| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jeckes
   |
Posted - 2008.06.25 05:46:00 -
[1]
And even for those nano fan boys that defend their broken pieces of crap to the death rattle.
Ships that rely on speed to live (like minmatar) should do so on their own measure.
Minmatar are the fastest ships in the game, other than intys, as such their own speed should be a damage mitigating factor. here have a look at this Eve tool thats been around since the dark ages.
http://www.eve-online.com/guide/en/g61_5.asp
Now on page 5 of the tracking guide, you'll get to simulate your own instances of weapons firing on a ship. you'll also learn that signature radius of the ship and signature resolution of the gun are factored into hit/miss % and DPS received on a successful hit.
What does this mean? it only takes a very measly 100-200 transversal to get under the guns of larger ships, and damage mitigation should come from being faster at a BASE speed, having a smaller signature than the resolution of the gun (tidbit: executioners have a signature radius of 33 as opposed to small turrets signature resolution of 40), maintaining gun range superiority (either being closer to the enemy than their tracking likes, or being farther away from them than their optimal+falloff likes), and exploiting damage types vs what the enemy's tank is weakest at.
Thats all that the game was originally designed upon.
This is where nanofibers and MWDs come into the mix and start making things stupid.
with a nanoship, your transversal can far exceed any gun's capability to track, meaning 0 damage, even if you get in their optimal, simply because the turret cant keep up. Simulate the effect of 5000 transversal in a frig vs small turrets with a tracking of .3, a signature resolution of 40, and an optimal of 10,000. look at the graph. See how pretty all the nice flat lines at the bottom of the graph are? See how the graph lacks any curvature as compared to the first time you used the guide to simulate a 100 transversal? See how that means 0% chance to hit and 0 DPS?
Notice too, how 5000 transversal isnt even close to the speed of current nanoships?
on the 4th page of the tracking guide, you cant even make something do 11k speed, as the page simply isnt big enough, but you can get it to 3k, and with that acheive a 2.8k transversal.
current nanoships can go 11k.
Anyone still defending nanoships at this point should be regarded as a syphilis infested deranged ******** monkey, and laughed at.
For the rest of you who arent, continue testing extensively with this guide, using multiple sizes of guns vs a target of frig size (30-46 sig.rad) at multiple transversals.
I think this is all the proof one needs to show that nanoships aren't just being whined about, they actually are totally broken and wrong.
|
F90OEX
F9X
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 05:50:00 -
[2]
Free Nano CNRs for everyone
|
Katashi Ishizuka
Tritanium Workers Union
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 05:59:00 -
[3]
Jesus I am the biggest fan of plating everything but seriously, this whine is a bit too much.
Since when does any HAC go 11km/s?
Try 3800-4500.
Vagabond can touch 6k.
11km/s requires expensive snake and rogue implants, officer faction/gear, a max skilled claymore, and t2 polycarbs.
In which case, I think your gang can easily afford to pimp out a couple interceptors to suicide web the nanoship.
|
Shakuul
Infinitus Sapientia
New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 06:04:00 -
[4]
I can't hit ship X with my noob omnitanked torp raven, therefore it should be removed lolol.
Also all of the 'how to fit your ship vs. nanos threads' are clearly lies, theres no way someone who has probably played the game ten times longer than you have knows anything more about ship fittings.
|
DubanFP
Four Rings
Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 06:11:00 -
[5]
Edited by: DubanFP on 25/06/2008 06:13:26
LOL, maybe this is proof ignorance isn't bliss? Where should I start?
Ok, I can meet the following flaws in your arguement
1) Nowhere do you mention the tracking of the firing guns. They are affected by their own transversal too you know. If they can hit you, you can hit them. They will have to slow down to hit you all the same. In fact TRANSVERSAL VELOCITY IS NOT THE REASON PEOPLE NANO AT ALL. You don't even know why people nano yet you complain about them. People nano because it gives them the abillity to disengage from a fight and run at a will. NOT because of an impossible defense. Most speed tanks actually use superior range and falloff to fight rather transversal. So what makes you able to judge them if you don't know why?
2) You mention within 10km which leaves you completely at the mercy of webifiers. Which will leave any nanoship helpless.
3) You have never flown a nano-ship. I can guarentee you will be blown to pieces if you try the way you think it works.
4) You conveniently ignore the cost involved on nanoships. A cheap nanoship costs at least 150mil to do at all, and a vagabond that can go 11km/s will cost billions with implants. Are you trying to fight off a vagabond.
5) You also conveniently ignore the counters to them. For example 2 large nuets can crash a nanoship's cap from 25kms. No cap, no nano. And guess what? Fully insured a Nuet battleship will cost 1/4 of even a cheap true nanoship. 1 Huginn with good support can lay waste to multiple nanoships for the cost of a cheap nanoship.
6) Nanoships are actually weak for the cost offensively and to a lesser extent defensively. If a 150 mil nanoship goes up against a 150 mil battleship "most of the cost is covered by insurance" the nanoship will probebly wind up being forced to run. The main difference is the nanoship can run.
7) Use a nanoship before you complain about them. Then you will realize that they are much more fragile then you think, and the reason you get owned repeatedly is probebly due to player skill rather then the speed fit itself.
_______________
ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR |
Boknamar
The Knights Trevor
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 06:11:00 -
[6]
OP is absolutely correct. The speed of nano ships far exceeds the tracking of guns. This needs to be fixed immediately. This could be done a couple ways. CCP could introduce a way of draining an enemy ship's cap pretty quickly thus rendering it impossible to use a MWD, or they could introduce a module that slows a target ship down, and perhaps also make a ship class that is specialized in the use of such a module.
Get on it, CCP!
|
Jmanis Catharg
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 06:23:00 -
[7]
Show me a nano fit and I'll show you a fit that can kill it. Then I'll show you a DPS/tank fit that can beat that.
Rock, paper, scissors. Deal with it. FOTM is nanos. Next it'll be nano-killers, and people will complain about DPS being overpowered.
|
Gryphius
The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 06:27:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Boknamar
OP is absolutely correct. The speed of nano ships far exceeds the tracking of guns. This needs to be fixed immediately. This could be done a couple ways. CCP could introduce a way of draining an enemy ship's cap pretty quickly thus rendering it impossible to use a MWD, or they could introduce a module that slows a target ship down, and perhaps also make a ship class that is specialized in the use of such a module.
Get on it, CCP!
Oh man... that's a brilliant idea! I even have ideas for their names... Energy Neutralizers and Stasis Webifiers!
Granted, I have no right to speak. I've only flown against a few Nanoships in my very limited time in New Eden. They outran my missiles. You know what I did?
I laughed.
---------------------------------
From #eve-chaos
[11:47am] Ulviirala: my damn balls are bigger than these veldspar roids |
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 06:50:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Boknamar
OP is absolutely correct. The speed of nano ships far exceeds the tracking of guns. This needs to be fixed immediately. This could be done a couple ways. CCP could introduce a way of draining an enemy ship's cap pretty quickly thus rendering it impossible to use a MWD, or they could introduce a module that slows a target ship down, and perhaps also make a ship class that is specialized in the use of such a module.
Get on it, CCP!
And maybe a module that increases tracking?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Jeckes
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 06:55:00 -
[10]
Proof is in the pudding. Everyone says that webbers and neuts are the answer, yet no Nanoship user is willing to post a competent build which can do this simple thing.
P.S. even 6k receives a very nice 1% chance to hit, 1 DPS rating in the tracking guide. stupid nubs.
|
Leneerra
The Republican 1st Strike Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:05:00 -
[11]
For my experience the problem with nanoships is not that it cannot be destroyed or countered.
The problem I see is they generally only engage target they are sure to kill and avoid all other engagements.
Something Nano ships are particulairly good at.
I admit nano ships are generally not powerfull and win few fight but they rarely ever get destroyed. the huge cost attached to those ships makes most of their pilots even more skittish.
If almost every fight ends in a win for the nano or a draw then I think I can safely say there is something wrong with them. (suggested fix, make warp scrambles disable mwds or reduce their effectiveness)
Oh and another point of anoyance. to the people complaining the Minmatar are the only race to have decent webbing ships..
There are plenty ship specializations divided like that (ECM ships, Neutralizer ships, missile ships etc).
Not that I am too happy with the distribution ccp made for most special abilities, most are completely illogical.
For instance matari should have had neutralizers (amarr are more cap dependent then matari ships) and the amarr should have had the webbefying ships (to counter matari speed) if you look at what such races would develop to deal with their enemies.
Neither do I understand why the race with the smallest signatures is the race to develop target painters. I could go on and on with such examples but that would be a rant right?
|
Furb Killer
USC Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:07:00 -
[12]
Quote:
1) Nowhere do you mention the tracking of the firing guns. They are affected by their own transversal too you know. If they can hit you, you can hit them. They will have to slow down to hit you all the same. In fact TRANSVERSAL VELOCITY IS NOT THE REASON PEOPLE NANO AT ALL. You don't even know why people nano yet you complain about them. People nano because it gives them the abillity to disengage from a fight and run at a will. NOT because of an impossible defense. Most speed tanks actually use superior range and falloff to fight rather transversal. So what makes you able to judge them if you don't know why?
Euhm, in your dream world maybe. Sure they like it they basicly can always run away. But people dont nano it to speed tank? I tell them next time a nano gets me that he should just stay at range and dont orbit, because they dont use transversal, right?
|
Franga
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:28:00 -
[13]
Oh, I totally do. Subscribe me up right away.
Originally by: Rachel Vend
... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
|
FlameGlow
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:32:00 -
[14]
Edited by: FlameGlow on 25/06/2008 07:32:50
Tracking guide is nothing - look at missile guide, it's not even made to calculate speeds and explosion velocity over 3 km/s
|
Tenuo
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:33:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Boknamar
OP is absolutely correct. The speed of nano ships far exceeds the tracking of guns. This needs to be fixed immediately. This could be done a couple ways. CCP could introduce a way of draining an enemy ship's cap pretty quickly thus rendering it impossible to use a MWD, or they could introduce a module that slows a target ship down, and perhaps also make a ship class that is specialized in the use of such a module.
Get on it, CCP!
You gotta be kidding me.
Right?
Right?
_______________________________________________________________________________
EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age
The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Tenuo
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:34:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Leneerra
The problem I see is they generally only engage target they are sure to kill and avoid all other engagements.
Something Nano ships are particulairly good at.
heard of scouts?
Everyone does it, no one wants to engage when they can't win.
_______________________________________________________________________________
EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age
The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Shimizu Takumi
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:41:00 -
[17]
Quote:
For my experience the problem with nanoships is not that it cannot be destroyed or countered.
I won every Rifter vs Bantam fight
nerf Rifter!!!
|
Sileam
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:47:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Sileam on 25/06/2008 07:50:39
Check this thread, page 11: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=804417&page=11, I've made some some stats and calculations there.
First of all - nanoship doesnt have to go 11 km/s. 4000-5000 is enough to tank most of the damage he receives.
Second thing - the only sure way to kill a nanoship is to use a nanoship, other counter ways just make him run away. And if you get scouts/gang, so can he do and still you die to nano, while they run away.
Third problem - while other ships have to sacrifice something to get tank, nanoship get all in one package: they are FAST enough to catch you, they have speed and slots to TACKLE, they have speed-TANK, they choose targets and can run-away when things start go wrong (better than the cloak users).
Only weakness of the nanoship is his a bit gimped dps. But they are fixing it using more numbers and/or nano-recons. So like I said before in the other topic - if you fight as 5 good non-nano players vs 5 nano pilots, then you loose a ship or two and the nanos warp away when run out of energy/buffer-tank. Then they come back and its 5 "reds" vs 4 or 3 "blue" and you you will get even harder beating this time. Yeap - "focus-fire" is their key to the victory against stronger ships, then you die one by one at a time.
And "fixing a nano" can be done easily. Just make MWD adding more mass (much lower agility when using microwarpdrive) to the ship, so you can't orbit at your full speed around target (unless you are in the interceptor, which is meant for sth like that). MWD (opposing to the afterburner) should be a module to "QUICKLY GET IN RANGE" or "QUICKLY RUN AWAY", but not "ORBIT AT 18 KM AND LAUGH IN YOUR FACE".
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:53:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 25/06/2008 07:53:39
The key issue that the OP should be talking about is if it is healthy for PVP to require a nanoship to tackle a nanoship. I personalyl do not think so, and I am a nano pilot myself.
The issue is not the nano but tackling them. The counter to nanos needs a boost rather than nerfing nano. Web scripts with longer range may be the answer.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Tippia
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:53:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jeckes
Simulate the effect of 5000 transversal in a frig vs small turrets with a tracking of .3, a signature resolution of 40, and an optimal of 10,000. look at the graph. See how pretty all the nice flat lines at the bottom of the graph are? See how the graph lacks any curvature as compared to the first time you used the guide to simulate a 100 transversal? See how that means 0% chance to hit and 0 DPS?
