|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Steyr Daghan
thx for all the fish
Minuit.
   |
Posted - 2007.12.23 17:56:00 -
[1]
Obviously there is an imbalance with nanosetups. It's not out of balance because of a single mod, rig or bonus but because all these things can be combined without enough of a drawback.
And it's just as obvious that all the players who has got their first long series of kills with overpowered nano are crying and screaming when someone want to take it away from them.
The players who really are confident that they can "adapt" don't write those emotional don't-touch-my-nano-posts. They don't bother cause they know they will indeed adapt the day nanosetups goes out of style. It's the insecure ones that bark the loudest here.
Finally. A comparrison that... well, still won't convince those who secretly think they will die without nano, but perhaps has some value to others:
A properly set up and flown cov-op like the Buzz is extremely hard to kill. It's just about impossible in low sec and very hard in 0.0. You need lots of luck or a serious error by covop-pilot to do it. I flew through three hostile bubbles like they weren't there only yesterday, so this is no BS.
Isn't that imbalanced?
No it isn't, because the price you pay for this stealth is to sacrifice any offensive capability whatsoever. A cov op that does what I just said won't do any fighting at all and if it did it would die.
With the extreme nanosetups it's not like that. They gain the entire initiative for the fight, meaning they control when the fight is over. At the same time they can tackle and even do decent damage. That's the problem. Not enough of a drawback. That's why nano will be balanced at some point and that is why the (nano)pilots who really can adapt.... will.
The others will continute to scream "adapt" at those that notice nano is overpowered.
|
Steyr Daghan
thx for all the fish
Minuit.
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 22:04:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Semkhet
And you should start to use your brain for what nature intended it: THINKING.
A) Number of built Cerberus = Number of built Vagabonds.
B) Number of popped Cerberus slightly below number of popped vagas.
All of you use and interpret the stats in a flawed manner.
Build vs destroyed says nothing at all unless we know how they are used.
For example CNR is an expensive faction ship that is almost exclusively used in missions. Few people would risk their prized CNR, meaning they would never pvp with em and would warp at the slightest hint of the ship being overwhelmed. A typical pvp ship would fare much differently, not because of its "survivability" but because it is put in harms way on a regular basis.
None of you have any numbers on how the shiptypes are actually used. That part is all speculation.
Therefore any arguments made for or against nano based on the build/destroyed stats are FAIL.
|
Steyr Daghan
thx for all the fish
Minuit.
|
Posted - 2008.01.01 02:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
Originally by: welsh wizard
Again its borked risk versus reward. If you fly a balanced fleet consisting of slower ships and win then the risk was greater but the reward was the same.
Yeah, I know what you mean. There should be a risk involved when ratting/mining in 0.0.
Eh? There is a risk involved.
To get jumped by a nanogang that takes very little risk.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I was gonna make a cool sig-picture, it was
gonna have hot babes, spaceships and stufff...
...but I spent my time playing EVE instead |
|
|
| |
|