EVE Search - My first nanoship whine :)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

My first nanoship whine :)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Allen Ramses Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:06:00 - [1] Edited by: Allen Ramses on 24/06/2008 23:10:14 [DISCLAIMER] I admit it. I'm a run-of-the-mill Caldari mission runner. My favorite ships are Kestrel, Drake, and Caracal, in that order. I like using missiles because I don't like to worry about tracking, even though I get roughly half the theoretical DPS of guns. I occasionally like to go out into LoSec and try my luck. So yes, I'm a carebear, and yes I have teeth. Now that that's taken care of, I probably have somewhat less of a risk of being called a brainless Caldari muppet, being told to GTFO EVE, die in a fire, stop posting, or some other flame that is blatantly over the top. [/DISCLAIMER] Nanoships are broken, and it's ****ing me the hell off. I've found that in order to take down a single nanoship, it requires 3 equally specialized ships to triangulate and destroy it. Missiles are absolutely useless against them, as nanos usually travel above 4km/s and thus receive no damage. Webs are horrifically imbalanced in their current form. It's a problem that everyone acknowledges, but no clear fix is in sight. Well I have a few. The problem boils down to Webs, Polycarbons, ODs, and iStabs. First thing's first. Webs. Everyone stays out of web range because it means certain death. 90% reduction is WAY too frikkin powerful for a single module. Also, less and less people are using them, as 10km is a ridiculously small range. Why Stasis Webifiers aren't 25%/30% speed and agility reduction (with modifiable scripts) and 20km/25km falloff for T1 and T2, respectively, is beyond me. Every other ewar module I can think of off the top of my head operates in this fashion. Webs should work this way too. Nanofiber injectors are perfect the way they are now. I would not change a thing on them. Polycarbons, on the other hand, I would. They are 15% reduction in mass. Should be gimped to 10% to be in line with other rigs of this type. ODs and iStabs have some very illogical issues that need to be worked out. It is a very well known fact that velocity and agility are inversely proportional. Inertia tells us why. Yet we do not see this basic law in EVE, which is one major reason why nanoships are broken. We have ODs, which provide an additional 20% maximum velocity at the expense of... 20% Cargo capacity?? WTF kind of nonsense is that?? Why the hell would the modification to the engine compartment interfere with the cargohold? Shouldn't it impose a 15% reduction in agility instead? It makes MUCH more sense than reduction in cargo capacity. Also we have iStabs, convenient little things that increase agility by 20%... But doing so increases the size of the ship's electromagnetic field?! Again I ask, WTF kind of nonsense is that?? The only way to artificially increase agility with something that uses thrust is to reduce thrust on the side in which the object needs to move toward. Less thrust makes less velocity. So by that logic, shouldn't a 20% increase in agility cause say a 15% reduction in velocity instead of screwing around with the ship's EM field? So basically, making changes to the above would make the nanoship a much more legitimate specialty tank... It would actually break it in two. The high speed and low agility pilots can orbit from afar, but have a hard time changing course. The low speed and high agility pilot can maneuver much easier, but can't go as fast. The former would be for evading missiles and having increased ability to keep out of range, while the latter would be for faster orbit adjustments and the ability to warp faster in the case of an emergency. To put it in a certain way, there are speed tanks and agility tanks. But having the best of both worlds in one package is not OK. TL;DR version: Nanos are borked. Fix them by significantly modifying the way webs work, changing polycarbons to 10% mass reduction, and making ODs and iStabs mutually exclusive. /me waits for the myriad of nano pilots telling him to jump off a cliff. EDIT: Some day I will learn English. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:07:00 - [2] not even going to bother reading that but i'm pretty sure you should stop posting
knifee Euphoria Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:12:00 - [3] The only thing that's really broken, is my will to read any more of these threads. www.eve-dev.net - making a good thing better
tolons mother Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:13:00 - [4] Brainless Caldari muppet. GTFO of eve. DIAF stop posting. muggle.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:14:00 - [5] /me yawns Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.
Laydee	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:16:00 - [6] Originally by: Allen Ramses [DISCLAIMER] I admit it. I'm a run-of-the-mill Caldari mission runner. If you're a mission runner, why do you care about Nano's ? Last I checked, NPCs didn't do it
Jenny Spitfire LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:16:00 - [7] Or reduec powar grids by 5%-10% for alle Minamatard sheps. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Go vote! Put voice for silent majority. LOVE PVP, HATE grief
SirMoric State War Academy	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:17:00 - [8] Have missiles intercept ships instead of just following them. This way the ships have to fly through the schrapnel and take damage instead of having the scrapnel trying to catch up with the ship. This will be easily avoidable by the nano-pilots though, they just have to turn away from the missile. And the only way to get at good shot is more or less direct on..... and then hope they don't turn away. Just a thought. rgds PS: Oh, and make the drake the best ship in EVE.
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:19:00 - [9] Originally by: Allen Ramses The problem boils down to Webs, Polycarbons, ODs, and iStabs. First thing's first. Webs. Everyone stays out of web range because it means certain death. 90% reduction is WAY too frikkin powerful for a single module. Also, less and less people are using them, as 10km is a ridiculously small range. Why Stasis Webifiers aren't 25%/30% speed and agility reduction (with modifiable scripts) and 20km/25km falloff for T1 and T2, respectively, is beyond me. Every other ewar module I can think of off the top of my head operates in this fashion. Webs should work this way too. Nanofiber injectors are perfect the way they are now. I would not change a thing on them. Polycarbons, on the other hand, I would. They are 15% reduction in mass. Should be gimped to 10% to be in line with other rigs of this type. Seems very reasonable. One thought regarding the webs: instead of simply changing the webs to make them weaker but longer range, make them scripted so that one script results in webs working as they do now, and the other results in the weaker, long-range webs you describe. Agreed on Polycarbons, they are too powerful versus their module equivalent. -- Becq Starforged The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
Quelque Chose New Eden Roller Disco Supply	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:20:00 - [10] Edited by: Quelque Chose on 24/06/2008 23:24:32 It's pretty evident to me just by looking at it that this post, which I didn't read a lick of and have no intention of reading, is of such staggering importance that it couldn't possibly have fit into any of the other 70 godzillion threads about this. edit PS. **** you ___________________________________________
tarin adur Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:21:00 - [11] Originally by: knifee The only thing that's really broken, is my will to read any more of these threads.
Murtala Mushin Market	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:23:00 - [12] Nano have been a problem for ages, remember the nano phoon and domi, and most 0.0 residents have been harassed by nano gangs. Triumivates where famous for their nano gangs and Pandemic legion are now famous for them. 0utbreak pilots can be seen whizzing around in vagabonds at speeds of 16000+ms !! (not a typo) But all these gangs and ships are normally short range setups and if your fleet has Webbers fitted to all ship and a couple of rapiers, they will go down.
Laydee	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:25:00 - [13] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Or reduec powar grids by 5%-10% for alle Minamatard sheps. As a minmatar, I would be happy for other races to have ships that are as _obviously_* useful for anti-nano as our Minnie ships are. Oh wait, you have the Curse already, the Blackbird, the Vexor, the Maller, Lachesis or Arazu even ? You don't just need to counter with speed or damage guys - you can anti-nano by removing their ability to damage you. Tracking disruptors are great, because it makes them have to slow down even further to hit - chuck in a target painter and you have a nasty combo and one that's effective as its a non-intuitive fit for ships that are usually nano-fodder. *I said obviously because there are plenty of setups out there that can be tweaked for anti-nano ops and do rather well; but should also be viable for non-nano ops. Meh.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:34:00 - [14] Originally by: Laydee Oh wait, you have the Curse already, the Blackbird, the Vexor, the Maller, Lachesis or Arazu even ? You don't just need to counter with speed or damage guys - you can anti-nano by removing their ability to damage you. As repeated pointed out in other threads a counter does not mean "removing their ability to damage you". Of the ships mentioned only the Curse could be considered a counter however it is a ... nano hac. So, a nano is the best counter to another nano? Originally by: Laydee Tracking disruptors are great, because it makes them have to slow down even further to hit Ignoring the use of missiles and drones by nanos. Of course even if you do manage to hit them a bit they've got a very nice buffer shield tank. If you do enough to their buffer tank they'll warp off. Originally by: Laydee *I said obviously because there are plenty of setups out there that can be tweaked for anti-nano ops and do rather well; but should also be viable for non-nano ops. Meh. Few non nano setups are viable for both anti-nano work and non-nanos. They usually make comedy killmails. On the other hand nanos can fly the same setup equally well against nanos and non nanos. Most of these "counters" you've mentioned are annoyances. Annoyances will either get you killed or drive them off. Annoyances allow them to either kill you or escape. Annoyances aren't likely to result in the death of many nanos. Nanos have the clear advantage. Moral of the story? Its silly to fly anything but nanos against nanos.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:40:00 - [15] Originally by: *****zilla Of the ships mentioned only the Curse could be considered a counter however it is a ... nano hac. :shobon:
Laydee	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:42:00 - [16] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Laydee Oh wait, you have the Curse already, the Blackbird, the Vexor, the Maller, Lachesis or Arazu even ? You don't just need to counter with speed or damage guys - you can anti-nano by removing their ability to damage you. As repeated pointed out in other threads a counter does not mean "removing their ability to damage you". Of the ships mentioned only the Curse could be considered a counter however it is a ... nano hac. So, a nano is the best counter to another nano? Originally by: Laydee Tracking disruptors are great, because it makes them have to slow down even further to hit Ignoring the use of missiles and drones by nanos. Of course even if you do manage to hit them a bit they've got a very nice buffer shield tank. If you do enough to their buffer tank they'll warp off. Originally by: Laydee *I said obviously because there are plenty of setups out there that can be tweaked for anti-nano ops and do rather well; but should also be viable for non-nano ops. Meh. Few non nano setups are viable for both anti-nano work and non-nanos. They usually make comedy killmails. On the other hand nanos can fly the same setup equally well against nanos and non nanos. Most of these "counters" you've mentioned are annoyances. Annoyances will either get you killed or drive them off. Annoyances allow them to either kill you or escape. Annoyances aren't likely to result in the death of many nanos. Nanos have the clear advantage. Moral of the story? Its silly to fly anything but nanos against nanos. Fight fire with fire ? Ok - not always the best way - but I think here we have a different definition of what it means by Counter. I mean to say, render my target unable to kill me - you probably say, kill your target. Horses for courses my friend - the points I suggested are indeed viable counters, when you consider that most every Nano pilot has the choice available to attack or withdraw at their whim. Knowing that most people choose to save their skin, I think the 'win' is to cause them to withdraw. Nullification is a cheap victory and doesn't get kill-mails, but its viable without gimping my ship against non-nano targets, and hopefully leaves me to fight another day - Semper procinctu.
EnslaverOfMinmatar Yarsk Hunters DeaDSpace Coalition	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:49:00 - [17] my cpu has a cycle length of around 0.5 nanoseconds. that makes it uber fast. nerf it
Kel Nissa	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:49:00 - [18] I dont like their posts: - Haakelen - knifee - tolons mother - Quelque Chose regards, Kel
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:50:00 - [19] Originally by: Allen Ramses Edited by: Allen Ramses on 24/06/2008 23:10:14 [DISCLAIMER] I admit it. I'm a run-of-the-mill Caldari mission runner. My favorite ships are Kestrel, Drake, and Caracal, in that order. I like using missiles because I don't like to worry about tracking, even though I get roughly half the theoretical DPS of guns. I like using guns, because I can hit fast stuff (medium ACs will even swat the slower interceptor out of the sky, same with medium lasers), but have to worry about tracking (both against fast targets or smaller targets or when very close), missing due to falloff and everything, and still my ships do less DPS then properly-setup missile boats like the Raven and such. Yeah, so certain weapon systems have drawbacks and strenghts. One of the drawbacks of missiles is that they fail vs fast things. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Allen Ramses Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:51:00 - [20] Well, it's assuring to know that at least one person read my post and provided relevant input. Thank you Becq. The rest of you can go to Rancer. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless.
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:52:00 - [21] Edited by: Eternal Error on 24/06/2008 23:52:44 Originally by: Allen Ramses Edited by: Allen Ramses on 24/06/2008 23:10:14 Nanofiber injectors are perfect the way they are now. What the hell is a nanofiber injector?
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:54:00 - [22] Originally by: Allen Ramses Well, it's assuring to know that at least one person read my post and provided relevant input. Thank you Becq. The rest of you can go to Rancer. the problem is that you come across like every other person who cries about nanos, who looked at eft and maybe saw a vaga a few times and didn't have the velocity colum on and knows nothing about transversal or tracking (you admit this) or real-life cap use or any of the myriad of complex things relating to this field, and instead of reading the many well intentioned reasonable seriousposts about the subject and trying something new and perhaps not instantly assuming that when they fail the problem lies outside of them, decided to make a post on eve-o general reporting his findings to us and making stupid suggestions that are far more gamebreaking than fast ships could ever be at their worst
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.24 23:55:00 - [23] Originally by: Laydee Fight fire with fire ? It is currently the only reasonable way. This is a problem. Originally by: Laydee I mean to say, render my target unable to kill me - you probably say, kill your target. This is a draw. What you are proposing are odds that any rational person would take. If most of the counters involve a draw with little risk of death why would anyone fly anything but nanos? Originally by: Laydee viable counters, when you consider that most every Nano pilot has the choice available to attack or withdraw at their whim. Knowing that most people choose to save their skin, I think the 'win' is to cause them to withdraw. Again, this is a draw. By your rational if you were to log off or dock, boredom would force them to withdraw and you would have "won". If you were not to play the game and no one were to die then you would have "won". a) The non nano risks death or the nano escaping. b) The nano risks a non nano kill or itself escaping. If a counter isn't likely to seriously threaten a nano and result in a killmail then it isn't a counter. It is at best an annoyance. The only rational choice is for everyone to fly nanos. Originally by: Laydee and hopefully leaves me to fight another day - Semper procinctu. If you wish to fly non nanos then you're giving odds that any nano pilot will take. The only rational choice is to fly nanos.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:03:00 - [24] Originally by: *****zilla a) The non nano risks death or the nano escaping. b) The nano risks a non nano kill or itself escaping. The crux of the nano-whiner issue is that this is a blatant lie. (a) The non-nanoship risks a (reduced) nanoship kill, death, or the nanoship escaping. (b) The nano has reduced risk of death, or non-nano kill or the nanoship escaping. Saying that nanoships don't risk death is, of course, a lie; there's numerous records of nanoships killed (even when engaging non-nanoships) to prove it's a total lie. Naturally, nano-whiner brigade will always say 'it's pilot error; it's lag; it's the all-different-corps russian blob with domination-fitted recons' or whatever. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Napro Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:05:00 - [25] This guy writes up a huge post with facts and points up the wazoo and all we get are a bunch of nanofags basically saying "STFU DONT TAKE MY NANO"
Laydee	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:05:00 - [26] Originally by: *****zilla This is a draw. What you are proposing are odds that any rational person would take. If most of the counters involve a draw with little risk of death why would anyone fly anything but nanos? I think this is clearly a case where we need to agree that we disagree. It's pretty clear that the majority of Nano pilots pick their fights; if they are not guaranteed an easy win and have the ability to back off they want to and this is what many nano pilots do. The thing is sure its of little risk of death to the Nano pilot; but its damn sure of little risk of getting a kill either - this is why they choose their fights and withdraw with counters. Generally :) I'm just trying to say that yeah, you can't get a quick kill but there are ways and means that joe-blog FW'er can make sure that all he'll do is get harrased by the average nano buffoon, but not killed - and can hopefully do that without gimping his ship to any non-nano war targets. If a good nano pilot wants to kill you, and you're not specifically setup to counter it; then chances are you'll be dead - ok. But most nano pilots aren't good, and most non-nano pilots don't choose to specify quite so severely - That trade off means that there are options option to everyone that don't mean months of specific training for something that's likely to be nerfed :\
Laydee	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:07:00 - [27] Originally by: Napro This guy writes up a huge post with facts and points up the wazoo and all we get are a bunch of nanofags basically saying "STFU DONT TAKE MY NANO" That's funny, I thought I clearly stated that there are ways to combat the average nano pilot In case I didn't clarify, I'm not a Nano pilot
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:08:00 - [28] Originally by: Cpt Branko don't risk death is, of course, a lie; there's numerous records of nanoships killed (even when engaging non-nanoships) Of course this is generalized to prove that a counter without a kill is no counter. However as you admit the risks to the nano ships are reduced. And thats enough for most people to fly nanos.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:09:00 - [29] Originally by: Napro This guy writes up a huge post with facts Subjective opinions are not facts Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant	Posted - 2008.06.25 00:11:00 - [30] Dammit, after I quoted him he edited out the bit about "nanofiber injectors"! Where can I get one of these to soup up my nano-ishtar?

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.