150 + 424) 1.25 * 1.05) MWD effeciency: 679.8% (550 * 1.2 * 1.03) Mass: 73.9k t (100kt * 0.85 * (1 - 0.15 * 0.87)) Mass with MWD: 110.9kt ((100kt + 50kt)* 0.85 * (1 - 0.15 * 0.87)) So the "real effeciency" of the MWD is 679.8% * (150/110.9) -> 919.5%. On top comes the base speed (100%) so we get a MWD Speed of 322.9 * 10.195 -> 3292. Which is exactly what happens in practise. With 3 vent rigs MWD speed is 4838, btw, 46.9% more than without them.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 19:28:00 - [9] Edited by: Aramendel on 23/01/2007 19:30:35 Originally by: Ryysa Nah, actually you wrote 45% at start because you did 315%, that's all. You're just too proud to admit it, but it's funny how you nitpick on my numbers :) Cute. Whatever floats your boat. Quote:* Oh and it's not 4045m/s if I make the skill bonus affect the nanofibers as well, it's 4203m/s :D So me > you still :P Then you probably have another error somewhere in that calculation, the one of the sped mods is only the one I saw with a first glance. Because this is the number I got on sisi in active testing with exactly that setup. Ah, wait, let me login there again, just in case I made a dumb error (which I do ocassionally indeed, but not here so far). Jepp, still 4045 m/s. Want a screenshot? Or, lets do the math. Base speed: 277.5 m/s ((150 + 324) 1.25) MWD effeciency: 1003.8% (550 * 1.2 * 1.15^3) Mass: 73.9k t (100kt * 0.85 * (1 - 0.15 * 0.87)) Mass with MWD: 110.9kt ((100kt + 50kt)* 0.85 * (1 - 0.15 * 0.87)) Real MWD effeciency: 1003.8% * (150/110.9) -> 1357.7%. MWD speed: 277.5 * ((1357.7 + 100)/100) -> (still) 4045 Arrogance is a useful little thing, but one should never assume one does not make errors. It could be embarrassing.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 19:55:00 - [10] Originally by: Ryysa So it's 4046m/s :) At least according to the math. Meaning that eve does some rounding at some point within the calculation. Not eve, but you. The additional 0.5 in your calculation come from using the 0.87 mod for diminishing returns in your calculation, which is rounded up from the "real" 0.869119842 mod (which is probably a rounded version itself). Quote: You see - arrogance has nothing to do with it, teasing someone who tries to be extremely pedantic, while making a simple mistake, yet having issues admitting it has everything to do with it. I have no problem with saying I made a mistake ;) Yes, one only needs to prove it twice to you. Quote: And I think we both agree on the majority of the points made. Discussing decimal point precision hardly matters in this issue. Agreed there. However, I wasn't the person who started this bickering. Just because one result looks like a milkmaids calculation at first glance to you does not mean it so so.

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 20:12:00 - [11] So, back to normal responses. Originally by: Nicocat My point stands, though. Get some medium guns on whatever you want to put medium guns on, and they can track and damage a nanoship, and will probably outright kill it if you web it. Considering the difference in price of a nanoship versus a couple of cruisers, I think this is a pretty valid exchange. Yes, multiple cruisers will prolly be able to cause it some problems. What will happen in reality, however, is the nanoship killing one cruiser and then flying away was some armor damage at worst. You really need to make a dumb error to get within webbing distance by something less agile and 25% as fast as you. And, again, driving off != killing. The problem is that a nanophoon or dommi has 100% of the firepower of a normally tanked version of it while having the speed and agility of a ceptor. It has no real disadvantage. Originally by: Rachel Vend When people find a setup that the pvp'er's can't beat or have a hard time beating because they have to use their heads, the pvp'ers flood the forums with whines that this setup is too powerful. While I certainly agree that blob camps are rather boring what it is really about is balance. You don't have a ship which does twice as much dps, tanks twice as well and is twice as fast than other ships, right? Because this would wreck the balance and eventually everyone would fly this ship. Let's take a 08/15 BS setup. Good firepower, good tank, lousy speed. A nanoBS has good dps (no, it's no gankgeddon, but it has not less dps than setups without nanos of the same ship), a lousy normal tank and great speed. Which would be fine, exept that it's speed effeciently gives it a great tank too. It would be no problem if nanoBS would be an alternative to "normal" BS. But they aren't because they are way more effecient - they are a replacement.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 20:37:00 - [12] Originally by: Rachel Vend Whats the effective counter to bubble camps? Remember kids: 1. No 100 man gangs 2. No alt scouts 2. No logging 4. Your in a BS. Blobs suck, but you do not make a right with 2 wrongs. One might as well ask: Whats the effective counter to nanoships? Remember kids: 1. No gangs 2. No med guns 2. Not more nosses 4. You are in a BS
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 21:19:00 - [13] Originally by: Rachel Vend A nanoship which is faster than his nanoship, and bring some webs. So in order to counter a blob you need a bigger blob. Basically, nanoships have exactly the same problem which you describe with blobs. You need to bring the same thing & "more" of it to counter it. Quote: Before anyone else asks, yes, I fly a nanoship. It does crap damage (it took me over 10 minutes to take out a mission running raven that had no tank), and it's a VERY expensive setup, I'm talking about over 4 billion ISK has been spent on it. I don't think it should be easy peasy weasy to kill something that has so much ISK invested into it, it should require some... OH MY GOD... EFFORT. Exept you can make a 5 km/s setup for 300 mil without any problem. And you can counter a 4 bil setup with a normal tank quite easily - just bring more nos than it has with you. Which works against a nanoBS, too, with the little difference that it will force it to disengage. The normal tank 4 bil setup will just die. Quote: some long range webs will solve their speed real fast. Which do not exist exept some 2 bil officer ones or a huginn. and, no the price does not justify it, because, as said: - you can setup a nonoBS for a LOT less isk. - you can invest the isk in any other faction setup and do not get a similar effeciency out of it If it would be similar for an officer tank there would be no regular heavy nos - the only one would be officer dropped - and of med nos only the one of the curse would effect it because it has an immunity vs everything else.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.23 22:39:00 - [14] Originally by: Evengard None of nano ships have 100% firepower over average BS... Nano-Typhoon: 4 torp / Cruise, 3-4 nos, No damage modes, 5k of armor 8k shields with normal resistances. Price 500-600 million isks with rigs, and High End stuff. Battlephoon: 4 torp / Cruise, 4 AC, 2 damage mods (gyro+ballistic), 22k Armor with 60-70% resistances, 8k shield. Price 110-120 millions, No rigs. Wanna test who wins ?? The 4 heavy nos of a nanophoon does more damage vs an targets tank than 4 ACs can ever do. And what makes you think it cannot have damagemods? A nanophhon does not need to fill ALL of it's slots with speed mods. You can use 3 LH nanos and 2 LH instabs and still get 4.5km/s with rigs and cheap (~30 mil total) implants while having 2 lows free. And testing who wins...it can prolly drive the nanoBS off, no doubt. However, it will be totally useless for guarding a mining op vs nanoBS or preventing the nanoBS from attacking when it just has 2 NPC BS on it. Because it can try again, and again, and again. A normal BS (or hac or bc) screws up, it dies. Quote: They are not replacement, they are just expencive "solo NPCer gankmobile". They are useless in normal fleet ops. HAC can kill BS - NERF HACS! Command can kill BS - NERF COMMANDS. HACs are not so effective that one would be stupid flying anything else. Commands are not so effective that one would be stupid flying anything else. Normal Battleships are not so effective that one would be stupid flying anything else. NanoBSs, on the other hand, are.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.24 00:31:00 - [15] Originally by: Tovarishch Regardless, as you mentioned, you don't want to lose a battleship to a 50 man gang. Any single ship/setup in this game that allows the ability to do that is unbalanced. Period. This isn't a matter of counters... this is a matter of module and ship balancing. To play devils advocate - inties can do that. Cov ops and to a lesser extend force recons, too. Of cource, they cannot engage the gang without getting blown to really small bits. Although a nanoBS cannot really either, at least vs a 50 man gang. Vs a 5-10 man thats another thing, though. And of cource inties do not have the firepower, range (well, sans missilecrow) or nospower of a nanoBS. And pop a "little" bit faster. Cov ops cannot kill anything on their own. Force recons..are actually not that different to nanoBS from the principle, but again much more vulnerable once they engage (or get decloaked by a good ceptor).
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.24 01:12:00 - [16] Edited by: Aramendel on 24/01/2007 01:11:08 Originally by: Rachel Vend A nano BS that runs away is a threat? Yes, it is. Not to a 50 man blob, of cource. However, to a smaller gang or single player most definately. It can attack your gang, kill one of your support, retreat with some armor damage. Come back 5 mins later, kill another one. And repeat. Or a single BS - if it has the right fitting - can drive a nanoBS away, yes. However, it can do absolutely nothing to prevent the nanoBS coming back when it has 2 big rats on it or is supposed to guard a few barges. In short, when a "normal" bs has bitten moren than it can chew it's future career is usually a wreck. A nanoBS can try again, and again, and again. It can soak enough damage and has enough dps to kill a target or two and retreat, even against considerably superior forces. In this aspect it is unique in the game. Sniping BSs could be compared to it, but those need cov ops support to make sniping spots, cannot prevent targets from warping away and do less dps. And neither are as mobile as nanoBS and die horribly if they jump into a gatecamp.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.24 11:08:00 - [17] Edited by: Aramendel on 24/01/2007 11:05:24 Originally by: HankMurphy I say this because there is a direct correlation to be made between the ability of a nano ship, and the isk that a pilot put into the ship setup and his clone. For the x-th time: - you can make a very viable nanoship for 300 mil, you most definately do not need billions for it - isk invested does not make an imblance ok, because, guess what, it is still there. Compare a 300mil setup vs a t2 fitted cerberus, which costs about the same. Or an t2 fitted sniper rokh. Or take an pimped 3 bil setup and try to make something equally effecient for the same money. The effect for money invested for nanoships is too strong, it does not matter at all if you spent 300 mil or 3 bil there, it is imbalanced vs other setups worth as much. "It costs much, so it is balanced" is worth nothing as argument because of this.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.24 23:42:00 - [18] With the drones only, that is. On top of this come 4 torp launchers...
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.25 13:12:00 - [19] There is a significant difference between causing a nanoship to flee and killing it.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.25 16:43:00 - [20] Edited by: Aramendel on 25/01/2007 16:41:53 Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Someone call teh po-lice, a ship that you spend half a bil on in fittings and a bil or two in implants is hard to kill Exept I get that speed with a t2 MWD, 3 LH nanos, 2 LH instabs and 3 vent rigs and 30 mil in implants, about 200 mil total in fitting and implants together. His calculations are wrong. Originally by: Kagura Nikon Speed rigs also increase signature. Wrong.

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.25 18:13:00 - [21] Edited by: Aramendel on 25/01/2007 18:13:40 Originally by: Alaisa Rift don't forget the ship, drones... and any other mods that might be needed, if all of that is T2 ( - ship) then yeh it does add up to half a billion Not really. For a typhoon for example you have 25 mil ship (after insurance), 40 mil for 4 heavy dim and 4 t2 siege, 15 mil for a t2 WD, 10 mil together for a t2 sensor booster, reactor contron and cap injector, 10 mil for a BCU2. 6 berserkers2 and 5 warrior2 6 mil. Gives us a total of 106 mil, 306 mil total with the rest. This is not really more than you have to pay for any other t2 fitted BS with rigs (and less what you have to pay for some t2 fitted HACs without rigs). Pricewise nanoships are nothing special.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.25 23:02:00 - [22] Originally by: Rachel Vend 1. Their damage is total crap. 4 heavy nos + 4 siege + 5 heavy drones != crap damage Quote: 2. If they get webbed, they are on the express train to the clone bay. At gatecamps they are on the express train to the gate, where their inertia will take them even if they get webebd as soon as they uncloak. Elsewhere they need to make pilot errors so you are able to web them. Dumb piloting kills anything, it's no balance argument. Quote: 3. The better (faster) setups are just as expensive as the faction/officer tank setups, and just as hard to kill. Not really. A nanosetup can easily survive a 10 people gatecamp. Feel free to try making a 2.5 bil officer tank which can survive that.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.26 19:10:00 - [23] Actually, rigs gave it a bigger boost than the changed instabs But, yes, it is an old tactic, almost as old as eve itself. Ultra speed setups surfaced and vanished again with module changes & balancing.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.26 23:41:00 - [24] Originally by: Goumindong Yea, but remove either one and the problem mainly goes away. The i-stabs are enablers just as much as the rigs are. Well...no. Using 3 nanos + 3 instabs instead of 6 nanos gives my nanophoon a 7% higher MWD speed. Using 3 vent rigs gives it a 47% higher MWD speed. As far as responsible boosts go the one of instabs is rather small. You could remove it entirely and not change much.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.27 00:01:00 - [25] Edited by: Aramendel on 27/01/2007 00:02:36 Originally by: Goumindong I suppose you are right then, but with just the MWD ive noticed significant differences in the speed increases when moving from nanos to i-stabs in a proper configuration. Not on battleships. On frigs (and even cruisers) instabs have a FAR greater effect because the speed boost from nanos is relatively small compared to their base speed. For example, on a claw fitting 2 nanos + 2 instabs instead 4 nanos gives me a 19% speed boost. 2 vent rigs still give me a greater boost, though.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.27 10:19:00 - [26] Originally by: j0sephine This isn't very fair comparison -- on one hand you have "replace 3x +speed module with 3x -mass module" and on the other hand you have "3x +speed module vs nothing". Try something more analoguous... how much speed do you get out of "3x nano + 3x i-stab" ship when compared to just "3x nano" ship? Of cource it isn't a fair comparison - but that isn't the point at all. Rigs have the advantage of using previously "unused" slots, but this does not chance anything with the result. A nanoship pre-kali was no running with only 3 nanos - you have to compare what it is using before and what after. And there the main part of the boost comes from rigs. This is rather important, considering we hear quite regulary "nerf instabs" here, but those are not really the problem. Actually nerfing them would hurt frigates more than battleships.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.28 15:57:00 - [27] Originally by: Aurora Mahair Some have specified the inertia that lest the BS slide out of the Web range is the problem but my answer to them is MOVE YOUR SHIP and make it fast to catch things. In short, counter nanoships with nanoships. Great..not. Basically, this will end up the same way as it did with ECM - everyone and their jumpclone using them because they are the best counter against themselves and anything else is more or less in a disadvantage. Not that there were not countersetups, but why using them when you can have the strength of a setup and the counter instead having just the counter? Well, we have seen how the ECM thing worked out.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.28 20:56:00 - [28] Originally by: Aurora Mahair This is another example of what im talking about. You are applying this logic to this situation but what about to a Damp/web setup. where you are Rendered unable to defend your self accept by tanking it until friends can show up (Same thing that happens with Nano ships.) Bad bad analogy. Which ships can mount such a setup? Gallente and minni recons. Those ships do not have nos at all and perhaps half the base dps of nanoBS. If those would do only 200-300 dps and had not 4 heavy nos fitted I doubt anyone would complain about them. Also, those setups are far more vulnerable against higher numbers. They can almost completely disable another ship (but are rather vulnerable to medium & heavy drones), but one single ship, no matter which kind (within limits, a t1 fitted frigate shouldn't be a problem), will either force them to retreat or die. A 08/15 BC or an AF is just fine there. You have to use a far more specialized counter against a nanobs.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.30 11:16:00 - [29] Thats basically how MWDs work right now... MWDs give a smaller boost to ships with a mass > MWD thrust and a bigger boost to ships with mass < MWD thrust. So it very much means something right now.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.31 15:57:00 - [30] You can fit 5 warp core stabs, 2 overdrives and a MWD on your typhoon and mine all day with it. No need for a nanosetup there. (Not that mining in a phoon is the smartest thing to do)

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.31 22:51:00 - [31] Edited by: Aramendel on 31/01/2007 22:56:27 Originally by: Guillame Herschel You mean mass. Mass controls how fast you accelerate, agility controls how fast you can turn. The problem is that not all ships use the same speed booster. Small ships use 1MN MWD, BS use 100MN MWD. But they both use the same mass reduction mods, which reduce mass by the same percentage. So obviously the BS with the bigger mass will get a bigger quantity of mass reduced by the i-stab. But it's MWD remains the same, and is now somewhat overpowered for the lower mass of a BS with i-stab. Mass is already stacking penalized. Inertia isn't. And -inertia allows you to accelerate faster. This is very easy to test. A sigil with 5 t1 nanos takes me 24 secs to get from 0 to 100% speed. A sigil without them takes 45 secs. The nanosigil accelerates to 100% in 0.53 the time the normal sigil takes. 5 t1 nanos give an inertia of 0.875^5 -> 0.51 of original. Also, the mass reduction has to battleships an identical effect as it has to inties. For example, a crusader has 1.05 kt mass. A 1mn MWD adds 0.5 kt mass and has full effeciency with 1.5 kt ship weight. With 1.55 kt the 1mn MWD has 96.8% effeciency. Now add an LH instab to it and it reduces the mass by 15%. The MWD has now 113.9% effeciency. Now, take a domi. 105 kt mass. 50 kt mass addition from the MWD. Full effeciency at 150 kt. It's 100% identical as with the crusader, exept that all numbers are higher by the factor of 100. But since we divide tham through each other we get the same effeciency numbers as the crusader gets before and after an instab. In short: BSs and inties get exactly the same boost from instabs. Where BSs get a bigger boost are nanos. 24 m/s is a 20% speed boost for a domi. It's a 5.2% speed boost for a crusader. This means an inty gets a bigger boost from replacing a nano with an instab than a BS gets. A nanophoon with 3 nanos, 3 instabs is only 8% faster than a nanophhon with 5 nanos. A claw with 2 nanos, 2 instabs is (IIRC) 28% faster than a calw with 4 nanos. So effeciently for a before after scenario with replacing nanofibers prekali with instabs postkali inties got a bigger boost. Basically, as far as the total boost for nanoBS goes instabs have a rather small influence. Nerfing them would actually hurt frigs more than battleships. The BIG influence comes from the rigs. 3 t1 vent rigs make my nanophoon on sisi 47% faster. Replacing 3 nanos with 3 instabs results only in a 8% speed boost.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 14:26:00 - [32] Originally by: Iconoclastix I've yet to meet the PvP'er who truly desires "balance". Gate camping isn't about balance. You seem to confuse "balance" with "fairness".
