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
|
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON. Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:54:00 -
[31]
Quote: Nanoships are stronger than regular yes, but they cost twice as much
Ok you are right the best nanoships which outrun all the other "low cost" ceptors and whatever else can be incredibly expensive. But if we stay at the ceptors for example, then you can have a nice nanoship for .....lets say 40 - 50 Mio Isk..... it will not make 14 km/s but it will also do the job ! 4 or 5 of them can kill for example a BS out of a group of slower ships which costs much more....
Cuchulin
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:15:00 -
[32]
It's broken, boost something to counter or nerf it |
Parsival
The Avalon Foundation Delta.Green
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:36:00 -
[33]
Fix the blob then fix nano, otherwise people are going to be even less likely to travel solo/small groups looking for PvP.
As a Minmatar Recon pilot 20km webs and a nano nerf would make me cry, for Matari Recons it'd just about make them good only for refining down for the minerals .
|
Grann Thefauto
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:40:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
Yeah now that I look back most HACs at least have 16-25k EHP, assuming they fit large t2 shield extenders (which is not necessarily a good idea if you want to be hard to hit).
Sure you can kill a drake in a frig, but that would have to be one of the stupidest drake fittings ever if it can't even tank 100 dps. Nano ships reasonably fit however are much more likely to die to frigs than any reasonably fit BC is. I've seen Drakes tank Battleships in pvp with ease. Granted they're not doing much damage, but thats my point with nanos. They're mainly tank and unless you're very highly skilled there's little gank there without severely curtailing your speed.
If there are enough idiots flying nano ships to make 4 long videos, why are so many people complaining? Seriously, if you can fit a rupture to specifically solo kill nano's whats the issue? You're not going to stand much of a chance against a tanked BC with a gank fit like that, but if you exploit the weaknesses of nanos there's nothing to really worry about, nanos will simply run.
The real problem is that in the age of EFT people are so obsessed with DPS that they forget tracking, and other concrete considerations like ewar, cap, and range. I've lost enough nano ships myself to know that they take a ton of skill to fly well and you MUST choose your targets or you die. The issue isn't an unbalance really, its just that people don't realize that you can't use the same tactics on a tanked BS that you would on a vagabond.
I'll agree, some blobs are nanoed to oblivion (espeically FW ones), but a blob overly specialized like that is susceptible to the same problems as any other overly specialized gang.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:30:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Cuchulin :post:
Keep proving me right. I wasn't talking about the Hyena.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:31:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Grann Thefauto
Sure you can kill a drake in a frig, but that would have to be one of the stupidest drake fittings ever if it can't even tank 100 dps.
The frigate does not have to do DPS to kill the drake. You do not understand how combat works in 0.0. DPS on the winning side is rarely an issue, its keeping the other side from leaving which is.
Quote:
Yeah now that I look back most HACs at least have 16-25k EHP, assuming they fit large t2 shield extenders (which is not necessarily a good idea if you want to be hard to hit).
It is however, ******** to not do so if you can.
Quote:
If there are enough idiots flying nano ships to make 4 long videos, why are so many people complaining? Seriously, if you can fit a rupture to specifically solo kill nano's whats the issue? You're not going to stand much of a chance against a tanked BC with a gank fit like that, but if you exploit the weaknesses of nanos there's nothing to really worry about, nanos will simply run.
Balance is not achieved by assuming idiocy on one side and competence on the other. You must assume both parties know what they are doing. Otherwise when people who are competent come along, the imbalanced will be exploited.
The "nanos will simply run" is exactly the problem.
As an aside: How many times does he fail that we do not see? Videos often skew perceptions of the players ability. Kil2 for instance, who we see making a number of cool videos has only a 1.5:1 battleship kill/death ratio. Is he good? Probably, but he still dies a lot. We have three pretty awesome videos from him, and if they were any indication he would have a 10:1 k/d ratio or something equally ridiculous.
Quote:
The real problem is that in the age of EFT people are so obsessed with DPS that they forget tracking, and other concrete considerations like ewar, cap, and range. I've lost enough nano ships myself to know that they take a ton of skill to fly well and you MUST choose your targets or you die. The issue isn't an unbalance really, its just that people don't realize that you can't use the same tactics on a tanked BS that you would on a vagabond.
yes, that is exactly it. You choose the targets. No one else does. There is no way to dictate an engagement against a nano-gang without superior numbers of nano-ships. If your nano-gang sticks around and dies, then that is you being foolish and not them being accomplished.
Quote:
I'll agree, some blobs are nanoed to oblivion (espeically FW ones), but a blob overly specialized like that is susceptible to the same problems as any other overly specialized gang.
Not really, no. Because nano-gangs do not need to specialize. They will bring ewar, cap warfare, long range webs, logistics, DPS, the works. But you can't force them to engage. And that is the crux of the problem
|
Duncan Darkeye
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:41:00 -
[37]
Quote: Originally by: Cuchulin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :post: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep proving me right. I wasn't talking about the Hyena.
Maybe not I am the bad nano pilot here ... if you have the omgwtf counter nano tactic then tell us little noobs your wisdom and if you argue right i will shut up and will accept that everything is alright with the nano stuff.....
Cuchulin
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON. Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:42:00 -
[38]
posting with the wrong alt
|
Merroki
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:45:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Merroki on 16/06/2008 20:46:47
Originally by: Synapse Archae
Nano ships are ridiculously expensive, and should have abilities to match their cost.
While I agree with this in principle, we have to remember that this is a game, and that implies everything needed to maintain a perception of fairness (I'm not saying equality) on all sides.
Things that with ridiculous cost (in currency or time) should obviously provide benefit. But in a game, one can only provide so much benefit before the perception of fairness is lost. Often, the best solution to this is to have less benefit per unit cost, as the cost increases. In other words, 100mil to 150mil gives less benefit than 50mil to 100mil. If pitching a 150mil against a 50mil results in an absolutely no contest match (c'mon, who wants to play a game where the game guarantees a predetermined outcome?), the fix is simple! Just decrease the benefit gained for increments of higher cost vs increments of lower cost.
Things with ridiculous cost will still provide benefit. Things with low cost will still have some semblence of chance.. thus we can satisfy
Originally by: Synapse Archae
Nano ships are ridiculously expensive, and should have abilities to match their cost.
without removing all the fun and challenge from a game.
So I'm saying: Yes, spending to rig up your ship should be rewarded in a bit more advantage (inversely proportional to how much you've already spent), but that advantage must never reach a point where it is usually classified an exploit in most every other game ("If I do this right, I am effectively invincible in the majority of situations, and for all the rest as well if I just avoid those.").
The problem with nanos is it fits right into both "effectively invincible in the majority of situations", and easily being able to "just avoid" the rest by choice.
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON. Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:45:00 -
[40]
Quote: Not really, no. Because nano-gangs do not need to specialize. They will bring ewar, cap warfare, long range webs, logistics, DPS, the works. But you can't force them to engage. And that is the crux of the problem
\signed
|
|
Hegotu Alecto
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:51:00 -
[41]
id say no, there are already counters to nanos, take my raven its an anti-nanofag battleship. my cruise missiles speed is just over 9000km/s with a 30 second flight time, thats the equivalent to 250km+, they come near me and in a few salvos there dead, especially vagabonds, and running dont help them as my missiles are generally faster than they are and including most inties except the real good ones (though they are nightmares to kill).
most gangs tend to have a few huginns/rapiers with them and the cost is huge, my nano vaga cost me a whopping 250m isk to fit minimum. the ship = 80-90m t2 nanos are a few million each overdrives 1.5 i think the rigs are 50-60 EACH (polycarbons) guns tend to be around 2-3m fits in general ur speaking 10-15 million.
|
Grann Thefauto
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:04:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Goumindong The frigate does not have to do DPS to kill the drake. You do not understand how combat works in 0.0. DPS on the winning side is rarely an issue, its keeping the other side from leaving which is.
I've mainly done low sec small gang war fare and FW recently, so I understand the basic idea of tackling something. I think we were talking about different things however since a frig does stand a reasonable chance of killing a nano ship, but not normally any conventional fit.
Originally by: Goumindong As an aside: How many times does he fail that we do not see? Videos often skew perceptions of the players ability. Kil2 for instance, who we see making a number of cool videos has only a 1.5:1 battleship kill/death ratio. Is he good? Probably, but he still dies a lot. We have three pretty awesome videos from him, and if they were any indication he would have a 10:1 k/d ratio or something equally ridiculous.
Valid point, and he does lose some ships in some of the videos, however its still a 15mil ship taking down 100+ mil nanoed hacs.
Originally by: Goumindong Not really, no. Because nano-gangs do not need to specialize. They will bring ewar, cap warfare, long range webs, logistics, DPS, the works. But you can't force them to engage. And that is the crux of the problem
Ah, so I think I understand now. I still disagree however. I don't see why a gang or a ship lacking significantly in DPS and tank should be forced to engage anything. The nano's one real advantage over others is the ability to run but it does pay significant costs for that. Sure you can have EWar on a nano ship, but its going to cost you and it won't be sustainable.
I don't fly in 0.0 so I could be way off, but if the main goal of being in 0.0 is capturing and holding territory you're much better off with a conventional fleet; as nanos for the most part are meant to harass and weaken, but don't have the staying power of a well balanced camp.
In my experience in low sec though the real problem with nano ships is that people just haven't gotten over EFT.
Perhaps a better anti-nano change would be to boost sniping/targeting so that 300km is no longer safe.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:31:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Hegotu Alecto id say no, there are already counters to nanos, take my raven its an anti-nanofag battleship. my cruise missiles speed is just over 9000km/s with a 30 second flight time, thats the equivalent to 250km+, they come near me and in a few salvos there dead, especially vagabonds, and running dont help them as my missiles are generally faster than they are and including most inties except the real good ones (though they are nightmares to kill).
most gangs tend to have a few huginns/rapiers with them and the cost is huge, my nano vaga cost me a whopping 250m isk to fit minimum. the ship = 80-90m t2 nanos are a few million each overdrives 1.5 i think the rigs are 50-60 EACH (polycarbons) guns tend to be around 2-3m fits in general ur speaking 10-15 million.
Yep.
Cerb pilot, Hvy missiles betweem 9000 - 9700 mps. 218- 220 kms max range.
Most Vaga pilots would be hard pressed to get the hell out of the way or those things. No tracking issues and hard as hell to speed tank. and there you go.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:36:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Grann Thefauto I've mainly done low sec small gang war fare and FW recently, so I understand the basic idea of tackling something. I think we were talking about different things however since a frig does stand a reasonable chance of killing a nano ship, but not normally any conventional fit.
A frigate does not have a reasonably chance of killing a nano-ship. The nano-ship zeros out transversal, pops the tackler, and warps away.
Conversely a frig does have a reasonable chance of killing a conventional ship. Apply scram, orbit, hope reinforcements get there before you die.
Originally by: Goumindong Valid point, and he does lose some ships in some of the videos, however its still a 15mil ship taking down 100+ mil nanoed hacs.
And? There needs to be benefit to increased isk expenditure, the benefit is simply too high. Cruisers are too marginalized. Furthermore, the cost difference is not relevant. You could spend more on that rupture than a standard t2 nano-ship and fit a fleet of them and you still won't be reaching the efficiency levels that nano-ships gain from readily available goods.
Originally by: Goumindong
Ah, so I think I understand now. I still disagree however. I don't see why a gang or a ship lacking significantly in DPS and tank should be forced to engage anything. The nano's one real advantage over others is the ability to run but it does pay significant costs for that. Sure you can have EWar on a nano ship, but its going to cost you and it won't be sustainable.
They are not lacking in DPS or Ewar. 2 Falcons, 2 Vagabonds, 2 Rapiers and you have 1000 DPS to 25km and you will be out of any fight before anything large can even lock you. As gang sizes increase start adding Zealots and your DPS keeps going up.
Quote:
I don't fly in 0.0 so I could be way off, but if the main goal of being in 0.0 is capturing and holding territory you're much better off with a conventional fleet; as nanos for the most part are meant to harass and weaken, but don't have the staying power of a well balanced camp.
Nano's don't have the staying power of a heavily battleship/cap oriented strategic gang no. But for gate camps? Loads better. If anything big comes in, and you are not in nano-ships, you have a chance of dying. A nano-gang can disappear into space and then reform after the threat has passed.
In terms of fleet effectiveness, nano-ships are no slouches either. They are hands down the best support ships in the game. The wealthiest alliances(in terms of personal wealth) will have fleet compositions that look like this
Caps/BS/Recons/HACs/HICs/cov-ops
They won't have interceptors they will tackle with HACs and HICS.
Quote:
In my experience in low sec though the real problem with nano ships is that people just haven't gotten over EFT.
In low-sec there are three fundamental differences.
1. No bubbles: Speed is less important when you can warp to 0 on every gate. 2. Gate guns: 150-300 DPS to 150km with infinite tracking... 3. Stations: Anyone can dock at these
And just to get the ad-homs out of the way. I fly nano-ships. I do this **** because its effective. I am the high skillpoint wealthy(not technically) pilot that is just the ones to abuse these types of mechanics and I do, all the damn time.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:37:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Farrqua
Yep.
Cerb pilot, Hvy missiles betweem 9000 - 9700 mps. 218- 220 kms max range.
Most Vaga pilots would be hard pressed to get the hell out of the way or those things. No tracking issues and hard as hell to speed tank. and there you go.
Explosion Velocity
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:48:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Farrqua
Yep.
Cerb pilot, Hvy missiles betweem 9000 - 9700 mps. 218- 220 kms max range.
Most Vaga pilots would be hard pressed to get the hell out of the way or those things. No tracking issues and hard as hell to speed tank. and there you go.
Explosion Velocity
Touche`
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 22:33:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Duncan Darkeye
Quote:
:post:
Keep proving me right. I wasn't talking about the Hyena.
Maybe not I am the bad nano pilot here ... if you have the omgwtf counter nano tactic then tell us little noobs your wisdom and if you argue right i will shut up and will accept that everything is alright with the nano stuff.....
Cuchulin
No thanks. I usually prefer not to give the nubs who don't know better free information. The fact of the matter is you are missing pretty flagrant non-Minmatar vessels that every nano-pilot should look to kill as soon as possible.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 22:59:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Pezzle on 16/06/2008 23:03:21 People must get over the notion that spending lots of money = game balance. It does not. Balances are maintained by limitations. In EVE, isk is effectively limitless.
The reason your Vagabond is entitled to better than say, a rifter, is because it is more difficult to use (training) and at this point a lesser effect of scarcity. It has nothing to do with the isk you spend.
For the same reasons, some modules are entitled to perform better than others. In fact they add drawbacks as additional balance factors on T2. Higher fitting costs, or power usage per cycle, penalties to other areas more difficult to use and so on. That is how item and ship balance is (or should be) maintained. Officer gear is not entitled to be more potent than other gear because it costs more, the balance factor of scarcity is used.
Now the problems come in when combinations of modules and ships infringe on other roles to the point that ships that would fill those roles become obsolete, or nearly so. This is where some attempt to justify performance with cost. Considering we each have what amounts to a printing press to churn out money when we wish that argument must be rejected. Couple that with the gaming factor that every ship should have a role that it excels at above others (more balance issues) and you should see the problem.
Ishtars moving at 9k are unbalanced not because they move fast but because they eliminate the need for other ship classes. There are many many other issues tied directly to these simple underlying concepts.
Ships become more powerful and durable as they grow larger. These ships also get slower and less agile. As they grow smaller they become more agile, faster, less durable and less powerful. We have a wide array of modules available that allow us to push the envelop in one direction or another. If a larger ship can, by any means, be more potent (or so equal as to make distinction nearly irrelevant) than a smaller in every comparable category then there is an imbalance. The same can be said of a smaller ship to a larger.
There are others issues, such as risk and the withdraw ability I will not touch on right at the moment. Let me close with this.
Ships and ship classes have their place. Nano can exist in this spectrum and be perfectly acceptable. If throwing money, which is not balancing, at something allows it to overwhelm through performance classes larger or smaller than itself there is a problem and the balance has been lost. This is the current problem with nano and why it needs to be reviewed.
*edit* and sorry for the wall. I tried to keep it simple.
|
Cuchulin
DEFCON. Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 23:34:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Cuchulin on 16/06/2008 23:36:56
Quote: Viable counters to nanos: Mixed fleets! Hugin/Rapier! Ceptors! Any fleet bigger than 20! Amarr Ships (great tracking)! Ewar heavy fleets!
Ok some comments to this listing:
mixed fleets....not a point on its own.....just saying if you have rapiers you can counter it
hugin/rapier.... yes of course this is the only good way to tackle them down
ceptors.... a possibility...but i would like to see a single ceptor to tackle down a sabre or vaga....in most cases the poor little one will just get blown up ...
Any fleet bigger than 20!... not a point at all imho .... depends on the shiptypes of the fleet .... and is also not realy a counter cause the nano pilots will just fly away from the enemys and stay save, there is no possibility to get them engaged if they don't make mistakes ...
Amarr Ships (great tracking)!.... never had probs with that, but even if some nano pilot is flying so slow that he realy gets hit...he will not be tackled down by this and just warp out if he is taking to heavy damage
Ewar heavy fleets.... this can be of course a pain in the ass for every enemy not just nanos.... but again its more like a self protection....ecms doesn't tackle nanos...
I conclude: there are of course possibilitys to do some "self protection" .... in fact there are missing quite a few like large neuts on bs and whatsoever.... but at the end we have a situation where it is still almost impossible to get the nano ships tackled down. If they take damage they will just burn away and warp off.... And that is again the reason why i think this is broken.....if they are able to kill me then there should be an easier (of course not too easy....) way to kill them then to have a specialised minmatar pilot with me.
Cuchulin
PS: Sorry for my constant posting on this, but altough I have fun on my own flying such ships, in the last time the big "not to tackle" nano blops are realy anoying...there is just not much fun in these engagements for the none nano pilot....
PPS:
Quote: No thanks. I usually prefer not to give the nubs who don't know better free information.
It is your choice to do so or not....but if you not want to argue then you shouldn't maybe post at all....
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 00:12:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Cuchulin
Quote: No thanks. I usually prefer not to give the nubs who don't know better free information.
It is your choice to do so or not....but if you not want to argue then you shouldn't maybe post at all....
As soon as you start posting intelligently, I'll stop.
|
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 01:41:00 -
[51]
Either that or boost the slave set so I can tank a dozen Vagabonds till next downtime.
It's like playing war with the kid that never dies.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Constantinee
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 05:22:00 -
[52]
I support this man :) --------------------
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 16:28:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 21/06/2008 16:31:24 I find myself rather surprised at how few people have spoken up in support, knowing that at least 75% of the people I talk to in EVE heavily dislike the nano mechanic. I'm also surprised at how restrained and few the nano supporters have been.
In any case, in regards to Jade's statement that nanos are needed because of other current mechanics, let me reply with an analogy.
A man is dying of two terrible, terminal diseases. He's been to the hospital and the doctors are still arguing about the best method of saving him. So far, he has survived past all expectations, as both diseases are normally fatal within a much shorter timespan. Nevertheless, the doctors have the know-how to save the patient, that much is not in doubt, but they disagree on the specific treatments. Several doctors advocate treating one of the diseases first and several are proponents of treating the other. What they fail to realize is that not only are the diseases fighting the patient, but they're also fighting each other. The patient has survived this long because the diseases keep each other in check, but, were one of the diseases to be successfully treated and the other not, the patient would rapidly deteriorate further and die. Thus, the optimal solution is to deal with both at the same time.
It is much the same with nanos and blobbing/capitals/sov. Nanos counter the blob to an extent, but the blob also counters nanos by allowing you to bring more ships that can catch and pin down the nanoers and thus allow you to bring your DPS to bear, killing not just one or two but the majority of the nano gang. Take away nanos and it will be very difficult to go on a roaming op through hostile space in 0.0 (but at least Empire wars would become more enjoyable). Take away the blob, and nanos will reign supreme as players continue to choose the little risk option and kill the fun for everyone who doesn't enjoy nanoing themselves.
Just like in the analogy, if you solve one without solving the other you end up with a dead patient - it will either be Nanos OnlineÖ everywhere or there will be little non-blob/non-cap PvP out in 0.0. Either way, CCP will end up losing subscriptions. CCP will also lose subscriptions if time continues to pass and nothing is done. As an example, I've been on the fence regarding my account status for some time.
Bottom line: the solution to the entire mess is to fix nanos and blobs/sov/capitals at the same time. This thread exists to garner support for dealing with the nano part, but it would be better if both issues were dealt with together.
(That said, if I had to choose just one of the two for CCP deal with, I would choose nanos - after all, without fun 0.0 there are still highsec Empire wars, lowsec piracy, and FW. Without blobs/sov/caps you'll still have nano gangs everywhere and they'll be harder to counter.)
P.S. For the folks who have been posting supporting a reduction to nanos, click yer damned "support this" option when you post! -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
eliminator2
The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 17:00:00 -
[54]
if u nerf speed nerf blobs maybe hell lets nerf tanks to o wait whinners allready have that nerfed just stop nerfin stuff and come up with new ships maybe or new ways of killin them it isnt hard u no
|
shuckstar
Hauling hogs CryoGenesis Mining Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 17:51:00 -
[55]
Supported
|
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 18:37:00 -
[56]
No support. Absolutely none. The OP doesn't like the way others play, doesn't want to play that way, so he wants their method of play eliminated.
The following is sarcasm: "Let's do away with everything except the most conventional T1 crap. Let's do away with all skill training. Then everyone will be equal and the only thing that will win the day is how many pilots you can put on the field of battle."
The day this gray day occurs, EVE will become too dull to endure and it will fail. EVE is variety. To change that is to kill it.
Windjammer
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 19:18:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Windjammer No support. Absolutely none. The OP doesn't like the way others play, doesn't want to play that way, so he wants their method of play eliminated.
LOL, you started EVE after nanos came about, didn't you? I'm assuming this is your alt, of course, because the Windjammer character has been a member of an NPC corp since he was created 10 months ago.
You see, when the speed tanking buff happened, it marginalized pretty much every other playstyle and made it pointless to fly most other classes of ship in fun roaming gangs. You, of course, would never have had the experience of how much more diverse and fun the game was before nanos came about, so you wouldn't know any better.
Now, before nanos were buffed, there will still a few speed tanking ship, though not many. One of them was the vagabond, and, even though it only did about 3km/s, everyone wanted one. This was in the days before invention, and the limited supply resulted in extremely high prices for them that reaches upwards of 250 million each at one point. At the speeds the were capable of, vagabonds were perfectly balanced. They weren't so fast that they were effectively invulnerable in almost every situation, able to disengage with 100% reliability, though they could often escape tight situations which would've killed just about anything else aside from a 'ceptor.
What I'm asking in this thread is a return to those days when speed tanking was still viable for certain ships, but speeds were slow enough that the speed tankers' advantage wasn't so overwhelming that it was pointless to fly anything else.
Now, in regards to your sarcastic comment, you seem to be laboring under the impression that I can't fly anything expensive and, in fact, don't own any such ships. Let me give you the list of tech II ships I can fly:
Caldari Covert ops Assault ships Interceptors HACs Recons Command ships Black ops
Matari HACs Recons Command ships Black ops
Amarr HACs Recons Command ships
Not tech II, but I can also fly (and own) both Caldari carriers and dreadnoughts. Oh, and I have over 100 kills with my non-nano machariel, which is worth several billion ISK.
Quote: The day this gray day occurs, EVE will become too dull to endure and it will fail. EVE is variety. To change that is to kill it.
You mean the day other ship classes become viable in combat will make EVE too dull? You definitely never played before nanos - you saw a LOT more diversity back then than you do now. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 20:08:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Wrayeth My epeen is big.
Yeah, yeah. Long list of things you can do. Good for you. I did not say you could not, I said you did not want to. I choose to believe you can do everything you say you can and have been around for as long as you say you have. This has not given you wisdom and apparently it has not given you insight. What it apparently has given you is a bad case of future shock and a tendency to moan about the good old days.
Perhaps they can come up with another version of EVE for you. EVE Classic. Then you wouldn't have to change ever again. Then you wouldn't have to call for the game to be nerfed to mediocrity. Then you wouldn't have to widen your sight a bit more. Oh, and perhaps you wouldn't have to suggest that people whom you assume haven't been around for as long as you don't have a right to post against your suggestions.
Windjammer
|
dev urandom
Singularity. Talon Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 21:05:00 -
[59]
what about a new variation of a t2 destroyer that can launch instead of warp disruption bubbles, webbing bubbles?
i don't think the problem is the speed, i think it's the ability to catch them.
|
Yuki Santara
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 23:17:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Windjammer No support. Absolutely none. The OP doesn't like the way others play, doesn't want to play that way, so he wants their method of play eliminated.
The following is sarcasm: "Let's do away with everything except the most conventional T1 crap. Let's do away with all skill training. Then everyone will be equal and the only thing that will win the day is how many pilots you can put on the field of battle."
The day this gray day occurs, EVE will become too dull to endure and it will fail. EVE is variety. To change that is to kill it.
Windjammer
I don't really understand your logic. You say the OP's problem is that he doesn't want to play a certain way, implying that he should have to. That seems to be at odds with calling for variety?
I don't claim to be an expert on this issue, so I'm just observing the points raised by both sides. My own experience is that the homogenisation towards speed ships creates a certain monotony that is not particularly enjoyable for many players, but I also understand that my own experience is just a very small part of the whole picture.
What bothers me about these ships is not so much their effectiveness (so far I would agree that the risk justifies the effectiveness and there are plenty of counters), but rather that it's close to impossible to force a nano ship to stay in a fight, especially without flying Minmatar. Any other ship class always runs the risk of being entangled in a fight and then either has to win swiftly or fear that reinforcements will arrive which tear it apart. A nano ship, as far as I can tell, can always make a run for it, if it's just clever enough not to engage what it can't handle. Almost to the extend of creating a demotivating consensual PVP environment. I do think this should only be acceptable for dedicated support ships, if at all.
|
|
JVol
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:45:00 -
[61]
I dont support nerfing nanos, I cant stand them, but I dont support nerfing them either. BUT, they need to have counters that actually work, webs and neuts (med neuts NOT BS sized) SHOULD be brought up to speed. They have always and should alays be the main counters to nanos, but they got left behind. As the minimum orbiting range of nanos has increased the maximum range of webs and neuts hasnt increased enough to counter them.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=803693
|
Benedic
The Aftermath
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:35:00 -
[62]
Adapt or die, not signed.
|
Big Al
Stoat's Ultimate Carebear Adventure
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:37:00 -
[63]
Just no. Without nano setups solo/small gang roaming against skillblobs becomes even more painful than it already is.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 16:58:00 -
[64]
This, or at least give us proper heavy prec missiles.
|
Lucias Trask
Shadows of the Dead
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 17:18:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Lucias Trask on 22/06/2008 17:21:25 Son of a a*****... nano-whining again?
Here let me just help you out as little... howe to kill every nano ship out there.
1) Killing Vagas/All nano ships. -Use a Rapier/Huginn to slow it down. -Use a Curse to suck its cap dry, cant go MWD with no cap. -get a few interceptors on it (Crows are really fast) using a falcon to jam it, and slow it down, then blow it up.
2) Killing Ishtars. -Kill the drones. Ishtar then runs away cause it now sucks. BUT, get the above mentioned ships on it and bam, it dies.
IS your BS fleet going to kill a group of good nano-ships? No, probably not unless the nano pilot screws up. But can nanos kill a RR BS gang? Not a chance in hell. IF you dont want to fly nano, but you do want to kill them, bring a mixed fleet. Get a few interceptors, grab some Recons and a few HACs, they dont have to be nano'd. Smart flying and using tactics can stop a nano ship[ in its tracks, it is much more likely if you stay together, send out the inties to tackle and jam with Falcons, you will live thorugh the encounter.
There now stop whning and adapt.
[PANIC] |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 19:22:00 -
[66]
supporting this.
CCP needs to address this issue FAST or everybody jumps on the nano bandwagon (and i really mean EVERYBODY) and the same situation like the announced carrier/mom nerf arises, when a gigabtic blob thread altered (or delayed) CCPs decision. ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 22:10:00 -
[67]
Originally by: JVol I dont support nerfing nanos, I cant stand them, but I dont support nerfing them either. BUT, they need to have counters that actually work, webs and neuts (med neuts NOT BS sized) SHOULD be brought up to speed. They have always and should alays be the main counters to nanos, but they got left behind. As the minimum orbiting range of nanos has increased the maximum range of webs and neuts hasnt increased enough to counter them.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=803693
Range is not enough. Agility mod needs to be addressed as well.
See Nyphur address this here |
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 22:30:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:30:42 I support. Just think of how stupid something the size of a nuclear aircraft carrier accelerating to 5000+ meters per second in little under a few seconds is. Lets say that's about 1000 m/s^2, which is a killer 100Gs: 10 times more than any human can withstand without being turned into chunky salsa. In fact even the space shuttle, despite the 12MN (that's MegaNewtons, the same unit of measure that the MWD and AB use; essentially the space shuttle has a Cruiser sized AB fitted) that its engines put out, it only accelerates at a slow 3 Gs.
Basically the speeds are fine imo, its the rate at which you can alter your speed that needs to be changed. I think that the easiest way to do this is to increase the mass penalty to MWD.
EDIT: typos.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 22:54:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Lieutenant Isis Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:53:33 Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:52:19 Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:30:42 I support. Just think of how stupid something the size of a nuclear aircraft carrier accelerating to 5000+ meters per second in little under a few seconds is. Lets say that's about 1000 m/s^2, which is a killer 100Gs: 10 times more than any human can withstand without being turned into chunky salsa. In fact even the space shuttle, despite the 12MN (that's MegaNewtons, the same unit of measure that the MWD and AB use; essentially the space shuttle has a Cruiser sized AB fitted) that its engines put out, it only accelerates at a slow 3 Gs.
Basically the speeds are fine imo, its the rate at which you can alter your speed that needs to be changed. I think that the easiest way to do this is to increase the mass penalty to MWD.
EDIT: typos.
EDIT2: to give you a better comparison of the size of things involved here checkout these two links: [url=http://go-dl3.eve-files.com/media/corp/SFC/EVE-ships.jpg]http://go-dl3.eve-files.com/media/corp/SFC/EVE-ships.jpg[/url] [url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tanker-size-comparison.png]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tanker-size-comparison.png [/url] Also I though you might like to know before you flame me that I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. EDIT3: I fail at linking :(
In case you hadn't noticed, Eve Physics =/= RL Physics.
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 22:58:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:58:53 If you're so willing to bend the rules to allow MWD, then why not bend the rules to allow guns to track at 1080 deg/sec so I can hit your nano ship? The tracking limits were imposed based on "real" physics.
|
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 23:12:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Dianeces on 22/06/2008 23:12:29
Originally by: Lieutenant Isis Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:58:53 If you're so willing to bend the rules to allow MWD, then why not bend the rules to allow guns to track at 1080 deg/sec so I can hit your nano ship? The tracking limits were imposed based on "real" physics.
Spaceship max speed crew checkin' in.
Keep grasping, maybe you'll find something if you try hard enough.
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 23:27:00 -
[72]
Well of course there are limits because the game has to be playable, for instance warp speed and jumpgates; however that does not mean we need to turn EVE in a fantasy-land. You can go to WoW for that.
|
Lokche
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 23:30:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Lokche on 22/06/2008 23:31:00 Chance to Hit=1/2^(A*B/C/D/E+MAX(0,(E-F)/G))
A=Target's speed B=Turret's signature resolution C=Turret's tracking speed D=Target's signature radius E=Target's distance F=Turret's optimal range G=Turret's falloff range
An unskilled Target Painter I increases a target's signature radius by 25%. An Overdrive Injector II increases a target's speed by 20%. Think long and hard about the implications of this.
Edit: grammar
|
Hori To
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 00:58:00 -
[74]
is there a reason why t2 nanofibers are equal to t1 polycarbs? aux thrusters add less speed then t2 overdrives? why, not bring nanofibers and polycarbs in line? that would reduce speed slightly, and make non-speedy ships less speedy? nanoing needs to stay as a valid style of play, but some ships just move to fast tbh.
And the agility thing that nyphur wrote about, I didn't know that, but it looks like something someone needs to take a closer look at. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 02:20:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Nyphur on 23/06/2008 02:20:19
Originally by: Hori To And the agility thing that nyphur wrote about, I didn't know that, but it looks like something someone needs to take a closer look at.
I expanded on it in an article for massively here. It's definitely something that needs looked into.
Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support. |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 04:30:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Nyphur Edited by: Nyphur on 23/06/2008 02:20:19
Originally by: Hori To And the agility thing that nyphur wrote about, I didn't know that, but it looks like something someone needs to take a closer look at.
I expanded on it in an article for massively here. It's definitely something that needs looked into.
I keep forgetting to link that one instead of the original OP ;) |
Dr Corvidae
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 05:10:00 -
[77]
I read Nyphr's idea and it is intriquing. However, would it not be much simpler to have the benefits of nano mods affected by the mass of the ship?
An interceptor having little mass, has the nano mods affected very little and the nano mods are largly unaffected; while a battleship/battlecruiser etc with much greater mass will have its speed modified very little by the nanomods. These numbers have been pulled out of the air but for the sake of illustrating the idea: Interceptor 100 tons = speed/agility boost 100% of the module. Battleship 1,000,00 tons = speed/agility boost 10% of the module.
tl;dr version. Small ship, little mass = fast, large increase to speed big ship, huge mass = slow, small increase to speed
|
Irongut
M'8'S Frontal Impact
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 05:51:00 -
[78]
Not being able to go fast would take the fun out of the game for many of the players. Nano setups are not overpowered and do not make you the next best thing to invulnerable.
Mission runners playing FW have 2 weeks experience at pvp, they should lose to experienced fleets of 4+ year old pvp characters. Nanos, Inertia Stabs and Overdrives have already been nerfed and do not need another one.
-
Join Frontal Impact Racing Team & feel the speed! |
Franga
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 08:27:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Lucias Trask 1) Killing Vagas/All nano ships. -Use a Rapier/Huginn to slow it down. -Use a Curse to suck its cap dry, cant go MWD with no cap. -get a few interceptors on it (Crows are really fast) using a falcon to jam it, and slow it down, then blow it up.
Yes, yes. To fix the problems, just train a certain ship. Exactly what a 'sandbox' game should do, force you down a certain path. Genius.
Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
|
Franga
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 08:31:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Big Al Just no. Without nano setups solo/small gang roaming against skillblobs becomes even more painful than it already is.
Unfortunately, this is also true.
Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
|
|
Nathan West
Cataclysm Enterprises HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 11:38:00 -
[81]
The main imbalance is the amount of mods increasing speed and mods allowing to kill a fast moving ship. The only way to kill a nanoship is to web it, other counters e.g. ecm, neuts will just scare it off. One mod to kill a nano and except for a ganglink claymore no way to boost its effectiveness. There are no rigs or other modules boosting web range or velocity penalty. On the other hand you have nanofibres, overdrives, polycarbs and aux thrusters all increasing speed. My proposal is to release mods and rigs to increase web range. That way if you want to effectly counter a nano you will need to sacrifice dps and tank, just as a nanoship does to get its speed.
|
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 11:42:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Synapse Archae Nano ships are ridiculously expensive, and should have abilities to match their cost.
Nano ships are expensive because they are inherently good.
|
Thirzarr
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 13:05:00 -
[83]
I do not think eve needs less speed. Actually more speed, more maneuvering and such would be lovely. Yes, I want more dynamic fights. Like the battleships in the Video's zooooooooming by in formtion.
* Remove 20km scramblers. * Fix precision Missiles & other T2 Ammo to WORK against stuff like this.
|
Reash
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 14:16:00 -
[84]
Support pushing for this to be looked at, though i think its a very very complicated issue.
From my point of view the issue is not the speed tank (in fact i like that this variation exists).
I think the problem is how fast they move (yes i know, sounds like i am contradicting myself)
Speed for nanos gives them 2 advantages
1. Speed tank makes them difficult to hit.
2. Speed allowing for very very very fast escapes.
To solve the problem i believe nanos have i think a rebalance to make the nano ships a bit more difficult to hit (reduce sig by quite a lot maybe?), while at the same time removing a lot of the speed they have allowing them for very fast escapes, of course they should still be faster than a regular cruiser setups but i don't think they should be matching interceptor speeds.
Now, i admit this is a complex issue and my idea might not be great, but i certainly think nano fitted cruisers need looking at quite seriously.
-----------------------
Auctoritan Syndicate Director
|
oilio
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 18:02:00 -
[85]
Nerf nanos... well, some of them.
Ships that are built for speed should be left as they are. Ships that were never meant to go super-fast should be restricted.
An analogy would be ECM. These days, only ships that were designed to use ECM modules can use them effectively. Fitted to other ships, the effect is poor.
I think it should be the same for speed setups. If a ship was designed for speed, then it should be left alone. If the ship wasn't primarily designed for speed, then it should have more restrictions placed on the maximum speed it can attain.
However they decide to address the nano issue, I hope they're careful about it. This one could be a right mess if it isn't thought through properly.
|
Trojanman190
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 18:03:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Trojanman190 on 23/06/2008 18:02:52 The whole point of a nano setup is picking your fights, speed tanking does not work nearly as well as everyone tries to say it does.
Nanos allow a gang of 5 pvpers to have fun in 0.0 because we can escape the 30 man blobs. You remove nanos or make them weaker in any way and you will see 0.0 get very boring very quickly.
|
Reash
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 18:57:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Trojanman190 Edited by: Trojanman190 on 23/06/2008 18:02:52 The whole point of a nano setup is picking your fights, speed tanking does not work nearly as well as everyone tries to say it does.
Nanos allow a gang of 5 pvpers to have fun in 0.0 because we can escape the 30 man blobs. You remove nanos or make them weaker in any way and you will see 0.0 get very boring very quickly.
I find it rare that they are used that way, i often see Nano groups in large gangs preying on lone targets before they have a chance to run. But it is beside the point. Wanting immunity is not a good reason to consider something balanced.
I am all for nano ships having a speed advantage, a lot of us just currently feel that the speed nano cruisers can achieve is much faster than should be possible froma cruiser.
-----------------------
Auctoritan Syndicate Director
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 19:05:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Trojanman190 Edited by: Trojanman190 on 23/06/2008 18:02:52 The whole point of a nano setup is picking your fights, speed tanking does not work nearly as well as everyone tries to say it does.
Nanos allow a gang of 5 pvpers to have fun in 0.0 because we can escape the 30 man blobs. You remove nanos or make them weaker in any way and you will see 0.0 get very boring very quickly.
Remember... a nerf to nanos is NOT what is being asked. What is being asked is that a buff to the nano counters (webs neuts) be put in place so that the nano is not an "I win button" because that is what it has become.
Nano's are going for the price they are because the demand is there for them. The demand is there because they are literally.. almost unbeatable except in a very stacked situation. And even then, a skilled nano pilot often will escape.
Change the agility mod on webs so that the bigger the ship is, the quicker it deaccerlates. That way when a web catches a nano BS... it stops dead in it's tracks. |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 19:21:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Avon on 23/06/2008 19:21:09 Dual MWD's were removed because speed tanking was unbalanced. It is *still* unbalanced.
Faster ships should have reduced agility, factored by sig radius or mass (sig would be better because it would better suit the role bonus of certain ships).
Speed freaks retain the ability to run away very quicky, but lose the ability to pound ships whilst dodging tracking and outrunning missiles.
Or, add *another* module to increase the mass, or decrease the agility of a ship - because webs just aren't up to the job when the target can just coast out of web range.
Whatever the solution, something needs to be done to address the balance. Small ships going fast I can live with, but the bigger you are the slower you should be, and certainly much, much, much less agile.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Valkorsia
Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 21:34:00 -
[90]
Don't nerf nano, boost ALL race interceptors so they can't be outrun by nano HACs. Problem solved.
|
|
Cpt Jagermeister
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 22:05:00 -
[91]
So sick of this coming up. Wish ccp would say something ffs.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 04:02:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Valkorsia Don't nerf nano, boost ALL race interceptors so they can't be outrun by nano HACs. Problem solved.
Average speed of a T2, polyed HAC (bar the Vagabond) is 3.5km/s-4km/s. Which of your interceptors were they outrunning again?
The problem is most likely on your end if this is a regular occurrence.
|
Reash
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 09:24:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Valkorsia Don't nerf nano, boost ALL race interceptors so they can't be outrun by nano HACs. Problem solved.
Average speed of a T2, polyed HAC (bar the Vagabond) is 3.5km/s-4km/s. Which of your interceptors were they outrunning again?
The problem is most likely on your end if this is a regular occurrence.
The problem is more that people think 3.5km/s to 4km/s (and beyond) is far faster than what a cruiser should be acieving.
I happen to disagree with my alliance mate on this one, i do not think the difference in speed between interceptors and nano hacs is the problem, interceptors are fine, it is just the nano-hacs which are too fast. -----------------------
Auctoritan Syndicate Director
|
Dragonzchilde
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 10:38:00 -
[94]
stop whining about nano's and learn to fly rapiers
|
Reash
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 12:07:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Dragonzchilde stop whining about nano's and learn to fly rapiers
The fact that you name a specific ship for combating them only serves to further proove the point that they need a re-balance. -----------------------
Auctoritan Syndicate Director
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 13:23:00 -
[96]
No need to change nanos, they are a great compliment to internet spaceships, work as intended.
need good FCs, good pilots and you will have good fun, regardless of whether you missiles can hit a target traveling faster than you sorry pale, just cause you can't kill something cause you fail, doesn't mean the rest of eve is having the same problem
|
Reash
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 13:28:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Matrixcvd No need to change nanos, they are a great compliment to internet spaceships, work as intended.
need good FCs, good pilots and you will have good fun, regardless of whether you missiles can hit a target traveling faster than you sorry pale, just cause you can't kill something cause you fail, doesn't mean the rest of eve is having the same problem
We have actually have developed a very sucessful stratagy for killing nano cruisers...but again, doesnt make them balanced.
But as with all nano killing stratgy's i can think of, ours requires the use of specific ships with specific bonus's...and that is the problem. -----------------------
Auctoritan Syndicate Director
|
Zorok
LEGI0N F.E.A.R Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 14:00:00 -
[98]
+1 I'm sick of dealing with tanked Vagabonds..they shield tank their mids and speed tank their highs and can keep up with interceptors. While I have no qualms with them being the fastest ship in their class, they should not be able to outrun frigates and interceptors.
I'm sorry, no cruiser should have the run of the battlefield. No drones can hold them down- a Muninn is the only thing that can take them. It's gotten to the point where I have seen Vagabond-only fleets looking for gank kills.
|
Setana Manoro
Firefly Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 14:08:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 21/06/2008 16:47:43 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.
EDIT: Folks, if you support one of these threads, there's this leetle button you're supposed to click in between the text box and the area where you select your character to post with when replying...
Posting in a 'pitch and fork' thread that gives no ideea suggestions except for 'i've had enough and i'm not going to take this anymore'.
|
Lucias Trask
Shadows of the Dead Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 00:36:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Franga
Originally by: Lucias Trask 1) Killing Vagas/All nano ships. -Use a Rapier/Huginn to slow it down. -Use a Curse to suck its cap dry, cant go MWD with no cap. -get a few interceptors on it (Crows are really fast) using a falcon to jam it, and slow it down, then blow it up.
Yes, yes. To fix the problems, just train a certain ship. Exactly what a 'sandbox' game should do, force you down a certain path. Genius.
Pay attention closely because this is complicated.
I trained a long time to get my nano ship as fast as it is. I spend upwards of 300mil on each of my nano ships. The list of ships that can kill my nano ship... happen to take the same amount of training and time it took me to get it.
If you want to stop a T2 cruiser with ANYTHING not T2, then your delusional unless I screw up when Im flying it. [PANIC] |
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 01:30:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Lucias Trask
Originally by: Franga
Originally by: Lucias Trask 1) Killing Vagas/All nano ships. -Use a Rapier/Huginn to slow it down. -Use a Curse to suck its cap dry, cant go MWD with no cap. -get a few interceptors on it (Crows are really fast) using a falcon to jam it, and slow it down, then blow it up.
Yes, yes. To fix the problems, just train a certain ship. Exactly what a 'sandbox' game should do, force you down a certain path. Genius.
Pay attention closely because this is complicated.
I trained a long time to get my nano ship as fast as it is. I spend upwards of 300mil on each of my nano ships. The list of ships that can kill my nano ship... happen to take the same amount of training and time it took me to get it.
If you want to stop a T2 cruiser with ANYTHING not T2, then your delusional unless I screw up when Im flying it.
|
Parsival
The Avalon Foundation Delta.Green
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 03:17:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Reash We have actually have developed a very sucessful stratagy for killing nano cruisers...but again, doesnt make them balanced.
But as with all nano killing stratgy's i can think of, ours requires the use of specific ships with specific bonus's...and that is the problem.
How inconveniant to be required to use alternative tactics and (shock horror!) change your fittings occasionally
|
Astria Tiphareth
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 11:37:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 26/06/2008 11:42:34 Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 26/06/2008 11:39:11 Supporting for examination. I don't want a complete reduction as some are advocating, I'd like some proper thought as to the problem and solution. Goumindong & Marcus Gideon have put forward some interesting notions from which something could be spun.
People are busy arguing about 0.0 causing nano-ships. Well sure, and if nano-ships only worked in 0.0 this would be ok. Trouble is they work everywhere else too, where the counters that people propose often are not as simple to muster.
Finally, whilst there is some credence to the notion that 'your insured 20M Raven shouldn't be able to kill my 250M uninsured Vaga' this isn't really valid logic, given CCP's continual statement 'new players should be just as capable as old players'. New players lack cash and SP, and therefore arguing that the only counter to nano's is to get out of PvP until you've trained & earned more is not a valid one.
(tongue-in-cheek) Either that, or we get the truth out, which is that older players are vastly more effective and there's no point in PvP and everyone less than a year old should just get back to high-sec NPC corps and stop wasting time and giving free kills away
Originally by: Lucias Trask If you want to stop a T2 cruiser with ANYTHING not T2, then your delusional unless I screw up when Im flying it.
I think this proves the entire point of the need for a re-balance. Since when has anyone ever tried to argue that nothing but a carrier can kill a carrier, or a battleship kill a battleship? Next we'll be arguing that frigates must not be able to kill titans ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
Reash
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 11:54:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Parsival
Originally by: Reash We have actually have developed a very sucessful stratagy for killing nano cruisers...but again, doesnt make them balanced.
But as with all nano killing stratgy's i can think of, ours requires the use of specific ships with specific bonus's...and that is the problem.
How inconveniant to be required to use alternative tactics and (shock horror!) change your fittings occasionally
Thats the point i suppose, catching nanos does not require a change of fittings...it requires a change of ship to a limited selection that are sucessful only because they have a specific bonus. -----------------------
Auctoritan Syndicate Director
|
Lucias Trask
Shadows of the Dead Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 12:02:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 26/06/2008 11:42:34
Originally by: Lucias Trask If you want to stop a T2 cruiser with ANYTHING not T2, then your delusional unless I screw up when Im flying it.
I think this proves the entire point of the need for a re-balance. Since when has anyone ever tried to argue that nothing but a carrier can kill a carrier, or a battleship kill a battleship? Next we'll be arguing that frigates must not be able to kill titans
Thats completely flawed. Should my crappy noob ship be able to take a battleship? Can ONE battle ship take on and kill a carrier? Then why should it be that way with nano ships?
All I am saying is it is pretty easy to stop them, a decent interceptor pilot can stop nanos real fast, intys take what.... 3 months to get into from the day you start playing the game? But should your T1 destroyer be able to stop me? No. Should your big slow BS be able to kill me every time I show up? No.
Just because it takes a certain type of ship to stop a nano, doesn't mean its broken. It means you have to train a certain type of ship. Wow.. imagine that. You dont have an I WIN button against my nano but either have to use tactics, a few certain ships, or just accept that I will be able to escape.
[PANIC] |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 12:11:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Lucias Trask
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 26/06/2008 11:42:34
Originally by: Lucias Trask If you want to stop a T2 cruiser with ANYTHING not T2, then your delusional unless I screw up when Im flying it.
I think this proves the entire point of the need for a re-balance. Since when has anyone ever tried to argue that nothing but a carrier can kill a carrier, or a battleship kill a battleship? Next we'll be arguing that frigates must not be able to kill titans
Thats completely flawed. Should my crappy noob ship be able to take a battleship? Can ONE battle ship take on and kill a carrier? Then why should it be that way with nano ships?
All I am saying is it is pretty easy to stop them, a decent interceptor pilot can stop nanos real fast, intys take what.... 3 months to get into from the day you start playing the game? But should your T1 destroyer be able to stop me? No. Should your big slow BS be able to kill me every time I show up? No.
Just because it takes a certain type of ship to stop a nano, doesn't mean its broken. It means you have to train a certain type of ship. Wow.. imagine that. You dont have an I WIN button against my nano but either have to use tactics, a few certain ships, or just accept that I will be able to escape.
Actually no an interceptor pilot has very little chance of catching them unless they to also nano setup. Which you'll find if you do that your inty goes pop pretty quick.
It's a simple fix really. Change the agility mod and force larger ships to take MUCH longer to accelerate and then change the mod on webs so that larger ships slow down that much faster.
Then your little ships can still coast out of web range everynow and then like intended, and your larger nano BS and HAC nanos, etc.. have a much harder time escaping a good web. |
Astria Tiphareth
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 12:20:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Lucias Trask Thats completely flawed. Should my crappy noob ship be able to take a battleship? Can ONE battle ship take on and kill a carrier? Then why should it be that way with nano ships?
On the contrary - my retort to your original flawed logic was perfectly fine. You're now changing your tune that it's all about 1vs1, which is not the point at all.
It remains the case that for virtually every ship in existence, a group of other lesser ships can go take that ship down. It rarely matters what ships those are, just as long as you bring enough. Such fights when committed to are decided prior to actual combat by fittings and numbers and skill. Nanoships by comparison turn this on its head, allowing the pilot to dictate what engagements they fight, and to run away from those that are unfavourable; conversely anti-nano gangs must set up specifically for them, with specific skills and setups, and may even find themselves at a disadvantage because of it.
CCP stated their reasons for changing the WCS restrictions as wanting pilots to commit to fights. It seems reasonable to continue this line of thought rather than have a double standard - or will you argue that only the rich and old should be able to not commit to fights?
Put simply, whilst I empathise with the notion that says you've spent time and money on your nanoship, that is not a valid argument. If it were, we could go back to WoW and have levels, where time spent in the game determines how effective you are at combat. I don't think that that is healthy for EVE. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
Nephilim Xeno
Pimebeka Mining Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 12:31:00 -
[108]
/signed
|
Sariyah
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 12:58:00 -
[109]
Woot, a nerf nano thread. How unusual.
|
Lucias Trask
Shadows of the Dead Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 04:08:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Originally by: Lucias Trask Thats completely flawed. Should my crappy noob ship be able to take a battleship? Can ONE battle ship take on and kill a carrier? Then why should it be that way with nano ships?
On the contrary - my retort to your original flawed logic was perfectly fine. You're now changing your tune that it's all about 1vs1, which is not the point at all.
It remains the case that for virtually every ship in existence, a group of other lesser ships can go take that ship down. It rarely matters what ships those are, just as long as you bring enough. Such fights when committed to are decided prior to actual combat by fittings and numbers and skill. Nanoships by comparison turn this on its head, allowing the pilot to dictate what engagements they fight, and to run away from those that are unfavourable; conversely anti-nano gangs must set up specifically for them, with specific skills and setups, and may even find themselves at a disadvantage because of it.
CCP stated their reasons for changing the WCS restrictions as wanting pilots to commit to fights. It seems reasonable to continue this line of thought rather than have a double standard - or will you argue that only the rich and old should be able to not commit to fights?
Put simply, whilst I empathise with the notion that says you've spent time and money on your nanoship, that is not a valid argument. If it were, we could go back to WoW and have levels, where time spent in the game determines how effective you are at combat. I don't think that that is healthy for EVE.
So what you are3 really saying is that you should be able to kill my nano ship.
Thats what this boils down to.,
You think an escape tactic is flawed. That a ship fast enough to outrun a bunch of 'lesser ships' should not be allowed to persist.
Regardless, anyone who armor tanks an interceptor needs to learn how to fly them, anyone who tries to shield tank an inty needs to learn how to fly them. THEY ONLY NANO! Thats all intys do, thats what they are designed for. Howe do you NOT fit 4xOD2 on an interceptor? My inty with gang bonuses and no implants goes about 9k. WAY faster than any non-billion isk Vaga. (Billion including snakes across the boards.. which for high end snakes is a whole lot more).
I understand its aggravating to not be able to catch and kill a solo or small gang of ships. But thats why we build them that way.
There are counters, yes they require tech 2 ships. I see nothing wrong with it. When Vagas get away from me I say 'Damn.. should have caught that fool' I dont start screaming 'NERF NANO SHIPS!!!' [PANIC] |
|
Tenuo
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 07:56:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 07:58:33 Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 07:58:20 Nanos, ******* invincible:
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7401 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7400 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7354 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7280 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7257 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7133 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7106 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7068 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=engagement&kill=7068 (3 ruptures v nano Ishtar, Vagabond, Stabber and hawk)
this doesn't help the whiners argument ANY bit when Garmon flies around in his Rupture solo murdering Nano hacs or doing it with 1-2 other t1 cruisers or that he kills rapiers with 3 frigs.
Also, speed tanking imbalanced? I don't think so:
Pulses
Rails
ACs
I hope these graphs tell the whole story.
If you deny this, if you deny these HARD FACTS and numbers and the abundance of killmails then I think you are an idiot _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Nathan West
Cataclysm Enterprises HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 09:40:00 -
[112]
and what do you think will the nanopilot do when he relizes hes getting hit for any significant amount of damage? hes going to get out of range. Its not about how to damage nanos, most times even drones can hit them but you cant hold em down. Even a overheated domination web only has a range of 19.5 km. And if you neut them they can still use the remaining time of their mwd cycle to gain range. At the present state you need a combination of ships or rapier/huginn to take down solo nanos. If you want to fight a nano gang you will need a significant higher amount of non nanoships to be able to kill them -> blob
|
coeathal vega
Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 09:47:00 -
[113]
not supported. nanos are not invincible, unless the pilot is a total idiot.
the amount of training and isk spent on those ships should be rewarded with higher survivability. nano is fine, learn to counter it.
Oh, and yeah, your PVE drake will not be good for it. ----
|
Akiba Penrose
Minmatar PAK
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 10:04:00 -
[114]
Not suppoorted. Imo nano ships is working as intended and are not invulnerable. - - Falcons |
Tenuo
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 11:42:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 11:42:30
Originally by: Nathan West and what do you think will the nanopilot do when he relizes hes getting hit for any significant amount of damage? hes going to get out of range. Its not about how to damage nanos, most times even drones can hit them but you cant hold em down. Even a overheated domination web only has a range of 19.5 km. And if you neut them they can still use the remaining time of their mwd cycle to gain range. At the present state you need a combination of ships or rapier/huginn to take down solo nanos. If you want to fight a nano gang you will need a significant higher amount of non nanoships to be able to kill them -> blob
Fit a neut to your BS. Wait for them to turn it off (they will due to cap), then neut them, watch them sit as dead ducks with no cap, no speed, no nothing. Then mwd to the in a battleship and web them and kill them in 10-15 secs.
Also note above killmails, nano upon nano killed by a rupture.
a rupture
yes, those 6mill t1 cruisers. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Haverloth
1st Praetorian Guard Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 12:01:00 -
[116]
I generally agree with this. As others have said, it's a very complicated topic intertwined with a number of other things but leavings things as they are render small-gang warfare to be very difficult. Any interceptor who can catch up with a nano to tackle will usually be taken down in a few shots, well before the rest of the fleet has a chance to catch up. ____________________
http://1pg.vigilia-valeria.org http://www.amarr-empire.net |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 13:46:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 27/06/2008 13:46:44 Not signed.
Few days ago we took 3 plated BCs (Brutix, Myrmi, Harbi) and an Arazu into LowSec to look around. Came up against a nano-Rapier, nano-curse and a Falcon. We disengaged, unwilling risk the Arazu to counter the Falcon.
When we left the Rapier was in deep armor and struggling with 2 webs and 2 scrams on it. The Myrmi was running low on cap charges thanks to the Curse or we would have stayed.
Our blaster Brutix couldn't get into effective range and the Myrmi was perma-jammed so didn't get its drones (T2 hammers and warriors) into play but my Harbi was having no problems at all ripping into the rapier even before we got the web on it (overheated MWD ftw). If we weren't such carebears and made the conscious decision to leave I would have had that ship.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
Zaruda
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 14:05:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Jade Constantine They are simply a symptom of a specifically broken play environment and that is the thing that needs fixing.
Couldn't agree more with that statement applied on even a more general scale. |
Dallarra
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 18:16:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Dallarra on 27/06/2008 18:16:52 I dont fly a nano ship but I also do not support this Idea there are plenty of affective ways to counter a nano ship yes you have to make a dessision to fly that type of ship instead of another but isnt that what this game is about. Choices. if you nerf everything you dont like eventually everyone will be flying ONE type of ship and one setup because that is the only way the game will be 100% fair. leave the nanos as they are and get over it.
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 13:47:00 -
[120]
Originally by: coeathal vega nanos are not invincible, unless the pilot is a total idiot.
prooving that nano pilots are total idiots. i guess reikoku made you more stupid than me ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
|
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 15:01:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Thirzarr
* Remove 20km scramblers.
This sounds like a simple solution. Then who cares if the Vaga goes 6km a second. It cannot hold down the target and has to get very close to kill it.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 15:56:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Gragnor
Originally by: Thirzarr
* Remove 20km scramblers.
This sounds like a simple solution. Then who cares if the Vaga goes 6km a second. It cannot hold down the target and has to get very close to kill it.
Bye bye interceptors.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:19:00 -
[123]
Absolutely not signed. And you could have used the other 1000 threads on it, including ones in this forum.
The only "imbalanced" nanos are the pimped ones with snakes and poly-carbs; the only alteration that needs to be made is there. CCP has already given plenty of tools to deal with them, use them. Your refusal to do so is no different than my refusal to put a tank on my ship when I go into combat. Guess what? I'm not whining that a BS can easily destroy my Ibis with its cargo expanders
Originally by: Goumindong
Ahh yes, the "guys guys, nano ships are fine, just fly nano-ships as a counter!" defense.
Hey! Its Mr. "A Plated Rapier with an AB is still a nano"! Nice to see you are still so fixated on this issue you're still spouting garbage.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
Voculus
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 20:54:00 -
[124]
_________________________________________________________
|
Sydonis
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 01:25:00 -
[125]
/signed
I remember all too clearly the complaints from CCP about super-fast speed modded Raxes using twin BS class MWDs that would only run for a while before running out of cap... this lead to the nerfing on MWD and the "only one burner/MWD per ship" rule.
To me, 13km/s is far too fast... it needs to be dropped a bit.
Solution to me would be to remove snake implants and any other implant that gives a bonus to speed, for one thing. Looking at adjusting the stacking penalties for nanos may be another to encourage less extreme modifications.
|
Mighty Ahti
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 03:03:00 -
[126]
The biggest issue I see with nano's is that they kill the tank OR gank idealism of most of the ships. Many ships are fit solely for one of those roles, and a nano doesn't need to fit a tank since it's speed is its tank, and the gank can be fitted in there also.
Since their tank is their speed they don't need to use up all their lows fitting an effective armor tank (and shield tankers have it easier). 3 OD's and a nano is usually the best you can do with polycarbs fit, the rest just becomes unhelpful. That often leaves space for 1-2 damage mods which don't usually get fit on a fully tanked ship.
|
Bodo Bass
Minmatar Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 10:56:00 -
[127]
it's whines like these that are killing the game
- nerf this - nerf that - minnie is crap cause of .... - amarr is crap cause of ....
Eve is a hard game with a steep learning curve, learn to deal with it.
ECM boats, damp em or get close on them Neut boats, stay out of their neuting range Nano's, web em
All these stupid whines killed the damp effectivness, ruined nanophoons and so on. It's time you learn to play the game as it is supposed to be played instead of whining. If it's too hard go and play WoW, at least that way the lag in Jita will lessen
|
Merfio
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 11:07:00 -
[128]
I support this idea. Either the nanos should be nerferd or the should be more counters to it. Sitting in a Neut-BS is another Fake-Solution.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 11:48:00 -
[129]
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.
So? Say your enemy does a capital hotdrop. That means he's just put at risk a lot of assets and manpower. What's wrong with them gaining the upper edge with it? What prevent you from having your own cap fleet in reserve to do a counter hotdrop?
Above all, what twisted logic make you think that if you're not willing/able to put as many players and isks on the line, you still should be immune to losing a fight against those who do?
How do you kill a nano ship? I'm not speaking about driving it away, but actually preventing from running. It require either a huginn/rapier that is nanoed itself, and as such just as overpowered than any other nano ship, or several people. Simple logic say nano fits ENCOURAGE blobing, not the contrary.
Quote:
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.
Explain this to me:
An alliance is willing to put all the stops to answer a threat (massive mobilisation), has a strongly fortified position (bubbles, cyno-jammers), is willing to put at risk the expensive toys (cap ships).
And you dare suggest they shouldn't be able to have an effective defense?
No defense is 100% effective. You can still penetrate one such like that with interceptors, cloakers, destroyers and the like. Use those, or use brute strength and get your own BS fleet with capital support, instead of wanting what is, for all intends and purposes, an interceptor with 9k half-hardened shields and 300 to 500 dps. ------------------------------------------
|
ceyriot
Entropians on Vacation
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 12:15:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Kasheem Cetanes If you Nerf Nano, you Nerf Minmatar into uselessness. End of Story. Next?
dis.
Faction Store - Killboard |
|
nathaniel flanders
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 12:29:00 -
[131]
I am against a general nano nerf, but if nanos are the only countermeasure vs. nanos, countermeasures should be looked at imho.
|
Bodo Bass
Minmatar Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 15:05:00 -
[132]
Originally by: nathaniel flanders I am against a general nano nerf, but if nanos are the only countermeasure vs. nanos, countermeasures should be looked at imho.
The game already offers all countermeasures
- neut ships with ranges up to 60 - 70 km if you have the right setup, skills and support ships present - rapiers with webbing range over 100 km with the right setup, skills and support - counter nano's
and don't tell me neut ranges of 60 km or web ranges over 100km are impossible. I do them daily. If it's impossible than you are 1) fitting your ship wrong 2) not skilled enough yet 3) lacking a significant gang boost 4) missing an important ship in your gang
The game has all it needs to counter nano gangs, people are just too much focused on speed, raw dps and KM whoring instead of thinking about the survival of their gang
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:40:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Mighty Ahti The biggest issue I see with nano's is that they kill the tank OR gank idealism of most of the ships.
And that is exactly why nanos/speed fits need to be in the game; variety.
Gank is always greater than tank, hence wins. But against nanos you need your tank otherwise their pitiful DPS will wear you down. And your "Gank" setups can't track or reach them, you need to "compromise" your fittings to kill them.
That is the real reason these whines even exist. To effectively counter speed fitted ships you have to deploy smaller, faster drones, lighter missiles and smaller, fast-tracking guns. You have now severely hurt your "gank" ability, leaving you less likely to be able to kill a tank ship or out-dps a gank ship.
Speed fits are the 3rd part of the rock-paper-scissors game. Their presense actually rewards tank ships as they can't break them and tanked ships can fit lighter armaments because the stuff doesn't take as much grid. They are the bane of gank ships because those ships sacrifice tank and are actually potentially in danger to the nano's weaker dps, but the high-damage guns can't track them/missiles can't hurt them.
At the end of the day you either fit to kill nanos or you fit to kill gank/tank. Chose the wrong one and you are likely dead. Chose the right one and the enemy is thwarted. And if more people fit to counter nanos, there would be fewer out there.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
Jim Raynor
Shinra Shinra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:03:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Jim Raynor on 07/07/2008 18:04:26 Ships in eve need to slow down, current speed stacking is netting ships that are way too fast. Interceptors have lost their role due to the power of nano-cruisers. It's very much imbalanced.
CCP. Why did you nerf oversized afterburners, dual mwds, ect ect? It made ships too fast. You nerfed all of this stuff in the past because it broke the game mechanics, so why are you allowing these setups to ruin your game?
Nanos are the new WCS but worse since they help you offensively and defensively, and keep you in the fight, unlike WCS which only allowed people to flee combat. Nanos let you flee, engage, fight, disengage, and avoid damage.
The counters to nanos are either impractical or ineffective. Good nano pilots can avoid them easily.
So I support you Wrayeth, even if the masses won't. No one wants to lose their precious nanopwnmobiles I guess.. wuteva. I've trained up to fly nanopwnmobiles myself and I still wouldn't cry if CCP swung the nerf back right into my Vagabonds face. ------ I'll make a sig later. |
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 20:45:00 -
[135]
I agree. Nano's ruin the game. Time for another nerf. With rigs, boosters, gang mods, and implants... nano's are insanely overpowered. Add to that the new overload and heat... and please! Stop the madness. It's not about tactics, counters, its about the clear and dominate overpower and imbalance speed tanks have over all over tanking.
If you want a universe of speed, then go play Need For Speed. Eve is far bigger, and the path its going down is a sad sad one. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Little Fistter
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:54:00 -
[136]
Edited by: Little Fistter on 07/07/2008 21:54:53 Imagine if you could get 99% resistances by stacking enough modules. It would make you immune to damage. Common sense says we should never reduce the window of vulnerability to less than maybe 10 percent, and the game elegantly provides for this.
No combination of plates, resistance mods, ship bonuses or implants can effectively give you 90% or better resistances... and that's a good thing.
Now the problem with speed is the mods are additive and not factorial. In other words, there is no "100 percent" limit.
Because of this, speed is out of balance and frankly, is an exploit of the mechanics.
The solution is not to nerf anything, but to rebalance. Maybe there should be a recriprocal detriment of some critical factor (Sig Radius?) to compensate.
The Devs should rebalance (but not a full nerf!) the system. Suggestion: Please color jump gates the same color as the system security rating of the destination system in the overview.
LITTLE FISTTER
Broken Sigs?
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Celestial Apocalypse The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 01:05:00 -
[137]
Not supported. Not supported. Not supported.
Enough already. Damn.
Where is friggin thumbs down already.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 10:38:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Bodo Bass
The game has all it needs to counter nano gangs, people are just too much focused on speed, raw dps and KM whoring instead of thinking about the survival of their gang
This.
|
Amoun Ra
Caldari Assault Fleet
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 11:32:00 -
[139]
Nerf nanos or boost webber ranges or imporove turret tracking and explosion velocity of heavy missiles i don't care as long as this nano craze is tuned down a bit.
Or make each race have a specialized ship for catching nanos.
As far as i can see nanos might be the only solution to avoid capital hot drops and bubbles in 0.0 but eve is not 0.0 only and in low sec and empire, nanos are ruining the game. We are not talking about a nano ship versus a blob we are talking about a nano ship versus another ship or a group of nano ships versus a similar group of non nano ships and whats worse is even if the non nano ships have the means to do damage the nano ships can simply run away.
I support this notion.
|
Dihania
Gallente Mucho Dolor
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 12:58:00 -
[140]
Sorry but not supporting this.
. EVE: "The Hand-holding Age". I need isk!Accepting donations. Renting sig space.Taking various jobs. |
|
Krall Junior
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 13:29:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Amoun Ra Nerf nanos or boost webber ranges or imporove turret tracking and
Have to agree on the tracking thing for turrets on the other hand what boost you need for your webs when a rapier can web between 50km and 245km
|
Zarch AlDain
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 14:55:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Farrqua
Originally by: Hegotu Alecto id say no, there are already counters to nanos, take my raven its an anti-nano*** battleship. my cruise missiles speed is just over 9000km/s with a 30 second flight time, thats the equivalent to 250km+, they come near me and in a few salvos there dead, especially vagabonds, and running dont help them as my missiles are generally faster than they are and including most inties except the real good ones (though they are nightmares to kill).
most gangs tend to have a few huginns/rapiers with them and the cost is huge, my nano vaga cost me a whopping 250m isk to fit minimum. the ship = 80-90m t2 nanos are a few million each overdrives 1.5 i think the rigs are 50-60 EACH (polycarbons) guns tend to be around 2-3m fits in general ur speaking 10-15 million.
Yep.
Cerb pilot, Hvy missiles betweem 9000 - 9700 mps. 218- 220 kms max range.
Most Vaga pilots would be hard pressed to get the hell out of the way or those things. No tracking issues and hard as hell to speed tank. and there you go.
Do you people actually know ANYTHING about game mechanics?
Look up the explosion velocity on cruise and heavy missile sometimes.
Even a Precision cruise fired from a golem (which has an explosion velocity bonus) and explosion velocity rigs will not do any significent damage to nano ships. Work out the explosion velocity on it.
Precision heavy missiles are actually worse than precision cruise!
The only thing that even has a chance is precision light missiles, and that's not much of a chance.
Zarch AlDain ---- My corp is recruiting. See the recruitment thread here.
|
Reza Pluss
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 16:35:00 -
[143]
New midslot module:
Missile MWD Launcher. Creates a MWD field around launchers giving a massive boost to their speed at launch. Available in small, medium and large sizes. Affects capacitor the same as a MWD, with the same CPU and grid requirements.
Alternatively (or additionally): Change Nanofibers and Overdrives to be ship-size specific, with smaller ships gaining a larger bonus to speed or weight reduction.
Keep the sandbox, keep the flexibility.
|
Amoun Ra
Caldari Caldari Assault Fleet
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:05:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Krall Junior
Originally by: Amoun Ra Nerf nanos or boost webber ranges or imporove turret tracking and
Have to agree on the tracking thing for turrets on the other hand what boost you need for your webs when a rapier can web between 50km and 245km
Sorry i don't fly minmatar ships and tbh i don't think i am interested to fly them for a while. Does this mean i am screwed in eve
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:24:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Shadowsword So? Say your enemy does a capital hotdrop. That means he's just put at risk a lot of assets and manpower. What's wrong with them gaining the upper edge with it? What prevent you from having your own cap fleet in reserve to do a counter hotdrop?
Cyno Jammers.
Quote: Above all, what twisted logic make you think that if you're not willing/able to put as many players and isks on the line, you still should be immune to losing a fight against those who do?
Game play. Its not about immunity its about options. And forcing people to auto-die to superior numbers 100% of the time is simply not good play and will do nothing for the future health and success of eve online.
Quote: How do you kill a nano ship? I'm not speaking about driving it away, but actually preventing from running. It require either a huginn/rapier that is nanoed itself, and as such just as overpowered than any other nano ship, or several people. Simple logic say nano fits ENCOURAGE blobing, not the contrary.
Many people have told you how to kill nano ships in this and other threads. But since you are arguing from the fixed territorial debate actually "killing" these ships is irrelevant to you. They can't threaten your infrastructure. Why are you worried? And if its just that you want more kill mails to be harvested by your overwhelming defense trap then I'm not going to be sympathetic. Skirmish warfare is important for eve and the game begins to die when larger forces AUTOMATICALLY kill smaller forces.
Quote: Explain this to me: An alliance is willing to put all the stops to answer a threat (massive mobilisation), has a strongly fortified position (bubbles, cyno-jammers), is willing to put at risk the expensive toys (cap ships). And you dare suggest they shouldn't be able to have an effective defense?
They have a near 100% effective defense on their fixed assets. That isn't the same as automatically killing everything any other player might bring on a roving patrol. If the opposition ops to skirmish its going to do well against an enemy in a fixed defensive line. Thats warfare and its good that eve represents this.
Quote: No defense is 100% effective. You can still penetrate one such like that with interceptors, cloakers, destroyers and the like. Use those, or use brute strength and get your own BS fleet with capital support ...
No capital support. Only the defender has that - remember those cyno jammer things right?
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 20:21:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Game play. Its not about immunity its about options. And forcing people to auto-die to superior numbers 100% of the time is simply not good play and will do nothing for the future health and success of eve online.
Sometimes I wonder how you got in that 'chair'. First of all, superior numbers is just that, SUPERIOR. Second, obtaining numbers is an out-of-game task. In other words, there's no mod or bonus that will increase player numbers... and why do numbers play a role to kill shield/armor tanks more efficiently, yet speed tanks are far superior against numbers?
You have a mindset about the little nano guy who wants to solo own a dozen ships and be immune to dying. Sorry, but I think you are a hypocrite. You want something for one side, but yet are opposed to the changes to your side. You say its out tactics that need adapting, when there should be a nerf to your tactics, because you shouldn't be flying around freely among a dozen hostile ships. Period. If you want to solo roam, then go against solo ships... adapt YOUR play style, why should we all adapt ours?
The future of Eve is NOT speed and immunities to nanoweenies. Once you see that, you'll realize the direction this game should not be heading. If we all have to fly nano's or nano counters, then that is a FAR more unhealthy environment than the latter.
Quote: They can't threaten your infrastructure. Why are you worried? And if its just that you want more kill mails to be harvested by your overwhelming defense trap then I'm not going to be sympathetic. Skirmish warfare is important for eve and the game begins to die when larger forces AUTOMATICALLY kill smaller forces.
No, they game IS dying when larger forces can't kill a single immune nano ship. If you claim they don't threaten any infrastructure, then once again you are naive. Nano's threaten a lot! For the sole fact they can pick and choose targets at will. The problem with that is when you do bring a force, they can't be caught. Thus, its a problem. They have far too much freedom of gameplay, while 95% of all other ships have to deal with the same circumstances.
Once again Jade, you solve nothing but manage to spin words and scenarios that are far fetched and lack luster at best. Why are nano's ships the most used pvp ship in all of Eve? Is it because the rest of Eve is too stupid to counter them? Or, is it because they are simply overpowered? If you value your seat, I hope to God you don't call the rest of Eve stupid. You know damn well the only ones for nano's are the bulks of nanoweenies already flying them. I guess the rest of Eve just isn't skilled or smart enough to kill them. Oh great one. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 20:42:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus Sometimes I wonder how you got in that 'chair'.
By actually having an opinion based on fact, experience and general non-failure. Unlike you.
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
First of all, superior numbers is just that, SUPERIOR. Second, obtaining numbers is an out-of-game task. In other words, there's no mod or bonus that will increase player numbers...
So that should mean that in a game, it should simply come down to the fact you can call your friends? join a super large block of players to feel safe from your own failures?
Nano is fine, people who fail are not fine, plenty of tactics, you must use your brain and not expect to be able to undock 400 of your closest friends just because 10 or so nano's come to your home system, blow up your isk making ravens, pee on your door step and take off because you have brought 150 drakes, 50 caracals, 50 Blackbirds, 2 rapiers, and a ton of T1 frigates.
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 21:37:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
So that should mean that in a game, it should simply come down to the fact you can call your friends? join a super large block of players to feel safe from your own failures?
Nano is fine, people who fail are not fine, plenty of tactics, you must use your brain and not expect to be able to undock 400 of your closest friends just because 10 or so nano's come to your home system, blow up your isk making ravens, pee on your door step and take off because you have brought 150 drakes, 50 caracals, 50 Blackbirds, 2 rapiers, and a ton of T1 frigates.
And you are basing that off facts? ROFL. You have more to learn if you think nano's are balanced in line with other tanks. There's a reason why the majority fly nano's... cuz they are overpowered and easily used to engage and/or run at will. No other ship has that tactic along with the best tank in the game. I suggest you re-examine yourself before another unrealistic post. Your idea of Eve is flawed greatly... its kinda like you don't even play. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 22:16:00 -
[149]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 08/07/2008 22:24:10
Originally by: Pithecanthropus And you are basing that off facts? ROFL. You have more to learn if you think nano's are balanced in line with other tanks. There's a reason why the majority fly nano's... cuz they are overpowered and easily used to engage and/or run at will. No other ship has that tactic along with the best tank in the game. I suggest you re-examine yourself before another unrealistic post. Your idea of Eve is flawed greatly... its kinda like you don't even play.
People fly nano's because they are prepared to invest their skillpoints, isk, fittings and general play skill against superior numbers of inferior opponents with cookie-cutter setups is the harsh truth of it. If you are comparing nano-ships with non-nano-ships as two different grades of "tank" you are completely missing the point.
A nano-ship is akin to a historical horse-archer. Very well trained, very well equipped, the horse-archer is a supreme skirmish combatant that is literally unkillable by inexperienced levies standing in a shield line or holding makeshift pipes and desperately wanting to return to their village before the harvest is in. Is this balanced? Well sure, since a nano-ship costs more than a tech2 fitted battleship at the entry level and dies like any other target if its held into the press and slaughtered. But thats not the kind of "balance" you mean is it? What you'd like is for the auto-blob to always win by pure weight of numbers and whoever has the biggest talentless levy gets to hold the field. Real warfare isn't like that historically, in the present day, or at any time in history outside of the appalling fiascos of WW1 france.
And see while a guy like you is whinging on the forums about "how unfair it is" that nanos get to play a skirmish role on the Eve battlefield. I've been there, done it, got the teashirt, played nano's, played against nano's. I've developed particular strategies to use and oppose these things and played a part in some excellent battles involving nano-elements on our and the opposition side.
Case in point. Couple of months ago we (SF) deployed alongside Cry Havoc in a POS takedown / capital ship bait operation. The plan was that we'd bait the enemy with a few remote repping carriers, have our element (SF provided a large number of RR battleships for anti cap work) engage the cap fleet the bad guys brought - then Cry Havoc would drop the hammer with interdictors and dreadnaughts. (All this danger close at an enemy deathstar POS). So the plan rolled out and it started fantastically - we got the bait down right and the enemy dropped their capital fleet into our midst and we got busy killing. Killboards show I think we downed 8/9 caps and completed routed the enemy. Then Pandemic Legion turned up as a third force with a nano-gang and came in attacking both sides and skirmishing like absolute pros.
For the next 60 minutes we had a fascinating game of cat and mouse as the war ideologies clashed. Pandemic were obviously completely outgunned. We had around 30 RR battleships with around 15 cap ships. But we were still taking losses. Every time somebody broke ranks, warped to the wrong point, drifted out of RR range they died. We shot down some Pandemic ships sure, but the battle continued and it was the classic confrontation of a heavy shield line vs elite irregular skirmishers. And I tell you what, some people on our side still cursed "damn nanos" but the commanders just watched a team of professional horse-archers deploying bait and lure, traps with interdictor bubbles, using their own discipline to punish all lapses on ours. And it was a masterclass in the form seeing it from the other end for a change and I feel privileged to play the same game as some of those skilled pilots and battlefield tacticians we faced.
Result? We "won" of course, meaning we held the field and accomplished our objectives. But they "won" in terms of casualties and kills inflicted and pure "fun" had by all.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 22:21:00 -
[150]
You ask how I won this chair Pithecanthropus?
I'm guessing its because I've got experience in spades and know more sides of this game that you are capable of understanding with your penchant for complaint at every least upset and your patent inability to understand that variety is the spice of life AND eve and not everybody plays this glorious political space battle simulator to stand in neat rows at the stargates with the other drones. Some of us are born to shine and stand out from the crowd and we like our 200m isk HACs that let us fight 10 to 1 odds and play on skill and talent and inspired leadership rather than simply watching the lag bombs and mindlessly clicking F1-F8 while talking smack on the forums.
You are very free to "roleplay" a barely trained militiaman holding a pike and wetting himself at the sound of our hooves Pithecanthropus.
Me, I'll take the horse-archer role every day and enjoy shooting you in the throat while your comrades look on with terror and disbelief.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
|
Maus Bailey
International House of PWNCakes Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 23:12:00 -
[151]
Quote: I'll take the horse-archer role every day
Horse archers had their day ruined by rain.
Doesn't seem to rain here much.
In closing, you're a tremendous idiot. |
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 23:18:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
People fly nano's because they are prepared to invest their skillpoints, isk, fittings and general play skill against superior numbers of inferior opponents with cookie-cutter setups is the harsh truth of it. If you are comparing nano-ships with non-nano-ships as two different grades of "tank" you are completely missing the point.
Congrats on your page os wishy-washy text, but this is all I read... and I'm still laughing at it. Like you, oh great one, know exactly why people fly nanos. Claiming "the harsh truth", when in reality nano's are the cookie cutter standard of pvp. I recommend you hit the reset button on your Eve game and try again.
And it is valid to compare speedtank, armor tank, and shield tank... as they all exist for one purpose... absorb damage. Oh oops, wait... speedtanks do more. I forget that a lot.
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 23:20:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Maus Bailey
Quote: I'll take the horse-archer role every day
Horse archers had their day ruined by rain. Doesn't seem to rain here much.
In context I guess rain = lag. Since both can kill archers.
Quote: In closing, you're a tremendous idiot.
And yet I can debate on the internet without puerile name-calling. Funny that.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 23:42:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I'm guessing its because I've got experience and love for this game in spades and know more sides of Eve conflict that you are capable of understanding with your penchant for complaint at every least upset and your patent inability to understand that variety is the spice of life AND eve and that not everybody plays this glorious political space battle simulator to stand in neat rows at the stargates with the other drones.
Wow... long sentence, full of colorful yet meaningless words... not to mention flat out assumptions, a selfish ego trip, and lack of Eve knowledge. (1) I've played this game longer than you. (2) That 2003.06.01 doesn't make you worthy of anything if you have a selfish agenda and can't accept the greater good for Eve if it doesn't follow your personal path. (3) Your use of words is a travesty to come from the mouth of someone in your position.
Quote: Some of us are born to shine
So the rest of Eve is just dull in your little world. Sad day to hear that from a CSM.
Quote: and stand out from the crowd and we like our 200m isk HACs that let us fight 10 to 1 odds
That's exactly why nanos are overpowered. You can fight 10 to 1 and still have near zero risk, the best tank, the best evade option, the premier interceptor (in a cruiser?) and ride off waiting for other's to copy your overpowered tactic and turn this game into the most unhealthy form of muppets and their cookie cutter nano ships. Thereby eliminating 95% of other ships to be effective in your world of speed. YES! That's the Eve I want!
Quote: and play on skill and talent and inspired leadership rather than simply watching the lag bombs and mindlessly clicking F1-F8 while talking smack on the forums.
Great, thanks for calling anyone else without a nano pretty much a dweeb. You should really chose your words more wisely, you only dig yourself a grave for your selfish needs.
Quote: Me, I'll take the horse-archer role every day and enjoy shooting you in the throat from the gallop while your comrades look on with terror and disbelief and break and run like the dogs they are.
great, a totally irrelevant metaphor. once again proving you have ONE agenda, and that is to not lose your sweet sweet sound of uber overpowered nano freedom.
btw... a nerf to nanos wouldn't kill the nano. maybe you shouldn't force your nano Eve on everyone and consider how the new nano could adapt. but, why should you adapt? you're the almighty great one. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Wasted Mind
Gallente Syntech Research and Development Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 00:04:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Wasted Mind on 09/07/2008 00:04:47 Edited by: Wasted Mind on 09/07/2008 00:04:17
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Mighty Ahti The biggest issue I see with nano's is that they kill the tank OR gank idealism of most of the ships.
And that is exactly why nanos/speed fits need to be in the game; variety.
Sorry but gotta agree with Mighty on this, atm nano is the do it all wonder. And as far as nano's adding variety i don't agree with that statement at all. I miss the days of giant slug fests with big ships, interceptors and frigs tackling like mad etc. Now your either nano fit, counter nano (which normally involves a couple ships nano fit themselves) and that's about it. There is no variety when most of the gangs you come across these days are nano and that's it.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 00:14:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Wasted Mind Edited by: Wasted Mind on 09/07/2008 00:04:47 Edited by: Wasted Mind on 09/07/2008 00:04:17
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Mighty Ahti The biggest issue I see with nano's is that they kill the tank OR gank idealism of most of the ships.
And that is exactly why nanos/speed fits need to be in the game; variety.
Sorry but gotta agree with Mighty on this, atm nano is the do it all wonder. And as far as nano's adding variety i don't agree with that statement at all. I miss the days of giant slug fests with big ships, interceptors and frigs tackling like mad etc. Now your either nano fit, counter nano (which normally involves a couple ships nano fit themselves) and that's about it. There is no variety when most of the gangs you come across these days are nano and that's it.
Slugfests are easy to find if you want them.
|
Bane Glorious
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 01:00:00 -
[157]
I think it is safe for me to say that CCP has a healthy viewpoint on nanoships that the OP would be comfortable with. Not saying any more than that though.
Here's a thumbs up for you anyway, sonny. |
Dirtee Girl
Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 04:36:00 -
[158]
nanos have many weaknesses i encourage players to explore all their option before calling this a lost cause .
because this argument simply implys that players should drop risky dangerous fittings for safer slower fittings .
nanos are risky and dangerous they allow fast escapes but at the expense of true tanking and firepower the nano ship comes pre nerfed .
nanoships simply are for people who like fast and deadly combat by saying nerf it you asking ccp to alienate a sizable portion of the community and a entire race of ships to satisfy the frankly unskilled and unimaginative people out there pvp is about combat and tactics not spider tanking and blobbing
*
* |
MirrorGod
Heretic Militia
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 04:40:00 -
[159]
TO quote DubanFP:
Quote:
1) Nowhere do you mention the tracking of the firing guns. They are affected by their own transversal too you know. If they can hit you, you can hit them. They will have to slow down to hit you all the same. In fact TRANSVERSAL VELOCITY IS NOT THE REASON PEOPLE NANO AT ALL. You don't even know why people nano yet you complain about them. People nano because it gives them the abillity to disengage from a fight and run at a will. NOT because of an impossible defense. Most speed tanks actually use superior range and falloff to fight rather transversal. So what makes you able to judge them if you don't know why?
2) You mention within 10km which leaves you completely at the mercy of webifiers. No decent nanoship will ever get within 13km. If they do they will be webbed, ganked, and destroyed. Another sign of your ignorance on how speed works.
3) You have never flown a nano-ship. You don't even know how to use one correctly. I can guarentee you will be blown to pieces the first time you try it to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
4) You conveniently ignore the cost involved on nanoships. A cheap nanoship costs at least 150mil to do at all. An average setup will go for 150-250 mil, and the rare vagabond that can go 11km/s will cost billions with implants. Tell me why a fleet of non-dedicated T1 ships should be able to destroy a much more expensive specialized gang build for survival?
5) You also conveniently ignore the counters to them. For example 2 large nuets can crash a nanoship's cap from 25kms. No cap, no nano. And guess what? Fully insured a Nuet battleship will cost 1/4 of even a cheap true nanoship. 1 Huginn with good support can lay waste to multiple nanoships for the cost of a cheap nanoship.
6) Nanoships are actually weak for the cost offensively and to a lesser extent defensively. If a 150 mil nanoship goes up against a 150 mil battleship "most of the cost is covered by insurance" the nanoship will probebly wind up being forced to run. The main difference is the nanoship can run.
7) Use a nanoship before you complain about them. Then you will realize that they are much more fragile then you think, and the reason you get owned repeatedly is probebly due to player skill rather then the speed fit itself.
I'll also make note of the fact that it's extremely easy to kill nanoships. I'll even make a step-by-step guide on how to do it:
1) Name your character "Garmon". 2) ??? 3) Profit!
Recruitment: [ANTI]
|
Inertial
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 09:03:00 -
[160]
Nanoes are fine. Here is a example from the Python Cartels big book of epic battles.
Us: 1 Gank Celestis (Me, 3 Light Neutron IIs, 2x LSE, MWD, 2x Damps, Magstabs and PDUs), 1 Blackbird, 1 Griffin, 1 Arbitrator, 1 Moa.
Them: 1 7km/s Vagabond.
Location: Rancer Pipe, some system on the Hek end, some planet.
Vagabond warps to the planet, and starts running around us at a good distance. I don't warp the gang, because I want to make sure everyone is aligned first. The Vagabond makes a pass at us, I order all the Ewar to be put on it, and people to web it if it comes close. The Vagabond makes its first pass without even being able to lock. We warp off to another planet, the Vagabond follows. The Griffin gets seperated from the gang, Vagabond kills the Griffin. The Vagabond keeps trying to get the gang, but horribly fails, because its tracking distruped, ecmd and damped. Eventually our gang warps off to a gate and jumps out.
Now, this vagabond, which probably cost around 200-250 million, was only able to kill a single t1 frigate worth less than a million. The whole gang put together was maybe worth around 30-40 million. All that was required to avoid it was sticking together, and putting ewar on it.
Nano ships aren't overpowered, you just have to know how to deal with them. If you think a gang of pure Battleships, without any of the counters, f.ex. Heavy Neuts, can kill a ship, that got around 100-150 million isk invested in the ability to run away, you are delusional.
Nano ships got 100-150 million isk, invested soley in the ability to run away. Their offense comes from being able to attack from out of gank and web range. Their defense comes from manuvering and staying at the right distance at the right time, as well as escaping when Schitt hits his only fan.
we are recruiting!
|
|
Dragonzchilde
Minmatar BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 09:11:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Bane Glorious I think it is safe for me to say that CCP has a healthy viewpoint on nanoships that the OP would be comfortable with. Not saying any more than that though.
Here's a thumbs up for you anyway, sonny.
CCP should concentrate on other items first instead of listening to the whines of people that don't know how to fit a decent counternano.
as has been stated numereous times before the game offers enough countertactics. and if you do want to change something at least improve something instead of nerfing things.
Eve is different from other MMPORG as it really demands skilled pilots or organised groups to achieve something. IF you want an easy game go and play Wow instead of the constant nerf this nerf that whine. By joining Wow you'll probably please both games by increasing the average IQ level |
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 09:23:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Shadowsword So? Say your enemy does a capital hotdrop. That means he's just put at risk a lot of assets and manpower. What's wrong with them gaining the upper edge with it? What prevent you from having your own cap fleet in reserve to do a counter hotdrop?
Cyno Jammers.
Right, because you can't roam in a system that doesn't have a cyno jammer, can you? YOU, the attacker, chose where you bring the fight. Don't whine if you have a disavantadge when you do it in the heart of the enemy territory.
For roaming even there adapted ships already exist. Interceptors, interdictors, cloakers, non-nanoed HAS and Recons. But of course, ganking with those ships is a tad harder and more risky than doing it with what amount to 9k assault-resist shielded, 300-500 dps interceptors, isn't it?
Quote:
Quote: Above all, what twisted logic make you think that if you're not willing/able to put as many players and isks on the line, you still should be immune to losing a fight against those who do?
Game play. Its not about immunity its about options. And forcing people to auto-die to superior numbers 100% of the time is simply not good play and will do nothing for the future health and success of eve online.
This logic is so wrong it's mind-boggling. If it is true, then no outnumbered side ever won a fight against a larger foe before nano became largely used. It is the case, right?
If you have the courage of your opinions about "not auto-dying to superior numbers 100% of the time", (read, removing the necessity of commiting to a fight you start) then I expect you to advocate a removal of the warp core stab penalties at the next CSM meeting.
Quote:
Many people have told you how to kill nano ships in this and other threads. But since you are arguing from the fixed territorial debate actually "killing" these ships is irrelevant to you. They can't threaten your infrastructure. Why are you worried? And if its just that you want more kill mails to be harvested by your overwhelming defense trap then I'm not going to be sympathetic. Skirmish warfare is important for eve and the game begins to die when larger forces AUTOMATICALLY kill smaller forces.
The rethoric spouted by the nano-fans is always the same. Yes, they are ways to fit your ship to drive away a single nanoHAS. But to actually get to kill a competent one? That reduce things to only 2 choices: minmatar recons, or superior numbers. That is clearly not enough.
Larger forces killing most of the time a smaller force, if the smaller force let itself be caught within attack range, when all other parameters are equivalent, is a fact of life and pure logic. If you don't accept that, you're better suited to a game where you only fight npcs.
YOU are trying to kill roaming, by making it pointless for the defender to mobilise to defend againt an attack, if they can't hope to catch more than one or two of the attackers.
Quote: They have a near 100% effective defense on their fixed assets. That isn't the same as automatically killing everything any other player might bring on a roving patrol. If the opposition ops to skirmish its going to do well against an enemy in a fixed defensive line. Thats warfare and its good that eve represents this.
No capital support. Only the defender has that - remember those cyno jammer things right?
You know that little ship called interceptor? The one that has been more or less obsoleted by nano cruisers? That's the ship of choice for roaming behind enemy lines.
I voted for you because you seemed relatively bright, and capable of reasoned argumentation. But I see you prefer to defend your favored play style over the general balance of the game. That or you really are blind. ------------------------------------------
|
Zarch AlDain
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 09:31:00 -
[163]
I'm sorry Jade, your argument doesn't wash.
You say nano ships are a good 'counter to the blob'? Well what's the counter to a nano-blob?
We on a fairly regular basis see 30 to 50 man strong nano gangs running around.
How are people supposed to 'skirmish' against that? The only counter is to bring for example 50 battleships - but then the nanos won't engage because of all the usual problems of fighting nanos...and you had better hope those battleships aren't missile ships (yes yes, I know - missiles suck for pvp anyway) cos if so they are doing 0 damage, etc, etc.
I'm sorry Jade but you are flat out wrong. While it was the occasional typhoon or specialist vagabond doing it nano fitting was kinda cool. When EVERYONE does it then it just sucks...and everyone IS doing it.
I see a HAC or recon on scan I basically assume its nanod - in fact I can only remember one occasion so far this year we have run into a non-nanod hac (it died).
I formed a gang a few days ago and when I asked what ships we had in gang of 9 people 3 had brought rapiers - because we KNOW its going to be nanos. Yes we can counter them but its still crap. Its no fun to play against, so you end up having to go nano yourself to have fun, so the variety and options and possibilities in Eve all vanish because you are basically left at:
Nano Sniping BS (for specialist uses) Capital
As the only real options for 0.0 combat
Zarch AlDain ---- My corp is recruiting. See the recruitment thread here.
|
Zarch AlDain
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 09:33:00 -
[164]
Oh, and there are other options to counter the blob that people used to use.
For example: Snipers with snipe spots, skirmishing.
Burn eden style tactics with interdictors, cloaks - picking your targets.
Packs of recons.
etc etc
But all of those have been obsoleted by the swiss army knife of eve - the nano ship.
Zarch AlDain ---- My corp is recruiting. See the recruitment thread here.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 09:37:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Inertial Nanoes are fine. Here is a example from the Python Cartels big book of epic battles.
Us: 1 Gank Celestis (Me, 3 Light Neutron IIs, 2x LSE, MWD, 2x Damps, Magstabs and PDUs), 1 Blackbird, 1 Griffin, 1 Arbitrator, 1 Moa.
Them: 1 7km/s Vagabond.
Location: Rancer Pipe, some system on the Hek end, some planet.
Vagabond warps to the planet, and starts running around us at a good distance. I don't warp the gang, because I want to make sure everyone is aligned first. The Vagabond makes a pass at us, I order all the Ewar to be put on it, and people to web it if it comes close. The Vagabond makes its first pass without even being able to lock. We warp off to another planet, the Vagabond follows. The Griffin gets seperated from the gang, Vagabond kills the Griffin. The Vagabond keeps trying to get the gang, but horribly fails, because its tracking distruped, ecmd and damped. Eventually our gang warps off to a gate and jumps out.
Now, this vagabond, which probably cost around 200-250 million, was only able to kill a single t1 frigate worth less than a million. The whole gang put together was maybe worth around 30-40 million. All that was required to avoid it was sticking together, and putting ewar on it.
Nano ships aren't overpowered, you just have to know how to deal with them. If you think a gang of pure Battleships, without any of the counters, f.ex. Heavy Neuts, can kill a ship, that got around 100-150 million isk invested in the ability to run away, you are delusional.
Nano ships got 100-150 million isk, invested soley in the ability to run away. Their offense comes from being able to attack from out of gank and web range. Their defense comes from manuvering and staying at the right distance at the right time, as well as escaping when Schitt hits his only fan.
Dude, he was alone, there was five of you, including 3 e-war boats. How can you use a fight like that to discuss balance?
Isk cost has NEVER been a valid argument for discussing balance. 15 pilots in T1 frigs could easily kill a Marauder, etc... ------------------------------------------
|
Dianalexia
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 09:53:00 -
[166]
Yes, nerf nanos. - Nerf the ability to fight alone and favor the mighty blob. - Nerf player intelligence for Zerg tactics. We don't need roaming gangs into our nullsec ratting opperation. Without nanos it will be easy to make a megablob against anyone and kill them if they dare to venture into our space. Of course, they will have the option of megablobbing too. - Nerf nanos for easy gate camping. Traveling through nullsec? Well, make a blob if you want to do it.
It's so amazing how people ask for more tactical options and the ability to use one's wits but cry for help when someone else use these things
|
Inertial
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 10:02:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Shadowsword ]
Dude, he was alone, there was five of you, including 4 e-war boats. How can you use a fight like that to discuss balance?
Isk cost has NEVER been a valid argument for discussing balance. 15 pilots in T1 frigs could easily kill a Marauder, etc...
That is not the point.
The point is we had the tools to make sure he couldn't touch us, despite the fact that we couldn't kill him, he was unable to kill us unless we slipped up.
The point was that there are counters to nanos (counter as in, rendering them useless, not killing them.)
As far as the 15 frigs could easily kill a Marauder. Do you think 15 Bantams with mining lasers could easily kill a Marauder? I don't think so, because the 15 Bantams with mining lasers wouldn't have the right tools. Point beeing, that:
If you don't bring the right tools for the job, how can you expect to get the job done?
we are recruiting!
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 11:30:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Inertial
Originally by: Shadowsword ]
Dude, he was alone, there was five of you, including 4 e-war boats. How can you use a fight like that to discuss balance?
Isk cost has NEVER been a valid argument for discussing balance. 15 pilots in T1 frigs could easily kill a Marauder, etc...
That is not the point.
The point is we had the tools to make sure he couldn't touch us, despite the fact that we couldn't kill him, he was unable to kill us unless we slipped up.
The point was that there are counters to nanos (counter as in, rendering them useless, not killing them.)
As far as the 15 frigs could easily kill a Marauder. Do you think 15 Bantams with mining lasers could easily kill a Marauder? I don't think so, because the 15 Bantams with mining lasers wouldn't have the right tools. Point beeing, that:
If you don't bring the right tools for the job, how can you expect to get the job done?
You're wrong. When speaking about balance you have to consider an equal amount of players on each side. Because there's nothing that say in the game mechanics that this side has XX size limit and that one YY. If there's no 1v1 balance there's no way a 30v30 is going to be balanced, and so on.
So, alone against a single nano ship, what options to kill it do you have? There's only 2: nano yourself, and be even faster, or fly a nanoed huginn-rapier.
How to fix nanos? First a nerf to the MWD module. The very fact that it's an absolute must-have mod in sub-capital pvp is a clear proof that it's overpowered. With it MWDing hacs can reach back a gate they just used, even with XX interceptors to web them, and do the same thing on the other side, rince and repeat, which is pretty ridiculous. Nerf them from 550% to, say, 350%, and it will still be an usefull mod. Just not a must-have anymore
If you look back at all the overpowered ships and setups that got nerfed over the years, MWD were in cause in most half the cases.
Then, replace the sig radius penalty on large shield extenders by a speed penalty to force players to choose between speed tanking or buffer tanking, but not both at the same time.
Last, nerf pylocarbs so they're more in line with other rigs, that is about 60-70% as effective that the module they're supposed to replace.
With that, speed tanking will still work, at least on hte ships that are supposed to do it, but it won't be superior anymore to conventionnal tanking, AND pylocarbs won't cost 50M anymore, AND afterburners (who could use a boost, too) will start being an alternative again. ------------------------------------------
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 11:55:00 -
[169]
This is what Jade should be saying...
Quote: I do realize there is a wide opinion based on the use of nano ships and their speed tanks. I've played this game for a long time and have seen how both arguments do make valid points. The CSM is going to take into account everyone's thoughts and try to work out what can be a 'happy medium' among the player base.
I think there are several options for a change in this matter, however, the direction we will take will have to make changes without breaking the need for nano ships, but at the same time bringing them down to be more in-line with all other forms of tanking and specialty ships. Please stay tuned as the CSM council discusses options.
Of course, Jade doesn't speak like that... instead it's more like...
Quote: Stop whining you ninny little carebears! I don't want to play like you losers and your F1-F8 setups. We need a ship that can take on massive blobs without any risks. You blob blobbers just want to blob up space and win win against anything. You carebears... you... you CAREBEARS!
I'm an elite player with an elite mind. I know all, they rest of you dorks serve no purpose unless you can nano. Eve is nano! MORK&MINDY! Nanu nanu!
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 12:27:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
And you are basing that off facts? ROFL.
3 power blocks, mindless sov system, unbearable game breaking lag due to the ability of megafail alliances to field 500+ gangs, node crashing nonsense, all of these problems are far moar important than a few newbies getting their arses shot off because they haven't figured out game mechanics
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
You have more to learn if you think nano's are balanced in line with other tanks.
I tend to fly rapiers and falcons, i have no problem with ze nano, since my webs go 40km(T2) and my jams sit at about 15. How do you do what you do so poorly?
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
There's a reason why the majority OF PEOPLE WHO KILL ME fly nano's...
Fixed that for you, now it makes sense
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
cuz they are overpowered and easily used to engage and/or run at will. No other ship has that tactic along with the best tank in the game.
Last time i checked, non capitals can de aggro and jump, non-supercaps can dock and hug stations, and fast ships do what fast ships do, run away. Now if you believe there needs to be a contract for PVP where both sides must stay on the field till total hell death and cannot disengage, your a very confused child of warfare from the enlightment age, hardly the type of role play for internet spaceships
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
I suggest you re-examine yourself before another unrealistic post. Your idea of Eve is flawed greatly... its kinda like you don't even play.
Is this char, Pithecantropus, a main char? or just a forum warrior. I can always set up a demonstration for you on my very realistic character if youÆd like
|
|
Needa3
Minmatar Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 12:56:00 -
[171]
missles bad for pvp?
hmm seems BE is doing like 99% of their killing in missle boats
anti nano = limited to minnie ships?
i don't think so.
Try engaging a sesnsor jam and neuting fitted BS and you nano ship won't be able to do a thing...; on the other hand i'll guess that will offer an opportunity to nerf caldari for their jamming and domi's for their neuting capacity
instead of whining people should - fit their ship decently - think more tactical instead of i-blob-so-i-win - start working as a team instead of looking for individual killboard "honour" whoring
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 14:34:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Needa3 missles bad for pvp?
hmm seems BE is doing like 99% of their killing in missle boats
anti nano = limited to minnie ships?
i don't think so.
Try engaging a sesnsor jam and neuting fitted BS and you nano ship won't be able to do a thing...; on the other hand i'll guess that will offer an opportunity to nerf caldari for their jamming and domi's for their neuting capacity
instead of whining people should - fit their ship decently - think more tactical instead of i-blob-so-i-win - start working as a team instead of looking for individual killboard "honour" whoring
Once again the nano fans proves their amazing capacity to fill their ears with their thumbs and shout the same craptastic arguments, to avoid having to anwser what they have no argument to defend.
The issue is not with preventing a nanoship to kill you. The issue is with actually holding down long enough to kill it.
Remember the days of the 95% resist scorpion? Shouting that it was fine because it couldn't kill you if you had a good tank only made you an idiot. That hasn't changed.
------------------------------------------
|
MorsusMihi Stinks
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 14:46:00 -
[173]
now tell me how a vaga would run if you can keep it webbed for like 100km
imo that is more than enough time to kill it or are you lacking skills that bad. I agree with Needa and some of the others. Cut the whining and play the game
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 15:23:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Shadowsword
The issue is not with preventing a nanoship to kill you. The issue is with actually holding down long enough to kill it.
sweet jesus, you put cyno gens on vagas and you hawt drop 45 carriers onto the nano gang, lag+web+stupidity=dead nanos, comeon now i thought you knew that already
|
Efdi
Minmatar The Illuminati.
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 15:49:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Shadowsword
So, alone against a single nano ship, what options to kill it do you have? There's only 2: nano yourself, and be even faster, or fly a nanoed huginn-rapier.
Welp. _______________________________ Yes, I am an alt. No, I can't post with my main; he's forum banned. Yes, I will be happy to smack you with my main when I'm unbanned. |
Attas
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 15:52:00 -
[176]
disagreed!!
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 16:26:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Irrelevant stuff.
Your perception is greatly flawed and far overblown. LOL.
This community has had enough with nanos. It's not about the ships we all fly, the tactics used, the counters, the blobs, or the costs. It's about the pure advantage big nanodweebs have over the rest of Eve. Period. Why are you so afraid of a nerf? Afraid of changes? Eve has changed time and time again, and THAT is what keeps the game going. The pot has settled and nano's are on top, its time to mix it up again, rebalance, and make this game yet again best for the ENTIRE community. I'm all for constant rebalances, otherwise we'll lean too far to one side and topple. Do you want an Eve with a majority of nano ships and nano counter? No. No. I hope you're not that naive.
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Grann Thefauto
Minmatar Running with Knives
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 18:22:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus nanodweebs
I just wanted to quote this because it made me laugh.
I disagree, nanos are powerful, but like Jade said, tactically, you're fairly limited with a nano gang. If you have a well balanced non-nano gang against a nano gang of the same size the nano ships are pretty much relegated to picking off stragglers. With non-nano blobs bringing appropriate anti-nano defense nano ships will generally run. The only reason nanos will get decent kills is because they exploit holes in planning and defense.
Nanos really only have the advantage in that its way easier to put together a homogeneous fleet that can do one thing really well. Non-nano/mixed gangs however require a lot more organizing to achieve balance, so naturally their ripe for being exploited by very focused gangs of nanos/stealth bombers/snipers or whatever their particular hole is.
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 20:46:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Shadowsword
Originally by: Needa3 missles bad for pvp?
hmm seems BE is doing like 99% of their killing in missle boats
anti nano = limited to minnie ships?
i don't think so.
Try engaging a sesnsor jam and neuting fitted BS and you nano ship won't be able to do a thing...; on the other hand i'll guess that will offer an opportunity to nerf caldari for their jamming and domi's for their neuting capacity
instead of whining people should - fit their ship decently - think more tactical instead of i-blob-so-i-win - start working as a team instead of looking for individual killboard "honour" whoring
Once again the nano fans proves their amazing capacity to fill their ears with their thumbs and shout the same craptastic arguments, to avoid having to anwser what they have no argument to defend.
The issue is not with preventing a nanoship to kill you. The issue is with actually holding down long enough to kill it.
Remember the days of the 95% resist scorpion? Shouting that it was fine because it couldn't kill you if you had a good tank only made you an idiot. That hasn't changed.
If nanoships(HACs, recons) had the same disengagement possibilty of Battleships, why would anyone fly them???
|
Jasmine Dixon
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 23:19:00 -
[180]
Quote: If you have a well balanced non-nano gang against a nano gang of the same size the nano ships are pretty much relegated to picking off stragglers. With non-nano blobs bringing appropriate anti-nano defense nano ships will generally run. The only reason nanos will get decent kills is because they exploit holes in planning and defense.
I agree with this, because it describes very well what happens novadays all around the universe.
If you know that a nano-gang is coming you have a varity of options.
1.) You can't build up something that nanos would fear....so you stay docked
2.) you build up a even bigger blop then the nano blop which is coming.... so they won't engage you or burn away from you after a few secs
3.) you build up a gang of nano ships yourself, which is though possible not realy an option for the every day use in defending your home systems ... and even if you can build up something like this, the original nano gang will maybe not engage at all or if they engage you will get only singel ships
What is this leading to at the end ? In some cases you won't get a fight at all and if you get a fight the you can kill only one or two of them until the rest burns away or warps off.
I'm not realy sure what to do about this. Just nerf nanos is not a good option, because its fun flying them and they are a good strategic option. On the other hand it is absolutely no fun to defend against them ! And this is the point when I think that ccp should look at this, add some counters or make the ones already existing more effective or whatever. Because the people on the defending side have in most cases just no fun with this at all. Don't get me wrong there should be no anti nano i-win button, but you should have the possibility to takle the whole gang down and kill them all if you do it right.
|
|
MenanceWhite
Amarr Red Light Navy
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 11:43:00 -
[181]
We're tired of the nano whine. Compare the amount of posts and the amount of supports of this topic and see how it shows that most people(that are'nt ******ed) thinks that nano is fine. ---
Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses
Originally by: Oveur
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:25:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Irrelevant stuff.
Your perception is greatly flawed and far overblown. LOL.
This community has had enough with nanos. It's not about the ships we all fly, the tactics used, the counters, the blobs, or the costs. It's about the pure advantage big nanodweebs have over the rest of Eve. Period. Why are you so afraid of a nerf? Afraid of changes? Eve has changed time and time again, and THAT is what keeps the game going. The pot has settled and nano's are on top, its time to mix it up again, rebalance, and make this game yet again best for the ENTIRE community. I'm all for constant rebalances, otherwise we'll lean too far to one side and topple. Do you want an Eve with a majority of nano ships and nano counter? No. No. I hope you're not that naive.
oh god you make me puke. i'm afraid of changes when there is no need for a fix, boot.ini anyone? Just cause FW came out, doesn't mean a whole new class of idiots gets to whine about getting blown up doing stupid stuff.
I haven't been here since beta but last time i checked the years are piling up on my char and i have seen my fair share of changes and none of them have been "shaking the pot"
if you can't deal with nanos you can't PVP. There is no middle ground. I tip my hat to the CVA guys, outside the tremedous blobing they do, last time i checked they handled the nano just fine. Its just verbal poo poo to sit here and have any kind of converstation with morons
|
Janus Duo
Down In Flames
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:33:00 -
[183]
I've heard all the arguments. I've flown armor, shield, and speed tanked ships. I've owned a snake set. After all my research I believe they're overpowered. Sorry.
|
Thargorr
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:34:00 -
[184]
As my main goes, so goes my nation.
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 14:17:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Janus Duo I've heard all the arguments. I've flown armor, shield, and speed tanked ships. I've owned a snake set. After all my research I believe they're overpowered. Sorry.
i dont even fly nanos and I think they are fine so wtf does your quip add up to now?
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:57:00 -
[186]
Okay lets cut to the chase here. The problem is in mixing definitions in what is meant by a NANO ship. To most people complaining about nano's - NANO means: A fast cruiser hull that can choose to disengage from heavier/slower combatants after performing hit and run attacks. The reason this debate ALWAYS gets nasty is that attacking that role leads to the promoting of blob warfare and whoever has the most numbers automatically wins. Obviously large alliances with high numbers of relatively low-skilled pvpers want this.
But the debate is not that clear cut.
There is a clear difference between what is attainable with relatively conventional means: 3000-4000 (tech2 fit, polycarbs, OD's nanos, overheat) and what can be attained with rarer and costly assets (7000-10,000, with snakes, drugs, tech2 rigs rare modules).
There is absolutely no problem whatsoever with the former - its simply variety in warfare and uses speed to dictate the terms of an engagement. If outnumbered by heavier, slower hulls these "conventional nano" ships can leave, choose their range, hit and run, and generally skirmish against indisciplined targets.
Whereas the latter class (and this would include extreme implanted clones, drugged up and equipped with faction fits) can lead to hulls sustaining orbit and transversal speeds greater than the ability of the game logic to hit or counter while being able to fire back themselves.
There is a problem with extreme NANO but this is a relatively tiny proportion of the player base and such ships are very rare (for example as an FC in Star Fraction I've only ever come across a handful of Vagabonds capable of this opposing us in 0.0).
Whereas the former class (conventional NANO) is easy to counter and just requires a tiny bit of thought and re-equipping to neutralize or effectively hunt. A nano-gang moving around the 4000 mps mark has got the ability to burn out from gates or hostile hotdrop ambushes sure, but its utterly screwed by a combination of webbing recons, neutralizers, ew+interceptor webbing, sniping etc etc etc. Sure this brand of "nano" will laugh at your classic tech1 short range battleship/battlecruiser blob on a gate but really so would tech2 snipers, so would a well-fitted RR gang, so would EW superiority, etc etc and so on.
Now I'm sure we'll keep on hearing insults and angry posting from the "nerf all nano" brigade but the reality is there are two separate issues here and its wrong to mix them both up. CCP have the challenge already of looking at changes to the game that reduce the abuse potential of extreme nano speeds without reducing the whole game to mindless blobbing. They know perfectly well that small gang raiding is a part of eve and needs to be preserved. So less of the general speeding condemnation of play styles would be helpful in general and in particular - lets stop labelling "any ship that travels faster than mine" as automatically "nano".
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Ice9
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:47:00 -
[187]
I disagree that even the extreme nano ships that you describe Jade are actually a problem.
There are ways to counter them, there are already mechanics in place to stop these very ships *despite* the enormous cost involved in achieving the highest speeds of 10km/s and more.
I *know* these points have been made before in this thread and others but I simply want to add another voice to the many asking CCP to not dumb EVE down any further. EVE's combat mechanics are deep, varied and complex. So much so that they are often more complex than even EVE's developers themselves understand.
Player ignorance is no reason to further erode that which makes EVE special in the crowded MMORPG market - it's amazing complexity.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:00:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Ice9 I disagree that even the extreme nano ships that you describe Jade are actually a problem. There are ways to counter them, there are already mechanics in place to stop these very ships *despite* the enormous cost involved in achieving the highest speeds of 10km/s and more.
Don't get me wrong please, I know there are ways to counter these things and I personally believe that the extreme cost of these things is an balancing factor - popping a tech2 rigged ship and killing a snake clone is an immense fiscal penalty. But whats actually happening is that the kind of sustainable speeds these ships can maintain at that level just don't work properly with the mathematics of tracking and hit recognition. It literally breaks the game to a degree in an unintended fashion.
The challenge for us (CSM) and us (the playbase) is to address the issue in an intelligent way so we can advise CCP on resolving the broken mechanics at the extreme top end without destroying the game functionality at the medium scale nano speed and reducing variety and imagination in space combat.
Quote: I *know* these points have been made before in this thread and others but I simply want to add another voice to the many asking CCP to not dumb EVE down any further. EVE's combat mechanics are deep, varied and complex. So much so that they are often more complex than even EVE's developers themselves understand.
Yep its all true, but I guess the issue is that currently CCP know there is a problem with top end velocity tanking in that their mechanics don't work as intended - something as simple as the mwd sig radius penalty being irrelevant because weapons simply can't track fast enough to keep on target is a case in point. Means that the sig-size penalty is meaningless. This could get addressed by re-writing the tracking/explosion speed attributes to get bonused in some way from the MWD sig penalty on the target ship but its a complex issue to balance.
So the challenge is - how to stop extreme hi end nano ships from being effectively invulnerable to weapons fire in high traversal situations without destroying the playability and combat variety provided by ordinary scale nano-ships.
Quote: Player ignorance is no reason to further erode that which makes EVE special in the crowded MMORPG market - it's amazing complexity.
Oh I definitely agree and the whole nano-issue is cursed by very ignorant opinions that see anything faster than a gate-camping drake as an abomination needing immediate nerfing. Its vitally important that ccp do not listen to people wanting to eradicate speed tanking and velocity-based disengagement and the general raiding playstyle simply because they personally refuse to adapt their loadouts and accept that in a competitive environment they need to face the challenge of other player's creativity.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Josef Amerentev
Gallente E.M.P. Industries Malum Exuro
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:30:00 -
[189]
would it be possible to bring back killer nos to combat nanos?
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:45:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Josef Amerentev would it be possible to bring back killer nos to combat nanos?
Why would that be any more effective than Neuts? If you battleship neut an orbiting nano its generally dead in the water.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:57:00 -
[191]
Edited by: Esmenet on 10/07/2008 17:56:45
Originally by: Ice9
Player ignorance is no reason to further erode that which makes EVE special in the crowded MMORPG market - it's amazing complexity.
Hopefully the devs will see it this way too. If they cave in to the nano whiners, we can expect the same treatment for ECM gangs, remote repping BS's and whatever tactic people start using next until we are left with only simple slugfests.
|
Kyoko Sakoda
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 21:54:00 -
[192]
Giving my support to the OP, not that the CSM or CCP will care. I'm astounded that this issue wasn't brought up prevalently at the first meeting.
That hot drops and blobs have indeed become a problem is no excuse for people, even with loads of investment, to enter PvP nigh-invincible. I'm all for fast ships that are meant to go fast in principle, but watching a Typhoon travel 5km/s and faster is more than irritating. The demand for Snakes and Rapiers (which hardly are a solution most of the time; primary = pop) is also way too high.
Ghost Festival is recruiting. |
diabolic clone
Amarr Anomaly Collective
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 14:30:00 -
[193]
Maybe the problem is the majority of ships that go really slow. Nerfing speed will utterly suck for everyone, if slower ships were somewhat faster they'd be on a better competitive level. Someone think of the children I blame the liberals.. oh wait this isn't that Simpsons episode when everyone is about to riot. I know fighting speed based ships all the time gets really boring but it is better than everyone being a snail when you consider how much distance you can travel in every solar system when doing things like mining/missioning/exploration/pvp. If the OP is calling for a speed nerf it will nuke every ship not just ones fit out entirely for speed. Take Nosferatu for example, where extremely effective more than they were intended. After the nerf I told people I had over 50 heavy diminishing power drain systems in one station, someone literally screamed at me to reprocess them for minerals.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 14:49:00 -
[194]
Agility, fix agility and you fix the top end nano problem while still allowing speed tanks to exist. |
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 15:28:00 -
[195]
Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 11/07/2008 15:28:20
Originally by: Matrixcvd
I haven't been here since beta but last time i checked the years are piling up on my char and i have seen my fair share of changes and none of them have been "shaking the pot"
Most changes involve taking the game into a new direction... modifying exploited loop holes and lessening the abuse. That in turn weens the player base into finding new tactics. If you been here since beta and haven't seen that, I'm dumbfounded at your lack of intelligence.
Quote: Its just verbal poo poo to sit here and have any kind of converstation with morons
Exactly... you being the worst case moron here . --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Zikka
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 23:48:00 -
[196]
Jade, sorry but I still disagree.
I don't have a problem with the 7 or 10km/s ships. They take some work to deal with but as you say they are expensive and rare. They are special cases and with a bit of work they can be dealt with.
What annoys me is that most gangs we engage are nanod. No shield tanks, no armour tanks, no snipers. Nothing but a bunch of 3 or 4km/s cruisers and maybe a few dictors and inties and a falcon 200km away.
Where is the fun or variety?
A rapier in MANDATORY in a gang. If you don't have one you might as well not go out. How is that fun or flexible?
You complain about the 'blob' but I've seen just as many nano blobs as other blobs.
Bring back battleship fights, close range slugfests, snipers, and all the other things that used to happen. We fly nano ourselves, because we would be stupid not to, but that doesn't mean we think it is balanced. Let missiles actually be able to do some damage to something that isn't going two or more times the explosion velocity of even precision missiles. etc.
Let me use my tanking skills, actually give me a reason to fit a repper and some resists on my ship. Hell I even use a nano ship for ratting!
|
Marconus Orion
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 20:26:00 -
[197]
Blobs is the reason I fly nano. I would love to do some armor tanking but the fact is if your not nano, your not gonna stand a chance due to the bad guys opting to only engage you if they blob.
Nano lets you actually stand maybe a chance against the blob.
The percentage of ppl who learn how to do pvp tactics is growing smaller and smaller because they simply opt to blob because it requires no thought process really.
|
InfoGate1024
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 20:47:00 -
[198]
Jade sums it up, it's a no for op.
|
McTard
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 23:36:00 -
[199]
Quote: Blobs is the reason I fly nano.
And Nanos are the reason I blob.
So yeah, Speed fits need tweaking.
|
PewPewLePewPew
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 00:40:00 -
[200]
The majority of fights that I have been in and seen in 0.0 have been nano vs nano, sniper BS vs sniper BS etc, rarely have I seen nano vs sniper BS etc.
I fly nano ships and sure its nice to choose your fights etc, but imagine what happens if nano's are nerfed so they are un-playable. You would have 15 battleships spending hours to go like 40 jumps and once you get there they probably won't even fight so great, you just wasted a ton of time! Or you could fly down there in nano ships and not waste as much time.
Not to mention with the number of titan's there are now what is your fleet supposed to do when there is a dictor bubble on a gate with a cloaked titan? fly out of the bubble at 150M/s? But no wait! Fit a MWD! even that probably won't get you out alive and then at that what do you want caldari to do? Gimp there tanks?
|
|
Rn Bonnet
Free Collective The OSS
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 00:48:00 -
[201]
Quote: What annoys me is that most gangs we engage are nanod. No shield tanks, no armour tanks, no snipers. Nothing but a bunch of 3 or 4km/s cruisers and maybe a few dictors and inties and a falcon 200km away.
The reason for this is actually quite simple and has little to do with Nano's being overpowered. Roaming in a nano gang is much faster, which means potential targets have less time to respond, and you are better able to disengage (rather than safe spotting and cloaking and waiting till they leave). Remote rep battleship gangs are great, they arn't that common because it takes a lot of time to move around in them and its relatively hard to catch hose easy ganks.
I agree with jade here, people who are getting killed by "nanos" in equal numbers are not bringing comparable ship quality. If someone shows up in 10 nanohacs and a falcon you need to be showing up with 10 t2 battleships and a falcon. Here is a simple fact: 10 pulse Armageddons (t2 fit) will volley most nano ships. This combined with that in a ten man gang they will have low transversal if they move to range or are at close range (low transversal to part of the gang + high risk of getting webbed) means the ten t2 pulse Armageddons (especially if they are RR) will win almost every time if the nano gang engages at all (if you have a bubble you can generally kill one or two even if they run).
|
PewPewLePewPew
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 01:41:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Rn Bonnet
Quote: What annoys me is that most gangs we engage are nanod. No shield tanks, no armour tanks, no snipers. Nothing but a bunch of 3 or 4km/s cruisers and maybe a few dictors and inties and a falcon 200km away.
The reason for this is actually quite simple and has little to do with Nano's being overpowered. Roaming in a nano gang is much faster, which means potential targets have less time to respond, and you are better able to disengage (rather than safe spotting and cloaking and waiting till they leave). Remote rep battleship gangs are great, they arn't that common because it takes a lot of time to move around in them and its relatively hard to catch hose easy ganks.
I agree with jade here, people who are getting killed by "nanos" in equal numbers are not bringing comparable ship quality. If someone shows up in 10 nanohacs and a falcon you need to be showing up with 10 t2 battleships and a falcon. Here is a simple fact: 10 pulse Armageddons (t2 fit) will volley most nano ships. This combined with that in a ten man gang they will have low transversal if they move to range or are at close range (low transversal to part of the gang + high risk of getting webbed) means the ten t2 pulse Armageddons (especially if they are RR) will win almost every time if the nano gang engages at all (if you have a bubble you can generally kill one or two even if they run).
That's another thing, its not that nano is overpowered it is people not willing to adapt. They do the same old thing and when something counters them they complain that its overpowered.
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 02:10:00 -
[203]
I agree that it shouldn't be about whoever blobs wins, but the current situation where the fastest wins is no better.
As I've said earlier, ships have been this fast before with the dual MWD/wideboy age of 2004, and in time it was nerfed. It was the right thing to do then, and it's the right thing to do now.
/Ben
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 02:20:00 -
[204]
Jade, you made your fricken point a million times... why they heck you keep coming back like you need to boost your ego back up. We all dislike you anyway, you're a joke to this game and to the CSM. Now one gives a rats ass about your self-centered egotistical Jade Online agenda. Get over it... realize there are two valid sides and your opinion is just that, a lame opinion. Stop trying to defend it like you know what's best for this game. That's not your job. Your job is to listen to the players... cuz WE know what is best for this game. Not some asshat that decs noob militia corps and gets his jollies off by camping FW borders. Puh-leeeze.
Get a life.
--------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 05:08:00 -
[205]
Good post(s) by Jade. I fully agree. T2 standard nanos are fine and easy to counter. Now a fully pimped, rigged, combat boosted, snake'd out nano-ship, that goes into crazy territory. Should a cruiser really be ever able to go over 12km/s? I don't think so. So I fully agree with nerfing the ridiculously fast nano-ships.
However, most of the nano-whiners are simply drake pilots who are upset that their drake doesn't pwn T2 PC cruisers like they pwn missions/rats. This has been demonstrated by looking at the combat habits of most of the nanowhiners. So no, I will never support just a nerf to speed modules/ships.
Also, I'd like to point out this thread has over 200 replies and only 40ish support, that's 20% support. Doesn't look good for the nano-whiners. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Kyoko Sakoda
Caldari Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 06:52:00 -
[206]
Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 14/07/2008 06:54:35
Originally by: Vaal Erit However, most of the nano-whiners are simply drake pilots who are upset that their drake doesn't pwn T2 PC cruisers like they pwn missions/rats. This has been demonstrated by looking at the combat habits of most of the nanowhiners. So no, I will never support just a nerf to speed modules/ships.
Nice stereotyping of the petitioning group there. Considering many PvPers from a wide range of backgrounds think speed has gotten excessive, including my favorite friend and polycarb/snake Crow *****, you obviously have no clue.
20%-ish support is enough for the forums. Most people don't actually click the support button, and it is not indicative of exact numbers of support within the community. That there exists a multitude of threads many pages long attempting to tackle this problem is proof enough that the level-headed among the community want something done about it.
Ghost Festival is recruiting. |
Dzajic
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 07:52:00 -
[207]
I think that a moderate small nerf to moderate nano fits should be looked at. And crazy silly nano fits should be just made less available. Reworking pirate faction LP stores?
|
destinationZERO
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 08:48:00 -
[208]
no support nanos are fine learn to pvp
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 09:35:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 14/07/2008 06:54:35
Originally by: Vaal Erit However, most of the nano-whiners are simply drake pilots who are upset that their drake doesn't pwn T2 PC cruisers like they pwn missions/rats. This has been demonstrated by looking at the combat habits of most of the nanowhiners. So no, I will never support just a nerf to speed modules/ships.
Nice stereotyping of the petitioning group there. Considering many PvPers from a wide range of backgrounds think speed has gotten excessive, including my favorite friend and polycarb/snake Crow *****, you obviously have no clue.
20%-ish support is enough for the forums. Most people don't actually click the support button, and it is not indicative of exact numbers of support within the community. That there exists a multitude of threads many pages long attempting to tackle this problem is proof enough that the level-headed among the community want something done about it.
It is not stereotyping, it is a simple matter of using google. For instance, you fly crows and megathrons so if you talk about how a nano-HAC is totally unbalanced then we know it is certainly a one-sided viewpoint. In many nano-whine threads I have shown that the OP or rabble-rousers fly only drakes, a few like DHB Wildcat actually flies nanos, but that is an oddity.
The thumbsup/support mechanic is used a lot. It is clearly shown to everyone before they make their post and lots of people use it. The 30/90 day GTC thread has gotten over 70% support tnad that is almost 1,000 posts. 20% is a very low number for support if you actually looked at popular threads and you know compared them instead of just trolling. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Zikka
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 10:13:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
It is not stereotyping, it is a simple matter of using google. For instance, you fly crows and megathrons so if you talk about how a nano-HAC is totally unbalanced then we know it is certainly a one-sided viewpoint. In many nano-whine threads I have shown that the OP or rabble-rousers fly only drakes, a few like DHB Wildcat actually flies nanos, but that is an oddity.
The thumbsup/support mechanic is used a lot. It is clearly shown to everyone before they make their post and lots of people use it. The 30/90 day GTC thread has gotten over 70% support tnad that is almost 1,000 posts. 20% is a very low number for support if you actually looked at popular threads and you know compared them instead of just trolling.
Except that this post has a lot of people arguing back and forth and you can only show support once.
(For example no thumbs up on this post because I already posted with a thumbs up earlier).
Look me up on the killboards if you want - I've been flying virtually nothing but nano-hacs and nano-rapiers so far this year. I've killed plenty of nano ships, and I've lost a couple of nano ships.
Not a drake in sight.
The problem with nanos is they essentially have no drawbacks. They can choose their fight, tank infinite amounts of incoming damage, roam fast, tackle, deal ok damage - all in one handy versatile package. I'm not stupid so I fly them myself - that doesn't mean I think they are balanced or that I will cry when they are gone though.
|
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 10:55:00 -
[211]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 14/07/2008 10:56:31 Okay, I've been largely staying out of this thread, but I feel, after reading a few of Jade's posts, that I must respond.
Jade,
First and foremost, while I generally respect your views quite highly, in this area I find myself in very strong disagreement with you.
To begin with, your original argument was that nanos were needed because of blobbing, 0.0 sovereignty, and jump bridges. It was pointed out that this was not sufficient justification for a universal mechanic that includes both lowsec combat and highsec empire wars. At this point, you changed tack to your "horse archer" analogy, basically stating that horse archers (nanos) should be completely immune normal infantry (i.e. anything not nano or nano counter). While I could quibble with your reversal in reasoning, I will instead give you the benefit of the doubt and address your current argument.
First and foremost, I'm going to proceed on the basic assumption that EVE is a sandbox, and that diversity in PvP is a good thing. Both of these items reflect statements made by the developers, so I feel them to be fairly safe projections.
So let's talk diversity. We'll start with gang setups:
Prior to the original nano buff, you would see pretty much every type of ship in PvP with many different fittings. You would see interceptor gangs ganking pretty much anything; T1 cruiser gangs making the most of EVE's diminishing returns by killing much more expensive ships and losing half their gang in the process; slow, heavy firepower short range BC/CS/BS gangs (not necessarily remote repping); fast moving (in terms of system-to-system movement) HAC/recon gangs; electronic warfare whoring gangs; snipers; supertanked remote reppers; capital blobs; and (gasp) even nanos. What's more, all of them were effective.
Now let's discuss what you see nowadays that's still effective. Right now, you only see a few of those: nanos (for obvious reasons of invulnerability to anything not nano or nano-counter), remote repping gangs (because they can soak up stupid amounts of punishment), capital blobs, (because you still have to kill POS), and e-war/nano-counter gangs (self-explanatory).
What about the items not on the above list? Well...
- Interceptor/frig gangs - not much point when nano HACs are just as fast as the old pre-nano interceptors and have vastly more firepower and survivability.
- T1 cruiser gangs - rarely seen because they stand pretty much no chance of killing any of the four still used gang types.
- Heavy, non-remote-repping gangs - pretty much nonexistant because they can't kill nanoers very effectively and don't have the tank of the remote repping gang. Also, BC and CS are not much seen in remote gangs due to medium remote reps' poor range and repair amount. This makes non-fleet command BCs largely irrelevant in today's PvP.
- Snipers - useless without a significant support gang (read: blob) due to their vulnerability and the ability of nanoships to be on top of them almost instantaneously.
While this is by no means an exhaustive list (I'm too tired to take time for a full list of gang types), it should illustrate fairly effectively that there are a number of playstyles that have been invalidated as a result of the current nano situation. This is quite the opposite of diversification and contrary to the developers' stated intentions for the game.
This is also quite contrary to the argument that nerfing nanos will reduce diversity. The people who make this statement seem to be equating "nerf" with "completely invalidate", though for some it may reflect the fact that, once nanos are no longer "I win" buttons vs. non-nano and non-nano counter ships, they will be "useless". Some people just want their God-mode and will resist any change calling for its reduction, even if that call for change means they would still be useful afterwards without being omnipotent. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 11:23:00 -
[212]
Now let's talk playstyles. Let me begin with an outrageous statement:
Once upon a time EVE was not all about the blob.
Shocking, isn't it? You used to find a lot more small gang action (as in gang size under ten people, not today's "small gang" i.e. 30-man fleet) and even (gasp) solo work. That said, let's examine the effect of nanos on each. Please note that I'm assuming the nano pilots are competent.
We'll begin with the much despised solo PvP. Let me preface this with a short disgression: "EVE is a MMO - you're supposed to fly with buddies" is a common argument. The difference here is that EVE is a sandbox MMO, meaning it's all about choice. Some people choose to fly solo sometimes to test or show off their skill, ships, and abilities, and they're still playing with other people the whole time...those people just so happen to be their targets as opposed to their groupmates.
Anyway, back to the effect of nanos on solo PvP. Simply put, if the ship you're flying isn't already a nano counter, it will die if it can't get back to the gate or station...or if it's not at a gate or station. Sometimes good piloting can allow you to escape by forcing the nanoer into making a mistake, but this can be very difficult, especially if you're in a larger, slower ship. The net result of all of this is that solo PvP in anything not nano or nano counter is pretty much dead. Blobs have an effect, too, but while you can avoid blobs if you play your cards right it's much harder to avoid nanoers.
What about small gang PvP?
Well, a good nano counter setup requires a number of roles to be filled that are not absolute must-haves in a normal gang. You need multiple huginn/rapiers/hyenas to stop the enemy nano gang from moving, multiple e-war to jam the nanoers to prevent them from primarying your webbers and taking them out, and DPS to take out the enemy once you have them locked down. Optional roles include multiple fast frigates with webs to get into suicide range and lock down the targets, and neutralizing ships to kill the enemies' cap and stop them from MWDing; the latter doesn't work all that well due to momentum and the fact that nanoers usually still have time on their current MWD cycle to burn out of range once their cap has been nuked.
The upshot of all of this is that it usually takes a goodly number of ships to kill a competent nano gang, quite often moving the gang size from "small gang" to "large gang/small fleet/blob". This means that, in such situations, small gangs are pretty much out - and, in 0.0, it's almost always a nano situation.
So there are fewer playstyles that are truly viable as a result of nano unless you wish to fly nano yourself. Again, less diversity.
Let me also take another moment to digress and address the "it's a win if you make the enemy run away, too" pro-nano crowd. Simply put:
No, it isn't.
Why? Imagine you've been out trying to PvP, yet every fight the enemy just runs away from you the moment the fight looks to turn against them. Now imagine this happening with almost every fight you run into - simply, you're not getting any kills and not having much fun. Eventually, you're going to stop bothering because it's just not worth the effort. After all, they have a word for people who keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome... -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Zikka
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 11:46:00 -
[213]
An excellent post Wayreth. I agree whole-heartedly.
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 11:51:00 -
[214]
Okay, one more thing, then I've got to go to bed so I can be up for work in three and a half hours:
The "horse archer" analogy is bull, plain and simple. First and foremost, there's a reason that most people decry real life comparisons. Simply put, EVE is a game, and in certain respect should not match real life. A good touchstone to determine this is a simple and straightforward question: does this mechanic destroy the fun of the game for a large number of people? If the response is "yes, then you have your answer.
For instance, POS sovereignty - CCP has stated a number of times that they're not happy with it and that it detracts from the game...as has much of the playerbase.
The same holds true for nanos; not everyone enjoys flying them or flying their counters. To use myself as an example, I can fly both the rapier, huginn, and curse to counter them, and can also fly any nano HAC or recon in the game excluding those of the Gallente race...but it doesn't mean I have fun doing it. I enjoy ships that have lots of firepower and lots of tank, but the current EVE mechanics don't allow me to use them in many situations thanks to nano. This is one of two major reasons I'm flying in lowsec instead of 0.0 right now, and I know a lot of other players who share my views.
Back to the horse archer comparison - you say that you're supposed to skirmish with them. Fine, then - skirmish implies that you strike then fade away, not stay engaged until your opponents are all dead. Sadly, nanos give you the ability to do just that - unless your opponent is flying nano or nano counter himself, you're largely invulnerable to him. Moreover, even if he is flying nano-counter, the moment your gang determines this they will just disengage and run. Your opponent may get one or two kills, but unless he significantly outnumbers you (or your gang's pilots/FC are stupid) he won't be able to take down your entire gang. Again, it defeats the point of even trying.
To sum it up:
Diversity is good. Nerfing nanos while still keeping them useful promotes diversity. You should not be forced into a certain, limited playstyle to be effective in PvP. EVE is not real life or Doom. Horse archers/God-mode vs. normal ships should not exist; IDDQD is not an EVE keyboard command.
Anyway, I had planned to be more eloquent and address a few other points, but, as usual when I'm tired, I ended up rambling on. Hopefully that was coherent and useful, but I'm not certain it was. I'm off to bed.
(Cartman voice) Screw you guys, I'm going home. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Akiba Penrose
PAK
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 13:54:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Wrayeth
Nano/speed setups are taking the fun out of the game for many of the players.
How many? (im not tryin to be a smartass here, but this thread isnt getting alot of support)
Originally by: Wrayeth
Simply put, they're overpowered; one should not be the next best thing to invulnerable against most conventional ships and setups.
I personally find nano ships to be quite fragile and not invulnerable.
Originally by: Wrayeth
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.
I dont think it takes more skill, numbers or effort to kill a nano ship. Any battleship fitted with MWD, Neut and injector will kill any nano ship that stays within 24km range for to long.
Originally by: Wrayeth
In addition, nanos make many ships and setups obsolete, rendering them largely useless on the battlefield.
Could you spesify a bit more? which ships and setups?
Originally by: Wrayeth
there would be more PvP with reduced effect of nano/speed setups.
How do you reach this conclution? I would personally do less pvp if i didnt have the option of flying nano, (and i do not prefere to fly nano.) Assuming people that dont like nano would pvp more, if there wasnt any nano, doesent mean that it would be more pvp.
Originally by: Wrayeth
In any case, I personally think speed tanking should still be viable, but slower..
What do you mean by this? That every thing should be slowed down (including tracking and explotion velocity) or making speed tanking less effective by reducing just the top speed? I guess im not quite clear on what you see as the main problem, that they take little dmg when going at top speed or that they have speed enough to disengage when they start to take dmg.
Originally by: Wrayeth 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..
Interesting point, im assuming you are talking about Sac, Cerb, Curse and Ishtar here. Some ships dont have to worry about tracking which is a huge bonus when it comes to speed tanking. I'm not sure those ships need a nerf. but if they did i dont think the answer is to nerf speed itself. Originally by: Wrayeth
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.
Even if i did agree with you in some of the nano issues, this statment makes it impossible for me to sign this thread. Personally i think the nano issue could be argued better if you left the recons EW bonus out of it.
|
Sgt Napalm
Synergy Evolved
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 14:47:00 -
[216]
Supporting this
|
Zikka
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 16:02:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Akiba Penrose
Originally by: Wrayeth
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.
Even if i did agree with you in some of the nano issues, this statment makes it impossible for me to sign this thread. Personally i think the nano issue could be argued better if you left the recons EW bonus out of it.
Actually that's true. I've supported the topic because I think nanos need nerfing but I don't agree that recon ewar does (or to be more accurate I think that is a separate case to be evaluated after the nano nerf is done).
|
SnowUponPetal
Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 17:54:00 -
[218]
One of EVE's great strengths is its rock-paper-scissors flexibility. For every ship type, pilots of equal skill and resources may employ counters that are not merely getting more of that ship type.
This paradigm is broken with nanos. They are scissors that can rarely be countered with anything but more scissors.
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 06:25:00 -
[219]
Alrighty. For those people who are getting hung up on the statement about Minmatar recons and EAS possibly needing a balance pass as a result of reducing the speed of nano setups, I've clarified the original post by bolding, underlining, and italicizing the word "may". It was never my intention to say that it would definitely be needed, just something that should be taken into consideration when considering the extended effects of reducing speed. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Herring
Caldari Alcatraz Inc. Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 11:34:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Farrqua
Yep.
Cerb pilot, Hvy missiles betweem 9000 - 9700 mps. 218- 220 kms max range.
Most Vaga pilots would be hard pressed to get the hell out of the way or those things. No tracking issues and hard as hell to speed tank. and there you go.
Explosion Velocity
Yeah that's the second time you've said that, and you're right, why not add an explosion velocity bonus to a ship to help counter this 'problem'? I mean it wouldn't fix it completely but it sure the hell would help even the odds.
explosion velocity bonus to stealth bombers would be nice, but any missile ship would do...
|
|
Kalintos Tyl
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 11:56:00 -
[221]
polycarbon to nanofiber level narf would fix a lot of things.
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 13:01:00 -
[222]
Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 15/07/2008 13:04:16
Originally by: Wrayeth ....
Nerfing nanos would obsolete recons/hacs, c/d?
infact, battleship gangs would be counter for pretty much everything....
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 13:03:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Herring
Originally by: Goumindong Explosion Velocity
Yeah that's the second time you've said that, and you're right, why not add an explosion velocity bonus to a ship to help counter this 'problem'? I mean it wouldn't fix it completely but it sure the hell would help even the odds.
explosion velocity bonus to stealth bombers would be nice, but any missile ship would do...
Stealth bombers are much too fragiles to be a viable counter to nanos. If it were the case, Hyenas would have solved the issue by now.
I agree with everything Wrayeth stated. I, too, would like to do small-scale pvp with heavy ships, but it's not possible anymore, far too many nano-ships running rampant.
Yes, I know I could do small-scale pvp if I nanoed myself, but I refuse to be part of the problem. I will never step so low as to use something I know is out of whack.
Back to the topic. It's about time MWD get a nerf, IMHO. It's too much of a must-have module, with virtually no drawback since cap boosters became a must-have, too.
Question to the pro-nano crowd: assume that you want to take down an enemy nano-fleet of 30-50 ships. They have scouts, they'll know if you bring a fleet that vastly outnumber them, they'll know if you bring a high number of huginns-rapiers in your gang.
Here's the question: How do you DECISIVELY defeat them? And avoid the "bring a full nano-gang yourself" argument, please. If you can't answer that question, you just admitted that there's little point even trying to kill them, and so nano are hurting small-scale pvp. A lot.
With a non-nano opponent you could use the lightest ships of your gang to run them down, and hold them for your heavy units to kill. But now, you can't really run them down since they're all as fast than your light units. ------------------------------------------
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 13:29:00 -
[224]
Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 15/07/2008 13:31:58
Originally by: Shadowsword
I agree with everything Wrayeth stated. I, too, would like to do small-scale pvp with heavy ships, but it's not possible anymore, far too many nano-ships running rampant.
Yes, I know I could do small-scale pvp if I nanoed myself, but I refuse to be part of the problem. I will never step so low as to use something I know is out of whack.
Back to the topic. It's about time MWD get a nerf, IMHO. It's too much of a must-have module, with virtually no drawback since cap boosters became a must-have, too.
Question to the pro-nano crowd: assume that you want to take down an enemy nano-fleet of 30-50 ships. They have scouts, they'll know if you bring a fleet that vastly outnumber them, they'll know if you bring a high number of huginns-rapiers in your gang.
Here's the question: How do you DECISIVELY defeat them? And avoid the "bring a full nano-gang yourself" argument, please. If you can't answer that question, you just admitted that there's little point even trying to kill them, and so nano are hurting small-scale pvp. A lot.
With a non-nano opponent you could use the lightest ships of your gang to run them down, and hold them for your heavy units to kill. But now, you can't really run them down since they're all as fast than your light units.
Hello, what does TCF do when you bring BSes to lj-? You will wait 30min+ until TCF has enough battleships to engage. Once they have that they will jump capitals in just for the fun. Every 0.0 half-decent alliance does this, 0.0 alliances don't blob because they are afraid of nanos, they blob because they can and like to minimize losses. Nanos making it impossible to roam with heavy ships? No. Capitals, battleships, killboards, local did that before anyone even flew a nanophoon.
Non-nano 30-50 ship gang won't engage your superior gang either, but how do you suggest you decisively defeat them? BS gangs can very easily pick fights/avoid being blobbed, hardly anything new here. Besides, no nanogang will engage decent bs/heavy ship gang, because they know the nanos will just fail against a decent gang.
|
Akiba Penrose
The Movement
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 11:44:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Shadowsword I, too, would like to do small-scale pvp with heavy ships, but it's not possible anymore, far too many nano-ships running rampant.
I dont know what you mean with small-scal pvp, but if you have a 5 BS gang and you face a 5 man nano gang the nanos dont have a chance. If you lose that battle your doing something horribly wrong. Only way nano gangs can beat heavy gangs is to either bring more numbers or to take advantage of errors that the heavy gang does. I think the problem is that you get blobbed by nano gangs and not nanos.
If you get swarmed by a nano gang, the result would be the same if they were flying BS. Only difference is that you might kill one or two of them, but youll still be outnumbered and lose.
Originally by: Shadowsword
Question to the pro-nano crowd: assume that you want to take down an enemy nano-fleet of 30-50 ships. They have scouts, they'll know if you bring a fleet that vastly outnumber them, they'll know if you bring a high number of huginns-rapiers in your gang.
Here's the question: How do you DECISIVELY defeat them?
If the gang knows what you are flying, where you are and they dont want to fight you, there is no way you can decisivly defeat them. It doesent matter if they are flying nanos or not. If they dont want to fight you cant defeat them. I would suggest baiting them with a gang they will engage as first step in defeating the nano gang.
Originally by: Shadowsword
With a non-nano opponent you could use the lightest ships of your gang to run them down, and hold them for your heavy units to kill. But now, you can't really run them down since they're all as fast than your light units.
Interceptors is faster then nano hacs.
|
Ulstan
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 15:55:00 -
[226]
Definitely supported. Nanos are the new WCS.
The old WCS were nerfed because they let you start fights nearly risk free, secure in the knowledge you could always bug out if things got bad (barring a ridiculous investment in counter ships)
Nanos not only let you start fights nearly risk free, secure in the knowledge you can always bug out if things go bad (barring a ridiculous investment in counter ships) but they also give you a superb tank against most forms of damage, *and* let chase down other ships who might try to leave the engagement.
However, any real change to nanos is going to need changes to capital hot dropping and blobs, as right now nanos are the only real alternative. They're still very imbalanced, however. This is evidenced by the fact that their defenders typically deploy arguments such as "But they cost a lot!" and "Just use other nano ships to kill them" or "Driving off a nano ship counts as a win!" or other nonsensical hurf blurfisms.
A few limited changes could be made soon: fix polcyarbons to bring them in line with all other rigs compared to their module equivalent, and fix heavy precision missiles.
But I think major changes to nanos (which should be made, as basically if you're not a blob or small nano gang you may as well go home) will involve a bit more thought, and will hopefully include a fix to the terrible MWD/AB relationship.
|
Loreliee
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 16:03:00 -
[227]
Edited by: Loreliee on 16/07/2008 16:05:04 I'm mostly posting to mock Jade's terrible analogy to horse archers.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed because essentially nanos have no drawbacks.
That doesn't mean they have no counters or are literally invincible just that you would be an idiot to NOT fly a nano in the current environment.
Many other gang types and smaller ship sizes have been completely invalidated because of the overpoweredness of nanos with excellent tank and ability to engage at will and ability to disengage at will.
The fact that t2 cruisers are flying around faster than t1 frigates I consider highly poor design and is obsoleting frigates. We need a lot more distance between hulls in terms of speed.
Wrayeth has made several excellent posts in this thread.
The fact remains that anyone who has even the decaying carcass of a single brain cell left in his skull can tell that nanos have been terrible for gang diversity in EVE and that nerfing them will be good for diversity and open up more choices for players.
However, most nano pilots are very set in their ways and refuse to contemplate having to adapt to flying something other than their imbalanced nano ships.
|
Zikka
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 12:00:00 -
[228]
I just had an interesting and related idea:
Here is an idea for you.
Take tractor beams (or maybe a new version of them) and have them be usable on ships as well as wrecks/cans.
It gives those ships an acceleration towards you of 500 m/s (smaller ships affected more than big). A couple of tractor beams would pull them into range of the web and then lets a normal web take effect. Naturally they could fly against the tractor beam but it does make it harder for them to get away from you and multiple tractors would become nasty but you are giving up high slots to achieve that.
This also gives Marauders a role in PvP.
|
Stab Wounds
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 10:52:00 -
[229]
Remove polycarbs, add a stacking penalty for speeds mods, increase mass and decrease agility of all Heavy Assault Ships.
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 11:17:00 -
[230]
A balance to nanos would be a cap on speed by ship that gets more difficult to attain the closer one gets to it.
Say... 6km/s for inties, 3 for cruisers, 1.5 for BS. This will enable them to travel fast, and even escape, but give everyone a decent chance of catching fast ships.
Reduce the bonuses on Snakes.
But don't reduce it so far that everyone ends up doing just the opposite and sitting there in super slow tanks that just sit there and slug it out.
|
|
Siona Windweaver
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 12:30:00 -
[231]
Edited by: Siona Windweaver on 23/07/2008 12:37:31 Just add an extra attribute called structural integrity or inertia stabilizers (yeah same name as modules). This attribute would decrease your agility and some mwd speed if your ship has too low mass and too high speed, thus preventing the ship from tearing itself apart at high speeds.
Installing extra inertia stabilizers would restore some agility and speed, but nowhere near whats it like today.
This will effectively serve as polycarb nerf while not really nerfing them so ships can still use them provided they don't reach their integrity limit. This will also give CCP a chance to really adjust ship speeds as they intend and dynamically adjust it further if necessary.
Speed issue needs a little more complex solution then just nerfing few modules and ships. It needs a permanent and satisfactory solution.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |