EVE Search - EVE: The Nano Age

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

EVE: The Nano Age

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Imaos	Posted - 2008.04.28 14:06:00 - [151] Originally by: Sirius Problem Edited by: Sirius Problem on 28/04/2008 13:35:55 Let's play devil's advocate for a minute and imagine that changes are put in place so that an AB fitted frig can now easily catch a MWD BS. Now what? Just who is going to fly these frigs? New, unskilled players, that's who. If you were putting together a gang, would you ask any of your even modestly skilled pilots to "step down" into an AB fitted frig just so that they might be able to catch a MWD BS? I would rather let them fly what they've trained for -- Better, faster, higher DPS, and certainly more useful ships that can already catch a MWD BS. Honestly, I think what's being proposed is a solution in search of a problem. The stats may show some disparity on paper, but in PvP combat scenarios, it just doesn't exist. ABs are great for deadspace. Buff them if you want. It will make pirates that hunt mission runners happy for sure. ABs are great for complex deadspace. Missions don't need an AB (it only sppeds up a few missions like RECON 3/3) and you can use more useful stuff in that free mid. Back to the first part of your post. You just stated again that ABs need a role to be used. Welcome to the thread . The problem is that at the moment as soon as you can fit an MWD there is no need to ever use an AB again. You might not see it as a problem, but we are drifting to more and more cookie cutter setups. Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: NoNah My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari.
Arazel Chainfire KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2008.04.28 15:02:00 - [152] What about rather than adjusting the speed of the afterburner, you adjust the acceleration. When using a blaster boat, I'm not usually all that concerned about my top speed (i rarely ever reach it). However, if I could accelerate significantly faster, I would happily take that module to be able to choose my target and get on top of it fast. That being said, you would probably still need to take and up the max speed that an afterburner allows. -Arazel Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Mutual Incomprehension is one of the Four Horsemen of most internet arguments, I guess, along with Unfettered Hostility, Overwhelming Vagueness, and Lack of Evidence.
Sirius Problem Darkness Inc. Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.28 15:21:00 - [153] Originally by: Imaos Back to the first part of your post. You just stated again that ABs need a role to be used. Welcome to the thread . They have a role. Deadspace. To say that MWD are superior to an AB is stating the obvious. So what is the point? T2 is better than T1, T1 is better than "Civilian", HACs are better than cruiser, etc, etc. Unless you remove MWDs from the game, they will always be superior to ABs. The whole idea to buff ABs or nerf MWDs in order to give frigates some new role/ability (ie catch a BS fitted with a 100 MN MWD) is asinine. Does anyone honestly believe that frigs have suffered longstanding and unjust inadequacy because they are continually outrun by battleships that fit a MWD? With the skill points that new players start with these days, how many stay in frigs for more than a week? Until now, I don't think I've ever seen a ~~thread~~ whine claiming said frig impotence. Quote: The problem is that at the moment as soon as you can fit an MWD there is no need to ever use an AB again. That's not quite true. Even you stated they have uses in complexes, and I pointed out that pirates do fit them when hunting mission runners, as the majority of missions happen in deadspace as well. Is there some "Save the AB" advocacy group of which I am unaware? Do you have a bunch of AB BPOs or a huge cache of ABs to sell? For the life of me I really can't understand the position that there is a "problem" with ABs vs MWDs. Again, buff ABs if you like. Since you claim mission runners don't use them, pirates will be quite satisfied with such a change. ---- Train more. Whine less.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.28 17:49:00 - [154] Speed is fine, the nano "age" has replaced the frig age, the BS age etc for roaming, but that is all, for small gang and fast roaming PVP, recons and hac's are the most effective, but thats not in all situations...
Ivan Kinsikor Amarr Void Engineers	Posted - 2008.04.28 18:35:00 - [155] Fail troll is fail. He just wants to create "Every ship flies the same no matter the fittings: Online." If you nerf MWDs, then everyone will just fit ABs and then you'll see whine posts about how ABs are mandatory for PVP and MWDs need a buff. ---------------------------------------- *****es don't know 'bout my nano'd Titan ----------------------------------------
Minsuki Metafarmers	Posted - 2008.04.28 19:27:00 - [156] Originally by: Kusha'an Originally by: Alski I think with all the whineage its probably almost inevitable that speed is going to get nerfed in some way at some point in the future, and I don't see it being at all pretty if/when it happens, people get very attached to their playstyles and even a slight reduction to any aspect of it is bound to cause a threadnaught or ten... it would be nice if other things could be boosted to even the field without just hitting everything with the nerfhammer until every ship and fit is an homogenised template of sameness. THIS. Because mwd, point and web in your mids is NOT a homogenized template of sameness.
Kruel Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.04.28 20:14:00 - [157] Been saying this for a long time... Make ABs resistant/immune to webs. Give webs 5km falloff... or not, I'm fine either way. ----------------------------------- You're not a pirate unless your -10
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.28 20:28:00 - [158] Originally by: Matrixcvd Speed is fine, the nano "age" has replaced the frig age, the BS age etc for roaming, but that is all, for small gang and fast roaming PVP, recons and hac's are the most effective, but thats not in all situations... The problem is that nanos haven't just added to, they've completely taken over pvp. Nanos aren't just for small gang pvp. They're for most anything (except low sec and pos shooting). Its not unheard of to see nano gangs 40-50ppl strong. Your own killboard shows the use of large nano gangs backed by caps. Nanos have taken over. Nanos were supposed to be used for the skirmish role. What we're seeing is they're being preferred over the use of battleships for fleets. The only practical limitation of nano fleets is when they grow large enough to cause lag to endanger themselves. And the best thing to counter a nano fleet? An even larger nano fleet. For the most part there isn't any reason to fly anything except nanos.
Imaos	Posted - 2008.04.29 11:36:00 - [159] Originally by: Ivan Kinsikor Fail troll is fail. He just wants to create "Every ship flies the same no matter the fittings: Online." If you nerf MWDs, then everyone will just fit ABs and then you'll see whine posts about how ABs are mandatory for PVP and MWDs need a buff. Fail post if fail. Did you notice what you argue for? Calling every change nerf is easy, right? No need to think. Quote: "Every ship flies the same no matter the fittings: Online." Where did you pull that out. That would only happen if you made the effect of both AB and MWD the same. Make them different and equally wanted. The point was to get more diversity and not to make them all the same. The few people that cry to remove the MWD are the opposite of your argument, but equally flawed. Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: NoNah My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari.
Talidorn Pandoras Military And Civilian Operations Group	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:06:00 - [160] Originally by: Merdaneth This is not about nano-gangs, or speed fits, or snake implants. This is about the Microwarpdrive (MWD). Frig Base Speeds Crucifier - 306 m/s Executioner - 488 m/s Inquisitor - 338 m/s Punisher - 313 m/s Crusader - 569 m/s Malediction - 569 m/s My Nano-Than(atos) w/ MWD2 can out-run some of those unfit frigs! :D Just 'cuz they can't be bothered to fit a turbo (AB) or a Nitrous kit(MWD) isn't my fault!
Delichon The First Foundation Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:22:00 - [161] Checklist: Multispec in every free-midslot - fixed NOS in every utility high-slot - fixed Damper in every free-midslot - fixed To be fixed: - MWD on 95% of pvp ships in 0.0 - ECM-drones in 90% of dronebays - Overdrives and nanos in 90% of mids I like it where this game is going, I really do :) ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. Next time they are going to nerf you directly. Eve Forums.
Forum Joe	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:35:00 - [162] MWDs and ABs offer unconditionnal speed increase : ie : turn them on, speed increase, no other requirements except of course being able to fit and fuel them, like any module. Changing ABs and MWDs would indeed be very, very difficult I think. The best solution I can think of, is adding something new. The OP stated that the differences of speed boost between AB and MWD are a problem when comparing frigate class ships and battleship class ships. Let's just adress this problem. The key here is that the role of unconditionnal speed increase already has enought modules. Then let's just add conditionnal speed increase. Lock something, activate this module, and will go faster towards it, and only it. Once you accept this basis, discussing the details is easy in order to achieve an acceptable result. But remember : it will not happen. Even if you design a perfect module achieving a very good result, it won't be created by CCP.
Kimater	Posted - 2008.04.29 14:46:00 - [163] Ive not read the whole post so not sure if this has been said but if you nerf mwds then you nerf all gallente blaster ships which all in all will make them fairly pointless.
Killiker Caldari hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.04.29 14:47:00 - [164] wrong char ftl.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.29 14:58:00 - [165] Originally by: ***zilla The problem is that nanos haven't just added to, they've completely taken over pvp. Nanos aren't just for small gang pvp. They're for most anything (except low sec and pos shooting). This is not a true statement. Snipers fullfil roles besides POS shooting, if lag is not bad enough, an RR BS is quite formidable. So that is two entirely different types of fights. Lag effects RR BS and Speed about the same. Originally by: *zilla Nanos were supposed to be used for the skirmish role. What we're seeing is they're being preferred over the use of battleships for fleets. The only practical limitation of nano fleets is when they grow large enough to cause lag to endanger themselves. if you blob yourself to your own demise, that has nothing to do with speed recon/hac gangs Originally by: ***zilla Its not unheard of to see nano gangs 40-50ppl strong. Your own killboard shows the use of large nano gangs backed by caps. Nanos have taken over. And the best thing to counter a nano fleet? An even larger nano fleet. For the most part there isn't any reason to fly anything except nanos. This is zee blob, and "bringin moar of the same" has nothing to do with ship stats, 40+ vs 40+ nano lag free are fun fights btw. Speed fits, RR BS's are designed to allow small groups of pilots to engage larger groups and when run effectively can at least engage 2 to 3 times the number of pilots when the smaller fleet is well organized and highly skilled/trained. What you are seeing now is the larger blob alliances which have always relied on numbers for protection are using the same ships as the majority of their members reach appropriate skill times. Can you move a battleship around as quick as a cruiser, regardless of mwd/ab whatever? no, if being quick is what you need, nanohac, if you can get snipers in to a system and cover their warp in /warp out, use them. none of the things you discuss are actual mechanics issues
Everyone Dies Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:01:00 - [166] Edited by: Everyone Dies on 29/04/2008 15:01:39 Originally by: Kimater Ive not read the whole post so not sure if this has been said but if you nerf mwds then you nerf all gallente blaster ships which all in all will make them fairly pointless. They just need them to get in blaster range not nanofag around in a circle avoiding all damage. If MWD were removed this game would go on the same.
Raekone	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:09:00 - [167] Edited by: Raekone on 29/04/2008 15:10:03 Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Raekone They should reduce the speed bonus of MWD's to that of afterburners, or maybe even slower, and then remove afterburners from the game. What you have is an option to by heavy penalty increase your ship's speed a little - it should hurt as much as fitting WCS's hurts your combat, basically you don't do it unless you REALLY need to for some reason. Like for traveling or recon missions, not for general lol easyness. If you want to go faster, choose a fast ship, fine, but making your battleship go as fast as frigate, even a frigate without AB or MWD - is just plain /laff So basically you want to make all frigates and cruisers(bar recons/hics) obsolete? No, that is precisely what I do not want. If you want to go fast pick a frig, if you want to go very slow and have good firepower pick a battleship. You shouldn't be able to just plonk a module on your multi billion ton battleship and go zooming around like a frig, so fast even frigs themselves need mwds to catch you. What I meant was that if you want to go fast with your battleship then fine, but it should limit your other possibilities to exactly zero - in the same manner as WCS's, maybe even exactly like them with shorter locking range etc. Otherwise get a faster ship, like a frig. Maybe even double all frigs' base speed or something while you're at it.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:10:00 - [168] Edited by: Ulstan on 29/04/2008 15:12:27 I agree that the biggest problem in EVE right now is the completely whacked propulsion system. Everyone fits MWD for PvP. They are regarded as absolutely necessary FOR COMBAT. I think they were meant to be used in emergency situations but people fit them for every kind of PvP combat because the advatanges so greatly outweigh the disadvantages. But absolutely no one fits an AB, despite the need to 'go faster' because AB speed boosts are so paltry. We need to make MWDs much less attractive to fit and AB's much more so, so that it's not an obvious no brainer choice to go with MWD instead of AB. MWD'ing battleships outpacing AB frigates is particularly silly and should be remedied either by a speed decrease to MWD or increase in AB. (Or both, since I think ships are simply going too fast right now in EVE) Then we need to work on webs - we need greater variation between 'You move at full speed' and 'you are dead in the water'. The whole thing just so badly needs a good overhaul.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:17:00 - [169] A lot of the problem is that the speed boost are backwards: AB should give a large boost and then MWD give a small boost over that, at the expense of some heavy drawbacks. Like the rest of EVE, you pay a premium for squeezing out that last little bit of performance. Right now AB give almost no bonus and so the extra boost provided by a MWD is mind bogglingly huge.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:58:00 - [170] Edited by: Ulstan on 29/04/2008 15:59:12 Originally by: Kusha'an Originally by: Alski I think with all the whineage its probably almost inevitable that speed is going to get nerfed in some way at some point in the future, and I don't see it being at all pretty if/when it happens, people get very attached to their playstyles and even a slight reduction to any aspect of it is bound to cause a threadnaught or ten... it would be nice if other things could be boosted to even the field without just hitting everything with the nerfhammer until every ship and fit is an homogenised template of sameness. THIS. Say what? The OP is making his suggestion precisely because everyone has a homogenzied template of sameness for PvP (Everyone fits a MWD) and is trying to shake things up by making the AB a viable choice too. But some people are too scared of potentially having to adapt to a more diverse environment with more choices, and want the no brainer MWD equipping situation to remain as it is currently.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:12:00 - [171] cry long response...wiped by silly forum software...cry Originally by: Matrixcvd Snipers fullfil roles besides POS shooting, Yet small sniper gangs are a death sentence. It used to be viable but as things move faster snipers cannot compete. Unless its a large sniper fleet not going anywhere the pilots would be better served in nanos. Originally by: Matrixcvd Speed fits, RR BS's are designed to allow small groups of pilots to engage larger groups and when run effectively can at least engage 2 to 3 times the number of pilots when the smaller fleet is well organized and highly skilled/trained. The rr bs gang must commit and takes on quite a bit more risk. Any decent fc can take a random nano gang and engage a force 2-3 larger without much worry. Some nanos will be lost but no where as bad as any other type of gang. Most of these losses seem to be pilots on their first speed gangs (ie vagas going within web range). If the nano gang doesn't leroy they can go toe to toe with a larger force. This isn't a skirmisher role. Originally by: Matrixcvd What you are seeing now is the larger blob alliances which have always relied on numbers for protection are using the same ships as the majority of their members reach appropriate skill times. Wait, what? Large alliances have a large spread of sp from 2mil to 30-50mil sp. What we're seeing is the result of months of yelling to train for nanos/nano support. The members are being told that only nanos/nano support/caps are acceptable. The members are realizing that nanos are the most effective. Originally by: Matrixcvd Can you move a battleship around as quick as a cruiser, regardless of mwd/ab whatever? no, if being quick is what you need, nanohac Can we agree to remove mwd? No? No one loves nanos for their ability to warp from system to system. No fitting is designed around align time and warp time. We don't fit rigs for faster warps. Istabs are used to turn as speed, not for faster aligns. Being able to shuffle from system to system quickly is a side benefit. Going fast is what people are after. Originally by: Matrixcvd if you can get snipers in to a system and cover their warp in /warp out, use them. none of the things you discuss are actual mechanics issues Snipers are at a disadvantage to nanos in nearly every way. Only very large non mobile sniper fleets are viable. There isn't much reason to fly anything besides nanos.
Lady Frostmourn	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:22:00 - [172] Originally by: Imaos Originally by: Lady Frostmourn There is nothing wrong with MWDs. Stop complaining about them... Geez. Oh no, a ship with a MWD has an advantage over a ship with an AB. Well Duh... It's supposed to. Why would you bother training it if it didn't? Would you bother to train for an AB if it wasnt prereq for MWD? No you wouldnt. That is the point. Quote: What's next, people complaining about how T2 ships/guns/fittings are too powerful compared to their T1 versions? T2 ships are different/specialized. They can be stronger in combat or the fill a specific role and everyone whines that they don't like the role (EOS, marauders,..). Imaos Do you think people would train t1 ships if they didn't have to to get t2 ships? Of course they wouldn't. It's the same with AB and MWDs. And don't try and tell anyone thatT2 ships are weaker than their t1 counterparts. Even if they are specialized, they have better resists, fits etc. Please stop trolling and start pew pewing.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:25:00 - [173] Originally by: Ulstan Everyone fits MWD for PvP. They are regarded as absolutely necessary FOR COMBAT. I think they were meant to be used in emergency situations but people fit them for every kind of PvP combat because the advatanges so greatly outweigh the disadvantages. . you are correct, absolutely necessary but then you drift off into RP mode and deciede that they are for emergency situations, where is the fire chief? i dont see an emergency, you give up a precious mid slot, some ships this inherently gimps both PG/Cap/mid slot. for BS's none of them travel faster than frigates. Originally by: Ulstan But absolutely no one fits an AB, despite the need to 'go faster' because AB speed boosts are so paltry. We need to make MWDs much less attractive to fit and AB's much more so, so that it's not an obvious no brainer choice to go with MWD instead of AB. Then we need to work on webs The whole thing just so badly needs a good overhaul ABs are for plex's. And this is where i disagree with everyone that wants a change for 2 reasons. 1. Speed is fine, there are solid tactics, engaging gameplay and persuasive options on 1/3 of combat, the other 2/3 are RR and sniper. 2. The PVP eve community has taken what was given to them by the dev's and used it to develop tactics and play styles. The microwarpdrive has secured its role and thru "natural selection" succeded in avoiding extinction unlike the useless afterburner, relegated to missioning only. This was player decieded. My problem is with the concept that anything not ôworkingö needs to be buffered or things need to be nerfed to accomadate (this exludes BO's which were announced as pre-nerfed)needs to be changed. The MWD is used because it is battle tested and player approved. The DevÆs need to understand that and stop trying to rececitate useless mods by introducing huge overhauls to game mechanics. Most people will counter with ôbut what about double MWD ravens, torp carrying kestrals, blah blah blahö And I say those changes were small, definitive and during a time when the game was less complicated. With each new ship class, with each new addition and upgrade, some things have the potential to become obsolete, but unlike in the old days 2003-2005, there was less to affect. Now even slight changes to webs, would have profound and uncontrollable changes. A reshuffling of the deck, so to speak. Which is exactly what the new players and nanowhiners want to hear. But the problem with this is that the players have already spoken, a natural selection of ships/mods/tactics has already occurred and instead of allowing the DevÆs to focus on glaring problems, they have to possibly deliver complex changes because people just donÆt want to learn, when to nano and when to not, how to fight speed fits and when to just walk away from a battle. A reshuffling of the deck will only sediment the players for a short time and then new tactics will emerge and the whining will continue again. With each shuffle the game inherently becomes more unstable and exploitable ItÆs a 2 way street, the devÆs need to come to grips that sometimes their hard work will go the way of the CRT, and not everything should be resurrected ala Frankenstein to justify previous programming endevours. The current player base needs to learn, learn the current tactics, wait for new content and engage without EFT and station twirling backing up their statements
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:31:00 - [174] Originally by: ****zilla cry* long response...wiped by silly forum software...cry 5 nanoships has zero chance against a 5 shortrange BS gang. Any decent nanogang FC will RUN when they are outnumbered 2 to 3 times against a decent opponent. Could you give me examples who actually uses nanoships over BSes for alliance ops? Battleships >>> nanoships in almost every fight
Borasao	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:38:00 - [175] Edited by: Borasao on 29/04/2008 16:39:16 Edited by: Borasao on 29/04/2008 16:38:27 Originally by: Ulstan Edited by: Ulstan on 29/04/2008 15:58:59 Edited by: Ulstan on 29/04/2008 15:12:27 I agree that the biggest problem in EVE right now is the completely whacked propulsion system. Everyone fits MWD for PvP. They are regarded as absolutely necessary FOR COMBAT. I think they were meant to be used in emergency situations but people fit them for every kind of PvP combat because the advatanges so greatly outweigh the disadvantages. Make the MWD really an emergency module, like a rocket booster: Activation gives 1000% speedup that lasts for 30 seconds (or one minute or something), makes target range 1m (so that all locked targets are unlocked), but drains all cap and has a 'reload time' of like five minutes. That would allow you to 'get out of dodge' and hopefully be able to warp away. Alternatively, leave MWD basically the same as they are now except much like warping from a gate to a station breaks all lockons/targets, use of MWD does the same (it is a warp, after all... just a short distance one), although that may be too exploitable... perhaps use of it simply breaks your locked targets but everyone else can still target you... since the 'real' warp breaks all those things, you aren't displacing enough distance or going 'deep enough' into warp to stop others from targeting you. This kind of screws up interceptors, though... perhaps make the MWD have a sensor dampening penalty that interceptors have an innate bonus to negate.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:52:00 - [176] I'd love to see ABs and MWDs split into two modules - one that provides a large, linear speed boost, but with 'hurting' agility, such that it's great for 'get to sniper range, get out of bubble' type maneuvering, but not combat maneuvering. And another module, that provides speed, and 'good' agility, that's suitable for speed tanking. Probably at 'some' penalty, in terms of fittings/cap/sig? shrug. Maybe if ABs had a much larger overloading bonus, that'd work. Get massive speed, but burn your module if you run it too long. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
AnKahn Caldari Occassus Republica	Posted - 2008.04.29 17:00:00 - [177] Boost AB some. Require 2 mid slots to fit a MWD. ouch. I'll bet the AB gets boosted. I'll bet poly carbs will get nerfed. MWD seems untouchable.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.29 17:02:00 - [178] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld 5 nanoships has zero chance against a 5 shortrange BS gang. Things aren't static. If the BS are defensive the nanos will zip around, gank anyone outside of bs range, and leave at will. The bs gang wasn't effective. If offensive the nanos will try to dictor the bs, or catch one warping. Slow them down and call in reinforcements. The bs gang is much more likely to wipe. They have to be very careful with every move and watch out for a cyno to open on top of them. Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Any decent nanogang FC will RUN when they are outnumbered 2 to 3 times against a decent opponent. Only if the opponent has enough nanos/huginns/rapiers. Need a nano to effectively catch a nano. Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld Could you give me examples who actually uses nanoships over BSes for alliance ops? Battleships >>> nanoships in almost every fight For pos fights battleships are preferred but nanos are used 99% of the time while waiting. Most pos "fights" are waiting so nanos are the thing. Add fighters for dps. For alliance ops with hostile titans on the field nanos are preferred (Bob was big on this one). For roaming alliance ops nanos are preferred (pick). For defensive alliance ops nanos are preferred (pick).
The Tzar	Posted - 2008.04.29 17:18:00 - [179] Originally by: Sirius Problem ABs are great for deadspace. Buff them if you want. It will make pirates that hunt mission runners happy for sure. ^^ this __________________________________________ 'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.29 18:26:00 - [180] Originally by: *****zilla Things aren't static. If the BS are defensive the nanos will zip around, gank anyone outside of bs range, and leave at will. The bs gang wasn't effective. If offensive the nanos will try to dictor the bs, or catch one warping. Slow them down and call in reinforcements. The bs gang is much more likely to wipe. They have to be very careful with every move and watch out for a cyno to open on top of them. For pos fights battleships are preferred but nanos are used 99% of the time while waiting. Most pos "fights" are waiting so nanos are the thing. Add fighters for dps. For alliance ops with hostile titans on the field nanos are preferred (Bob was big on this one). For roaming alliance ops nanos are preferred (pick). For defensive alliance ops nanos are preferred (pick). Nanoships just can't orbit around BSes with ease, they will get hit enough and/or don't have cap (due to neuts) and BSes can cyno in capitals just as easily. Nanogangs don't just "hang around", and they certainly will not engage against 1:3 odds. Waiting is not fighting? Roaming alliance ops are very rare. 40+ nanogangs are only there if they have specific targets, the usual nanogang is a lot smaller and are generally not the mandatory alliance level ops(neither are defense gangs)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: 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.