Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:24:00 -
[751]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Pesadel0
You assume that if they nerf nanos people would stop using fast ships?Maybe so ,but i'am not conviced after reading this thread that nanos infact are what is wrong in PVP,people will always find "better" ways to kill an oponent ,next on agenda after they nerf nanos is waht? nerf remote armour repairer BS?Nerf amar because it doenst use cap?
You guys say that nanogangs are impossible too kill ,in a way yes they are ,as it is impossible to kill a smart BS fleet or a fast recon gang ,or 100 guys doked inside their capital calling you names.As i see it nanos are the wepons ,and the only wepon of small/medium corps against a bigger target.
It is in fact very easy to kill 100 guys docked inside their capital.
You siege the system take the station and make sure they don't have access to facilities.
In fact its pretty much one of the only ways[if the target doesn't have a jump clone] that you can do real permanent harm to a person against their will.
People won't stop using fast ships, fast ships will just stop being so powerful as to have no way to kill them.
Try sieging a station outside of 0.0 and removing access to services. Betcha won't.
You're arguing from the 0.0 point of view on nano ships, I'm coming from lowsec where they are useless on gates being that I'm -10 and you'd have to be dumb to give me a chance to attack you on a gate. ------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:27:00 -
[752]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Yes because ECM is a huge force multiplier in small gang regardless of nanos. Your setup would win with 5 tanked zealots, the nanoships were irrelevant, only the 2 falcons mattered. This has nothing to do with the balance of nanoships and everything to do with the power of ECM in small gangs.
No, tanked zealots would have been killed since you would have been able to overtake them and get DPS on them. The nano lets them enter and leave engagement range when it suits them.
Quote:
You dodged when you listed those falcons. The only thing you can think of to beat my setup is to bring more ecm.
No, falcons are nano-ships, they fit in perfectly with the type of combat, there is no reason not to account for them. Not accounting for them is like saying a nano-gang can't bring logistics and or a tanked gang cant RR. No, these aspects are perfectly acceptable in both situations. Did i say you couldn't RR or couldn't use ECM? No, you said that you could kill them with less ships. Not only did i show that you could not kill them, but that nano-gangs existed which would kill your setup and not just run from it.
The problem is that regardless of what you bring, you can't kill the nano-ships without nano-ships of your own.
Quote:
You seem to forget nanos haven't been nerfed yet. If they were, yes we'd all be flying around in battleships and bcs pretty much exclusively.
We'd also see a return of the old force recon gangs, and a return of the frig gangs(which wont work as well now).
You seem to forget that the figure was discussing current mechanics, so if its useless wrong theory crafting then why aren't you flying battleships and battlecruisers?
maybe because looking and optimal play is a reasonable thing to do and the statement exemplified just why nano-gangs are optimal play?
Frigate and force recon gangs are not a problem if those gangs are not invulnerable to gangs that don't have frigates and force recons in force. Which is one reason why a long range web is so important.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:29:00 -
[753]
Originally by: techzer0 Try sieging a station outside of 0.0 and removing access to services. Betcha won't.
You're arguing from the 0.0 point of view on nano ships, I'm coming from lowsec where they are useless on gates being that I'm -10 and you'd have to be dumb to give me a chance to attack you on a gate.
The difference is that a nano-gang can project power while 100 guys docked in empire cannot.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:30:00 -
[754]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
The fact a non-nano 800mm RT plate gank-fit rupture goes 1.6km/s and over 2.2km/s overheated means you're on top of a 1.4km/s target in no time at all. A 1600mm RT plate one will get to about 1.5-something km/s.
Even with generic fits (web/scram/etc each, so no speciality setups like one Rupture having dual webs) it means quite certain death to your target. Same things happens with two Thoraxes (which may or may not be able to catch a Vagabond though, so one of them would have to dual-web for the task).
Unless the ishtar MWD away from the ruptures and overload as well. Or has a single web of its own
Quote:
A nerf to things which make high-end nanoing possible is much less devastating to EvE gameplay as a whole then a nerf to everything smaller then BCs/BS and a nerf to mobility in general.
True, but you don't have to nerf everything smaller than BC/BS's and just messing with speed itself[for the most part] doesn't solve the problem of nano-hacs
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:32:00 -
[755]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Naturally, as you get more ships, the battle is more tilted towards the larger and heavier group which is guaranteed to get kills; if in any gang situation battlecruisers which cost 30M to lose when T2-fit and vanilla fitted but unrigged beat (in every respect bar travelling systems and in every gang on gang fight) HACs which cost 100+M to lose, it's rather pointless to fly the HACs except to be able to travel faster.
Yeah but a nano hac has a 5% death risk while that Bc has a 50% death risk. Wich one is cheaper? I think you know but you dont want to admit it.
I'm talking about the pointlessness of HACs if long-range webs were introduced and standard.
Tbh, BCs have significantly less then 50% death risk, and typically die when facing gangs equipped with the things which would kill a nanoship as well (meaning, Minmatar/Amarr recons or significant number of tacklers/nanoships or ECM+tacklers, etc).
Having a roughly 25-30% chance to die in a engagement going sour (my experience roughly) versus a roughly 5% chance is completely balanced considering relative costs (Example - 30M loss for T2-fitted Hurricane - 6.4M for hull, 4.7M highslots, 6.8M midslots, 7.5M lowslots, 2M ammo/drones, 27.5M total).
Nano-HAC with polycarbons and everything is going to boil down to about 150M or more LC rather easily, so 5/6:1 survivability ratio is rather balanced.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:32:00 -
[756]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: techzer0 Try sieging a station outside of 0.0 and removing access to services. Betcha won't.
You're arguing from the 0.0 point of view on nano ships, I'm coming from lowsec where they are useless on gates being that I'm -10 and you'd have to be dumb to give me a chance to attack you on a gate.
The difference is that a nano-gang can project power while 100 guys docked in empire cannot.
Because I can get more dps out of a harpy? Project power... not seeing where you're going with that, unless you're referring to the fact that people can actually police the space that they hold with a nano-gang (like BoB never did)
If you can't police it, you don't deserve to have it in the first place. ------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Semkhet
Spartan Industries Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:39:00 -
[757]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Id like to see you kill anything bigger then a noob ship solo. Youre full of zhit.
That I might be or not full of zhit will be of little help should we ever have the pleasure to meet in a 1vs1. And since I'm a bit old to tie my ego with virtual pixels, you're welcome to ask me KM links about 1vs1's, and I'll send a few to your ingame mail. But you will have to ask for them politely like the educated little boy I'm confident you are.
However when you've gotten them, what next ? Will you come here on boards stating that you instead are the one full of it ? Allow me to doubt
Maybe there's a better way... A single one will suffice. Lemme check. When did you start to play... Ah, yes: September 11th, 2006. A quick search, and here we go on August 28th, 2006: Crow popping T2 Caracal. Target should fulfill all your stated requirements and beyond: bigger ship, bigger tank, bigger firepower.
2 weeks before you stepped in your first nublet ship
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:54:00 -
[758]
Originally by: Goumindong
Unless the ishtar MWD away from the ruptures and overload as well. Or has a single web of its own
If he does, he'll still be slower, and one web won't save him either (two would). Besides, with one Rupture closing in on him rather fast (since heat works on the next cycle, and there's a 1km/s difference between a dual 45% webbed 4km/s Ishtar (a reasonable polycarbon speed for a Ishtar) and a heated Rupture (2.2km/s, yay), and the fact Ruptures do very very solid DPS at range, well... I would *hate* to be in the Ishtar's shoes, because barring extreme luck, extremely smart and lucky usage of ECM drones (and Ruptures not using any), I die.
Originally by: Guom
Quote:
A nerf to things which make high-end nanoing possible is much less devastating to EvE gameplay as a whole then a nerf to everything smaller then BCs/BS and a nerf to mobility in general.
True, but you don't have to nerf everything smaller than BC/BS's and just messing with speed itself[for the most part] doesn't solve the problem of nano-hacs
Look, if you want to prevent non-Vagabond nanoHACs (which are built and bonused to go fast, and can't track decently at topspeed anyway plus aren't fit to perma-MWD/etc), a polycarbon / snakeset change (or such) would do it rather easily without having any collateral damage (Interceptors don't require polycarbons/snakesets, other small things don't fit polycarbons/snakesets anyway).
After you push the speed difference of the ship trying to catch you vs the ship doing the catching to less then 1.5 advantage, said ship will be caught and webbed relatively easily if he attempts to fight.
Changing MWD/webs would do far too much collateral damage, especially and particularly if you do long-range webbing. Webs are already insanely powerful as is and make heavier ships kill things in webrange with staggering ease. Adding flexibility (scripts) to their power is simply far too much.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:55:00 -
[759]
Originally by: techzer0 Because I can get more dps out of a harpy? Project power... not seeing where you're going with that, unless you're referring to the fact that people can actually police the space that they hold with a nano-gang (like BoB never did)
If you can't police it, you don't deserve to have it in the first place.
You cannot get more DPS out of a harpy.
O.K. with a nano-gang you can project power with no risk, unless your opponent is also in a nano-gang.
So everyone flies nano-gangs and they get bigger and bigger until they reach critical mass.
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Having a roughly 25-30% chance to die in a engagement going sour (my experience roughly) versus a roughly 5% chance is completely balanced considering relative costs
if an engagement goes sour, the only thing saving your BC is going to be luck. Especially in 0.0 with hictors and dictors.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:02:00 -
[760]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 28/03/2008 13:03:55
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Having a roughly 25-30% chance to die in a engagement going sour (my experience roughly) versus a roughly 5% chance is completely balanced considering relative costs
if an engagement goes sour, the only thing saving your BC is going to be luck. Especially in 0.0 with hictors and dictors.
Well, if that's the case in 0.0 (never took a BC to 0.0 tbh), OK. I can assure you it is NOT the case in low-sec.
Do you think it says anything about certain 0.0 mechanics and reasons why people fly nanoships there much more?
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:06:00 -
[761]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
If he does, he'll still be slower, and one web won't save him either (two would). Besides, with one Rupture closing in on him rather fast (since heat works on the next cycle, and there's a 1km/s difference between a dual 45% webbed 4km/s Ishtar (a reasonable polycarbon speed for a Ishtar) and a heated Rupture (2.2km/s, yay), and the fact Ruptures do very very solid DPS at range, well... I would *hate* to be in the Ishtar's shoes, because barring extreme luck, extremely smart and lucky usage of ECM drones (and Ruptures not using any), I die.
You're forgetting the relative hp values and ranges of each. The ruptures are going to be doing 282 DPS at 17km[220s, 3 damage mods, hams, barrage, 5 hammerhead IIs], and will have 16,000 EHP.
The isthar will be doing 475 DPS to 40km and have either 16.5 or 23000 EHP[ lse, vs 2 lse].
So the isthar overloads its point and hits you to 29km[he burns out of 20km before the engagement starts and targets are locked] And starts the drones on you. A rupture dies in 33 seconds. So the ruptures have to get to webbing range on the ishtar and get him under 17km in order to win[roughly at that point they two of them start doing more DPS than he does, ignoring the damage type advantages]. And they have to do this before the isthtar does enough damage to kill one of them before the ruptures kill him. Since once of the the ruptures dies, the isthar is out running him and will be gone out of reasonable DPS range.
Quote:
Changing MWD/webs would do far too much collateral damage, especially and particularly if you do long-range webbing. Webs are already insanely powerful as is and make heavier ships kill things in webrange with staggering ease. Adding flexibility (scripts) to their power is simply far too much.
I agree that simply adding scripts is not the answer. That does not mean the answer does not lie in webs. Or that changing webs so that fast ships cannot simply leave the battlefield easily means that small ships get nerfed.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=597162&page=13
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:17:00 -
[762]
Edited by: Goumindong on 28/03/2008 13:22:43
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Well, if that's the case in 0.0 (never took a BC to 0.0 tbh), OK. I can assure you it is NOT the case in low-sec.
