EVE Search - Nano Fix [Idee's/Discussion]

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Nano Fix [Idee's/Discussion]

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 15:18:00 - [1] The major problem of nano's is the stacking of diffrent types to increase your base speed. Combine that with a nice MWD and look yourself go. How can this be resolved without major impact on diffrent modules etc etc... 1) Change AB/MWD to only effect the ships main base speed (without rigs/modules) Thoughts?
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.04.15 15:49:00 - [2] Choose one or more of the following: - Reduce speed bonus from implants by 30% - Reduce the speed bonus from command ships by 30% - Restrict the speed bonus of the Acceleration Control skill to Afterburners (but increase the bonus to 10%) - Reduce the maneuverability of ships dramatically when they use a MWD - Add a cooldown period between MWD cycles - Have MWDs use fuel - Make MWD speed increase independent from mass, instead use the warp speed for modification and mass influences capacitor cost. - Make Nanofibers, Inertia Stabilizers, Overdrive Injectors and the similar rigs all stack as if they were the same kind of item. - Add a script to Warp Scramblers and Disruptors that allows them to disable a MWD, have Warpcore Stabilizers add a MWD strength. - Increase Stasis Webifier Range and/or increase the deceleration rate when webified. - Disable normal warp when a MWD is active on the ship There. Can't come up with anything else at the moment. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 15:58:00 - [3] Mutch idees indeed. Tho all have can have a major impact on the game itself as well the coding behind it. Adjusting the MWD/AB effects would be alot easyer and doesnt change any other effects to look after. 300m/s + 500% speed = 1800 m/s. If you get implant sets and commandship bonusses to it (roughly 60%), you'll get max 2880. Most ships will have a max speed of about 1500m/s. The only concern this will give is the shiproles of minmatar recons. It also will change 0.0 fleet warfare to some extend
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.04.15 16:08:00 - [4] We could have overdrive injector changed from cargohold reduction (intended effect was affecting industrials travel speed at times before warp to 0 I think) to agility reduction.
Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.04.15 16:57:00 - [5] Quote: Increase Stasis Webifier Range and/or increase the deceleration rate when webified. This, with scripts. //// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad) "Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand
Anubis Xian Vertigo One	Posted - 2008.04.15 17:38:00 - [6] Double MWD Cap Penalty Double MWD Activation Cost Halve MWD Duration Give 'speed' ships Afterburner Velocity Bonuses (Interceptors could perhaps receive 250-300% AB Max Velocity bonus) Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. Juggernauts
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 17:46:00 - [7] Originally by: Anubis Xian Double MWD Cap Penalty Double MWD Activation Cost Halve MWD Duration Give 'speed' ships Afterburner Velocity Bonuses (Interceptors could perhaps receive 250-300% AB Max Velocity bonus) This would not resolve the "nano age" but only increase it. It would create interceptors still at amazing speed but this time without the sig penalty.
Anubis Xian Vertigo One	Posted - 2008.04.15 17:48:00 - [8] Originally by: Freya Selene Originally by: Anubis Xian Double MWD Cap Penalty Double MWD Activation Cost Halve MWD Duration Give 'speed' ships Afterburner Velocity Bonuses (Interceptors could perhaps receive 250-300% AB Max Velocity bonus) This would not resolve the "nano age" but only increase it. It would create interceptors still at amazing speed but this time without the sig penalty. So? Interceptors are supposed to be fast. And they don't take nearly as much effort to counter with webs. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. Juggernauts
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:03:00 - [9] 3000 m/s is still fast. This is exactly the problem of the nano age. The compleet value of fast has gone down the drain. Couse of the nano's slower then 5000m/s you no longer count. Another option could be to change the accceleration time when you hit your MWD. Example taking 10 to 15seconds before you reach topspeed instead of 3 seconds.
Opertone Caldari Simtech Productions	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:03:00 - [10] the only problem with nano is that non nano ships cannot compete with the nano nano ship can get out of combat whenever it wants to // impossible to catch without 5 people gang some ships go too fast now, HACs are way too fast, they are meant to be tanks, not interceptor-like nano problem appears because of recent addition of speed rigs, thermodynamics and massive implants every ship in eve should have a role, some ships are not supposed to be fast/nano if it is a battleship - main role is DPS if it is a HAC - main role is tank and some dps HACs must not speed tank (currently they often fit speed, tank, dps, tackle and cloak) increase the mass of the slow tanking ships to match their role... vagabond should not be as fast as an interceptor, add 80% mass to balance this issue BS should not speed tank at all if the nano becomes stacking penalised, it will hurt all ships if certain classes get extra mass, this will fix the problem with NASTY multi role HACs and nano solo BS

Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:10:00 - [11] Edited by: Dianeces on 15/04/2008 18:12:45 Edit: Christ, this was a Hydra poast, why'd I even bother to reply. :cripes:
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:15:00 - [12] The only way to counter nano's is to neutralise there cap or to web them. To kill there cap there is a range limit of aprox 24km. To web them there is the limit of minimatar pilots flying recon ships. With the ability of almost nano'ing every ship, should there be only one major counter? (mini recons that is) Comming to an idee/discussion thread claiming there are many counters against nano fits without underbuilding your statement is kind of useless.
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:18:00 - [13] Quote: With the ability of almost nano'ing every ship lol
Opertone Caldari Simtech Productions	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:21:00 - [14] Edited by: Opertone on 15/04/2008 18:25:08 Edited by: Opertone on 15/04/2008 18:24:14 Edited by: Opertone on 15/04/2008 18:23:06 at best you can hit the nano... but you can not kill it to kill a nano ishtar you may need - large tech 2 bubble, 10 km/s interceptor, minimatar recon, some combat ship, possibly an interdictor to follow him to the other systems, covops to find it in the safe spot nano ishtar can be very fast and warp out within 2 secs, which makes it almost impossible to catch the nano ishtar neutralizer does not guarantee the kill, he will still warp out we have 5 ships for 1 ishtar... every other nano ishtar will require a new set of interceptor and minimatar recon to catch 5 nano ishtars you ultimatlely need 20 people... or the ishtars will *****you one by one
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:21:00 - [15] Originally by: Dianeces Quote: With the ability of almost nano'ing every ship lol Thanks for your constructive input.
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:28:00 - [16] Originally by: Freya Selene Thanks for your constructive input. No sweat. Thanks for amusing me and making my day go by that much quicker.
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:32:00 - [17] Originally by: Opertone nano ishtar can be very fast and warp out within 2 secs Only if it's fit completely for agility (which its not) and has a full set of LG Nomad implants (which it doesn't) will it even get to a 2 second warp time. Maybe you should learn about things before trying to talk about them.
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:35:00 - [18] Edited by: Freya Selene on 15/04/2008 18:35:52 Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Opertone nano ishtar can be very fast and warp out within 2 secs Only if it's fit completely for agility (which its not) and has a full set of LG Nomad implants (which it doesn't) will it even get to a 2 second warp time. Maybe you should learn about things before trying to talk about them. Bubbles can only be used in 0.0. Together with a cloak hes aligned and out of bubble before a ship is near to reveal. Same trick in lowsec. The man knows what hes talking about, he also tryes to give constructive feetback. Afterall this is the idee section of the forums and not CAOD. If flaming and trolling is all you have to offer in this discussion i hope you pass on.
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:45:00 - [19] Edited by: Dianeces on 15/04/2008 18:48:07 Originally by: Freya Selene :words: Learn to read. I said he didn't know what he was talking about because the odds of an Ishtar being fitted to warp out in two seconds are so remotely slim, it may as well be impossible. Also, cloaks slow you down, so if you're using a large anchorable bubble, it will take an inordinate amount of time to clear the edge. But you clearly know what you're talking about. Besides, anyone dumb enough to not simply burn back to the gate in a nanotar should really consider flying something else. Edit: Great, now you've got me all upset. It's so much easier to troll when I can laugh about things instead of having to make :srspoasts:.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.04.15 19:03:00 - [20] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 15/04/2008 19:04:21 I think these make the most sense: Reduce the maneuverability of ships dramatically when they use a MWD. (Yep, a MWD should feel like a 'turbo boost' or a dragster, where you can pretty much only go straight ahead.) Make MWD speed increase independent from mass, instead use the warp speed for modification and mass influences capacitor cost. Bring Polycarbon Engine Housing rigs in line with the other speed rigs. An Auxiliary Thruster is weaker than an Overdrive Injector II. Polycarbon should be weaker than Nanofiber II. The prevalence of the 2x Polycarbon + 2x Overdrive II combo speaks volumes. Change Overdrive Injector from cargohold reduction (intended effect was affecting industrials travel speed at times before warp to 0 I think) to agility reduction. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like 'nerf' Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam

Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.15 19:03:00 - [21] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/04/2008 19:06:39 There's no need to do anything at all. They're very much fine. Assuming they're not and basing a thread off it is just false and bogus. That said, stop being terminally stupid and you know, think what makes nanoing ships which aren't meant for it possible (hint: one are plugged in your head, and one in your rigslots, and you can't nano half the ships without both). We do NOT need to make the game battleships online with long-range webbing of any sort. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 19:42:00 - [22] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/04/2008 19:06:39 There's no need to do anything at all. They're very much fine. Assuming they're not and basing a thread off it is just false and bogus. That said, stop being terminally stupid and you know, think what makes nanoing ships which aren't meant for it possible (hint: one are plugged in your head, and one in your rigslots, and you can't nano half the ships without both). We do NOT need to make the game battleships online with long-range webbing of any sort. Originally by: Freya With the ability of almost nano'ing every ship Thank you for calling me terminally stupid. Petittion for you sir. As for no need. Even CCP themselfs claim that the current speed boost is not what they had in mind to achieve. Combined with introduction of rigs speed changed for the worst. I do understand that you nano lovers get up high when it comes down to taking a closer look at what makes these ships strong. However there game design never been for flying uncatchable arround. I fly nano ships myself, they do great, love them, cant catch them easly. Sadly they dont tank sentry's that well, else i would use them even more. And you need a team to catch a single one of them. Thats where its wrong. If an interceptor is able to tackle.. or an interdictor i can understand till such point. But ships that are able to tackle, kill, choise there engagement or simple get out of trouble those are to mutch for a single ship. At this point HAC's in combination with nano fit are to overpowered. Some even fly faster then Interceptors and Interdictors. And i havent even started about nano battlecruiser gangs. Assuming thats fine for a cruiser sized ship is "just false and bogus". And do i hear someone say Machariel?
Kruel Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.04.15 21:20:00 - [23] I've never been killed by a lone nanoship. Maybe it's just because I don't rat in the belts. And if you do find yourself out in space vs. a nanoship without being able to counter one, it's your fault. That's their territory. Otherwise... 1. Nano ships stay out of web range and therefore can't keep you from running back to the gate (excluding Minnie recons which have ****-poor dps). 2. Vs. Curse & Ishtar you just kill the drones. 3. Heavy neut = no more mwd for speedy gonzales. 4. Overloaded webs combined with manual piloting yield surprising results. 5. Certain types of cruiser-sized weapons can track nanos easily. 6. They likely paid a lot more for their ship, setup, and implants than you did. That said, I personally wouldn't mind if webs were given a little falloff AS LONG AS afterburners were made immune(or at least heavily resistant) to webs. ----------------------------------- You're not a pirate unless your -10
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.15 21:45:00 - [24] Originally by: Kruel 1. Nano ships stay out of web range and therefore can't keep you from running back to the gate (excluding Minnie recons which have **-poor dps). Ishtar does over 500dps, Vaga does aprox 300dps. Both keep scramble point on while killing. Not all ships have MWD fitted by default and therefor can run back to the gates in time. Quote: 2. Vs. Curse & Ishtar you just kill the drones. True.. Eve has alot of 1 on 1's.... not... Quote: 3. Heavy neut = no more mwd for speedy gonzales. Not all ships have Heavy neuts... only BS's types are able to fit those Quote: 4. Overloaded webs combined with manual piloting yield surprising results. Overloaded web of 10km gives 30% bonus.. 13km web really makes the diffrence.. or is it the pilotting.. probly is.. Quote: 5. Certain types of cruiser-sized weapons can track nanos easily. M Pulse? M beams? 220mm Vulcans? M Blasters? M railguns? Heavy missiles with 80km range? Heavy assault missiles with max 30km? Missiles hit when targets goes over 5000m/s? Quote: 6. They likely paid a lot more for their ship, setup, and implants than you did. Only for there rigs. Quote:** That said, I personally wouldn't mind if webs were given a little falloff AS LONG AS afterburners were made immune(or at least heavily resistant) to webs. At least something that indeed could be usefull. Still depending range you would be looking at a falloff of aprox 20km for webs then?
Kruel Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.04.15 22:19:00 - [25] Originally by: Freya Selene stuff Ok it's established we disagree on whether or not nanos are overpowered. I'll just leave it at that. As for webs with falloff, I'd say no more than 10k. Overloaded that'd be 26k of webbage. Good enough. It would deter MWDs in combat. But if afterburners aren't made immune/resistant at the same time, webs will be grossly overpowered. Right now MWD and webs are directly opposed to one another. You can't nerf or boost one without also nerfing/boosting the other. There needs to be some amount of speed and maneuverability in this game, otherwise it'll just be rock/paper/scissors. And personally, I drool at the thought of being able to use small close range ships in combat again. Not to mention missile ships & target painters would get a stealth boost with this (which IMO is good - you don't see Caldari much in PVP these days aside from the obligatory Falcon for every gang). ----------------------------------- You're not a pirate unless your -10
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.04.15 23:01:00 - [26] Nanos themselves are not overpowered. The extremes of speed that can be achieved by combining a number of factors into one ship/situation is overpowered. Cutting down in the extremes is what CCP is going to do, hopefully without killing off speed as a viable tactic. That's why (most) of my proposals were aimed at the implants, command ship and MWD. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.04.15 23:45:00 - [27] Yes, extremes are the cause for most MMOG troubles. That being seid, perhaps CCP wants to take a look into bonus calculations. Adding all bonuses up and then applying them would be a lot less prone to creating extremes. Right now an extra bonus is much more useful than an extra 5 or 10%. Because +30%, +30% and +30% isn't +90%. It's +119.7%. With every extra bonus it gets worse. Maybe EVE is at the point where the game mechanics can't afford to introduce any more new bonuses. Maybe it has already gone a bit too far (rigs?). ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like 'nerf' Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.16 00:09:00 - [28] Well they introduced stacking penalty, however it does only apply for the same module type. If it should work for same effects that would probly be a bether awnser. But that also would effect tracking mods for low in combination with tracking in the mids (harder then allready). Combination of less armor, less mass, MWD effecting it is the reason for fast nano setups. Huge examples: Polycarbon rig: Reduction of weight at the expense of armor. (-10% at lvl 1) This doubles the effect of the rig on nanosetups. You only want your skill at lvl 1 couse -10% armor is even bether then -8% with lvl 2. Auxiliary Thrusters: Increased speed at the expense of armor. Low Friction Nozzle Joints: Increased agility at expense of armor. All these 3 rigs used for nano setups have instead of a negative effect only a possitive effect on nano setups.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.04.16 00:25:00 - [29] Now that would be interesting: All effects that affect the same attribute get stacking penalty instead of only the same module. This would definitely cut off the extremes while not affecting the 'casual' fittings. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.16 00:53:00 - [30] Originally by: Abrazzar Now that would be interesting: All effects that affect the same attribute get stacking penalty instead of only the same module. This would definitely cut off the extremes while not affecting the 'casual' fittings. Wow, if only it worked like this already, all our problems would be solved. Oh, wait....

Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.04.16 01:02:00 - [31] Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Abrazzar Now that would be interesting: All effects that affect the same attribute get stacking penalty instead of only the same module. This would definitely cut off the extremes while not affecting the 'casual' fittings. Wow, if only it worked like this already, all our problems would be solved. Oh, wait.... I'll explain it to you so that you might even have a chance of understanding what I'm talking about: Right now you have for example Overdrives, Aux Thrusters, Implants, Boosters, Command Ship Bonus and Skills that increase speed. Each separately stack penalized. The new system would throw them all in the same pot and then penalize them by effect. So after the third bonus, no matter where it comes from the penalty will be very significant, rendering the bonuses above a certain number of sources useless. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.16 01:14:00 - [32] Edited by: Dianeces on 16/04/2008 01:15:15 Originally by: Abrazzar I'll explain it to you so that you might even have a chance of understanding what I'm talking about: Right now you have for example Overdrives, Aux Thrusters, Implants, Boosters, Command Ship Bonus and Skills that increase speed. Each separately stack penalized. The new system would throw them all in the same pot and then penalize them by effect. So after the third bonus, no matter where it comes from the penalty will be very significant, rendering the bonuses above a certain number of sources useless. Will we be stack nerfing armor/shield hardeners with armor reps/shield boosters now too? Edit: We're also going to need to stack nerf all the skills people trained to increase their damage with damage mods as well.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.04.16 01:15:00 - [33] Originally by: Dianeces Will we be stack nerfing armor/shield hardeners with armor reps/shield boosters now too? Since when do all those affect the same ship attribute? -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.16 01:17:00 - [34] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: Dianeces Will we be stack nerfing armor/shield hardeners with armor reps/shield boosters now too? Since when do all those affect the same ship attribute? Those don't. But I thought I'd get as much coverage with my troll as possible.
Thargat Caldari North Star Networks Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.16 01:31:00 - [35] A good nano setup (on say a HAC) will cost you the equivalent of a BS with t2 fitting and rigs. It does not do anywhere near the dps of that bs, it does not tank anywhere near that bs and it can be scrammed and webbed by a 40mil ISK interceptor (I've done it plenty of times, no need for rapiers or other specialist ships). Can you please tell me what's wrong with the current situation? What ships are the problem, in what situations are they a problem and so forth... cus quite frankly... I don't get it. (I'm dead serious). There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius.
Opertone Caldari Simtech Productions	Posted - 2008.04.16 15:24:00 - [36] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 15/04/2008 19:04:21 I think these make the most sense: Reduce the maneuverability of ships dramatically when they use a MWD. (Yep, a MWD should feel like a 'turbo boost' or a dragster, where you can pretty much only go straight ahead.) Make MWD speed increase independent from mass, instead use the warp speed for modification and mass influences capacitor cost. that's a good point Bring Polycarbon Engine Housing rigs in line with the other speed rigs. An Auxiliary Thruster is weaker than an Overdrive Injector II. Polycarbon should be weaker than Nanofiber II. The prevalence of the 2x Polycarbon + 2x Overdrive II combo speaks volumes. Change Overdrive Injector from cargohold reduction (intended effect was affecting industrials travel speed at times before warp to 0 I think) to agility reduction. stacking penalties for speed mods are wrong interceptors should go fast indeed, perhaps for limited time, or still be vulnerable to normal weapons HACs are overpowered, HAC >> BS, because it can have 80% resists, speed tank, cloak, tackle and get out safe perhaps MWD should give linear speed boost >> straight forward for reaching the target, and after burner should speed up the ship to allow it to orbit fast i like the idea of MWD for getting in range in a linear mode... this is all it is needed for but it will turn orbiting into run and snipe game... where the heavier guns have advantage over speed tanker
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.16 15:31:00 - [37] Originally by: Opertone because it can have 80% resists, speed tank Pick one, they're mutually exclusive.
Opertone Caldari Simtech Productions	Posted - 2008.04.16 16:27:00 - [38] Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Opertone because it can have 80% resists, speed tank Pick one, they're mutually exclusive. this is an off-topic comment HACs must not speed tank, it gives them the edge over all other ships, i think that bigger size ships must not use speed at all, the more resistance the ship has the slower it is logically armor tanks should make ships very slow, shield tanks are rather weak but allow maneuverability and speed play some single player space simulation, of which some of the best are WING commander and Extension series and BTW regarding all the nanoes... MISSILEs should still hit them, you guys ought to play single player simulator game... you will see how nicely it is done there for example large carrier can fire 18 turrets at once, different sizes, but they have poor tracking and will miss small targets, with only occasional 20% hits then the larger ships have area of effect weapon in addition to main guns, and some missiles, where usually light and fast missiles hit the fast moving targets / unless the latter decide to get out warp drive contributes to crappy PVP in eve, it is more like hide and seek, because you can run away every time best game perhaps is still WING commander ARMADA, where in a fast and strong inteceptor ship you have to use your linear mode worm hole engine... which speeds you up to 25 000 km/s ... as compared to 3 km/s average scout speed. then there was that jumpdrive which allowed to jump from one system to the other, but you had to be out of combat situtation and charge that jumpdrive a little warping should not happen when you take aggro in combat... instead there should be jumping eve is a place of everywhere and nowhere... because the space is vast and you stay in one spot only (at the gat or the other gate)
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.04.16 17:10:00 - [39] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 16/04/2008 17:11:03 Originally by: Thargat A good nano setup (on say a HAC) will cost you the equivalent of a BS with t2 fitting and rigs. Cost should never be an argument. Especially with diminishing returns as an underlying concept. A cargo rigged Omen with an officer shield booster is expensive, too.. Originally by: Thargat It does not do anywhere near the dps of that bs, it does not tank anywhere near that bs and it can be scrammed and webbed by a 40mil ISK interceptor (I've done it plenty of times, no need for rapiers or other specialist ships). So why do people fly expensive and basically non-insurable HACs instead of BS'es? Right, there is some inherent advantage. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like 'nerf' Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.16 17:41:00 - [40] Originally by: Opertone this is an off-topic comment No. It is not off-topic, you just don't want to hear it. There is not a single HAC in the game that can simultaneously have 80% resists and nano effectively. Therefore, when you state that HACs can have 80% resists and speed tank, you are stating a falsehood, and I will call you out on it.

Ragnor Dayton Amarr Personal Vendetta Reavers.	Posted - 2008.04.17 11:47:00 - [41] I think the basic issue isn't about the speeds being reached but the sustainability of speed over a long period of time which is where the excessive speed tanking ability comes from. A nano Sacrilege with no cap mods can sustain its MWD permanently for example if not using any other cap using modules. A small change that should be relatively easy to code would simply to make MWD use cap booster charges in order to activate. 50's for 1mn, 200's for 10mn and 800 for 100mn. Give each MWD a fixed capacity based on that - say 2 for meta level 0 - 4 and 3 for meta level 5+, and the usual 10 second ammo reload time. This would mean that the MWD is not really effected for non nano fleet use (getting out of bubble quick, etc.) but would reduce the sustainability of nano ships, meaning they will have a period of incresed vulnerability during a sustained fight. Also this could call for the introduction of a MWD sustainability skill (say 10% per level), but that's a balancing issue.
Thargat Caldari North Star Networks Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.17 17:02:00 - [42] Originally by: Tarron Sarek A cargo rigged Omen with an officer shield booster is expensive, too.. Officer fittings are relly borked price wise... what makes them so costly is the limited supply and high demand. Not that they are expensive to produce. There's always crazy fits that cost billions, but that's really beside the point. And cost is a very valid argument... it's all about isk in the end. Originally by: Tarron Sarek So why do people fly expensive and basically non-insurable HACs instead of BS'es? Right, there is some inherent advantage. Because a BS ain't a very good roamingship due to them being slow. If you need to disrupt ratting and miningops you have to be fast or invisible. 5 nanoships can never beat 5 BS if the pilots in both gangs have similar SP and experience. There's also alot of FOTM players who fly nano because they think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but how that would be a problem is beyond me (since it happens with every thing thats declared FOTM, no matter if it's actually good or not). The same goes for something I'd like to call WOTM (whine of the month)... a couple of months ago it was capships, before that EW, before that t2 torps and it goes on. Some people adapt, even most people as it seems. Then there's a few stubborn ppl that refuse to change and evolve their way of playing when tactics and fittings change. They then come to the forums to whine and complain about it, in an attempt to check if they'r alone in their oppinions. There they meet other people with the same ideas, and just because a few hundred posts from a fewer number of players (out of a playerbase of more than one hundred thousand) are made they feel that they don't need to adapt. That the other players and CCP somehow is to blame for their inability to deal with the problem (in this case nanoships). There are efficient counters to nanoships, tactics, ships and fittings that work. There are fewer (if any) such counters for cov-ops, loggofski navyravens in empire and alot of other things. It's better to adapt, to see the challenge and do something successful about it, instead of having ccp try to fix something that ain't broken in the first place. I might have overlooked something though. So again I'm asking for an explanation (a good one) on what exactly is the problem. In what situations, what ships and why the counters don't work. There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius.
Gluecksbaerchi The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.17 19:09:00 - [43] Originally by: Freya Selene The major problem of nano's is the stacking of diffrent types to increase your base speed. Combine that with a nice MWD and look yourself go. How can this be resolved without major impact on diffrent modules etc etc... 1) Change AB/MWD to only effect the ships main base speed (without rigs/modules) Thoughts? Dear Sir/Madam/sexless Internetuser, you are mistaken that there is a problem with "Speed" in Eve-Online. The basic underlying concept of speed is that different ships, weapons, shipclasses and races operate on different ranges and therefore Acceleration of the spacecraft is used by every of these groups to position themselves where they can hit best and/or their opponent cannot hit them anymore. This must happen in a way that smaller, less protected ships can travel fast enough to outrun larger, more dangerous ships to survive them. Furthermore, your argumentation is basicly: [X] Nonexistant [X] Misleading and/or fundamentally wrong [X] not offering a way to give the ships your proposed changes are going to ruin a new/alternative role Also note that for posting on topics like these, you must: [X] Understand underlying game mechanics [X] should have at least tried to shoot at other people [X] Should offer alternatives for certain shipclasses which rely on speed to actually work As a conclusion I would like to add that: [X] you are probably ****ed because you just got killed by a speedgang - have fun beeing killed by an ECM-gang or a 150 man bl0b, because that's what happens "next" [X] there are several if not thousands of gang- and/or fittingconcepts out there and that speed is not always the best way to do things [X] I don't like your kind This is an semi-automated reply. It has been written and posted in an afford to stop the developers thinking YOU are speaking for the community - as you don't (I can ensure you that one). Instead of whining on forums all day long, why don't you accept all game mechanics instead of wanting the developers change them till they fit YOUR need? Do you think life works that way? Did you ever question yourself before you questioned other people? Thank you very much, with kind regards, - Gluecksbaerchi Post scriptum: You are hereby granted to copy and use this text.
EvilPhog Amarr Art of War	Posted - 2008.04.17 19:36:00 - [44] If you put a bigger engine in your car you will go faster (Overdrives). If you take stuff out of your car it will go faster (nanos). If you put lots of spoilers and fancy body work on your car it will turn quicker (inertia stabs). Same for spaceships but just in space.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.17 20:38:00 - [45] moar bigger poasts about nano nerf whining doesnt help there is no problem with speed in eve, use tactics, dont hurt yourself
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.17 21:14:00 - [46] Edited by: Freya Selene on 17/04/2008 21:15:58 First of all i'd like to reply that i find it fun that almost all posts in favour speaking of speedsetups are members of Tri. Nuff said. Secondly i find it amusing that when people dont have a strong argument they allways start to attack someone personal on the issue. As for the insults, this section of the forums is called "Features and Ideas Discussion". I am not whining here about Nano's. I am not crying couse i got killed by someone flying nano's, do your research muppets/bandwagon jumpers. And yes, i fly nano ships myself as well. Why? Couse who gona catch me if i dont make mistakes that night? Aye beer.. mistakes happen I started the topic about the issue speed aka nano. In combination with CCP talked about it themselfs that speed is currently inballanced but that its hard to make decent changes without great impact. Thats where this discussion is about. If your to small minded to understand what a discussion is without the need to start insulting people, please leave. Else welcome to the discussion. If insulting is the only thing you can do, couse your to afraid "your nano setup" will get nurfed or what ever it is your thinking about.. CAOD is that ..\|.. way. Anough rerants and de-rail off topic. I hope mods can keep an eye out and remove all non-topic related issues. ------------------- Back to topic; From my point of view speed and with that overpowered HAC's and many other ships mainly started with adding of rigs to the game. Normaly all rigs have a downside when they are fitted to your ship. Extra damage for the cost of powergrid. Extra rate of fire at cost of cpu (etc etc). However the rigs for speed as i stated earlyer have two bonusses for nano setup rather then a good and negative part. Extra speed for less armor.. but with less armor MWD is even more effective.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.17 21:42:00 - [47] Edited by: Matrixcvd on 17/04/2008 21:46:16 Edited by: Matrixcvd on 17/04/2008 21:44:40 Originally by: Freya Selene Edited by: Freya Selene on 17/04/2008 21:15:58 First of all i'd like to reply that i find it fun that almost all posts in favour speaking of speedsetups are members of Tri. Nuff said. Secondly i find it amusing that when people dont have a strong argument they allways start to attack someone personal on the issue. As for the insults, this section of the forums is called "Features and Ideas Discussion". I am not whining here about Nano's. I am not crying couse i got killed by someone flying nano's, do your research muppets/bandwagon jumpers. And yes, i fly nano ships myself as well. Why? Couse who gona catch me if i dont make mistakes that night? Aye beer.. mistakes happen I started the topic about the issue speed aka nano. In combination with CCP talked about it themselfs that speed is currently inballanced but that its hard to make decent changes without great impact. Thats where this discussion is about. If your to small minded to understand what a discussion is without the need to start insulting people, please leave. Else welcome to the discussion. If insulting is the only thing you can do, couse your to afraid "your nano setup" will get nurfed or what ever it is your thinking about.. CAOD is that ..\|.. way. ------------------- Back to topic; From my point of view speed and with that overpowered HAC's and many other ships mainly started with adding of rigs to the game. Normaly all rigs have a downside when they are fitted to your ship. Ok lets look at it from another way, how could so many people poast a list of different tactics different fits, to show that nanohacs aren't overpowered? The point is to call out your statements as being false, as in not true, and to encourage newer players to learn how to play the game and not feel like getting together with some people and throwing up forum garbage is the way to go. Who cares what alliance i am in, that has nothing to do with the logic, I got to be a PVP player by actually playing the game and not trying to short cut anything, lose ships, learn, wait for my skillz to get up (like a year), learn moar about the game, lose moar ships, get kills and play the game... You started a topic, because you can, not because you should. We already have seen the wonderful decision regarding speed with light dictors and that was a horrible decision that nerfed the whole class to when people only fly them when they are required too. Any change to speed will just result in whatever the fastest ship is will only be the one flown. Blobs will be king, and it will just be "Spank my battleship" Right now all the nanohacs are good in their own roles and everything is working just fine as the number of new players goes up in eve the whining about speed probably will become worse but taht doesn't mean anyone should cave in to it. T2 is there, it takes quite a few months, and is really necesasary to help people easy into the game, its not a bad thing it takes 3-4 months for someone completely new to learn the game, thats what gives Eve is unbeatable combination... oh btw i remeber "nanoBS and nanotitans" used in the example of looking at speed, pretty much sounded like lip service to me, if you really start touching speed you aren't gonna like what you see. There are no counters in eve just good tactics
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.04.17 21:54:00 - [48] Originally by: EvilPhog If you put a bigger engine in your car you will go faster (Overdrives). So Overdrives increase mass? Originally by: EvilPhog If you take stuff out of your car it will go faster (nanos). So armor and structure both get reduced as those make up the most mass? Originally by: EvilPhog If you put lots of spoilers and fancy body work on your car it will turn quicker (inertia stabs). So take the energy for the inertia stab from grid or cap? Or even the engine itself, reducing maximum speed? Originally by: EvilPhog Same for spaceships but just in space. Right, so implement them like that, is this what you want to say?
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.17 21:54:00 - [49] Originally by: Matrixcvd Ok lets look at it from another way, how could so many people poast a list of different tactics different fits, to show that nanohacs aren't overpowered? Show them, get your details to backup your agrument. Quote: The point is to call out your statements as being false, as in not true, and to encourage newer players to learn how to play the game and not feel like getting together with some people and throwing up forum garbage is the way to go. Backup your claim, show us the way on how to counter ships that are able to disengage at there own time when they feel like it. Also show how other ship classes are able to do the same. Quote: Who cares what alliance i am in, that has nothing to do with the logic, I got to be a PVP player by actually playing the game and not trying to short cut anything, lose ships, learn, wait for my skillz to get up (like a year), learn moar about the game, lose moar ships, get kills and play the game... And what you think i do ingame? Maby research before the bait? Quote: You started a topic, because you can, not because you should. We already have seen the wonderful decision regarding speed with light dictors and that was a horrible decision that nerfed the whole class to when people only fly them when they are required too. And cruiser sized ships going faster then frigate sized ships is not to overpowerd? And why people dont fly dictors? Couse there are nano cruisers fast if not faster that do the same job.. even bether! Only shooting the bubble to hold slow boats is whats left of the interdictor. Didnt you just gave a counter argument? Quote: Any change to speed will just result in whatever the fastest ship is will only be the one flown. Blobs will be king, and it will just be "Spank my battleship" Right now all the nanohacs are good in their own roles and everything is working just fine Thats your opinion. However before the changes there were no nano's. There were no oneshipwins all, or bails before gething pwnd option. Quote: as the number of new players goes up in eve the whining about speed probably will become worse but taht doesn't mean anyone should cave in to it. T2 is there, it takes quite a few months, and is really necesasary to help people easy into the game, its not a bad thing it takes 3-4 months for someone completely new to learn the game, thats what gives Eve is unbeatable combination... I play the game sinds 2003, please take your "new player whining" crap elsewere.
Sabrina Al'Kian	Posted - 2008.04.17 22:03:00 - [50] While nano setups are good, they aren't unbeatable. Kruel got their counters on the button (I can personally vouch for the overloaded web--they f*ck over Vagas fairly quickly). Now, here's the thing: there are only certain ships that people fit for speed: Vaga (because that's what it DOES), Minmatar recons (because it's their only real way of staying alive), Ishtars (because people are dumb), and Inties (no explanation needed). Other ships (such as the Cane or Sleipnir), while fast, don't usually approach nano speeds. The thing is, only one of the above ships shouldn't be fitting nano: the ishtar. You know how to counter that? Increase its mass. There. Done. But if you want to get technical, allow me to run you some numbers: to buy a Vagabond costs 170 mil (or thereabouts). Add 2 polycarbs and you end up with 270 mil. That's not too expensive, but you also wont be going too fast (maybe 4200m/s--easily trackable with medium guns). But let's say you need more speed, so you buy a set of snakes--low grades come to about 1.2 bil. You end up going about 6km/s (I don't have EFT on this computer, so I can't check the numbers right now). High grade snake set costs about 2.4 bil. So if that's been invested in (and let's say, oh, a Gistum MWD), you'll have spent about 3 bil to get a ship that goes 10km/s. Don't get me wrong, 10km/s is very good. Very fast. But think about other ships you could get with that isk. How 'bout... a 3 bil isk Golem? Spend a bil on a Pith X-Type, a bil in Crystals, and make up the 300mil difference in various faction equipment and you'll be tanking in the way of 2k DPS and dealing 1k DPS at the same range of a vagabond. And both of you would be about as easy to jam. The only reason you aren't complaining about uber Golems is that fewer people fly them. But if it takes a 5 man gang to kill the Vaga (by your reasoning--2 Huginns, an inty, and possibly 2 Deimos), that same gang would be raped by the Golem posted above. So just because you don't LIKE nano fits doesn't mean they're any more overpowered than anything else with the same budget. My bottom line is: Just because nanos are annoying doesn't make them game-winning. And as Kruel pointed out, they have their counters. And just because not EVERY ship will be able to counter a Vaga, it's the same as saying not EVERY ship will be able to counter an Astarte. The thing to keep in mind is that any nerf to nano setups potentially harms Inties and other speed-tanking ships. 3000m/s is simply not fast enough to speed tank, even in an inty (believe me, I've tried).

EvilPhog Amarr Art of War	Posted - 2008.04.17 22:05:00 - [51] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: EvilPhog stuff By bigger engine I meant more powerful. I don't think that necessarily means an increase in mass. Pretty sure nanos already reduce the structure HP... Body work takes up energy? Make something more aerodynamic and it takes MORE power to move? OK... my physics teachers need to address their lesson plans.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.04.17 22:14:00 - [52] Originally by: EvilPhog [ By bigger engine I meant more powerful. I don't think that necessarily means an increase in mass. Pretty sure nanos already reduce the structure HP... Body work takes up energy? Make something more aerodynamic and it takes MORE power to move? OK... my physics teachers need to address their lesson plans. So the overdrives take up energy now as the engine is more powerful, which it can only be if it gets energy from somewhere. Grid or cap? Nanofibers reduce structure, yes, question is if that reduction is actually balanced with the mass reduction. Since when is aerodynamics of any meaning in space? Inertia stabilizers work a little different on EvE space ships, wouldn't you say? I mean they do increase signature radius which is basically energy radiation. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.17 22:18:00 - [53] Dont know about you, but my basic T2 Vaga setup + rigs is aprox 180mil, with mwd speed of about 6k. Thats without implants. As for catching nano's, if you overload your T2 web (or any t1 part) you'll get a 30% range bonus = 13Km. Most nano's are allready outside 20km before you get a lock on them. As for killing a vaga, (according you) you need 5 man... 2 in recons, 1 in an inty.. and 2 in a hac? So.. to kill a HAC you need 2 HACS + more... and you still dont find it overpowerd? Easy trackable? Not everyone fly's in 0.0 space where you switch your tank for gang. As for shiptypes. What about the Maller, Caracal, Stabber, Rupture, Huginn, Rapier, Lachesis, Arazu, Zealot, Sacrilege, Cerberus, Deimos, Muninn, HIC's, Drakes, Hurricanes, Typhoon, Logistics... not even starting about Navy issues and faction ships.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.17 22:56:00 - [54] Originally by: Freya Selene Show them, get your details to backup your agrument. I play the game sinds 2003, please take your "new player whining" crap elsewere. there are so many threads out there i am not going to rehash what has been said, if you cant figure it out then i can't help you. You are probably only here in this forum because most people who think there needs to be a nanonerf get chased out, called out, and made clear examples of as how not to approach touching game mechancis what research are you talking about? you make statements like Originally by: Freya Selene Backup your claim, show us the way on how to counter ships that are able to disengage at there own time when they feel like it. Also show how other ship classes are able to do the same. where do i need to research that you want PVP to be like what? a gentlemans aggreement? If i fire at you, i have to stay to watch the end? its your job to bait, catch, and kill your opponent, this game isnt about fair fights, if you have been playing for 5 years you should have learned that by now. Originally by: freya Selene Thats your opinion. However before the changes there were no nano's. There were no oneshipwins all, or bails before gething pwnd option. people have been flying speed fits for a long time and there has always been 1 setup that is FOTM or solopwnmobiles since the beginning. Smart players find the best fits and then the tactic trickles down to everyone. I was tryin to kill nanophoons back in 2006 in a raven and i learned, they were slightly overpowered and so the changes were made. MOMs in low sec, Nanophoon, gankageddon, etc... The changes to speed have increased diversity, you dont just see vagas, you see ish, munins, cerbs, zealots. unlike the ECM nerf which boosted falcons/rooks, the speed nerf placed speed ships high up on choice for roaming gangs. Interceptors still almost always go faster than nanohacs. Not every situation is good for nanos except small gang PVP for people looking to get fights in highly organized gangs and always always outnumbered. You dont need to be a genius to figure out that if you touch speed, blobs win, moar people would be better and the state of PVP would change, adapt sure, but as the number of pilots increases blobbing will just get worse... nuff said
AmmoniaisNH3	Posted - 2008.04.17 23:56:00 - [55] The Ishtar is only nano'd because the other alternative, dual rep setup, is crap. No way is anyone going to let a 150mil+ ship get webbed and owned. If it had better resists, like the Sacrilege, maybe a dual rep setup would be viable. Take away the medium hybrid bonus and replace it with a resist bonus, or a rep bonus?
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.18 00:55:00 - [56] Tell me why I would use a cerb over a drake, ishtar over a domi/myrm, vaga over anything, deimos over a brutix, if I cannot nano them. Hacs will be obsolete bar a few specialized setups(like a sniping eagle) if they cannot be nanoed. Ever wonder why AFs are so useless? Same reason.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.04.18 04:58:00 - [57] Originally by: Gamesguy Ever wonder why AFs are so useless? Same reason. Unlike AFs, most HACs are actually faster than their T1 counterparts. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like 'nerf' Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.18 05:26:00 - [58] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Originally by: Gamesguy Ever wonder why AFs are so useless? Same reason. Unlike AFs, most HACs are actually faster than their T1 counterparts. Exactly, and if you nerf nanos, they will be useless like AFs.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.04.18 06:59:00 - [59] Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 18/04/2008 07:02:58 That depends on how and how hard you nerf them. The problem with nanos is that they are extremly hard to kill. People supporting nanos say "nono, there are many good counters to nanos". Yes, there are counters, ways to force them to run and/or convince them not to attack at all. Heavy neut, heavy tanking, many snipers with very good tracking. Yet, there are little ways to realistically kill them. Namely, 3; -more, faster, better nanoships -swarm of inties, of witch you're reday to sacrifice 2/3 -huggin and rapier. well, there is also DD, but its not really a "tactic". Normaly, outside nanos, you can balance cost of equipment and cover lack of isk and sp with numbers and tactics. Basically, you can outblob any normal ship with T1 frigates, cruiser, cheaply fitted BSes, whatever, and kill it even if it has so uber officer tank for 10b. You cannot do that with nano. Numbers mean little, you don't use sum(all ships firepower) but only max(all ships lock/move speed).
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.18 08:26:00 - [60] Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 18/04/2008 07:26:48 Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 18/04/2008 07:21:24 That depends on how and how hard you nerf them. The problem with nanos is that they are extremly hard to kill. People supporting nanos say "nono, there are many good counters to nanos". Yes, there are counters, ways to force them to run and/or convince them not to attack at all. Heavy neut, heavy tanking, many snipers with very good tracking. Yet, there are little ways to realistically kill them. Namely, 3; -more, faster, better nanoships -swarm of inties, of witch you're reday to sacrifice 2/3 -huggin and rapier. well, there is also DD, but its not really a "tactic". Normaly, outside nanos, you can balance cost of equipment and cover lack of isk and sp with numbers and tactics. Basically, you can outblob any normal ship with T1 frigates, cruiser, cheaply fitted BSes, whatever, and kill it even if it has so uber officer tank for 10b. You cannot do that with nano. Numbers mean little, you don't use sum(all ships firepower) but only max(all ships lock/move speed). Thats very cool if you think of the ugly blobs, lags, stuff - all the evil. Thats very bad for smaller/poorer/more newbie groups against veteran packs. CCP was always proud to have a game when a pack of newbies can kill a "lvl 70". With nanos, they need really realy good luck to do that. Nanos and capital blobs are two things where gap between very rich veterans and very dedicated middle-class (say - 5-15m sp, 50-200m in ship loss cost) is big and hard to overcome. That gap being too big is bad for the game because it kills the stream of fresh blood that comes, fights, dies and learns - they just (more often) get frustrated and go back to Jita. Very high survivability allows changing uber to more uber - since you so rarely loose your 7km/s vagabond, you can invest more in implants, boosters, maxing skills, to make it a more uber 13km/s vagabond. For comparition, if you do the same with a 2 billion command ship, you will likely spend much more monthly for its regular replacement. Nano nerf should mean making them realistically catchable by interceptors without half of the inties insta-poping, and giving inties some real advantages over nano HACs. Every poorer/more newbie group can skill and afford a fleet of inties. Problem is that you cannot really put 2 billion in every inty with less then 2k hp total. Most inties being slower then most nano HACs are a problem, really. Some nano HACs being not only faster but more agile then those inties are a problem too. No one wants nano HACs to bea easily tackable with BSes. Bull. Your standard t2 fit nanohac goes about 3.5-4km/s, this is with polyrigs. Your standard t2 inty goes 7.5km/s+ easy. If the nanohac had snakes, you can have snakes on an inty too(you wont get podded in an inty if you remotely have a clue about what you're doing), same with gang mods, etc. And a gisti 1mn mwd is fairly cheap. As for inties dying too fast, why dont you try something called ECM? With a couple of falcons perma-jamming their gang, your inties can tackle unmolested.

Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.04.18 09:09:00 - [61] "You can have snakes too" is a bad argument against "gap between very rich high SP players and average players is too big with nanos" ;) Before more arguments, I'll do more atempts on getting nanoships with inties.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.18 09:32:00 - [62] Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon "You can have snakes too" is a bad argument against "gap between very rich high SP players and average players is too big with nanos" ;) 90% of nano-hac pilots DONT have snakes, since when did the 10% that do(mostly LG ones) define the class? Should I use the 35km/s super pimped crow as the standard for inties too? Because I know quite a few people that fly those. Quote: Before more arguments, I'll do more atempts on getting nanoships with inties. Try it with a falcon jamming the nanoship, works much better.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.04.18 09:56:00 - [63] Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 18/04/2008 09:58:27 Well, another reason of failure of non-nano (inty + slow stuff vs all fast ships) gangs I can think of is a tendency not to fit webs on inties. People use disruptors with little overheat and are happy - "lalala, I tackle BSes outside heavy neut range and I live long, lalala" sing inty pilots joyfully, and at the same time, they're useless against nano. With web they might live for a blink but have a chance for a vaga kill in exchange :)
minerbunny	Posted - 2008.04.18 10:22:00 - [64] Edited by: minerbunny on 18/04/2008 10:22:37 Edited by: minerbunny on 18/04/2008 10:22:09 Edited by: minerbunny on 18/04/2008 10:21:59 Originally by: Freya Selene However before the changes there were no nano's. There were no oneshipwins all, or bails before gething pwnd option. That statement contains so much nonsense that all your other arguments in this or any other thread should be ignored. - Dual-MWD Raven - ECM Curse - Gankageddon - Nanobattleships - Stabbed up Gate Snipers ...
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.18 16:29:00 - [65] Originally by: minerbunny - Dual-MWD Raven - ECM Curse - Gankageddon - Nanobattleships - Stabbed up Gate Snipers ... And they didnt got fixed?
mamolian Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.04.18 17:29:00 - [66] Jesus christ.. just remove everything from the game.. and give us rocks to throw at each other.. Make every damn race balanced and everyone shoot the same damage type with the same resists. What the hell do I need diversity for.. What the hell do I need to spend 3 years training for.. when a ******* 3 month old noob is able to dictate the direction this game is heading! STFU about nanos and cloaking.. -----------
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative	Posted - 2008.04.18 18:31:00 - [67] Originally by: mamolian Jesus christ.. just remove everything from the game.. and give us rocks to throw at each other.. Make every damn race balanced and everyone shoot the same damage type with the same resists. What the hell do I need diversity for.. What the hell do I need to spend 3 years training for.. when a ******* 3 month old noob is able to dictate the direction this game is heading! STFU about nanos and cloaking.. Fun.. someone from 2005 calling someone from 2003 a 3 month old noob. Thanks for your indept analyses of this thread.
Ralon Aster Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.18 18:38:00 - [68] Originally by: Freya Selene Originally by: mamolian Jesus christ.. just remove everything from the game.. and give us rocks to throw at each other.. Make every damn race balanced and everyone shoot the same damage type with the same resists. What the hell do I need diversity for.. What the hell do I need to spend 3 years training for.. when a ******* 3 month old noob is able to dictate the direction this game is heading! STFU about nanos and cloaking.. Fun.. someone from 2005 calling someone from 2003 a 3 month old noob. Thanks for your indept analyses of this thread. But he thought it sounded cool.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.18 19:39:00 - [69] Nanos are not the problem, there really is a lack of skilled PVP pilots in game thats the problem... try RR BS, try snipe fit, try being prepared, try T2, try try try try and MOAR TRY... plenty of ways to attack speed fits and when you figure it out for yourself, you wont get the feeling you waited for someone to dumb down the gameplay, YOU SUCEEDED!
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.18 19:44:00 - [70] Originally by: Freya Selene Originally by: mamolian Jesus christ.. just remove everything from the game.. and give us rocks to throw at each other.. Make every damn race balanced and everyone shoot the same damage type with the same resists. What the hell do I need diversity for.. What the hell do I need to spend 3 years training for.. when a ******* 3 month old noob is able to dictate the direction this game is heading! STFU about nanos and cloaking.. Fun.. someone from 2005 calling someone from 2003 a 3 month old noob. Thanks for your indept analyses of this thread. Noob is a state of mind. I know 06 players who know far more about pvp than some 03 players ever will.

Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative	Posted - 2008.04.19 13:25:00 - [71] Originally by: Matrixcvd Nanos are not the problem, there really is a lack of skilled PVP pilots in game thats the problem... try RR BS, try snipe fit, try being prepared, try T2, try try try try and MOAR TRY... plenty of ways to attack speed fits and when you figure it out for yourself, you wont get the feeling you waited for someone to dumb down the gameplay, YOU SUCEEDED! You mean, try to blob.... Iam well known with RR BS, i've flown with -V-/CoW and been with INFOD quiet some time. Sniperfits dont hurt nano's the slightest. They are goners before the pool of large shield extenders is nullified. Unless you got a blob of snipers ready. So instead of having a balanced game, we all prefer to blob the **** out of someone. And we call that skilled pvp pilots.
Freya Selene Delucian Defence Initiative	Posted - 2008.04.19 13:26:00 - [72] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Freya Selene Originally by: mamolian Jesus christ.. just remove everything from the game.. and give us rocks to throw at each other.. Make every damn race balanced and everyone shoot the same damage type with the same resists. What the hell do I need diversity for.. What the hell do I need to spend 3 years training for.. when a ******* 3 month old noob is able to dictate the direction this game is heading! STFU about nanos and cloaking.. Fun.. someone from 2005 calling someone from 2003 a 3 month old noob. Thanks for your indept analyses of this thread. Noob is a state of mind. I know 06 players who know far more about pvp than some 03 players ever will. He specificly states "3 month old noob". Why try to correct someones words? You really got nothing of value to add to the discussion other then flaming?
Efdi Minmatar Brannigan's Law	Posted - 2008.04.19 17:16:00 - [73] Originally by: Freya Selene However the rigs for speed as i stated earlyer have two bonusses for nano setup rather then a good and negative part. Extra speed for less armor.. but with less armor MWD is even more effective. Sry, nop.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.04.21 17:30:00 - [74] Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon Problem is that you cannot really put 2 billion in every inty with less then 2k hp total. Most inties being slower then most nano HACs are a problem, really. Some nano HACs being not only faster but more agile then those inties are a problem too. A problem here is the lack of different sizes of rigs/cheap rigs for small and fragile ships. Putting expensive rigs into a small T1 ship, even a cruiser or interceptor, is a waste of money for those who aren't rich and therefore can't replace it regularly. Which again proves that rigs are part of the problems. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well -Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam- ('nerf' means 'incompetence', esp. when you use it)
The Djego Minmatar merovinger inc	Posted - 2008.04.21 18:17:00 - [75] Edited by: The Djego on 21/04/2008 18:18:00 MWD Change: Decrease Agilty when activated like -90% Increas Trust like 90% Same speed, but would prevent Ships orbiting with one. This would not hurt Blasterships, the ability to get in Range or out of it are still there, also the option to make it back to the Gate. So basicly the Ship can¦t change mutch of his direction after it turns on the MWD, while a AB fitted Ship can try to get out of his way by turning in a other direction. AB Change: Double the Speedbonus. Mayby a special role Bonus for Ceptors using a MWD and the Vaga. So AB would be speedtanking in a lesser Extend than now but MWDs would be back to her old use to escape or tackle a Ship fast without mutch use beside this. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Jonny JoJo 425 II In PVE? Surely hybrid users use Blaster in PvE.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.21 23:05:00 - [76] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Putting expensive rigs into a small T1 ship, even a cruiser or interceptor, is a waste of money for those who aren't rich and therefore can't replace it regularly. Which again proves that rigs are part of the problems. So wait, people who have spent time making isk, who want to spend alot of their isk to fit ships, and those ships have exceptional abilities to what poor players have is a problem? shall we convert eve to communism, mother eve should provide the same for everyone? Again, you don't have the skillz, experience, or isk to afford, knowledge to fly, fight or compete with a certain group of players. That is not a game mechanics problem, I have no problem fighting and killing nanos, i have no problem flying and killing anyone. You can not win every engagement stop thinking because you undock you have the potential to win or even compete in every contest why should I or the rest of people that have learned, spent the money and thru experience honed our skillz, with regards to 1 type of tactic have to change just because the newer pilots are jealous and the the few older players want to be the ultimate parents?
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.04.22 00:28:00 - [77] Originally by: Matrixcvd (..) Don't quote me out of context. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well -Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam- ('nerf' means 'incompetence', esp. when you use it)
Euriti Gallente SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.04.25 11:34:00 - [78] Originally by: Sabrina Al'Kian The thing is, only one of the above ships shouldn't be fitting nano: the ishtar. You know how to counter that? Increase its mass. There. Done. It doesn't have the grid to utilize it's medium guns bonus or the hardpoints for it. It's not really good when it ain't nano'd.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.04.25 12:02:00 - [79] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Putting expensive rigs into a small T1 ship, even a cruiser or interceptor, is a waste of money for those who aren't rich and therefore can't replace it regularly. Which again proves that rigs are part of the problems. Yes, I fully support sized rigs, I was just tired of writing about that in every other thread on that topic :)
Ambien Torca	Posted - 2008.04.30 13:52:00 - [80] Edited by: Ambien Torca on 30/04/2008 13:52:57 I always felt EVE has way too much advantage to be gained by training (waiting) and using isk to uberize your ship. There is too much of a gulf that can be attained between regular player and people who are using everything they can to their advantage. I don¦t really think it¦s unfair to get some perks for trying harder but it should be more on the side of being able to take losses and come back than being so much above in ability/stats that lesses mortals can¦t begin to compete at all. It takes surprisingly long time to train to be a top-notch nanopilot, not only ship flying skills but also auxiliary thing like boosters and heat and such. And of course you need to secure income sources that make it possible to use those ships without spending 50%+ percent of your time grinding terrible and boring missions. Not to mention that even if you do that certain groups can still lord it over you with fancy faction gear and pirate implants anyway.

3ungle Antipodean inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.04.30 14:31:00 - [81] You beat a Nano gang with, a Nano Gang and skill. Making this game sterile by changing it currently is a waste of time, and only hinders the game in my opinion. What you need to learn to do, is what people here have suggested, Find ways to Slow them down on your own, and WTF BBQ them .. Rememeber once a nanoship stops its pretty much a paper cup.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.