Oh yes, that does look awful. Now admittedly, the only thing I could find that comes close to those stats is a 75mm Gatling Rail II w/ Antimatter and full skills…
…the thing is, if that frig is going 5kps, it doesn't have the sig radius of 30 used in that tool – it has a sig radius of upwards of 200. Plug that in there, and suddenly the graph peaks at roughly 90%.
|
DubanFP
Four Rings
Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 07:58:00 -
[21]
Edited by: DubanFP on 25/06/2008 08:05:27
Originally by: Tippia
Oh yes, that does look awful. Now admittedly, the only thing I could find that comes close to those stats is a 75mm Gatling Rail II w/ Antimatter and full skillsą
ąthe thing is, if that frig is going 5kps, it doesn't have the sig radius of 30 used in that tool ū it has a sig radius of upwards of 200. Plug that in there, and suddenly the graph peaks at roughly 90%.
He managed to completely miss the "If you can't hit him, he can't hit you" arguement, and ignore the huge sig penalty of a MWD which makes it easier to hit the nanoship then the non-nanoship. Along with about 50 other things vital to the full picture of nanos. Calculating orbits at 10km, within web range, yet ignoring the crippling effect of webifiers? This guy is either
1) Utterly Clueless
--or--
2) A complete troll
I vote for the latter.
Edit: The person below me is probebly his alt.
_______________
ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR |
Sileam
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:03:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 25/06/2008 07:53:39
The key issue that the OP should be talking about is if it is healthy for PVP to require a nanoship to tackle a nanoship. I personalyl do not think so, and I am a nano pilot myself.
The issue is not the nano but tackling them. The counter to nanos needs a boost rather than nerfing nano. Web scripts with longer range may be the answer.
Yeap, longer webs could help with solving speed-tank problem.
Altough I think that MWD shouldn't be used to orbit at close-range. Thats the job for AB. MWD should work to get on tharget back, gank with full damage and fun away before help arives, not tank+tackle+kill.
Also - I agree that "only a nano can kill a nano" is nothing good for the game...
|
Tenuo
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:10:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Sileam
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 25/06/2008 07:53:39
The key issue that the OP should be talking about is if it is healthy for PVP to require a nanoship to tackle a nanoship. I personalyl do not think so, and I am a nano pilot myself.
The issue is not the nano but tackling them. The counter to nanos needs a boost rather than nerfing nano. Web scripts with longer range may be the answer.
Yeap, longer webs could help with solving speed-tank problem.
Altough I think that MWD shouldn't be used to orbit at close-range. Thats the job for AB. MWD should work to get on tharget back, gank with full damage and fun away before help arives, not tank+tackle+kill.
Also - I agree that "only a nano can kill a nano" is nothing good for the game...
They'd have to be max 35% or so at that range or you'll totally murder nano ships.
_______________________________________________________________________________
EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age
The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:13:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Tenuo
Originally by: Sileam
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 25/06/2008 07:53:39
The key issue that the OP should be talking about is if it is healthy for PVP to require a nanoship to tackle a nanoship. I personalyl do not think so, and I am a nano pilot myself.
The issue is not the nano but tackling them. The counter to nanos needs a boost rather than nerfing nano. Web scripts with longer range may be the answer.
Yeap, longer webs could help with solving speed-tank problem.
Altough I think that MWD shouldn't be used to orbit at close-range. Thats the job for AB. MWD should work to get on tharget back, gank with full damage and fun away before help arives, not tank+tackle+kill.
Also - I agree that "only a nano can kill a nano" is nothing good for the game...
They'd have to be max 35% or so at that range or you'll totally murder nano ships.
The exact % is for test server to balance. Could be 24km 10% webs. Could be 24km 45% webs scripts. Either way, the issue with nano is not nano. It is tackling them. The quicker people focus on discussing tackling, the better
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Tenuo
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:24:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Tenuo on 25/06/2008 08:24:38
I'll give you a litte example of tracking here. Putting Zealot, Vagabond and Ishtar with cookie cutter fittings, at their 90% top speed (they all go 4200, 4300 and 5300 respectively) against a harbinger with a rack of HP II with scorch and 2x HS.
No movement
90% Percent speed (Will never hit top speed in orbit)
Ishtar is the red, vagabond is the blue and the zealot is the green.
Damage reduction is ... non existant.
Note, this is JUST for killing the myth that they've invincible and can't be hit at top speed.
_______________________________________________________________________________
EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age
The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Angry Poster
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:38:00 -
[26]
Even though I love my Ishtar (and that doesn't even go 5k) I have to agree with the Op. If you compare so called "speed tanking" with any other form of tanking then it's totally out of proportion. Even if you fit a pure tank on the best (non-capital) tanking ships you will never ever get the same kind of survivability then with a nano ship.
The main problem as I see it is not really the damage mitigation but the fact that besides the fact that you take 0 DPS you also have the option to simply split and run if something goes wrong. Thats like having an Armor Repper (=damage mitigation) that allows you to warp off like a WCS once you're out of cap or don't feel like fighting any more.
The idea of a tank is to mitigate incoming damage - the armor tanker takes damage and then repairs it again (thus taking 0 damage) and the nano flies faster then the turrets tracking and thus takes 0 DPS. Thats all fine and dandy.. both the armor tanker and the nano both use cap to maintain their "tank" (MWD for nano, reppers/boosters/hardners for tanks) but the main difference is that the tanks can't simply split and run (like they had a rack of WCS) but the nano's can do this if something goes wrong... And thats totally out of balance in my opinion.
Either the weapon developers in New Eden need to take the finger out and react to the new need of their customers for weapons that have extremely good tracking or Concord has to implement a speed limit for ships. 
No but seriously... the entire nano thing doesn't make sense... neither from a game-balance point of view nor from a role play point of view... I mean.. why the hell would a missile fly half as fast as a ship? Why would gun designers simply resign and say "ah well I guess they just fly to fast.. I guess we'll simply pack our bags and start selling Quafe instead of weapons".
A solution is needed (and if possible a solution that doesn't totally nerf nano but that actually _balances_ it).
|
Tenuo
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:46:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Angry Poster
Even though I love my Ishtar (and that doesn't even go 5k) I have to agree with the Op. If you compare so called "speed tanking" with any other form of tanking then it's totally out of proportion. Even if you fit a pure tank on the best (non-capital) tanking ships you will never ever get the same kind of survivability then with a nano ship.
The main problem as I see it is not really the damage mitigation but the fact that besides the fact that you take 0 DPS you also have the option to simply split and run if something goes wrong. Thats like having an Armor Repper (=damage mitigation) that allows you to warp off like a WCS once you're out of cap or don't feel like fighting any more.
The idea of a tank is to mitigate incoming damage - the armor tanker takes damage and then repairs it again (thus taking 0 damage) and the nano flies faster then the turrets tracking and thus takes 0 DPS. Thats all fine and dandy.. both the armor tanker and the nano both use cap to maintain their "tank" (MWD for nano, reppers/boosters/hardners for tanks) but the main difference is that the tanks can't simply split and run (like they had a rack of WCS) but the nano's can do this if something goes wrong... And thats totally out of balance in my opinion.
Either the weapon developers in New Eden need to take the finger out and react to the new need of their customers for weapons that have extremely good tracking or Concord has to implement a speed limit for ships.
No but seriously... the entire nano thing doesn't make sense... neither from a game-balance point of view nor from a role play point of view... I mean.. why the hell would a missile fly half as fast as a ship? Why would gun designers simply resign and say "ah well I guess they just fly to fast.. I guess we'll simply pack our bags and start selling Quafe instead of weapons".
A solution is needed (and if possible a solution that doesn't totally nerf nano but that actually _balances_ it).
First of all, speed tanking/transversal tanking was intended by CCP but totally ruined by webs, now people found a way to utilize it, second of all, see above post by me, nanos are IN NOW WAY invincible to damage, far from.
_______________________________________________________________________________
EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age
The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Odar Ryder
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:46:00 -
[28]
Just for giggles, I think they should factor in an 'instability' element into MWD where there is a random chance in a thousand that it explodes, taking the Nano into structure and leaving it sans-MWD. This could happen in a fight, this could happen at a safespot. It would give hope to people chasing nano's and make the nano...gents live on the edge.
|
Tudor
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:51:00 -
[29]
again all i can say is nano ship pilots aree loosers, who found a way to exploit the game.. ALL can pilot a nano ship ALL can take the poor kills they take... because they only fight when they are 100% sure of a win, else they RUN RUN...
nano pilots are unskilled idiots.. and yes i know it takes 15 mill sp.. but thats NOTHING... its UNSKILLED...
they suck... and ccp suck for this to keep going.. interceptors should be the fastet ships in the game.. its lame others are faster... FIX IT.. end of story..
nano pilots go suck my ****.. u idiots unskilled lame asses..
|
Tippia
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 08:52:00 -
[30]
On the other hand, come to think of it…
…the OP really does explain nanowhines: it shows that a lot of people seem to be unfamiliar with the intricacies of ≡v≡'s hit calculations – especially the rather nasty downsides of MWDs – and that they get blinded by the admittedly insane numbers you can push EFT into producing.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |