EVE Search - Why nano everything?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Why nano everything?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hijara Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2008.06.20 12:48:00 - [1] Why does EVERY ship have to be nanoed? Seems like i am the only one who pvp's with a zealot going only 256m/s. What happened to large alpha, or good tanks?
ChalSto LOCKDOWN.	Posted - 2008.06.20 12:51:00 - [2] Its a good thing. Since everyone nanos their ishtars, zealots, sacrileges, deimos, and munnins I¦ve got a salvager in the 6th high-slot of my vaga.... Originally by: Agmar ----------------------------------------------- "The North is so ghey that even the NPCs fly ravens."
The Tzar Malicious Intentions Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.06.20 13:11:00 - [3] Because nano's are the only ships that can get away from the all too common hotdropping these days. Introduce mobile cynojammers for HIC's and watch EvE go back to damage dealing rather than trying to avoid combat as a ships primary purpose. __________________________________________ 'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________
Ecky X Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.06.20 13:17:00 - [4] I smile every time I catch a non-nano ship off a station or gate.
Suitonia interimo Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.20 13:18:00 - [5] Originally by: The Tzar Because nano's are the only ships that can get away from the all too common hotdropping these days. Introduce mobile cynojammers for HIC's and watch EvE go back to damage dealing rather than trying to avoid combat as a ships primary purpose. Nice idea. I'd like to see mobile cynojammers, similar to mobile bubbles, anchor it and it prevents caps from cynoing in your grid. ---
Dalek Commander	Posted - 2008.06.20 13:21:00 - [6] Because you can outrun missiles, and make tracking nearly useless when you go fast enough. Combat has broken down to either nano, or blob (remote reppers) in Eve. So gate camps = blob, and roaming gangs = nano.
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.20 13:21:00 - [7] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 20/06/2008 13:21:53 Originally by: Hijara Why does EVERY ship have to be nanoed? Seems like i am the only one who pvp's with a zealot going only 256m/s. What happened to large alpha, or good tanks? Because ever since the WCS nerf, people have been looking for a way to PVP while minimising the risk. Currently, a fast nanoship is pretty much invincible if boarded by a competent pilot. Some extreme nano setups are expensive, but on the other hand, they pay for themselves though reduced shiploss. -- Billion Isk Mission
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.20 13:24:00 - [8] Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 13:24:29 Originally by: Dalek Commander Because you can outrun missiles, and make tracking nearly useless when you go fast enough. Combat has broken down to either nano, or blob (remote reppers) in Eve. So gate camps = blob, and roaming gangs = nano. I found your clue, you seem to have lost it. Yes, they can outrun missiles, this is broken, therefore MISSILES should be fixed. I'm a fan of buffing, buffing does not **** people off, it does not screw with months of training and it does not make millions or billions of isk useless. Second, I think you should go learn about TRACKING and how signature radius affects this. ______________________________________________ Euriti - I'll continue my nerd forum rage!
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.20 14:24:00 - [9] Originally by: The Tzar from the all too common hotdropping these days. Hotdropping isn't that common. The issue is that nanos are by far the best way to reduce risk. The nano blob is the new blob. If HICs had mobile cynojammers that would be a massive buff to nano gangs. I would expect to see very large nano gangs with a token HIC for the cynojammer.
Shigsy D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.20 14:34:00 - [10] Maybe because its actually slightly fun instead of going 50j in a slow bs gang to find out no one will fight you or just hotdrop you with titans.

Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:11:00 - [11] Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 13:24:29 Originally by: Dalek Commander Because you can outrun missiles, and make tracking nearly useless when you go fast enough. Combat has broken down to either nano, or blob (remote reppers) in Eve. So gate camps = blob, and roaming gangs = nano. I found your clue, you seem to have lost it. Yes, they can outrun missiles, this is broken, therefore MISSILES should be fixed. I'm a fan of buffing, buffing does not **** people off, it does not screw with months of training and it does not make millions or billions of isk useless. Second, I think you should go learn about TRACKING and how signature radius affects this. Sig radius matters, but transversal/distance matters more I think, and nano lets you increase these.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:16:00 - [12] Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 15:16:18 Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 13:24:29 Originally by: Dalek Commander Because you can outrun missiles, and make tracking nearly useless when you go fast enough. Combat has broken down to either nano, or blob (remote reppers) in Eve. So gate camps = blob, and roaming gangs = nano. I found your clue, you seem to have lost it. Yes, they can outrun missiles, this is broken, therefore MISSILES should be fixed. I'm a fan of buffing, buffing does not **** people off, it does not screw with months of training and it does not make millions or billions of isk useless. Second, I think you should go learn about TRACKING and how signature radius affects this. Sig radius matters, but transversal/distance matters more I think, and nano lets you increase these. Yes, but you'll light up at a sig radius over 3 time a battleship, about any medium turret will track you and 44% of a megathrons "on paper dps" will hit you when you go 4200m/s with 1300 sig radius, assuming megathron has null loaded. This at 22km. ______________________________________________ Euriti - I'll continue my nerd forum rage!
TidPow	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:23:00 - [13] I'm a noob, could one of you please explain what you mean by "nanoed"? Thanks, and sorry for sounding stupid. Tid
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:26:00 - [14] We just need a ship with a good tank that can web at range and nano-blobs will no longer be a guaranteed win.
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:31:00 - [15] Originally by: Shigsy Maybe because its actually slightly fun instead of going 50j in a slow bs gang to find out no one will fight you or just hotdrop you with titans. This, sadly.. I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:42:00 - [16] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter We just need a ship with a good tank that can web at range and nano-blobs will no longer be a guaranteed win. they have never been guaranteed win they aren't they never will. ______________________________________________ Euriti - I'll continue my nerd forum rage!
Hannobaal Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Boz Well Sig radius matters, but transversal/distance matters more I think, and nano lets you increase these. Actually, sig radius matters exactly as much as tranveersal does. Say you get 50% larger sig radius and 50% higher transversal. It would mean no change to tracking. They just cancel each other out. As for distance, increasing distance makes it easier to track you (unless you're outside of optimal range).
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:47:00 - [18] Originally by: TidPow please explain what you mean by "nanoed"? Speed tank. Usually a hac/recon cruiser or support with speed related lows, implants (not common), rigs, and a nice mwd. Nano refers to nanofibers which started this craze. If you're not shooting at a pos or running missions everyone should be flying nanos by now. Go faster than 4-5km/s and you'll start to avoid damage. A nano might fly 7-8km/s or 15km/s+ (uncommon, maybe a pimped ceptor). Even flying at a normal 4-5km/s you can avoid most damage and mostly be threatened by another nano or a Rapier/Huginn (also likely nano'd). Speed is life. Speed is more important than tanking or dps. The goal is to use speed to attack at will, avoid damage, control range, and escape when threatened.
TidPow	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:54:00 - [19] Edited by: TidPow on 20/06/2008 15:54:38 Wow, thanks for the great response *****zilla. Speed is life, ok that makes sense. Now what If I'm in something I want to try to avoid battles in? Like a Industrial ship, like a mammoth or iteron? Could I nano that to help me make escape a likelyhood? Thank you again. Tid
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:02:00 - [20] Because it's fun as hell and provides a role for T2 HACs. Plus you can usually get away when it turns into Capitals Ships Online. Battlecruisers already tank and DPS better than HACs while being cheaper. Take away nano, and you nerf the whole class of ships and the end up in the same boat as assault frigates. Useless except for missions and ratting. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs

Call'Da Poleece	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:07:00 - [21] Originally by: TidPow Edited by: TidPow on 20/06/2008 15:54:38 Wow, thanks for the great response *****zilla. Speed is life, ok that makes sense. Now what If I'm in something I want to try to avoid battles in? Like a Industrial ship, like a mammoth or iteron? Could I nano that to help me make escape a likelyhood? Thank you again. Tid On a bog standard T1 industrial (iteron, bestower badger etc) there is no possibility of going fast enough to avoid damnage .... usually people use Blockade Runners as they have +2 warp strength and wehn fitted with istabs, nanos etc can get into warp fairly quick
Corduroy Rab Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:07:00 - [22] Its because everyone cool is doing it, you wanna be cool don't you?
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:12:00 - [23] Edited by: Trojanman190 on 20/06/2008 16:15:57 Originally by: The Tzar Because nano's are the only ships that can get away from the all too common hotdropping these days. Introduce mobile cynojammers for HIC's and watch EvE go back to damage dealing rather than trying to avoid combat as a ships primary purpose. While hotdropping is an issue I think the bigger issue is the huge roaming blobs. Going out with a small gang for a night of roaming is suicide unless you are nanoed. Tank just flat out does not work in those cases, but nanos would let you get out and fight another day. I agree avoiding fights are always lame, but so is dieing in a fight you cannot possibly win. I'd prefer to avoid the obvious loldeathbyblob. Originally by: Tenuo ...quotes... Yes, but you'll light up at a sig radius over 3 time a battleship, about any medium turret will track you and 44% of a megathrons "on paper dps" will hit you when you go 4200m/s with 1300 sig radius, assuming megathron has null loaded. This at 22km. Thats part of why I think escaping is far more important than 'speed tanking' If you are in a zealot and you take on a mega you ARE better off fitting a tank orbitting at the same distance... with an mwd and no speed mods you can pulse it to stay out of web range and since you have a tank you can easily tank him... and he will hit less since you sig isn't so huge! You wouldn't tank your zealot but would instead fit nanoes so that you can get the heck out of there when he calls in 10 more friends.
Kolwrath Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:32:00 - [24] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** The Tzar from the all too common hotdropping these days. Hotdropping isn't that common. The issue is that nanos are by far the best way to reduce risk. The nano blob is the new blob. Yeah hot drops aren't that common. That isen't the reason. IMHO: Nanos are popular because if things go bad you can get away, and moving that fast you are very hard to hit with either missles or guns. Its all about reduced risk, and having the option to disengage. Originally by: Chaos Space Marines Do you hear the voices, too?!?!
supr3m3justic3 ACE'S OVER 8'S The Kano Organisation	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:44:00 - [25] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter We just need a ship with a good tank that can web at range and nano-blobs will no longer be a guaranteed win. !!!!!!rapier!!!!!!
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:51:00 - [26] Because generally, the faster ship dictates the terms of the fight. As a side bonus, you're not really sacrificing tank to do it.
Sidus Isaacs	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:53:00 - [27] I am a noob, can someone define "nano" for me?
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:58:00 - [28] Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 15:16:18 Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 13:24:29 Originally by: Dalek Commander Because you can outrun missiles, and make tracking nearly useless when you go fast enough. Combat has broken down to either nano, or blob (remote reppers) in Eve. So gate camps = blob, and roaming gangs = nano. I found your clue, you seem to have lost it. Yes, they can outrun missiles, this is broken, therefore MISSILES should be fixed. I'm a fan of buffing, buffing does not ** people off, it does not screw with months of training and it does not make millions or billions of isk useless. Second, I think you should go learn about TRACKING and how signature radius affects this. Sig radius matters, but transversal/distance matters more I think, and nano lets you increase these. Yes, but you'll light up at a sig radius over 3 time a battleship, about any medium turret will track you and 44% of a megathrons "on paper dps" will hit you when you go 4200m/s with 1300 sig radius, assuming megathron has null loaded. This at 22km. To be fair though, 4200 m/s is a ** nano speed :/ --
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.06.20 16:58:00 - [29] Edited by: Gimpb on 20/06/2008 17:00:14 Originally by: Sidus Isaacs I am a noob, can someone define "nano" for me? In general, a T2 cruiser that goes 3k+ m/s. Sometimes inties are considered nano as well, they of course make that speed easily but play differently. Some other ships can also perform in simmilar ways, hurricanes and phoons for example.
Hannobaal Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.20 17:01:00 - [30] Edited by: Hannobaal on 20/06/2008 17:01:37 Originally by: Marcus Druallis To be fair though, 4200 m/s is a **** nano speed :/ Yet not many ships can get there without a hefty investment in ISK or some really nice gang bonuses.

The Djego merovinger inc	Posted - 2008.06.20 17:07:00 - [31] Edited by: The Djego on 20/06/2008 17:11:46 Originally by: supr3m3justic3 Originally by: Gavin Darklighter We just need a ship with a good tank that can web at range and nano-blobs will no longer be a guaranteed win. !!!!!!rapier!!!!!! Exequeror Navy Issue!!! To the OP, well to kill(read kill) a Nano Ship nothing beats a Nano Ship, than comes the standard Forum "Adept or die, Noob." and here we are, all together, happy in our Nano Hacs. Sadly. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.20 17:09:00 - [32] Originally by: Gimpb Edited by: Gimpb on 20/06/2008 17:00:14 Originally by: Sidus Isaacs I am a noob, can someone define "nano" for me? In general, a T2 cruiser that goes 3k+ m/s. Sometimes inties are considered nano as well, they of course make that speed easily but play differently. Some other ships can also perform in simmilar ways, hurricanes and phoons for example. I think of added important is the warp time. One a ship that cannot break 4km/s I feel that warp time is far more important than top speed. The ishtar is a slow beast unless you use extremely expensive rigs and implants and even then getting past 4 - 4.5 is rough. My ishtar is almost 4km/s but warps in 3.5s.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.06.20 17:19:00 - [33] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 20/06/2008 17:22:54 Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 20/06/2008 17:21:44 Originally by: supr3m3justic3 Originally by: Gavin Darklighter We just need a ship with a good tank that can web at range and nano-blobs will no longer be a guaranteed win. !!!!!!rapier!!!!!! Maybe I wasn't that specific with the requirements of a "good tank", but the rapier does not qualify. The Rapier is more or less a nano-ship itself. I would just like to have a nice big slow ship with a good tank that could web nanos at range.
Ash Bringer	Posted - 2008.06.20 17:23:00 - [34] some one already mention it and that's why... WCS Nerf.. I remember a time where 20km scrambler is a %50 chance to tackle someone. Even if u are in a interceptor and in range... That time It was only the vagas there.. That was nanoship which is designed that way. Even they had WCS though he he... Ishtars that nanoed were abominations as they can put a WCS at lows and if u try to point an ishtar from 7.5km in a vaga u were toast, as ishtar will have web + point + 2 MAR tank... Because they have WCS in low aligning time was not that important as with ping ppl have only interceptors could catch a cruiser after decloak in a gate camp and %90 time it was 1 point so hahaha it was nothing. Then WCS nerf came.. Because ppl whine that they are game breaking. Because u could engage the fight and run when ever u want. All-wise CCP nerfed them to hell (Which is good actually) Then... People start to lose their ships most of time. Because their ships was not aligning fast in a gate camp, so that even 1 point is enough to stop ppl. Their ship can not return to gate fast enough.. Don't even think about tanking the blob anyway.. Then CCP made a mistake and heavily buffed the inertia stabilizers. So ppl easily achieved great speeds and agility. And they learned to play that way... Btw if u ask me 2 nanoships attacking each other is most like a space game or movies , And 2 ravens attacking each other is most like WOW. U stood in front of him and press buttons and pray to god to have a critical hit on enemy hehehe... Then they nerf inertia but ppl learned the new fun way. They just didn't gave up... As nano is fun.. U can actually use real skills but not only skill points. U are mostly invul to most of dangers (as old WCS) , U can solo against a blob (which is important for some ppls) U can engage a BS in a cruiser and when he neut u down u can still run from it (most of the time he he) They align fast as interceptors so they can intercept ppl in belts (which is good to keep NPC farmer population in line) They can actually travel around (10-20jumps is nothing which is eve's most boring part) So I love to nano my ships... Yeah maybe they'll nerf it too. As long as my vaga is keeped untouched I wont cry out too much, but believe me it will make everything more boring... Slow slow ships. When engaged in fight u will know that who is going down from the first second. Most skillpointed pilot will be uber killing machine and my nighthawk will rip everything apart...
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.20 17:29:00 - [35] Originally by: Trojanman190 I think of added important is the warp time. If warp time were this important than wouldn't that be reason enough to fly hacs versus t1 battlecruisers? Wouldn't hacs etc rely more in i-stabs versus only for maintaining orbit? If warp time were this important than remote rep bs gangs would be very viable. They'd only need a frig or two to web and get the gang into warp. Any warp over 12-15au (roughly) they could web each other and be out of aggression by the time they hit the gate to jump through. A freighter gang can coordinate getting into warp in a few seconds. Why is this not seen in remote rep bs gangs? Seems to me that we spend more time in warp than aligning. If warp time mattered than wouldn't rigs to accelerate speed in warp be worth more than shaving a few seconds off of the align time? Most everyone knows the usual speed for most hacs. The standard eft fits take great interest in the mwd speed. Yet align time and speed in warp is nearly entirely ignored. Nanos are fit for speed on grid. Their ability to jump from system to system quickly without coordination is a freebie. Nanos are not fit for getting into warp quickly nor speed in warp. These attributes are entirely a secondary consideration after addressing the primary issue of speed.
Ephemeron Anti-BoB	Posted - 2008.06.20 17:34:00 - [36] Edited by: Ephemeron on 20/06/2008 17:35:20 Originally by: Suitonia Originally by: The Tzar Because nano's are the only ships that can get away from the all too common hotdropping these days. Introduce mobile cynojammers for HIC's and watch EvE go back to damage dealing rather than trying to avoid combat as a ships primary purpose. Nice idea. I'd like to see mobile cynojammers, similar to mobile bubbles, anchor it and it prevents caps from cynoing in your grid. ok it could work if its effect is limited to grid-wide only
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.20 18:38:00 - [37] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 20/06/2008 18:38:30 Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 20/06/2008 17:35:20 Originally by: Suitonia Originally by: The Tzar Because nano's are the only ships that can get away from the all too common hotdropping these days. Introduce mobile cynojammers for HIC's and watch EvE go back to damage dealing rather than trying to avoid combat as a ships primary purpose. Nice idea. I'd like to see mobile cynojammers, similar to mobile bubbles, anchor it and it prevents caps from cynoing in your grid. ok it could work if its effect is limited to grid-wide only Mobile web bubbles, yes. Mobile cynojammers, I would say no. Most people do not nano to avoid hot drops, they do it for minimum risk pvp. -- Billion Isk Mission
AKULA UrQuan Druuge Crimson Corporation	Posted - 2008.06.20 18:45:00 - [38] Nano is as close to "iddqd" as one can get in eve these days. Be nice if we could go back to the days where 5,000 m/s was considered really, really fast.
Gantrithor105 Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.20 18:56:00 - [39] Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 15:16:18 Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 13:24:29 Originally by: Dalek Commander Because you can outrun missiles, and make tracking nearly useless when you go fast enough. Combat has broken down to either nano, or blob (remote reppers) in Eve. So gate camps = blob, and roaming gangs = nano. I found your clue, you seem to have lost it. Yes, they can outrun missiles, this is broken, therefore MISSILES should be fixed. I'm a fan of buffing, buffing does not **** people off, it does not screw with months of training and it does not make millions or billions of isk useless. Second, I think you should go learn about TRACKING and how signature radius affects this. Sig radius matters, but transversal/distance matters more I think, and nano lets you increase these. Yes, but you'll light up at a sig radius over 3 time a battleship, about any medium turret will track you and 44% of a megathrons "on paper dps" will hit you when you go 4200m/s with 1300 sig radius, assuming megathron has null loaded. This at 22km. But a) most people go faster than this, and b) most people orbit closer. Sig radius means nothing if the angular velocity is larger than the turret's tracking ability. You'll miss every time.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.20 20:02:00 - [40] Originally by: AKULA UrQuan Nano is as close to "iddqd" as one can get in eve these days. Be nice if we could go back to the days where 5,000 m/s was considered really, really fast. Quoted for emphasis ------------------------------------------

El Yatta Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.06.20 21:25:00 - [41] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 20/06/2008 17:22:54 Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 20/06/2008 17:21:44 Originally by: supr3m3justic3 Originally by: Gavin Darklighter We just need a ship with a good tank that can web at range and nano-blobs will no longer be a guaranteed win. !!!!!!rapier!!!!!! Maybe I wasn't that specific with the requirements of a "good tank", but the rapier does not qualify. The Rapier is more or less a nano-ship itself. I would just like to have a nice big slow ship with a good tank that could web nanos at range. Remote repping. It works. Nanos are excellent, allowing the skilled small gang to outmaneuvre a larger gang at the cost of DPS and HP. Doesnt need a change. There are a huge range of counters that are under-utilised by whiners. _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.20 21:41:00 - [42] Originally by: El Yatta Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 20/06/2008 17:22:54 Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 20/06/2008 17:21:44 Originally by: supr3m3justic3 Originally by: Gavin Darklighter We just need a ship with a good tank that can web at range and nano-blobs will no longer be a guaranteed win. !!!!!!rapier!!!!!! Maybe I wasn't that specific with the requirements of a "good tank", but the rapier does not qualify. The Rapier is more or less a nano-ship itself. I would just like to have a nice big slow ship with a good tank that could web nanos at range. Remote repping. It works. Nanos are excellent, allowing the skilled small gang to outmaneuvre a larger gang at the cost of DPS and HP. Doesnt need a change. There are a huge range of counters that are under-utilised by whiners. What he said.... Originally by: CCP Dionysus We like to share the lub.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.20 22:31:00 - [43] Speed needs a nerf apart from cepters and vaga's. There is no do or die commitment to fighting when you're nanoed and people who fit do or die tanks vs nano fittings die easily. Why should ships that aren't fit for committing to a fight easily outclass those that do fit for fight commitment? After all, wasn't that CCP's aim when nerfing WCS, making people commit to a fight if they are going to fight and not just easily get away if things turn bad? Speed has become the new WCS and now it needs to be toned down. What so many don't understand is that there are 100+ man nano fleets that are common now. It isn't just about roaming with 3-4 people in nano gangs to get away from the blob anymore because nano blobs are becoming very common.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.06.20 22:33:00 - [44] Originally by: El Yatta Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 20/06/2008 17:22:54 Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 20/06/2008 17:21:44 Originally by: supr3m3justic3 Originally by: Gavin Darklighter We just need a ship with a good tank that can web at range and nano-blobs will no longer be a guaranteed win. !!!!!!rapier!!!!!! Maybe I wasn't that specific with the requirements of a "good tank", but the rapier does not qualify. The Rapier is more or less a nano-ship itself. I would just like to have a nice big slow ship with a good tank that could web nanos at range. Remote repping. It works. Nanos are excellent, allowing the skilled small gang to outmaneuvre a larger gang at the cost of DPS and HP. Doesnt need a change. There are a huge range of counters that are under-utilised by whiners. Ya it works, its even easy if you are ganking people or just need to tank the gate guns, but a battleship would be much more survivable in the same situation. I just don't see why we don't have larger ships with webbing bonuses. The Rapier and Huginn are great for cloaky and nano roles, but I think there should be another hull that fills the web/tank role. Something like a T2 battlecruiser hull with a nice tank and a special high-slot module similar to a focus-scripted warp field generator but provides a ~30km webber and does not allow the webbing-ship to MWD or recieve remote-assistance while its active. Could add new options for gangs rolling out with heavies. Perhaps even more importantly it would end the Minmatar monopoly on long-range webbing and give players who specialize in a different race a chance to fill this role without cross-training, and that is coming from a minmatar spec'd pilot who loves his Huginn. I agree that nanos are great and I'm not whining about them, I just would like to see a ship with long-range webbing that tanks.
Halkin Locus Solus	Posted - 2008.06.20 23:04:00 - [45] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 20/06/2008 18:38:30 Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 20/06/2008 17:35:20 Originally by: Suitonia Originally by: The Tzar Because nano's are the only ships that can get away from the all too common hotdropping these days. Introduce mobile cynojammers for HIC's and watch EvE go back to damage dealing rather than trying to avoid combat as a ships primary purpose. Nice idea. I'd like to see mobile cynojammers, similar to mobile bubbles, anchor it and it prevents caps from cynoing in your grid. ok it could work if its effect is limited to grid-wide only Mobile web bubbles, yes. Mobile cynojammers, I would say no. Most people do not nano to avoid hot drops, they do it for minimum risk pvp. if a mobile cyno jammer was to be an option make it grid specific (or AU), rather than system wide. would prevent gate hot drops and make small gank squads aware of incoming caps becuase they have to align and get to the fight. Originally by: Elise Randolph Everybody wins when trolls get trolled.
Tankn00blicus Cosmic Vacum Cleaners	Posted - 2008.06.20 23:40:00 - [46] Ludicrous speed! GO!!
Ancy Denaries Under Heavy Fire Lex Talionis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.20 23:48:00 - [47] Our T1 Cruiser gangs love those nanofleets. Sure, we end up dying...but with 2-3 HACs/Recons blown up versus our 13-14 cruisers....who won the economy?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.20 23:50:00 - [48] Originally by: Halkin mobile cyno jammer was to be an option make it grid specific (or AU), rather than system wide. This would also help those that don't need the buff. Flying a large nano gang? Take a mobile cyno jammer and you'll never be surprised again! Your fleet has a cap fleet on standby and the hostiles have a cap fleet ready. To spring a trap only pop your cyno first and hit the mobile cyno jammer a second later and the hostiles can't interrupt without giving you time to get out. Your cyno will last 10 minutes. You can get in reinforcements but they can't. Want to lock down a system? Put mobile cyno jam ship + support on every gate. Disable the pos guns and put a mobile cyno jam ship outside every hostile pos. Now hostiles must cyno into a safe spot without the benefit of a gate for cover or a pos for protection.
Halkin Locus Solus	Posted - 2008.06.21 00:10:00 - [49] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Halkin mobile cyno jammer was to be an option make it grid specific (or AU), rather than system wide. This would also help those that don't need the buff. Flying a large nano gang? Take a mobile cyno jammer and you'll never be surprised again! Your fleet has a cap fleet on standby and the hostiles have a cap fleet ready. To spring a trap only pop your cyno first and hit the mobile cyno jammer a second later and the hostiles can't interrupt without giving you time to get out. Your cyno will last 10 minutes. You can get in reinforcements but they can't. Want to lock down a system? Put mobile cyno jam ship + support on every gate. Disable the pos guns and put a mobile cyno jam ship outside every hostile pos. Now hostiles must cyno into a safe spot without the benefit of a gate for cover or a pos for protection. very true, tbh its a stupid idea Originally by: Elise Randolph Everybody wins when trolls get trolled.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.21 02:28:00 - [50] Originally by: Italian Wedding Speed needs a nerf apart from cepters and vaga's. There is no do or die commitment to fighting when you're nanoed and people who fit do or die tanks vs nano fittings die easily. Why should ships that aren't fit for committing to a fight easily outclass those that do fit for fight commitment? After all, wasn't that CCP's aim when nerfing WCS, making people commit to a fight if they are going to fight and not just easily get away if things turn bad? Speed has become the new WCS and now it needs to be toned down. What so many don't understand is that there are 100+ man nano fleets that are common now. It isn't just about roaming with 3-4 people in nano gangs to get away from the blob anymore because nano blobs are becoming very common. No one argues my points

JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.21 06:45:00 - [51] IMO< Nannos are a great addition to eve, they give not so good PvP'ers a leg up in combat. Should they be nerfed? Hell no !! Heres the answer(s). 1) make neuts and webs have more trainable skills. Skills to increase their range, their drain/web percentage. Sick of nanofgs?? Then you spend a bit of time getting your t1 web/neut to hit 15-17km before you overheat it. THEN when the gents who scream, "FIT A WEB/NEUT if you wanna kill nannos" actually have something instead of the useless hollow advice they generally spout. What good is a neut or a web that only reaches 12-13km when they orbit you from 19km plus? Useless!! It would make a one v one's in BC sized ships and smaller viable again. At this time only heavy neuts are viable, that means CCP is saying you need a BS to counter a nano cruiser. unbalanced in any stretch of the imagination Currently if your caught by a nano ishtar in your 'tank' ishtar( replace 'ishtar' with any other ship in the game if you like that can be nannoed, same outcome ) your just dead, your web or your neut you so wisely fit is useless,(unless of course your using rare faction gear) and the nano knows this. Ships of the same class and race should not be invulnerable to each other just because of their speed. 2) Give the missiles that were designed to kill fast movers enough love to actually harm fast movers, either outright buff them or add skills to further increase expl velocity ect. 3) Seems to me nanos are here to stay. like it or not. If you guys are going to get what you want, = game balance, stop asking for what CCP clearly doesn't want to give and start asking for what they what they are more likely to give... skill sets designed to ACTUALLY counter an obvious imbalance. Once a guys be-bopp'n thru the belts in his '*******' ( place any ship under BS here )and gets jumped by a nano version of his same ship AND his training and fitting ACTUALLY either help him kill or escape his nanno counterpart without having to have a hugin/rapier/hyena in his back pocket you will see this nanno trend dry up to a large extent. Now, BATHE YOUR WOMEN AND BRING THEM TO ME!! JVOL has spoken! :)
El Mauru Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.21 07:59:00 - [52] Edited by: El Mauru on 21/06/2008 08:00:12 I think nanos are fine for the most part- would be nice if the whole invincibility factor was less tied to isk spent though :-P How to achieve that? Beats me :-P To stay that vague: Wouldn't it be nice if there actually was a third "viable" niche next to blob/speed for fitting again? Sth. that used to be e-war :-O -
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.21 11:46:00 - [53] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 15:16:18 Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 20/06/2008 13:24:29 Originally by: Dalek Commander Because you can outrun missiles, and make tracking nearly useless when you go fast enough. Combat has broken down to either nano, or blob (remote reppers) in Eve. So gate camps = blob, and roaming gangs = nano. I found your clue, you seem to have lost it. Yes, they can outrun missiles, this is broken, therefore MISSILES should be fixed. I'm a fan of buffing, buffing does not ** people off, it does not screw with months of training and it does not make millions or billions of isk useless. Second, I think you should go learn about TRACKING and how signature radius affects this. Sig radius matters, but transversal/distance matters more I think, and nano lets you increase these. Yes, but you'll light up at a sig radius over 3 time a battleship, about any medium turret will track you and 44% of a megathrons "on paper dps" will hit you when you go 4200m/s with 1300 sig radius, assuming megathron has null loaded. This at 22km. To be fair though, 4200 m/s is a nano speed :/ Try getting ishtar/zealot to 4500 without snakes and faction gear and overloading or t2 rigs without sacrificing all too much (aka using all your low slots on the zealot for speed mods). for vagabond it's a ** speed but it's made to go veeery fast. ______________________________________________ Euriti - I'll continue my nerd forum rage!
Nanetha	Posted - 2008.06.21 11:51:00 - [54] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 20/06/2008 18:38:30 Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 20/06/2008 17:35:20 Originally by: Suitonia Originally by: The Tzar Because nano's are the only ships that can get away from the all too common hotdropping these days. Introduce mobile cynojammers for HIC's and watch EvE go back to damage dealing rather than trying to avoid combat as a ships primary purpose. Nice idea. I'd like to see mobile cynojammers, similar to mobile bubbles, anchor it and it prevents caps from cynoing in your grid. ok it could work if its effect is limited to grid-wide only Mobile web bubbles, yes Making blasterboats even worse again?
Bronson Hughes The. Conspiracy	Posted - 2008.06.21 12:04:00 - [55] Originally by: Gantrithor105 But a) most people go faster than this, and b) most people orbit closer. Sig radius means nothing if the angular velocity is larger than the turret's tracking ability. You'll miss every time. And c) most people orbiting closer can't go that fast, at least not in a stable orbit. They end up either slowing down or zooming past their target, both of which reduce their angular velocity. Combine that with a signature radius the size of Mount Rushmore, and they become easy targets for a short time. Not to mention the fact that at 13km you have to start worrying about webs (further out if they've packing faction). -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.21 12:44:00 - [56] Originally by: Bronson Hughes Originally by: Gantrithor105 Not to mention the fact that at 13km you have to start worrying about webs (further out if they've packing faction). Yes and if the target has a functional brain you'll have to worry about range even more, it's a fine line between 15-16km (overloaded webs + target moving) and 24km when you are going that fast and with the maneuvrability of a cruiser, even tho you have istab/polys ______________________________________________ Euriti - I'll continue my nerd forum rage!
Maroz Thrace	Posted - 2008.06.21 12:53:00 - [57] sole reason i fly nano is as someone has already said u have to travel long distances sometimes to get a fight, and if i need to log off for wat ever reason, i have a very low chance of making it back alive, (yes scout etc, but i dont dual account) where as a nano is invincible to gate camps 99% of time and can travel much further without getting bored out of your mind
Matrix Skye	Posted - 2008.06.21 13:22:00 - [58] why fly nanos? because they're low risk pvp ships. the best tanked ships, and very easy to rake up kills for your killboard . a gang of nanos is pretty much invulnerable to anything but a very large specialized blob.
Tankn00blicus Cosmic Vacum Cleaners	Posted - 2008.06.21 13:47:00 - [59] Edited by: Tankn00blicus on 21/06/2008 13:48:25 Originally by: JVol 1) make neuts and webs have more trainable skills. Skills to increase their range, their drain/web percentage. Sick of nanof*gs?? Then you spend a bit of time getting your t1 web/neut to hit 15-17km before you overheat it. THEN when the gents who scream, "FIT A WEB/NEUT if you wanna kill nannos" actually have something instead of the useless hollow advice they generally spout. What good is a neut or a web that only reaches 12-13km when they orbit you from 19km plus? Useless!! It would make a one v one's in BC sized ships and smaller viable again. At this time only heavy neuts are viable, that means CCP is saying you need a BS to counter a nano cruiser. unbalanced in any stretch of the imagination Longer range web will kill the vaga, which technically doesn't speed tank, it buffer shield tanks, it cannot use its speed while engaging and even then doesn't do great dps. Its role is a hit-and-run ship and it shouldn't have game mechanics making that impossible to do so. However, the ships that hit-while-running like nano ishtars are abominations.
Ikoras Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.06.21 14:53:00 - [60] Neuts > nano

SickSeven	Posted - 2008.06.21 15:29:00 - [61] I have a suggestion, why not give us small and medium webber drones? why is there only one webber drone? give us a fast webber drone!!
SickSeven	Posted - 2008.06.21 15:51:00 - [62] Originally by: Italian Wedding Speed needs a nerf apart from cepters and vaga's. There is no do or die commitment to fighting when you're nanoed and people who fit do or die tanks vs nano fittings die easily. Why should ships that aren't fit for committing to a fight easily outclass those that do fit for fight commitment? After all, wasn't that CCP's aim when nerfing WCS, making people commit to a fight if they are going to fight and not just easily get away if things turn bad? Speed has become the new WCS and now it needs to be toned down. Quote: 100% agree. Right on!
Ezekiel Sulastin Central Research Nexus	Posted - 2008.06.21 15:56:00 - [63] Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 21/06/2008 15:57:04 I think most of the nanoing of HACs comes from the unfortunate fact that that is mainly what they do. Almost all of them are outclassed as far as non-speed capabilities by a much cheaper, insurable battlecruiser (or even battleship!), with few exceptions. Take out their speed, and HACs become what AFs are now. ---- WTB Armor Nerf Hardener II, 10^100 isk OBO
My Julutschka Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.21 17:28:00 - [64] the whole discussion is common in EVERY MMO out there. On the one hand you have the guys that play the broken class/fly the broken ship/have the broken item...on the other hand you have "the others" Its in EVE where the nanoers tell everybody "LULZ there are so much counter you n00bs"..yep counters to get you away from us, but NOT to kill you Same es in WoW when they cried "PALA IS IMBA" and the Palas replied "LUL n00bs..only takes 3 other chars to kill us..we are fine" Think about it !
Borasatar	Posted - 2008.06.21 17:58:00 - [65] Edited by: Borasatar on 21/06/2008 17:57:49 Originally by: Jalif Originally by: El Yatta Nanos are excellent, allowing the skilled small gang to outmaneuvre a larger gang at the cost of DPS and HP. Doesnt need a change. There are a huge range of counters that are under-utilised by whiners. What he said.... Is this like your girlfriend who lives in the Niagra Falls area... People say these "there are billions and billions of ways to stop nano gangs!" statements all the time. Mostly by people who fly nano ships in nano gangs trying to justify and protect their minimum risk way of playing the game. Let's list some of the "huge range of counters" to nano gangs, shall we? I'll start... 1. Minmatar Recons 2. Fly nano yourself 3. Be somewhere that the nanogang isn't 4. Don't log in 5. Cancel your account please add to the list
Thong Gnome	Posted - 2008.06.21 18:49:00 - [66] Nano nerf is not far off. I'm sure this bandwagon will be vacant and left in the valley to rot...
Darineah Charach Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.21 19:31:00 - [67] The problem with nanogangs is that their ISN'T a reliable, viable counter that results in nanoship death. Regardless of what the naysayers say. Fact is, the vast majority fly them because they have to...which pretty plainly points out that the suggested counters don't work. If they did, nano wouldn't be such a hotly debated topic. I miss variety. EvE used to be a place where you never really knew what the other guy was flying. Now with low sec a wasteland and 0.0 dominated by jump bridge networks enabling fast blobbing, the only viable roaming method is nano. I actually find it quite ironic that this has happened, because it is completely anathema to the spirit of the game. ------- Boxing Kangaroo
Ulstan State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.21 20:14:00 - [68] 'Everyone' flies nanos today for the same reason 'everyone' fitted WCS back in the day. Nanos are the new WCS. Actually, they're better. Nanos let you chase down people trying to flee, they give you a great tank as long as you can maintain your speed, and they let you bug out of fights you are losing. WCS didn't let you chase anyone, if you filled your slots with WCS you had zero tank, but they did let you bug out of fights you were losing. Still, given that nanos are just about the only way to escape blobs, I'd like to see a blob fix introduced at the same time we see a nano fix introduced. About the only thing you could do immediately is to fix polycarbons to bring them back in line with all other rigs, and make them cheaper.
Helen coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.06.21 22:04:00 - [69] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter I would just like to have a nice big slow ship with a good tank that could web nanos at range. Bhaalgorn?
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.22 00:21:00 - [70] Originally by: Ikoras Neuts > nano Injector > Neuts

AstroPhobic	Posted - 2008.06.22 00:45:00 - [71] Originally by: Borasatar 1. Minmatar Recons 2. Fly nano yourself 3. Be somewhere that the nanogang isn't 4. Don't log in 5. Cancel your account 6. Heavy Neuts 7. ECM 8. RR 9. Tracking 10. Lots of inties/frigs 11. Low transversal and sniper BS
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.22 00:50:00 - [72] Edited by: Italian Wedding on 22/06/2008 00:51:36 Originally by: AstroPhobic 6. Heavy Neuts 7. ECM 8. RR 9. Tracking 10. Lots of inties/frigs 11. Low transversal and sniper BS 6. Cap Injector > Neuts 7. ECM ships can't kill nano's (requires specialized GANG to kill one cruiser sized ship = bull**) 8. Remote Reps can't kill nano ships (requires specialized GANG to kill 1 cruiser sized ship = bull**) 9. Drones 10. Why should it take many ships to take down 1 cruise sized ship? 12. Lol @ nano pilot that gets low transversal to a sniper bs moving at <200m/s. Minmatar, should've known. Trying to protect your low risk high kill investment.
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.22 02:34:00 - [73] Originally by: Tankn00blicus Edited by: Tankn00blicus on 21/06/2008 13:48:25 Originally by: JVol 1) make neuts and webs have more trainable skills. Skills to increase their range, their drain/web percentage. Sick of nanof*gs?? Then you spend a bit of time getting your t1 web/neut to hit 15-17km before you overheat it. THEN when the gents who scream, "FIT A WEB/NEUT if you wanna kill nannos" actually have something instead of the useless hollow advice they generally spout. What good is a neut or a web that only reaches 12-13km when they orbit you from 19km plus? Useless!! It would make a one v one's in BC sized ships and smaller viable again. At this time only heavy neuts are viable, that means CCP is saying you need a BS to counter a nano cruiser. unbalanced in any stretch of the imagination Longer range web will kill the vaga, which technically doesn't speed tank, it buffer shield tanks, it cannot use its speed while engaging and even then doesn't do great dps. Its role is a hit-and-run ship and it shouldn't have game mechanics making that impossible to do so. However, the ships that hit-while-running like nano ishtars are abominations. Let me get this straight. Your opposed to making the mod thats SUPPOSED to counter nannos effective enough to ACTUALLY counter them (by adding skills that extend their range) because it would allow you to catch the ONE cruiser ccp intended to be a speed tanker? Even if the tactic had been basterdizd to include any ship with enough lows to nanno? wow
Reem Fairchild Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.22 02:39:00 - [74] Originally by: JVol Your opposed to making the mod thats SUPPOSED to counter nannos effective enough to ACTUALLY counter them (by adding skills that extend their range) because it would allow you to catch the ONE cruiser ccp intended to be a speed tanker? Even if the tactic had been bastardizd to include any ship with enough lows to nanno? wow counter =/= render completely obsolete and unusable
Parsival The Avalon Foundation Delta.Green	Posted - 2008.06.22 03:05:00 - [75] Originally by: Italian Wedding What so many don't understand is that there are 100+ man nano fleets that are common now. It isn't just about roaming with 3-4 people in nano gangs to get away from the blob anymore because nano blobs are becoming very common. The problem there is the blob, not the nano. Its just fashionable to blame the nano.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.22 03:38:00 - [76] Originally by: Reem Fairchild counter =/= render completely obsolete and unusable Ya know that if CCP ever releases the Rapier/Huginn they could web at 40km @90% and possibly much longer with faction webs, gang bonuses, and overloading? Oh the humanity! Oh wait. We've got 2x ships dedicated to webbing and that hasn't broken the nano fad. In fact the two ships dedicated to webbing are mostly nano'd themselves. If webs had a longer range then they'd be more effective and a realistic counter. Possibly offer a web or script that allows 10km @90% webbing or 24km @30% webbing. It wouldn't break the game. Currently everyone fits a point. Force folks to decide between scramming the target and webbing. Of course this is bad news for a vaga as if it wants to nano, scram, and web it must sacrifice its buffer tank. This would bring at least some variation in nano fittings. Until CCP does something everyone should be flying nanos. No excuse. Don't whine that you can't catch them or kill them. The only reasonable course of action is to fly one yourself.
Apoctasy The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.06.22 03:46:00 - [77] Stasis webifier 'Nuff said.
Reem Fairchild Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.22 03:50:00 - [78] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Reem Fairchild counter =/= render completely obsolete and unusable Ya know that if CCP ever releases the Rapier/Huginn they could web at 40km @90% and possibly much longer with faction webs, gang bonuses, and overloading? Oh the humanity! Oh wait. We've got 2x ships dedicated to webbing and that hasn't broken the nano fad. In fact the two ships dedicated to webbing are mostly nano'd themselves. Is this related to what I wrote in some way or am I missing something here? Because you simply must be being dense on purpose if you're bringing up the existence of Minmatar recons in support of a proposal that would effectively render them obsolete by giving every single ship in the game similar abilities.
Parsival The Avalon Foundation Delta.Green	Posted - 2008.06.22 04:17:00 - [79] The single most frustrating thing about fighting nano ships is the way they can jump through a gate, decide they don't like the odds and then MWD back to the gate and jump and you pretty much do anything to them. They really need to increase the decloak range off gates so that jumping through a gate really does commit you to either fighting the camp or genuinely running for safety in-system. Other than that, nano is fine.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.06.22 04:39:00 - [80] I remember the time when you wanted to go fast, you actually had to fly frigs/ceptors... Now it`s cruisers sized nano ships that are the fast movers. Something is wrong when cruisersized ships are moving faster then many of the average ceptor pilots. And the counters I have heard so far is... Neutralizer you noob - Only an option if you are in a BS, and BS do not have the speed or the agility to catch that nanoship. Fit web - What difference does it make when the scramrange on T2 disruptor is 24km? Hugin, rapier - So you need a specialised ship to counter a "flavour of the year" setup?

Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.22 05:16:00 - [81] Originally by: Reem Fairchild effectively render them obsolete by giving every single ship in the game similar abilities. Not similiar abilities. Currently Huginn/Rapiers have a very unique ability that makes them very valuable in fleets. There aren't other t1 options that compare. I'd like to see something in between the mostly useless webs we have now and a t2 fitted Minm Recon. Not every single ship would have similiar abilities. A Lachesis or Arazu has bonuses to points for range and still everyone fits points. Which ship has a free mid slot for a web? Not everyone would fly with a web. Folks would be forced to decide between tank, speed, points, and web. What I'm asking for is a viable t1 webbing solution.
Reem Fairchild Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.22 05:17:00 - [82] Originally by: TZeer Something is wrong when cruisersized ships are moving faster then many of the average ceptor pilots. You're being misleading on purpose. Given the same type of fitting, same level of gear, same rigs, same implants, same gang bonuses, etc. ... even the slowest interceptor (the Raptor) will always be faster than any cruiser sized ship in the game. It's like saying that carriers are faster than interceptors because if you speed fit and really super pimp it out you can get a carrier to go faster than an afterburning, armor tanked Taranis.
Reem Fairchild Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.22 05:35:00 - [83] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Reem Fairchild effectively render them obsolete by giving every single ship in the game similar abilities. Not similiar abilities. Currently Huginn/Rapiers have a very unique ability that makes them very valuable in fleets. There aren't other t1 options that compare. I'd like to see something in between the mostly useless webs we have now and a t2 fitted Minm Recon. Hyena. Beyond that, asking for regular webs to reach out to warp disruption range = Minmatar recons and speed fitted ships completely obsolete and useless. Quote: Not every single ship would have similiar abilities. A Lachesis or Arazu has bonuses to points for range and still everyone fits points. Their main use is in electronic warfare with their damps, or at east should be before those were killed because of forum whiners. Now, they're near useless. But anyway... Their range advantage over regular warp disruptors is similar to the range advantage of the Minmatar recons over regular webs. And most people fit warp disruptors, and most people fits webs (unless they are a fast ship planning to fight outside of web range). That's because they're balanced (in that repect). Both of them. It should stay that way. Quote: Which ship has a free mid slot for a web? Most ships I fly have a web. Quote: Not everyone would fly with a web. Folks would be forced to decide between tank, speed, points, and web. What I'm asking for is a viable t1 webbing solution. They are perfectly viable and balanced. If you let them web out to 20-24 km on regular ships you make most speed fitted ships obsolete and grant the main role for Minmatar recons to every ship in the game. I know they web at far longer ranges, but their main use against fast ships is within that range beacuse that's the range most ships will fight in (except for major fleet combat with snipers).
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.22 06:08:00 - [84] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Hyena. T2 Originally by: Reem Fairchild Beyond that, asking for regular webs to reach out to warp disruption range = Minmatar recons and speed fitted ships completely obsolete and useless. Scripts. Scripts that work like scrams/disrupters. Scripts that trade range for effectiveness. Originally by: Reem Fairchild Their main use is in electronic warfare with their target painters, or at east should be before those were killed because of forum whiners. Now, they're near useless. But anyway... Fixed. Gallente Recons are there mostly for points. Minm Recons for webbing. Everyone fits points. Minm Recons are must have ships in many fleets. Originally by: Reem Fairchild Most ships I fly have a web. And you've likely traded tank, another point, a cap recharger, something for that web. Webs do not have the utility of points currently. Originally by: Reem Fairchild If you let them web out to 20-24 km on regular ships you make most speed fitted ships obsolete and grant the main role for Minmatar recons to every ship in the game. I know they web at far longer ranges, but their main use against fast ships is within that range Minm recons try and web outside of scram range. They try and web at 30-35km if they know someone else has a point. I've lost a few Rapiers getting too close because I didn't trust that someone had a point. Minm recons can web at considerable range and effectiveness. I'm asking for a solution which trades range for effectiveness. This leaves a need for Minm recons. A long range web doesn't make nanos obsolete. If two nanos meet the one with the web can control the range. If both have webs and similiar skills then they can dart in, web the other, and hopefully get out of range before they're webbed. There are tactics around this currently. A long range web would force nanos to commit. It would be even better if the effectiveness of webs also was based on the sig radius. So a cruiser with mwd would be more affected than a ceptor with a ab.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.06.22 06:33:00 - [85] Quote: You're being misleading on purpose. Given the same type of fitting, same level of gear, same rigs, same implants, same gang bonuses, etc. ... even the slowest interceptor (the Raptor) will always be faster than any cruiser sized ship in the game. That might be, but the problem is that bonuses from commandships are not stackingnerfed like other stats. Not sure you know, but the EW gang module is stacking nerfed regarding jammingstrength against modules fitted on your ship. Speed module is not.... Another thing, one of the points from the nano people is: Quote: It`s expensive to fit, expensive to loose, so it`s okay This is almsot like before the damp nerf. Many people used it, but nowhere near as many as nano. Also there people mentioned alot of counters... FOF`s, Drones, Sensorboosters, fast locking damp/jam ship yourself, speed to get on top of it etc. Did they get nerfed? Oh yeah! Will speed get nerfed, hmm, yeah, I think so.
Thirzarr	Posted - 2008.06.22 08:14:00 - [86] Am I the only one who is thinking: "Its not that nano's are too fast - everything else just is too slow." Honestly... I'm close to crying when seeing the "speed" of battleships in the official EvE-Trailers. sob ZOOOOM! EvE could really use a nice little "speedup". imho.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.22 09:04:00 - [87] Because nanoing allows you to choose your fights. You will either run into targets you can kill, and do. Or targets that you cannot, and you'll leave. A tank/gank setup, the number of fights you can win increases, but when you run into one you'll lose, you're down a ship, where a nanoship would have already burned out of range and warped. This is a direct result of increasing gang sizes - where an opponent brings 50 ships to your 10, then the only thing that is going to survive is something fast, and they _might_ even get a few kills on stragglers. I don't mind the concept overly, but I think the numbers have suffered a bit too much inflation over successive patches. I also think precision heavy missiles are just not good enough on explosion velocity, and actually if they were a _bit_ better, the whole thing wouldn't be nearly as much a problem as it is. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.22 09:04:00 - [88] Originally by: Borasatar Edited by: Borasatar on 21/06/2008 17:57:49 Originally by: Jalif Originally by: El Yatta Nanos are excellent, allowing the skilled small gang to outmaneuvre a larger gang at the cost of DPS and HP. Doesnt need a change. There are a huge range of counters that are under-utilised by whiners. What he said.... Is this like your girlfriend who lives in the Niagra Falls area... People say these "there are billions and billions of ways to stop nano gangs!" statements all the time. Mostly by people who fly nano ships in nano gangs trying to justify and protect their minimum risk way of playing the game. Let's list some of the "huge range of counters" to nano gangs, shall we? I'll start... 1. Minmatar Recons 2. Fly nano yourself 3. Be somewhere that the nanogang isn't 4. Don't log in 5. Cancel your account please add to the list 6. Whine on the forums. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.06.22 09:11:00 - [89] Another thing, the insane speeds you get nowdays combined with the nerf on sensorbooster makes ranged combat a thing of the past... By the time you get a lock, it`s already on top of you... Or if you get a lock on it, it`s already either so close that the guns cant track or so high speed that missiles dont do any damage... And if you kill it, theres now a wreck for hostiles to warp to... And yeah, rapier or huginn does good, but when there are multiple nanostuff incomming it`s only so much a huginn/rapier can do before it either must get out or gets popped...
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.22 09:34:00 - [90] Originally by: TZeer Another thing, the insane speeds you get nowdays combined with the nerf on sensorbooster makes ranged combat a thing of the past... By the time you get a lock, it`s already on top of you... Or if you get a lock on it, it`s already either so close that the guns cant track or so high speed that missiles dont do any damage... And if you kill it, theres now a wreck for hostiles to warp to... And yeah, rapier or huginn does good, but when there are multiple nanostuff incomming it`s only so much a huginn/rapier can do before it either must get out or gets popped... If they want to spend thier time zipping in and out of lock range why dont you just ALIGN and WARP OUT? ______________________________________________ Euriti - I'll continue my nerd forum rage!

Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.22 10:21:00 - [91] Some people just can't effin read so I am going to put it in caps, bold, underlined, and italicized. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SMALL 5 MAN ROAMING GANGS ANYMORE - IT'S ABOUT THE 100+ MAN NANO FLEETS. SPEED HAS BECOME A MAJOR PROBLEM IN EVE AND NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED WHEN THE ONLY COUNTER IS MORE NANO SHIPS. I think that about covers that.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.22 10:48:00 - [92] Originally by: Italian Wedding Some people just can't effin read so I am going to put it in caps, bold, underlined, and italicized. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SMALL 5 MAN ROAMING GANGS ANYMORE - IT'S ABOUT THE 100+ MAN NANO FLEETS. SPEED HAS BECOME A MAJOR PROBLEM IN EVE AND NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED WHEN THE ONLY COUNTER IS MORE NANO SHIPS. I think that about covers that. Would you rather have a 100 man cap fleet or 100 man RR BS gang. Also, please show me a 100man nano fleet, I have yet to see one. ______________________________________________ Euriti - I'll continue my nerd forum rage!
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.22 11:34:00 - [93] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 22/06/2008 11:34:16 Originally by: Apoctasy Stasis webifier 'Nuff said. I love people who use 10km Stasis Web. Thats why I have never ever lost my nano zealot even though it went though suicidal pvp battles in the past. Also love the people talking about overheated webs hitting at 13km vs a 36km scram most nano pilots are now starting to use. -- Billion Isk Mission
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.22 11:43:00 - [94] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 22/06/2008 11:37:36 Edited by: Lord WarATron on 22/06/2008 11:34:16 Originally by: Apoctasy Stasis webifier 'Nuff said. I love people who use 10km Stasis Web. I also like people who use 10km webs vs 10k/sec targets without being nanoed. At least when they die, they have the satisfaction of saying "told ya 10km does not work". If you want to tackle a nanoship - you nano up yourself. If the targets are not nanoed, then a competent pilot can dictate terms. Thats why I have never ever lost my nano zealot even though it went though suicidal pvp battles in the past. Also love the people talking about overheated webs hitting at 13km vs a 36km scram most nano pilots are now starting to use. Faction points is a totally different discussion and only rich people can afford that. ______________________________________________ Euriti - I'll continue my nerd forum rage!
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.06.22 11:50:00 - [95] Originally by: Italian Wedding Some people just can't effin read so I am going to put it in caps, bold, underlined, and italicized. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SMALL 5 MAN ROAMING GANGS ANYMORE - IT'S ABOUT THE 100+ MAN NANO FLEETS. SPEED HAS BECOME A MAJOR PROBLEM IN EVE AND NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED WHEN THE ONLY COUNTER IS MORE NANO SHIPS. I think that about covers that. Where are these common (key word there) 100 man nano gangs? I saw tri field a few, AAA as well. Commonly? No. Also, simple question - and I'm actually not trolling for once - who would in a straight fight (lag inclusive) 100 man bs fleet w/support or 100 nanorecon/hacs w/ limited support (only what ships can keep up with them.) There is no nano problem, in laggy fleet fights it's just silly to bring a polycarbed vaga rather than your insurable buffer tanked gank bs.
Diomidis Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.22 12:03:00 - [96] Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Italian Wedding Some people just can't effin read so I am going to put it in caps, bold, underlined, and italicized. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SMALL 5 MAN ROAMING GANGS ANYMORE - IT'S ABOUT THE 100+ MAN NANO FLEETS. SPEED HAS BECOME A MAJOR PROBLEM IN EVE AND NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED WHEN THE ONLY COUNTER IS MORE NANO SHIPS. I think that about covers that. Would you rather have a 100 man cap fleet or 100 man RR BS gang. Also, please show me a 100man nano fleet, I have yet to see one. Even 10-20 man nano-fleets make ppl hide in their stations or POSes...no need to raise 3digit numbers, and I've never seen more than 20-25 man nano-gangs myself...it starts to beat the purpose IMHO. Nano fleets make ppl feel comfortable as they can peak fights, out-running BS blobs and braking tough tanks, something 1-2 nano-ships cannot easily do... Nano's are also a valid counter for missile-boats. Nerfing nano's against missiles or boosting the later with higher explosion velocities etc, tho seemingly fair using common logic (common, a huge, heavy ship cannot out-run a light missile), it will leave the missiles having no counters at all...no tracking to worry about, no cap usage, decent damage with relatively low skill requirements...how to balance that? Huge explosion radius increase as with the recent torp changes? That would beat the buff against anything not double painted or something, and more caldari whines could commence... Even then it would leave the Missile weapon platforms with too few cons to balance the pros... Join the Biggest Greek Corp! www.Mythos-eve.com - Join Mythos Channel in game!
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.06.22 12:15:00 - [97] Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: TZeer Another thing, the insane speeds you get nowdays combined with the nerf on sensorbooster makes ranged combat a thing of the past... By the time you get a lock, it`s already on top of you... Or if you get a lock on it, it`s already either so close that the guns cant track or so high speed that missiles dont do any damage... And if you kill it, theres now a wreck for hostiles to warp to... And yeah, rapier or huginn does good, but when there are multiple nanostuff incomming it`s only so much a huginn/rapier can do before it either must get out or gets popped... If they want to spend thier time zipping in and out of lock range why dont you just ALIGN and WARP OUT? Never said anything about zipping in and out of lockrange... And your solution with warping out = no fight against nanos...
Miss KillSome School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.22 12:41:00 - [98] Reason for annoing is blobing! U cannot win if u jump into 50+man camp in your 7BSs. Some of us still like to go with their friends on roaming, not with friends plus their friends plus their friends friends.. Here is a suggestion where playstyle could change OMGWTFINSTAPOPING one BS. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=798984 We really need to prolong fights, no matter how many ships are on the battlefield. Proloning means that u are able to at least tank other gang for a few more seconds. In todays scenarion, gang who has bigger number of members win (ofc, titan gangs dont count..). We would need scenarios where gang who brings more different classes of ships win.
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.22 13:10:00 - [99] Originally by: Miss KillSome In todays scenarion, gang who has bigger number of members win (ofc, titan gangs dont count..). We would need scenarios where gang who brings more different classes of ships win. incorrect. If people play FFA style then it is correct. But if people use hit and runs and force teh bigger fleet to drag them selves out and use tactics etc etc, then the smaller fleet can still win. Its been happening every day for the past year or two -- Billion Isk Mission
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.06.22 13:17:00 - [100] Originally by: Miss KillSome We really need to prolong fights, no matter how many ships are on the battlefield. Proloning means that u are able to at least tank other gang for a few more seconds. In todays scenarion, gang who has bigger number of members win (ofc, titan gangs dont count..). We would need scenarios where gang who brings more different classes of ships win. Fights already last quite some time. And introducing some cap on how many ships that fire on you or stacking penalty on damage is not an option. the day CCP starts considering that is the day I quit. Some poor bastards always have to pop first. Just how it is.

Gimpb	Posted - 2008.06.22 14:23:00 - [101] Originally by: Parsival Originally by: Italian Wedding What so many don't understand is that there are 100+ man nano fleets that are common now. It isn't just about roaming with 3-4 people in nano gangs to get away from the blob anymore because nano blobs are becoming very common. The problem there is the blob, not the nano. Its just fashionable to blame the nano. Both sides of that one like to point the finger at the other, and they are somewhat tied together, but saying hot-drops and blobs are the reason people nano is just as short-sighted as the other way around. On the other side of the coin you have newer players that fly BSs in big groups at least partially because it is actually an effective and affordable counter to nanos. It's a way of exploiting some of the well-rehearsed weaknesses of nanos to keep them from being effective against you. (crappy dps, heavy neuts, remote reps, etc) Flying anything smaller or going out in smaller groups just makes you food for the local 30 ship nano gang. So you end up with one side saying we fly nano so we can get away from your blob and the other side saying we bs blob so your nano swarm can't do anything to us. I have to be honest here, I would love to fly T1 ships smaller than BCs in PvP from time to time but it just doesn't make sense in my situation with the escalation of arms the way it is. Now please don't misinterpret me, I think nanoing is a playstyle that should be embraced by the design team and elaborated upon, not destroyed. It does seem as though the whole nano game is a little half-baked right now though, and in need of game design refinement. I think the recently introduced faction cruisers will help as they make it into circulation. It would also be nice if AFs actually had frigate speed. (instead of BC speed) One would think AFs should be a natural tackling choice against HACs, but for some mysterous reason they have a fat-ness not seen in their bigger brothers, HACs and CSs.
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.22 15:02:00 - [102] Problem with Nano's is: - As nano you try to avoid damage, but the shield extenders create a large buffer if you get hit. Thats why they are overpowered. The Solution to this is that Large Shield Extenders & MWD shouldn't work togheter. You wouldn't see any nano ship if these 2 were not togheter. - The HP buff also was just to help about Nano's. Same as the reason as above, they can survive multiply hits. Solution to this is to increase mass of those ships who shouldn't be nano'd. - Any Cruiser sized nano ship has taken over the role of the interceptor. Cause they can take more hits (becuase of the Shield Buffer)... Have more Damage Output. Because of Nano-Ships & Nano-Blobs, interceptors have been nerfed too. - There is no single way to take down a nano-ship with a non-nano-ship. YOu need a nano-ship to kill him. Therefore you will see only & more nano-ships everyday. - Nano-Recons who have the same Price as a good fitted Battleship. Those Recons have the ability to kill the battleship or to run from it. The Battleship has no way to kill those ships but just saving his ship. You need more then 1 person to kill just 1 nano ships if you want to use non-nano ships. Is this really balanced? - New people in the game can't go into a pvp-tackling frig as they won't be able to catch anyone & are easy targets for nano-ships. You are ruining the gaming experiance for the newbies who like to get dirrectly into pvp. ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.22 16:02:00 - [103] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 22/06/2008 16:02:23 Originally by: Jalif - As nano you try to avoid damage, but the shield extenders create a large buffer if you get hit. Thats why they are overpowered. The Solution to this is that Large Shield Extenders & MWD shouldn't work togheter. You wouldn't see any nano ship if these 2 were not togheter. I'd much sooner face nanos with LSEs then nanos with full out EW. Originally by: Jalif - The HP buff also was just to help about Nano's. Same as the reason as above, they can survive multiply hits. Solution to this is to increase mass of those ships who shouldn't be nano'd. The "shouldn't be nanoed" argument is just LOL - if ships X,Y,Z were not supposed to be nanoed, would CCP really make the ships nano-capable? I mean, look at the new faction cruisers, and they're all designed to be nanoed. Originally by: Jalif - Any Cruiser sized nano ship has taken over the role of the interceptor. Cause they can take more hits (becuase of the Shield Buffer)... Have more Damage Output. Because of Nano-Ships & Nano-Blobs, interceptors have been nerfed too. Not really. Inteceptors are still very much used and a part of speed gangs, and are still a good deal faster then nano-HACs. Originally by: Jalif - There is no single way to take down a nano-ship with a non-nano-ship. YOu need a nano-ship to kill him. Therefore you will see only & more nano-ships everyday. I wish you would stop sprouting nonsense. There's tons of ways to kill a nanoship pilot 1v1, in anything from a Rupture upwards Once the pilot decides to try to take you on, he's suspectible to a ton of counter-nano tools. If he decides he'll never engage, well, he's almost guaranteed to be able to run. Do not think that solo nanos are anything resembling safe when attacking PvP-fit ships. Originally by: Jalif - Nano-Recons who have the same Price as a good fitted Battleship. Those Recons have the ability to kill the battleship or to run from it. The Battleship has no way to kill those ships but just saving his ship. You need more then 1 person to kill just 1 nano ships if you want to use non-nano ships. Is this really balanced? Battleship has no way to kill a nano-ship? Riiight Furthermore, BS are cheaper to lose. A non-rigged gank BS (Typhoon) costs me 25-30ish M to lose. A trimarked gank Typhoon costs me 65M to lose. It won't cover the loss cost of a bloody nano-HAC/recon hull, much less the fittings and the polycarbons. Premium insurance is for the win. Originally by: Jalif - New people in the game can't go into a pvp-tackling frig as they won't be able to catch anyone & are easy targets for nano-ships. You are ruining the gaming experiance for the newbies who like to get dirrectly into pvp. Newbies can go have fun in low-sec, we use plenty of non-nano ships there. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.06.22 17:48:00 - [104] Quote: There's tons of ways to kill a nanoship pilot 1v1, in anything from a Rupture upwards Then please tell me thoose tons of ways that dont include Rapier/Huginn. And that actually kills the nanoship, not just forces them to dissengage... Quote: Battleship has no way to kill a nano-ship? Riiight What would you do then against a nanoship thats outside you web range? And on the edge of your nos/neut range and fitted with cap boosters. When his cap is finally gone, it`s just to coast out of scramrange and run.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.22 21:08:00 - [105] Originally by: Angelonico Originally by: Italian Wedding Some people just can't effin read so I am going to put it in caps, bold, underlined, and italicized. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SMALL 5 MAN ROAMING GANGS ANYMORE - IT'S ABOUT THE 100+ MAN NANO FLEETS. SPEED HAS BECOME A MAJOR PROBLEM IN EVE AND NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED WHEN THE ONLY COUNTER IS MORE NANO SHIPS. I think that about covers that. Where are these common (key word there) 100 man nano gangs? I saw tri field a few, AAA as well. Commonly? No. Also, simple question - and I'm actually not trolling for once - who would in a straight fight (lag inclusive) 100 man bs fleet w/support or 100 nanorecon/hacs w/ limited support (only what ships can keep up with them.) There is no nano problem, in laggy fleet fights it's just silly to bring a polycarbed vaga rather than your insurable buffer tanked gank bs. Yes, commonly. They are becoming more and more common. Maybe GS doesn't seem them as they fight off the NNC because the NNC are lol but if you look at the killboards of alliances fighting in the south you will see them. They are becoming more and more common. You can look at right now and predict what is going to become more and more common if nano's are not toned down. I have respect for you Angelonico (not that you care) but don't be so narrow minded to see what is happening :)
Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.06.22 22:09:00 - [106] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 22/06/2008 22:09:18 Originally by: Hijara Why does EVERY ship have to be nanoed? Seems like i am the only one who pvp's with a zealot going only 256m/s. What happened to large alpha, or good tanks? Nope you're not the only one that pvp's with a zealot fitted the right way. That is why you and me get ontop of every mail and actually are a use in a gang. But there are other ships out there that really dont have a good "real" fit but where the nano fit is actually the best fit for the ship. Blame ccp. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Wasted Mind Syntech Research and Development Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2008.06.23 00:21:00 - [107] I love how ppl like to use the excuse of "Hot Drops" as the reason for using nano ships. Come on ppl give me a break. Even if you had mobile cyno jammers you would still fly nano ships and you know it. Why fly anything else when you have a ship that is hard to hit, allows you to escape most situations and kill ppl as well? The only thing that ****es me off about nano's is that in the past fleets were diverse and you didnt know what you were going up against. Now (and it will get worse unless they put speed caps on ships) you always have to sit in a nano most the time or be rdy to hop in one because that's all you can do when fighting another nano group.
Terianna Eri Scrutari	Posted - 2008.06.23 01:11:00 - [108] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 22/06/2008 22:09:18 Originally by: Hijara Why does EVERY ship have to be nanoed? Seems like i am the only one who pvp's with a zealot going only 256m/s. What happened to large alpha, or good tanks? Nope you're not the only one that pvp's with a zealot fitted the right way. That is why you and me get ontop of every mail and actually are a use in a gang. But there are other ships out there that really dont have a good "real" fit but where the nano fit is actually the best fit for the ship. Blame ccp. Lyria - bit offtopic question here but I know you fly a Zealot. Are fits other than "nano-pulse zealot", "sniping beam zealot", and "holycrap anti-support pulse zealot (<3)" even worthwhile to be flying? __________________________________
Herring Alcatraz Inc. Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.23 01:30:00 - [109] Originally by: ****zilla Hotdropping isn't that common. Maybe not where you live, but in some places, it's rampant. Boost patch...nerfs: 1) faction passive shield resistance amplifiers, 2) exploration radar sites, 3) faction co-processors*
Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.06.23 01:55:00 - [110] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 23/06/2008 01:57:05 Originally by: Terianna Eri Lyria - bit offtopic question here but I know you fly a Zealot. Are fits other than "nano-pulse zealot", "sniping beam zealot", and "holycrap anti-support pulse zealot (<3)" even worthwhile to be flying? Those are basically it, yes. Imo. Note though 2 of them arent nano fits :-). Thats why I like this ship. edit: well there is the injected solo fit also. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name

Solid Res Haven Front	Posted - 2008.06.23 02:29:00 - [111] Edited by: Solid Res on 23/06/2008 02:33:28 Nano is fine. We only see more now because of FW where it will be natural to see more Nano ships. You are effectively solo as you can't trust your gang the same way you can in an alliance. And nanos have been nerfed plenty of times. EAS, Recons, over heated webs, Inty buff, is just a few of the recent direct nerfs CCP did. Then you have polycarbs that cost an insane 50mil/pop. If you look at KBs you will see nano ships being popped left and right as they have zero tank. You will also see gangs that can't take down a single DPS because their DPS is **** poor. Stop with the whining becuase you lost your super tanked and high dps ship you were so proud of that you created in EFT and that all your mission skills is not transferring over to PVP. Those damn NPC Rats never went fast, so why are players doing it!
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:07:00 - [112] Originally by: Solid Res Edited by: Solid Res on 23/06/2008 02:33:28 Nano is fine. We only see more now because of FW where it will be natural to see more Nano ships. You are insanely ignorant to think that. Nano's haven't just become more popular since FW. If you were in 0.0 and are actively engaged in PvP pretty much anywhere you will have noticed that pretty much all you see are nano gangs. Quote: You are effectively solo as you can't trust your gang the same way you can in an alliance. A large and organized nano gang is nigh invincible. Anything that can burn out and get a tackle will be dead before they get there. Nothing that can burn out fast enough to get a tackle has a large enough HP buffer to survive being alpha'ed, even if they are being remote repped. Take cepters, very little HP, they will die quicker then reps will come because they don't have a large enough HP buffer and HACS use medium guns which means very good tracking and very good damage. So what does this mean? It means the only counter to nano's is more nano's. Ships larger then cepters and fast enough and be able to take more damage then a cepter and have enough of a buffer to be repped and no die while getting there. Quote: And nanos have been nerfed plenty of times. EAS, Recons, over heated webs, Inty buff, is just a few of the recent direct nerfs CCP did. Then you have polycarbs that cost an insane 50mil/pop. Battleship speed has been nerfed, not much else. Quote: If you look at KBs you will see nano ships being popped left and right as they have zero tank. You will also see gangs that can't take down a single DPS because their DPS is ** poor. No, if you look at the kill boards you will generally see Nano gangs killing and then generally a large gang killing a single nano because that is generally what it takes to kill them. Otherwise they just get away. Quote:** Stop with the whining becuase you lost your super tanked and high dps ship you were so proud of that you created in EFT and that all your mission skills is not transferring over to PVP. Those damn NPC Rats never went fast, so why are players doing it! Stop trying to defend a broken game mechanic like speed currently is. It's broken. CCP will eventually tone it down. 100% of hacs aren't supposed to be nanoed (oh im sorry, caldari can't nano and their missiles can't hit vs speed, so 98% of hacs with caldari being worthless vs speed and terribly sad at achieving speed).
Solid Res Haven Front	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:45:00 - [113] Edited by: Solid Res on 23/06/2008 05:54:24 Originally by: Italian Wedding Originally by: Solid Res Edited by: Solid Res on 23/06/2008 02:33:28 Nano is fine. We only see more now because of FW where it will be natural to see more Nano ships. You are insanely ignorant to think that. Nano's haven't just become more popular since FW. If you were in 0.0 and are actively engaged in PvP pretty much anywhere you will have noticed that pretty much all you see are nano gangs......100% of hacs aren't supposed to be nanoed Ignorant? FW started 2 weeks ago, I am well ware of 0.0 life and the joys of having to always be in a Sniper BS to protect and/or kill something. If you look at the KB of many alliances you will see that Battleships are on the top. I wish I was in a Nano-HAC all the time. As for 100% of HACs being Nano, that is funny. Go on any respectable KB and look at the fittings of the last 10 HAC kills. I just did and 9 out of 10 were not Nano fitted. They were almost all a mix of Armor Tank / Damage Mods. CCP has stated they dont like how people put on 5-6 speed mods and then rigs. I actually agree with this. However, to say we have a Nano Crisis is pure ignorance of the facts and understanding of the game mechanics. The problem is when a person dies they assume the ship that killed them HAD to be a Nano. Nothing else could of possibly ever killed them. CCP knows the truth though, and if you did a little research you would know it also. That is why, after all these years, speed fitted ships still exist and will continue to exist. If you don't like it, quit (and transfer me your stuff) And I made a mistake about FW creating an increase in Nano-cruisers. That is wrong because most people are flying frigs/destroyers because those are the only ships that can enter all the complexes. And from what I read a fast frig/destroyer is alright? Or is that bad also now?
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:54:00 - [114] Quote: I live in 0.0 so I know what it is like. I am always having to be in my Fitted Sniper BS for something we have to protect and/or kill. If you look at the KB of many alliances you will see that Battleships are on the top. As for 100% of HACs being Nano, that is funny. Go on any respectable KB and look at the fittings of the last 10 HAC kills. I just did it and 9 out of 10 were not Nano fitted (i do realize this is emperical evidence). They were almost all a mix of Armor Tank / Damage Mods. Well they died, obviously they weren't nano'd :) Quote: CCP has stated they dont like how people put on 5-6 speed mods and then rigs. I actually agree with this. I do not agree with a speed cap (the problems with this is endless) or nerfing people that only put on 2-3 speed mods and rigs. All of which suffer stacking penalties and take up slots which could have been used for damage or tanking. I haven't said anything about a speed cap and I don't think their should be one. However, cruisers shouldn't be hitting 4k either other then the Vaga. I don't care if it cost them a lot of money or not. They were not designed to go fast. They will get nerfed as CCP nerfs speed year after year :) Quote: The problem is when a person dies they assume the ship that killed them HAD to be a Nano. Nothing else could of possibly ever killed them. CCP knows the truth though, and if you did a little research you would know it also. No, the problem is people die and there is nothing but 50 nano'ed out ships on the KM. Quote: If you don't like it, quit (and transfer me your stuff) I don't need to quit, I know speed will get reviewed and toned down on cruiser sized ships just like it got toned down on battleships
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:55:00 - [115] Originally by: Solid Res Edited by: Solid Res on 23/06/2008 05:51:54 Originally by: Italian Wedding Originally by: Solid Res Edited by: Solid Res on 23/06/2008 02:33:28 Nano is fine. We only see more now because of FW where it will be natural to see more Nano ships. You are insanely ignorant to think that. Nano's haven't just become more popular since FW. If you were in 0.0 and are actively engaged in PvP pretty much anywhere you will have noticed that pretty much all you see are nano gangs......100% of hacs aren't supposed to be nanoed Ignorant? FW started 2 weeks ago, I am well ware of 0.0 life and the joys of having to always be in a Sniper BS to protect and/or kill. If you look at the KB of many alliances you will see that Battleships are on the top. As for 100% of HACs being Nano, that is funny. Go on any respectable KB and look at the fittings of the last 10 HAC kills. I just did and 9 out of 10 were not Nano fitted. They were almost all a mix of Armor Tank / Damage Mods. CCP has stated they dont like how people put on 5-6 speed mods and then rigs. I actually agree with this. However, to say we have a Nano Crisis is pure ignorance of the facts and understanding of the game mechanics. The problem is when a person dies they assume the ship that killed them HAD to be a Nano. Nothing else could of possibly ever killed them. CCP knows the truth though, and if you did a little research you would know it also. That is why, after all these years, speed fitted ships still exist and will continue to exist. If you don't like it, quit (and transfer me your stuff) You are funny! the REASON you see that 9 out of 10 hacs killed are tanked is because the nanos ones dont DIE! lol They dissengage.... try again
Solid Res Haven Front	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:11:00 - [116] Originally by: JVol You are funny! the REASON you see that 9 out of 10 hacs killed are tanked is because the nanos ones dont DIE! lol They dissengage.... try again I was responding to a post that said 100% of HACs are Nano fitted. If that was the case then there should be no HAC kills as they are not able to die and if there were a HAC kill it must be Nano fitted. The facts are in your faces. The ships that kill the most ships are Battleships. This is the cold hard facts. You look the HACs fittings on Killboards and they are not all Nano fitted. You look at this very forum and view the most popular HAC setups and they are not all Nano fitted. I sometimes feel I am playing a different game. We are playing Eve right? This idea that every cruiser is nano'd to the gills is a myth. If you believe otherwise I challenge you to back it up with proof.
Solid Res Haven Front	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:16:00 - [117] And it is no suprise that many HACs go with a tank, it is because they can be ridiculously strong. Especially in FW where you have all these T1 frigs with **** poor DPS. However, if they tried to nano they might hit 4k/s which is not fast enough to get away from even the slowest Interceptor.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:17:00 - [118] Edited by: Italian Wedding on 23/06/2008 06:17:20 Originally by: Solid Res This idea that every cruiser is nano'd to the gills is a myth. If you believe otherwise I challenge you to back it up with proof. Of course not EVERY single pilot fits nanos, but more often then not, they do, because it is simply FAR MORE EFFECTIVE to be nanoed then it is not to be nanoed, hence why you see more non-nanoed hacs on the killboard on the dieing side then nanoed hacs. I believe my work here is done. Thank you for trying o/
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:27:00 - [119] People need to ask themselves why, due to game design, that there is a need to nano in the first place. -- Billion Isk Mission
Tefkros The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.06.23 07:00:00 - [120] Huginn (3k/s) + Curse (3k/s) vs 4 Megathrons, Deimos, Enyo, Lachesis, Incursus (¦pirate¦ gang), at a planet. Think for a second, would a properly fit and coordinated gang like that, lose to these two recons? Our friends were 20 jumps away so no help was coming. 1 Megathron, Lachesis, Enyo and Incursus died. The rest warped off, with second Megathron in structure. Is it because we were "nanoed"? 3km/s is OK according to the whiners. NO Is it because we are uber? NO Is it because the opposing gang are completely useless blobbers that find thrill in only pressing F1-F8 and can¦t make a proper gang to save their life? You tell me. Why do we nano our ships? Because we want excitement, we want to take on huge odds since thats what we encounter, we want to ** off people that can¦t catch us while we kill them. We want to be able to spring traps and laugh in their face. We want to make the thigs we trained and practiced, useful. We do what anyone who lacks numbers and firepower would do. If you want to live in your sad world with fat ships, no skill and coordination involved, quoting wrecking hits in your bio, I pity you. And to the OP, who doesn¦t seem to be whining...not everything is nanoed. I enjoy the Typhoon (and kill nanoships with it) as much as I enjoy the Vagabond. It just takes a to catch a** :) Not to mention I never go near Zealots or lazorz in general in a nanoship, for a reason :)

Ambien Torca	Posted - 2008.06.23 08:10:00 - [121] Originally by: Tefkros Edited by: Tefkros on 23/06/2008 07:07:20 Huginn (3k/s) + Curse (3k/s) vs 4 Megathrons, Deimos, Enyo, Lachesis, Incursus (¦pirate¦ gang), at a planet. Think for a second, would a properly fit and coordinated gang like that, lose to these two recons? Our friends were 20 jumps away so no help was coming. Tip: We were within 24km for the whole time. 1 Megathron, Lachesis, Enyo and Incursus died. The rest warped off, with second Megathron in structure. Is it because we were "nanoed"? 3km/s is OK according to the whiners. NO Is it because we are uber? NO Is it because the opposing gang are completely useless blobbers that find thrill in only pressing F1-F8 and can¦t make a proper gang to save their life? You tell me. Why do we nano our ships? Because we want excitement, we want to take on huge odds since thats what we encounter, we want to ** off people that can¦t catch us while we kill them. We want to be able to spring traps and laugh in their face. We want to make the thigs we trained and practiced, useful. We do what anyone who lacks numbers and firepower would do. If you want to live in your sad world with fat ships, no skill and coordination involved, quoting wrecking hits in your bio, I pity you. And to the OP, who doesn¦t seem to be whining...not everything is nanoed. I enjoy the Typhoon (and kill nanoships with it) as much as I enjoy the Vagabond. It just takes a to catch a** :) Not to mention I never go near Zealots or lazorz in general in a nanoship, for a reason :) Easy kills for you. TD+neut megas, web smaller ships and pound away... They don¦t have much chance unless their BS got neutralizers.
Tefkros The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.06.23 08:21:00 - [122] Edited by: Tefkros on 23/06/2008 08:22:07 Originally by: Ambien Torca Easy kills for you. TD+neut megas, web smaller ships and pound away... They don¦t have much chance unless their BS got neutralizers. You are right. Such an exotic module. I hear they drop only near Jove space.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.23 08:23:00 - [123] Edited by: Italian Wedding on 23/06/2008 08:23:56 Originally by: Lord WarATron People need to ask themselves why, due to game design, that there is a need to nano in the first place. Firstly, we know people like to kill things without losing things. We then take the highest probable method of survival in Eve, which is speed. The higher your speed, the more likely you are to survive what would otherwise be a negative outcome (losing your ship). With this information, we can now see why most people fit their ship to go as fast as they can. On top of that, with a speed fitted ship, you have the very valuable advantage of choosing 99% of your fights and being able to get away from said fight if something suddenly appears that could change your desired outcome (there is absolutely zero commitment required by a nano pilot, where as 100% commitment is required by target non-nanoship). Now we know why people fit nanoed ships - because they want to be able to kill and not be killed. No other setup comes close to the amount survivability of a nano'd ship (cruiser class and lower).
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 08:55:00 - [124] Originally by: Italian Wedding On top of that, with a speed fitted ship, you have the very valuable advantage of choosing 99% of your fights and being able to get away from said fight if something suddenly appears that could change your desired outcome (there is absolutely zero commitment required by a nano pilot, where as 100% commitment is required by target non-nanoship). Wrong A nano pilot has to be on the ball at all times, if he looses his attention and the target (if he has some clue of skill) will kill him. The target can also very easily chase said nano away or even kill him, depending on how well he uses his neutralizer (Use it when he's mwd'ing and he gets away, use it then he aint and he wont. ) _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.23 09:08:00 - [125] Edited by: Italian Wedding on 23/06/2008 09:12:25 Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Italian Wedding On top of that, with a speed fitted ship, you have the very valuable advantage of choosing 99% of your fights and being able to get away from said fight if something suddenly appears that could change your desired outcome (there is absolutely zero commitment required by a nano pilot, where as 100% commitment is required by target non-nanoship). Wrong A nano pilot has to be on the ball at all times, if he looses his attention and the target (if he has some clue of skill) will kill him. The target can also very easily chase said nano away or even kill him, depending on how well he uses his neutralizer (Use it when he's mwd'ing and he gets away, use it then he aint and he wont. ) It has come to my attention that you have never heard of cap injectors. I suggest you go in-game and look them up or follow this link. Also, why is your only ever rebuttal of a nano nerf heavy neutralizers? You do realize only battleships can put them on, or are you insisting that any nano hac should be able to beat any battleship if the battleship doesn't have two neutralizers?
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.06.23 09:12:00 - [126] Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Italian Wedding On top of that, with a speed fitted ship, you have the very valuable advantage of choosing 99% of your fights and being able to get away from said fight if something suddenly appears that could change your desired outcome (there is absolutely zero commitment required by a nano pilot, where as 100% commitment is required by target non-nanoship). Wrong A nano pilot has to be on the ball at all times, if he looses his attention and the target (if he has some clue of skill) will kill him. The target can also very easily chase said nano away or even kill him, depending on how well he uses his neutralizer (Use it when he's mwd'ing and he gets away, use it then he aint and he wont. ) I'm honestly sick of hearing the general line of argument that goes something like "nano ships take skill to pilot". Newsflash for ya - EVERYONE has to be on the ball. Once that other player starts flashing red no matter WHAT ship you're in you have to start thinking if you want to come out on top. ECM pilots have to constantly find targets in their overview to match their current free jammers while mainting an acute awareness of who may be pointing guns at their untanked pile of forum whine inducing jammers. Gunboats are constantly having to maneuver to maintain any hope of hitting those careening nano ships. Everyone's watching their cap and managing modules. Doing stuff like maneuvering and monitoring the battlespace after the battle commences is something that EVERYONE will have to do if they want to have any hope of flying their ship home.
Tefkros The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.06.23 09:40:00 - [127] Originally by: Italian Wedding It has come to my attention that you have never heard of cap injectors. It has come to my attention you never flew and fought a 20 jump roam with no market around, and you don¦t realize most nanoships don¦t fit injectors, but have evolved, sacrificing speed in the process. Originally by: Italian Wedding Also, why is your only ever rebuttal of a nano nerf heavy neutralizers? You do realize only battleships can put them on, or are you insisting that any nano hac should be able to beat any battleship if the battleship doesn't have two neutralizers? The people have suggested many counters but you refuse to accept it, the neutralizer is the simplest and available to most. And yes, only BS can fit them. A BS without neuts doomed to die? I once ran out of ammo in my Vagabond trying to break a missioning Maelstrom. Sub BS size ships? A BC will die if it doesnt know what it¦s doing or the encounter is unfavorable. A T1 ship dying sometimes to a T2 ship. What insolence! A cruiser I don¦t even mention it. A nano-blob? What, you think your gang that couldn¦t kill a gang of nanoships, will survive an equal sized BC/BS ships? One of our good Vagabond pilots died to a single Myrmidon because of a surprise tactic, so simple but noone thinks of it. The nanoships emerged as an out of the box concept, the counters must be the same. If you can¦t think of any, it¦s your problem, not ours or CCP¦s. Don¦t be sad because you can¦t kill whatever you like. If EVE was supposed to make you a happy and cheery person, there wouldn¦t be sanctioned scams everywhere. Live with it, or die and learn to live.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.06.23 09:45:00 - [128] Originally by: Tefkros The nanoships emerged as an out of the box concept, the counters must be the same. If you can¦t think of any, it¦s your problem, not ours or CCP¦s. And right about here is where I take issue. Nano ships did not emerge as an out of the box concept - the box was forcably moved right after I started playing. If speed is the only viable way to fit a vagabond and indeed it has always been the only way to fit a vagabond to claim fitting to go faster than was reasonably expected is out of the box is to claim that putting the review mirror of a car in a slightly different place is an automotive revolution.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 09:46:00 - [129] Originally by: Italian Wedding Edited by: Italian Wedding on 23/06/2008 09:12:25 Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Italian Wedding On top of that, with a speed fitted ship, you have the very valuable advantage of choosing 99% of your fights and being able to get away from said fight if something suddenly appears that could change your desired outcome (there is absolutely zero commitment required by a nano pilot, where as 100% commitment is required by target non-nanoship). Wrong A nano pilot has to be on the ball at all times, if he looses his attention and the target (if he has some clue of skill) will kill him. The target can also very easily chase said nano away or even kill him, depending on how well he uses his neutralizer (Use it when he's mwd'ing and he gets away, use it then he aint and he wont. ) It has come to my attention that you have never heard of cap injectors. I suggest you go in-game and look them up or follow this link.? It has come to my attention that you dont know about nano fits. Lets see: Zealot - No injector, only battery because the hold is way too small Vagabond - Nop Rapier - Nop Huginn - Nop Curse - Sometimes, it depends on the fit, but the curse is afterall cap warfare. Ishtar - Mostly cap batteries. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.23 10:34:00 - [130] I have seen many cap injector setups to avoid being ended if neuted by a BATTLESHIP. Just yesterday I saw a rapier with an obvious injector setup that just wouldn't run out of cap while being neuted until finally he...went out of range and warped off. Where is the fight commitment? The fact is, there is only one true counter to nano ships, and that is other nano ships that can get a web without dieing which generally requires another same sized ship nano setup. And by the way, find any belt in 0.0 or low sec and you have an ample supply of cap injectors from cruiser spawns. You can't GIVE them away they drop so often. You guys obviously have no clue. All you want is your easy no commitment kills and fast, free, easy escapes should something no go according to plan.

Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.06.23 10:40:00 - [131] No one has addressed my major points, with one exception: requiring ships of the variety you are trying to kill is a bit much, I will admit. (you shouldn't need to nanocruisers to kill other nanocruisers.) Requiring a few frigates is, however, quite reasonable. People arguing that nanoships are cap injected obviously don't fly one. Sacrileges are the exception - it is very hard to carry that many charges in 95% of the others. Curse's now fit med/large batteries for long term survivability. Lets assume that all nanoships cap inject for the sake of argument. 2 heavy neuts - 1 from 2 battleships or 2 from 1 (and ravens can easily fit 2) wills till shut one down. I'm not arguing against the "scripting" of webs or other tweaks to the speed system, however nanoships as they are are fine. There is no problem. Get better FC's if you keep getting murdered to them. Hit me up in game ^^, I'll give you a few tips. I also mean nothing personal by disagreeing with you. I simply believe that ships that are expensive to purchase, uninsurable, require months of skill training, and a very VERY good pilot should be good. Heavy neuts, mimtar recons, interceptors, and webifiers are all viable counters. Have you also noted that none of them do tremendous amounts of dps? I urge you to stop stubbornly saying "nerf" and honestly think about it.
Tefkros The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.06.23 10:51:00 - [132] Edited by: Tefkros on 23/06/2008 10:55:12 Originally by: Italian Wedding I have seen many cap injector setups to avoid being ended if neuted by a BATTLESHIP. Just yesterday I saw a rapier with an obvious injector setup that just wouldn't run out of cap while being neuted until finally he...went out of range and warped off. Where is the fight commitment? The fact is, there is only one true counter to nano ships, and that is other nano ships that can get a web without dieing which generally requires another same sized ship nano setup. And by the way, find any belt in 0.0 or low sec and you have an ample supply of cap injectors from cruiser spawns. You can't GIVE them away they drop so often. You guys obviously have no clue. All you want is your easy no commitment kills and fast, free, easy escapes should something no go according to plan. Bold 1: Not in EVE. When my Typhoon mwds away from your Raven and warps, will you cry nanoz? Bold 2: Completely wrong. If you insist, train for them. If you don¦t want to, why would we care? Bold 3: So what? That¦s how people fight outnumbered and outgunned for centuries. And that¦s exactly the purpose of a nanogang. Make your day as miserable as possible. Seems to be working.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.23 10:59:00 - [133] Originally by: Angelonico Heavy neuts, mimtar recons, interceptors, and webifiers are all viable counters. Have you also noted that none of them do tremendous amounts of dps? I urge you to stop stubbornly saying "nerf" and honestly think about it. I urge you to give me the name of an interceptor (I will train every skill to 5 and spend 20bil isk for this said ceptor) that can mwd into a group of 50 nanohacs and survive long enough to even lock something. Even if it is being remote repped, it doesn't have the HP buffer to survive alpha's. There are even "nanoscims" popping up to RR even the nano gangs. Not to mention nano gangs come with their own rapiers to slow down any tacklers you have as well as a number of falcons usually. Nano's don't have to commit to anything like every other setup in the game. If you can't remember why CCP nerfed WCS's, I can give you a fresh reminder, even though it was said many times already. There is a problem. Whether it is speed or the lack of real counters from same class (sized) ships (or smaller), there is a problem. There is a reason most hacs are nanoed and that is because you have no commitment to a fight and your survivability is much lower in a non-nano ship.
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2008.06.23 11:09:00 - [134] Edited by: Italian Wedding on 23/06/2008 11:13:35 Originally by: Tefkros Bold 1: Not in EVE. When my Typhoon mwds away from your Raven and warps, will you cry nanoz? Nano BS's were nerfed or have you forgotten? And no, a BS moving at maybe 1,5k (if it's nanoed) for a very short time isn't a problem. It's not moving at 4k+ and being immune to damage Quote: Bold 2: Completely wrong. If you insist, train for them. If you don¦t want to, why would we care? I'm not going to get used to easy mode with a nerf (to nanos)/buff to nano counters most likely on the way. I will however play the worlds tiniest violin for you when you come to the boards and cry out that "my xxxxx is worthless now cause it can't go 5kms anymore thx ccp". Quote: Bold 3: So what? That¦s how people fight outnumbered and outgunned for centuries. And that¦s exactly the purpose of a nanogang. Make your day as miserable as possible. Seems to be working. This game is r/l, c/d? Missiles move faster then any craft able to fire them in r/l and disintegrate their targets on impact yet this doesn't happen in eve why? More r/l comparisons shall we? Tool
Naomi Knight	Posted - 2008.06.23 11:12:00 - [135] Edited by: Naomi Knight on 23/06/2008 11:12:38 Why nano everything? because it is op and if you dont do it yourself you end up podded in the first enemy camp so NERF NANO
Larkonis Trassler Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.06.23 11:28:00 - [136] Originally by: Italian Wedding I urge you to give me the name of an interceptor (I will train every skill to 5 and spend 20bil isk for this said ceptor) that can mwd into a group of 50 nanohacs and survive long enough to even lock something. No, but you can spend that 20 bil on a 50 man BALANCED gang of your own to raep the 50 man nano gang. Assumption of Risk
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.06.23 11:55:00 - [137] Originally by: Italian Wedding I urge you to give me the name of an interceptor (I will train every skill to 5 and spend 20bil isk for this said ceptor) that can mwd into a group of 50 nanohacs and survive long enough to even lock something. Even if it is being remote repped, it doesn't have the HP buffer to survive alpha's. Highlighted the ridiculous part. Give me a realistic scenario and we can work from there.
Darth Pheonix	Posted - 2008.06.23 13:14:00 - [138] Quoted from another nano whine thread, but still applies. Originally by: Duraj CCP should do what's best for the game and gameplay, and players should accept it and not whine when their ships or modules get nerfed. if you click agree on the EULA, you have no room to complain. this means nanotards and everyone else. CCP shouldn't cater to whiners or FOTM builds, but should try to make the game fit their own intended vision, without worrying about how much people QQ on forums. nerf the forums imo. Forums need to die.
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.23 13:22:00 - [139] Originally by: Derek Sigres Newsflash for ya - EVERYONE has to be on the ball. . newsflash for you, there are levels of "on the ball" its not black and white, your either super attentetive or a dope behind the wheel. The point of saying nano pilots need to pay moar attention to whats going on the grid. A BS with active tank has 3 places it needs to be, either within jump/dock range, out of bubble and within its damage range of the target. If you "make a mistake" flying your battleship you dont explode, your active tank provides you more time to recover from putting yoruself at a bad location on grid. Nanopilot puts himself in the wrong location on grid and he dies within 10 seconds or less. Thats the issue, make up whatever newsflash you want but thats the reality of it
Matrix Skye	Posted - 2008.06.23 13:31:00 - [140] Edited by: Matrix Skye on 23/06/2008 13:34:12 Originally by: Matrixcvd If you "make a mistake" flying your battleship you dont explode, your active tank provides you more time to recover from putting yoruself at a bad location on grid. Nanopilot puts himself in the wrong location on grid and he dies within 10 seconds or less. Thats the issue, make up whatever newsflash you want but thats the reality of it this is bull** in so many levels it aint even funny. a battleship in the wrong place dies PERIOD!. if you activate tank it saves you what, 5 seconds? it still dies. nano CHOOSES when to engage and CHOOSES when to disengage. if ** aint going right nano runs. how do i know? cause i fly one myself

Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 13:40:00 - [141] Originally by: Italian Wedding Edited by: Italian Wedding on 23/06/2008 11:13:35 Originally by: Tefkros Bold 1: Not in EVE. When my Typhoon mwds away from your Raven and warps, will you cry nanoz? Nano BS's were nerfed or have you forgotten? And no, a BS moving at maybe 1,5k (if it's nanoed) for a very short time isn't a problem. It's not moving at 4k+ and being immune to damage Go learn about tracking and signature radius, about every medium gun can hit a nano and do decent damage. What about watching garmonation 4, he kills plenty of nanohacs IN A **IGN RUPTURE YOU DUMB . _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Sean Faust Point of No Return Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.06.23 13:49:00 - [142] Nano fitted ships have their ups and downs. On the one hand, it's very training intensive. It means having nearly maxed out navigation and cap skills, and it means having to put polycarbon rigs on your ship, which are RIDICULOUSLY expensive and can double or even triple the cost of your already expensive HAC or recon. I think that, for these reasons, it is bad for the game because it gives the impression that newer players don't belong in 0.0. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea that you practically have to make a 1 year investment into the game before you can really be viable for 0.0 pvp as anything other than cannon fodder or a support/ewar ship. On the other hand, there are a lot of tech 2 ships whose only advantage over their battlecruiser counterparts (which are cheaper, easier to fit, and less training intensive) comes from their mobility. Not being able to fit them based on that would essentially be eliminating their role and relegating them to the same "I badly need buffs" status as Assault frigates. Is the prevalence of nano/speed fitted ships a problem? Yes, I think it is. But the answer can't be solved with a simple nerf or a buff of a module or a rig. It would require a complete reworking of the ships and the way combat in EVE works.
Tefkros The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.06.23 14:14:00 - [143] Originally by: Italian Wedding This game is r/l, c/d? Missiles move faster then any craft able to fire them in r/l and disintegrate their targets on impact yet this doesn't happen in eve why? More r/l comparisons shall we? Tool Words can't describe the ridiculousness of what you said. You are rejecting a strategy by comparing it to physics. Do you like playing your games and feel like a well trained monkey? I'm sure you won everyone now. Nerf nanos, I agree.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 14:21:00 - [144] Originally by: Sean Faust Nano fitted ships have their ups and downs. On the one hand, it's very training intensive. It means having nearly maxed out navigation and cap skills, and it means having to put polycarbon rigs on your ship, which are RIDICULOUSLY expensive and can double or even triple the cost of your already expensive HAC or recon. I think that, for these reasons, it is bad for the game because it gives the impression that newer players don't belong in 0.0. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea that you practically have to make a 1 year investment into the game before you can really be viable for 0.0 pvp as anything other than cannon fodder or a support/ewar ship. On the other hand, there are a lot of tech 2 ships whose only advantage over their battlecruiser counterparts (which are cheaper, easier to fit, and less training intensive) comes from their mobility. Not being able to fit them based on that would essentially be eliminating their role and relegating them to the same "I badly need buffs" status as Assault frigates. Is the prevalence of nano/speed fitted ships a problem? Yes, I think it is. But the answer can't be solved with a simple nerf or a buff of a module or a rig. It would require a complete reworking of the ships and the way combat in EVE works. There's lots of ways a new player can be useful in 0.0, for example as a ceptor pilot. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 14:31:00 - [145] Originally by: Angelonico Highlighted the ridiculous part. Large nano gangs with 50+ isn't unrealistic. 20-30 pilots in a gang is somewhat common. The upper limit is how many the fc lets join before they think the sheer numbers will generate too much lag. Since many can fly nanos finding pilots isn't that difficult. The nano blob has replaced the bs blob. Originally by: Sean Faust On the one hand, it's very training intensive. It means having nearly maxed out navigation and cap skills, and it means having to put polycarbon rigs on your ship, which are RIDICULOUSLY expensive and can double or even triple the cost of your already expensive HAC or recon. Actually flying a nano isn't that skill intensive. Takes something like 2 months for great nav skills. Most should have decent cap skills. It'll take a bit for Cruiser 5 and for the hac skill itself. So most can nano it up in about 2 months and have great skills for nav, cap, ship, and weapons in 3-4 months. For costs a nano is about the same as a battleship. The main issue is insurance in that you don't get anything significant back. For their ability to survive and considering how long they'll last, poly's aren't just an expense but a great investment. Originally by: Sean Faust On the other hand, there are a lot of tech 2 ships whose only advantage over their battlecruiser counterparts (which are cheaper, easier to fit, and less training intensive) comes from their mobility. Thats the funny part. While a bc could do the job better a non nano hac could jump faster and get into warp faster. So if a ship couldn't be nano'd like today, it would still be useful when needing to move on a long roam. So the excuse that a nano makes a long roam possible would be valid for a nano setup. However the non nanos could be caught at gate camps and could be trapped. So this will never happen while the nano solution exists. So truely the only valid answer is for us to not whine about it but to train and fly nanos ourselves.
Anubis Hatak OUTLAWZ IMMORTAL White Core	Posted - 2008.06.23 14:44:00 - [146] There is a pretty simple solution to this without completely nerfing nano... the curse for example with a t2 MWD + low slots with OD + nano II goes 2.8km/s. If you can't hit a cruiser with the increased sig radius of 2 LSE (or 1) and a MWD, then go train some tracking skills. At that speed any missile boat will make the nano cruiser die or leave, so why not just lower the base speed/whatever other base stats effect the MWD speed on every other NON intended nano HAC/recon to the same as the curse (or around that). Then if people want to spend millions/billions on faction mods and rigs to make their ship go fast, then ******* let them and stop whining about the fact that people spend time and money on their ships, fitting them how they want. It will just make the loot good when you figure it out and learn to kill them (its simple unless your solo). I am completely against nerfing nano in any way, but if it did happen, that ^ is the way that should keep people happy (apart from hardcore whiners who need to just quit eve and go whine about something else). Simple solutions to nano include: spread out and web them while they orbit, train for minmatar/amarr recons just like the nano pilots had to, use interceptors and of course if you can't beat them, join 'em. (or just stfu and get over it)
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.23 15:02:00 - [147] Originally by: Matrix Skye Edited by: Matrix Skye on 23/06/2008 13:34:12 Originally by: Matrixcvd If you "make a mistake" flying your battleship you dont explode, your active tank provides you more time to recover from putting yoruself at a bad location on grid. Nanopilot puts himself in the wrong location on grid and he dies within 10 seconds or less. Thats the issue, make up whatever newsflash you want but thats the reality of it this is bull** in so many levels it aint even funny. a battleship in the wrong place dies PERIOD!. if you activate tank it saves you what, 5 seconds? it still dies. nano CHOOSES when to engage and CHOOSES when to disengage. if aint going right nano runs. how do i know? cause i fly one myself does a BS have more effective HP than a nano? c/d? does a nano usually run a solid active tank better than a BS? c/d? Fly a balanced fleet and Ewar/Log can help BS's because 30 seconds is all you need, you get caught in nano and your friends wont have time to lock you or jam the enemy only blsh*t i see is you
Pheonix Kanan D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.23 15:08:00 - [148] Originally by: Sean Faust Nano fitted ships have their ups and downs. On the one hand, it's very training intensive. It means having nearly maxed out navigation and cap skills, and it means having to put polycarbon rigs on your ship, which are RIDICULOUSLY expensive and can double or even triple the cost of your already expensive HAC or recon. I think that, for these reasons, it is bad for the game because it gives the impression that newer players don't belong in 0.0. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea that you practically have to make a 1 year investment into the game before you can really be viable for 0.0 pvp as anything other than cannon fodder or a support/ewar ship. On the other hand, there are a lot of tech 2 ships whose only advantage over their battlecruiser counterparts (which are cheaper, easier to fit, and less training intensive) comes from their mobility. Not being able to fit them based on that would essentially be eliminating their role and relegating them to the same "I badly need buffs" status as Assault frigates. Is the prevalence of nano/speed fitted ships a problem? Yes, I think it is. But the answer can't be solved with a simple nerf or a buff of a module or a rig. It would require a complete reworking of the ships and the way combat in EVE works. This is entirely true. Unfortunately, these statements will go unnoticed due to the over abundance of nano whiners and nano defenders in this (and all the others, I see Matrixcvd is already here with his torch and sword ) thread. The nano phenomenon is the simple result of players taking full advantage of in game mechanics, which will always happen no matter what you nerf. It's like putting a band-aid on broken leg, it doesn't fix the problem.
Icutty Lotz	Posted - 2008.06.23 15:13:00 - [149] Edited by: Icutty Lotz on 23/06/2008 15:13:25 Originally by: JVol IMO< Nannos are a great addition to eve, they give not so good PvP'ers a leg up in combat. Should they be nerfed? Hell no !! Heres the answer(s). 1) make neuts and webs have more trainable skills. Skills to increase their range, their drain/web percentage. Sick of nanof*gs?? Then you spend a bit of time getting your t1 web/neut to hit 15-17km before you overheat it. THEN when the gents who scream, "FIT A WEB/NEUT if you wanna kill nannos" actually have something instead of the useless hollow advice they generally spout. What good is a neut or a web that only reaches 12-13km when they orbit you from 19km plus? Useless!! It would make a one v one's in BC sized ships and smaller viable again. At this time only heavy neuts are viable, that means CCP is saying you need a BS to counter a nano cruiser. unbalanced in any stretch of the imagination ) working with rounded numbers but is very true yes let us make the curse have a 75k(ts med nute with 1.5x,what you suggested, the range it has on a curse) nute range and drain about 500 cap per nute(again about 1.5x what it dose now with a ts med nute) a hugin that can web at 60k, 90k if your using a domination web. with a standard duel web setup will do over 99.99% speed reduction cuz that wont make anyone mad or the game unbalanced in anyway a good hearted idea but very bad when implemented on ships already meant to do this
Alt altski	Posted - 2008.06.23 15:19:00 - [150] Quite a few times in low sec ive been in my battleship killing stuffs and they have brought in a few more than i could take .. and guess what saved me ? Microwarp driving out of there range ! So speed saved me xD But basically nobody wants there ship to die and with so many fights being un-even nowadays speed gives you the choice of running when the going gets tough instead of staying and just dieng. Imo this wont even problem when everybody gets good at flying nano ships and there are massive nano blobs everywhere as speed wont give you the choise of running because everybody else is fast too. Then it will come down to who spends more isk on there ship which = phat lewt drops ! yey.

Matrix Skye	Posted - 2008.06.23 15:49:00 - [151] Edited by: Matrix Skye on 23/06/2008 16:10:21 Originally by: Matrixcvd does a BS have more effective HP than a nano? c/d? does a nano usually get hit for full damage? c/d? way to divert away from the problem i know that you know you're full of it but i'll entertain your silliness anyway. technically speaking yes, the bs has more effective HP. but the bs takes a HELL OF ALOT MORE DAMAGE moving at brick speed. and also has issues hitting anything smaller than itself. c/d? Quote: does a nano usually run a solid active tank better than a BS? c/d? again, acting dumb you are . techincally yes, bs handles active tanks better than a nano. but you very dang well know that a nano tank IS SUPERIOR. its why your corp (and coincidentally your previous alliance) chose to fly almost exclusively nanos, c/d? . Quote: Fly a balanced fleet and Ewar/Log can help BS's because 30 seconds is all you need, you get caught in nano and your friends wont have time to lock you or jam the enemy only b*lsht i see is you as soon as battle goes bad for me i flee in a nano. i want to see you try that with a bs . to kill 1 (ONE!, UNO!) nanoishtar or vaga you need another nano or a GANG of whatevers. and before you come in with OMGRAPIER!1! i said "to KILL", not make it bug off/or be on some stupid 2-hour stalemate until buddies show up. b*lshtting much? c/d?
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.23 16:16:00 - [152] Originally by: Matrix Skye Edited by: Matrix Skye on 23/06/2008 16:10:21 Originally by: Matrixcvd does a BS have more effective HP than a nano? c/d? does a nano usually get hit for full damage? c/d? way to divert away from the problem i know that you know you're full of it but i'll entertain your silliness anyway. technically speaking yes, the bs has more effective HP. but the bs takes a HELL OF ALOT MORE DAMAGE moving at brick speed. and also has issues hitting anything smaller than itself. c/d? Quote: does a nano usually run a solid active tank better than a BS? c/d? again, acting dumb you are . techincally yes, bs handles active tanks better than a nano. but you very dang well know that a nano tank IS SUPERIOR. its why your corp (and coincidentally your previous alliance) chose to fly almost exclusively nanos, c/d? . Quote: Fly a balanced fleet and Ewar/Log can help BS's because 30 seconds is all you need, you get caught in nano and your friends wont have time to lock you or jam the enemy only b*lsht i see is you as soon as battle goes bad for me i flee in a nano. i want to see you try that with a bs . to kill 1 (ONE!, UNO!) nanoishtar or vaga you need another nano or a GANG of whatevers. and before you come in with OMGRAPIER!1! i said "to KILL", not make it bug off/or be on some stupid 2-hour stalemate until buddies show up. b*lshtting much? c/d? oh holy emo joy, you forgot the orginal comments about making a mistake on grid and getting caught and the amount of time it takes to lose your ship, and if you cant get your rapier in to grab an ishtar you are fail baiter, just like you fail at forums c/d?
Matrix Skye	Posted - 2008.06.23 16:34:00 - [153] Originally by: Matrixcvd oh holy emo joy, you forgot the orginal comments about making a mistake on grid and getting caught and the amount of time it takes to lose your ship, and if you cant get your rapier in to grab an ishtar you are fail baiter, just like you fail at forums c/d? oh but its all there. make a mistake? what like forget to click on MWD? on a nano you can jump straight into a camp and burn back to the gate easily. or hell you can get caught with your pants down and still have a much better chance at survival than a BS in the same exact situation. but nah, you're here to convince us that since a BS has more 'effective HP' it has a better survival chance? . try hugging that nano of yours tighter because your **** poor of an excuse on why it isn't overpowered is straight up sh*t. you teh really funneh
Raymon James Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.06.23 16:43:00 - [154] Originally by: My Julutschka Same es in WoW when they cried "PALA IS IMBA" and the Palas replied "LUL n00bs..only takes 3 other chars to kill us..we are fine" Think about it ! I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. whats a palas?
Bronson Hughes The. Conspiracy	Posted - 2008.06.23 16:45:00 - [155] Why must every ship be nanoed? Why not? (I'm suprised that nobody actually posted that at this point given the length of the thread) Here's why: 1. It's fun to fly fast ships. 2. You're far more likely to win a fight if you can choose them. 3. You're far more likely to survive a fight if you can run away from them. Note the subtle difference between #2 and #3. I see way too many people complaining about 'losing' to a nano-ship because the nano-ship ran away and warped off. Newsflash, you didn't lose: you just forced your opponent from the field without losing your ship, which is a victory in it's own right. Mind you, killing your opponent is far more effective, not to mention more gratifying, but if the other guy intended to kill you and ran without killing you, he lost, period. In fleets, it's not as binary obviously. The equation changes if the nano-gang manages to inflict more losses than they sustain before running away, but that is the very nature of guerilla warfare: hit fast, inflict maximum damage, fade away before your target can mount a defense. It becomes a war of attrition on a very small scale and unless the defenders can lock down and destroy the nano-gang, only the nano-gang can determine when it ends. History has shown that guerilla wafare is incredibly effective because the guerillas chose the terms of the fights and run away when out-numbered. Why should EvE be any different? -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 16:46:00 - [156] Originally by: Matrix Skye Edited by: Matrix Skye on 23/06/2008 16:39:09 Originally by: Matrixcvd oh holy emo joy, you forgot the orginal comments about making a mistake on grid and getting caught and the amount of time it takes to lose your ship, and if you cant get your rapier in to grab an ishtar you are fail baiter, just like you fail at forums c/d? make a mistake? what like forget to click on MWD? on a nano you can jump straight into a camp and burn back to the gate easily. or hell you can get caught with your pants down and still have a much better chance at survival than a BS in the same exact situation. but nah, you're here to convince us that since a BS has more 'effective HP' it has a better survival chance? try hugging that nano of yours tighter because your pis poor of an excuse on why it isn't overpowered is straight up sht. you teh really funneh, son oh, and according to matrixcvd battleships > nanos c/d? i wonder why tri gangs and your corp fly almost exclusively nano tanks. must be because you think bs' are overpowered? Post with your main (I can't because it's banned). A mistake would be getting inside the web range of any ship. A mistake would be to let a ceptor catch me. Or I could just get neuted by some guy when I have my mwd off and then I have no cap, I'm in scram range and I have no mwd pulse to go on. Some people fly nano because most of eves population don't know what to do. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 16:48:00 - [157] Originally by: Bronson Hughes History has shown that guerilla wafare is incredibly effective because the guerillas chose the terms of the fights and run away when out-numbered. Why should EvE be any different? Because the mighty caldari militia, the biggest entity in this game, the powerblock of gods, wishes it to be so. THEIR DRAEKS WILL BLOT OUT THE SUN! _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Matrix Skye	Posted - 2008.06.23 17:03:00 - [158] Originally by: Tenuo Post with your main (I can't because it's banned). is this a plea or a demand? cant tell but really dont care either way. Quote: A mistake would be getting inside the web range of any ship. ok. explain how the hell is a webbed none-nano ship gonna over-speed a webbed nano ship? let me guess, double web or bring a buddy nano still outruns none-nano and can still warp off. even with neuts and nano/nos ship will still have advantage. Quote: A mistake would be to let a ceptor catch me. yes, ceptor catches you then what? ah yes, bring more mates to help you kill that 1 nano, right? Quote: Or I could just get neuted by some guy when I have my mwd off and then I have no cap, I'm in scram range and I have no mwd pulse to go on. you mean like you're afk or brain-dead for a minute or two? yeah, i guess that could happen. Quote: Some people fly nano because most of eves population don't know what to do. oh but its easy. nano yourself. unless a nano pilot falls asleep at the wheel the best counter for nano is another nano. but like i said before. i actually encourage every1 to fly nanos because in the end there'll be less kills on killboards and it'll be the kb whrs whining about no1 to kill.
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.23 17:24:00 - [159] Originally by: Matrix Skye Originally by: Tenuo Post with your main (I can't because it's banned). is this a plea or a demand? cant tell but really dont care either way. Quote: A mistake would be getting inside the web range of any ship. ok. explain how the hell is a webbed none-nano ship gonna over-speed a webbed nano ship? let me guess, double web or bring a buddy nano still outruns none-nano and can still warp off. even with neuts and nano/nos ship will still have advantage. Quote: A mistake would be to let a ceptor catch me. yes, ceptor catches you then what? ah yes, bring more mates to help you kill that 1 nano, right? Quote: Or I could just get neuted by some guy when I have my mwd off and then I have no cap, I'm in scram range and I have no mwd pulse to go on. you mean like you're afk or brain-dead for a minute or two? yeah, i guess that could happen. Quote: Some people fly nano because most of eves population don't know what to do. oh but its easy. nano yourself. unless a nano pilot falls asleep at the wheel the best counter for nano is another nano. but like i said before. i actually encourage every1 to fly nanos because in the end there'll be less kills on killboards and it'll be the kb whrs whining about no1 to kill. I GOT IT! And this took me a while but...You must be that new Eve PVPer, the EFT-Sisi PVP Allstar! Ladies and Gentlemen, Let me introduce you all to the newest member of the Eve community. Matrix Skye, an alt poaster with loads of experience flying wackadoo officer vagabonds doing 15 k/s on Sisi pwning all you come forth then informing us about his superior knowledge of game mechanics. Watch as he calls you nubs and how he pwn's with nanos, watch how he calls for the nerfing of his trade because he can't help but watch the poor capsuleers who can't nano, behold at his mastery of forum bu*sht and mindgames to convince you he actually plays on tranquility... You got me, you really did, awesome job tho...
Atsuko Ratu VSP Corp.	Posted - 2008.06.23 17:26:00 - [160] Originally by: Matrix Skye ok. explain how the hell is a webbed none-nano ship gonna over-speed a webbed nano ship? let me guess, double web or bring a buddy nano still outruns none-nano and can still warp off. even with neuts and nano/nos ship will still have advantage.

Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.06.23 17:27:00 - [161] Originally by: Bronson Hughes Why must every ship be nanoed? Why not? (I'm suprised that nobody actually posted that at this point given the length of the thread) Here's why: 1. It's fun to fly fast ships. 2. You're far more likely to win a fight if you can choose them. 3. You're far more likely to survive a fight if you can run away from them. Note the subtle difference between #2 and #3. I see way too many people complaining about 'losing' to a nano-ship because the nano-ship ran away and warped off. Newsflash, you didn't lose: you just forced your opponent from the field without losing your ship, which is a victory in it's own right. Mind you, killing your opponent is far more effective, not to mention more gratifying, but if the other guy intended to kill you and ran without killing you, he lost, period. In fleets, it's not as binary obviously. The equation changes if the nano-gang manages to inflict more losses than they sustain before running away, but that is the very nature of guerilla warfare: hit fast, inflict maximum damage, fade away before your target can mount a defense. It becomes a war of attrition on a very small scale and unless the defenders can lock down and destroy the nano-gang, only the nano-gang can determine when it ends. History has shown that guerilla wafare is incredibly effective because the guerillas chose the terms of the fights and run away when out-numbered. Why should EvE be any different? Yeah and there are fast ships, they are called frigates. There is no need nor justification for 500+dps hacs going near interceptor speeds. There is something called speed vs dps balance. I know ccp has taken a dump on that balance if you take nano hacs into account but lets hope that changes. You got nothing to complain about then, you can still fly your fast ships: FRIGATES. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Bronson Hughes The. Conspiracy	Posted - 2008.06.23 17:31:00 - [162] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Yeah and there are fast ships, they are called frigates. There is no need nor justification for 500+dps hacs going near interceptor speeds. There is something called speed vs dps balance. I know ccp has taken a dump on that balance if you take nano hacs into account but lets hope that changes. You got nothing to complain about then, you can still fly your fast ships: FRIGATES. Hey, at least CCP is moving in the right direction. Rememeber the much feared NanoPhoon and NanoDomi? They could actually go faster than some of the Nano-HACs you see today. At least battleships no longer get employed as guerilla ships. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 17:38:00 - [163] Originally by: Bronson Hughes 1. It's fun to fly fast ships. 2. You're far more likely to win a fight if you can choose them. 3. You're far more likely to survive a fight if you can run away from them. Surviving isn't winning. Its a draw. If you might die or draw and the nano is more likely to draw or win then the nano has the advantage. Fast ships are only fun to fly for some people. Not everyone has a computer that can handle it. Not everyone has a connection that can handle it. Not everyone can handle the speed nor has the twitch type reflexes. Fast ships are a bit too much fps-like for some. It attracts the younger crowd and pushes away those that are older. There are some that just don't want to fly them. They're foolish but what can you do. In a nano world anything that isn't nano'd is usually a liability. Originally by: Bronson Hughes that is the very nature of guerilla warfare: hit fast, inflict maximum damage, fade away before your target can mount a defense. It becomes a war of attrition on a very small scale and unless the defenders can lock down and destroy the nano-gang, only the nano-gang can determine when it ends. This isn't guerilla warfare. The "hit fast" thing is often designed to force the defenders out to get even more easy kills. Nanos are there to stir up the hive because unless the "defenders" field greater number of well equipped nanos then there isn't much risk. The defenders cannot lock down nor effectively destroy the nano-gang. The nanos will engage until they start taking more losses than acceptable then they'll withdraw. As you've stated: "only the nano-gang can determine when it ends". This does not reflect guerilla warfare. Originally by: Bronson Hughes History has shown that guerilla wafare is incredibly effective because the guerillas chose the terms of the fights and run away when out-numbered. Why should EvE be any different? Guerilla warfare works by striking where the enemy is not. A stealth bomber/black ops gang would be guerilla warfware. Nanos strike mostly where they please. Nanos prefer a target rich environment as they can choose the engagement. Nanos are closer to the fighter aircraft in a world with limited surface to air weapons. You might get lucky by tossing a rock up but mostly the best idea is to ignore them or fly them. The grunt out of basic is useless. Heavy and light armor on the ground is mostly useless when they cannot choose when to fight. What we get is the current trend. The push is for everyone to fly nanos. There are the occasional remote rep bs gang but mostly what I see are gangs forming up for nanos only. If it isn't a nano/nano support then it isn't welcome to even undock. So the only rational thing is to fly nanos yourself and mock those that won't fly nanos.
Calvin Okone LSP Industries	Posted - 2008.06.23 17:58:00 - [164] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 20/06/2008 13:21:53 Originally by: Hijara Why does EVERY ship have to be nanoed? Seems like i am the only one who pvp's with a zealot going only 256m/s. What happened to large alpha, or good tanks? Because ever since the WCS nerf, people have been looking for a way to PVP while minimising the risk. Currently, a fast nanoship is pretty much invincible if boarded by a competent pilot. I didn't know that there was a WCS nerf. What was it?
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:02:00 - [165] Originally by: Darineah Charach The problem with nanogangs is that their ISN'T a reliable, viable counter that results in nanoship death. If there were a reliable, viable counter that resulted in nanoship death, precisely 0 people would fly them. But that doesn't mean they're overpowered either. Anything with a reliable, viable counter that results in ship death will never be flown by anyone with half a clue. You don't want to balance anything ships, you want to kill off speed tanking completely. There's more to pvp than rolling your head across the F-keys. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:10:00 - [166] Originally by: Italian Wedding Originally by: AstroPhobic 6. Heavy Neuts 7. ECM 8. RR 9. Tracking 10. Lots of inties/frigs 11. Low transversal and sniper BS 6. Cap Injector > Neuts 7. ECM ships can't kill nano's (requires specialized GANG to kill one cruiser sized ship = bull**) 8. Remote Reps can't kill nano ships (requires specialized GANG to kill 1 cruiser sized ship = bull) 9. Drones 10. Why should it take many ships to take down 1 cruise sized ship? 12. Lol @ nano pilot that gets low transversal to a sniper bs moving at <200m/s. Minmatar, should've known. Trying to protect your low risk high kill investment. 6. Tell that to my curse. 7. 2M ECM ship + 4M t1 tacklefrig = dead 250M nano. 2 ships, not a gang. worth 2.4% of the nano ship 8. remote reps will make you immune to nano loldps 9. smartbombs 10. it doesn't, just use better strategy Why do you think it should take a ship worth 1% as much to kill a ship worth 250M or more? 11. why does your stupid sniper not have a MWD fitted? Most nano pilots invested months of training and hundreds of millions of ISK if not billions. You want to invest nothing, train no period of time and kill them. Why? It makes no sense. Oh, right, you can't roll your head across the F-keys and get killmails when the people you're fighting use their heads for thinking instead of mashing buttons. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Bronson Hughes The. Conspiracy	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:12:00 - [167] Originally by: ****zilla Surviving isn't winning. Its a draw. If you might die or draw and the nano is more likely to draw or win then the nano has the advantage. I agree. I was just pointing out the difference between winning* a fight and surviving one. Nano-ships have the advantage on both ends, which is why they're so appealing. Originally by: ****zilla The defenders cannot lock down nor effectively destroy the nano-gang. The nanos will engage until they start taking more losses than acceptable then they'll withdraw. As you've stated: "only the nano-gang can determine when it ends". This does not reflect guerilla warfare. Properly chosen* defenders cannot lock down or destroy a nano-gang, which goes back to chosing your fights and surviving fights that go bad, both of which favor nano-ships. That's not the same as saying that you can't counter a nano-gang with a non-nano gang, just that the nano-gang has a better choice of opponents and a better chance of running away. The "when it ends" statement was meant in reference to a nano-gang engaging a well chosen, poorly equipped non-nano-gang; this should have been better clarified. Originally by: ***zilla Guerilla warfare works by striking where the enemy is not. A stealth bomber/black ops gang would be guerilla warfware. Nanos strike mostly where they please. Nanos prefer a target rich environment as they can choose the engagement. If you strike where the enemy is not, you have nothing to strike at. Guerilla warefare is about striking where the enemy cannot strike back so you maximize your inflicted damage while minimizing your potential risk, which is why it's great to be able to choose your fights. Originally by: *zilla Nanos are closer to the fighter aircraft in a world with limited surface to air weapons. You might get lucky by tossing a rock up but mostly the best idea is to ignore them or fly them. The grunt out of basic is useless. Heavy and light armor on the ground is mostly useless when they cannot choose when to fight. I agree with this statement. Flying a nano-ship well requires a lot of training in navigation, weapons, fitting, etc.; low SP characters are usually of little effective use in a nano-gang unless they're a scout or bait. But EvE was never about brand new characters being as effective as older ones, so I'm okay with this as long as you see fleets forming up for non-nano-ships, which I do (at least in the Caldari Milita). Originally by: **zilla What we get is the current trend. The push is for everyone to fly nanos. There are the occasional remote rep bs gang but mostly what I see are gangs forming up for nanos only. If it isn't a nano/nano support then it isn't welcome to even undock. So the only rational thing is to fly nanos yourself and mock those that won't fly nanos. Unfortunately, I agree with this as well. Even though there are effective counters to nano-gangs, those counters don't offer the benefits of a nano-gang (i.e. choosing your fights, fleeing from fights gone bad). A spider-tanked BS gang may be very hard for a like-sized nano-gang to kill, but they're never getting away from a nano-gang either nor would they have an easy time ambushing one. Despite the current situation, however, I don't think that nano-ships need any kind of significant nerf. Maneuver is the very heart of warfare; people will adapt or they will die. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne*
Bronson Hughes The. Conspiracy	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:14:00 - [168] Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 23/06/2008 18:15:29 Originally by: Calvin Okone I didn't know that there was a WCS nerf. What was it? Warp Core Stabilizers didn't always have their horrible penalties to your targeting range and lock time. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:19:00 - [169] Originally by: Xaen 7. 2M ECM ship + 4M t1 tacklefrig = dead 250M nano. 2 ships, not a gang. worth 2.4% of the nano ship 8. remote reps will make you immune to nano loldps 9. smartbombs 10. it doesn't, just use better strategy Why do you think it should take a ship worth 1% as much to kill a ship worth 250M or more? 11. why does your stupid sniper not have a MWD fitted? Omg. 7. Yeah you need 2 people per nano. So 25 man nano gang needs 50 man gang to counter. Fail. 8. Sitting inside a station all day will make you immune to nanos and EVEN TITANS. You got some imba suggestions there mate! 10. Wait, how many isk does the average nano ship kill before he goes pop? Compare that to any other ship. Yeah, you fail. 11. Wait, are you telling me that you think an mwding BS sniper has significant impact on reducing transveral against nanos? Actually it is nano gangs that are the ones rolling their faces on the F keys. Nano gangs cover up noobness: FC makes bad choices? No probs, nanos mostly get away. Normal fleets wipe with one mistake. You make bad choices in combat? No probs, you can outrun most things and those things you cant outrun you can kill easily. In a normal ship youd be dead 10 times over. Yeah keep telling yourself that nano pilots are skilled. They are not, it is exactly the opposite and it is quite funny how dilusional some are about this. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:20:00 - [170] Originally by: TZeer Something is wrong when cruisersized ships are moving faster then many of the average ceptor pilots. What the ** are you talking about? Average nano speed: 3.2kms to 3.9km/s Average interceptor speed: 7km/s 11km/s Either post setups proving your point or stop saying they're faster than interceptors because they're flat out not. An interceptor with zero speed mods fitted and good skills is faster than everything but a nano vagabond. Right now I'm looking at an Ares in EFT with no speed mods and no implants and All V going 4188m/s. For comparison I've got a 232M ISK Ishtar with the same skills and seven speed mods going 3818. Actually put some mods in the Ares' lows and it's 7340m/s. Since it's already clear you're lying or woefully unaware of reality I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**

Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:21:00 - [171] Originally by: Xaen Originally by: TZeer Something is wrong when cruisersized ships are moving faster then many of the average ceptor pilots. What the **** are you talking about? Average nano speed: 3.2kms to 3.9km/s Average interceptor speed: 7km/s 11km/s Either post setups proving your point or stop saying they're faster than interceptors because they're flat out not. An interceptor with zero speed mods fitted and good skills is faster than everything but a nano vagabond. Right now I'm looking at an Ares in EFT with no speed mods and no implants and All V going 4188m/s. For comparison I've got a 232M ISK Ishtar with the same skills and seven speed mods going 3818. Actually put some mods in the Ares' lows and it's 7340m/s. Since it's already clear you're lying or woefully unaware of reality I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post. A non high skilled ceptor pilot does not reach anything near 7km/s. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:24:00 - [172] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Reem Fairchild effectively render them obsolete by giving every single ship in the game similar abilities. Not similiar abilities. Currently Huginn/Rapiers have a very unique ability that makes them very valuable in fleets. There aren't other t1 options that compare. I'd like to see something in between the mostly useless webs we have now and a t2 fitted Minm Recon. Well, then look at it Originally by: ***zilla What I'm asking for is a viable t1 webbing solution. Why on earth should you get one? Honestly. If you can own all nanos in whatever ship you decided to put your t1 webbing solution on, that's not balance, it's an IWINBUTAN. Propose a solution that balances the game without making hacs completely inferior in every way to battlecruisers and I'll take you seriously. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:28:00 - [173] Originally by: TZeer Another thing, the insane speeds you get nowdays combined with the nerf on sensorbooster makes ranged combat a thing of the past... By the time you get a lock, it`s already on top of you... Or if you get a lock on it, it`s already either so close that the guns cant track or so high speed that missiles dont do any damage... And if you kill it, theres now a wreck for hostiles to warp to... You can't warp to wrecks. WTF. You just executed your own credibility. Originally by: TZeer And yeah, rapier or huginn does good, but when there are multiple nanostuff incomming it`s only so much a huginn/rapier can do before it either must get out or gets popped... So you remote rep it. Or ECM the nanos. (hello? blackbird?) Or damp them. Or tracking disrupt them. Or neut them. Or snipe them with destroyers or medium guns. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:32:00 - [174] Originally by: TZeer Quote: There's tons of ways to kill a nanoship pilot 1v1, in anything from a Rupture upwards Then please tell me thoose tons of ways that dont include Rapier/Huginn. And that actually kills the nanoship, not just forces them to dissengage... First explain why you think you should be able to kill them. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:48:00 - [175] Originally by: Tefkros Edited by: Tefkros on 23/06/2008 08:22:07 Originally by: Ambien Torca Easy kills for you. TD+neut megas, web smaller ships and pound away... They don¦t have much chance unless their BS got neutralizers. You are right. Such an exotic module. I hear they drop only near Jove space. rofl My domi fits 3 heavy energy warfare mods. Not enough to touch the curse, but the huggin would have been in deep **. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:50:00 - [176] Originally by: Italian Wedding Edited by: Italian Wedding on 23/06/2008 08:27:25 Originally by: Lord WarATron People need to ask themselves why, due to game design, that there is a need to nano in the first place. Firstly, we know people like to kill things without losing things. We then take the highest probable method of survival in Eve, which is speed. The higher your speed, the more likely you are to survive what would otherwise be a negative outcome (losing your ship). With this information, we can now see why most people fit their ship to go as fast as they can. On top of that, with a speed fitted ship, you have the very valuable advantage of choosing 99% of your fights and being able to get away from said fight if something suddenly appears that could change your desired outcome (there is absolutely zero commitment required by a nano pilot, where as 100% commitment is required by target non-nanoship). Now we know why people fit nanoed ships - because they want to be able to kill and not be killed. No other setup comes close to the amount survivability yet gankability of a nano'd ship (cruiser class and lower). Falcon. Blackbird. Scorpion. Lachesis & Arazu (try locking something that has you damped to 8km). Kitsune. Widow. Neut [battleship]. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:51:00 - [177] Originally by: Xaen No, it's not far more effective. It's the only way to fit that justifies a HAC over a battlecruiser. Versus the "i win" for a nano? A tanked hac can warp faster system to system. Greater agility, less sig radius. In a tanked ship versus tanked ship fight a hac may have to commit however can control range better. There is the Eagle and Muninn. Mostly ignored in favor of nanos. However niches like these prove that non nano hacs have a place. There are many t2 ships that are vastly more expensive than the t1 stuff. However the nanos are in a different league than the t1 ships entirely. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean that it has to be good. Price does not control utility. Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Xaen First explain why you think you should be able to kill them. Maybe because the point of the pvp part of the game is to blow up enemy ships? :O And if you can't the choices are either 1) don't fight, 2) fly them yourself. Both options are depressing. But hey, variety in pvp ships and fittings are mosty dead anyways.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:56:00 - [178] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Italian Wedding Of course not EVERY single pilot fits nanos, but more often then not, they do, because it is simply FAR MORE EFFECTIVE to be nanoed then it is not to be nanoed, hence why you see more non-nanoed hacs on the killboard on the dieing side then nanoed hacs. No, it's not far more effective. It's the only way to fit that justifies a HAC over a battlecruiser. Seriously. Any battlecruiser in the game can fit a better tank and more DPS than any HAC. And on top of that they're 100% insurable. I implore you to please think about this for 10 freaking seconds. What purpose would a HAC serve if a battlecruiser does damage an tanking better, more cheaply? Go on, name something. Explain what role HACs would have if you can't effectively nano them. Oh right, they'd be bigger, more expensive assault frigates but no more useful. The problem isn't that people are opposed to nanos. It's that every change the propose completely destroys all usefulness of heavy assault ships utterly. Post a balanced suggestion and people might take you seriously. Because right now it looks like you're looking for an IWINBUTAN that will allow you to roll your head across the fkeys. Nope not all hacs are replacable by BCs in every role. Still what needs to be done is a nerf on BCs or a boost to HAC fittings and roles that doesn't include nanoing. But then again, youd need to boost field commands a bit aswell. Bah, it never ends. All this still isnt justification enough for nano hacs, they are an imbalance in this game and need to go. No they aren't. And Xaen, you can warp to wrecks, it's why people shoot friendly wrecks in fleet battles, to prevent dictors and hictors from warping to the midst of a fleet. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:03:00 - [179] Originally by: Italian Wedding I urge you to give me the name of an interceptor (I will train every skill to 5 and spend 20bil isk for this said ceptor) that can mwd into a group of 50 nanohacs and survive long enough to even lock something. Why on earth would you fly an interceptor into a group of 50 nanohacs? I have a better idea genius. Get a bunch of short range gank battleships with two webs and range scripted sensor boosers. Get your gank battleships to lock targets. Get a covops to give you a warp-in on the nano gang. Drop your whole god damn 50 man battleship fleet right in their laps. Since they've already got locks, you double web and watch them explode like popcorn. I mean, the only conceivable fleet you would try and tackle someone in a 50 man nano hac fleet for is one with bigger tank and gank, right? Or you could come whine on the forums about how rolling your head across the fkeys isn't working. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:06:00 - [180] Originally by: Italian Wedding I will however play the worlds tiniest violin for you when you come to the boards and cry out that "my xxxxx is worthless now cause it can't go 5kms anymore thx ccp". Like we're playing the tiniest violin for you because you can't kill anything by rolling your head across the fkeys? Also, the only nano that goes 5km/s is the vagabond, and CCP have specifically stated that any speed nerf applied will not touch the vagabond. So either stop exaggerating about the speed of nanos in general, or come right out and say vagabond (which won't be nerfed). Either way, your point is invalid. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs

Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:13:00 - [181] Originally by: ***zilla To properly fly a ceptor takes skills that aren't that far removed from flying a nano cruiser. Highlightin' the part that proves doesn't know what he's talking about. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:15:00 - [182] Originally by: Xaen Get a covops to give you a warp-in on the nano gang. Drop your whole god damn 50 man battleship fleet right in their laps. Last I checked warping drops lock. Whens the last time you've seen nanos in a tight ball? They'll be spread out. That cov ops would be lucky to get a warp in point for more than a handful of nanos. If the battleships do warp the nano have lots of time to pulse their mwd and escape. The battleships 1) won't lock in time, 2) won't be close enough to web. Most likely the last battleship or two to warp off will be scrammed and popped before the rest can make it back. In a best case scenerio the battleships might pop a nano or two that is a bit slow or distracted. More likely the battleships take greater losses. Originally by: Xaen CCP have specifically stated that any speed nerf applied will not touch the vagabond. Keep the vaga fast. Just offer some counter to speed besides speed. Seriously. The way this is going it is very silly for anyone to not fly nanos.
Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:16:00 - [183] Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Italian Wedding I urge you to give me the name of an interceptor (I will train every skill to 5 and spend 20bil isk for this said ceptor) that can mwd into a group of 50 nanohacs and survive long enough to even lock something. Why on earth would you fly an interceptor into a group of 50 nanohacs? I have a better idea genius. Get a bunch of short range gank battleships with two webs and range scripted sensor boosers. Get your gank battleships to lock targets. Get a covops to give you a warp-in on the nano gang. Drop your whole god damn 50 man battleship fleet right in their laps. Since they've already got locks, you double web and watch them explode like popcorn. I mean, the only conceivable fleet you would try and tackle someone in a 50 man nano hac fleet for is one with bigger tank and gank, right? Or you could come whine on the forums about how rolling your head across the fkeys isn't working. Theorycraft much? I'll eat my hat if you succeed with this. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:16:00 - [184] Originally by: Alt altski Quite a few times in low sec ive been in my battleship killing stuffs and they have brought in a few more than i could take .. and guess what saved me ? Microwarp driving out of there range ! So speed saved me xD Some dingus in a megathron did that to me in my curse. I had him dead to rights. Tracking disrupted and his cap fukt and then he just up and warps off. Said he got past 24km :( He beat me on pure skill. That wasn't you was it? - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:34:00 - [185] Man what a juicy post full of easily refutable points! Ahh, where to begin...the beginning I guess! Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Bronson Hughes 1. It's fun to fly fast ships. 2. You're far more likely to win a fight if you can choose them. 3. You're far more likely to survive a fight if you can run away from them. Surviving isn't winning. Its a draw. Funny, you complain that you can only drive them off, not kill them. Most places, driving the enemy out is considered victory.. Originally by: ***zilla Fast ships are only fun to fly for some people. So we should slow the whole game down for your sake? Originally by: *zilla Not everyone has a computer that can handle it. Not everyone has a connection that can handle it. Not everyone can handle the speed nor has the twitch type reflexes. How is this anyone's problem but your own? It's not like there are only 10 people with computers than can play EVE the way it was meant to. These are YOUR problems and the situation of one player does not and should not dictate how the game will evolve. Originally by: *zilla Fast ships are a bit too much fps-like for some. If true, so what? There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Originally by: *zilla It attracts the younger crowd and pushes away those that are older. So? I would probably be in the "older" category myself, but too much slow in a game is boring. Originally by: **zilla There are some that just don't* want to fly them. So? The game shouldn't be changed to suit just you. Originally by: ***zilla In a nano world anything that isn't nano'd is usually a liability. This is such a worthless blanket generalization I shouldn't be wasting my time on it. Sniper battleships are hardly a liability. EWAR boats are hardly a liability. Logistics ships are hardly a liability. Ever think about backing up your tacklers with a couple of Basilisks? No? Didn't think so, you like to play by rolling your head across the fkeys and cry on the forums when the kids won't get off your lawn. Originally by: *zilla This isn't guerilla warfare. The "hit fast" thing is often designed to force the defenders out to get even more easy kills. No it isn't. Geurilla warfare is all about getting in, doing as much damage as possible and getting out. This is precisely what nanos do. Originally by: *zilla Nanos are there to stir up the hive because unless the "defenders" field greater number of well equipped nanos then there isn't much risk. This is the very nature of guerilla warfare. Get in, bloody their nose, disappear. Originally by: *zilla The defenders cannot lock down nor effectively destroy the nano-gang. And? I've yet to see a justification to being able to wholesale decimate nanos, let alone specific tactics to do so. Lots of whiners about "I can't do anything but drive them off, never kill them" but nobody even discusses the tactics they tried. Originally by: *zilla As you've stated: "only the nano-gang can determine when it ends". This does not reflect guerilla warfare. Again this is exactly guerilla warfare. Originally by: *zilla Guerilla warfare works by striking where the enemy is not. ROFL! Then what are you hitting? Originally by: *zilla A stealth bomber/black ops gang would be guerilla warfware. No, because none of them can warp cloaked. Force recons are more guerilla than black ops or stealth bombers. Originally by: *zilla Nanos prefer a target rich environment as they can choose the engagement. If you don't, you're a fool and it's your own fault you're ineffectual. The rest of your post was just whining. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact l...**
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:35:00 - [186] Lyria, you have come up with no fixes, no proper amount of good arguments and mostly, just a load of bull** in this thread. If you want something nerfed or changed I suggest you come up with solutions instead of sitting in the forums crying like a little baby about how unfair you think certain things are and how YOU would like it changed to cater YOUR dream image of the game. CCP has so far said that they're looking in to it, but with a boost patch (which had nerfs) and an expansion in between, I highly doubt they'll go on with it, as it's been a year with whines as far as I can tell and no change as of yet. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Rumai Ning	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:36:00 - [187] Originally by: AKULA UrQuan Nano is as close to "iddqd" as one can get in eve these days. Be nice if we could go back to the days where 5,000 m/s was considered really, really fast. This
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:47:00 - [188] Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/06/2008 19:47:06 Originally by: Xaen It's that every change the propose completely destroys all usefulness of heavy assault ships utterly. It's this kind of stupidity that wrecks any chance of any sensible discussion on how speed should be balanced for the best interests of the game. Yes, we know that HACs are inferior to BCs in a straight tank vs. gank comparison and that their advantage lies in mobility. But no-one is seriously proposing to to turn HACs into the equivalents of Assault Frigates. Claiming otherwise is a classic obfuscation tactic. It is, incredibly, possible to tweak the balance such that HACs retain their mobility advantage. For example, cutting the mass reduction bonus on polycarbons to the same as T2 Nanofibres would not make HACs useless. They'd still go fast, they'd still avoid damage and they'd still be able to disengage. Their role would remain the same. I'm not going to advocate that as a "solution" here - nano balance threads bore me to tears - but saying that any change to speed renders HACs useless is complete BS.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:48:00 - [189] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Xaen 7. 2M ECM ship + 4M t1 tacklefrig = dead 250M nano. 2 ships, not a gang. worth 2.4% of the nano ship 8. remote reps will make you immune to nano loldps 9. smartbombs 10. it doesn't, just use better strategy Why do you think it should take a ship worth 1% as much to kill a ship worth 250M or more? 11. why does your stupid sniper not have a MWD fitted? Omg. 7. Yeah you need 2 people per nano. So 25 man nano gang needs 50 man gang to counter. Fail. No, you don't need 25 ECM boats. 1-2 is plenty usually. But indulge me... What justification do you have for why low skill players in cheap ships should be able to kill ludicrously expensive ships flown by veteran players. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 8. Sitting inside a station all day will make you immune to nanos and EVEN TITANS. You got some imba suggestions there mate! This has nothing to do with what I said, and is therefore tantamount to lying on the floor kicking and screaming. What no counter to smartbombs? No, I'm not going to let you ignore that. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 10. Wait, how many isk does the average nano ship kill before he goes pop? Compare that to any other ship. Yeah, you fail. That's an extremly wild variable and there's no reliable way to determine it. But I'll bet you covops and force recons are more surviable than nanos. And just because you physically see them more you think they're overpowered when they survive. I fail? You're the one throwing tantrums instead of rational arguments. And you avoided the question. So I'll ask again. Why do you think it should take a ship worth 1% as much to kill a ship worth 250M or more? Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 11. Wait, are you telling me that you think an mwding BS sniper has significant impact on reducing transveral against nanos? You're telling me you think it doesn't? Someone in this thread already posted that they used a MWD to get way from a nano. Someone did it to me too. The average nano's top speed is under 4km/s. The average bs can hit 1100. If you time it right and aim it right you'll burn right out of scram range. Not to mention tracking. There are these modules called tracking computers... And many people have already pointed out that medium guns can hit nanos just fine. There are ways to counter it, but you're unwilling to use them and not even able to justify why you think you should be able to kill them when you're not using your head. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually it is nano gangs that are the ones rolling their faces on the F keys. How on earth does that work? Most nano ships only have 5-6 highslots. Hardly enough for a good headroll. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Nano gangs cover up noobness: Ahh, how constructive. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer FC makes bad choices? No probs, nanos mostly get away. Normal fleets wipe with one mistake. Anecdotal evidence FTL. I've been in fleets of both types. A screwup generally results in about the same % of losses in both types of gangs. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Yeah keep telling yourself that nano pilots are skilled. They are not, it is exactly the opposite and it is quite funny how dilusional some are about this. I haven't told myself anything, but your attitude is hilarious. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:55:00 - [190] Originally by: Gypsio III Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/06/2008 19:47:06 Originally by: Xaen It's that every change the propose completely destroys all usefulness of heavy assault ships utterly. It's this kind of stupidity that wrecks any chance of any sensible discussion on how speed should be balanced for the best interests of the game. Yes, we know that HACs are inferior to BCs in a straight tank vs. gank comparison and that their advantage lies in mobility. But no-one is seriously proposing to to turn HACs into the equivalents of Assault Frigates. Claiming otherwise is a classic obfuscation tactic. It is, incredibly, possible to tweak the balance such that HACs retain their mobility advantage. For example, cutting the mass reduction bonus on polycarbons to the same as T2 Nanofibres would not make HACs useless. They'd still go fast, they'd still avoid damage and they'd still be able to disengage. Their role would remain the same. I'm not going to advocate that as a "solution" here - nano balance threads bore me to tears - but saying that any change to speed renders HACs useless is complete BS. Who would ever pay 100m for something that tanks worse than a BC, does less DPS but is slightly more maneuvrable? I wouldn't, that nice is just waaayyy too small. Oh, and they can't be insured either. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.

Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:58:00 - [191] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Xaen Originally by: TZeer Something is wrong when cruisersized ships are moving faster then many of the average ceptor pilots. What the ** are you talking about? Average nano speed: 3.2kms to 3.9km/s Average interceptor speed: 7km/s 11km/s Either post setups proving your point or stop saying they're faster than interceptors because they're flat out not. An interceptor with zero speed mods fitted and good skills is faster than everything but a nano vagabond. Right now I'm looking at an Ares in EFT with no speed mods and no implants and All V going 4188m/s. For comparison I've got a 232M ISK Ishtar with the same skills and seven speed mods going 3818. Actually put some mods in the Ares' lows and it's 7340m/s. Since it's already clear you're lying or woefully unaware of reality I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post. A non high skilled ceptor pilot does not reach anything near 7km/s. haha @ non-high skilled [Raptor, New Setup 1] Nanofiber Internal Structure II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II 1MN MicroWarpdrive II [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Navigation III Acceleration control III High Speed Manuvering III 5848 m/s And it's the one of the worst interceptors out there. That's almost 2500 m/s faster than your average nano and almost 1km/s faster than a highly skilled effing Vagabond. With skills at three. Here's an Ares with the same skills [Ares, Tackler 2] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II 1MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II [empty med slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] 6924 m/s I'll reiterate: Navigation III Acceleration control III High Speed Manuvering III Not that any interceptor pilot worth a damn would be flying around with all these skills at effing III. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:59:00 - [192] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Xaen Originally by: TZeer Quote: There's tons of ways to kill a nanoship pilot 1v1, in anything from a Rupture upwards Then please tell me thoose tons of ways that dont include Rapier/Huginn. And that actually kills the nanoship, not just forces them to dissengage... First explain why you think you should be able to kill them. lol, yeah it's great to have a ship class that can kill stuff but not get killed most of the time. Yeah it's great. You didn't answer the question. Why should cheap ships flown by lower skilled players be able to kill ludicrously expensive ships flown by veterans? It's irrational at best. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:01:00 - [193] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Xaen First explain why you think you should be able to kill them. Maybe because the point of the pvp part of the game is to blow up enemy ships? :O Way to deliberately misinterpret the question. Why should a ship ill equipped to fight an experienced gang of extremely expensive ships flown by a low skill player be able to win? I mean aside from Garmon. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:01:00 - [194] Edited by: ***zilla on 23/06/2008 20:05:03 Originally by: Xaen Most places, driving the enemy out is considered victory.. Driving them a hundred km a way is a victory? Driving them so they're still on grid is a victory? driving them so they hop to the next belt is a victory? Attrition generally works in favor of the nanos. Originally by: Xaen So we should slow the whole game down for your sake? It has been speed up for yours. Part of this isn't really a change in the game but an "inflationary" effect as more max out their skills and we see high sp characters pushing the limits with isk and mods. What was fast a year or two ago is no longer fast. With the change of price for t2 mods going fast etc is cheap and standard fits. Originally by: Xaen There's nothing inherently wrong with it. There is when the best counter is to go fast also. Fine. Let people go fast. Offer a decent counter. Just like any other electronic warfare offer something a low sp char can use. Originally by: Xaen So? The game shouldn't be changed to suit just you. Nor should it be changed to suit you. Oh wait. It has. Originally by: Xaen Sniper battleships are hardly a liability. EWAR boats are hardly a liability. Logistics ships are hardly a liability. Ever think about backing up your tacklers with a couple of Basilisks? A basilisk sucks to help tacklers. Often they'll be lured beyond the range of its reps. A nano Scimitar is vastly superior for this role. Yes I've flown nano scimitars for this. Oh wait, its nanoed. ewar are nano support. Scorps aren't all that great. Better to have disposable blackbirds or nano support like falcons. Nano support may not be nano'd but usually can assist a nano gang without direct risks to themselves. Originally by: Xaen Geurilla warfare is all about getting in, doing as much damage as possible and getting out. This is precisely what nanos do. Then we could say that nano phoons etc were balanced for the same reason. If it can get in, kill at will, and get out then it must be balanced. A closer argument would be foot soldiers versus light calvary. Either hold ground with pikes and wait for the calvary to impale themselves or field calvary of your own. This is different than guerilla warfare. And in a game where balance is needed it is driving many to nano. Originally by: Xaen Get in, bloody their nose, disappear. yet nanos aren't seriously threatened unless the hostiles bring nano/nano support (vagas/huginns/etc). So you're saying the only way to end a guerilla action is to field your own guerillas while the traditional forces do nothing? Originally by: Xaen I've yet to see a justification to being able to wholesale decimate nanos, The issue is that nanos do not have to commit to a fight. As such the only logical thing to fly is nanos. This is the same issue that folks had with wcs. Which the nanos have replaced. Originally by: Xaen Again this is exactly guerilla warfare. guerilla warfare determines the start of the engagement but as the weaker force they don't determine the end. Generally the presence of traditional forces determines the end of an action. Originally by: Xaen none of them can warp cloaked. Force recons are more guerilla than black ops or stealth bombers. Warping cloaked doesn't mean guerilla warfware. Only different tactics. I agree that force recons are part of what was intended for guerilla warfare. Some of them nano up rather well. Then you have those that complain about the pilgrim/curse/lach/arazu because they don't nano. Perhaps you misunderstand. I fly nanos nearly exclusively for pvp (alt). Flying nanos is the best solution. If everyone is special then no one will be.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:05:00 - [195] Originally by: Xaen Why should cheap ships flown by lower skilled players be able to kill ludicrously expensive ships flown by veterans? It's irrational at best. Because otherwise it creates a gap of haves and have nots. Otherwise it discourages people from fighting. Otherwise it creates a god mode. Otherwise it becomes WoW where char level and equipment were everything and a replacement for skill. Otherwise it forces blobs as they're the best way for non nanos to counter nanos. It's irrational for veterans with expensive ships to expect to dominate lower skilled players.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:06:00 - [196] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen Most places, driving the enemy out is considered victory.. Driving them a hundred km a way is a victory? Driving them so they're still on grid is a victory? driving them so they hop to the next belt is a victory? Attrition generally works in favor of the nanos. Originally by: Xaen So we should slow the whole game down for your sake? It has been speed up for yours. Part of this isn't really a change in the game but an "inflationary" effect as more max out their skills and we see high sp characters pushing the limits with isk and mods. What was fast a year or two ago is no longer fast. With the change of price for t2 mods going fast etc is cheap and standard fits. Originally by: Xaen There's nothing inherently wrong with it. There is when the best counter is to go fast also. Fine. Let people go fast. Offer a decent counter. Just like any other electronic warfare offer something a low sp char can use. Originally by: Xaen So? The game shouldn't be changed to suit just you. Nor should it be changed to suit you. Oh wait. It has. Originally by: Xaen Sniper battleships are hardly a liability. EWAR boats are hardly a liability. Logistics ships are hardly a liability. Ever think about backing up your tacklers with a couple of Basilisks? A basilisk sucks to help tacklers. Often they'll be lured beyond the range of its reps. A nano Scimitar is vastly superior for this role. Yes I've flown nano scimitars for this. Oh wait, its nanoed. ewar are nano support. Scorps aren't all that great. Better to have disposable blackbirds or nano support like falcons. Nano support may not be nano'd but usually can assist a nano gang without direct risks to themselves. Originally by: Xaen Geurilla warfare is all about getting in, doing as much damage as possible and getting out. This is precisely what nanos do. Then we could say that nano phoons etc were balanced for the same reason. If it can get in, kill at will, and get out then it must be balanced. A closer argument would be foot soldiers versus light calvary. Either hold ground with pikes and wait for the calvary to impale themselves or field calvary of your own. This is different than guerilla warfare. And in a game where balance is needed it is driving many to nano. Originally by: Xaen Get in, bloody their nose, disappear. yet nanos aren't seriously threatened unless the hostiles bring nano/nano support (vagas/huginns/etc). So you're saying the only way to end a guerilla action is to field your own guerillas while the traditional forces do nothing? Originally by: Xaen I've yet to see a justification to being able to wholesale decimate nanos, The issue is that nanos do not have to commit to a fight. As such the only logical thing to fly is nanos. This is the same issue that folks had with wcs. Which the nanos have replaced. Originally by: Xaen Again this is exactly guerilla warfare. guerilla warfare determines the start of the engagement but as the weaker force they don't determine the end. Generally the presence of traditional forces determines the end of an action. Originally by: Xaen none of them can warp cloaked. Force recons are more guerilla than black ops or stealth bombers. Warping cloaked doesn't mean guerilla warfware. Only different tactics. I agree that force recons are part of what was intended for guerilla warfare. Some of them nano up rather well. Then you have those that complain about the pilgrim/curse/lach/arazu because they don't nano. Perhaps you misunderstand. I fly nanos nearly exclusively for pvp (alt). Flying nanos is the best solution. If everyone is special then no one will be. fyp. No one asked for nanos to be powerful, so he didn't ask for it to be his way, stop throwing a ***** tantrum already. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:08:00 - [197] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen Why should cheap ships flown by lower skilled players be able to kill ludicrously expensive ships flown by veterans? It's irrational at best. Because otherwise it creates a gap of haves and have nots. Otherwise it discourages people from fighting. Otherwise it creates a god mode. Otherwise it becomes WoW where char level and equipment were everything and a replacement for skill. Otherwise it forces blobs as they're the best way for non nanos to counter nanos. It's irrational for veterans with expensive ships to expect to dominate lower skilled players. Older players in battleships pwn new players in battleships etc. etc. There is a gap, there will ALWAYS be a gap between new and old in any game where you progress. Always. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:09:00 - [198] Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 23/06/2008 19:57:52 Originally by: Gypsio III Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/06/2008 19:47:06 Originally by: Xaen It's that every change the propose completely destroys all usefulness of heavy assault ships utterly. It's this kind of stupidity that wrecks any chance of any sensible discussion on how speed should be balanced for the best interests of the game. Yes, we know that HACs are inferior to BCs in a straight tank vs. gank comparison and that their advantage lies in mobility. But no-one is seriously proposing to to turn HACs into the equivalents of Assault Frigates. Claiming otherwise is a classic obfuscation tactic. It is, incredibly, possible to tweak the balance such that HACs retain their mobility advantage. For example, cutting the mass reduction bonus on polycarbons to the same as T2 Nanofibres would not make HACs useless. They'd still go fast, they'd still avoid damage and they'd still be able to disengage. Their role would remain the same. I'm not going to advocate that as a "solution" here - nano balance threads bore me to tears - but saying that any change to speed renders HACs useless is complete BS. Who would ever pay 100m for something that tanks worse than a BC, does less DPS but is slightly more maneuvrable? I wouldn't, that nice is just waaayyy too small. Oh, and they can't be insured either. I repeat - saying that any change to speed renders HACs useless is complete BS. I'm surprised that you have difficulty understanding this.
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:09:00 - [199] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 23/06/2008 20:11:55 Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Italian Wedding Edited by: Italian Wedding on 23/06/2008 08:27:25 Originally by: Lord WarATron People need to ask themselves why, due to game design, that there is a need to nano in the first place. Firstly, we know people like to kill things without losing things. We then take the highest probable method of survival in Eve, which is speed. The higher your speed, the more likely you are to survive what would otherwise be a negative outcome (losing your ship). With this information, we can now see why most people fit their ship to go as fast as they can. On top of that, with a speed fitted ship, you have the very valuable advantage of choosing 99% of your fights and being able to get away from said fight if something suddenly appears that could change your desired outcome (there is absolutely zero commitment required by a nano pilot, where as 100% commitment is required by target non-nanoship). Now we know why people fit nanoed ships - because they want to be able to kill and not be killed. No other setup comes close to the amount survivability yet gankability of a nano'd ship (cruiser class and lower). Falcon. Blackbird. Scorpion. Lachesis & Arazu (try locking something that has you damped to 8km). Kitsune. Widow. Neut [battleship]. Warp Core stabaliser, Jump Drive, Logging off etc etc. People can come up with anything to avoid defeat and call it a "Counter". A ECM is no more a counter than a WCS. A dampner is no more a counter than a Jump Drive. Since none of these things are counters to beguin with as the best case scenario is you deprive your hunters of a target if you escape. That is not a counter at all. There is only 1 real counter involved in almost every nanoship death according to killboards. The name of this counter is to nanoship yourself. -- Billion Isk Mission
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:13:00 - [200] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Bronson Hughes If you strike where the enemy is not, you have nothing to strike at. Guerilla warefare is about striking where the enemy cannot strike back so you maximize your inflicted damage while minimizing your potential risk, which is why it's great to be able to choose your fights. Guerilla warfare isn't about racing around an enemy fort secure in the knowledge that they can zoom away. Striking where the enemy is not is about hitting infrastructure, civilians, isk making, mining, ratting, and anything weak. You mean weak like ill equipped tug boats sitting around hoping for an easy kill? But I digress. Guerilla warfare is about hitting and getting away without reprisal. It's about doing as much damage to the enemy without taking any yourself. Which fits nano like a glove. Stop trying to say guerilla warefare is fine, but nanos aren't it wouldn't accomplish anything even if you were correct, which you're not. Originally by: ***zilla Guerilla warfare is about consolidating strength against the enemies strength, attacking, then dispersing. Not zoom zoom. In this case the best way to attack nanos is more nanos. Nanos are like a crazy gang on rice rockets. Guerilla warfare is a tactic, not a vehicle. stfu alread, you're wrong, just admit it and move on. Straight from wikipedia Originally by: *zilla Guerrilla operations typically include a variety of attacks on transportation routes, individual groups of police or military, installations and structures, economic enterprises, and targeted civilians. Attacking in small groups, using camouflage and often captured weapons of that enemy, the guerrilla force can constantly keep pressure on its foes and diminish its numbers, while still allowing escape with relatively few casualties. Bolded to get the points through your thick skull. Originally by: *zilla The very ships designed for guerilla warfare (stealth bombers + black ops) are mostly ignored in favor of nanos. These aren't guerilla warfare, they're for clandestine operations. I'm really sorry your perceptions of EVE and guerilla warfare are so wrong, but it's ok. You're allowed to be wrong. Originally by: **zilla ~~Hyena isn't t1.~~whine* Originally by: Xaen Propose a solution that balances the game without making hacs completely inferior in every way to battlecruisers and I'll take you seriously. Originally by: ***zilla A t1 long range weak web exists currently. Webbing drones. lol Originally by: *zilla However there is a gap between a battleship which can fit enough drones to be effect. Only battleships can fit heavy neuts with the range to be a danger to nanos. So? Why should a t1 cuiser worth maybe 8M tops be able to catch and kill a T2 cruiser worth upwards of 250M? What possible justification can you have for this? Clearly just being expensive doesn't justify it, but neither does restricting the "solution" to t1 ships. Originally by: *zilla Introducing a long range weak web won't break nanos. Yes it will. Originally by: *zilla If a tackler can use a web to slow a nano, a nano can use a web to slow the tackler so that it can escape. Most nanos don't fit a web, if you actually knew wtf you were talking about you would know this. A nano that deliberately puts itself in web range is a dead nano. Thus they don't ever fit webs aside from the minmatar recons. Just freaking admit it already, you want an IWINBUTAN to be able to kill people you don't like with impunity just because you want to. You can't justify it and you can't even come up with a balanced suggestion for a game mechanic change. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**

Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:18:00 - [201] Originally by: Tenuo No one asked for nanos to be powerful, so he didn't ask for it to be his way, stop throwing a ***** tantrum already. Ah, so rather than debating the points you agree that nanos are powerful? He's arguing because the changes agree with him. I'm arguing because I prefer a balanced game. I prefer a game with variety. I left WoW because I saw many of the same elements in PvP (ie: Gotta be paladin!). I'm arguing because PvP has taken a nose dive. Originally by:** Tenuo Older players in battleships pwn new players in battleships etc. etc. There is a gap, there will ALWAYS be a gap between new and old in any game where you progress. Always. One of my first battleship kills was me and a few low sp characters that found a high sp character in a faction battleship. We used teamwork to take him down. This covers that gap between the old and new. Throw a bunch of low sp characters against nanos and it'll be mostly comedy. For non nanos the gap isn't as great as there are for nanos. There will always be a gap. Part of the point of the current 5 level system is to avoid the gap being too great. The point is to take someone with a brand new character and make them useful.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:20:00 - [202] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Tenuo No one asked for nanos to be powerful, so he didn't ask for it to be his way, stop throwing a ***** tantrum already. Ah, so rather than debating the points you agree that nanos are powerful? By powerful i mean that they're good but not overpowered, if I implied that they were overpowered why would I have posted here then? I dont fly them myself but I sure as hell know how to kill them. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Bronson Hughes The. Conspiracy	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:22:00 - [203] Originally by: ****zilla It's irrational for veterans with expensive ships to expect to dominate lower skilled players. If two players have trained similar skills but to different levels, the player with the higher skills will always have an advantage assuming all other things to be equal. Always. That advantage doesn't necessarily translate directly into victory, but it will make victory for the higher-skilled player easier. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need to train new skills. I agree with you that total skill points invested in relevent combat skills shouldn't be an absolute measure of combat effectiveness, but it has to help or why bother train at all? The same is not necessarily true for expensive ships; most of them are expensive because they're highly specialized and should absolutely be killed by less expensive ships that exploit a weakness in the more expensive ship. Is it irrational for a 1-day old character in his rookie ship to expect to kill a much older, focus-trained player who's flying an interceptor? How about a 1-month old player taking on the same older player in a nano-HAC? Where do you draw the line? -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne*
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:33:00 - [204] Originally by: ****zilla Edited by: ****zilla on 23/06/2008 19:23:12 Originally by: Xaen Get a covops to give you a warp-in on the nano gang. Drop your whole god damn 50 man battleship fleet right in their laps. Last I checked warping drops lock. So sue me. And fit scan resolution scripts intead. Originally by: ***zilla Whens the last time you've seen nanos in a tight ball? They'll be spread out. That cov ops would be lucky to get a warp in point for more than a handful of nanos. OMG, you only killed a handful of nanos. So like 1.2 BILLION isk assuming an average of 300M per ship and only four ships. Out of a bs gang of 50, that's freaking pathetic. Originally by: *zilla If the battleships do warp the nano have lots of time to pulse their mwd and escape. The battleships 1) won't lock in time, 2) won't be close enough to web. Most likely the last battleship or two to warp off will be scrammed and popped before the rest can make it back. So fit more sensor boosters. If you know your facing nano gangs prepare for them. scrammed and popped before they make it back? What are you even talking about? Originally by: *zilla In a best case scenerio the battleships might pop a nano or two that is a bit slow or distracted. More likely the battleships take greater losses. Now we're getting way off into hypothetical land. Pointless to discuss anything here. Originally by: *zilla Originally by:** Xaen CCP have specifically stated that any speed nerf applied will not touch the vagabond. Keep the vaga fast. Just offer some counter to speed besides speed. There are like TWELVE counters to speed, but since none of them result in an IWINBUTAN you aren't happy. Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen Highlightin' the part that proves doesn't know what he's talking about. What do you need to fly a ceptor properly? Great nav skills? Check! That's actually where the list ends. You don't need engineering V. You don't even need great cap skills thanks to Trinity's interceptor bonus changes. For HACs you still need T2 medium gun/missile skills to be worth it (there's a month of training). Cruiser V (another month). Assault Ships IV and Heavy Assault Ships IV (another week at least). Engineering V, Weapon Upgrades V, Gunnery V, Mechanic V. Interceptors are actually the easiest T2 ship to get into. HACs are one of the hardest. So quit pretending the skills required are even remotely similar. For a nano HAC you need HAC skills AND interceptor skills. It doesn't make it easier, it makes it way freaking harder. Originally by: ***zilla Flying a ceptor isn't far removed from flying a nano. The pilot would most likely be better served in a nano. You clearly haven't flown one, then have you? Originally by: *zilla You might consider flying a hac versus a ceptor as requiring 'intensive' training. Wait till you hit caps. Anything that takes less than a month to train seems like a miracle. Wait? I already am slappy. After three Cruiser Vs and a BS V I figure it's time for a carrier (with a different race than I have BS V for of course!) I'm looking at boarding in 83 days, flying very well in 146. Don't whine at me about training times. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:37:00 - [205] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Italian Wedding I urge you to give me the name of an interceptor (I will train every skill to 5 and spend 20bil isk for this said ceptor) that can mwd into a group of 50 nanohacs and survive long enough to even lock something. Why on earth would you fly an interceptor into a group of 50 nanohacs? I have a better idea genius. Get a bunch of short range gank battleships with two webs and range scripted sensor boosers. Get your gank battleships to lock targets. Get a covops to give you a warp-in on the nano gang. Drop your whole god damn 50 man battleship fleet right in their laps. Since they've already got locks, you double web and watch them explode like popcorn. I mean, the only conceivable fleet you would try and tackle someone in a 50 man nano hac fleet for is one with bigger tank and gank, right? Or you could come whine on the forums about how rolling your head across the fkeys isn't working. Theorycraft much? I'll eat my hat if you succeed with this. It worked for the nanoishtar that webbed my nanocurse. Landed right in my lap from 349km. I remember distinctly because it was horrifying. ZOMG, who would have thought, nano to fight nano!!?! Bastard had me webbed and scrammed before I could figure out wtf was happening. He had me webbed and going 300m/s (90% web). No coasting out of web range for me. It was only because I was in a curse and able to nuke his pathetic nano capacitor that I was able to get away. Any other nano but a falcon or pilgrim would have been proper ****. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:43:00 - [206] Originally by: Bronson Hughes the player with the higher skills will always have an advantage assuming all other things to be equal. Always. That advantage doesn't necessarily translate directly into victory, but it will make victory for the higher-skilled player easier. 100% agreed. The issue is that as speed increase the game mechanics start to break down. For example look at why some ships can be nano'd but others cannot be. This points not merely an edge but a large advantage. The benefits of speed outweigh the disadvantages at a certain point. Originally by: Bronson Hughes The same is not necessarily true for expensive ships; most of them are expensive because they're highly specialized and should absolutely be killed by less expensive ships that exploit a weakness in the more expensive ship. agreed. Originally by: Bronson Hughes Is it irrational for a 1-day old character in his rookie ship to expect to kill a much older, focus-trained player who's flying an interceptor? How about a 1-month old player taking on the same older player in a nano-HAC? Where do you draw the line? Very good points. The rookie ship should be useful. Currently it can point, etc, even do a bit of dps. Since it can't web/neut at a usable range than it isn't useful in a nano fight. Same issue with the 1-month player. Effectively to counter the players need to be in battleships/ceptors (t2)/eas (t2) fitted specifically to counter nanos. Or be in cookie cutter nanos themselves. Now you could mix it and say a rookie ship can jam while a higher sp char webs. But we're back at you must have the skills and ship to handle the situation. I'm not sure where the limit is. Only that the gap is too far currently.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:45:00 - [207] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Xaen It's that every change the propose completely destroys all usefulness of heavy assault ships utterly. It's this kind of stupidity that wrecks any chance of any sensible discussion on how speed should be balanced for the best interests of the game. How in the ever loving hell is that stupidity? Not a single person arguing against nano hacs has proposed a game mechanic change that would not reduce them to large assault ships with no role. Originally by: Gypsio III Yes, we know that HACs are inferior to BCs in a straight tank vs. gank comparison and that their advantage lies in mobility. But no-one is seriously proposing to to turn HACs into the equivalents of Assault Frigates. Claiming otherwise is a classic obfuscation tactic. Actually they are. It's not an obfuscation tactic, what the ** is wrong with you? Post a constructive change that doesn't break them or stop posting. Originally by:** Gypsio III It is, incredibly, possible to tweak the balance such that HACs retain their mobility advantage. See nanos have a mobility advantage, you want to reduce it to an align time advantage. No thanks, I'll just fly a battlecrusier. Originally by: Gypsio III For example, cutting the mass reduction bonus on polycarbons to the same as T2 Nanofibres would not make HACs useless. They'd still go fast, they'd still avoid damage and they'd still be able to disengage. Their role would remain the same. So effectively, it doesn't change anything. What's the point then? Originally by: Gypsio III I'm not going to advocate that as a "solution" here - nano balance threads bore me to tears - but saying that any change to speed renders HACs useless is complete BS. Then wtf, why are you posting here? I never said "any change to speed renders HACs useless. I said post a change that does not. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:55:00 - [208] Originally by: Xaen If you know your facing nano gangs prepare for them. scrammed and popped before they make it back? What are you even talking about? Whens the last time you've ever stopped moving in a nano? By the time the cov ops yells "warp" the nanos will be outside web. By the time the bs get into warp, land, target, lock, the nanos will probably be outside scram/neut range. Originally by: Xaen You don't need engineering V. You don't even need great cap skills thanks to Trinity's interceptor bonus changes. For HACs you still need T2 medium gun/missile skills to be worth it (there's a month of training). Cruiser V (another month). Assault Ships IV and Heavy Assault Ships IV (another week at least). Engineering V, Weapon Upgrades V, Gunnery V, Mechanic V. Interceptors are actually the easiest T2 ship to get into. HACs are one of the hardest. So quit pretending the skills required are even remotely similar. For a nano HAC you need HAC skills AND interceptor skills. It doesn't make it easier, it makes it way freaking harder. By the time someone learns to properly fly a ceptor they'll be ready for hacs. And blacks ops/jump freighter might be a bit more difficult of a t2 ship to train for. Look at training for command ships. With the skill inflation, hacs aren't that hard to train for. Originally by: Xaen looking at boarding in 83 days, flying very well in 146. Don't whine at me about training times. Whine? I'm saying that hacs aren't that hard to train for. So am I whining about how easy they are to get into one? If someone knows what they want to fly then hacs just take a bit of time. Ceptors don't have that many advantages over hacs. In general pilots go to hacs. Not many specialize in flying ceptors.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:55:00 - [209] Originally by: ****zilla stupidity* You argue that nanos aren't guerrilla warfare and thus are somehow invalid, but imply that it would be cool if they were, I point out that they are and so you change your point completely. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:00:00 - [210] Originally by: Lord WarATron Warp Core stabaliser, Jump Drive, Logging off etc etc. People can come up with anything to avoid defeat and call it a "Counter". A ECM is no more a counter than a WCS. A dampner is no more a counter than a Jump Drive. Since none of these things are counters to beguin with as the best case scenario is you deprive your hunters of a target if you escape. That is not a counter at all. There is only 1 real counter involved in almost every nanoship death according to killboards. The name of this counter is to nanoship yourself. Are you kidding me? ECM the nano, then your tacklers are safe, they catch and web, you bring the hurt. What's so hard about that? I'm sorry you can't just roll your head across the buttons and win. No wait, I'm not. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs

Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:03:00 - [211] Originally by: ***zilla By the time someone learns to properly fly a ceptor they'll be ready for hacs. I dont see in any way how medium turrets, drones, cruiser 5, mechanic, etc. help you become a better ceptor pilot. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Bronson Hughes The. Conspiracy	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:10:00 - [212] Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: ****zilla By the time someone learns to properly fly a ceptor they'll be ready for hacs. I dont see in any way how medium turrets, drones, cruiser 5, mechanic, etc. help you become a better ceptor pilot. I think he was talking about pre-reqs and general support skills. T2 small guns are a prereq for T2 medium guns. Engineering V, Mechanic V, and Spaceship Command V are all excellent skills for any pilot. Good cap skills are always a must. If you're going to be a nano-HAC pilot, you'll need good navigation skills which are essential for 'ceptors. Just train up Cruiser V and medium T2 weapons and you should be able to hop straight into a nano-HAC skill-wise. Mind you, that's not exactly a short train, but if all of the support skills are there already from flying a 'ceptor, it works. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne*
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:13:00 - [213] Edited by: ***zilla on 23/06/2008 21:14:54 Originally by: Xaen You argue that nanos aren't guerrilla warfare and thus are somehow invalid, but imply that it would be cool if they were, I point out that they are and so you change your point completely. I'm refuting that guerilla warfare is a justification for an imbalance. Originally by: Xaen ECM the nano, then your tacklers are safe, they catch and web, you bring the hurt. What's so hard about that? And kill maybe a nano or two while taking serious losses? If you want to endanger the entire nano fleet you'll need multiple tacklers and jammers per nano. On a per pilot basis they'd be better served flying nanos themselves. On a per pilot basis, whats the best counter for a single nano? Another nano. Against a fleet of nanos whats the best counter? More nanos. Yes you can kill nanos by throwing sheer numbers against them. This arguement breaks the reasoning that nanos exist to "beat the blob". Or you can say that sheer numbers should be required. Then this points to a problem. Are numbers required to take down caps? Yes. But caps have severe disadvantages. Nanos are better than most ceptors and most battleships. While they can't go as fast, hit as hard, or tank as well, they're in a sweet spot that makes them favored. Originally by: Tenuo I dont see in any way how medium turrets, drones, cruiser 5, mechanic, etc. help you become a better ceptor pilot. If you've skilled up and learned how to fly a ceptor then a hac isn't that far of a stretch. In many ways a hac is a superior ceptor. edit eh, Bronson got it.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:14:00 - [214] Originally by: Bronson Hughes Just train up Cruiser V and medium T2 weapons and you should be able to hop straight into a nano-HAC skill-wise. Mind you, that's not exactly a short train, but if all of the support skills are there already from flying a 'ceptor, it works. lmfao You conveninently left out Engineering V, and Mechanic V, and Medium T2 weapons are 10-15 days depending on skills, 21+ if you're doing missiles instead of guns. Comparing inty skill requirements to HAC skill requirements is really ******, just stop wasting your time. It's like comparing cruiser skills to capital skills. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:17:00 - [215] Originally by: Tenuo Lyria, you have come up with no fixes, no proper amount of good arguments and mostly, just a load of bull**** in this thread. If you want something nerfed or changed I suggest you come up with solutions instead of sitting in the forums crying like a little baby about how unfair you think certain things are and how YOU would like it changed to cater YOUR dream image of the game. CCP has so far said that they're looking in to it, but with a boost patch (which had nerfs) and an expansion in between, I highly doubt they'll go on with it, as it's been a year with whines as far as I can tell and no change as of yet. No, solutions? The fix is easy: Add stacking on everything that affects one ability of a ship. It shouldnt matter that your agility comes from istabs or nano, they should be stacking penaltilized. CCP has already said that they are considering this. I'm just waiting for the day they go through with it to see you nano noobs cry. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Zanarkand Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:24:00 - [216] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Tenuo Lyria, you have come up with no fixes, no proper amount of good arguments and mostly, just a load of bull**** in this thread. If you want something nerfed or changed I suggest you come up with solutions instead of sitting in the forums crying like a little baby about how unfair you think certain things are and how YOU would like it changed to cater YOUR dream image of the game. CCP has so far said that they're looking in to it, but with a boost patch (which had nerfs) and an expansion in between, I highly doubt they'll go on with it, as it's been a year with whines as far as I can tell and no change as of yet. No, solutions? The fix is easy: Add stacking on everything that affects one ability of a ship. It shouldnt matter that your agility comes from istabs or nano, they should be stacking penaltilized. CCP has already said that they are considering this. I'm just waiting for the day they go through with it to see you nano noobs cry. Almost no nanocruiser uses istabs these days.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:32:00 - [217] Edited by: Tenuo on 23/06/2008 21:33:26 Garmon instructed me to post because he thinks you guys suck for not being able to kill nano ships. here goes: http://killboard.heretic-nation.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=2399 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=7280 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7162 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7106 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7021 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7000 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=6239 There are many more 100k isk that the next reply is "i bet they sucked" _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:35:00 - [218] Edited by: Tenuo on 23/06/2008 21:35:29 See below _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:35:00 - [219] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Tenuo Lyria, you have come up with no fixes, no proper amount of good arguments and mostly, just a load of bull** in this thread. If you want something nerfed or changed I suggest you come up with solutions instead of sitting in the forums crying like a little baby about how unfair you think certain things are and how YOU would like it changed to cater YOUR dream image of the game. CCP has so far said that they're looking in to it, but with a boost patch (which had nerfs) and an expansion in between, I highly doubt they'll go on with it, as it's been a year with whines as far as I can tell and no change as of yet. No, solutions? The fix is easy: Add stacking on everything that affects one ability of a ship. It shouldnt matter that your agility comes from istabs or nano, they should be stacking penaltilized. CCP has already said that they are considering this. I'm just waiting for the day they go through with it to see you nano noobs cry. Everyone would train for the vagabond or get snakes and then we go again. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Flandrey School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:36:00 - [220] Anyone think of making combat utility drones more effective, this wouldn't be an outright nano nerf, but just part of a good fleet defense? ATM the webber drones could hardly catch a stabber just fitted with a mwd.

Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:37:00 - [221] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen You argue that nanos aren't guerrilla warfare and thus are somehow invalid, but imply that it would be cool if they were, I point out that they are and so you change your point completely. I'm refuting that guerilla warfare is a justification for an imbalance. WTF? You're the one that brought it up. Its irrelevant. Originally by: ***zilla And kill maybe a nano or two while taking serious losses? Serious losses like what? A couple of insured ships? Cost them billions, cost you <50M thanks to insurance. You won. Originally by: *zilla If you want to endanger the entire nano fleet you'll need multiple tacklers and jammers per nano. Unless you brought an equivalent number of battleships, what on earth makes you think you should be able to even have a chance of endangering their entire fleet. Sure, 20 peasants in the dark ages or so could bring down a knight, but it seems you want 20 peasants with butcher knives to be able to not only drive off, but to lock down and kill 20 mounted knights. Seriously dude, wtf? So please, describe for me, in detail the size and fleet composition you think should be able to take down large nano fleet, and why you think this is justified, and maybe you won't sound so ridiculous. Originally by: *zilla On a per pilot basis, whats the best counter for a single nano? Another nano. Against a fleet of nanos whats the best counter? More nanos. Have you never heard "if you can't beat'em, join'em"? Besides, nano ships are fun to fly. More fun than my fat cow of a NOS domi and over three times as expensive. Originally by: *zilla Yes you can kill nanos by throwing sheer numbers against them. This arguement breaks the reasoning that nanos exist to "beat the blob". That depends entirely on the specific numbers involved. Originally by: **zilla Are numbers required to take down caps? Yes. But caps have severe disadvantages. So do nanos! They have really low hitpoints and relatively low damage, and they're ludicrously costly to replace. Some pilots fly nanos that cost more* than a carrier, but the nano isn't insurable, the carrier is. Originally by: ***zilla Nanos are better than most ceptors and most battleships. That's highly debatable. Blanket statements like that are generally a load of hot air. Originally by: *zilla While they can't go as fast, hit as hard, or tank as well, they're in a sweet spot that makes them favored. But they come at a significant price both ISK-wise and time investment wise. And if you manage to catch one you'll generally make the pilot cry. Originally by: *zilla If you've skilled up and learned how to fly a ceptor then a hac isn't that far of a stretch. In many ways a hac is a superior ceptor. What in the ever loving hell? I have a new combat character that's never trained anything, so as an experiment I created an interceptor plan. Then I created a copy of it and added the skills for a HAC. The numbers show that you're full of it. Interceptor plan (with all required learning skills to shorten it as much as possible): 58 days Interceptor plan +HAC skills (with all required learning skills to shorten it as much as possible): 164 days Training time from respectable (level IVs where V isn't necessary) Interceptor plan to respectable HAC plan: 106 days So yeah, as soon as you're done with interceptors, just hop right on over into a HAC. . It doesn't take much. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:37:00 - [222] Originally by: Flandrey Anyone think of making combat utility drones more effective, this wouldn't be an outright nano nerf, but just part of a good fleet defense? ATM the webber drones could hardly catch a stabber just fitted with a mwd. They webbed my 3300m/s vigil just fine. (tech 1 fit with 1 od and minnie frig 2 :p) _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:39:00 - [223] Originally by: Hijara Why does EVERY ship have to be nanoed? Seems like i am the only one who pvp's with a zealot going only 256m/s. What happened to large alpha, or good tanks? Obvious troll as I have the OP flying the same ships he is whining about.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:41:00 - [224] Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 23/06/2008 21:33:26 Garmon instructed me to post because he thinks you guys suck for not being able to kill nano ships. here goes: http://killboard.heretic-nation.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=2399 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=7280 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7162 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7106 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7021 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7000 http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=6239 There are many more 100k isk that the next reply is "i bet they sucked" OMG, that curse pilot sucked. No significant NOS, no tracking disruptor. wtf was he thinking? I wanna skirmish Garmon in my Curse now. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Dmian Starline Engineering Corporation	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:53:00 - [225] Edited by: Dmian on 23/06/2008 21:54:57 I want a nanoed titan! If you can cloak a titan, why not making it go 4-5km/s? Let's just reduce everything to a one-size-fits-all!!!!! ---- Eve Alpha - The font of Eve - Get it here
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:54:00 - [226] Edited by: ***zilla on 23/06/2008 21:55:15 Originally by: Xaen Serious losses like what? A couple of insured ships? Cost them billions, cost you <50M thanks to insurance. Generally it doesn't cost billions. Even non rigged non implant nanos can be effective. It is odd that many decide to pimp out a nano and not a battleship. Originally by: Xaen earth makes you think you should be able to even have a chance of endangering their entire fleet. Because a remote rep bs gang or any other gang must commit. They fight or die. Nanos are special. They fight or flee. Originally by: Xaen So please, describe for me, in detail the size and fleet composition you think should be able to take down large nano fleet, and why you think this is justified, and maybe you won't sound so ridiculous. Originally by: Xaen Have you never heard "if you can't beat'em, join'em"? Besides, nano ships are fun to fly. More fun than my fat cow of a NOS domi and over three times as expensive. I've given up flying battleships a long time ago. Mostly caps and nanos. Originally by: Xaen They have really low hitpoints and relatively low damage, and they're ludicrously costly to replace. Damage can be controlled by controlling the distance and risk. They've got good resists and a nice shield buffer tank from t2 lse. And considering how often they're lost they're not very expensive. Losing the average t2 fitted nano occasionally isn't a big deal. Originally by: Xaen Some pilots fly nanos that cost more than a carrier, but the nano isn't insurable, the carrier is. I'd argue that this is because the nano has less of a chance of being killed. It used to be that carriers were loaded with faction etc. Now with as often as they're killed using t2 setups are common. Originally by: Xaen I created an interceptor plan. Then I created a copy of it and added the skills for a HAC. ... Training time from respectable (level IVs where V isn't necessary) Interceptor plan to respectable HAC plan: 106 days There is a difference from flying a ceptor and flying one well. And no, 3 months or so isn't a long time. By the time the pilot learns (experience) to fly a ceptor well they'll probably be ready for the hac. And once the pilot has the skills why would they fly ceptors (unless they enjoy it)? Hacs make better ceptors than ceptors. Originally by: Dmian Edited by: Dmian on 23/06/2008 21:53:29 I want a nanoed titan! If you can cloak a titan, why not making it go 4-5km/s? 1km/s is roughly the upper limit for a nano titan usually. Yes it has been done. Successfully.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.23 22:14:00 - [227] Originally by: ***zilla By the time the pilot learns (experience) to fly a ceptor well they'll probably be ready for the hac. So you say it doesn't take many skills to go from one to the other, then when I prove that you're wrong, you change your point to be about experience. stfu already - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 22:26:00 - [228] Originally by: Xaen So you say it doesn't take many skills to go from one to the other, then when I prove that you're wrong, you change your point to be about experience. stfu already I say its about skill points and experience. HACS aren't difficult to get into. They take a bit but it isn't much of a road bump. HACS shouldn't be special because someone has to wait a few months. Ah, I love when an argument turns to insults etc.
Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.06.23 22:29:00 - [229] Originally by: Tenuo Everyone would train for the vagabond or get snakes and then we go again. Yeah just like everyone trained and flew sabres. You have to ask yourself where the imbalance lies. You seem to think it is in the nerf of nano's. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Dmian Starline Engineering Corporation	Posted - 2008.06.23 22:29:00 - [230] Originally by: ***zilla 1km/s is roughly the upper limit for a nano titan usually. Yes it has been done. Successfully. I HAVE** to see that! I don't mind if I get podded, I need to see a nanoed titan! Anyway, don't you think that, if nano gets nerfed, a lot of people will revert to logofski? What's worse: nano or Ctrl-Q? ---- Eve Alpha - The font of Eve - Get it here

Naomi Knight	Posted - 2008.06.23 22:34:00 - [231] Nice posts *****zilla , keep them comming :) Even if talking to Xaen is like talking to a brick wall, he has already voted for his IWIN ship.... And fighing in nano ships doesn't need tactics, beacause every ship can close on and shoot primary within seconds no matter where they are in the grid.Every newby fc can lead a nano gang even a bad ones as pilots can disengadge at will if thigs turns to bad, nor it does help to develop good group as all ships do the same thing and no need to diversity and noone is dependent on the other gang mates. It is preaty boring too as too easy to fly nanos. Nanos dont even need scouts as they can burn back to gate and logoff or warp off in the other side even against 20 enemy.
Naomi Knight	Posted - 2008.06.23 22:34:00 - [232] Originally by: Dmian Originally by: ***zilla 1km/s is roughly the upper limit for a nano titan usually. Yes it has been done. Successfully. I HAVE** to see that! I don't mind if I get podded, I need to see a nanoed titan! Anyway, don't you think that, if nano gets nerfed, a lot of people will revert to logofski? What's worse: nano or Ctrl-Q? If i recall MC had a nano titan :)
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 22:52:00 - [233] Originally by: Dmian if nano gets nerfed, a lot of people will revert to logofski? What's worse: nano or Ctrl-Q? logoffski is a very common nano tactic currently. Fight until there is a decent gate camp with too many huginns/rapiers. Wait for agression, logoff. 5 to 50 man fleets might log off. A few hours later without enough rapiers/huginns the defenders are forced to let the nanos leave. Or you might see the 15min logoffsky where the pilot logs on for a few seconds to check local then log off. Both mechanisms heavily abused. Originally by: Naomi Knight Every newby fc can lead a nano gang even a bad ones as pilots can disengadge at will if thigs turns to bad, nor it does help to develop good group as all ships do the same thing and no need to diversity and noone is dependent on the other gang mates. Quality of the FC is important. But yes, nanos are more forgiving. If the nanos are willing to risk and lose then they're much more forgiving. Very amusing to take 30-40 noob nanos into a hostile system. Even then most will live where with anything else they would be out right slaughtered. There are a few roles. But you're absolutely right there isn't much diversity. Vagas use the same fittings. Rapiers also. Etc. The only question is the mix of pure nanos with nanos support (rapiers/falcons/scimitars).
Captain Bringdown Rage Against the Answering Machine	Posted - 2008.06.23 23:11:00 - [234] Just change MWD so it goes slower the bigger your sig radius is?
Naomi Knight	Posted - 2008.06.23 23:17:00 - [235] Originally by: Captain Bringdown Just change MWD so it goes slower the bigger your sig radius is? No need for another caldari nerf/matar boost.
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.06.23 23:27:00 - [236] Originally by: Xaenoob Quite astonishingly stupid stuff I am posting here because you are, putting it bluntly, a moron. I mean, really, it must have taken a lot of practice to become as stupid as you. Many people have offered constructive comments and analysis on the balance of speeds of different ships. You, however, in your myopic rage, do not have appear to have noticed. Nevertheless, we should try to help you again. Let us begin here: You comment that "Not a single person arguing against nano hacs has proposed a game mechanic change that would not reduce them to large assault ships with no role." Not content with that patently false comment, you immediately contradict yourself by commenting that a reduction of the polycarbon mass reduction bonus would not do this: "effectively, it doesn't change anything". The obvious reply to that is "If so, then you can have no objection to it". However, that is based upon your absurd logic that any change whatsoever to speed renders HACs useless. I also look forward to your whiny, clueless explanation of why changing the polycarbon mass reduction to -14%, or the ODI II speed bonus to +19%, renders HACs useless. Elsewhere your obfuscation grows, with repeated false claims that everyone wants to turn HACs in AFs. Your comment of "See nanos have a mobility advantage, you want to reduce it to an align time advantage" is further deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation; you deliberately misunderstand that the definition of "mobility" includes "speed" as well as "agility", and again assume that people seek to make HACs as slow as AFs. Seriously, this is more straw Titan than straw man.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.23 23:32:00 - [237] There is a 'fix' for nanos. Precision heavy missiles -> 2000m/sec explosion velocity. That's all that's needed. A 'nano' ship, will still be useful, fast and mobile. It'll still slaughter where it has numeric superiority, to allow burning out of range or warping off. It simply raises the bar of 'complete immunity to damage', especially when facing ships that don't 'nano up' well, like the Cerb, Caracal and Drake. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.23 23:37:00 - [238] Devil's Advocate here, James: Why is numerical supremacy your primary factor?
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.23 23:45:00 - [239] Originally by: Haakelen Devil's Advocate here, James: Why is numerical supremacy your primary factor? Because speed and agility allow for more forces to be brought to bear faster.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 23:50:00 - [240] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Haakelen Devil's Advocate here, James: Why is numerical supremacy your primary factor? Because speed and agility allow for more forces to be brought to bear faster. Plus the assumption is that if tank/dps is sacrificed for speed/agility then superior numbers will be needed.

Matrix Skye	Posted - 2008.06.24 00:19:00 - [241] There is nothing wrong with nano's. They are balanced I assure you. Nothing to see here, move along.
Terianna Eri Scrutari	Posted - 2008.06.24 01:19:00 - [242] Originally by: ***zilla One of my first battleship kills was me and a few low sp characters that found a high sp character in a faction battleship. We used teamwork to take him down. This covers that gap between the old and new. Throw a bunch of low sp characters against nanos and it'll be mostly comedy.** For non nanos the gap isn't as great as there are for nanos. Quoted for emphasis. Nothing else really to add to this thread, except that I actually enjoy flying tanked BCs, tanked HACs, tanked cruisers, and tanked BS, and I'm disappointed that they're just so much less survivable, and only moderately less expensive (tanked zealot = 140 mil fitted, rigged, w/ set of crystals, nanozealot = 200mil fitted, rigged, w/set of crystals) than a nanoversion of the same ship. Also I'm disappointed that ABs are absolutely worthless, since being able to push my zealot up to 700 m/s with an AB is meaningless when a trimarked plated battleship will hit 900 w/MWD. __________________________________
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.24 03:38:00 - [243] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Xaenoob Quite astonishingly stupid stuff pure flames TL;DR - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Freakdevil Explora Empire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.06.24 03:52:00 - [244] I really dont see what the problem with Nano is. Survivability is a fair tactic. Ever see a Vaga webbed? It aint pretty. Ever see a Vaga running like a girl while being sniped by Battleships? It aint pretty... Flip side is they allow tactics that are impressive in the right hands. They provide adventure for a steep price. Nano Vaga or Ishtar = 200M+ (with rigs). Thats nothing to sneeze at. They allow people to go out and pew pew more often. Thats a good thing. Are they overpowered? That depends on how you define overpowered. A sole Vaga will kill a ceptor easily. But thats 200M vs 20M. Now you take a Kitsune, Hyena and Crow vs Vaga. Unless that Vaga runs or jumps, he will likely die. Thats 200M vs 120M. I dont see a problem.
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.06.24 04:33:00 - [245] Originally by: Freakdevil I really dont see what the problem with Nano is. Survivability is a fair tactic. Ever see a Vaga webbed? It aint pretty. Ever see a Vaga running like a girl while being sniped by Battleships? It aint pretty... Flip side is they allow tactics that are impressive in the right hands. They provide adventure for a steep price. Nano Vaga or Ishtar = 200M+ (with rigs). Thats nothing to sneeze at. They allow people to go out and pew pew more often. Thats a good thing. Are they overpowered? That depends on how you define overpowered. A sole Vaga will kill a ceptor easily. But thats 200M vs 20M. Now you take a Kitsune, Hyena and Crow vs Vaga. Unless that Vaga runs or jumps, he will likely die. Thats 200M vs 120M. I dont see a problem. There isn't any nano problem. There is however a whining problem all over eve - and people need to stuff it.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:39:00 - [246] Edited by: Tenuo on 24/06/2008 06:41:47 Originally by: Naomi Knight Nice posts ***zilla , keep them comming :) Even if talking to Xaen is like talking to a brick wall, he has already voted for his IWIN ship.... And fighing in nano ships doesn't need tactics, beacause every ship can close on and shoot primary within seconds no matter where they are in the grid.Every newby fc can lead a nano gang even a bad ones as pilots can disengadge at will if thigs turns to bad, nor it does help to develop good group as all ships do the same thing and no need to diversity and noone is dependent on the other gang mates. It is preaty boring too as too easy to fly nanos. Nanos dont even need scouts as they can burn back to gate and logoff or warp off in the other side even against 20 enemy. What about getting some factual ingame knowledge because all you say is wrong. I find the astonishing amount of alts without a clue hilarious, keep your arguments comming. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Miyamoto Uroki State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.24 09:34:00 - [247] I fly a nano-ship myself and while they are fun to fly, everyone that claims that nano-ships aren't overpowered and in need of a speed nerf is simply put lying and maybe even lying to himself. I don't have a solution for this at hand, as obviously it's a really tricky issue of game balancing. CCP stated the option to give ships or ship classes hardcoded speed limits, so that maybe a Vagabond doesn't go faster than max 5 km/s no matter if you got high grade snakes and mindlinked claymore with you. That would be an option to get speed back into line imho. Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 09:55:00 - [248] Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki I fly a nano-ship myself and while they are fun to fly, everyone that claims that nano-ships aren't overpowered and in need of a speed nerf is simply put lying and maybe even lying to himself. I don't have a solution for this at hand, as obviously it's a really tricky issue of game balancing. CCP stated the option to give ships or ship classes hardcoded speed limits, so that maybe a Vagabond doesn't go faster than max 5 km/s no matter if you got high grade snakes and mindlinked claymore with you. That would be an option to get speed back into line imho. What nano ships do you fly besides a crows? :) _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Alpha Prime Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.24 10:50:00 - [249] I don't care how you setup your ship, how many bilions in implants you've got in your head. No ship not specifically build for speed should NOT got past 5km/s. Interceptors, yes. No cruiser, not even**abonds. And if some people say that**abonds are build for speed, well then decrease the speed of all other ships so that fagabonds still moves faster then most ships, but still not faster then a regular interceptor. There is no price on true lojalty
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 10:53:00 - [250] Originally by: Alpha Prime I don't care how you setup your ship, how many bilions in implants you've got in your head. No ship not specifically build for speed should NOT got past 5km/s. Interceptors, yes. No cruiser, not even**abonds. And if some people say thatabonds are build for speed, well then decrease the speed of all other ships so that fagabonds still moves faster then most ships, but still not faster then a regular interceptor. Didn't know they let people like you in to BoB First of all, you are contradicting yourself, vagabond is meant for speed, it's meant to go insanely fast, it even has a bonus for it! Second of all, all nano cruisers bar the vagabond goes max 4km/s without being super pimped or snaked. Third of all, if you think "regular interceptor" is a taranis then I can agree with you, but it isn't it,s not made for speed, take an ares, a malediction or a stilleto instead, they easily break 6-7km/s _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.

Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.06.24 11:01:00 - [251] Originally by: Alpha Prime I don't care how you setup your ship, how many bilions in implants you've got in your head. No ship not specifically build for speed should NOT got past 5km/s. Interceptors, yes. No cruiser, not even**abonds. And if some people say that**abonds are build for speed, well then decrease the speed of all other ships so that fagabonds still moves faster then most ships, but still not faster then a regular interceptor. I am shocked a person in bob could be so wrong about game mechanics. How the hell did you get in?
Hastur DragonTooth coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.06.24 11:45:00 - [252] Edited by: Hastur DragonTooth on 24/06/2008 11:45:48 Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Xaenoob Quite astonishingly stupid stuff I am posting here because you are, putting it bluntly, a moron. I mean, really, it must have taken a lot of practice to become as stupid as you. Many people have offered constructive comments and analysis on the balance of speeds of different ships. You, however, in your myopic rage, do not have appear to have noticed. Nevertheless, we should try to help you again. Let us begin here: You comment that "Not a single person arguing against nano hacs has proposed a game mechanic change that would not reduce them to large assault ships with no role." Not content with that patently false comment, you immediately contradict yourself by commenting that a reduction of the polycarbon mass reduction bonus would not do this: "effectively, it doesn't change anything". The obvious reply to that is "If so, then you can have no objection to it". However, that is based upon your absurd logic that any change whatsoever to speed renders HACs useless. I also look forward to your whiny, clueless explanation of why changing the polycarbon mass reduction to -14%, or the ODI II speed bonus to +19%, renders HACs useless. Elsewhere your obfuscation grows, with repeated false claims that everyone wants to turn HACs in AFs. Your comment of "See nanos have a mobility advantage, you want to reduce it to an align time advantage" is further deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation; you deliberately misunderstand that the definition of "mobility" includes "speed" as well as "agility", and again assume that people seek to make HACs as slow as AFs. Seriously, this is more straw Titan than straw man. You haven't been paying attention. Nobody is saying people want nano boats to be as slow as an AF. We are saying, that if you nurf nanos then HAC/Recon will be as rare and as useful as an AF. If you nurf nano boats to the point that missiles can hit them, guns can track them easily (which seems to be what you want) they'll vanish from the face of eve. A zealot that only goes 250-300m/s is going to get destroyed by your missile boat, tank setup or not. Pop the MWD on, your sig radius goes through the roof and those missiles/turrets hurt even more. There will be no reason to fly them, as tanked or not they will still pop easily and you're out a lot of isk. Of course, since you only seem to fly drakes and ravens as your #1 and #2 ships, that might be much for you to get your head around. Get caught in a belt lately? ..
Ambien Torca	Posted - 2008.06.24 11:50:00 - [253] Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth You haven't been paying attention. Nobody is saying people want nano boats to be as slow as an AF. We are saying, that if you nurf nanos then HAC/Recon will be as rare and as useful as an AF. If you nurf nano boats to the point that missiles can hit them, guns can track them easily (which seems to be what you want) they'll vanish from the face of eve. A zealot that only goes 250-300m/s is going to get destroyed by your missile boat, tank setup or not. Pop the MWD on, your sig radius goes through the roof and those missiles/turrets hurt even more. There will be no reason to fly them, as tanked or not they will still pop easily and you're out a lot of isk. Of course, since you only seem to fly drakes and ravens as your #1 and #2 ships, that might be much for you to get your head around. Get caught in a belt lately? Zealot isn¦t the best example since it¦s "original" niche is cruiser sized sniping platform (no drones and laser optimal bonus). It would still be useful even if it¦s was not working as nanoboat.
EinaruS The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.06.24 12:04:00 - [254] Originally by: Hijara Why does EVERY ship have to be nanoed? Seems like i am the only one who pvp's with a zealot going only 256m/s. What happened to large alpha, or good tanks? Why does EVERY person on the forum have to whine about nano. Fits exist because they work, it's that simple. alpha or good tanks on hacs especially, not going to happen. - A finger...especially the middle one, is worth more than any amount of isk
Calvin Okone LSP Industries	Posted - 2008.06.24 12:06:00 - [255] Originally by: Bronson Hughes Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 23/06/2008 18:15:29 Originally by: Calvin Okone I didn't know that there was a WCS nerf. What was it? Warp Core Stabilizers didn't always have their horrible penalties to your targeting range and lock time. Wow. thanks for the info I had no idea. Now I am looking at the stats and I see that fitting a WCS really does put you at a moderate disadvantage.
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.24 13:07:00 - [256] Edited by: Matrixcvd on 24/06/2008 13:12:37 Edited by: Matrixcvd on 24/06/2008 13:08:59 Wow this thread blew up into the emo rage, and its hilarious to think that nothing will get changed anytime soon, so here is an update, If you are new to FW, and are PVPing, read how to kill nano's and i suggest not buying into the Le Whine Brigade that have been kicking and screaming for a change for years now since its not gonna happen in the considerable future. CCP had to realize the whine would increase with FW and did nothing to tame the emo rage of inexperiencd newer PVPer and the fail "older player" which you can see in this thread I will just keep reiterating to you FNGs what you need to have to PVP in EVE in order of importance 1.FC (must be experienced, must have significant time getting his friends killed till he learns how to deal with , NANO, RR, EWAR, Range, Logistics, Scanning, Ganking, Scouting, Baiting, Capitals) oh yes its that much and its that difficult. Find 1, find a corp with them, ask around, ask some of the knowledgeable people in this thread. One way to tell if someone is going to be ok FCin, is listen to how the first target calls, if there is alot of silence before the first primary or 2nd primary is called, gtfo. 2. If you can bring T2, with good FC, then always, always, always fly T2 except AF's If you must fly T1, You must have Ewar, Blackbirds, and you must choose your fight. If you run across T1 its a straight battle, if its T2 you are against, chances are they are hungry for kills and big juicy battleships are perfect for padding KB scores so... don't put your BB's with your bait, range your warp tos, don't engage your tacklers, (inty's) carry ECM drones on your BS's and fit 2 Neuts. Have your little guys on drone duty... this is among a billion possible tactics, but what i can't stand is, "The LE NANO BLEW UP OUR EWAR" when i see the crap FC warp everyone to a gate at 0 3. Learn the viable tactics, not the emo Role Play rage. Nano is here to stay, deal with it or it will deal with you. 4. Remember, there are fights that you just can't win, no matter what you did, the enemy had you dead before you knew it, get over the fact that not everything is fair, there are people with better ships, mods, isk, sp, PVP experience, and there is a level at which veterns backed up by significant resources are invincible to 90% of the players in eve. Not fair, of course, truley EVE, you betcha 5. Read, Read, and MOAR READ, the responses of people on how you should fit ships to deal with nano, not the people who tell you to CRY HARDER. And finally, the real problem here is the concept of not knowing the strength of your enemy, yes 10 on 50 is easy, yeah 5 T2 verse 5 T1 is easy, but its not a level 40 char staying away from a level 70 char. SP is spread out, character sales make judging your opponenent difficult, we fly the similar ships, so the biggest thing in PVP for newer players is not the mods, ships, or isk. Its judging correctly whether you can engage the target, and the consequences of those actions dictate the outcome.
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.24 13:19:00 - [257] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 24/06/2008 13:19:43 Again people fail to notice the forest from the trees. Sensible Nano Counters that actually work vs *Competent People: 1. Use a nanoship to Tackle*. Everthing else, (ECM, Neut, Logging off, Docking up, Cloaking, WCS etc) is just transfering the issue. Those tactics do not tackle the nanoship, rather it increases chances of your own escape/survival. The only real issue is if it is health for pvp to require nanoships to tackle nanoships. -- Billion Isk Mission
Matrix Skye	Posted - 2008.06.24 13:21:00 - [258] Edited by: Matrix Skye on 24/06/2008 13:24:06 Originally by: Matrixcvd lots of irrelevant stuffs to supposedly counter nanos or you could just fly a nano yourself. they're fun and very hard kill trust me you wont regret training for them.
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.24 14:09:00 - [259] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 24/06/2008 13:19:43 Again people fail to notice the forest from the trees. no you need to stop smoking the trees, leave the forest alone! Stop smoking every gangha bud in sight, docking? cloaking? logging? viable PVP tactics? you refuse to accept the concept of being smarter than your opponent is a necessity to win. Game mechanics are not counters, this isn't rock paper scissors. What i listed was 1 step removed from game mechanics but more of a way of looking at the nano situation and putting yourself in the best position to deal with it, not to keep whining. It is horrible to imagine that a human who is intelligent enough to type in english, could sit here and say the concept of ECM verse speed is transfering the issue, the concept of cap warfare is transfering the issue? The concept of solid tactics, good FCing and taking cheap losses to yield 1 or 2 300mil isk megaspanks is transfering the issue If you new guys are paying attention, Lord Waratron, is the exact type of person you want to stay away from when trying to pick up and learn this game... and it really should be an interstellar crime to even utter nonsenses like "docking" is a pvp tactic, maybe thats what you do cause i can't really imagine anything further from the truth out there in TQ.
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.24 14:29:00 - [260] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 24/06/2008 14:31:29 Originally by: Matrixcvd Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 24/06/2008 13:19:43 Again people fail to notice the forest from the trees. no you need to stop smoking the trees, leave the forest alone! Stop smoking every gangha bud in sight, docking? cloaking? logging? viable PVP tactics? you refuse to accept the concept of being smarter than your opponent is a necessity to win. Game mechanics are not counters, this isn't rock paper scissors. What i listed was 1 step removed from game mechanics but more of a way of looking at the nano situation and putting yourself in the best position to deal with it, not to keep whining. It is horrible to imagine that a human who is intelligent enough to type in english, could sit here and say the concept of ECM verse speed is transfering the issue, the concept of cap warfare is transfering the issue? The concept of solid tactics, good FCing and taking cheap losses to yield 1 or 2 300mil isk megaspanks is transfering the issue If you new guys are paying attention, Lord Waratron, is the exact type of person you want to stay away from when trying to pick up and learn this game... and it really should be an interstellar crime to even utter nonsenses like "docking" is a pvp tactic, maybe thats what you do cause i can't really imagine anything further from the truth out there in TQ. You fail to relise what a counter is. So, Logging off is a "nano counter" according to your book? Docking up is a "nano counter"? WCS is a "nano counter"? ECM is a "nano counter"? etc Lets make this simple for you. The only effective nano counter, is to fly a nano-ship yourself. Do not take my word for it - look at dead nano pilot lossmails. Almost all have nanoships tackling them. You may ask what I know about nano? Nano Zealot: 332 kills. 0 Loss. And most of the 332 kills was killing while being outnumbered (i.e virtually no ratters there). This would be impossible today unless I was flying my Titan or nanoship. My 10k/sec nano curse also proves a simaler point. Unlike the whiners, I do not think nano's should be nerfed, but rather, the counter boosted. Your post, however, fails to accept that the game should evolve. You must learn that this game will adapt, since the days of cruise missile kestrels and Ravens with Railgun bonus no longer exist. To me, the whiners are those that refuse to accept any future change for the better of the game. -- Billion Isk Mission

Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 15:05:00 - [261] Originally by: Alpha Prime I don't care how you setup your ship, how many bilions in implants you've got in your head. No ship not specifically build for speed should NOT got past 5km/s. Interceptors, yes. No cruiser, not even**abonds. And if some people say that**abonds are build for speed, well then decrease the speed of all other ships so that fagabonds still moves faster then most ships, but still not faster then a regular interceptor. You should consider trying to join FinFleet. I hear they're the best corp in BoB.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.24 15:29:00 - [262] Originally by: Alpha Prime I don't care how you setup your ship, how many bilions in implants you've got in your head. No ship not specifically build for speed should NOT got past 5km/s. Interceptors, yes. No cruiser, not even**abonds. Sure, you're not biased. You only call them "fagabonds". Originally by:** Alpha Prime And if some people say that**abonds are build for speed, well then decrease the speed of all other ships so that fagabonds still moves faster then most ships, but still not faster then a regular interceptor. But this is complete bull and I'm tired of people posting it. Not even the Vagabond is faster than an Interceptor. Since you're saying the vagabond is faster than interceptors, you're comparing ships, correct? So all else but the ship being equal (modules, skills, rigs, and implants) you are saying that the vagabond is faster than "a regular interceptor" which implies all of them. So in lieu of creating eight interceptor fits, I'll just use the one with the lowest base speed, the Raptor. Since we're comparing ships here, I'm using All Level V on both ships so skills and implants are no longer variables. [Vagabond,abond] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II 5,824 m/s [Raptor, Regular Interceptor] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II 1MN MicroWarpdrive II 6,199 m/s** The slowest interceptor is still faster than the Vagabond and almost twice as agile and accelerates way faster. Now obviously being the biased forum troll that you are, you're going to say, "but ppl put dual polys on the**abond lolol!1ONE". Now I feel I should mention here that I fly a Vagabond, and I don't actually use two polycarbons. I use 1 poly & one kinetic shield resist rig, but hey, when you're dealing with irrational exaggerating forum trolls, you do what you gotta do. So here's a double poly vaga, with lows adjusted for maximum speed (see I use reality to prove my points, not hyperbole): [Vagabond,abond] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Polycarbon Engine Housing I Polycarbon Engine Housing I 6,906 m/s Uh oh, it's faster now! But wait, you said the ship is faster, not "the ship better fitted" so let's double poly the inty too! So here it is, adjusted for maximum speed: [Raptor, Regular Interceptor] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II 1MN MicroWarpdrive II Polycarbon Engine Housing I Polycarbon Engine Housing I 8,025 m/s** Oh! Look at that! You're a liar. And now of course, the various trolls are going to say, "but nohb0dy rigz 'ceptors". Actually some people do since they're about as survivable as a nano hac since they're so stupid fast, agile and fast to align. Not a lot of course, but it does happen. And let's also not forget that I'm comparing the slowest interceptor in the game with the **tiest lowslots for speed mods. All of the other interceptors are faster. This is without any speed implants which anyone investing in polycarbons will most definitely use first since they tend to stick around longer and cost half as much. But since the same implants get used by the same people for both ship types they're really a constant for comparing the two so I left them out. Note: I cut out all the empty slots to fit this all into one post. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.24 15:39:00 - [263] Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth You haven't been paying attention. Nobody is saying people want nano boats to be as slow as an AF. We are saying, that if you nurf nanos then HAC/Recon will be as rare and as useful as an AF. Precisely. By all means balance the game. But simply nerfing the speed capability of HACs down will cannot accomplish this without making the entire HAC class useless. The current speed hacs would be replaced by battlecruiers or battleships. Nearly nobody flies the sniper HACs because they're already outclassed in that role by sniper battleships. And the battleships are cheaper and insurable. But yet this is precisely what every one of the anti-nano proponents here are proposing. Which is why it's so stupid. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 15:55:00 - [264] Edited by: ***zilla on 24/06/2008 16:02:11 Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth if you nurf nanos then HAC/Recon will be as rare and as useful as an AF. The intention isn't to make nanos useless but a bit more rare than they are currently. The issue is that the cookie cutter nanos have become fleet/blob standards. Speed is heavily favored over tank/dps. Originally by: EinaruS Fits exist because they work, it's that simple. When many start flying the same few ships with very similiar fittings than the fits work a bit too well. Originally by: Xaen But simply nerfing the speed capability of HACs down will cannot accomplish this without making the entire HAC class useless. Sniper hacs are flown. While the HACs won't be as favored, they'll still be useable if the the counter boost/nerf is done properly. Take the Curse for example. It was a recon that was better than many HACs. Then the nerf bat hit. Hard.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 16:00:00 - [265] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Hastur DragonTooth if you nurf nanos then HAC/Recon will be as rare and as useful as an AF. The intention isn't to make nanos useless but a bit more rare than they are currently. The issue is that the cookie cutter nanos have become fleet/blob standards. Speed is heavily favored over tank/dps. Originally by: EinaruS Fits exist because they work, it's that simple. When many start flying the same few ships with very similiar fittings than the fits work a bit too well. Last time I checked any alliances killboardm, atleast those who are very avid users of nanos, it seemed to me that they use Battleships for ALOT of things, RR BS gangs, fleets etc. They dont use vagabonds for fleets They dont. Stop talking bull**. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.24 16:05:00 - [266] Originally by: Lord WarATron Lets make this simple for you. And thats where my head hurts from listening to your garbage. Its not simple. its not simple at all. there have been so many changes, you bring up the biggest changes to hit from 2004-2005 on a few ships, and when there was 10k on TQ, you fail hard in your current assessment its absolutely astoundingly ridiculous. Screw nano, remeber what really happened in 2006? what type of gang ***ed people off while nano was just beginning to be developed?, INTY JAMMING FRIG GANGS, then the ECM nerf, then the HP Buff, then 20k moar on TQ, then invention then T2 market price crash, then rigs, then Nano BS nerf, now 30k on TQ and a boat load moar nubs PVPing thru FW, thats not so simple. The tactics are there to beat nano, just cause you claim to pwn people in your zealot back in the day, which was probably a fckton of goons and kills nobody cares about, don't think you have some handle on why things are the way they are, cause you're just plain oversimplifying nano to the point of incorrectness
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.24 16:06:00 - [267] If the tactics are there to beat nanos without nanos why is no one doing it?
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.24 16:14:00 - [268] Originally by: Goumindong If the tactics are there to beat nanos without nanos why is no one doing it? Fail FCs flying fail merlin, caracal, drake fleets dying in great numbers obviously aren't doin it right, but there are enough people who seem to get by without maxin out their credit cards buyin GTCs. Come on man, statements like, "NOBODY CAN SURVIVE TO NANO" or "EVERYONE IS DYING TO NANO" or your fail statement "IF THERE ARE SO MANY TACTICS WHY ARE PEOPLE DYING" easy answer, they die to better pilots, with better fits, with moar isk, with moar sp, with moar combat experience, with better FCs, and get lucky against the lag every now and again, is that as blatantly obtuse as you are?
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 16:19:00 - [269] Originally by: Goumindong If the tactics are there to beat nanos without nanos why is no one doing it? Why do (nearly) only see these nerf posts from FW people Because in 0.0 people adapt and learn how to kill them. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 16:29:00 - [270] Edited by: ***zilla on 24/06/2008 16:32:01 Originally by: Tenuo They dont use vagabonds for fleets Nanos are a large part of many fleets. Battleships have a niche however nanos are extremely common for roaming fleets. They make up a large percentage of even fleets to hit POSs. Nanos do much of the killing while battleships are seen as support. Originally by: Tenuo Why do (nearly) only see these nerf posts from FW people Because they're merely the latest to experience it. Originally by: Tenuo Because in 0.0 people adapt and learn how to kill them. Absolutely. There was a bunch of nano hate threads over the last year by those in 0.0. However now many in 0.0 fly nanos themselves. Problem solved. It'll take a while but those in FW will learn that they must cross train so that Caldari gangs are flying Minmitar recons & hacs. Missiles will be dropped in favor of guns. Shield tanking replaced by speed. Then everything will be peachy.

Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.24 16:45:00 - [271] Originally by: Matrixcvd Originally by: Lord WarATron Lets make this simple for you. And thats where my head hurts from listening to your garbage. Its not simple. its not simple at all. there have been so many changes, you bring up the biggest changes to hit from 2004-2005 on a few ships, and when there was 10k on TQ, you fail hard in your current assessment its absolutely astoundingly ridiculous. Screw nano, remeber what really happened in 2006? what type of gang ***ed people off while nano was just beginning to be developed?, INTY JAMMING FRIG GANGS, then the ECM nerf, then the HP Buff, then 20k moar on TQ, then invention then T2 market price crash, then rigs, then Nano BS nerf, now 30k on TQ and a boat load moar nubs PVPing thru FW, thats not so simple. The tactics are there to beat nano, just cause you claim to pwn people in your zealot back in the day, which was probably a fckton of goons and kills nobody cares about, don't think you have some handle on why things are the way they are, cause you're just plain oversimplifying nano to the point of incorrectness Please include content in your post rather than whining. I included facts and figures in mine. Never once have I stated that nano should be nerfed, rather, that the counter needs to be boosted. It seems to me that you do not want the game to evolve and remain the way it is. You must learn to adapt to new changes insted of resisting change -- Billion Isk Mission
Victor Forge	Posted - 2008.06.25 20:15:00 - [272] I dug up this old EvE tribune article. And the author defended Nano-ships by basically saying that counter Nano-ships with ships that wasn¦t Nano-ships themself was easy. And then he explained... I copied the article into Word-document used the tool in Words to see how may words he used to explain how "easy" it was. He used 1475 words. The article is here: http://www.eve-tribune.com/index.php?no=3_9&page=1 To sum it up: "All these tactics take teamwork, cooperation, and somewhat specialized setups." The option to this takes just 3 words to explain: "Use Nanoship yourself" And it doesn¦t take teamwork, cooperation and "somewhat specialized setups" ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwaMHJzruDU&feature=related
Lyria Skydancer Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.06.25 20:47:00 - [273] Originally by: Victor Forge I dug up this old EvE tribune article. And the author defended Nano-ships by basically saying that counter Nano-ships with ships that wasn¦t Nano-ships themself was easy. And then he explained... I copied the article into Word-document used the tool in Words to see how may words he used to explain how "easy" it was. He used 1475 words. The article is here: http://www.eve-tribune.com/index.php?no=3_9&page=1 To sum it up: "All these tactics take teamwork, cooperation, and somewhat specialized setups." The option to this takes just 3 words to explain: "Use Nanoship yourself" And it doesn¦t take teamwork, cooperation and "somewhat specialized setups" This. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.25 20:59:00 - [274] Originally by: *****zilla They make up a large percentage of even fleets to hit POSs. Hahahahahahaha. This is probably why Goons kicked you out of Geminate so quickly.
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.25 22:15:00 - [275] Originally by: Matrixcvd Originally by: Goumindong If the tactics are there to beat nanos without nanos why is no one doing it? Fail FCs flying fail merlin, caracal, drake fleets dying in great numbers obviously aren't doin it right, but there are enough people who seem to get by without maxin out their credit cards buyin GTCs. Come on man, statements like, "NOBODY CAN SURVIVE TO NANO" or "EVERYONE IS DYING TO NANO" or your fail statement "IF THERE ARE SO MANY TACTICS WHY ARE PEOPLE DYING" easy answer, they die to better pilots, with better fits, with moar isk, with moar sp, with moar combat experience, with better FCs, and get lucky against the lag every now and again, is that as blatantly obtuse as you are? Matrix, you have always been a hero of mine and I have some real man-love for you. What you say here makes me feel nice and fuzzy. When I was new to PVP and died horribly with my also new to PVP gangmates, well all just thought it was because of what you have said here. The only thing we ever whined about was logoffski.
Hijara Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2008.06.25 22:35:00 - [276] So............ Quite a few more replies than i thought i'd get lol. i guess my point after reading all those is that, just because some people nano, that should not mean everyone else has to nano. For that reason i think the game mechanic is broken. but keep going on the issue, interesting to read in any case
Parsival The Avalon Foundation Delta.Green	Posted - 2008.06.25 22:40:00 - [277] Edited by: Parsival on 25/06/2008 22:42:38 Originally by: *****zilla The issue is that the cookie cutter nanos have become fleet/blob standards. Speed is heavily favored over tank/dps. Now I see why Geminate fell so easily. EDIT: Oh snap Dioneces
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.25 22:45:00 - [278] Originally by: Hijara just because some people nano, that should not mean everyone else has to nano. For that reason i think the game mechanic is broken. Nope, people who fly what they cant afford to lose have to cry about something and right now it's speed.
Naomi Knight	Posted - 2008.06.26 00:29:00 - [279] Originally by: Victor Forge I dug up this old EvE tribune article. And the author defended Nano-ships by basically saying that counter Nano-ships with ships that wasn¦t Nano-ships themself was easy. And then he explained... I copied the article into Word-document used the tool in Words to see how may words he used to explain how "easy" it was. He used 1475 words. The article is here: http://www.eve-tribune.com/index.php?no=3_9&page=1 To sum it up: "All these tactics take teamwork, cooperation, and somewhat specialized setups." The option to this takes just 3 words to explain: "Use Nanoship yourself" And it doesn¦t take teamwork, cooperation and "somewhat specialized setups" hehe this


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.