EVE Search - The curse, post nano-nerf

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The curse, post nano-nerf

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rialtor Yarrrateers	Posted - 2008.04.05 01:40:00 - [1] How will you fit your curse post nano nerf? and which rigs will you use? ---- sig ---- Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Helios Hyperion	Posted - 2008.04.05 02:02:00 - [2] well.. my hope is that the nano nerf... doesn't come to pass... and that if it does... the curse should be affected the same way the vaga will be... by not very much.. i think they aren't planning on getting rid of nano cruisers... mostly just nano battleships and such. but if i had to fit the curse without nano.... argh!!! i'd...umm... im crying..
Helios Hyperion	Posted - 2008.04.05 02:04:00 - [3] they'd have to boost its pg a **** ton to make up for it. cus it doesn't fit anything more that neuts and nos' and a mwd
Yoko Lee State War Academy	Posted - 2008.04.05 02:07:00 - [4] Nano bs actually? not a lot but so much hac, recon nano, you see lot of bs when you go pvp? No, just hac and recon nano, i hate nerf, but to be honest, time to play not to run?
Helios Hyperion Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.04.05 02:08:00 - [5] ya, but certain ships are meant for nanoing. the vagabond. the curse imo is also made to be nanod.. that's just how it's supposed to be fit lol
Yoko Lee	Posted - 2008.04.05 02:23:00 - [6] its true vaga/curse but ishtar/rapier/sacri etc etc dont need to be nano, but just pilot be afraid to lose a ship then nano, stuped no? now you see just nano gang with falcon and rapier (great challenge), i love bs but i can't use it so much cause just hac or recon to attack... (low pvp).
Julius Romanus	Posted - 2008.04.05 02:42:00 - [7] For gangs Nos/a neut or two. 4x TD's, small cap booster, MWD 2x reps, kin hard, therm hard If i rigged it aux nano pumps. ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only.
AntarisIX Black Jackals Midnight Asylum	Posted - 2008.04.05 03:07:00 - [8] hav i missed something?! ther's gonna b nanonerf?
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2008.04.05 04:18:00 - [9] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2008 04:19:12 Zulupark specifically called out most nano cruisers as ships that should not be nano'd. Considering that the "going" explanation the devs have given us is to make all speed mods stack against each other - and then additionally nerf/remove polycarbs, I'd say you won't be nano'ing your Curse. The standard Curse has 5-6 speed mods fit, and that's 3-4 speed mods over what's going to be effective. I've been using a polycarb and an overdrive as my personal benchmark for how ships are likely to handle with three speed affecting mods (I'd expect the average nano curse to hit 2000-2200 m/sec post nano nerf). -Liang Ed: It's funny, because I was just looking at how to fit my Vagabond after the nano nerf. -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance.
Helios Hyperion	Posted - 2008.04.05 04:26:00 - [10] well.. goodluck then if what liang said is true
DroneBay Diva Hogosha Ronin	Posted - 2008.04.05 04:41:00 - [11] Pretty much all HACs which currently are nanoed are going to need some CPU/PG loving if there ever is a nano nerf, cuz it's tough as **** to do anything else with them. _____________________________________________________________________________
Yoko Lee	Posted - 2008.04.05 05:04:00 - [12] Originally by: DroneBay Diva Pretty much all HACs which currently are nanoed are going to need some CPU/PG loving if there ever is a nano nerf, cuz it's tough as **** to do anything else with them. gank or tank, if you want dps u must sacrifice your tank, if you want tank sacrifice your dps...
Rialtor	Posted - 2008.04.05 05:50:00 - [13] Originally by: Yoko Lee Originally by: DroneBay Diva Pretty much all HACs which currently are nanoed are going to need some CPU/PG loving if there ever is a nano nerf, cuz it's tough as **** to do anything else with them. gank or tank, if you want dps u must sacrifice your tank, if you want tank sacrifice your dps... Yes, but HACs are on a fine line of being obsolete due to BCs being the better gank/tank platform. Currently the HACs advantage is the ability to move quickly remain maneuverable while having a lower sig. ---- sig ---- Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Rialtor	Posted - 2008.04.05 05:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Julius Romanus Edited by: Julius Romanus on 05/04/2008 02:48:46 For gangs Nos/a neut or two(small where pg requires). 4x TD's, small cap booster, MWD 2x reps, kin hard, therm hard If i rigged it aux nano pumps. mmm, a dual rep build? I was considering a plated buffer setup myself. with a 1600 plate you can just fit 1xMedium Nos (the rest are small), MWD, and Cap Booster. With an 800 plate you can fit 3 medium Nos/Neuts (the rest are small), MWD, and Cap Booster. ---- sig ---- Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Vaal Erit	Posted - 2008.04.05 06:10:00 - [15] wcs. In all honesty, probably a dcu, small/med repper or shield tank (PG willing) and 3 speed mods. The purpose of speed is to get out when things go bad so going/aligning faster will still be important. You can still wtf dodge guns with TDs, curse will probably be very good IF IF IF a nano-nerf ever comes about.
Julius Romanus	Posted - 2008.04.05 06:19:00 - [16] Originally by: Rialtor Originally by: Julius Romanus Edited by: Julius Romanus on 05/04/2008 02:48:46 For gangs Nos/a neut or two(small where pg requires). 4x TD's, small cap booster, MWD 2x reps, kin hard, therm hard If i rigged it aux nano pumps. mmm, a dual rep build? I was considering a plated buffer setup myself. with a 1600 plate you can just fit 1xMedium Nos (the rest are small), MWD, and Cap Booster. With an 800 plate you can fit 3 medium Nos/Neuts (the rest are small), MWD, and Cap Booster. Meh i'm no expert just getting into the curse. The 800 setup is too fragile. the 1600 setup removes the point of flying a curse instead of a 3x td 1x mwd arbitrator. Dual rep actually works till the cap runs out(often times your opponents if nos heavy). I want a LG talisman set though. ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only.
Everyone Dies	Posted - 2008.04.05 06:52:00 - [17] The curse will still be the solo wtfpwnmobile after the nano nerf.
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.04.05 08:17:00 - [18] I think the curse will be fine. It is going to be harder to run gatecamps, but otherwise it is still going to be faster than BCs and BSs.
Camulos Redne	Posted - 2008.04.05 11:19:00 - [19] 2 Unstable Neuts, 1 Dim Nos, 2 HML II MWD, 2x LSE II, 1x EM harder, 2xInvu (-1 + WDII maybe) 4x PDU II 2xShield Recharge Rigs I use to have an uba sig. Then it got wtfpwned!
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.05 12:00:00 - [20] I will still nano it lol. If everything is slower this means ill still be able to keep distance... Plus noone knows how exactly "nano nerf" will work. If its plain "everything stacks with everything" 2x od 2x nanofiber is still doable.
Lyria Skydancer	Posted - 2008.04.05 14:05:00 - [21] Originally by: Rialtor Yes, but HACs are on a fine line of being obsolete due to BCs being the better gank/tank platform. Currently the HACs advantage is the ability to move quickly remain maneuverable while having a lower sig. HACS don't need to go past 3000m/s to have a mobility advantage to heavier ships. The issue is that right now there is a fine line of infringing on the mobility of frigates. It's going to get fixed by Zulu and there will be alot of noob tears flowing. -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare II
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.04.05 17:30:00 - [22] Either i'll still nano it or if that isn't viable anymore at all i'll reserve it a place in my retirement garage next to its stealthy brother the pilgrim. Armor tanked fits were quite popular in rmr if i remember correctly. But with the lowest range of all ewar speed is the only defence i have. People argue i can keep distance from bc's/bs anyway and thats true. But those have never been a problem really. Its the support cruisers that kill you and those will probably catch me if i am armor tanked.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.04.05 17:36:00 - [23] Damn, after the Nerf I won't have any excuse to ***** when I blow up Guess I'll have to grow some skills then.
Lorem Mon Amarr Erasers inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.05.16 06:21:00 - [24] Edited by: Lorem Mon on 16/05/2008 06:23:16 probably my curse will be going that 3km/s with fully stable cap to run all neuts / nos's. Next is little bit offtopic... I agree what Lyria said about speed, 3km is enough to out manouver BSs and BCs. Problem is now that you're doing more than double that with overload (10+km is easily achievable); only thing those speeds are good for are running from gatecamps. This brings up next thing. If CCP puts all speed mods into same stack it means that you'll be probably using 3-4 speed mods (including rigs) and rest goes into something else. Lets take a look at sacrilege first: it has 5 low slots which you use 2 for T2 overdrives and 2 poly t1 rigs. 3 slots to go, you're still doing fast enough to dodge most damage from missiles.so you fit 3x BCU t2. and you'll be doing 483 dps compared to 306 with 3od's + 2nanos. case number 2. zealot. 7 low slots, 5 free after similar setup as before. again 3 heatsinks in 581 dps with conflags (or 616 dps with 4hs). Now we have still 2 slots free... 2 EANMs in and your resists are 69.2/60/77.4/88. plain stacking doesn't remove the problem. Solution has to be something else, maybe more penalties to structure (and possible into armor too). Removing polys completely will end up ppl being just mad to ccp. But well, here's just my 2 cents from amarr point. And of course instead of +++damage you can fit +++tank on them ;-)
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.05.16 06:39:00 - [25] Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 16/05/2008 06:43:29 no need to nerf nanoing. speed is the cruisers only advantage. you wont be able to outtank larger stuff with it. you can see the same issue @command ships. the deal nice dps and also tank very good but a battleship is still better => command ships are toys (except maybe for warfare links, but not many are fitting these). if you nerf nanos you will make all cruiser sized t2 ships like AF => useless bricks. if you nerf nanoing cruiser, you will kill small gang warfare and introduce much more blobs and lags. if you dont like nanos, fit against them and use minmatar recons. you will get him unless he doesnt engage, log off or something. the problem only starts when rich guys use snake implants when you can go like 8kms+ If you want have Battleships Online, then yes nerf nanoing cruisers
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.05.16 07:11:00 - [26] Mmm... nano nerf...
Maeltstome Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.05.16 07:16:00 - [27] I think we're hitting the third nano-nerf now. It's starting to annoy me, since the introduction of 'warp to 0' effectively means you have to be LIGHTING to catch anything in 0.0 if your not in a gang. Sadly most people are in gang now since a dictor is a standrad bit for kit for catching anything. This also means you have to be lightning to run back to gate they are camping after you jump into said fleet... ------- [12:07] w33Daz: a trained 1 skill fur 24 mins n it took 2 days aff drones lvl 5 [12:07] w33Daz: A WIS LIKE WTF
Dreadpilot Roberts ROMANIA Renegades Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.16 08:05:00 - [28] Imo nothing justifies the price of t2 cruisers as much as the speeds they can achieve. CCP should nerf Snakes and provide a few tweaks to speed mods not swing the nerf-bat without consideration AGAIN. Also mwd should not be able to overload like it does atm. That being said I hope they will take a look at AF speeds also instead of just nerfing entire classes of ships with no ability to tank properly unless they sacrifice a crapload of dps or have biiiig fitting issues points at ishtar/zealot CPU & recons. If the nano nerf happens ppl will just train and fly t1 BS's and "blob-online" will begin. I'm sorry, did I say u could speak ?
achoura	Posted - 2008.05.16 08:16:00 - [29] Doesn't bother me much tbh, only ever chased and probes turret ships an engage at a range where i'm not in danger anyway, but a 4 slot tank with the cap instability isn't dooable. *The EVE servers and their patches*
Man'corr Minmatar	Posted - 2008.05.16 08:23:00 - [30] Edited by: Man''corr on 16/05/2008 08:23:00 Originally by: Maeltstome I think we're hitting the third nano-nerf now. It's starting to annoy me, since the introduction of 'warp to 0' effectively means you have to be LIGHTING to catch anything in 0.0 if your not in a gang. And before "warp to 0km" people had instajump bms. Whats the difference. Nano isnt needed because of that little goodie. It just removed the pain of going in with a shuttle and getting a string of bms. Plus of CCP says that some ships werent meant to be nanoed, well i dunno, that seems like a definite call. Everybody likes to see nanovagas, but i guess they just dont want nano-HACS as a ship class. All of above post was formulated wth 100% honesty and 100% sarcasm. Now i only need to get drunk Back after a 4 Year Hiatus. Damn whats Capital ships?

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.