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.02 11:45:00 - [33] Edited by: Aramendel on 02/02/2007 11:43:51 As a sidenote, nanosetups got an indirect small boost with 1.3. T2 nanofibers are inventable now. ATM they cost still about half as much as domi nanos, but it's quite likely that their price will fall a good bit in the coming weeks. Originally by: xHomicide What sucks is when your gang of 4 nano-bs costing about 1.2billion PLUS implants has to turn home because someone undocks in a rapier. Which will survive about 20 seconds vs 20 heavy drones and 16 torp launchers. Unless it is supported by a sizeable blob it won't do much.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.02 12:15:00 - [34] Originally by: xHomicide Because heavy drones catch rapiers...wtf? no. Neither do torps. Rapier can easily speed tank torp, they can easily speed tank cruise. Not to mention the fact that it could uncloak next to you at any moment and web you, which puts your expensive ship in front of the firing squad to die instantly. There are very few counters in all of eve as hard as the rapier counter to nano-bs. As said, it needs a blob to do anything. It can speedtank you, but only for a limited time - if it uncloaks "next to you" it will be in nos range and can speedtank for 1 MWD cycle... if it stays outside 30k (or are you telling me your "1.2billion" ships do not have a faction nos?) it won't be able to scramble you.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.02 16:19:00 - [35] Edited by: Aramendel on 02/02/2007 16:16:07 Originally by: Crellion (a) 2 ceptors / Rapier / stabber + say 2 BCs kill it. Try to kill a Gank Mega with that and you ll get splattered all over the grid. Rapier double webs mega and double damps his targeting range to around 18k. Pretty much identical effect as vs a nanophoon/domi, exept that you can do it at a gate, too, without the mega being able to escape.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.03 11:46:00 - [36] Originally by: JVol Again... You've hit the nail on the head. To hear the majority of the complaints of "balance" come from peoples who's PVP background consists of 20 man bubbled up gate camps or 8-1 odds blobs, which have NO semblance of "balance" whatsoever! To repeat myself fairness != balance. The balance people are talking about is not about "balanced (= fair) fights" but about ship & module balance. Basically, no ship/module combo should be so effeccient compared to other combos that it makes no real sense to fly anything else. Nanosetups because exactly this - they get more and more popular simply because they represent the most effecient ship currently isk/effect and sp invested/effect wise. "ADAPT AND OVERCOME" commentw are rather dumb here, because the only way to do this is a) fly nanosetups yourself or b) use specialized blobs for taking them out. And they hurt PvEs much more than PvPers. A normal BS disrupting your mining ops & transport lines is relatively easy to catch. A nanobs can wreck havoc for weeks without you being able to stop it.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.03 13:21:00 - [37] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2007 13:22:54 Quote: Had your raven/mega had any of these or combination of these things they would still be alive.. They weren't set up to counter the threat, they died because of it. I'm not even going to get into tactics that could also have helped turn the tide, both solo and gang. If you had a gang of 13 ships and you COULDN'T kill one nano bs, you need to seroiusly think about mining... They would still be alive - but so would be the nanophoon. They can be forced to retreat, but unless they make a pilot error cannot be killed. That is their main strength, what kills a normal setup just forces them to bail out. A normal setup encounters an enemy which has more EW/nos/numbers than it it dies. A nanosetup flees. And can try again. And again. And again. Originally by: JVol I can think of more than one setup that lets you leave when you want to,can't you? Exept these other setups tend not to have 4 heavy drones, 4 heavy nos and 4 torps (or drone boni). Other setups have weaker dps and/or no nospower. Nanophoons/domis keep the cake and eat it. Quote: This is why people are whining about nanos, they are used to the "easy" bs's to counter.. If your mining op or transport fleet's ecsort wing isnt setup to counter a nano, what OTHER ships isn't it setup to deal with? Jammers, snipers, dampers??? As you said yourself the other setupos are easy to counter compared to nanoBSs. Aka they are stronger than other setups. Aka unbalanced. Snipers cannot keep your targets from warping out and are completely helpless if they jump into a gatecamp which has at least equal numbers. Damperner setups are quite strong vs a single ship, but vs multiples (read: 2+) they are killed fast. Killed. Not forced to retreat. ECM ships cannot do much alone, they have the worst dps of all setups. And when you pin them down are also dead meat. Nanophoons/domis are far more slippery there.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.04 14:39:00 - [38] Originally by: JVol When did I say THAT? NEVER did I say the "only" way to catch a nanoBS is for him to make a mistake.. do some REreading dude.. The little problem is that there are far more ways to for a nan-nano setup with similar dps and nospower as a nanoBS has to get killed without him making any error than a nanoBS faces. What kills a non-nano setup usually forces a nanosetup to flee. As j0sephine said once very accurately, vs each other the worst possible outcome for a nanosetup is the best possible outcome for a non-nanosetup. The nanosetup kills or flees. The non-nanosetup is getting killed or forces the nanosetup to flee. You mentioned recons. The force recons have with their cloak a similar survival rate as nanoBS, yes. But there is also a little difference: they dps is a LOT lower. And they have with the exeption of the pilgrim no nos. And the pilgrim in itself is an exeption of the recons - it has no range bonus and needs to get within 12k range to use his nos (or 19k if it uses the best faction, which is still within warp disruptor range). Which means once it engages a target with a WD it cannot flee until it leeches its whole cap or kills it. All you need is a bait and a BC or similar in the next system and you have a dead pilgrim because past 12k it is only a moderately better tanked arbitrator. If local fills up a nanoBS can disengage at any time. The other recons can disable a ship without it being able to stop them from fleeing, but have, as said, no nos, little dps and a very poor tank. 5 heavy on them is a major problem. If nanoBS would do 200 dps, would have no nos and only 2k armor and shield I doubt people would complain about them.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.04 15:56:00 - [39] Well, you do not see fleets of recons moving around all the time, do you? Of cource there are recon gangs, but they are no very common occurance. They simply cannot do much damage against a bigger gang before they get killed or driven off.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.04 16:15:00 - [40] Originally by: Nyssa Osbourne The question here is why are you complaining? Because nanoships right now effeciently remove choice. Choice only exists if all alternatives are about equal in effeciency. If one is far more effecient than anything else being able to choose between this and alternatives is not an option for choice, but for stupididy. Nanoships make inites and vagas basically redundant and devalue heavily any ships using shortrange turrets. Before kali and the resulting boosts from rigs & instabs nanoBS were just fine. They could use their speed to kill ships not prepared for them but were still slow enough that they were catchable by normally setup inties and some cruisers. An option, but not so good that you would laugh at someone who wanted to use a regular tank on his phoon. Now however you need intys specifically setup for speed to catch them and their additional speed usually results in them being too far away from the rest of your gang to do anything when they finally slow down. In short, the effeciency of nanosetups increased significantly without their counters getting more effecient, too.

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.04 16:39:00 - [41] Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2007 16:39:03 As said. You have a typhoon. You have equal skills for a nanosetup or a tank setup. If you are indecisive which fit to you you have choice because both has for you about the same amount of advantages and disadvantages. If you tell your corp "hey, I just killed a phoon and he was not nanoed up!" and as result get laughter and "what a noob" comments there is no choice because the only viaable option are nanos. If you call that "still a choice" you would have this also if nanosetups would be nerfed to the ground and would be only useful vs ships running 1400mms arties without tracking comps and no drone skills. It would be an very bad choice to fit, but still one... Then this particular defination of "choice" is no argument for or against nanos because it will always be there no matter what you do. For "what I think is broken" see the last sentence of my last post. Nanophoons were a pretty viable setup pre-kali. People used them, and they were effecient, but they were not dominating. Kali gave their main aspect - speed - a very significant boost (about 60% more from (mainly) rigs and (in a smaller part) instabs). Counters against them stayed the same. If you take a balanced setup, boost it significantly and leave counters against it the same, what do you get?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.04 21:04:00 - [42] Originally by: Ryysa And don't forget that Kali made NOS more important for breaking tanks, so that boosted it too... Well, yes and no. The hitpoint boost means it takes longer to kill stuff. However, cap also get a "hitpoint" boost - so while it takes longer to kill stuff it also takes longer to leech it dry. Both normal weapons and nos got "nerfed" in this aspect. Longer fights made the capmanagement trickier, but this more a nerf for ships which have to divide their cap between weapons and tank, aka lasers and hybrids, than a boost for nos. It benefits from their nerf, of cource, but so do drones, missiles and projectiles. Rigs, however, are another thing. 3 * rep rigs make you rep 52% faster - and with a 52% better capeffeciency. Vs a ship with those ships without nos got "nerfed" and those with nos got "buffed". However, vs a ship with 3 cap capacity rigs the opposite is the case.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.05 02:00:00 - [43] Edited by: Aramendel on 05/02/2007 01:57:24 Originally by: Farscape Hw I got news for you. it does f'n matter how much one of these setups costs that determines how the game is ballanced. So a HAC should for example always kill a battleship because it costs more?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.05 11:41:00 - [44] Originally by: MOCC3 Once again to stop a nanoship... Of what ever kind u need a Huginn or a rapier. Exept you do not need a curse or pilgrim to stop a normally tanked ship (even if it has a 5 bil officer tank). Reading comprehenshion 4tw! People do not complain that it is impossible to stop one. But that the amount of viaable counters is to low comapred with what other setups have. Quote: O yeah Before Kali I seen Vids of Nanophoons going 5500ms.no rigs just full head of snake implants. I think people are mad now that with rigs, you can go that fast cheaper. They are mad because those phoons are now going 9 km/s. Nanophoons pre-kali were just fine. People were using them regulary, so they were by far not underpowered. So, if they were balanced pre-kali how can they be balanced now with a 60% speed boost while their counters did not get similar boosts?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.06 16:08:00 - [45] A bit of an understatement for inties, wit a normal setup they can easily get 4-4.5 km/s. With speedmods and rigs 7 km/s are no real problem without snakes. Problem is that they cannot sustain a MWD + scrambler + web then. And by the time a nanoBS slows down it will be 50k away from the rest of the gang and the inty leeched dry.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.06 16:52:00 - [46] Originally by: Griseus In these fittings he just won't able to brake ravens tank with low cap use on shield booster. With 2 vs 4 nos the raven will loose 20 cap/sec from getting nosses. Max reg/sec with 3 recharge rigs and max skills is 31 cap/sec. With 11 cap/sec he can reg with a gist LSB and l-g crystals about 30 hp/sec. Vs 60% resistance (which it won't have since there are no omni resistance passive harderners for shields) thats about 80 hp/sec. Even if you include the natural shield recharge and additional boosts from PDUs it cannot even tank 5 heavies, let alone 5 heavies + 4 torps. Quote: And lets look on Blastertron 7 Electron blasters, 2 damage mods, Armor tank, Slave implant set. He just shred raven apart. And if the raven tackles it and help arrives or if that mega jumps while travelling into a medium or bigger gatecamp it is dead. Quote: You cannot stop small mobile gangs. If you want to do so, you need place large bubble on one side of the gate and dictor on other. After jumping in, nano ship won't have any othes options except going back to gate, and all you need just jump after him and catch on MWDin out of shere. Even with few small ships you can kills him. Just DO it, not cry: He will kill us all! It will simply MWD the 10k out of the dictor bubble and warp before your ceptors can get to it.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.07 17:38:00 - [47] Originally by: Shyalud This is rediculous. Why should you be able to MAKE anyone fight. Speed is as much part of PvP as anything else. If he's too fast for you, then you loose. Simple, get faster. So to counter nanoBS you need nanoBS? Brilliant, so you just repeated one problem people have with nanoBS. They are their own best counter. Similar how ECM was it's own best counter, too. We've seen how that worked out. And nothing wrong with something being hard to catch. What is wrong, however is something hard to catch with the nospower and dps of a nanoBS. Ceptors are hard to catch which is balanced out by their weak dps. What balances out nanosetups?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.07 20:01:00 - [48] Originally by: Shyalud Well, if he's nano/stabbed out, then his armor is minimal...there's a weaknes. Typhoon base armor + shield: 11680 Claw base armor + shield: 739 vaga base armor + shield: 2990 Come again? NanoBS = similar speed. WAY more hitpoint buffer. WAY more nos + dps. You might as well say that for a ship with 25000 shield and 1 armor it's "low armor is it's weakness". Quote: or, gasp fight fire with fire (read adapt) Yes, like people did with ECM. Which was so much fun when every single ship and an multispec or two fitted. Funny how "adapt" is always thrown around when we have an unbalanced setup and people run out of arguments to defend it. Always followed with a nerf for that, as seen with WCS and ECM. Plenty of "adapt" there too.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.07 22:23:00 - [49] And as has been said x times before, invest the same amount of money in other stuff - faction/officer weapons and/or tanks, any implants you want - and you do not get anything which has an overall equal strength as a nanosetup. It does not matetr if you look at a 300 mil or 3 bil setup, it is way more effecient than other similary priced setups. It is out of balance no matter what price.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.08 11:33:00 - [50] Edited by: Aramendel on 08/02/2007 11:33:29 Originally by: Ryysa Huginn can easily solokill a nanoBS, if it's properly fitted. Correct. However, for example any properly fitted curse can also kill any non-nano BS (2bil+ officer fitted ones included). So it's not like that nanoBSs have an unique vulnerablility here. There are still far too few counters for them comapred to other ships. (I know you weren't implying that, but comments like this can easily be twisted into that. Like "See - it can be killed, it's fine.") Originally by: Baudolino Both nano domi and nano phoon can be handled. Nossing ships can be handled. Yes and no. They are not more difficult to counter than any other solo BS. But neither are they easier to counter. But the core difference is: When you counter a non-nano BS this way you kill it in 90% of all situations. When you counter a nanoBS it flees in 90% of all situations. Same performance, less risk. This is what makes them imbalanced.

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.08 16:52:00 - [51] Originally by: Shyalud Good grief, this argumant can be used to say that a ceptor should never be used to tackle anything. 1 vs 1, you'd have to be a moron to go against a BS in a ceptor. But in a gate camp, hunting pack, etc...different story. Not really. And if nanoBS would only be able to tackle and had only ceptor DPS people would not complain about them. The point is that they have more dps, more nos and a higher hitpoint buffer than ceptors (or vagas, for that matter) while having similar speeds. They do not have a "weak tank" - compared to other ships with similar speed their tank is insane. And if you now want to answer that it is not compareable because they are BSs and the other ships not, why do they then achieve the speed of those ships?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.08 16:52:00 - [52] Originally by: Shyalud Good grief, this argumant can be used to say that a ceptor should never be used to tackle anything. 1 vs 1, you'd have to be a moron to go against a BS in a ceptor. But in a gate camp, hunting pack, etc...different story. Not really. And if nanoBS would only be able to tackle and had only ceptor DPS people would not complain about them. The point is that they have more dps, more nos and a higher hitpoint buffer than ceptors (or vagas, for that matter) while having similar speeds. They do not have a "weak tank" - compared to other ships with similar speed their tank is insane. And if you now want to answer that it is not compareable because they are BSs and the other ships not, why do they then achieve the speed of those ships?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.08 18:39:00 - [53] Originally by: Shyalud I just don't agree with this concept except that a BS should not have the agility of the smaller ship, and that it should be easier to hit then the smaller ship, even at equal speeds. I.E. If (on earth) an Elephant and an Antelope were running at the same speed (a stretch, I know) it would be easier to hit the Elephant then the Antelope simply due to it's size. In space, the size of an object doesn't dictate it's speed. I agree that it should take longer for a BS to reach higher speeds, and that it should not be able to manuever as quickly. Game mechanics should, and I think do, make it easier to hit the bs at the same speed as a smaller ship travelling at that speed. Make sense? It's not about logic, it's about balance. The latter is always more important in eve than the first (also, as a sidenote, the "space" physics in eve behave more like a underwater simulator). When you have a certain ship and/or setup which has a far greater cost/benefit ratio than everything else it leads to a homogenization where everyone and their alt will use these setups because they are simply so much better than any alternatives. Which was seen pretty clearly with ECM or gankgeddons. Which is bad for the game. To repeat what I have said multiple times already in this htread, pre-kali nanophoons were already a pretty viaable setup. They were strong in the right hands, but not so strong that you would laugh at anyone who was using another typhoonsetup. Basically, their were not overpowered or underpowered but pretty balanced. With kali and rigs/instabs their main strength - speed - got a 60% boost. Their counters remains virtually unchanged. What doyou get when you boost a balanced setup significantly and leave it's counters alone?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.08 19:26:00 - [54] Exept such "solutions" usually do not work. Again, take ECM. ECCM was/is a pretty good counter against it - it's problem, however, was that it was useless against anything else. Why use a specialized counter which is only good vs one thing when the item it counters is ALSO an excellent counter vs itself and is on top of this also useful vs other setups?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.08 20:05:00 - [55] Did you even read what I wrote before? Webs, damps, etc are identical to pre kali. Speed is 60% higher. Te setup was balanced before without the 60% speed increase. What is balancing it now?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.08 20:05:00 - [56] Did you even read what I wrote before? Webs, damps, etc are identical to pre kali. Speed is 60% higher. Te setup was balanced before without the 60% speed increase. What is balancing it now?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.08 20:25:00 - [57] Edited by: Aramendel on 08/02/2007 20:23:59 See post #722 The problem is that if you introduce "significant boosts" you are not increasing content but removing it. Because if you make a setup too strong you will have eventually only that setup flying around. Boosting stuff without balancing it somehow does not work.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 02:41:00 - [58] Edited by: Aramendel on 09/02/2007 02:42:14 Originally by: Shyalud ok, look at it a different way. What if someone spent an equal amount of time (say a raven pilot) and money on maximizing the ship? With equal amount of money, comparable skill training (in the appropriate areas) and similar but obviously ship/systems specific implants and rigs. Would this pilot in this raven be horibly outmatched by the nanophoon? ... Don't think that nano-phoon would kill it. Might get away, but wouldn't kill it. Not "might" get away, but WILL get away. Even if you would have bothered to fit something like a "warp disruptor". Of cource it is possible to make antisetups against nanoships. The problem, however, is that 90% of these setups only cause the ship to escape. If other ships meet something which counters their setup they do not flee, but die. Basically, the risk/reward for nanosetups is broken. When you need to decide between a setup where you either kill or die or one where you either kill or flee it gets rather obvious which one will be preferred.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 11:32:00 - [59] Originally by: Shyalud well, maybe your biggest counter to rampant nanoships is the sheer amount of money it takes to build one versus the reward for having built it. What's the point if you can't kill anything worth killing? Killing is not the issue. Surviving anything unless you made a pilot error is it. Eve is a very risk-reward based game. You can pimp up your ship with billions and make it a good deal stronger - however, if you make an error or meet an overwhelming force you still die. Quote: I can run most camps in a well fitted Ares at a much cheaper price tag, and can haul anything I need to in it if I need to run camps to do it. No sense wasting the billions on skills, rigs, implants, etc to do it. If you nerf the nanos people will find other ways to get cheap ganks. Just ADAPT To repeat myself, if nanoBS would have the dps, nospower and hitpoint buffer of a ceptor (or even force recon) noone would complain about them. Originally by: xHomicide Because there are no such things as damp rigs And which difference do they make exactly vs nanoships? Originally by: Happster #1 Is in question here. Remove the speed the phoon has, and remove one of the Minnies advantage.... Balancing something != removing something. Pre-kali the nanophoon was a pretty viable, balanced setup. A racial identity does not justify something to be too strong. Look up the history of the gankgeddon.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 12:32:00 - [60] Originally by: Shyalud Listen, I once put three MWDs on a domi and got it over 1mil km/s. Though you could, you didn't see anyone doing because it didn't do anything for you except make you go fast..... You saw plenty of double MWD ravens. Which COULD kill stuff pretty nicely while being more or less invicible themselves. Quote: People just need to learn how to counter it and the fad will end on it's own. To the contrary, it will only strengthen itself - since the best counter to nanosetups are nanosetups themselves.

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 14:06:00 - [61] Edited by: Aramendel on 09/02/2007 14:03:23 Originally by: Shyalud Well, you're wrong. There are plenty of counters, as many have pointed out. But, good luck with getting them nerfed. Correction: there are plenty of ways to make them flee. But not more as for other ships. The only real counter to them - as in being able to kill them - are minnie recons or other nanoBS. With the latter being more effective. If you have to decide to pick between counters you usually pick the most effective one. Which are, as said, nanoBS themselves.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 16:51:00 - [62] Originally by: Tom Gunn The argument that a ship is overpowered because it can warp away so easily is somewhat invalid because you would also have to apply to all other classes of ships that have just as easy time disengaging - not limited to fast attack ships like inteceptors, vagabonds but also ship types such as snipers who with a planned out set of safe spots can also disengage with no risk if the battle looks bad. Problem here is that all these ships have other drawbacks. Snipers will die horribly if they jump into a gatecamp, also have low dps - lower than a nanoBS - and no nos and cannot stop a target from warping away on their own. Ceptors have even less dps and only a minimal HP buffer and are more vulnerable to nos. Force recons also have low dps and outside the pilgrim no nos. And are easier to lock down when they engage a target (especially the pilgrim, since it has no range bonus). Vagas dps, nos and hitpoint buffer is also below that of nanoBSs.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:49:00 - [63] Edited by: Aramendel on 09/02/2007 20:47:20 Originally by: Tom Gunn I've a hard time believing that a sniperthron has less dps than a nanophoon (7xT2 425mm vs 4 T2 torps), i'd need to see numbers to believe that. Fully maxxed out and with 3 damagemods a mega does 350 dps. A typhoon with 4 siege2, 1 BCU2 and 5 berserker2 - using tech 1 ammo and the heavy drones with the 3rd worst dps - does 564 dps. AND has 4 heavy nos on it's target. If you do not believe me run the numbers yourself, it's not exactly difficult. Quote: Ceptors cost a fraction of a price of a BS, so sure they have less hp, but they do fly twice as fast (with equivalent fittings and implants, inties can reach well in excess of 10-12km m/s), making them untrackable and unhittable by anything except another frigate. They have a weakness when nos'd but at the same time can carry a micro cap injector to ensure they don't get sucked dry and made helpless by a hvy nos. Price is no argument for balance at all - or do have HACs now suddenly more HP than a BS because they cost more? Also, while inties can fly 10-12 km/s they cannot hit anything at these speeds (outside the crow which as very very very weak dps). And what exactly should those inties with only 2 medslots do? Remove themselves from the game? Quote: Vaga's are a middle ground between an inty and nanophoon, its ultimately a fast attack cruiser so its a no brainer that its armament and durability is less than a BS - but i'd argue thats exactly how it should be. Exept that it costs about as much as a nanoBS. See your price argument above - or do you only use it when it is convenient? Quote: As for Force recons, they are one of the few ships able to take down a nano BS 1 vs 1. I would love to see you 1v1 take down a nanobs with a pilgrim, arazu or falcon. The only ship of them which can do it is the rapier. --------------- And, anyway, what you ignored is the low dps of all these ships. If nanoBS would only do 200 dps and would have no nos noone would complain about them. 500 dps and 4 heavy nos are a completely different ballpark, though.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 22:58:00 - [64] Edited by: Aramendel on 09/02/2007 23:04:19 - It's not what they are "about" it's about how they are balanced. Speed and hitpoints/dps are usually mutually exclusive - you have either ships which have high speed and low hitpoints/dps or the other way around. Not both. - The vaga still has far less effective hitpoints. And less dps. And almost no nos. If you think the smaller sig makes that balanced vs nanoBS..well..reality check? - Rapier is a force recon SHIP. You spoke in plural. Which implies more than one out of all recons. And 1v1. Alone. Without support. So, no, an arazu can make a nanoBS flee, but not kill it. If the nanoBS careful, that is. If it really knows that the arazu is alone it will just fly close to it, target it at close range and kill it and there is nothing the arazu can do against that but cloak and retreat before the nanoBS has finished it's 1-2 min lock. The falcon will be eaten alive by it's heavy drones when it misses an ecm cycle. And, again, cannot do anything to stop it from fleeing. Oh, and you are STILL ignoring the core point - nanoBS have a WAY bigger hitpoint buffer and WAY higher dps and nos than other high survivability/mobility ship/setups. You can try to argue around this as long as you want to, this fact won't suddenly vanish. If they are to be balanced they either need lower survivability or lower dps. You cannot keep the cake and eat it.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 23:48:00 - [65] Well, base without the 2 LSE2. A typhoon could also mount one and the domi 2, but it would not make much sense because they already have big HP buffers.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.10 14:06:00 - [66] IMO such tests are pretty meaningless, though, since you do not get any meaningful number of closerange ships which have multiple tracking comps fitted. Test fittings need to pass a sanity test - "would I undock with this fitting" - otherwise you'll just end up with extreme fittings which you never see in open PvP because they are far to specialized and will die to anything outside that which they were designed to counter.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.10 14:26:00 - [67] Originally by: Tom Gunn The DPS figures quoted on the phoon are skewed to T2 torps doing full damage - something they aren't going to achieve on smaller ships. Neither will large guns of a sniping BS. Quote: When comparing a shield extended on a Tech 1 BS vs a ship like the vagabond, remember the latter gains a greater benefit from having a T2 extender fitted over a BS due to the huge difference in resists. Which is pretty much canceled by it's inability to deal any damage at highspeed. Exept that of it's 5 small drones, that is. Quote: To me, the killer of the nanophoon is its NOS - even 600 dps isn't going to slay a tanked BS in a hurry if it has its cap to play with, the problem is that the phoon can mount 4 hvy nos' to suck BS's dry - i firmly believe the problem is with NOS, not with nano fittings. If NOS's were reduced in power the faster you go, so that 4x hvy NOS were reduced to 25% effectiveness when flying at the speeds nano BS go at, you'd see tanked BS's actually tanking, instead of having no cap to do anything with - in fact, a tanked BS would be able to use its NOS much more effectively than the nano ship flying around it. It would still have far more dps than other highspeed / high survivability setups then though.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.10 15:23:00 - [68] Originally by: Tom Gunn And here's where we fundamentally disagree. A nano battleship (regardless of class) can mount heavy weapons - battleships are designed to have heavier firepower than cruisers who in turn have heavier firepower than frigates - battleships should have more hitpoints than a cruiser, and should be able to tank better - the exception perhaps being some nifty command ship or hac tanks - to me, thats how the game should be. There's nothing wrong with those mechanics - the smaller ships inties and fast attack ships can still outpace a nano BS - which to me is how it should be - i'd agree there would be a problem if nano BS were flying faster than a similarly skilled pilot/equipped inteceptor - but the fact is, they don't. The problem is that the heavier firepower and more hitpoints come at a price for battleships - significantly lower effective speed. Frigates and cruisers (or, better - "cruiser": the only one which can achiever higher speeds than nanoBS is the vaga which has a 25% speed bonus)..anyway, they can achieve higher speeds than nanoBS, yes. However, at these speeds they cannot do any dps. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. With one exeption - the missile crow. Which does less than 100 dps. So their higher speed does not really mean anything there, because they cannot use it and at the same time be an effective combat ship. NanoBS can. It's not about maximum speed, it's about the maximum effective speed where they can keep functioning as combat ships and not highspeed shuttles. If heavy drones and torp launchers would become inactive as soon as the controlling ship would fly more then 3 km/s then you might have a point.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.10 19:11:00 - [69] Originally by: Tom Gunn As for having points, its not that I or any other sensible poster on this thread doesn't have one, its just that we may or may not disagree with you. Wrong. You base your argument of incorrect facts. You say that nanoBS are ok because one t2 cruiser and ceptors can be made faster than it. However you totally ignore that - unlike nanoBS - they cannot do anything involving weapons at these speeds. So their higher speed is completely meaningless because they cannot use it. Meaning that "they have higher speed" argument has no value. It's not valid. You certainly may have opinion here, but no point, because the arguments you base it on are incorrect. The only, singular ship you could compare nanoBS to is the crow in this aspect. Which, has has been said, has very low dps even for high-survivability ships. NanoBS have the same advantage and very high dps for high survivability ships. That it is a BS does zip to justify it being stronger there - the devs stated themselves multiple times that BSs should not be the ultimate solo-pown-mobiles. If you think that I am afraid the powers to be disagree. You are right on one aspect, though - the problem are in the end trackless weapons if combined with high speed setups. The problem can be solved by change the effeciency of these weapons at high speed or nerf nanoBS. Since you yourself stated that a missle (and drone!) nerf in this apsect might open a too huge can of worms the only really viable solution left are to nerf nanoBSs.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.10 23:36:00 - [70] Originally by: HankMurphy trolling without bringing any arguments ...or maybe I have to say (read: repeat) the same thing 20 times to 20 different people.

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.11 00:20:00 - [71] And the point I am making is that there are quite regulary new people using the old arguments which have already been discussed to the ground. You are quite right that everything what could be said has been said already on this topic - but we still get new people using [pointlessargument which has been invalidated 20 pages ago]. Then I am replying to them. Because a) I like to discuss game mechanics and b) I am the honest opinion that we have an imbalance here. So when someone posts "It's fine, BS are supposed to pown everything smaller, they cost 20 bil so it is balanced and a minnie recon will make all nanoBS in the same system instantly implode." I will answer him and I do not care in the slightest if I said that thing already 10 times. Because it has already been said does not make it suddely wrong. If you call people posting arguments which have been brought up already multiple times and have been invalidated by other people (not only me) because they have holes you could drive a titan through "useful discussion" then I'm pretty happy to "disrupt" it. -------------------- In the end the whole nanoship issue can be reduced to one simple line of thought: - pre-Kali nanophoons already existed. And were used as viable setup. - post-Kali they recieved with instabs and rigs approximately a 60% speed boost. - ways to kill them were not boosted at all, ways to drive them off were not boosted by the same amount (exept other nanosetups) Basically, nanoBSs get a significant boost with kali. This gives us 2 possibilities: - nanoBS were too weak pre-kali and are now "balanced" (where I would heavily disagree because I can point you to pre-kali vids which are showing nanophoons killing stuff without much of a problem) or - nanoBS were balanced pre-kali and now got a major boost without introducing anything which balances this boost
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.12 02:20:00 - [72] Edited by: Aramendel on 12/02/2007 02:22:44 Originally by: Goumindong Must not, 4km/s is tech 2 max relevent skills with no implants, no skill hardwiring, and no gang bonuses. Well, actually it's around 5.5 km/s for a nanophoon with 5 t2 nanos, 2 LH instabs and t2 MWD and 12 km/s for the best of the best faction MWD and max implants (including full HG snakes and Shaqils 8% speed implant). 3 t1 vents and maxxed skills of cource for both. Although such a setup won't be able to fit 4 heavy nos and 4 siege launchers and using t2 nanos might be considered faction equipment, at least in price. /edit: and for ****s and giggles, 14.5 km/s with 3 t2 vents. 20 km/s with the full gang bonus from a skirmish mindlink of a maxxed claymore pilot. Now THAT will be a fast phoon.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.12 12:43:00 - [73] Originally by: Capt Dirk a good bs can tank it all day long 4 darkblood? wah, rigs have made big changes in ship setups triple armor reps, cap rig etc It is quite possible to rig a BS so it reps have a 52% higher effeciency, just like they can boost it's MWD effeciency by 52%. However, reps do not work well when all cap has been nossed. Also, high speed is a better maximum dps tank as reps. If one ship cannot hit you 10 ships cannot either. If you can rep the dps of 1 ship you usually cannot rep that of 10. And lastly, IMO the drawback of speed rigs is a joke. The max armor penality does not really hurt them - the speed penality of armor rigs however...
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.12 13:36:00 - [74] Originally by: Starlinger Why? 3 or 4 webs (90% slow down) that reduce speed totally by 99% make even nanoship moving 70m/s that is 1% from 7000m/s ... and nanos haven't tank. Next time maybe try something out before posting. Or looking through the thread. This has been posted x times already before. Webs do not decellerate a ship instantly. Even if you have a sensorboosted minnie recon it will take at least 3 seconds to activate the webs (1 sec uncloaking lag, 1 sec targeting, 1 sec web module lag). By that time the nanoBS will already have already multiple km/s and will be at least halfway to the gate. Then it will slow down...slowly. Not fast enough to make it stop before it reaches jump distance.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.12 22:31:00 - [75] Originally by: solarwinds Interdiction spheres which act like deadspace as well, no MWD within their limits. Would kill ALL MWD setups. Outside of ultra-speed BSs there is not that much of a problem with them IMO.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.13 16:36:00 - [76] Originally by: Adago Vilon Fitting I-stabs has been cited as one of the main causes of speed. They aren't. On nanoBS at least. Exchange 2 LH nanos with 2 LH instabs -> 8% speed boost for a typhoon Fit 3 vent rigs -> 48% speed boost
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.14 11:38:00 - [77] Well, ceptors ARE still the fastest ship in the game, they cann still be made faster than a BS. The problem is that a nanoBS can themself tackle anything but these extreme ceptor setups while not being remotely as vulnerable to nos and having BS class nos power and dps.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.16 00:57:00 - [78] It would prolly hurt them, but not even remotely as much. A vaga or inty do not really need to fit a single nano for viable setups (even speedsetups). A nanoBS needs to fit at least 3 nanos. Although a nano cap penality would not have much of a balancing effect - the "bad" nanoships do not mainly rely on their cap recharge to power their nos, but on cap from their target and injectors.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.16 08:55:00 - [79] Edited by: Aramendel on 16/02/2007 08:55:14 Just got an idea which would nerf the problem while keeping the other ships basically unchanged. Or maybe it's just a brainfart..tell me. Copied from the information portal: Originally by: tux For example overdrives increase velocity, nanofbers agility and inertia stabilizers mass. Well we might then switch the istabs and nanos around as it really makes more sense that nanofibers reduce mass. The only problem is that I'm afraid that the agility mod will be sort of useless. Its quite possible that this alone could fix the whole issue without needing to tinker with MWDs. If ODs would give a speed boost (unchanged to what they are now, although it might be a good idea to boost t2 ODs to domination stats similar to how t2 nanos are now compared to domi nanos), instabs only a -20% inertia boost (would still be useful on haulers, although it should get stacking nerfed) and nanos only -15% mass it would severly cripple the bigger nanosetups while not having asm uch of an effect to other ships. For, example, a Typhoon with 4 t2 nanos and 3 LH instabs has right now +150 m/s speed, 22% of it's old inertia and 68% of it's mass. If the speed items get changed like they are above and the phoon fits 3 t2 (40 m/s) ODs, 2 instabs and 2 nanos he would +120 m/s speed, 66% of it's inertia and 74% of it's mass. And also 64% of it's cargo room, aka less space for cap charges. Would result in it having only 83% of the previous max MWD speed and 3 times of it's previous inertia. If that is still considered too fast you could give ODs only a max 30 m/s speed boost (and loose the cargo penality), then the max speed would be 73% of what it is now. But I think the vastely reduced agility won't make a further velocity reduction necessary. Advantages: - ceptors wouldn't get hurt much if at all since the agility bonus from nanos and instabs is not really needed by them due to their already high base agility - blaster ships usually do not fit speedmods so won't be effected by this Ultra-highspeed ceptors would still exist, though, but with the exeption of the crow they cannot do dps at these speeds.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.19 10:33:00 - [80] Originally by: Bryg Philomena I love interceptors, they're fast. But pack little punch and cant take a hit. SAME WITH NANO SHIPS. They cant take a hit. 500 dps and 4 heavy nos = "little punch"? 10.000 hitpoints = "can't take a hit"?

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.20 09:56:00 - [81] Originally by: Ryysa In gang with maxed claymore maybe. Should have that already with 18 km/s. Theoretical max speed for a nanophoon are 20 km/s with 5 t2 nanos/2 instabs or 22 km/s with 5 domi ODs/2 instabs.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.23 23:31:00 - [82] Originally by: Ryysa Not if the prey fits nos + decent tank, or wcs + tank. WCS are no real argument, because WCS work against every single other ship as well. Of cource there are ways in eve to avoid combat, but it fitting a full rack of WCS (with the tradeoff of making the ship usless for PvP) or the much loved logoffski, which works vs nanoBS just as well as against every other ship. Notice the last part of that sentence, non-ultra-survivability setups have just the same problems. If anything nanoBS are the best ship for stabbed up ships, because the only way to keep those from fleeing is bumping - which nanoBS can do best. In short, you can answer Can the Nano ship force you to fight if you absolutly do not want to? with a definite "yes". However, it is the wrong question. A nanoBS as an unique advantage, so it would also need an unique disadvantage if you want to use it as balance argument. Something which only effects them and not all ships. This makes ECM, damps and WCS no viable answers there. There the only real answer is: if you are in another BS with at least an equal amount of nos and a good tank. But this is again no real "see they are balanced" argument. Because every single other BS outfit also has their nemesis - there is none which can kill ALL other outfits. In short: it has targets it is weak against. Yes. But, again, so has every other ship/setup. The problem here is that if other ships/setups encounter their "bad" target they die in most cases. A nanosetup will flee in most cases.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.27 00:59:00 - [83] Originally by: Ash Vincetti The problem goes from a full snake implant + rigs + iStabs/Nanoed interceptor reaching 16km/s, to that of a similar battleship reaching upwards of 6km/s. Try 6 km/s without snakes on a nanophoon (can get a nanophoon to over 7 km/s without any snake implant). Quote: With that tidbit of history in mind, what should be done is have the values of all the propulsion mods & rigs adjusted down. If they were all halved, then those 6km/s become 3, and the 16km/s become 8km/s. The general speed is no real problem - the high speed "oversized" ships can achieve is. Also, such a change would nerf all ships which plainly do not need any nerf, especially all closerange turret setups. Perhaps graded on some sort of curve with stacking penalties, so that the interceptors at the lower levels can achieve similar results than before Revelations, but after 2 of each type, diminishing results really start to sink in. This will naturally have to be tested, and done over several patches to see how the setups and gameplay are affected, but those are my .02 isk on the matter. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel in this issue. If after adjusting the propulsion mods, we continue to see nano battleships abused, then we can start looking into other alternatives, such as the nos/mwd/cap booster/etc nerfs that seem so incredibly ill-conceived.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.27 15:09:00 - [84] Was already suggested, no good idea since you might as well remove all ships which rely on a MWD from the game then. Including inties, shortrange turret ships and blockade runners.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.27 16:33:00 - [85] It's a bit of a naming issue. The agility mod is not really an agility mod. Nanofibers and instabs give beside their speed/mass bonus not a +agility bonus but a negative inertia modifier. And inertia is the force of your mass which is slowing down your acelleration (not really correctly phrased, but you get the idea). The problem really is that outside of changing the physics of space-time the only way to reduce the inertia of an object is to reduce it's mass because it's a direct result of it. The -inertia mod is basically something which is physically impossible.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.28 10:46:00 - [86] Edited by: Aramendel on 28/02/2007 10:45:35 Difference is that most of those ships are not able to do that in a full combat setup, but only in travelsetups. Also, even if a blasterhtorn could get back to the gate (where I am not sure, I do not think he can acellerate fast enough to be unable to be slowed down before he reaches the gate)..anyway, even if this case a single 08/15 fitted inty should have no problem to jump through and hold him until some of your gang can jump through as well, even if the BS has a 2 bil faction fit. Assuming he does not log, that is, but thats another story. Vs a nanobs you would need at least a nanoed inty and a nanoed minnie recon.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.28 14:57:00 - [87] Edited by: Aramendel on 28/02/2007 14:54:53 Not necessarily. A hug/rapier can easily use 2 webs, 2 damps, MWD and faction scram. Even if the phoon has a sensorbooster it won't be able to target the minnie recon back if it stays more than 24k away from him. If nanoed up it can easily speedtank any drones on it until help arrives (or it is able to kill the drones on it's own). You need the ceptor to keep the phoon from warping before the minnie recon can lock on him and minnie recon to lock him down. It's perfectly able to do so on it's own. Could still fail if you have bad luck (like jumping in 35k from the phoon), though. And still a lot more (highly specialized) effort than you need vs anything else.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:27:00 - [88] Originally by: smallgreenblur But i do see your point, that setup could work, although with one sensorbooster on vs 2 damps I believe lock range is something on the lines of 30-40ks so you are still vulnerable to drones. Also, you are hoping that the nanobs is happily sitting 24ks from you while you lock him, dampen him, and get to your preferred range. Phoon lock range is 23.5k with one SB2 and LRT4 vs 2 t2/muon damps with SS4. I am using damps extensively myself and made very sure that I know exactly what they can and cannot do. Also, the nanobs can happily lock the huggin initially. One cycle of 4 heavy nos will only drain half the huggins cap (and that is assuming the ceptor got ignored and no nos was used on him)), their cooldown are 12 seconds and by that time the webs should have slowed the nanoBS down sufficently that the huggin will be in absolute control of the range. Heavy (or med) drones are also no problem because a properly nanoed up huggin does 4 km/s (without snakes), they are simply too slow to reach him. And even with half of his cap gone he can speedtank them for 30 seconds till the cavallery arrives. Quote: and requires at least 2 specialised ships setup just for this operation... Of cource. I never said otherwise or that that is balanced. Originally by: Derran And that is assuming you catch it on the OTHER side of the gate and one of your key ships didn't aggro so can't follow. It doesn't aggroes because it aggroing does absolutely nothing if he runs to the gate. While you are in the very process of locking you will see at once if the nanophoon will make a run for the gate or will try to warp off. It's rather obvious. If he is going to the gate (aka to the center of your fleet) a smart huggin pilot will not agress him - other ships with 10km webs can web him just as well there. Quote: Also you have to assume that the BS pilot did not fit a sensorbooster which may let him get a lock on the huguin/rapier before it can dampen it (I don't think it'd have enough strength with just 2 dampeners, btw), one dampener would be negated and then the nanoBS would likely have enough time to stick its drones on the rapier or Huguinn. See above.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:27:00 - [89] Originally by: smallgreenblur But i do see your point, that setup could work, although with one sensorbooster on vs 2 damps I believe lock range is something on the lines of 30-40ks so you are still vulnerable to drones. Also, you are hoping that the nanobs is happily sitting 24ks from you while you lock him, dampen him, and get to your preferred range. Phoon lock range is 23.5k with one SB2 and LRT4 vs 2 t2/muon damps with SS4. I am using damps extensively myself and made very sure that I know exactly what they can and cannot do. Also, the nanobs can happily lock the huggin initially. One cycle of 4 heavy nos will only drain half the huggins cap (and that is assuming the ceptor got ignored and no nos was used on him)), their cooldown are 12 seconds and by that time the webs should have slowed the nanoBS down sufficently that the huggin will be in absolute control of the range. Heavy (or med) drones are also no problem because a properly nanoed up huggin does 4 km/s (without snakes), they are simply too slow to reach him. And even with half of his cap gone he can speedtank them for 30 seconds till the cavallery arrives. Quote: and requires at least 2 specialised ships setup just for this operation... Of cource. I never said otherwise or that that is balanced. Originally by: Derran And that is assuming you catch it on the OTHER side of the gate and one of your key ships didn't aggro so can't follow. It doesn't aggroes because it aggroing does absolutely nothing if he runs to the gate. While you are in the very process of locking you will see at once if the nanophoon will make a run for the gate or will try to warp off. It's rather obvious. If he is going to the gate (aka to the center of your fleet) a smart huggin pilot will not agress him - other ships with 10km webs can web him just as well there. Quote: Also you have to assume that the BS pilot did not fit a sensorbooster which may let him get a lock on the huguin/rapier before it can dampen it (I don't think it'd have enough strength with just 2 dampeners, btw), one dampener would be negated and then the nanoBS would likely have enough time to stick its drones on the rapier or Huguinn. See above.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.03.02 11:11:00 - [90] You broke the forum, Ryysa Stacking nerfing the nanos speed boost wouldn't change much - stacking nerfing the -inertia boost would have a rather significant effect though. Both nanos and instabs have this bonus, so instead 3 there are 6 effects which would share the penality. In numbers - instead having with 6 nanos+instabs 38% of it's unmodifed agility you would only get 63% of it's old agility instead. Basically, the maximum agility would be about that what you get right now if you fit 3 LH instabs.

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.03.05 00:28:00 - [91] Eve physics do not represent actualy space physics AT ALL already anyway, so any argument which starts with "But realistically..." is already pre-doomed. It is a game.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.03.07 01:11:00 - [92] Edited by: Aramendel on 07/03/2007 01:11:35 Not one of the pro-nanoBS crowd, but I'll try to answer regardless: 1.) People are usually referring to HG snakes for the multiple bil setups. Unless you get silly and use faction heavy nosses and t2 rigs you do not get over 500 mil if you use the best deadspace MWD. With t2 and cheap implants (~300 mil) you can get around 5 km/s. With the cheaper faction MWDs and LG snakes it's around 8 km/s (~1 bil, half of that for LG snakes). And with HG snakes and the best MWDs it goes over 10 km/s (prolly 3-4 bil, ~2 bil for the snakes). With keeping 1-2 lows free for RCU and/or BCU and without gang boni. If you dedicate all lows to speed, use t2 rigs and the best implants and a maxxed claymore pilot for gang assist boni you can get >20 km/s with a phoon. 2.) Pretty much what you already stated. Nav 5 (generally good skill), evasive 5 (needed for ceptors), SC 5 (needed for all t2 cruisers and BCs) are IMO out of the picture. The only "good" skills which aren't part of the general skilling would be accelleration control 5 (and that is still only a "good idea" and not essential, it's only a 3-4% speed boost from lvl 4). And high speed maneuvering 5, but this is, again, no "must have" but just nice. Compared to, lets say, t2 large guns for snipers trainingtime for a nanoBS is a joke.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.03.10 18:22:00 - [93] Nanophoon dps > nanodomi dps...
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.03.10 19:14:00 - [94] Thats with 1 BCU2, siege and heavies. With cruise and meds it will have less dps than a domi....with heavies. If the domi uses meds, too, the phoon will again have more dps
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.03.14 23:22:00 - [95] On test right now: LH instabs: -20% inertia (agility bonus) (t2 same) LH nanos: -10% mass (t2 -12.5%) LH ODs: +18.9% speed (t2 +20%) No other boni. Negative effects of the mods are still the same. -inertia and +percentual speed and the +MMD effeciency effect of vent rigs have a stacking penality

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.