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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Venix An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.01.27 01:46:00 - [331] Signed to nerf nano bs-bcs. I think the vaga is fine and intys are fine. But a BS and BC outrunning an inty is just sad.
JaxxFunk Minmatar Macabre Votum	Posted - 2007.01.27 02:35:00 - [332] Maybe give the nano's/instabs a slight stacking penalty, but seriously peeps, you can't just moan for every new tactic/setup that pwns to be nerfed.
Kusotarre Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.27 02:54:00 - [333] Claim: NanoBS are faster than ceptors. This is wrong. A crow with 2 istabs and a T2 MWD will outpace a NanoBS with a T2 MWD. A crow with 2 istabs and a gistii MWD will outpace a nanoBS with gist MWD. If you want to compare a BS using full rack of LH nanos and istabs, gist MWD and LG or HG snakes versus a non-snake, non-gist, non-istabbed interceptor, you're delusional. Claim: NanoBS has good damage. Wrong. The highest damage NanoBS is typhoon with 4 seige and 5 heavies. There is no bonus to drones here, and no room to fit BCSs. Also, NanoBS cannot fit 4 seige, MWD and 4 NOS and XL SB without fitting RCUs, lowering speed considerably. The dominix, OTOH, has only 5 drones with a damage bonus, and no missile slots. Again, pretty bad damage. Any decent short range BS will outdamage these ships by a wide margin. Claim: NanoBS are better tacklers than ceptors. Wrong. Ceptors are not only faster, they have superior lock time, and that makes a big difference. If you want to make the argument that NanoBS can fit a sensorbooster, then either A) Typhoon loses it's shieldbooster, or B) Domi loses web/hardener/ECCM/something-else-useful. Again, to reiterate. The problem with nanoBS is the inability to effectively tackle, and that is mostly due to the power of Nos versus small targets. NanoBS are slippery, hard to catch, frustrating to fight, have poor damage, can't tank, can control when they do and do not fight. It's a tier 2 vagabond.
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.01.27 03:08:00 - [334] One thing I'd like to see added to the game is a specialised anti-'superspeed ship' platform. Maybe an alternative tech II destroyer which has a ridiculous tracking bonus or fires missiles which go very fast and have very high explosion velocities. Naturally the munition would have to be weak so as only to effect Interceptors and what not. Alternatively reverse its bonuses so the faster a target goes the better it hits. That'd bugger things up
Neuromandis	Posted - 2007.01.27 03:08:00 - [335] Well, I gotta ask... Do we really want 500% mwd's on BS's?? Why not make 1mn as they are, 10mn 400% and 100mn's 300%? Battleships don't need that kind of speed boosting, I think... Even blasterboats should be fine...
mallina Caldari Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.27 04:00:00 - [336] Originally by: Black Night I think the problem has been over blown. The only problem with the ship is its ability to turn on a dime (and that will be fixed). Nevertheless, I believe the nanobs are need for gate campers. Why have 5 or more ppl gang up one ship, and that ship not have a way to escape. Therefore, the real problem is gate campers, someone found a way to get away from gate campers, and they do not like it. find a way for ppl to escape gate campers, and then slow down the nanobs. thing is, all you need to get back to the gate is an MWD. nanos sure help, but unless theres an instalocking huginn a typical blasterthron will be able to make it back to the gate in most cases. nanos just change the 'most' to 'all' nanobs need to be nerfed, somehow. At current, they lean far too much towards the "i dont fight if i dont want to but if i do i can" attitute, and to be fair, thats also known as consensual pvp. is that really what we want?... people not fighting unless they know they can win and ifthings go bad they can run? pretty boring, tbh
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2007.01.27 04:54:00 - [337] Originally by: Neuromandis Well, I gotta ask... Do we really want 500% mwd's on BS's?? Why not make 1mn as they are, 10mn 400% and 100mn's 300%? Battleships don't need that kind of speed boosting, I think... Even blasterboats should be fine... DIE It's great being Amarr, aint it?
Kusotarre Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.27 05:56:00 - [338] Originally by: mallina nanobs need to be nerfed, somehow. At current, they lean far too much towards the "i dont fight if i dont want to but if i do i can" attitute, and to be fair, thats also known as consensual pvp. is that really what we want?... people not fighting unless they know they can win and ifthings go bad they can run? pretty boring, tbh The ability (or, to be precise, the high probability) of being able to decide to engage or not does not make the PVP a matter of choice for both sides. If you want to kill a nanoBS, you can try. Bring a huginn, bring recon launchers, hell, bring your own nanoBS, and, if they ever fix nosferatus, bring a ceptor. By your definition of what consentual PVP is, vagabonds, nanocurses, nanoBS, all ceptors, and countless other ships must be included in this category.
booh	Posted - 2007.01.27 09:17:00 - [339] I don't think nanos/istabs are the problem. Atleast now theres some fun ships to fly and in a different way than the usual stuff. And it's not like you don't have anything to counter. Huginns are now actually useful, we always whined they sux. There are other things that are wrong. Like NOS/vampires. They should be target ship size sensitive. Something like "tracking". So they don't work fully on frigs or fast things. Then intyes can also tackle those nber-nano BS. The combination of missiles, drones and NOS is the lethal stuff, not the speed - cause it's all speed independent. And there you have two ways of stopping them. Another thing that needs fixing is Tech2 web, something like 90% and 12km. Another good thing for huginns/rapiers and against nano ships. And the nanos add more variety to your gangs. Now you suddenly need some webbers also to counter it. And this can only be a good thing.
Hyperforce99 Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.27 09:39:00 - [340] Originally by: booh I don't think nanos/istabs are the problem. Atleast now theres some fun ships to fly and in a different way than the usual stuff. And it's not like you don't have anything to counter. Huginns are now actually useful, we always whined they sux. There are other things that are wrong. Like NOS/vampires. They should be target ship size sensitive. Something like "tracking". So they don't work fully on frigs or fast things. Then intyes can also tackle those nber-nano BS. The combination of missiles, drones and NOS is the lethal stuff, not the speed - cause it's all speed independent. And there you have two ways of stopping them. Another thing that needs fixing is Tech2 web, something like 90% and 12km. Another good thing for huginns/rapiers and against nano ships. And the nanos add more variety to your gangs. Now you suddenly need some webbers also to counter it. And this can only be a good thing. I do agree nos needs some nerf to it, as long as its not completely useless against fast ships. make its cycles or nos value's decrease as the tracking takes down, don't make it as sensitive as turrets but more something in between, so it still nosses frigates but not completely drains them in 2 seconds flat. also check out the link in my sig, I found a way to balance the issue :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-= SIGNATURE =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.27 10:19:00 - [341] 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.
Ryysa North Face Force	Posted - 2007.01.27 11:14:00 - [342] Edited by: Ryysa on 27/01/2007 11:14:25 Nanoships are really not overpowered. N.F.F. Recruitment
JVol	Posted - 2007.01.27 12:44:00 - [343] "Battleships aren't supposed to go as fast as an inty " "nano Bs are un-killable in solo PvP " "it's an unfair advantage and should be nerfed " "They can run away whenever they want " "doing 4500k m/s in a nano bs is ridiculous " Am I am getting the gyst of the slackers who want this type of ship nerfed out of existence so THEY don't have to actually THINK of ways to counter this VERY specific ship? If you go out in 0.0 with lets just say, a really good generic raven set up( insert ANY other really good solo PvP setup here BTW ), and you encounter a nano phoon, chances are, if you don't run away in time, your gonna die. SO WHAT?!! Had you known you would ONLY be facing THAT ship, you COULD fit for it... damps, ecm, both VERY effective at countering it. You may not kill him, but he wont kill you either. Eve isn't about the dev's making it so you can easily force every enemy you see into fighting YOUR fight... If you go into 0.0 with any one fitting someone will be able to kill you. These setups are only good vs ships with no counter measures to defend themselves from its strengths. Not much unlike the same "generic" ships getting caught by an mwd'ing scorp nos'ing and jamming, you cant get way, you cant do ANY damage, you weren't set up for THAT ship, you die. I'm sure the skilled pilots on this forum could name dozens of ships/setups that if you don't specifically set YOUR ship up to counter are going to kill you EVERYTIME and not take any damage from you. Doesn't mean they should be nerfed all to heck. These ships CAN be tackled by a small gang as well. try fitting up a duel webby nano phoon to tackle the "offending" nano ship.. Just because they cant be tackled by a darn inty doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to fly in game.. Fit one up, fly it, you'll find that its NOT an "IWIN" button.
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2007.01.27 14:01:00 - [344] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 27/01/2007 11:21:01 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 change 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. Originally by: Kusotarre Wrong. The highest damage NanoBS is typhoon with 4 seige and 5 heavies. There is no bonus to drones here, and no room to fit BCSs. Also, NanoBS cannot fit 4 seige, MWD and 4 NOS and XL SB without fitting RCUs, lowering speed considerably. The dominix, OTOH, has only 5 drones with a damage bonus, and no missile slots. Again, pretty bad damage. A nanophoon with 3 nanos 2 instabs goes 4500 m/s with a t2 MWD, 3 vent rigs and 30 mil in implants. This is just plenty and leaves room for a BCU and RCU. And, no, 400 dps is not "bad dps", especially when you combine it with 4 heavy nos. 400 dps on a target which has no harderners and reps/boosters running is more than 1000 dps from a blasterthron on a target which does. And even without this it is a good deal more than a vaga or a captor can do. Minus 700m/s from that velocity and you get orbit speed. Any decent bs pilot will hit a bs with +1500m sig radius orbiting at ~3,5km/sec. It's great being Amarr, aint it?
Soros 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.01.27 14:31:00 - [345] nano domi isn't the problem ther slow in comparison to any frigate.. A typhoon on the other hand is a problem, but you are comparing a nanophoon with gistii mwd and local intertia / nano to a t2 mwd ceptor.. Also remember nanophoons take 20seconds to lock a frig plenty of time for you to web them down, i strongly disagree with any '' nurf nano '' if someone wants to invest that sort of isk into a ship thats fine, it has its weaknesses you just have to find them !!
Kaar Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.01.27 15:04:00 - [346] Its funny, the last 3 nano ships ive coming into contact with (2 phoon 1 domi) have all died. Why? Because i use the tools provided to stop them. The domi died because i got him webbed with my huggin. The two phoons died because the 3 web drones from my raven webbed him.... STOP THE DAMN WHINING AND USE THE TOOLS AVAILABLE. --- ---
PriceCheckMax	Posted - 2007.01.27 16:10:00 - [347] Edited by: PriceCheckMax on 27/01/2007 16:10:00 Originally by: Kaar Its funny, the last 3 nano ships ive coming into contact with (2 phoon 1 domi) have all died. Why? Because i use the tools provided to stop them. The domi died because i got him webbed with my huggin. The two phoons died because the 3 web drones from my raven webbed him.... STOP THE DAMN WHINING AND USE THE TOOLS AVAILABLE. Says someone who flies nanophoons all the time... Afraid they might nerf your solopwnmobile? and you were the first one to make the setup semi-famous(?)
Hyperforce99 Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.27 16:12:00 - [348] Originally by: JVol Am I am getting the gyst of the slackers who want this type of ship nerfed out of existence so THEY don't have to actually THINK of ways to counter this VERY specific ship? check here for a something i thought up to counter this very specific ship setup :) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863 -=-=-=-=-=-=-= SIGNATURE =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863
Amy Wang	Posted - 2007.01.27 17:03:00 - [349] Edited by: Amy Wang on 27/01/2007 17:01:28 Problem is, you can think as hard as you want, you cant counter snake implanted faction fitted nano-BS unless their pilot makes a mistake. You can prevent part of their damage somehow with EW but you wont kill one of those things unless the pilot makes a mistake. Tell me your idea of catching one and I will tell you why it wont work. btw check out my easy and balanced fix: *Introduce a hardcap* for speed increase based on a ships base speed.** You cant pass this hardcap whatever you fit into your ship or clone it simply wont go any faster. Hardcaps are pretty commonly used in many mmorpgs to prevent game breaking stats. e.g. base speed x 30 (or 25 or 35 whatever you see fit, maybe even different for different ship classes and races, base speed means speed from item database without any bonuses from skills etc) with factor 30 we get new Phoon max speed: 4500m/s new Domi max speed: 3600m/s Still fast for a BS but not invulnerability mode anymore. No more game breaking speeds and if you use expensive equipment you still get an edge because you can fit more damage mods or even a tank while flying with top speed.
j0sephine Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.01.27 17:04:00 - [350] "Of cource it isn't a fair comparison - but that isn't the point at all." Well, must say i don't see much point in using a biased comparison, in this case... as it just provides skewed view on the issue. "Rigs have the advantage of using previously "unused" slots, but this does not change 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." Rigs are basically 2-3 extra slots on the ship. In this sense they aren't exactly "more" overpowered than existing slots -- a slot is a slot is a slot. And while yes, a ship with 14 slots is quite naturally expected to be more powerful than the same ship given 11 slots... it doesn't mean extra slots given to the ship should be specifically nerfed to the point where their presence doesn't matter whatsoever. The problem isn't specifically part of the fitting (nanos, i-stabs) or the other (rigs) but them combined and stacked into the final result... since each of them have separately very comparable effect on the ship at hand. Although yes, it could be argued that if suggested 'solution' to problem is giving nano's and i-stabs percentage-based speed boost and fixed value based mass changes, then the same approach should be taken towards the 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." They are (along with the nanos) significant part of the problem. And how exactly nerfing them would hurt frigates more? Currently frigates get less boost out of these modules than the battleships do. Proposed changes aim to reverse that, if anything o.(

Hyperforce99 Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.27 17:36:00 - [351] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 27/01/2007 17:35:59 Originally by: Amy Wang Edited by: Amy Wang on 27/01/2007 17:01:28 Problem is, you can think as hard as you want, you cant counter snake implanted faction fitted nano-BS unless their pilot makes a mistake. You can prevent part of their damage somehow with EW but you wont kill one of those things unless the pilot makes a mistake. Tell me your idea of catching one and I will tell you why it wont work. btw check out my easy and balanced fix: *Introduce a hardcap* for speed increase based on a ships base speed.** You cant pass this hardcap whatever you fit into your ship or clone it simply wont go any faster. Its space... unless your flying near lightspeed there is no max speed. besides introducing hardcaps would kinda go against a lot of things this game is good for, why won't people allow for a bit of new tactics, as long as they are counterable they should be fine... I find this idea quite good honestly. its the sandbox thats called eve, if you want a super fast interceptor should there be hardcap to it. even if its unreachable its not a good solution since it obliverates the nano tactic, instaid a counter could be used like RGG's (see my signature) which would work just as well, but still leave the nano tactic viable. if people want to fly at high speeds than thats they're choice, it would be the same if I would spend a huge amount of money on a tank or super rare ECM's. you want to cap those off to then... kinda go's into the same direction if you think about it. I don't like it being attacked by a nano-ship and being unable to counter it, but I don't want to see the tactic become useless either. -=-=-=-=-=-=-= SIGNATURE =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863
Shandling Minmatar Disband Phoenix Supremacy	Posted - 2007.01.27 17:39:00 - [352] I think a NOS fix will deal with it. Add tracking to NOS. Don't let NOS drain if target has less cap left than a full drain. If that was fixed, the nanophoon would still be good but not as 'godly' as it can be now.
Hyperforce99 Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.27 17:40:00 - [353] Originally by: Shandling I think a NOS fix will deal with it. Add tracking to NOS. Don't let NOS drain if target has less cap left than a full drain. If that was fixed, the nanophoon would still be good but not as 'godly' as it can be now. I agree with adding tracking to nos, but it won't fix the problem mate... -=-=-=-=-=-=-= SIGNATURE =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863
Kaar Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.01.27 17:56:00 - [354] Originally by: PriceCheckMax Edited by: PriceCheckMax on 27/01/2007 16:10:00 Originally by: Kaar Its funny, the last 3 nano ships ive coming into contact with (2 phoon 1 domi) have all died. Why? Because i use the tools provided to stop them. The domi died because i got him webbed with my huggin. The two phoons died because the 3 web drones from my raven webbed him.... STOP THE DAMN WHINING AND USE THE TOOLS AVAILABLE. Says someone who flies nanophoons all the time... Afraid they might nerf your solopwnmobile? and you were the first one to make the setup semi-famous(?) You dont know a damn thing that I fly these days. --- ---
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.01.27 18:16:00 - [355] Can we get carrier and dread size MWD please? -------- snip You are not allowed to be outbreak alt atm. Your friendly [GM]/[DEV]/[ISD] team. snip
Cyberus	Posted - 2007.01.27 18:21:00 - [356] Edited by: Cyberus on 27/01/2007 18:20:17 Edited by: Cyberus on 27/01/2007 18:19:43 There is actualy very simple solution without nerfing any modules. let they give the bonuses as they are but what you need is the nerf ships. Yes you hear me rigth nerf ships .... all of them. all araces and all types of ships. dont mess with mods. What you actualy need is the speed limit at the given ships types. I have 2 difrent solutions but both with same result. here it comes. 1) set the maximum speed what can be flow at given ship type: a)battleships - 800m/s ( minmatar can have the racial bonus of 20% on all they ships so it will become 1000m/s) B)cruisers/hac's - max speed of 1000m/s (minmatar +20%) c) frigats/af - max speed 1500 ( +20% minmatar racial) d) Interceptors will be ofcource not limited at all because of the role in game. 2) There is other simple solution. all AB/MWD modules only incrace/give bonus to the basic ship speed without counting skills in.( example: phone with t2 mdw and maxed aceleration control skill will fly max at 1012 m/s,[ cause of racial bonus] scorpion only 776 m/s . The skills like navigation will only effect the ships when ab/mwd modules not active. Same is for inetria stabs and nano's. So simply say only the bonus to the basic speeds of space ships.
Hyperforce99 Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.27 18:49:00 - [357] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 27/01/2007 18:49:48 Originally by: Cyberus Edited by: Cyberus on 27/01/2007 18:20:17 Edited by: Cyberus on 27/01/2007 18:19:43 There is actualy very simple solution without nerfing any modules. let they give the bonuses as they are but what you need is the nerf ships. Yes you hear me rigth nerf ships .... all of them. all araces and all types of ships. dont mess with mods. What you actualy need is the speed limit at the given ships types. I have 2 difrent solutions but both with same result. here it comes. 1) set the maximum speed what can be flow at given ship type: a)battleships - 800m/s ( minmatar can have the racial bonus of 20% on all they ships so it will become 1000m/s) B)cruisers/hac's - max speed of 1000m/s (minmatar +20%) c) frigats/af - max speed 1500 ( +20% minmatar racial) d) Interceptors will be ofcource not limited at all because of the role in game. 2) There is other simple solution. all AB/MWD modules only incrace/give bonus to the basic ship speed without counting skills in.( example: phone with t2 mdw and maxed aceleration control skill will fly max at 1012 m/s,[ cause of racial bonus] scorpion only 776 m/s . The skills like navigation will only effect the ships when ab/mwd modules not active. Same is for inetria stabs and nano's. So simply say only the bonus to the basic speeds of space ships. what you are proposing is nerfing a viable tactic, there is NO maximum speed in space unless you come near lightspeed (and with the warpdrive even that speed can be exceded. it could go against the sandbox freedome EVE has imagine it like this, If I fit a super powerfull tank ... should then suddenly my max rep amount be cap'd off... or if I fit a powerfull ECM ship with all modules geared to ECM... should that be cap'd off ext ext ext... and it would contradict eve's own theory and the laws of physics even more so. (not that eve has perfect physics but still...) there is another way to keep speed usefull as a tank but not invincible by introducing a counter: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863 -=-=-=-=-=-=-= SIGNATURE =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863
Cyberus	Posted - 2007.01.27 19:11:00 - [358] Quote: what you are proposing is nerfing a viable tactic, there is NO maximum speed in space unless you come near lightspeed (and with the warpdrive even that speed can be exceded. I belave that you forget 1 thing. They are already limited. even with skills and full load of nano's inertias they cant go faster then the module bonus give. You speaking about phisics in game.... Well if there was real phisics like in space then actualy they will accelerate contineusly so long the module trust. So dont say that i probpose to nerf them at all. Only what i said is to discrace already limited speeds anyway. Only for balancing. I have also read treat of yours about solution with new module and i can tell you 1 thing . The problem will still saty so long that ships use nosfieratu. Once you cap dead you are dead and they still go with they impressive speed of interceptor.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.01.27 20:12:00 - [359] Originally by: Ryysa Edited by: Ryysa on 27/01/2007 11:14:25 Nanoships are really not overpowered. Wow you are on top of a lot of those mails. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Hyperforce99 Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.27 21:32:00 - [360] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 27/01/2007 21:31:26 Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 27/01/2007 21:30:13 Originally by: Cyberus Quote: what you are proposing is nerfing a viable tactic, there is NO maximum speed in space unless you come near lightspeed (and with the warpdrive even that speed can be exceded. I belave that you forget 1 thing. They are already limited. even with skills and full load of nano's inertias they cant go faster then the module bonus give. You speaking about phisics in game.... Well if there was real phisics like in space then actualy they will accelerate contineusly so long the module trust. So dont say that i probpose to nerf them at all. Only what i said is to discrace already limited speeds anyway. Only for balancing. I have also read treat of yours about solution with new module and i can tell you 1 thing . The problem will still saty so long that ships use nosfieratu. Once you cap dead you are dead and they still go with they impressive speed of interceptor. true, but max speed and ultimate max speed are 2 different things. see I do understand that eve has a max speed, but with modules this can be increased. However making it impossible to, even with more / better modules (ext.) increase your max speed, just isn't right. it creates a roof in the max speed, and that kinda go's against the eve sandbox feeling, if I want to have a super powerfull tank, I can put on every most expensive module, implant, rig and bonus to make it near invincible. does that mean that there should be a cap on armor repaireres or shield booster to? how would you feel if your interceptor would be the only ship that can go past 5000m/s making them the only thing that can be used to catch other ships. even when you use a T1 which is completeley fitted for this... maybe not as effective as an interceptor but still... it might be able to do it. and about the NOS tactic, think about the following. Nano ships are so strong because you can not damage them while they have all the time in the world to NOS you dry and then kill you with ease. if it fails they run, and possibly try again. With the RGG,they can still nos you dry, but if you can hit them... damage them, you can kill them before they can nos you dry, then you have a chance. Cap booster would be able to help you here as well, as they longate the battle, turning the advantage to your side. giving you more time to kill it before your out of cap. If the enemy ship doesn't want to be inside your RGG range then he will have to go OUTSIDE nos range. see what I mean. and last, if they aren't fast enough, and you do manage to webbify them, then they probably arn't fast enough to escape your webbers range before they are brought to a crawl. The increased mass might make them take longer to slow down, but with less speed they also need a shorter braking range. -=-=-=-=-=-=-= SIGNATURE =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.