Do you think it says anything about certain 0.0 mechanics and reasons why people fly nanoships there much more?
Oh, i know its not the case in low-sec. In low sec everything is survivable[and actually nano-hacs much less], since you can just jump through the gate and leave. There is no way to catch a person off a gate, and there is no way to tackle large numbers of people at the same time. You can't set traps on gates. Small ships are largely unable to participate because of gate guns.
That speed is more important in 0.0 isn't a problem. Its that its so important that there are nearly no other considerations unless you are going to siege a POS.
When i fly roaming harbingers i typically fly with 3 istabs[and a skirmish gang mod of varying type], because if i don't there is no way i can get out in time if anything goes bad. I'm too big, and too slow.[the 2400m/s overloaded doesn't hurt either].
And even then, you're going to get caught at some point.
Short of adding gate guns that attack anyone who attacks anyone else there isn't much you can do to make ships with relatively large amounts of hit points and high speed very strong without some sort of mechanic that lets you catch and kill them in a heavier ship.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Lyria Skydancer
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:21:00 -
[763]
Originally by: Semkhet
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Id like to see you kill anything bigger then a noob ship solo. Youre full of zhit.
That I might be or not full of zhit will be of little help should we ever have the pleasure to meet in a 1vs1. And since I'm a bit old to tie my ego with virtual pixels, you're welcome to ask me KM links about 1vs1's, and I'll send a few to your ingame mail. But you will have to ask for them politely like the educated little boy I'm confident you are.
However when you've gotten them, what next ? Will you come here on boards stating that you instead are the one full of it ? Allow me to doubt
Maybe there's a better way... A single one will suffice. Lemme check. When did you start to play... Ah, yes: September 11th, 2006. A quick search, and here we go on August 28th, 2006: Crow popping T2 Caracal. Target should fulfill all your stated requirements and beyond: bigger ship, bigger tank, bigger firepower.
2 weeks before you stepped in your first nublet ship
My point still stands valid. Wich is that your previous statement about me was false. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare II |
Lyria Skydancer
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:25:00 -
[764]
Originally by: Gamesguy A hurricane stomps a vaga into the ground, every time, nanoed or not.
Thats funny, because on the TRI killboards there are 37698 vagas (top ranking) involved in killmails and there are so few hurricane kills that it doesnt even show. Tri must be stupid not to use these "stomping hurricanes". -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare II |
Lyria Skydancer
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:26:00 -
[765]
Originally by: Gamesguy
No, this thread is about nano-hacs, all my posts have been about nano-hacs, has nothing to do with inties.
This thread is about nano-hacs because its the nano-hacs that are broken. Inties are not broken and are balanced. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare II |
Semkhet
Spartan Industries Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:43:00 -
[766]
Edited by: Semkhet on 28/03/2008 13:44:29
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
This thread is about nano-hacs because its the nano-hacs that are broken. Inties are not broken and are balanced.
Yep, they are so broken that if you look at TRI boards where it matters, you would realize that actually we loose slightly more hacs than we kill, when it's a known fact that we often use nanohacs.
Care to expand on this ?
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:44:00 -
[767]
Originally by: Goumindong
It is in fact very easy to kill 100 guys docked inside their capital.
you bring 2200 of your closest friends in shuttles, lag the bejesus out of everyone and then maybe 10% of your 2200 is fighting and 10% of the 300 are fighting ... so easy anyone can do it.
|
Semkhet
Spartan Industries Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:51:00 -
[768]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Thats funny, because on the TRI killboards there are 37698 vagas (top ranking) involved in killmails and there are 4756 hurricane kills. Tri must be stupid not to use these "stomping hurricanes".
He's not wrong. Would you see further than the tip of your nose, you would realize that except for battleships, there are only two T1 ships which appear in the 20 most used ships; the Myrm and the Hurricane.
All the other ones are T2 since that's what they prefer to fly.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:59:00 -
[769]
Originally by: Semkhet
All the other ones are T2 since that's what they prefer to fly.
Oh I do see further then the tip of my nose; Do you?
