| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
   |
Posted - 2008.04.10 08:39:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Gamesguy on 10/04/2008 08:38:52
 Originally by: Reptar Dragon
imagine triumverate being the only ones who disagree. who would have thought that. 
I'm just going to laugh if nanos actually get nerfed and we start pwning your face with RR battleships instead.
I eagerly await the "nerf remote reps!" thread.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.10 21:13:00 -
[2]
Originally by: WeightedCompanionCube
Originally by: stinger7
Edited by: stinger7 on 10/04/2008 17:42:58
Same whine different thread.
Theres plenty of counters to nano ships the problem is that ppl are unwilling to use them, and of course they are utterly inexperienced at small gang pvp but the world will end before they admit to it.
Nothing to worry about then. Even after the nerf you will still be so much better then them and will have no trouble killing them. Makes you wonder why people who are so confident in their abilities are getting so worked up over this.
Because unlike you, we actually want ships smaller than a BS/BC be useful in combat.
Please tell me why I would fly an ishtar, deimos, sacriledge, cerb(w/o using assault launchers), or vaga if nanoing to avoid damage is no longer a viable option.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.10 21:14:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Ferocious FeAr
Who said about the game changing? All it would do is make players who rely on speed to set their ship up different, it would not nerf them it would make them have to tank. What is wrong with that? I'm pretty certain that you would get more fights. I don't mind the occasional nano player but when you go into 0.0 that is all you see. I guess my views are a bit different then those who actually support nano's. We will never come to even terms, there is no reason to debate it. You think you're right and I think I'm right. In the end we both know its a problem.
Because Hacs are outtanked and outganked by the tier 2 BCs, by an overwhelming margin.
Why would I use a cerb if I can use a drake?
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.10 22:48:00 -
[4]
Originally by: MADDOGzors
Turn that 3-4 into 20+. It makes me laugh every time someone thinks they know pvp because they're in 0.0. If you haven't noticed a lot of the best pvp'ers left 0.0 to pirate in low-sec because 0.0 is a joke now.
Please, lowsec pvp is even more pathetic than 0.0. Docking games and gate hugging for everyone!
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.11 11:11:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Tes Quin
you can, however, break spidertanking. you CAN NOT use the "get out of jail"-card on remote reps
Ya you can, its called de-aggressing.
Tell me why I would use say an ishtar over a myrm or a domi if I cannot nano it.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.11 11:15:00 -
[6]
Originally by: WeightedCompanionCube
Originally by: Matrixcvd
WCC you are a genius. I love how you think 1 ship with raw dps of a uberthreadnought is combarable to the balanceness and less ubericity of nanos, anyone can do it, no lasers required... but i guess you wouldn't understand you are too bored
No need to get all angry and stuff. In your anger you inadvertantly proved my point as a Battleship with Dreadnought firepower is a problem since it can take over another ship class role. There is a perfectly fine ship for fast movement and that is the Interceptor. When you can fly a HAC at the same speed as an Interceptor but with many times the HP and DPS the inty has effectively become obsolete.
The same with Interdictors before the nerf, dictors were as fast as inties but with more firepower, more HP and an amazing special ability to launch bubbles. Who would fly a Claw if you could have a Sabre that is just as fast ? No one.
Vaga with 2x polys, 3x ODs, and 1x nano is 6500m/s and can run its mwd for two minutes
Ishtar with the same is 3800m/s and can run for two and a half minutes
An ares with 3x OD, 2x poly is 9170m/s, and can run its mwd forever.
Are you beginning to see the inty role now?
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.12 07:33:00 -
[7]
Quote:
Agility,
Not significant enough to counter the massive tanking difference.
Quote:
Speed,
Pointless since you cant dodge or outrun anything.
Quote:
tech 2 resistances,
Utterly pointless when the drake has massively more hp.
Quote:
range. The issue is the speed at which disengagement happens.
Range? What the 80km range with heavies on the drake isnt enough?
Come up with a reason why I would fly a non-nano fit cerb over a drake. The speed difference is minimal(1125 vs 1500), the agility difference is only 4 seconds.
In trade, the drake has roughly 1/3 more dps, and about 4-5 times as much effective hp and tank.
If you say fit assault launchers and go hunt inties on the cerb, you just proved my point.
Quote:
That being said, despite the advantages that this method has, i am not sure a nerf to speed needs to be enacted, because speed tanking, in the sense that ships ought to be able to reduce damage by moving fast, should be a legitimate part of the game and this change reduces the ability of ships to do that, disadvantaging smaller ships and gangs of smaller ships.
Then why the f*ck are you arguing in every thread that nanoships are overpowered?
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.12 21:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Goumindong
1. Escape is not a binary condition. Its a condition that is expressed as a matter of time relative to the amount of hit points a ship has. Solutions that fix the problem will not necessarily make it impossible to escape. The speed difference is pretty significant. And the agility difference is really big.
2. Because you cant understand the difference between explaining a problem and finding the right solution
Are you going to tell me why I should fly a un-nanoed cerb over a drake?
|
| |
|