EVE Search - Nano's aren't the problem, Stasis webifiers ARE!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Nano's aren't the problem, Stasis webifiers ARE!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
ShardowRhino Legion 0f The Damned	Posted - 2008.06.24 02:08:00 - [31] Originally by: Havohej Originally by: Kale Kold Edited by: Kale Kold on 23/06/2008 23:25:40 Originally by: Haakelen Hint: Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers So months of training for command ships and months more for warlinks in order to take down ships that require half the training and are half the cost? Hmmm. something sounds like it needs balancing... and thats if you can lock them before they warp!!! So months of training for HACs and/or Recons and months more to max out Navigation skills, rigging skills, gunner skills, missile skills and drone skills in order to be an effective nanoHAC/Recon pilot in order to take down noobs with less than half the training and paid less than a third of the cost of my nanoHAC/Recon? Hmmm, something sounds like it's balanced... and that's if you can learn how to play the game instead of whining about how somebody is better than you!!! FAIL!!!!!!!!!!! Lets not forget the fact that others ALSO use nav,rigging,gunnery ,missle and drone skills! All so we can't hit someone that can decide to warp off when they like. Also,no one is forcing you to sink X amount of isk in order to counter 99.9% other configs. We can easily turn it around and say that if you learned to play the game you wouldn't need to drop so much isk into a ship to have a chance. We could say your a complete noob since your using what is equal to a ship full of unnerfed warpstabs. 1 kind of setup shouldn't be effective against all but 1 t2 ship of a specific race. Especially when theres various nano ship set ups. Also it makes no sense that no one would come out with weapons and mods to counter this nanononsense. If anything Amarr and Caldari should be the ones with ships that get web range bonuses due to the fact that the other sides have ships meant for speed. Again CCP should come out with various range and sizes of webs. Of course scripts would also help.
Crowman7000 Morning Star Operations	Posted - 2008.06.24 02:20:00 - [32] Why not just simply make it so that we you have ODs or I-stabs or polycarbs all of them or any of the three your max warp disruption range is decreased. Or when above a certain speed make it so that strength of a warp scrambler can no longer effectively target a warp core. Give a tracking speed to warp scramblers (I mean it already shoots out little rings like it is shooting) something that is really low so that your transversal is high it is unable to track the warp core of a ship. Or some RP BS. When a low dps Nano ship can no longer orbit and warp scramble outside of web range they will have to fly with ships that can survive up in up close battles. So you won't have nano blobs but mixed fleets. Now this doesn't solve the Nano ships being untouchable but it makes it so that people would have something to target in these fleets and a lone vaga couldn't take out a BS. I know that is a mish mash of text and random thought that isn't very well put together so sue me I don't give a hell and this is my main who flies a vaga or whatever flavor of the week. ^^ Originally by: CCP Prism X ----------------------------------------------- There's no such thing as playing too much EvE! You all obviously need more accounts!
Arachnid Vampire Phoenix Rising Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 02:26:00 - [33] Edited by: Arachnid Vampire on 24/06/2008 02:26:36 Your idea is fail. Making webifiers do AOE omgwtf damage like in the Empyrean Age trailer. Now that's an idea. --- I haven't thought of a signature yet.
Karlemgne Tides Of War	Posted - 2008.06.24 02:27:00 - [34] Edited by: Karlemgne on 24/06/2008 02:27:52 Originally by: VicturusTeSaluto lol nub. Use a claymore in your half-assed fleet, and then train overloading. You get a highly long range web without faction webs or recons. So let me get this right. You are suggesting that a perfectly adequate solution to the nano "problem" is fielding a fleet that contains a Claymore--the Minmatar tech 2 Battlecruiser (aka command ship) that requires the most training--and Huginns or Rapiers--two tech 2 recon cruisers (recons)? So then, if I've got this right you are saying that, unless you field a fleet with multiple people having over 20 million SP in Minmatar ships (realistically) you should just expect to die/and or be unable to catch nano-gangs? And something doesn't sound wrong with this to you? Because if that's the way you think it should be, then I think gank fit ships should require highly skilled pilots in Command Ships and Recons to take them out and hold them. Otherwise I should be able to escape whenever in my gank Mega. -K
Aeo IV Xomic OmniCorporation	Posted - 2008.06.24 03:16:00 - [35] Originally by: Amy Wang Problems arise if the nano ship uses trackingless weapon systems like drones (best example is prolly the nano Ishtar which incidentally also has the highest effective dps of all hacs when nanod) or missiles. Those weapon systems can do damage while the ship using them is going way too fast to get hit with anything which arguably is a tad unbalanced. QFT The problem with nanos isn't that they move to fast, the problem is that, some ships, when nanoed, do not experence the negative effects of moving that fast, even if they should be. The only suggestion that I feel would (probably) fix this is to limit missiles and drone use on ships that are moving that fast, ether by incuring a dronebay size nerf per nanofiber/overdrive, OR, causing missiles/drones to explode at those speeds
Grath Telkin Evolving Paradigms	Posted - 2008.06.24 05:03:00 - [36] Originally by: Aeo IV The only suggestion that I feel would (probably) fix this is to limit missiles and drone use on ships that are moving that fast, ether by incuring a dronebay size nerf per nanofiber/overdrive, OR, causing missiles/drones to explode at those speeds so your saying if you want to fly fast your not aloud to do any damage? fail. these threads are all so stupid, its really a simple method of TRYING new things, instead of ***ing. Don't say you've tried it all, ive seen guys say apocs can't hit nano's, with pulse. BULL. it happens, alot, zealots too, most of the "sniper" hac's can easily track a nano ship, but it sounds like you guys are **ed your battleships can't. Bad news, an interceptor can likely sig tank your guns WITHOUT a mwd on at all, and do MORE damage than he could at speed. Battleships are meant to shoot battleships. Anything else, they are worse shooting at. Is that hard to comprehend for some reason?
Kasilof	Posted - 2008.06.24 05:26:00 - [37] Originally by: Aeo IV Originally by: Amy Wang Problems arise if the nano ship uses trackingless weapon systems like drones (best example is prolly the nano Ishtar which incidentally also has the highest effective dps of all hacs when nanod) or missiles. Those weapon systems can do damage while the ship using them is going way too fast to get hit with anything which arguably is a tad unbalanced. QFT The problem with nanos isn't that they move to fast, the problem is that, some ships, when nanoed, do not experence the negative effects of moving that fast, even if they should be. The only suggestion that I feel would (probably) fix this is to limit missiles and drone use on ships that are moving that fast, ether by incuring a dronebay size nerf per nanofiber/overdrive, OR, causing missiles/drones to explode at those speeds I like the idea of reduced drone bay size and or reduced CPU or powergrid for equiping poly carbs and overdrives. You equip speed mods you go fast but it significantly impacts your ability to fit other items and use drones.
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:13:00 - [38] the reduced armor is quite a good tadeoff tbh (and vice versa, eh.. yeah): - minnies focus a lil on shields and mostly on speed as defense, they're allowed and supposed to move fast. - caldari have the slowest ships and are not exactly great on lowslots. snakes can blow this out of proportion, too of course, but they are the slowest in comparison one way or the other. - amarr generally miss the med slots to remedy the loss of HP with an extender along with the other stuff. - gallente... nano and blasters doesnt go together all that well, nor do rails with mwd... just the drones boats are the problem -.- - putting the gist back into logistics
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:28:00 - [39] Originally by: Dallas23 personally I do not think there is any issure with nanos, overdrives, or even inertia stabs. what needs to be fixed is micro warp drives. possible fixes: -treat mwd like warp, no targeting or being targeted. -increase acceleration time to speed boost multiplier, mwd gives 600% then have it take that much longer to accelerate. -remove inertia in the same way that the heavy interdictor suffers when turning on a warp disruption generator. these are jsut some suggestions any change would need to be tested so it does not become another issue in of it self. Dear Idiot Please go die in a fire. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:29:00 - [40] Edited by: Tenuo on 24/06/2008 06:30:54 Originally by: Karlemgne Edited by: Karlemgne on 24/06/2008 02:27:52 Originally by: VicturusTeSaluto lol nub. Use a claymore in your half-assed fleet, and then train overloading. You get a highly long range web without faction webs or recons. So let me get this right. You are suggesting that a perfectly adequate solution to the nano "problem" is fielding a fleet that contains a Claymore--the Minmatar tech 2 Battlecruiser (aka command ship) that requires the most training--and Huginns or Rapiers--two tech 2 recon cruisers (recons)? So then, if I've got this right you are saying that, unless you field a fleet with multiple people having over 20 million SP in Minmatar ships (realistically) you should just expect to die/and or be unable to catch nano-gangs? And something doesn't sound wrong with this to you? Because if that's the way you think it should be, then I think gank fit ships should require highly skilled pilots in Command Ships and Recons to take them out and hold them. Otherwise I should be able to escape whenever in my gank Mega. -K What about just fitting one to one of your 1000 drakes, they can fit warfare links too. A drake with a warfare link, a mindlink and skills at 4 will give you a bonus so you can web at 17km, now all you monkeys need to do is MOVE _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
DK Metz	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:33:00 - [41] nano using pilots sucks.. they ues em cause they have no real skill... end of story.. all cxan do a nano boat... :) not all can pvp. nano fitted is NOT skilled pvp. ________________________________ Radio for YOU Elder eve player. My mom met a jove!
Through Actions Weapons Grade Industries	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:39:00 - [42] Originally by: Quelque Chose Dear OP: Please die in a fire. Thanks, Your Pals at New Eden Roller Disco Supply This.
Stork DK Synthetic Frontiers	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:43:00 - [43] Originally by: DK Metz nano using pilots sucks.. they ues em cause they have no real skill... end of story.. all cxan do a nano boat... :) not all can pvp. nano fitted is NOT skilled pvp. lol ___________ - Stork DK
Zephyr Rengate State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:45:00 - [44] Originally by: DK Metz nano using pilots sucks.. they ues em cause they have no real skill... end of story.. all cxan do a nano boat... :) not all can pvp. nano fitted is NOT skilled pvp. Troll post in troll thread. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I will not liek human meat but the naerest I tried is human chesse. I don't want to tried again ...
PsychoBones Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:48:00 - [45] Edited by: PsychoBones on 24/06/2008 06:52:23 Originally by: Kale Kold Originally by: Haakelen Kale Kold thread why did I post in Obvious troll is obvious! You're new to this, aren't you? Originally by: overcorpse So everyone should train up minmatar recons to stand a resonable chance of killing nanos. Yup everything here looks balanced alright Actually, Amarr recons do quite nicely as well. Oh, and missile ships. Oh yeah, and anything with heavy neuts. Not to mention anything that actually has a tank.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:54:00 - [46] Originally by: DK Metz nano using pilots sucks.. they ues em cause they have no real skill... end of story.. all cxan do a nano boat... :) not all can pvp. nano fitted is NOT skilled pvp. What would you say take the most skill. Maneuvring your ship at high speed requiring good coordination and good reflexes to avoid your ship comming within 13 km of any ship while managing your cap, having to slow down. Or just sit in your buffer tanked slowboat and hammer your forehead against the F buttons. I'll let you decide. Also, lol @ your name. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Novemb3r Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2008.06.24 06:59:00 - [47] oh noes we have to train specific ships and skills to combat certain setups! RUN FOR TEH HILLZ!! It's like complaining that you need falcons to beat a gang of 3 logisitics cruisers and remote repping battleships. -
Nexus Kinnon Fusion Enterprises Ltd Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.06.24 07:17:00 - [48] *INCREASED TENFOLD*
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2008.06.24 07:20:00 - [49] Originally by: Nexus Kinnon *INCREASED TENFOLD* MOAR DEV BLOGS! ... srsly. Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
Dihania Mucho Dolor	Posted - 2008.06.24 07:50:00 - [50] Edited by: Dihania on 24/06/2008 07:55:05 Edited by: Dihania on 24/06/2008 07:54:11 A nano pilot needs at least 15 mil SP to start doing anything, over 20 to be good. If do not believe me please train all the skills, you will see you need the: navigation skills (which people who do not fly nano do not train all the way) gunnery skills/missiles/drones the ship skills rigging skills overheating implants too (probably a new mouse a couple of moths or so ) You should train about the same to be able to counter it. and you can gang assist modules fit on battlecruisers. drones also help. like the ew and neut and web drones. implants too . EVE: "The Hand-holding Age". I need isk!Accepting donations. Renting sig space.Taking various jobs.
Melor Rend	Posted - 2008.06.24 08:17:00 - [51] I sort of agree with the Op... the speeds of nanoships (especially combined with massive server-side lag) is totally out of proportion compared to the anti-nano tools. Heavy Neuts may have the range but they can only be fitted on BS with are both slow at locking targets and slow at pursuing the nano. Webs on the other hand have laughably short ranges... in the time it takes a nanoship to pass through the 20 km "globe" in which I could web him it's pretty much impossible to lock the nanoship and web him down to any sort of speeds that will help me. Usually the server side lag is so extreme that the web will only activate once the nano is already on 40km and won't actually have any effect. Even if the server wasn't laggy as hell the timeframe in which you can catch a nanoship with webs is still way way to short. Either slow down the entire game by factor 10 so you don't have a timeframe of only 0,01 microseconds to web or balance nano in some other way (for instance by nerfing topspeeds and boosting webs. Personally I'd prefer it most if CCP simply decreased the speed of eve... so a nano-fag will still fly 15km/s but on my screen those 15km/s would only be as fast as 1,5km/s are today. That way the vaga would still be really fast (relatively speaking) but it wouldn't require me to be able to react within 0,01 microseconds before the vaga is outside of webrange again. This would also decrease the massive lag... the game would still lag like hell but at least you wouldn't have to depend on being able to lock targets within minuscule timeframes (that are further decreased due to the fact that all your actions only take effect 0,5 seconds to 5 minutes later (depending on how lagged the node is). Maybe now that more then 2% of the customers are actually noticing just how broken eve really is CCP may finally be forced to deal with the two major problems that are present for the past years: game breaking lag and nano-ships which use this lag to be pretty much invulnerable.
DK Metz	Posted - 2008.06.24 08:27:00 - [52] and u say 15 to 20 mill sp is skilled ??? i say thats a n00b... all have 15 to 20 mill sp.. ________________________________ Radio for YOU Elder eve player. My mom met a jove!
Druadan Aristotle Enterprises	Posted - 2008.06.24 08:38:00 - [53] OP has completely missed the point. The problem isn't the range of webs, it's that webs do not web. All they do is reduce the max speed of the target and the inertia carries them forward. There's no actually webbing going on. If the web had a decelerative effect that wasn't just 'wait for them to stop', they'd be a hell of a lot more useful. At the moment they're only useful if your target hasn't already got to speed or isn't sufficiently on the ball to get out web range before they slow down. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Upright Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates	Posted - 2008.06.24 08:52:00 - [54] First up ive got to lol at the FW whining about nanos... Increasing the range of stasis webifiers will achieve nothing other than pushing nanos to go faster and a longer range. And you will kill majority of nano ships effectiveness, and just make people get Cerb's to go fast. Really all that needs balancing is polycarbs, and snakes. If both of these items get nerfed a tad. While they should still both give decent bonuses, when people stack snakes, polycarbs, faction mwd's and overdrives with gang bonuses, yes most hacs/recons and even some BC and BS's still can reach speeds at which aint really i believe what CCP intended in the nano tank mechanic. The reason nano's have increased over the past 6 months or so is the fact that people started to notice how effective this combo can be, while costing and arm and a leg its probably you wont need to buy another one again.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 09:07:00 - [55] Edited by: Tenuo on 24/06/2008 09:07:05 Originally by: DK Metz and u say 15 to 20 mill sp is skilled ??? i say thats a n00b... all have 15 to 20 mill sp.. A player can have 5mill SP and know 3 times more about the game, the mechanisms and how to kill various ships than a 30m player, you have just shown it. You are a ***** tool. 15-20 mill SP is a year of training, 1 year. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Aslann Win and God	Posted - 2008.06.24 09:11:00 - [56] Originally by: Benedic Why stop at 24? Over 9000 tbh. WHAT, OVER NINE THOUSAND!?! ______________________
Anubis Xian Reavers	Posted - 2008.06.24 09:23:00 - [57] The OP is right about something, webs are the problem, not their range, but their absolute strength. It forces people to create setups that avoid webs, which eliminates a ton of otherwise viable ships. Webs should have twice the range, but half the strength and should have reduced effect on ships with stronger engines. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. I'm the Juggernaut, *****!
Ioci Ioci Exploration	Posted - 2008.06.24 09:44:00 - [58] Originally by: Anubis Xian The OP is right about something, webs are the problem, not their range, but their absolute strength. It forces people to create setups that avoid webs, which eliminates a ton of otherwise viable ships. Webs should have twice the range, but half the strength and should have reduced effect on ships with stronger engines. And size. Nano debate aside, it never made sense a crow could shut down an Abaddon with the same energy base as it takes to slow a Cerb or another crow. On the Nano thing, it's why I didn't get too excited about FW. I've been in 0.0 long enough to know what they provide to combat fields. It has been around long enough, we know CCP won't change it. Why should they?
Kale Kold Vicious Little Killers	Posted - 2008.06.24 13:34:00 - [59] Why not have scripts in Webs? One for range and one for strenght. i.e. to deaden the inertia too!
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.24 14:58:00 - [60] There needs to be a slight fix with the inertia part imo, it's way too easy to pull out with inertia at the moment. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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

INCREASED TENFOLD

INCREASED TENFOLD