Half of the top used ships are nano ships. It would be more accurate to say that tri prefer to fly nano ships. And pretty much all nano ships are T2 ships. If there were good T1 nano ships youd see them there. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare II |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:04:00 -
[770]
Originally by: Semkhet Edited by: Semkhet on 28/03/2008 13:44:29
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
This thread is about nano-hacs because its the nano-hacs that are broken. Inties are not broken and are balanced.
Yep, they are so broken that if you look at TRI boards where it matters, you would realize that actually we loose slightly more hacs than we kill, when it's a known fact that we often use nanohacs.
Care to expand on this ?
If you are losing more HACs than you kill and we are assuming roughly equal battles/conditions then it would seem you are below-average pvpers or are fighting pvpers who are better than you.
Its like saying "Dominix's and Phoons arent overpowered, look when fighting dominixes and phoons we are about even for kills and losses!"
Well Duh, in any instance where the two ships/gangs are expected to be evenly matched you would expect a roughly 50% kill/loss rate.
Its exactly that you need those ships to take those same ships down. Which causes the issue.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:09:00 -
[771]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 28/03/2008 14:10:44 I havent a clue why you guys care less about kill/loss rate. Every nano-vaga kill I have seen almost always has a nanoship tackling it. Heck, even yesterday I had to use a nanoship to tackle a nanoship just to proove the point!
What percentage of nano-vaga deaths are done by non-nano ships? This is not a loaded question, I am genuinly curious. --
Billion Isk Mission |
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:15:00 -
[772]
Originally by: Goumindong So everyone flies nano-gangs and they get bigger and bigger until they reach critical mass.
Same with every type of gang tbh. RR BS gangs come down to who brought more ships or better support/a good FC.
------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:36:00 -
[773]
Originally by: techzer0
Originally by: Goumindong So everyone flies nano-gangs and they get bigger and bigger until they reach critical mass.
Same with every type of gang tbh. RR BS gangs come down to who brought more ships or better support/a good FC.
No, an ECM/Sniper fleet counters the RR gang. The RR gang cannot get the range on the RR gang and the sniper fleet jams the logistics and as many reps and rips them apart. The RR gang cannot warp out due to bubbles/tacklers and its even harder for any to bug out since it breaks their RR chain.
Smartbombing battleships also counter the the RR gang, since RR gangs rely mostly on the drone bays[range independence, immune to ewar] to survive a couple smartbombers will rip up the drones and deal spread DPS that the RR gang has trouble coping with. This works particularly well when using ECM drones spread on all targets not the primary to break locks. So the ECM drones are hitting the locks on the non-primary, and once the primary is getting repped, the smartbombers come in and clear the logistics drones.
You have now defeated an RR gang without RRs. Nor was the RR gang able to easily avoid you.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:39:00 -
[774]
You know, you could always come to where I fly, I lose two or so nano ships a month. ------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Lyria Skydancer
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:52:00 -
[775]
Originally by: techzer0 You know, you could always come to where I fly, I lose two or so nano ships a month.
Then youre doing something wrong methinks -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare II |
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:56:00 -
[776]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: techzer0 You know, you could always come to where I fly, I lose two or so nano ships a month.
Then youre doing something wrong methinks
Flying sleepy. That and flying solo with 5-7 reds in local
Tbh it is rather hard to do something dumb enough to die, but I still gotta pick my fights. I have no say in the nano-blob argument, just from the viewpoint of a solo nano pilot, or 2-3 man gang. ------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 15:24:00 -
[777]
Edited by: Garreck on 28/03/2008 15:24:40
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Semkhet
Yep, they are so broken that if you look at TRI boards where it matters, you would realize that actually we loose slightly more hacs than we kill, when it's a known fact that we often use nanohacs.
Care to expand on this ?
If you are losing more HACs than you kill and we are assuming roughly equal battles/conditions then it would seem you are below-average pvpers or are fighting pvpers who are better than you.
Ah, man, you had a chance to actually further your case here and instead you went for the cheap shot.
The fun thing about statistics is you can make 'em work for your case if you're clever enough. For instance..."of course TRI are going to lose more hacs than anyone else. If TRI aren't out POS bashing with 200 caps, you can pretty much gaurantee they're in a nanohac. Since all they every fly are nanohacs, then logically all they'll ever lose are nanohacs...so comparing their hac losses to another organizations hac losses doesn't really tell the whole story." And then you could find some sort of tie in back to the original debate that the reason TRI fly almost exclusively nanohacs is because they are, in fact, overpowered...because that's the one setup that can be used in just about any situation with minimal risk and maximum effect.
The problem here is that people are overstating the case with nano "overpoweredness." It's not that they're invincible, it's not that they can't be beat, etc. Trying to make that case on any level blurs the real issue.
The real issue is that currently, unless you're seiging a POS, there's no real reason NOT to be in a nanohac if you're pvping. Nanohacs can do pretty much anything any other combat ship can do at least as well...and many things better, pretty much because no matter what you're doing in a nanohac, if the situation gets bad, you can just up and leave. We can throw around tactical theorycraft all day, but the bottom line is generally when shooting starts for any non-nanofit ship, the shooting will stop when someone's dead; vs nanoships, in which case the shooting will generally stop when the nanoship decides (either he wins or withdraws.)
Want to go on a roving patrol where you're not sure what you'll be facing? Take a nanogang. Want to answer a nanogang raiding your space and have maximum potential to actually take a few out? Take a nanogang. Want to go solo? Take a nanoship. Want to roll 30 deep? Take a nanogang. Want to flatten a fleet with 10 times the firepower but zero ability to hit anything moving faster than 3km/s? Take a nanogang.
Right now, nanogangs are the default answer for most tactical situations. That's a bit of a problem when one setup and one tactical approach becomes the most viable of hundreds of ship and weapons combinations available.
At least, I think so. I guess CCP doesn't, and it's their game. I personally know how to deal with nanos to my own satisfaction and that's "good enough" for me.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 15:28:00 -
[778]
Originally by: Garreck
Right now, nanogangs are the default answer for most tactical situations. That's a bit of a problem when one setup and one tactical approach becomes the most viable of hundreds of ship and weapons combinations available.
At least, I think so. I guess CCP doesn't, and it's their game. I personally know how to deal with nanos to my own satisfaction and that's "good enough" for me.
Yes its a problem that nanoing is the default answer for most tactical situations. CCP Zulupark is going to nerf speed mods and make em stack to eachother. We want variety to prevail instead of allround solutions like nanoing. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare II |
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 15:34:00 -
[779]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Garreck
Right now, nanogangs are the default answer for most tactical situations. That's a bit of a problem when one setup and one tactical approach becomes the most viable of hundreds of ship and weapons combinations available.
At least, I think so. I guess CCP doesn't, and it's their game. I personally know how to deal with nanos to my own satisfaction and that's "good enough" for me.
Yes its a problem that nanoing is the default answer for most tactical situations. CCP Zulupark is going to nerf speed mods and make em stack to eachother. We want variety to prevail instead of allround solutions like nanoing.
Since when has Zulupark's name been used in a posive way
When the replacement cost of HACs is somewhat lower maybe the solution to flying them would not be to nano them. Before the stab nerf, stab/snipe Eagles and Muninns were rather popular. People will do what they can to save their investment... ------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Gypsio III
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 16:08:00 -
[780]
There's some terrible logic in this thread. Like here:
Quote: Hacs in general suck when tanked because battlecruisers and battleships will butt*****them with superior dps and vastly superior tank. This forces them to nano. If nanos get nerfed, hacs will be obsolete bar in a sniping capacity.
The first bit is fine - tanked HACs are indeed inferior to BCs. But the bolded bit is just stupid.
If nanos get nerfed, then HACs will not be obsolete as described. They will merely be less effective when nanoed. It is not a binary system.
The whole point of this discussion is to identify the correct balance of nano vs. tank etc. There is a reason why 0.0 is pretty much dominated by nano these days - so I suggest that it is self-evident that there is plenty of room to tweak nano without making it obsolete. Cutting the mass reduction factor of polycarbons to the same as T2 nanofibres would be a sensible first step.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |