EVE Search - The "REAL" Nano Problem

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The "REAL" Nano Problem

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Derrys Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:36:00 - [31] Originally by: Corstaad On the same token should we cry nerf over spider tanks? Spider tanks can be broken using weapons any well-rounded, versatile fleet might have: EW, neuts, and lots of focused firepower. Even ECM drones alone can break a spider tank if you get a couple lucky cycles in. Unlike nanos, you have a fighting chance against them even if you haven't tailored your fleet specifically for that purpose. And, also unlike nanos, they normally have the liability of not being able to run away from fights they don't like. So no, I don't think they're particularly unbalanced.
Corwain DIE WITH HONOUR	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:39:00 - [32] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Corwain Originally by: Reem Fairchild Why should anything but fast ships be viable for roaming gangs? The whole concept of small raiding forces implies fast ships (or stealthy cloakers), not big honking battleships. Fast in EVE with WTZ refers to align speed, not orbit speed. What? A raiding gang in eve needs to move across systems quickly, hence a "roaming gang". They don't need to reach top speeds of 5000+m/s to do this, they just need to align quickly. Thus a gang of non-nanoed HACs would still meet the concept of "small raiding forces" that you claim is only validated by nanogangs. Need more explanation of a simple concept, or are you just feigning ignorance? -- Distortion\| Distortion 2 Preview
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:42:00 - [33] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/04/2008 19:43:25 Originally by: Goumindong Excuses Simply, excuses. You're arguing against facts. Your explanation of the facts is your subjective opinion. Originally by: Guomindong You are the ones claiming things as facts that aren't supported by either evidence or argument. They die, which is a fact. Everything else is subjective. If you have a express desire to consume 50% of forum bandwidth with 'nanoships need X,Y', OK. Do NOT claim you're supported by facts. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Corstaad Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:43:00 - [34] I'm not actually calling for a spider tanks nerf its a example. Some of these counters to nano screw you in other department IE spidertanks. You have to fit and play for how you think your going to fight. The real reason people hate Nano so much is they don't want to sacrfice slots/ships to counter them. Why wouldn't you want these ships/counter baffles me.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:48:00 - [35] Originally by: Cpt Branko They die, which is a fact. Everything else is subjective. That's not an intellectually honest argument. Yes, at least one nanoship has died at some point - to suggest anything else is illogical. But simply responding with "they die, is trufax" does not offer a complete picture regarding whether they are balanced or not. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.5 (Updated 4/2)
Corwain DIE WITH HONOUR	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:50:00 - [36] Originally by: Cpt Branko They die, which is a fact. Everything else is subjective. Yes, but how does this support your point? -- Distortion\| Distortion 2 Preview
Derrys Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:52:00 - [37] Edited by: Derrys on 02/04/2008 19:53:53 Originally by: Corstaad You have to fit and play for how you think your going to fight. Sure, and my problem is that "how you think you're going to fight" these days is always "I bet I'm going to run across a bunch of Vagabonds, Ishtars, and/or Rapiers." There should be more than one or two ways to play the game. Right now, it's becoming more and more "nanos," "anti-nanos," and "other" (which will be either dispatched or ignored by the nanos.)
Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:53:00 - [38] Originally by: Corwain Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Corwain Originally by: Reem Fairchild Why should anything but fast ships be viable for roaming gangs? The whole concept of small raiding forces implies fast ships (or stealthy cloakers), not big honking battleships. Fast in EVE with WTZ refers to align speed, not orbit speed. What? A raiding gang in eve needs to move across systems quickly, hence a "roaming gang". They don't need to reach top speeds of 5000+m/s to do this, they just need to align quickly. Thus a gang of non-nanoed HACs would still meet the concept of "small raiding forces" that you claim is only validated by nanogangs. Need more explanation of a simple concept, or are you just feigning ignorance? They need to be survivable and be able to get out of trouble if they are outnumbered. That implies speed, both tactical (moving fast in space) and operational (moving quickly from system to system), or stealth (cloaking).
Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.02 19:57:00 - [39] Originally by: Derrys Edited by: Derrys on 02/04/2008 19:53:53 Originally by: Corstaad You have to fit and play for how you think your going to fight. Sure, and my problem is that "how you think you're going to fight" these days is always "I bet I'm going to run across a bunch of Vagabonds, Ishtars, and/or Rapiers." There should be more than one or two ways to play the game. Right now, it's becoming more and more "nanos," "anti-nanos," and "other" (which will be either dispatched or ignored by the nanos.) How many fast ships do you see in the average large alliance fleet? And how many battleships and capitals?
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.02 20:00:00 - [40] Also look at the killboards, you'll notice that kills/deaths are not dominated by Vagabonds and Ishtars. If all you saw in 0.0 were gangs of Vagas and Ishtars, then all the fighting would be between Vagas and Ishtars, therefore killboards would be full of Vaga and Ishtar listings. Now killboards show great variety of ships and while Vagas and Ishtars are present there, they don't have overwhelming majority. Therefore the assumption that everybody flys Vagas and Ishtars is wrong.

Corwain DIE WITH HONOUR	Posted - 2008.04.02 20:02:00 - [41] Originally by: Reem Fairchild They need to be survivable and be able to get out of trouble if they are outnumbered. Raid means "a sudden attack on the enemy, as by air or by a small land force." Thus the ability to ambush an enemy. This says nothing about being survivable and being able to run away. By definition a raiding party is a mobile group that can launch a surprise attack, not a surprise retreat. -- Distortion\| Distortion 2 Preview
Cpt Branko	Posted - 2008.04.02 20:15:00 - [42] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Cpt Branko They die, which is a fact. Everything else is subjective. That's not an intellectually honest argument. Yes, at least one nanoship has died at some point - to suggest anything else is illogical. But simply responding with "they die, is trufax" does not offer a complete picture regarding whether they are balanced or not. While 'They die' does not offer a complete picture regarding wether they're balanced or not, people who cry 'nanos are invulnerable' and 'I haz facts' are not only dishonest but flat out lying (or completely ignorant of the facts). I'm not saying nanos are prefectly balanced or that subjective opinions are invalid for discussing balance, but attempting to masquerade them as facts is both lying and annoying. Attempting to make sweeping changes to the landscape of EvE PvP and butcher entire ship classes, flying styles and the ability of getting out of combat for anything which is not a fully pimped nanoship to nerf nanoships is even more annoying (the web changes suggested in many places for instance). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2008.04.02 20:33:00 - [43] Originally by: Corwain Originally by: Reem Fairchild They need to be survivable and be able to get out of trouble if they are outnumbered. Raid means "a sudden attack on the enemy, as by air or by a small land force." Thus the ability to ambush an enemy. This says nothing about being survivable and being able to run away. By definition a raiding party is a mobile group that can launch a surprise attack, not a surprise retreat. It implies both. Stop being daft. Thinking that roaming gangs in battleships should be viable is like wanting to take an Abrams tank on a commando raid. In large fleets, slow bulky battleships and capitals reign supreme. What's wrong with ships like heavy assault ships, recons, interdictors and interceptors taking the front seat when it comes to small scale roaming gang type combat? Why would you want it to be any other way?
Nexus Kinnon	Posted - 2008.04.02 20:46:00 - [44] Originally by: Alz Shado The problem isn't necessarily that Nanos are overpowered, but that their counters are underpowered. Scripted T1 webs that reach out to 25km and kill momentum as fast as cloaking. Problem solved. lmfao Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.02 20:57:00 - [45] Originally by: Cpt Branko ... But no one says they are invulnerable, they say that properly piloted they are invulnerable to ships that are not-nano ships. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:03:00 - [46] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Corwain Originally by: Reem Fairchild They need to be survivable and be able to get out of trouble if they are outnumbered. Raid means "a sudden attack on the enemy, as by air or by a small land force." Thus the ability to ambush an enemy. This says nothing about being survivable and being able to run away. By definition a raiding party is a mobile group that can launch a surprise attack, not a surprise retreat. It implies both. Stop being daft. Thinking that roaming gangs in battleships should be viable is like wanting to take an Abrams tank on a commando raid. In large fleets, slow bulky battleships and capitals reign supreme. What's wrong with ships like heavy assault ships, recons, interdictors and interceptors taking the front seat when it comes to small scale roaming gang type combat? Why would you want it to be any other way? In large fleets, battleships form the main fleet, flanked by all sorts of specialized support. All sorts of recons, frigates, cruisers, and hacs perform a role with interdictors and hactors forming the basis of your support. Only when it becomes "olol caps online" are there problems with ships being obsoleted and that is more due to the crippling lag that large numbers of carriers produce. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:10:00 - [47] Seconded. Just in case you think you need a rapier or a huggin to fight a nanogang, try this lowskill wonder, or some variation: [Hyperion, Neuty] F85 Peripheral Damage System I N-Type Explosive Hardener I N-Type Kinetic Hardener I N-Type Thermic Hardener I N-Type Adaptive Nano Membrane I Beta Reactor Control: Reaction Control I Heavy F-RX Prototype I Capacitor Boost, Cap Booster 800 Heavy F-RX Prototype I Capacitor Boost, Cap Booster 800 Heavy F-RX Prototype I Capacitor Boost, Cap Booster 800 Large Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I Large Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Not for soloing, but you don't need a recon. It will effectively shut down 2-3 nano cruisers at once. Probably eight frigates. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
NightmareX Quam Singulari Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:11:00 - [48] Edited by: NightmareX on 02/04/2008 21:11:10 This topic should be renamed to 'The "REAL" Nano Problem Is Noobs'. Oh yeah, i agree with the OP.
Ironnight x13	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:12:00 - [49] Yes, CCP please stop nerfing and chainging things left and right, there are 4 races in this game let their ships show this and stop whinning about some ships are used more then others, people will use works in a given situation. They're like 'oh **** son, its a trap ' Doomsday
Imperator Jora'h Hedion University	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:17:00 - [50] Originally by: Xaen Not for soloing, but you don't need a recon. It will effectively shut down 2-3 nano cruisers at once. Probably eight frigates. Vaga is still invulnerable. Even when his cap is gone he can still ride out the current cycle of his MWD and then coast which should easily get him well beyond any trouble and then he can warp away. If you did that to a (say) Sac or Eagle they'd be dead in short order. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"

Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:24:00 - [51] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Corwain Originally by: Reem Fairchild They need to be survivable and be able to get out of trouble if they are outnumbered. Raid means "a sudden attack on the enemy, as by air or by a small land force." Thus the ability to ambush an enemy. This says nothing about being survivable and being able to run away. By definition a raiding party is a mobile group that can launch a surprise attack, not a surprise retreat. It implies both. Stop being daft. Thinking that roaming gangs in battleships should be viable is like wanting to take an Abrams tank on a commando raid. In large fleets, slow bulky battleships and capitals reign supreme. What's wrong with ships like heavy assault ships, recons, interdictors and interceptors taking the front seat when it comes to small scale roaming gang type combat? Why would you want it to be any other way? In large fleets, battleships form the main fleet, flanked by all sorts of specialized support. All sorts of recons, frigates, cruisers, and hacs perform a role with interdictors and hactors forming the basis of your support. Only when it becomes "olol caps online" are there problems with ships being obsoleted and that is more due to the crippling lag that large numbers of carriers produce. Yeah thanks, I've been the support in those fleets enough times. We're still only talking 20-30% of the total fleet and they are simply that - support. They help the main body of the fleet do its job. Capitals and battleships reign supreme in those battles. And it makes perfect sense. But it also makes perfect sense that small scale combat be done by lighter ships who can use speed or cloaking to dodge dangers and survive where a heavier force would be pinned down and destroyed in short order.
Imperator Jora'h Hedion University	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:33:00 - [52] Originally by: Reem Fairchild But it also makes perfect sense that small scale combat be done by lighter ships who can use speed or cloaking to dodge dangers and survive where a heavier force would be pinned down and destroyed in short order. So if I want to do what makes sense I have to train to fly Vagabonds? Is there some reason all my training for Amarr pretty much goes right out the window? Would it not make sense that each race had something useful to put on the field instead of picking one or two ships as the only viable choice? Can you not see there should be balance here? That the only answer to killing a Vaga and such needs to be another Vaga or a Huginn (also Minmatar)? Every setup should have downsides and this really doesn't. Yeah they are paper thin but their speed is their tank and that is more than sufficient to keep them safe...more than safe. If they were so easily killed they would not be nearly as popular as they are. Give Amarr a viable way to zap them. Give Caldari a missile that can hit them. Give Gallente a drone that can catch them. I am by no means saying all ships should be able to whomp them but each race should have some reasonable options available to compete. Some setups the Vaga would wail on those it faces. Others the Vaga would get stomped. Pretty much the way most of the rest of EVE is. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Nhi'Khuna Strife Mercenaries Inc. Rejuvenate	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:37:00 - [53] /signed. Nanos aren't the problem. It's the lack of adaptability of the whining pilots that is.
Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:40:00 - [54] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Is there some reason all my training for Amarr pretty much goes right out the window? Curse? Sacriledge? Zealot? Absolution? All can be fitted for speed. The first two are among the ships that people whine about the most when it comes to fast ships. The Caldari are the only ones that are really lacking when it comes to fast heavy assault or command ships. I think the Cerberus is pretty much it, and it's not as good as the Sacriledge.
Eowaen eo.inc	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:43:00 - [55] It's the shield extenders.. you can easily fit 2 large t2 extenders to vaga which leads to insane hp buffer. Just raise pg needs like armor plates. 1600mm plate 500 pg, large shield extender II 165 without skills..
Tarron Sarek Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:47:00 - [56] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 02/04/2008 21:56:08 Originally by: Rells You can kill a Faction Vagabond with an interdictor and 8 destroyers fairly easily. This alone is reason for debate. Is a 1:9 relation ok? What do you do against a nano gang? 5:45 ? edit: I'm not against nano ships, but I'm against badly balanced content. Please fix polycarbon rigs by bringing them in line with other speed rigs/modules. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
Imperator Jora'h Hedion University	Posted - 2008.04.02 21:55:00 - [57] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Is there some reason all my training for Amarr pretty much goes right out the window? Curse? Sacriledge? Zealot? Absolution? All can be fitted for speed. The first two are among the ships that people whine about the most when it comes to fast ships. The Caldari are the only ones that are really lacking when it comes to fast heavy assault or command ships. I think the Cerberus is pretty much it, and it's not as good as the Sacriledge. All fine ships although a fast Abso? It's base speed is 150 m/s (same as a Typhoon battleship I might add) and is around 30% more massive. Actually none of them approach a Vaga in speed, not one can catch it and I seriously doubt one could get tracking on a Vaga to shoot it not to mention issues with MWD and Amarr ships and lasers and cap. A Curse is dangerous enough to a Vaga to make the Vaga pilot stay away but a Curse would never kill a Vaga unless the Vaga pilot screws-up badly. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Grytok	Posted - 2008.04.02 22:07:00 - [58] Edited by: Grytok on 02/04/2008 22:10:03 You're right there Rells. Nanoships are not the problem, as there's lots of counters... ask any entity how much nano-ships they loose on a daily basis that do that kind of roaming gangs. The nano-ships are only heavily seen these days, as you get blobbed at every ocassion, and the nano-ships gives you an opportunity to run from them. Try it sometimes. Get out there with a gang of 15 not nanoed ships and fly 10 jumps into hostile space, before you encounter that greeting commitee waiting for you with 10 carriers and 50 other ships. . Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Wet Ferret Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.04.02 22:19:00 - [59] Originally by: Eowaen It's the shield extenders.. you can easily fit 2 large t2 extenders to vaga which leads to insane hp buffer. Just raise pg needs like armor plates. 1600mm plate 500 pg, large shield extender II 165 without skills.. Hahaha. Let's not nerf the vaga, let's nerf every shield tank in the entire game instead! Nevermind that Caldari and Minmatar ships (the most prominent shield tankers) have the lowest and second lowest available powergrid respectively.
Gamesguy D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.02 22:20:00 - [60] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 02/04/2008 21:56:08 Originally by: Rells You can kill a Faction Vagabond with an interdictor and 8 destroyers fairly easily. This alone is reason for debate. Is a 1:9 relation ok? What do you do against a nano gang? 5:45 ? edit: I'm not against nano ships, but I'm against badly balanced content. Please fix polycarbon rigs by bringing them in line with other speed rigs/modules. A smaller mixed gang with a good setup can beat a larger nano-gang, unless the nano-gang has a lot of falcons, which is a problem with the falcon, not a problem with nanos.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.