EVE Search - The Nano Problem

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Nano Problem

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.19 21:26:00 - [1] Edited by: ***zilla on 19/03/2008 21:28:13 Originally by: ApaKaka Field a **ty T1 cruiser against a 250mil+ isk ship + 800 mil in implants? Hell yes, I should be able to dictate when to disengage in a nanosetup. Just because it costs more doesn't mean it should work that much better. The abilities of the gear and supply drive the price. Speed related modules (webbers/overdrives/implants, etc) are very expensive because of the huge demand for god mode. The game has always about spending a lot of isk for an edge. A t2 ship is an edge over a t1 ship. Faction overdrives/nanos are an edge over t2. Implants give an edge over non implants. However somewhere along the line these came together so that t1 stuff doesn't have a chance. The t1 stuff isn't viable in combat unless in massive numbers. What you're saying is that you spent a lot of isk for god mode and so you shouldn't die. Originally by:** Rawr Cristina Nerfing speed too much by itself won't do a thing but make EVE more about Blobwars than it already is. PVP used to involve solo and small groups of mixed ships. PVP has become a blobwar of who has the larger nano group and more nano rapiers/huginns to counter. The only solo and small groups left it seems are nanos or cloakers. The rest are either bait or about to be on someones killboard. If nanos cannot be effectively killed except by other nanos then everyone will fly them. Which is what we've seen. I'm guilty of this myself. Originally by: Reem Fairchild a group of turret based battlecruisers with tracking mods and some target painting should have no problem hitting them for full or near full damage, even while being orbited. This falls in the annoyance category. You might hit them, but unless you have nanos you can't point them effectively. If you must have nanos to kills nanos then why fly the battlecruisers in the first place? If a group of nanos meets a group of battlecruisers its more likely to result in a lot of battlecruiser lossmails and a few lossmails for the nanos. Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Scout McAlt A counter should never be more mind boggling that the original stratagy. You counter is to use rare faction webs is more complicated that the original stratagy of nanoing up a ship. Not really. 1.) Buy faction web 2.) Fit it to ship of choice So you need faction equipment that is already way overpriced as anything speed related is in high demand? Are you suggesting putting faction webbers on everything? I've an easier strategy. Ignore the faction web, buy and fly a cookie cutter nano. It'll be a lot cheapier and easier than requiring domi webbers on everything. Plus you'll be less likely to die. How would you feel if battleships spent a lot of isk on a module that made it very difficult to be killed by nanos. Except that nanos must fit officer modules to counter battleships? Since the battleships spent so much isk on the anti-nano module, shouldn't they be able to disengage when they felt like? Would it be the responsibility of the nanos to to buy/fit the officer module? Should the nanos continue to buy the officer module even as the price continues to double, triple, etc? When did we go from t1 gear being bad, to t1 being completely ineffective. If a strategy requires faction gear, then something is wrong.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.19 22:00:00 - [2] Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Hermosa Diosas webifier bubbles? Won't work. (Hint: you're still slower than nanoships.) Same issue applies with the webber concept. Even without polycarbs nanos are hard to catch. Unless a nano flies right by you or stops, multiple webbers are required. Polycarbs are cheapier than multiple decent faction webbers. You could go with the t2 strategy but that requires a command ship with the right bonuses and everyone to have overloading and multiple webs. But then we're back to a complicated strategy and may as well fly nanos. So say you do get a web on a nano. With how interia works its very likely the nano glides right out of web range again. So now you must be able to chase the nano to maintain a web on it until it slows. Then we're back to using nano rapiers/huginns. And back to nanos required to kill nanos. This has been all hashed out multiple times. Can we number the arguments and counter arguments so someone can say "#54! Just #35!" then we can post "No! you must #81a! Or #86c!"
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.19 23:27:00 - [3] Originally by: Ephemeron It costs more because it is better. If speed related modules are that highly in demand doesn't that indicate a problem with balance? You've acknowlodged that speed related fittings are some of the best in game. I repeat. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it should be awesome. Bring back nano machs and other flavor of the months if you feel otherwise. Originally by: Ephemeron Most nanos are killed by non-nano ships. Most nanos die to bubble traps, long range webs, Nos/neut attack, or simple pilot errors against blobs. So we agree that while blobs of nanos can kill nearly everything, most are lost to pilot error/lag/jumping into a trap? Consider how most non-nano ships are lost. I feel a lot safer in a nano ship. Originally by: Ephemeron First you completely ignore the fact that those nanoships spend 500-3000 million on speed mods, then you make a deal out of a single 200 mil mod. If you want to bring costs into equation, be considerate enough to count the costs of those nanoships. You can't have double standard. And non-nanos can spend 500-3000mil pimping their ship. While lots of isk helps, its not required. As you say below, few spend that much to fly a successful nano. And yet to counter, a non-nano might spend 500-3000mil plus another 200mil on multiple webbers. The average nano might have a few hundred mil invested which is comparable to a well fitted battleship with t2 fittings and rigs. The nano might choose faction mwd, the battleship might use faction armor reps. The costs and options are comparable. If one chooses to pimp out their ship more that indicates that they have less fear of dying and see less risk. After flying a nano for a few months on my alt, I've saved tons of isk versus when I flew battleships. I've started to add faction gear to my nanos with the isk I've saved. Goes back to risk/reward. Originally by: Ephemeron You will find that less than 5% of people fall into category of being super-nano-ships with officer gear. Agreed. Even with t2 fittings and no polycarbons I'd argue that nanos are still not balanced. A speed tank should reduce the amount of damage, not be the best tank in game and allow for a quick exit.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.20 04:25:00 - [4] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Wait, you admitted that they will be able to put effective fire on them in this way, you probably know that they are paper-thin ships, Nearly have to kill them in the alpha strike. Mine have about 10k raw hp. I see a lot of hostiles targetting me, I align. When I see them blinking red, I warp. The tactic you've suggested most likely results in a few nanos warping off then back again, not in kills. Originally by: Reem Fairchild Yes, they can run, but if you can make it so that expensive ships like that can effectively do nothing much than run away, then you've won. No, you've forced a nano to warp out or to another point on grid. You haven't affected a gang of nanos. At best with excellent discipline you'll force the nanos to move to easier targets. This isn't a win, this is an annoyance. What usually happens is the force spreads out. Someone needs to leave. Other blues pass through. All easy targets while the fleet cannot respond as it lacks the mobility to press the attack or escape. The battlecruisers are likely to be lower sp players with cheapier equipment. Otherwise they'd be in nanos themselves (or maybe commandships). Usually, they die.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.20 16:30:00 - [5] Edited by: ***zilla on 20/03/2008 16:31:24 Originally by: Matrixcvd Your comments aren't accurate to the greater world of PVP and neither is your assesment So you can't form a proper argument and instead use a personal attack? Nice. Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth The tracking speed on guns works both ways right...if hes going that fast he shouldnt be able to hit anything at all With a mwd engaged nanos can't hit jack. Which is why drones and missiles are often used. Go fast enough and their missiles/drones can hit you, but your missiles/drones aren't effective against them. Get a blob of nanos and poor dps doesn't really matter. Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth Oh to run away or otherwise escape a potential death... which i think was the purpose in the first place. Not to suppliment a tank. Go fast enough and the speed tank is the best tank in game. Go fast enough with enough interia and you'll glide out of web range often. Go fast enough and if someone can't match your speed its likely you'll make it out of warp disrupt range and to live to fight another battle.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.20 18:12:00 - [6] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Cruiser sized guns, with a couple of tracking mods, will track them easily. As will frig guns. Also a titan doomsday can hit them. However neither are very effective. It doesn't really matter if it can track them, but if it can do enough damage to pop them before they warp. Because if all you've got is great tracking the best you can hope for is them to leave you alone. Cruiser sized guns that aren't on a nano have been tried and are mostly ineffective. Cruiser sized guns work best on a nano to kill another nano. Then we're back to it takes a nano to kill a nano.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.20 18:58:00 - [7] Edited by: ***zilla on 20/03/2008 19:01:04 Originally by: Ephemeron I want to get a clear understanding: what exactly are you trying to kill nanoships with? You've got it reversed. Its what do I want nanoships to be killed by. Everything. I want to fly nanoships and feel threatened. I want to see a battlecruiser, ratter, ceptor and think "Ya know, this might be a bad idea". Now its 1) grab point, 2) yell for reinforcements, 3) twiddle thumbs, 4) gank victim, 5) mwd & warp if threatened (ie about to be webbed). I'm not saying that everything should own nanos, merely do a bit more besides scratching the paint. Now thats mostly done in nano vs nano fights which can be just boring. Originally by: Reem Fairchild So you agree with me that guns, with the right fittings, can hit them effectively? Then why aren't you correcting the person I was replying to who said that guns can't hit them? Because what you're suggesting violates the complexity rule where a counter strategy shouldn't be more complex than the original strategy. The other poster may not have been 100% correct, but he was 99% correct. Originally by: Reem Fairchild Which is a win. draw (verb) 25. to leave (a contest) undecided; finish with neither side winning, as in a tie. Originally by: Reem Fairchild If all these ships can do really well is run away unscathed when they need to, then they can't be overpowered, because that's what they are intended to be to begin with: hit and run skirmishers who can get out more easily than other ships when needed. Same rational as nano phoons etc. They just don't run away. They fight, they run. A skirmisher is usually defined as short, indirect, and small fight. Nanos are currently some of the best brawlers. I'd like to see a role once again for ceptors/assault frigs/stealth bombers. All fast or quick to warp with no defenses, ie: skirmishers.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.20 19:32:00 - [8] Originally by: Reem Fairchild One person says "you can't hit them, it's God mode" ... "you can but it doesn't matter cause they'll just run if you do" ... they are meant to be good at (running) ... "yes, but you can't hit them, it's God mode". When folks refer to hitting something, its with the expectation of causing significant damage and popping it. A few battlecruisers with anti-nano specific setups usually isn't significant. So: 1) You can't hit/kill them, its god mode 2) you can hit them but they'll run if you do The differences is often distance and angles, both controlled by the nano. With a speed tank the nano can nearly entirely control an engagement. And control risk. Originally by: Ephemeron ...you, as a nanoship pilot, can die, and will die, if you engage a smart enemy. Precisely my point. As you said before, the nano is the attacker. The nano controls the engagement. This shifts the risk. The nano checks overview for rapiers/huginns and doesn't otherwise engage if seriously threatened. By flying a nano I can choose if I want to be at risk or not. Worst case I can mwd & warp resulting in a draw. The hostile choices are to fit specifc anti-nano setups or fly nanos themselves.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.20 21:12:00 - [9] Originally by: Reem Fairchild It's like saying: "ECM ships are overpowered because they make ships unable to lock". ECM makes it unlikely to lock, but not unable to lock. There are reasonable counters that nearly any ship can use without special gangs. Few ships can properly use ECM. The difference between being useful and the next flavor of the month is small. Originally by: Reem Fairchild ...expect special forces commando type troops to run around... The issue is when so many special forces are running around, they cease to be "special". Before invention nanos had more to risk as losing a ship cost quite a bit more. Before nanos became a craze, things were expensive, ships didn't move as fast usually, and pilot skill points were not as high. Now many pilots are working towards perfect navigation skills and t2 fittings are cheap and standard.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.24 18:30:00 - [10] Originally by: Semkhet ...Pimped RR BS's are as efficient as nanoships... There are the occasional gang like this however the vast majority appear to be nanos. There used to be gangs of pimped ceptors however those also are mostly obsolete. I don't think anyone is complaining much about either setups. I'd love to see more rr bs gangs. Fun for the entire family. More variety. Originally by: Semkhet ... When you find an effective way of doing things, you don't change until you find something better... For games this means flavor of the month. When enough players are using the flavor of the month this gets boring. Things turn into flavor of the month versus flavor of the month. Low sp players are mostly excluded. Originally by: Semkhet ... but we always hear whines about nanoships. Because so many agree that nanoships have balancing issues? Originally by: Semkhet You'll look smart the day nanoing gets nerfed and some corps simply decide to replace all their nanohacs with carriers... Which I'd love to see. Hotdropping is well established. A roaming gang with caps on standby has been a tactic around for years without much whining. Caps must commit to the fight. The fights usually don't last 30 seconds and give enough time for tactics and reinforcments. Less smack in local and fewer logoffs when a few rapiers uncloak.

Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.25 03:54:00 - [11] Originally by: Cpt Branko Your suggestion makes nano-fit ships incredibly obsolete in gangs. As long as you focus web you'll drop them like flies. It would balance them as multiple cheaper ships could counter nanos (kill, not merely drive off). It would be similar to a 2pt scram at 10km or a 1pt t2 scram at 24. The t2 webber would have less power but longer range. Ceptors would be useful again in fleets to tackle and take risks. Originally by: Cpt Branko A 100man T1 cruiser gang would quite literally paste a 10-man nanogang. Not likely that the t1 gang could get points or webs on anything in the t2 gang. The best chance the t1 gang would have would be to incur enough lag or to insta pop a nano. Originally by: Cpt Branko Most of them won't outrun Warrior IIs without heavy pimping, sorry (and you can make your drones go faster). Now, missile explosion velocity is a rather broken concept. Lights don't have great dps. This is like sending medium drones after battleships. Web drones, neut drones, and other utility drones can be easily evaded. The damage from most weapons can be evaded.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.25 05:23:00 - [12] Originally by: Cpt Branko It'd make the blob for the win. Hell, it's almost always for the win now anyway - T2 ships don't have that much over their T1 counterparts to win over a 2v1 if conventional setups are considered... and multiple cheaper ships (or even solo cheaper ships with some luck) can win over T2 as is. I don't think its possible to "counter" the blob except through intel and patience. A blob of nanos engage solo targets. A blob of t1 or non nanos go after the nanos. The issue as I see it is that if the t1 stuff isn't effective (chase, engage, stop at gates) then much larger gangs will result. The nanos will complain, and start forming even larger gangs. Then we're in the situation we're in now where a roaming gang of 20-30 isn't uncommon. The t2 gear should give a significant edge but shouldn't be game changing. Otherwise this limits solo pvp and discourages lower sp pilots for even attempting pvp. Originally by: Cpt Branko Ceptors are useful (but very fragile) right now. Double-webbing a ceptor with 45% webs would make it dead in seconds. I agree that 45% may be a bit much. I'd imagine that most ships would choose range and go for a 20km-24km script @25-35%. Huggins and Rapiers usually go for 2x 90% webbers and may continue to do so. They'd be forced to choose for very long rang webbing or effectiveness. Either they'd double web at 100km and negate the nano mwd, or they still need to close in to 40-60km for 2x 90% webs and stopping the nano nearly entirely. Nanos/ceptors would still have a chance to warp out. I'm also a fan of speed decreasing agility. Orbit quickly, or go fast in a straight line. But leave it so ceptors/assault frigs/frigs are the only thing with low enough agility to both go fast and orbit. Either way these changes won't happen due to the CCP jinx. Any proposed solution discussed on the forums is guaranteed to never see sisi =). CCP will either do nothing or implement some messed up change (ie cap total is reduced by 75% versus 25%).
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.25 17:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Ephemeron ...there are numerous counters in nanoships and according to killboards, plenty of nanoships get wasted every day. There are many risks when flying a nanoship. Proof of risk isn't proof of balance. Just because nano battleships could be popped didn't mean it was balanced. An Amarr bs with all damage mods in the lows could be popped, didn't mean it was balanced. A Scorp and double mwd could be popped, didn't mean it was balanced. Originally by: Ephemeron Currently, the blob tactic is greatly superior to all other tactics, only nanoship gangs come close. Why aren't you obsessing over blobs? Blobs are a necessary evil. We'd love to do away with blobs but nano ships aren't the answer. Nanos (or other fotm) in fact increase blobs and destroy pvp variety. This is like saying that Amarr battleships with all damage mods (and no stacking penalty) are a valid tactic because they can kill multiple hostile battleships before they are popped. Soon the blob is nothing but Amarr battleships. If there isn't a reasonable counter to the flavor of the month it kills variety.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.25 18:27:00 - [14] Originally by: Lady Karma If you want to roam in a 50 man gang in 0.0, then the only viable fit is speed. Fixed. Originally by: Lady Karma Fleet combat is different. It is built around battleship numbers. What is your objection to people wanting to fight in 0.0 without having to get 50 people in gang. Nano gangs do not kill POS, they are fun. There is a critical mass of battleships needed for POS takedowns etc. Until then nanos are the only rational choice for a gang. Before the nano craze it was possible for less than 50 people to roam in non nanos. Now anything that isn't nano'd up or anything that pops easily to a nano (ceptor) is used as often as a cap ship; for large fleet pos wars. Originally by: Lady Karma Recently in MM space, they dropped 5 carriers 2 MS and around 30 support on our 10 man HAC/Recon gang. We engaged a small gate camp they had...and the response is a ton of cap ships. The ton of cap ships should win. Your choices are to respond with a surpise battleship fleet or hotdrop of your own (which happened I think). I think the only rational reaction to a nano gang is a) don't fight, b) find a way to create tremendous lag, c) counter using superior numbers of nanos. I think its a sad state of affairs when that many caps and support are needed to counter a blob of nearly a dozen nanos. I think it is funny that you're offended that they tried to defend themselves. Nanos should be skirmish fighters. They shouldn't be that effective in the face of superior forces. They should excel at picking off loners and exiting systems before a defense can be formed. As it stands now the best defense to a nano gang is a larger nano gang. Originally by: Lady Karma Kill nano's and the roaming 0.0 gang is dead. Not everyone likes POS war and lock primary F1-8 lag fests Roaming is already mostly dead. Its based on who has more nanos and more Rapiers. Any hostiles enter system and its time to safe up or dock because if your ship isn't nano'd or fit just so, you don't have a chance.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.25 20:22:00 - [15] Originally by: XxAngelxX We're talking about nerfing an entire PVP style which effects hundreds of people, ... Versus the thousands of people forced to train for nanos in order to counter nanos? Originally by: XxAngelxX Instead of small nano hac gangs you will see blobs of crows... These used to exist. You must remember the days when ceptor and frig gangs were viable. Instead they've been replaced by blobs of nano hacs.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.25 22:36:00 - [16] Originally by: Semkhet Mr. Goumindong wants an universal setup allowing him to cope with every kind of opponent. Sorry bud, nobody said that life should be that easy. Such setups exist. Perhaps we can help him by providing a cookie cutter nano setup? Pick a nano ship out of the hat. Who here cannot guess 95% of the mods and shortlist the rest? There are very few nanoship builds, yet they do fine. They don't require wildly different builds depending on what they might fight. One of the joys of using nanos versus even ceptors is because there is less to think about for fittings. Add sensor boosters for gate camps. Switch t2 for faction for amusement. As you yourself say, at least rr bs gangs have the downside of mobility.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.26 00:01:00 - [17] Originally by: Semkhet If nanoships get nerfed, I'm afraid that what will come afterwards will leave way less chances to a target, and I suspect that some antinano supporters might regret their former stance. Without forgetting that all this will come at the price of diminishing the already low level of dynamism involved in EvE warfare. So now you're threatening "nerf us and we'll cap blob you"? I think nearly everyone enjoys cap ship fights. As stated before, I'd prefer we go back to the days where the perfect gang was a mixture of ceptors and dictors and a fleet of cap ships on call. As to efficiency, the vast majority of TRI kills have been via nanos. Caps are rarely brought out and only if there isn't much risk or suitable spies in the other alliance. The battleship fights have been a blast but we rarely see them as apparently it causes too much whining in TRI corp chat that they got popped last time. I'd prefer to leave specific alliance details and threats out of this discussion however.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.26 17:55:00 - [18] Originally by: Xacal 1) The best counter to a Nano gang seems to be a Sniping blob. Snipers work best if the nanos play nice and stay at 100-150km. Or if the nano flies right towards the snipers. If the nano get close those snipers have better have remote armor reps and neuts otherwise they don't have a chance. With the speeds involved the nanos are only likely to take a few slavos before they're inside effective sniper range. The downside is that this technique has been tried and generally it encourages more blobbing. The snipers need enough alpha damage or the nanos are free to warp out as they're not webbed not scrammed. Also the snipers are vulnerable if the situation goes south plus the snipers have no way to chase after the nanos nor force an engagement. Works best against solo or suicidal nanos. Originally by: Xacal 2) Webbing specialized ships obviously work against nano gangs, as long as you have a sufficiently large enough blob... They work a bit too well. Which explains the resistance to any modification to web range. Huginns aren't commonly used, as if enough huginns are on scan the nanos won't engage. So usually the nano gang will have a bunch of Rapiers cloaked in case they meet another nano gang. And the anti-nano gang will have nano rapiers cloaked waiting for the nanos to be distracted. Then its just a game of peek-a-boo. It is still a problem that only 2 ships and 1 race can effectively pose a risk to nanos. Originally by: Xacal (you can probably verify that large nano gangs are not that common on wars) The perfect fleet is quickly becoming a huge mass of cap ships for the hot drop, a critical mass of battleships to take out cyno jammers, and anything smaller than a bs should be a nano/hic/logistics. Originally by: Xacal Can you guys live with a compromisse solution? Thats all that anyone asks for.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 21:57:00 - [19] Originally by: Semkhet Skills: 195000 accounts, 25% = 48750 players. Frequenting 0.0: 48750 at 9% = 4387 nanohacs piloted by players with over 10 mil sp. This assumes that of the nearly 49k players with the skills, that 90% stay in empire. I'd argue that the vast majority of players with the skills to fly a nano hac do so because they're already in 0.0. Even if we reverse it, then by your own numbers it looks like 25% of the players in 0.0 have the skills to fly nanos. And those 25% of players generate a large number of kills using vagabonds, huginn, rapiers, and sabres out of proportion of the 75% that fly something else. Originally by: Semkhet Among 2.3 million ships used in EvE... You can't compare counts of players versus ships. Many players buy batches of cap ships, command ships, battleships, and recons and store them in our hangars because we're too lazy to make the trip back to Jita after every loss. This 2.3mil ships also likely includes inventory for producers and maybe stuff on contract or sitting in Jita on the market (its still owned by someone). And how many shuttles or near-shuttles (probes/bantams) are floating in space or forgotten in a hangar. Ship count != player count.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.30 06:37:00 - [20] Originally by: NightmareX Goumindong, there is 35 pages with peoples against you, doesn't that says you something? We have been telling you everything that is possible to tell, and still you refuse to realize that you are totally wrong in absolutely everything you have been trolling about in this topic. Don't you get it? But ok, just continue to troll alot more and make you look like a stupid noob. The more you argue against us who have the EXPERIENCE & know how this works, the more stupid you are. Perhaps you want to re-read this thread where many agree that nanos are borked. Where multiple people have chimed in that nanos are borked. What I see is a few people with a vested interest in nanos defending what they know and love. Nanos are a big issue in the way that pvp is going. If CCP agrees that nanos are working as they should, many want to know so that we can plan. If so we'll direct as many of our corp members and alliance members to training nanos. This is like how it was a while back when the answer to anything was "cap ships". It takes time to train and refocus for the flavor of the month. This thread doesn't exist purely for you to browbeat someone. This thread is to dicuss a topic and for both sides to state their claims. More importantly this thread has been on the first page of the forums for nearly 2 weeks. This raises awareness for the general player population and hopefully increases the visibility of the issue within CCP. Claiming superiority and insulting intelligence doesn't help your position.

Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.03.30 19:45:00 - [21] Originally by: NightmareX And you say this: Nanos are a big issue in the way that pvp is going. Oh, so you want to have a slow slow slow PVP experience and be in slow ass ships all day long and only gate camp like 5 jumps out from your HQ? Is that fun?. I don't want to use like 1 hour to get to the place i want to fight in. The enemies would have been gone long way before we are there then. I want to move fast around when i'm out to roam, and i seriously mean it, i don't want to be in a ***** slow ass ship when i want to go to different regions to try and get a fight with others. I like fast PVP, and i'm sure MANY** others like that to. It gives me more action and you don't only sit there and press F1-F8, and then continue that over and over and over and over......... You get my point??? You're confusing warping quickly with going fast. A cruiser without a mwd could warp nearly as quickly however then it would be vulnerable. Currently a nano can go fast, avoid damage and traps, and warp quickly from system to system. There is very little downside to flying a nano. For pvp flying nanos are becoming the only rational thing to fly. Then it gets into a argument about the death of tactics and the game becoming a twitch based game which not everyone likes. Is that fun? This kills variety and indicates that balance is skewed. The role that nanos are being used for (tacklers) are roles that many feel should be reserved for ceptors and other frigs. A light dictor imho should be one of the fastest "heavy" ships however pays for it with a large sig radius and small weapons. Lets take the proposed changes to web. You could still go fast. However much of the outcry seems to be over any change that would make nanos more vulnerable.
Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.03.30 20:22:00 - [22] Originally by: NightmareX Remember, if the fast PVP style gets nerfed to hell, then they also remove a part of roaming gangs to. Every good minded person knows that. Um, no. If fast PVP gets nerfed, roaming will move to a mixture of ceptors, assault frigs, dictors, logistics/ecm cruisers, hacs setup for damage, and maybe some command ships for support. Not that much different from today. Except we'll see less vagabonds and ishtars and more of a focus on smaller ships and greater variety. If fast PVP gets a counter such as webs or a web bubble, then we'll see much the same fleets but greater tactics. Every good minded person knows that.
Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.03.30 20:58:00 - [23] Originally by: Ephemeron People aren't going to fly inties, AFs, and HACs if any battleship can effortlessly stop and gank them. People would fly ceptors/af/dictors because they must to grab tackles. Currently nanos are preferred as they make some of the best tacklers in game with the exception of the dictors. No one is saying that battleships should effortlessly stop and gank HACS. As it stands now its much more likely that HACS stop and gank battleships versus the other way around. Originally by: Ephemeron I think the big slow battleships already have too many advantages in EVE. The battleship has become the main ship of the line. Speed is one way we can shift focus toward cruiser sized PvP as the main standard. With frigs and battleships being support, instead of frigs and cruisers being support for battleships. And yet I haven't heard anyone complain that battleships are "too good". The battleship might be the ship of the line for very large fleets and pos work, however nano ships are the standard for anything smaller. Speed has already shifted nanos ships to be favored with battleships as support. Small gangs of battleships or battlecruisers are no longer very viable. We used to see gangs of a dozen or two command ships but now those seem rare. Now most pvp seems to be a question of who brought more vagabonds/ishtars versus huginns/rapiers.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.30 22:38:00 - [24] Originally by: Call'Da Poleece Look, dont you slow carebear idiot not-knowing-a-nano-if-it-hit-you-between-the-eyes people get it, if someone spends 110mil isk on polycarbons then its all perfectly balanced, because thats loads of isk. (not to mention all the other hundreds spent on faction mods, they make it even more balanced, in fact they make the nanoship the weakest ship in the game) Utility does not set price nor does price set utility. Just because something is expensive does not mean it is good, nor is something good mean that it is expensive. The price spent on bling does not mean a setup is balanced. For example look at the Burn Eden where the owner spent a lot of isk on a battleship setup that he agrees is not balanced. Polycarbons are not balanced because they are expensive. They are expensive because either tight supply or because they're not balanced. Other rigs such as trimarks and ccc's have dropped in price to around 13-14mil due to supply matching demand in a competitive market. I'd argue that the imbalance with polycarbons have increased demand to exceed supply. This has increased the cost of polycarbons relative to other rigs while most of the rig market has fallen in cost. If nanos were balanced the price of polycarbons should be around 13-14mil. This would increase variety as more players fit polycarbons to ceptors and other ships meant to go fast for a tackle. Arguing that cost means something is balanced isn't valid. The high cost of most speed modules further indicate that something is broken. Economics 101.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.30 23:08:00 - [25] Originally by: BackdoorGirl So you are saying polycarbons are expensive because they are hard to make and get? To know that we'd need the relative drop rates of most of the components that go to rig manufacturing. Also knowing the total number of rigs sold per week by type of rig would help. Much of the rig market has dropped to a fraction of what it was when rigs were first introduced. I'm assuming that the polycarbon rigs are of average difficulty and so should drop in price matching the rest of the market. It would be interesting to hear from rig manufacturers as I know nothing about building rigs. Jita info: 1) Trimarks have dropped in price while volume has increased to around 1700 units/week 2) Capacitor Control Circuits have dropped in price while volume has increased to 4300 units/week 3) Polycarbons have increased in price while volume has increased to 1100 units/week. There are hundreds of rigs for each time on the market, so I can't see this as being a supply driven issue. If volume is increasing and no lack of supply, then the price should be demand driven. Nanos are increasing the price for polycarbons and are willing to pay for the privilege.
Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.03.30 23:28:00 - [26] Originally by: Call'Da Poleece The price of tritanium bars is most of the cost of the polys ... they are also used in the cargo expander rigs Looks like you're right about that. The volume on these hasn't increased that much however the price has nearly doubled. An igb web page shows these as having a fairly common drop rate on Angels. Not sure whats going on.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.01 23:35:00 - [27] Originally by: Nhi'Khuna That thar I believe is what you call a Check Mate... Dudes its in the description, sucker is supposed to be one of hte fastest ships in the game... Durr. I'm not sure where you see that. It says the fastest cruiser. It says the manfacturer builds fast ships. Says nothing about the fastest ships period. It could very well say they build the fastest titan along with the fastest ceptor. Doesn't mean the fast titan is in the same class as the ceptor for speed/agility. Battlecruisers were introduced for their speed. In keeping with the naval analogy, you could say: "The fastest battlecruiser invented to date, this vessel is ideal for hit-and-run ops where both speed and firepower are required. Honoring their tradition of building the fastest vessels to ply the spacelanes, they count the Hurricane as one of their crowning achievements." But this doesn't mean that the battlecruisers are faster than cruisers, destroyers, or torpedo boats.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.03 00:53:00 - [28] Originally by: Crusty Clout I just wanna say that whoever started this thread ( don't wanna look him up (effort)) the reason this thread is 40+ pages is because its a heated debate not because people think speed is a problem. So don't use the page count to act like every single post in this thread is on your side. Freaking idiot Yet enough feel strongly to keep this going. That alone should tell ccp something. What I don't understand is why those that fear the nerf for their uber ships feel the need to dismiss and insult others.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.03 01:38:00 - [29] Originally by: Sakura Nihil The reason a lot of people bring nanoships is because they are forced to; Then you admit that nanos are used because they can engage a large gang with less risk than other ships? Originally by: Sakura Nihil in the current climate of EVE, say someone is invading your space with a small gang. What do you do, if you're a spaceholding alliance? 1) Ignore them (best option) 2) Form an adhoc gang and attempt to defend (most common; worst option) 3) Wait for form a nano gang to counter nano gang Originally by: Sakura Nihil You get a gang of your own together. But instead of matching the enemy gang, you get more ships - after all, why turn away your alliancemates who are willing to help you kill these people? Soon, you grow to twice the enemies size, then three times, until you are blobbing them without even realizing it. And the nano blob isn't blobbing the solo ratter they catch? Folks have learned that the best defense to a nano blob is a larger blob and enough lag. Or wait to create another nano gang to counter. There must be advantages in numbers. Otherwise you're proposing an elistist game where those new don't have a chance. Which is what we have today. Originally by: Sakura Nihil Say that raiding gang is unfortunate enough to hit you all. Do the math, 20 versus 6? It won't end well for the 6, let me tell you that from experience; now, if the 6 people could be flying either high-damage battleships or nanoships, which choice would you pick? Nano, obviously; not only does it let you raid space faster, but it allows you a chance to escape if things go south. You admit again that nanos allow for some of the most risk free pvp in the game? That the 20 doesn't have a great chance to trap and kill the nanos? If numbers don't help then the 20 would be best served by flying nanos themselves. Now its nanos versus nanos. Diversity is dead. Originally by: Sakura Nihil Now, there are prices to be paid for nanoing stuff. Yet _so_ many are willing to put up with these minor disadvantages. Originally by: Sakura Nihil ...the perceived lack of balance is coming from people too weak-willed to do something about these ships, to be quite honest. ...the perceived balance is coming from people too weak-willed to admit the imbalance about these ships, to be quite honest. Originally by: Sakura Nihil ...These are the means that small, well-trained corporations and alliances can fight them, or at least annoy them, and they're unhappy their mass can't help them, as it does in laggy situations an fleet fights. While large blobs are counter blobbing with nanos. They're unhappy because they don't perceive themselves as some sort of elite crew. They want to play with friends and family. I don't play WoW because I don't want to tell a co-worker that they can't come because they're not level 70. I don't want to tell someone they can't come because they don't have 25mil sp+, a few bil to spend on ships and mods, and they don't play often enough. The advantages you mentioned should give an edge, not a completely different game. Till something changes the best counters for nano blobs are even greater blobs to create lag. Lag is the best way to counter speed. Besides other nano gangs of course. Originally by: Sakura Nihil People want to talk about how this is ruining EVE. A ship type doesn't negate the advantages of a large territorial alliance. It would wound mostly risk free small-gang combat.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.04 00:28:00 - [30] Originally by: Gamesguy ...at least a t1 cruiser costs next to nothing in terms of skills and cost. Just because something is cheap doesn't mean it should be useless. If a t1 mod/ship is useless then it discourages new players. We can't have a buddy join the game and in a week or two later being useful in nano fights. While the same buddy would be useful in scramming non nanos. Fewer new players joining the game mean you'll have less to shoot. Where is the fun in that? Originally by: Gamesguy A tier 2 BC is cheaper than a hac and yet it still soundly beats a hac, something's wrong with that. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it should win. The t2/faction/officer market is based on paying a massive premium for a little edge. The t1 mods give a better utility (%/$) in every case I can think of. The t2 cruiser is a better cruiser. It should have an edge over cruisers. Not be something that is difficult to be countered by all. Most t2 ships give an edge over the t1 variant. Except the nanos which are an entirely different game that most cannot participate in. Originally by: Gamesguy Do you agree that hacs would be useless if they couldnt be nanoed(outside a few specialized setups). I disagree. Imagine if most nano cruisers could hit 2-3km with full t2 (or assuming the t2 long range web with reduced strength). This would bring back tactics where the hacs would need to watch and scout gate camps. This would bring back frig fleets. This would make ceptors, assault frigs, eas, and even dictors as being useful. Bubbles would be useful to slow a nano fleet (versus the "geeh, whats the blue round thing around a gate? I guess I'll pulse the mwd and ignore it"). Zero tank for speed. The new nano cruiser then would need to scout a route, and find a system. Scouts would be needed making this a "multiplayer game". The advantage would be the ability to quickly respond and go 20 jumps. Snake implants and faction mwd doesn't help you go 20 jumps. This is a role that a battlecruiser/battleship cannot fill. The new nano would have the advantage of mobility from system to system, but limited resources on arrival. Mixed gangs would be useful. Hacs that are non nanod are still useful such as the Cerberus. A slower Deimos is useful much like a battleship might close for blasters. The mwd isn't used as an escape, but as a way to close and engage. If you cared about hacs, why aren't you advocating speed bonuses and boosts for the eagle and muninn? The only thing that matters currently is speed. A fully pimped implant character with great mods could still hit 5-6km a second. Rare, but not impossible to deal with. Over time speed has increased however the game hasn't kept up.

Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.04 00:43:00 - [31] Originally by: ppp ceo if you are going that slow and you do anything other than gank without a doubt you are dead. You're suggesting that a hit and run ship should be able to go toe to toe with a numerically superior foe with mixed gangs and heavier guns?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.05 22:12:00 - [32] Originally by: Mongolia Jones If there exists some ship in eve that is significantly faster than another ship, then some whiner will crawl out of his/her hole and whine about its perceived "invulnerability". The issue isn't being faster. The issue is that speed has completely replaced the previous tactics of using stabs. Stabs were nerfed because they removed much of the risk. Speed removes much of the risk but hasn't been nerfed yet. Originally by: Mongolia Jones Even if you totally eliminate snakes, overdrives and polys, a cruiser/HAC with only a MWD will still be "invulnerable" to slower ship classes and BS blobs. (The holy grail of the nano-whine.) The issue is the combination of speed, agility, and interia. A cruiser going 2-3km/s is quite a bit easier to kill one going 3-4km/s much less avoid damage at 5km/s+. A bs might neut/web a nano cruiser, but the majority of the time the cruiser will drift out of range. A bs cannot effectively deal with nanos without using multiple battleships with dramatically different setups. Even then the bs gang isn't likely to get kills without tacklers. A frig gang or ceptor gang isn't all that effective against nanos because they lack the hp buffer. Nanos for the most part aren't threatened by ships smaller than them nor larger. Something is broken. With the speed even t2 setups use, most t1 ships and fittings are worthless. Something is broken. As stated before cruisers have the mass, the agility, and the speed to make it back to the gate in many gate camps. If a group of non nanos does not have a good chance of trapping a nano on the gate then they've no other option but to fly nanos themselves to better cover both sides of the gate. The issue is that currently for most pvp there isn't any reason to fly anything else but a nano (or something to directly support nanos). Something is broken. Originally by: Mongolia Jones Inherent in speed is the ability to avoid threats/damage. It adds a layer of strategy to any game. Many find this fun, some find this, well... Have versus have nots. This isn't balance. You're describing a skirmisher role which a nano cruiser is certainly not. Originally by: Mongolia Jones The only way to stop this "invulnerability" is to: 1. make all ships base speed fairly equal and 2. eliminate the one item that gives the biggest boost to speed -> the MWD Disagree. The issue isn't minor variations in speed but the massive differences that the mwd gives along with implants/mods/faction. The game mechanics aren't designed to handle high speeds. Webbing/probing/missiles etc have isssues. Speed has a use, but speed shouldn't be the answer to everything. This is made worse as nano cruisers have the best of both worlds in both speed and a hp buffer. Without being a nano cruiser yourself your option is to counter the speed with a ceptor but then you can't counter the hp buffer. Or if you fly a heavier ship you can match the hp and damage, but then the speed wins. Don't want to take damage? Go fast. Don't want to be probed? Go fast. Don't want to get caught in a gate camp? Go fast. Don't want to use scouts? Go fast. Don't want to risk much in pvp? Go fast. Don't want to be hit by missiles? Go fast. Don't want to be caught by dedicated tacklers? Go fast. Either grant us better counters so speed is effective in closing range but not for direct combat or adjust speed. Originally by: Mongolia Jones ... Even after the upcoming nano-nerf, my vaga will still go over 5km/s (it now goes 7km/s), and I will just be as "invulnerable" as I was pre-nerf. I agree. This is still a problem. As others have stated the problem starts long before the exclusive implant/faction speed. The game mechanics are not designed to effectively counter a ship going faster than 2-3km/s. I hope everyone out there are training for nanos. Everyone should have or be working on nano hacs/recons by now.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.05 22:38:00 - [33] Originally by: Matrixcvd Speed fits have been part of this game for a long time, and if you really think your example fits a typical nanohac doin modest damage movin between 3-4km/s ... Speed fits have been around, but also repeatedly nerfed when abused. Nano cruisers have replaced nano phoons for the same reason. While the dps may not be great the advantages of the speed with the hp buffer are too great. Less than stellar dps is fixed by bringing a nano gang and nano support such as the falcon. Before nanos were controlled by the high cost. Now with invention speed fits are the only way to go. Both attackers and defenders are nanoing up to stay competitive. Originally by: Matrixcvd You have a few dedicated indivuals filling up useless pages in this thread. The counters are balanced, the game with respect to speed is fine You have a few dedicated individuals saying that nanos are balanced. The majority of these that insist nanos are fine say so because they fly nanos. It isn't in their best interest to nerf what they abuse. This thread is also filled with random folks chiming in that something is broken. This thread is also filled with those that fly nanos and admit that nanos are not balanced. Originally by: Matrixcvd The statistics are out and you can judge for yourself but nano ships die at a rate that indicates they are not uncounterable, Which statistics? Most numbers and killboards I've seen say that nanos are mostly countered by pilot mistake or more nanos. No one is saying that nanos cannot be countered, only that the tools to counter are imbalanced. I've got maybe 6-7 battleships in my hangar and have had them for months. My nanos I buy mostly as I need them. My batteships usually lasted for maybe 2 fights on average before they were popped. My nanos might last for a dozen engagements before lost. I use an alt to fly mostly nanos and have stopped flying battleships in pvp. Now do the "statistics" say that since those 6-7 battleships have lasted this long without being popped that they're difficult to kill? Do the "statistics" say that nanos are balanced because as many are being killed as are being built? The statistics only indicate different usage and buying patterns. Construction/loss statistics cannot be used to indicate balance. With so many nanos flying of course there will be losses. Originally by: Matrixcvd and that speed is just as easily to deal with as other forms of gangs. If speed were so easy to deal with why is that so many gangs are nanoing up? Why do so many nano users say that speed is important as it allows them to get away? Why are speed related ships/fittings expensive and so in demand? The only rational counters to speed are to either dock up and not fight or to counter with more nanos.
Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.04.05 23:00:00 - [34] Originally by: Benito M An effective nanoship generaly means rigs worth 100Mil+ This is expensive? Maybe 2-3 years ago but not today. I bought a named/concord mission shuttle for 30mil so I could go with a joke gang, target neuts, and shout "pew pew" in local. Spending 100mil is worth it just to see what the killmail looks like. It isn't a lot of isk. Nor should the amount of isk justify the utility or "eliteness" of the ship/mod. You can try to argue that non nanos should spend as much isk as you do, but thats crazy. It excludes t1 mods and new players. With the current game mechanics pimping nanos is a much better investment than spending the same isk on non nanos. Originally by: Benito M Now take a Rapier a Hugin a Curse a Pilgram a lachesis an arazu.. even the caldari recons and watch how quickly that pilot has to run away or is rendered useless. You're assuming solo. They're hard to trap solo. In a gang they're deadly and that much more difficult to kill. Add a few hacs for dps and you've described the prototypical nano gang. Rendering a nano useless is a waste. To truely counter a nano the non nanos need better methods to trap and kill nanos. Or otherwise the only rational ships to fly are nanos as it takes nanos to kill nanos. Originally by: Benito M If your complaining about nanoships you have yet to seriously grasp the mechanics of PVP. Nanoships are only effective if you dont want to adapt tactics. If they come in bigger numbers, with more EW and render your counters usless... you simply got out played.. They come in small numbers and render the larger non nano group useless. I agree that a large part of the problem is that not everyone has trained for nano hacs/recons. Some don't want to do so because they don't want this to be a twich and reflex game. Regardless they should be adjusting what they want to do because nanos are the only logical counter for nanos. Many should be spending 6+ months on skills they don't care about to be productive in pvp. Get rid of missile skills, they're worthless. The skills on battleships/battleships are wasted. Many should have trained for perfect/near perfect nano hac/recon skills by now. But wait, many have trained for these skills and even some nano users agree that something is broken. Originally by: Benito M Stop whining at these expensive ships for being able to "run away"... there paying over twice the cost of the ship for that ability and ironicaly.. you have that option to. As for bouncing back to gates... try splitting your gang in two... See previous statement that invalidates the "expensive" argument. A battleship or frig can spend as much but the nano cruiser is still a better "investment". So you agree that the only rational way to counter is to throw isk and more nanos at the problem? Should this game cater to the veterans and ignore new players?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.06 00:35:00 - [35] Originally by: Pesadel0 this small organizations will onlly find a way to hunt down in 0.0 like recon gangs. Recons were designed for the skirmisher role. Other corps have found methods with small gangs such as small bs rr gangs or cloaked bs gangs ie Burn Eden. Stealth Bombers were designed to be skirmishers. They were designed to cloak and pick things off. Assault frigs and ceptors were designed to be skirmishers in speed/size and quickly covering distance from system to system. Yet these days speed is the way to skirmish because of how hard it is to counter by anything not a nano. Originally by: Pesadel0 and gives you like web t2 that can web at 20Km because that will be the day i will stop flying minmatar,and then heating those webs to what 25Km or more resulting in changing the paradigm of war I agree that a 20km 90% web would be borked. I think most agree that a 10km 90% web is borked. I think most would prefer an option for a long range web with limited effectiveness. Possibly base web on the sig radius. This would retain speed for small gangs, but focused webbing would be effective. Originally by: Pesadel0 People are nanoing because they are tired off POS work,because they like it , because it is actually fun or because it is one off the few means that a small to medium size corporation They do it because of lack of risk. I'm not arguing that it isn't fun, but if they were tired of POS work there are other options. Its one of the few means to take on a small to medium size corp that doesn't have nanos. If everyone flies nanos this tactic won't work. What I'm worried about is nanos becoming the next caps/pos's. Where everyone dislikes the details but too many have too much invested to change. And since everyone is forced to spend so much isk and training they're used for everything (ooh, ibis! hotdrop on it!).
Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.04.06 01:17:00 - [36] Originally by: Dracon Zethera Remove speed from the game and you get the standard DPS vs Tank kind of gang where gang movement doesn't mean a rats *** and where people will be spending millions on that uber tank that is unbreakable or the DPS that can pop everything in 5 seconds. You just shift one thing to another. I'm not saying to remove speed. I'm saying that speed should be for tackling or for skirmishing. Not for avoiding death and damage. There will be always a group that is always looking to minimize risk and maximize reward. Not much can be done but to address the imbalances when found. When this min-max group decides on an element like speed then something is wrong. People like the dps/tank thing. See the coad with lots saying they like mixed fleets warping around, shooting, with a role for everyone. With speed toned down I'm hoping for more epic fights that last 30-60 minutes with lots of fighting. Versus nanos. Mwd in, tackle, if danger mwd out. Short uneven ganks. Two gangs looking at each other with neither willing to engage. The fear of the rapier/huginn as the deciding factor. Nano fights are boring unless you're in the nano ganking someone. At least if someone spends billions on a great tank they're forced to risk their ship. They can't mwd out of a bubble and warp. They must win or jump through a gate. Where tacklers can pick them up on the other side. My issue is that nano cruisers have replaced much of the role intended for ceptors and other skirmishers.
Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.04.06 03:09:00 - [37] Edited by: ***zilla on 06/04/2008 03:16:10 Originally by: NightmareX Yup, nano fits are the ONLY way for small corps to be able to do survive in 0.0 space, because if they are using slow ass battleships, it takes 5 mins and a blob with 20:1 to you will get to you and kill you in 10 seconds. If its the ONLY way, doesn't that mean the tactic is imbalanced? It isn't small corps that fly nanos, its everyone. I would partially agree with you if it were a tactic of small pvp groups harassing larger groups. Instead small, medium, and large alliances fly nanos because its the only way to go. Nanos are the best way to roam with as little risk as possible. Nanos are the best way to defend against nanos. Something is broken. What you're saying that if nanos are removed it won't be easy to get kills and alliances can protect themselves without using nanos. Originally by: NightmareX I wasn't talking about a large alliance could blob back, i was talking about a single little corp in eve that want to do some ops in 0.0 space without getting insta killed by a massive blob. Ceptors, assault frigs, stealth bombers, recons were all designed for the skirmish role that you describe. What you propose is that a "little corp" coud use nanos to fight a big alliance. The only rational option for the big alliance is to nano blob back. The little corp hasn't gained anything. Black ops were designed specifically to fit the niche you're referring to. However the black ops role is laughed at because...speed is better.
Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.04.06 04:39:00 - [38] Originally by: NightmareX Don't only look on how much we kill, look at the Losses page to and you will find out that nano fitted ships is balanced... Just means that ships that are undocked can be shot. Nano phoons and domis were lost however that doesn't mean they were balanced. Losing a few nanos doesn't mean that they're balanced.
Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.04.06 04:56:00 - [39] Originally by: NightmareX ... you are to stupid to understand what we are saying anyways. I see one group being insulting and using racially insensitive comments (ie: monkey). Originally by: NightmareX Lets say the nanos are getting nerfed soon, and then we adapt to it. And then we find another awesome way to kill players...It will always be like that, it will never stop. So you agree that nanos are imbalanced? And because imbalance will always exist that it should not be addressed? Are you saying that you're special and because of that you should continue to be special? The game has other things wrong. Macro miners, cloaking ratters, docking games, etc. However we're focusing on nanos so we can possibly have a rational discussion and possibly prompt CCP to fix.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.06 05:16:00 - [40] Originally by: Goumindong ... Post 1337 should be a decent explanation ... Have we finally reached the point where we can argue by post number alone? "I disagree because of post 1025! ... Nah, post 204 & post 938 invalidates that... Dude, post 102 is a much better reason!"

Crackzilla	Posted - 2008.04.06 05:40:00 - [41] Originally by: Goumindong Now if you are asking whether or not it can kill a nano-zealot before that nano-zealot leaves the battlefield, the answer is also a decided "no" It was Sisi. Who makes a large effort to escape on Sisi? The nano-zealot was just as likely to think, "ya know..never gone after a muninn or whatever...lets try it".

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.