| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kylana Darkfate
Republic University
   |
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:06:00 -
[1]
Either nerf nanos or unnerf Warp Core Stabs. Since Nanos can pretty much disengage and warp off if things get iffy, maybe shield/armor tanks should be able to do the same thing...again. Seems to be fair if you ask me.
By the way when did CCP nerf WCS again? Was is the Bloodline patch where they introduced the Asians to the races, or the one where they introduced the new model BC and BS? Or was that the same patch? I can't remember it was long ago.
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:19:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Kylana Darkfate
By the way when did CCP nerf WCS again? Was is the Bloodline patch where they introduced the Asians to the races, or the one where they introduced the new model BC and BS? Or was that the same patch? I can't remember it was long ago.
As far as I know, it's only been done once and that was in Revelations 1 towards the end of 2006 (right before I started playing Eve, actually).
And please stop whining about speed. Speed is like EWar, it's either or. When it works it works spectacularly, and when it fails it fails spectacularly. Stop asking to kill every single working tactic aside from brute force gank-tank slugging matches.
|
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:20:00 -
[3]
you can't nano a 1200dps mega, but you can put a wcs on it. Your logic fails.
--
|
0raven0
Point-Zero
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:31:00 -
[4]
Edited by: 0raven0 on 25/03/2008 20:32:42
To kill a ship you normally need 2 things a warp disruptor and DPS. With nano ships you need 2 warp disruptors, one of which is a web. If you don't have both then they will just warp off. This is just like before WCS was nerfed, you need multiple warp disruptors to get kills, the difference now is that your second warp disruptor against nanos only has a 10km-13km range :(
Btw, I am training for a nanoship now because I know how they are better than rep tanked ships. My nano ship will be built with the sole idea of catching and killing other nanoships.
------
Quote:
tuxford: AT LEAST ITS SPEELED CORRECTLY
tuxford: spelled*
Oveur: rofl
|
Kuar Z'thain
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:46:00 -
[5]
Train to overload webs.
Make friends with Minmatar recon pilots.
Stop flying alone.
|
Ulstan
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:48:00 -
[6]
They're definitely the new WCS. Lets you pick and choose fights at will with no real
penalty.
The old WCS wouldn't even be as bad now with HICtors. They counter WCS the same way Huginn's counter nanos.
|
ghost st
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:48:00 -
[7]
I dont think that nanoes should be nerfed outright, the ability to nano has always existed but it hasnt became popular until recently. The more common carrier hotdrops and blobs become, the more nano ships there have been.
I would like to make it so nanos arent needed to run away from blobs and capital hotdrops, i would love to roam in the geddon again wihtout the fear of every noobship, shuttle, and pod having a cyno fitted , or a blob ready to login on top of me
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:50:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 25/03/2008 20:51:07
Originally by: Corwain
you can't nano a 1200dps mega, but you can put a wcs on it. Your logic fails.
You can't nano a 1200dps mega, but you can't nano a 700dps Zealot either.
You trade damage and tank for speed, so you could nano a mega, doing around 400 dps, and going 350-400m/s, but why?
The ONLY reason I can see getting rid of nano, is if we got rid of MWDs also and went back to manuever warfare - but understand this, that means either having warp-in points or braving 200km of fire moving @ ~200-500m/s to get to that sniping BS.
|
L70Rogue
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:00:00 -
[9]
Hopefully Zulupark is paying close attention to these threads because everyone knows that speed is overpowered and the new WCS especially nano'd Heavy Assault Ships.
Can't wait until the nerf bat hits speed on it's head hard. The tears of****abond pilots everywhere will taste so sweet.
|
cRazYf1St
CrAzyF1sTs
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:11:00 -
[10]
lately since nano's are seen more often it's not quite as much a stab since you may be tackled by the other nanoer's.
. |
L70Rogue
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:18:00 -
[11]
Originally by: cRazYf1St
lately since nano's are seen more often it's not quite as much a stab since you may be tackled by the other nanoer's.
so people have to nano to kill nano? now that's what's called a major imbalance.
|
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:19:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 25/03/2008 20:51:07
Originally by: Corwain
you can't nano a 1200dps mega, but you can put a wcs on it. Your logic fails.
You can't nano a 1200dps mega, but you can't nano a 700dps Zealot either.
You trade damage and tank for speed, so you could nano a mega, doing around 400 dps, and going 350-400m/s, but why?
The ONLY reason I can see getting rid of nano, is if we got rid of MWDs also and went back to manuever warfare - but understand this, that means either having warp-in points or braving 200km of fire moving @ ~200-500m/s to get to that sniping BS.
Er, I think you missed my point. You just expounded on what I was saying, you didn't rebut it. Nanoships do crap-all damage, whereas back in the day fitting a few WCS didn't do jack to your damage.
--
|
Zara Torbe
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:33:00 -
[13]
Vagabonds are not overpowered.
Nanoships die hard and fast.
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: L70Rogue
Originally by: cRazYf1St
lately since nano's are seen more often it's not quite as much a stab since you may be tackled by the other nanoer's.
so people have to nano to kill nano? now that's what's called a major imbalance.
No, you don't have to go fast to catch ships that are fast (wow, there's a concept...  ), but it is one of the ways you can do it.
|
Madla Mafia
The Dead Man's Hand
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:37:00 -
[15]
Nano's are fine. Worry about something else, like the Pilgrim!
------------------------------------------
Amarr - getting screwed since 2005. |
Dianeces
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: L70Rogue
Originally by: cRazYf1St
lately since nano's are seen more often it's not quite as much a stab since you may be tackled by the other nanoer's.
so people have to nano to kill nano? now that's what's called a major imbalance.
So what would that make what's going on in your head?
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:40:00 -
[17]
Eve is a game of rock, paper, scissors.
If you fly a competent *nangang* then you deny your opponent the scissors.
So your opponent can only ever use rock and paper. This means that if you fly a nanogang, you just need to pick paper forever and you will win if the conventional gang picks rock or draw if they pick paper. 
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:42:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
If you fly a competent gang then you deny your opponent the scissors.
Fixed.
|
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:43:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
So your opponent can only ever use rock and paper. This means that if you fly a nanogang, you just need to pick paper forever and you will win if the conventional gang picks rock or draw if they pick paper.
Yes, but that does not make nanos like WCS at all except for the fact that they both allow you to more easily escape bad situations.
--
|
Skjorta
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:44:00 -
[20]
sweet jesus another nano whine thread.
You're so right, all ships should be amazing at everything in the game.
So why can't nano's tank as much dps as shield/armor tankers? Or put out as much dps for that matter. That just seems unfair, doesn't it?
Not to mention the large amounts of isk it takes to properly nano a ship compared to shield/armor tank it.
|
Ryas Nia
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:44:00 -
[21]
Your problem is not with nanos being a "win" button but the fact that a nano fit lets them run, there for you dont like a "never lose" button.
Im sorry but there is nothing wrong with fast ships, if it cant win, and most of the time it cant because to nano you have to remove most if not all damage mods, then it flees, and you have won the fight. I dont see the issue.
Done expect me to willingly die just because i cant win, thats not combat. You remove nano's and you remove the ability of ships to retreat.
|
Cybele Lanier
The Graduates
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ryas Nia
Your problem is not with nanos being a "win" button but the fact that a nano fit lets them run, there for you dont like a "never lose" button.
Im sorry but there is nothing wrong with fast ships, if it cant win, and most of the time it cant because to nano you have to remove most if not all damage mods, then it flees, and you have won the fight. I dont see the issue.
Done expect me to willingly die just because i cant win, thats not combat. You remove nano's and you remove the ability of ships to retreat.
You know, this post reads almost exactly the same if you replace every mention of "nano" or "fast ships" with "warp core stabiliser".
---------------
""Minimum collateral damage" and "Entire star system" do not belong in the same sentence." |
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:57:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ryas Nia
You remove nano's and you remove the ability of ships to retreat.
Most of the proposed solutions revolve not around removing nanos, but simplifying the counter to nanos.
A disciplined nano gang could still tear into an undisciplined non nano gang. Hopefully a well coordinated non nano gang could go after the nano gang. Nanos would have more of a skirmish role versus featherweight boxer.
|
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Free Lapland
The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 22:05:00 -
[24]
Nano gangs atm lose to lots of setups. They arent hard to counter. What they ARE hard to do is kill.
Its a trade off. Nice survivability in exchange for being in setups which are relatively speaking generally inferior.
A lot of these people who are so terribly afraid of nano gangs probably havent ever flown nanos. A good working knowledge of what about nano setups is vulnerable and how to exploit this can make killing nano ships as easy as any other ship out there.
I for one dont want to see the nanos go away. Maybe there is some measure of compromise needed on SOME certain ships that arent inteded to be nanomachines, but im in general very content with how the game works atm with speed.
|
Atius Tirawa
Wreckless Abandon
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 22:06:00 -
[25]
Nanos will be nurfed, its not that ships go fast thats the problem, its that they go too fast. In my opinion, nothing should outrun a missle - once that becomes possible in anything larger then an inti - something is wrong.
Mind you, I nano - but its more a nessesity then a love for going fast. The slow more oftan then not end up dead these days. Of course, blob warfare is not fun either. . .so its a real perdicament. But the dev blogs are clear that nanos are gonna get hit hard.
-----------
|
Dianeces
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 22:09:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Atius Tirawa
In my opinion, nothing should outrun a missle - once that becomes possible in anything larger then an inti - something is wrong.
Will we be removing tracking for everything save Inties now, too? I, for one, welcome the new age of battleships BBQing everything.
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 22:21:00 -
[27]
Originally by: *****zilla
Originally by: Ryas Nia
You remove nano's and you remove the ability of ships to retreat.
Most of the proposed solutions revolve not around removing nanos, but simplifying the counter to nanos.
Pretty much every single one I've heard proposed on here would either completely obsolote the use of speed at all or, at least, the use of speed within the engagement range of Vagabonds/Stabbers, interdictors and interceptors (the ships that are actually indisputably supposed to be really fast).
|
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Free Lapland
The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 22:26:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Atius Tirawa
In my opinion, nothing should outrun a missle - once that becomes possible in anything larger then an inti - something is wrong.
Will we be removing tracking for everything save Inties now, too? I, for one, welcome the new age of battleships BBQing everything.
With mine Tachyons...
|
Agor Dirdonen
Nuclear Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 22:29:00 -
[29]
Originally by: L70Rogue
Originally by: cRazYf1St
lately since nano's are seen more often it's not quite as much a stab since you may be tackled by the other nanoer's.
so people have to nano to kill nano? now that's what's called a major imbalance.
How do you kill a heavily tanked ship with lots of DPS 1v1?
Right, with another heavily tanked ship with lots of DPS. A nano only dents your armor.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 23:02:00 -
[30]
Either nerf shooting missiles at range or unnerf Warp Core Stabs. Since shooting missiles at range can pretty much disengage and warp off if things get iffy, maybe shield/armor tanks should be able to do the same thing...again. Seems to be fair if you ask me.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |