Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:31:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 16/06/2008 06:39:37 Okay, I'm tired so I'll try to keep this short and to the point. I make no claims to eloquency or coherence due to exhaustion, but here goes:
Nano/speed setups are taking the fun out of the game for many of the players. Simply put, they're overpowered; one should not be the next best thing to invulnerable against most conventional ships and setups. Even assuming you can hit a nanoer in the first place, its speed will usually allow it to escape the moment it is taking fire. In certain circumstances speed setups can be destroyed, but these usually require significantly more skill, numbers, and\or effort than it does to fly nanos in the first place. In short, the risk vs. reward is fubar.
In addition, nanos make many ships and setups obsolete, rendering them largely useless on the battlefield. For those who are specialized in said ships and prefer those playstyles, it makes the game largely unplayable. (Here is where nanoers will chime in with the "then adapt!" mantra that is so widely touted, but understand that just because you enjoy flying nanos or the ships and setups and blobs that counter them doesn't mean that everyone else does. This is a game - if doing the things necessary to win isn't fun then people will simply quit and go play something else instead.)
Proponents of nanos will, no doubt, come in here and state that nanos are required because of capital hotdrops and blobs, and I will even agree to a small extent. Capital hotdrops and blobs have become more prevalent, so people have taken to using a mechanic--nanos--that destroys the fun of sub-capital, non-blob PvP as a method to avoid dying to them. (While I personally believe something should be done about the prevalence of capital ships anywhere but highesc, that's a discussion for another thread.) Whenever any suggestion is made to weaken nano setups, certain reactionaries will immediately state that PvP would be impossible without nano/speed setups. I maintain that the opposite is true - there would be more PvP with reduced effect of nano/speed setups. There are many people, myself included, who don't play much because they don't enjoy flying nanos, don't enjoy fighting nanos (I don't like flying a rapier, don't enjoy having to drag a gang around with me 23/7, and the ships I prefer to fly aren't good at countering nanos, bar the tempest). However, there would be more risk, back to the level that obtained in 2005 and 2006.
In any case, I personally think speed tanking should still be viable, but slower. I'd like to see maximum speeds reduced to something more reasonable, perhaps in the range of 2.5-3km/s for HACs. Doubtless some people would say that such a "slow" ship would be utterly destroyed today, but that's large because the ships that would be chasing would be faster too. Nerf speed setups somewhat and it levels the playing field. Speed setups, at least for certain ships, were perfectly viable before the nano buff, even with the "slow" 3km/s velocities they could achieve. As an example, the old 3km/s vagabond from before the nano buff was a perfectly balanced ship. It was fast, but not to the point that it couldn't be caught. It also couldn't perma-sustain its MWD, and its guns had to track their targets. All of these combined to make a very good vessel which was also the top-selling tech II ship of its time--people would pay as much as 200 million ISK for one!
This change, may, however, require an adjustment to certain other ships to become viable, as the web range of the huginn and rapier is far enough to be a major problem. If the web range of these ships was reduced to 20km at the same time as speed tanking is reduced, then it should go a long way in helping keep things in line.
-Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:32:00 -
[2]
Anyway, I need to get to bed. I really started to ramble there at the end, and I apologize. I may come back and clean this up and provide more supporting information tomorrow if I'm not too frazzled by the time I get off work.
TL;DR
Nanos are overpowered. They make other ships obsolete, encourage blobbing, and destroy the normal PvP their proponents say they encourage.
Reduce the max speeds achievable and you will bring them into balance, though this may require a rebalance to the Minmatar recons and EAS as well. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Feng Schui
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:36:00 -
[3]
Please, for the love of all that is holy, nerf the crap out of speed setups. I had a webbed vagabond outrun my T2 Valkyries.. wtf?
Project:Gank
Pilgrim Guide
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:55:00 -
[4]
holy hell batman! the first nano whine thread in here
oh, and NO
|
Dlardrageth
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 07:02:00 -
[5]
Not in favour of a plain nerf, but some rebalancing might be in order, I think.
|
Kasheem Cetanes
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 07:40:00 -
[6]
If you Nerf Nano, you Nerf Minmatar into uselessness. End of Story. Next?
|
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 07:55:00 -
[7]
Hell no.
Thumbs down. ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 10:55:00 -
[8]
So in addition to nerfing the speed of my Rapier, you want to nerf it's effectiveness with webs too? What a fantastic idea, I can't see anything wrong with it.
If you think the Huginn/Rapier is overpowered, don't try to mask your whine as a nanoship whine.
|
Yosarian
MediaCataclysm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 11:15:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 16/06/2008 06:39:37 I don't like flying a rapier, don't enjoy having to drag a gang around with me 23/7, and the ships I prefer to fly aren't good at countering nanos, bar the tempest
Right...
|
chi phong
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 11:59:00 -
[10]
shut up thumbs down
|
|
Sonreir
Band of Builders Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 12:44:00 -
[11]
Agreed. It should be damn near impossible to run an MWD non-stop. There's your fix for this one.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 12:46:00 -
[12]
No we dont need to push the game even further towards blobbing.
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON. Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 13:04:00 -
[13]
Flying some nano ships myself, i know that there are currently only two ships that i have realy to fear.... the Minmatar Recons. In my Opinion nanos are imba because every player who has not trained minmatar recons will have problems to counter them..... .... my idea is to introduce a mod for the webber whitch increases webbing range significantly....while on the other side makes it impossible to fitt a decent tank or something in that direction ... this would lead to more the less balanced possibilities to counter nanos for all players while not nerving nanos at all...
Cuchulin
|
Lt Graco
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 14:24:00 -
[14]
There's an area effect everything else...why not an area effect web?
|
Red Thunder
Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:33:00 -
[15]
there is no problem here....stop moaning that your insured raven with 20mil isk of fittings cannot kill my fragile 250mil uninsured vaga.... Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines |
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:44:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Cuchulin
Flying some nano ships myself, i know that there are currently only two ships that i have realy to fear.... the Minmatar Recons.
You're either a bad nano pilot or you don't fly nano. You're missing a couple on that list of yours.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:49:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Pezzle on 16/06/2008 15:49:31 This topic does merit serious consideration. The issue itself is quite complex and impacts well beyond analysis of the ships used to 'nano' alone. The balance factors of the nano phenomenon are not correct at the moment. I am not sure how much support can be expected for the issue, but it has my general support.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:51:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 16/06/2008 15:53:20
No support here. As you say Wrayeth, I'm going to say exactly what you thought I'd say - imbalance in 0.0 warfare, defensive advantage of sovereignty tools, capital hotdrops, jump-bridge hotdrops - these are your culprits, since they've made nano the ONLY technique that can work in that environment and you don't handle this problem by removing the ability for players to play the game, you handle it by rebalancing the problems with the environment itself and ensuring that defense-advantage is toned down to allow other techniques to have a chance again.
I'd suggest (seriously) you take a look at Faction Warfare Wrayeth, maybe even join up and give it a go. See the sorts of ships and techniques people are playing there and have some fun.
If nothing else it'll help bring some balanced perspective back. But at the moment I'm completely opposed to any gameplay change inspired by the knock-on symptoms of the broken 0.0 sovereignty system.
There is nothing wrong with the risk/reward balance of nano-ships.
The issue is with the environment that ensures that nothing BUT nano ships can have a reasonable competitive chance. You used to be in Morsus Mihi Wrayeth, tell me with a straight face that ANYTHING except a nano gang can pass through Morsus space secured by anchored bubbles, jump-bridged capitals in cyno jammed systems, and the constant threat of the uberblob near instantly appearing through the twisted miracle of sovereignty architecture in response to any incursion around that space.
I'm not knocking Morsus Mihi mind - they played the game, they built an epic defensive trap that is admirable in its sterile efficiency - but if the game allows the kind of uber defensive playstyle where you are dead unless you can burn out from gates at 4000mps + then you cannot point at nanos as the problem. They are simply a symptom of a specifically broken play environment and that is the thing that needs fixing.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Dlardrageth
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 16:13:00 -
[19]
You may have a point there, Jade, agreed. But what about the part of EVE-O that is not 0.0? I know it is often conveniently forgotten that some people live there, too...
Moreover, if you argue that the "nano-phenomenon" is absolutely necessary due to some... mhm... "broken 0.0 game mechanics", that does not really make (assuming for the sake of the argument, the "equally" part may be way off) an equally broken/unbalanced game feature justifiable. I didn't read the OP as calling for a massive swing with the nerfbat. But it is a frequently made observation that not only Minmatar ships, which by their background are kinda entitled to it go "the nano way" these days. It's not any more that it is two or three ships only that are popular for "nano setups".
Thus if it is legitimate to address the issue of EVE-O going into the direction of "Capitals Online", it is IMHO as legitimate to fear the same for "Nano Online". Even if we might not be there yet, stating that it is required to counter some inherent 0.0 problems and that would be that is the wrong way IMHO.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 16:44:00 -
[20]
Jade you are wrong. "imbalance in 0.0 warfare, defensive advantage of sovereignty tools, capital hotdrops, jump-bridge hotdrops". If we take all of those out of the equation the performance imbalance still exists. You are not arguing to the point raised. The issue here is nano being a performance imbalance, not cyno jammers and jump bridges.
|
|
Hastur DragonTooth
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 16:52:00 -
[21]
Two thumbs down.
Nano ships are not immune to destruction. Just bring the right tools to the table. If they're flying scissors, find a friend who flies a rock. A cry for a nerf is not a substitute for a friend with a curse, rapier or any of the other counters available to you. .. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:22:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Jade Constantine No support here. As you say Wrayeth, I'm going to say exactly what you thought I'd say - imbalance in 0.0 warfare, defensive advantage of sovereignty tools, capital hotdrops, jump-bridge hotdrops - these are your culprits, since they've made nano the ONLY technique that can work in that environment and you don't handle this problem by removing the ability for players to play the game, you handle it by rebalancing the problems with the environment itself and ensuring that defense-advantage is toned down to allow other techniques to have a chance again.
Reducing the viability of other techniques can in no way reduce the viability of nanos. You are saying that nanos are too powerful because capitals are too powerful! That is ********.
Its especially apparent because "nanos" is not something relegated to small gangs. Just look at BoB, they don't fly frigates anymore because there is no frigate that does anything better than a HAC or Recon.
You will never be able rebalance 0.0 space to make nanos less valuable than they are without directly nerfing the ships and increasing the number of counters. You could remove all capital ships, POS, Sovereignty, etc etc etc from the game and it would just make nano-ships more powerful.
The only thing keeping tactics other than nano-ships viable is sovereignty and infrastructure, and they are still a problem.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:25:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth Two thumbs down.
Nano ships are not immune to destruction. Just bring the right tools to the table. If they're flying scissors, find a friend who flies a rock. A cry for a nerf is not a substitute for a friend with a curse, rapier or any of the other counters available to you.
Ahh yes, the "guys guys, nano ships are fine, just fly nano-ships as a counter!" defense.
Do i have to spell out how dumb that is?
As well, with most ships, we define "a counter" as something that will kill the target "especially well". But when defending nano-ships, "a counter" is always defined as "the only thing that might have a chance of killing the target if the target is competent".
|
Grann Thefauto
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:39:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Grann Thefauto on 16/06/2008 17:42:23 Nanos are super fragile already, at most they have 10k HP. They can't do all that much damage either. The best is probably the vaga which puts out 300 dps at around 15-20km. They're essentially equivalent to a very well tanked Drake in DPS and tanking ability, the difference being that it requires multiple BCs (and sometimes even BSs) to take out a Drake whereas it only requires one only good and properly fit anti-nano ship to take out a Vagabond. See for example the Garmonation videos on eve tube.
No support here.
EDIT: Also, nano gangs are one of the few truly viable counters to blobs, which I think most people would agree, need to have something to fear.
|
Kesper North
Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:53:00 -
[25]
Support. I can't stand nanogangs.
|
Merroki
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:07:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Merroki on 16/06/2008 18:07:09 Not true. Disco BS > frig blob, and so should bombs, once they fix those..
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:07:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Grann Thefauto Edited by: Grann Thefauto on 16/06/2008 17:42:23 Nanos are super fragile already, at most they have 10k HP. They can't do all that much damage either. The best is probably the vaga which puts out 300 dps at around 15-20km. They're essentially equivalent to a very well tanked Drake in DPS and tanking ability, the difference being that it requires multiple BCs (and sometimes even BSs) to take out a Drake whereas it only requires one only good and properly fit anti-nano ship to take out a Vagabond. See for example the Garmonation videos on eve tube.
No support here.
EDIT: Also, nano gangs are one of the few truly viable counters to blobs, which I think most people would agree, need to have something to fear.
1. There are only a handful of nano ships that have 10k EHP. Its pretty much the Zealot. The rest have between 16 and 25.
2. It takes a single BC to take out a drake. Well at least any drake that is useful. More correctly, it takes a frigate to kill a drake.
3. Garmon fighting idiots does not make nano-ships balanced.
4. Nano ships are not counters to the blob. Nano ships are the blob. Just like all the fools that said titans were the solution to blobs. Just like any other overpowered tactic it will become the blob.
|
Xrethan
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:40:00 -
[28]
OP described the problem with nano's well. I think at least partial solution could be putting all speed enhancing modules and rigs to same stacking category. For example, after rigging the ship with 2 polycarbs, you could only fit 1 more od/nano/istab to low's before the stacking penalty nullifies the bonuses gained. So mass/velocity/agility would all be on same category. |
Synapse Archae
Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:47:00 -
[29]
NOT SUPPORTED.
Nano ships are ridiculously expensive, and should have abilities to match their cost.
I'm talking minimum 300m each. Most people I know who fly them are broke, and you'd be surprised how often, and how EASILY they can be lost if the pilot isnt paying 100% attention all the time.
Nanoships are stronger than regular yes, but they cost twice as much, and require 10 times the skill and concentration to fly.
That's not broken. - - - Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON. Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:47:00 -
[30]
Quote: You're either a bad nano pilot or you don't fly nano. You're missing a couple on that list of yours.
I said they are the only real problem ! Ok novadays you can ad the Hyena...... but these are the only ships that make me running imediatly if they appear on my scanner....
But back to topic. I don't say that the Nanoships themselfs are broken. But my opinion is still that there are to less counters. The advantage and the protection of a nanoship its is speed. So a classical countership would be one which can kill the speed. All classical slow and well tanked ships can't do that (and thats absolutely ok!). At the end it is always the same....if a nanogang appears you have to jell for some minmatar recon pilots... These are good counterships, but you need these spezialised Pilots that have invested the skilltime in these recons. On the other hand the most interceptors are of course realy good nanoships with high speed and if they work in groups of 4 or 5 they alone can kill a ****load of ships. So you can train the interceptors of almost every race to have a decent nanoship but you need to train the minmatar recon to have a well counter ship .... that is in my opinion what is broken here !
Cuchulin
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |