EVE Search - Nano Fix, only 1 of each speed mod allowed -Easy-

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Nano Fix, only 1 of each speed mod allowed -Easy-

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Andreya Direct Intent	Posted - 2008.04.06 02:03:00 - [1] Edited by: Andreya on 06/04/2008 02:05:11 This pretty much solves the whole problem. and its realistic... how can a ship in theory fit more than 1 nanofiber anyways!? think of it like damage controls... dont bother with stacking penalties or anything, 1 nano 1 over 1 inertia. also, this will work well without screwing over interceptors while hindering the nano cruisers, which basically is the point that is by far the simplest, fairest solution of all. i would provide numbers but im on a public computer with no quickfit :) cheers guys, any input or comments would be appreciated. Andy _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected])
NightmareX	Posted - 2008.04.06 10:19:00 - [2] The simplest solution is to shut up and stop with the whining about nanos. Nerfing nanos that way will destroy most of the roaming gangs in EVE. Nanos are fine as they are now. End of story. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.04.06 10:31:00 - [3] Originally by: Andreya Edited by: Andreya on 06/04/2008 02:05:11 This pretty much solves the whole problem. and its realistic... how can a ship in theory fit more than 1 nanofiber anyways!? think of it like damage controls... dont bother with stacking penalties or anything, 1 nano 1 over 1 inertia. also, this will work well without screwing over interceptors while hindering the nano cruisers, which basically is the point that is by far the simplest, fairest solution of all. i would provide numbers but im on a public computer with no quickfit :) cheers guys, any input or comments would be appreciated. Andy I think this is a bit arbitrary, there are only a small number of modules that you can only fit one, DC, bomb launcher, cloak? Perhaps some of the more exotic capital highslot mods. I think heat and faction webs are good enough for small gang exchanges, I would rather see this "problem" resolved with relaxed skill requirements for the gangmods, especially the tackling optimal booster. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Shoukei	Posted - 2008.04.06 14:27:00 - [4] sounds like a good idea
Sirial Soulfly Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.06 14:51:00 - [5] Its even simpler to completely remove mwd modules.
Slate Fistcrunch mUfFiN fAcToRy Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.04.06 15:16:00 - [6] Edited by: Slate Fistcrunch on 06/04/2008 15:19:20 At first I was hesitant about this idea but with deep thought it sounds like a solid and easy way to fix the problem. The problem as I see it is that module slots play a larger role in speed than the ship class. So the larger ships with more module slots gain an unrealistic advantage over smaller ships. This solution would address that issue. Further adjustments could be made to polycarbons and microwarpdrives (nerfs to 10mn and 100mn?) to do a stronger adjustment if such is desired. Running some quick figures through EFT with level 5 skills I got some rough figures. I assume by his proposals that you would only have 1 nanofiber, 1 overdrive, 1 inertial fiber, 1 polycarbon, 1 aux thruster, and 1 low friction nozzel if those will fit according to slots. Ship Name Ship Setup -> speed (m/s) Rifter Normal -> 6614 Andreya -> 4960 Crow Normal -> 8243 Andreya -> 6980 ____ Caracal Navy Issue Normal -> 3812 Andreya -> 2857 Vagabond Normal -> 6536 Andreya -> 4968 ____ Typhoon Normal -> 3589 Andreya -> 2464 Machariel Normal -> 4571 Andreya -> 3038 ================================ Now I know everyone has their opinions but this looks damn good to me. It's certainly a step in the right direction. If I were in charge, speed mods restricted to 1 per ship, 10mn and 100mn mwd slightly nerfed, polycarb nerfed to match the module and see how that goes for several months before looking at the speed issue again. As far as how to explain the restriction, it makes sense that you can only strip out the inside of the ship once (nanofiber), can only fit one fuel injecting overdrive, or one magical istab per ship.
Y3R M4W School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.04.06 15:45:00 - [7] Edited by: Y3R M4W on 06/04/2008 15:45:49 Sounds utterly ********, but when you look into it it's really not that bad, certainly one of the best ideas I've read for reducing nano-speed. Note: YER MAW! is Scottish for Your Mother.
Zeph Solaris	Posted - 2008.04.06 18:06:00 - [8] Originally by: Andreya Edited by: Andreya on 06/04/2008 02:05:11how can a ship in theory fit more than 1 nanofiber anyways!? I've always seen it as the nanofiber modules replace certain parts of the ship. The more low slots, the more parts of the ship that are able to be replaced by nanofibers. The first nanofiber module replaces the most obvious places of the ship that could be nano'd. The subsequent modules take other parts that you sometimes wouldn't think to do so.
Darth Felin	Posted - 2008.04.09 14:22:00 - [9] Very good proposal IMHO, fast ships don't need many modules to remain fast and slow ships won't be able to use nano-crazy.
Shubs Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.09 14:48:00 - [10] Edited by: Shubs on 09/04/2008 14:49:04 Originally by: Slate Fistcrunch Edited by: Slate Fistcrunch on 06/04/2008 15:19:20 If I were in charge Thats why your not in charge, there is no nano problem, the problem is the whiners who dont fit ships to counter it, whats next, "Nerf EVE-0 tbh" best proposal would be to turn all of eve to 0.0, so people who actually comment on the forumns, know what they are actually talking about... Pack it up, Pack it in, come on let it begin! - Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo -
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.09 15:10:00 - [11] Sure go ahead, nerf nanos. Tomorrow you will whine "nurf battleships my HAC dies too fast".
Shubs Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.09 15:22:00 - [12] Edited by: Shubs on 09/04/2008 15:22:31 Originally by: Deva Blackfire "nurf battleships my HAC dies too fast". Signed
BlackHorizon Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.04.09 15:40:00 - [13] You still have up to three unpenalized modules with this method, not counting rigs. A better solution is to introduce a global stacking penalty on the modules and rigs, so that more than two or three rigs/modules receives diminishing benefits.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.04.09 15:56:00 - [14] Originally by: BlackHorizon You still have up to three unpenalized modules with this method, not counting rigs. A better solution is to introduce a global stacking penalty on the modules and rigs, so that more than two or three rigs/modules receives diminishing benefits. The modules are not all on the same attribute, how would you introduce such a stacking penalty? In order to apply a stacking penalty, you have to first order the bonus from the best to the worse and apply the stacking ratios in order. This can't be done on several stats that affect totally different things (base speed, agility, mass already makes 3). IMHO, only the MWD is a bit wrong... it should not be so extreme both in penalties and in bonuses. I would love to fight more with signature and less with speed. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Julius Romanus Fatalix Inc. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.09 16:02:00 - [15] Originally by: NightmareX The simplest solution is to shut up and stop with the whining about nanos. Nerfing nanos that way will destroy most of the roaming gangs in EVE. Nanos are fine as they are now. End of story. <3 ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only.
Phoibos Minmatar North Face Force	Posted - 2008.04.09 16:15:00 - [16] same old story the nerf story One thing that alot of people that hate nanoships forget is WHY people use nanos! its really damn clear why.....its the only effective way to get inside moste of the alliance space in eve....without getting killed in the first few jumps, if your in a small tanked gang. You get camped in becuse your slow, you get outnumbered very fast and killed becuse your ship is tanked and slow. There is no tactical advanteged of anykind that a small-tanked gang can use effectively ingame today. You wont even able to move around in 0.0 today if your not speed tanked or belong to a alliance. And I'm sure even alliance people can understand why many players dont want to be part of a alliance when your a pvp player. The game simply lag tooooo much its NOT enjoyable in anyway when it comes down to fleetfights its really nothing you can do your in the hands of the lag I'm not spending my reallife ISK being stuck for hours in a system just becuse I had to join a pvp alliance to even do pvp becuse they nerfed speed thats my opinion and I'm sure I'm not alone I think its time to focus on the real problem here and that is stop pushing the game in to a Giant battle party were 30% dies of lag and the other 70% get doomsday wakeup ccp\nanohaters eveonline can't managed the fleetfightes or large numbers of players in local verywell and thats a understatement. And still its the scermish warfare part of the game get hit by the NERF time after time( btw also a working part of the game with less LAG)and its not just nano's its the idea of balancing the game to perfection that will kill the game I think if it continues like this.... so once more ccp don't give me something you can't offer....... its a shame that you talk about nerfing nanos in the latest live-dev-blog when thats a part of the game that create less lag for the player and you know it!!!
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2008.04.09 20:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Erotic Irony I think this is a bit arbitrary, there are only a small number of modules that you can only fit one, DC, bomb launcher, cloak? Perhaps some of the more exotic capital highslot mods... Single AB or MWD per ship? Arbitrary? ...
San Rintu Asshats and Alcoholics Notoriety Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.09 20:53:00 - [18] The figures that you have pulled up in EFT do show some interesting promise. As far as technicalities goes it does make sense to marginalise some of the speed modules into 'one-only' ones. It makes very little sense that you can intertially stabilise your ship twice, or indeed reduce structural mass more than once. Did they simply forget to take out the chrome door panels and rear view mirror on the Ishtar with the first nano? Those figures don't seem like they would overly nerf the nano era that is Eve right now. The ships that nano well would still be able to nano well without the armour tanking ships abusing their low slots to create sheer monstrous combinations. Believe me when I say that I completely understand where nano pliots are coming from and fair play to you for utilising the current state of Eve to your advantage. As I have said in other posts though, Minmatar are meant to be the race which is the first and last say in speed. They can bring ships that go speedy zoom and they can bring ships that can take it away. This thrown completely out of balance when other race ships can outpace them on the battlefield, it simply makes little sense from a stroyline perspective. I would like to see this idea in action on Sisi for a day or two just to see how it effects the game balancing. Another idea that sprung to mind was to alter the sig radius issue with the mwds. It techincally is utilising a much greater force to propel a 10mn or 100mn microwarpdrive, so why should it displace the ship's signature radius at the same level as it would a frigate? Just an idea on simple figures that could be used: 1mn MWD = 5x Sig Radius 10mn MWD = 10x Sig Radius 100mn MWD = 20x Sig Radius These figures are merely here for discussion, so please do.
Haldir Ravenclaw PezCo - Ice Services Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.09 21:58:00 - [19] Edited by: Haldir Ravenclaw on 09/04/2008 22:01:14 As much as nano ships a PITA on most occasions, there are easy ways to counter them, and I'll name a few that are (to me anyway) quite common: Huginn/Rapier - has web range bonus, dual web and beat them to death. Energy Neuts - the large versions are capable of draining a nano ship as most likely they'll be inside your neut range for orbit. A faster ship than theirs - so long as the faster ship isn't webbed itself, it can catch up to it and web it so others can catch up. Well that's about it for counters. I do raise an eyebrow on occasions for some nano ships though, but meh, that's their problem. Edit: Yes it is ironic how Minmatar being the speed race also have the best counter to it --- We want T2/Faction drone modules!
Ferocious FeAr THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.04.10 04:31:00 - [20] Nano's need to be addressed. It's getting out of hand. Then again, nano = 0.0 = players who forgot how to pvp. Remember when people actually used close range guns? Yeah. Don't hate me, learn to love me
Reptar Dragon THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.04.10 04:35:00 - [21] imagine triumverate being the only ones who disagree. who would have thought that.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.10 08:11:00 - [22] I notice that there's a class of ship that's conspicuous in it's absence in these discussions - Industrials. The nano industrial is a perfectly valid tactic that is not unbalanced. The whole design of industrial fitting relies on their relatively high number of low slots to allow the single ship to be adaptable across the full range from small and fast to huge and slow. Without the ability to fit multiple nano and inertia modules, you'd need to create a line of Tech 1 blockade runner ships to replace the small and fast end of the spectrum that you'd nerfed into oblivion. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.10 08:39:00 - [23] 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.
Lakut Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.10 08:50:00 - [24] Match and mix for nano nerf without nerfing the fitting of other ships for fast align: Change nano/poly drawback to either max velocity reduction or cap reduction. Change inertial stabilizer drawback from sig radius to velocity reduction. Change overdrive drawback from reduced cargohold (lulzworthy) to mass increase, cap reduction or inertia increase. Adjust ceptor and select minmatar ships mass, max velocity and inertia to keep them going fast. ---------- You get a wonderful view from the point of no return.
BugxEarl Amarr Division 9 Golden Leaves Izanagi Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.10 09:14:00 - [25] First of all, the 'nano-problem' is not really a problem by itself, but it is a solution presented by more basic problem involving current EVE pvp mechanism. That problem is this; Ship classes smaller than battleships have three main ways of fighting. 1.Fight out of web-range, and avoid damage through speed. 2.Fight out of web-range, and avoid damage through friendly EW support. 3.Fight within web-range, and overwhelm the opponent with sheer firepower before you die(ganking) The fourth option, 'Fight within or out of web-range, and out-tank your opponent' doesn't really work since BS and BC/CS would almost always outclass both in firepower and HP. Signature radius and transverse wouldn't help in most occasions since close-range fitted BS would hit you anyways. Since the success of option 2&3 depend heavily on your gang having guarranteeed advantage over the opponent, it only leaves option 1 to be a really viable tactic if you're operating deep behind enemy line unsure of what you'd end up facing against. Solving the so called 'nano problem' by making ships slower does not solve this fundamental issue. EVE needs an incentive for smaller ships to fight up-close and personal.
Trigos Trilobi X-Fire	Posted - 2008.04.10 09:44:00 - [26] Same old, same old. Clueless people trying to nerf nanos because they think their preferred gank/tank bs should be as effective against everything as it is against other bs'. Sure, just simplify the game more, pretty soon we can just sit here on forum comparing eft "i have 900 dps and 100k effective hp, it beats your 950 dps and 90k effective hp" and don't even have to play the game anymore. As long as there's faster and slower ships, the faster ships can always decide wether to press encounter or not. Soo, make everyone move at 200m/s so it's fair? The real problem isn't nanos even, it's webs. In essence, speedtanking needs a considerable BUFF inside webranges, not a nerf outside. If speedtanking was viable inside webranges, a vaga pilot would have to consider wether it's better to do poor dps at 20km or pretty decent dps at 1km, which would result in more vagas in web range -> harder to escape. Currently there's really no upside for a vaga pilot to go inside 15km except if he's 110% sure the enemy doesn't have a web, which reduces the vaga into a boring one trick pony but incidently also allows you to escape most of the time. So, please, stop with this shortsighted crap of trying to fix the symptoms and fix webs instead. Or maybe give me a module that uses insignificant cap and instantly reduces boost/rep amount by 90% to even the odds a bit.
Phoibos Minmatar North Face Force	Posted - 2008.04.10 13:27:00 - [27] Edited by: Phoibos on 10/04/2008 13:31:42 Failing to understand the game mechanics. I enconter alot of players in pvp that been killed the same way 5-6times with the very same setup aswell. Many of them scream in local that nano-ships are overpowered or a win button etc... So after dying multiple times with same setup and in the same places gates,belts then suddenly its the game that is unbalanced. The moste halerious thing in this is: CCP listen to the people that scream NERF on the forum as soon as they got a personal problem with the game and they nerf it for them. true egoistic spirit of the player if you can't win then push for a change so the game does it for you.
WeightedCompanionCube Aperture Science Enrichment Center	Posted - 2008.04.10 14:31:00 - [28] Originally by: NightmareX Nerfing nanos that way will destroy most of the roaming gangs in EVE. That's kind of the point. The 12-vagas-rapiers-and-ishtars fleets that go around killing lone battleships while running away from any serious opposition while congratulating each other on their PvP excellence are becoming boring. The role of fast ship in EVE is filled perfectly fine by Interceptors.
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.10 15:26:00 - [29] Edited by: Dianeces on 10/04/2008 15:28:31 Originally by: Reptar Dragon imagine triumverate being the only ones who disagree. who would have thought that. Because camping gates in lowsec takes skill, amirite? Originally by: Ferocious FeAr Remember when people actually used close range guns? You mean like ACs, which get used on Vagas, or Pulse Lasers, which get used on Zealots?
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.	Posted - 2008.04.10 15:54:00 - [30] Originally by: Sirial Soulfly Its even simpler to completely remove mwd modules. That! If you want simple idiotic solutions simply remove MWD. Would be far less idiotic than limiting other modules. If only 1 speed mod is to be allowed. Than i depand only 1 Resist module and 1 Armor repairer also demand only 1 damage mod and only 1 track ehnacer. And lets not forget 1 sensor booster. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.