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)
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.25 16:14:00 - [1] I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it was mentioned but why not increase the cap usage on the MWD, remove the cap penalty and put a huge agility penalty on it? It occurs to me that the whole point of the MWD originally was just for a sudden burst of speed that applies in a straight line. Wouldn't something like this work best?
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.26 18:07:00 - [2] Originally by: Derran I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it was mentioned but why not increase the cap usage on the MWD, remove the cap penalty and put a huge agility penalty on it? It occurs to me that the whole point of the MWD originally was just for a sudden burst of speed that applies in a straight line. Wouldn't something like this work best? Figured I'd quote myself here rather than retype. I was thinking of numbers so what about a 75-80% agility penalty when MWD is in use? That way you can still have your burst of speed but your turning ability makes it unviable to keep in orbit while the MWD is on.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.27 15:49:00 - [3] Originally by: ArtemisEntreri Originally by: Derran Originally by: Derran I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it was mentioned but why not increase the cap usage on the MWD, remove the cap penalty and put a huge agility penalty on it? It occurs to me that the whole point of the MWD originally was just for a sudden burst of speed that applies in a straight line. Wouldn't something like this work best? Figured I'd quote myself here rather than retype. I was thinking of numbers so what about a 75-80% agility penalty when MWD is in use? That way you can still have your burst of speed but your turning ability makes it unviable to keep in orbit while the MWD is on. You already get an agility nerf, and this would only nerf ships that don't have nano tbh, nerfing agility = nerfing acceleration therefore hurting ships like blasterthron approaching a target etc. MWD is not the problem imo I'm not a speed freak so I never really paid much attention to that. Whenever I used a MWD, it was only just to get a boost in a straight line. Doesn't it seem odd that acceleration is based on agility instead of mass? Agility seems more like a stat for maneuverability and difficulty to hit than a stat for propulsion. It seems the only thing mass is tied to is your top speed. You'd think doing it so mass affects speed and acceleration and agility affects only manueverability and difficulty to hit (along with sig radius) would make more sense.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.27 21:11:00 - [4] Originally by: Imhotep Khem I put my rapier on a nano-phoon before. He slid into the gate under the pause my domination webbifier. Nothing I could do about it. I suppose we could have a Sabre jump through and bubble him. But how many different types of ships and pilots should it take to bring down a single battle ship and still be called balanced? Glad some one was able to get the right words to put it in the proper perspective. This is what should be said to all people who don't think interceptors known as battleships should be changed.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.28 16:59:00 - [5] Originally by: Aramendel 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. Setting aside the fact for now that this whole istab+nano+MWD essentially makes frigate sized ships obsolete, that still makes it required to have at least 3 ships to stop 1 (rapier/huguinn to slow it down, interceptor to scramble, another ship for real damage). 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. 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. There is alot of things that would have to go perfect and still alot of ships just to take out one.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:29:00 - [6] Originally by: Chelmar II Excuse my ignorance since I have never flown a Typhoon, but it seems that a nossie boat, if given enough time and probably a faction stasis web, could easily take a fully fitted nanophoon. I haven't read the entire 32 pages before, so I'm not sure if the idea was offered/disproved already. I can fly pretty much everything and trust me, it doesn't look as easy as it sounds. The best I have been able to do is fight a nanodomi to a draw with my nonistab/nano typhoon and I did it by destroying his drones. A nanodomi isn't generally as much of a problem because of this but the other ships are. The majority of pilots who use the setup stay beyond even faction web range as they just need to keep you scrambled so you can't escape. You can't quite NOS them to death as they are just nossing you back anyway plus the majority of them use cap boosters to keep things running. The typhoon is the strongest one to use this way because of its large amount of grid and high slots and large drone bay but I have seen many other battleships set up with istab and nanos like a Tempest and Megathron. A typical typhoon setup is 4 NOS with 4 missile launchers.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:29:00 - [7] Originally by: Chelmar II Excuse my ignorance since I have never flown a Typhoon, but it seems that a nossie boat, if given enough time and probably a faction stasis web, could easily take a fully fitted nanophoon. I haven't read the entire 32 pages before, so I'm not sure if the idea was offered/disproved already. I can fly pretty much everything and trust me, it doesn't look as easy as it sounds. The best I have been able to do is fight a nanodomi to a draw with my nonistab/nano typhoon and I did it by destroying his drones. A nanodomi isn't generally as much of a problem because of this but the other ships are. The majority of pilots who use the setup stay beyond even faction web range as they just need to keep you scrambled so you can't escape. You can't quite NOS them to death as they are just nossing you back anyway plus the majority of them use cap boosters to keep things running. The typhoon is the strongest one to use this way because of its large amount of grid and high slots and large drone bay but I have seen many other battleships set up with istab and nanos like a Tempest and Megathron. A typical typhoon setup is 4 NOS with 4 missile launchers.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.03.06 22:24:00 - [8] Isn't the real issue just the fact that a battleship now becomes what it is not supposed to be? Namely a ship with the more maueverability and speed than a frigate and lots more firepower. I'm boggled over the reason why some people would think that it is not right for a BS to do this. I like the sound of another poster's idea I saw about changing the nanos to be a percentage instead of a set amount.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.03.09 20:12:00 - [9] Heeelloooooooooooooooo? taptap Is this thing on? The problem with whole 'nanobs' thing is that they are faster and more maneuverable than frigates. While yes, they are quiet a strong setup, the real point is they really replace frigate size ships.

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.