EVE Search - For anyone who seriously wants to understand nanowhine.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

For anyone who seriously wants to understand nanowhine.

» 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)
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 skillsà àthe thing is, if that frig is going 5kps, it doesn't have the sig radius of 30 used in that tool û 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.
Shakuul Infinitus Sapientia New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.06.25 08:56:00 - [31] Originally by: Angry Poster Edited by: Angry Poster on 25/06/2008 08:46:50 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). Oh and another aspect that makes speed tanking overpowered: When I'm flying an armor tank then I can mitigate maybe between 200 and 1000 DPS (depending on type of tank etc.) so that means once I take 1000 + 1 damage, that 1 damage will leak through and sooner of later I will die (even if my cap held that long). However a nano can be shot by a single ship and take 0 damage or he can be shot by 50 ships and still take 0 damage. So that means the nano can tank an infinite amound of damage as long as cap holds and the armor tank is limited by the reppers/boosters he has. So if I get an Armor Repper that increases it's rep-power the more people are shooting me then we don't need to rebalance nano. There's an even better tank - being cloaked, which is immune to all damage since nobody can target you. Of course your damage is **** (nothing). Nanos aren't too far from this. You get mediocre/bad DPS but will take some damage and will probably die if your 50 opposing ships aren't FW noobs in drakes whining about how thier PVE setup wont work in PVE. Do you even know what a Huginn is? 60km+ web range!? That and a bubble are death for a nanoship... RP-sense is really irrelevant. Whenever CCP "rebalances" the game whats the RP explanation for that? Did every race decide carriers were really too powerful and shouldn't be logistically useful, so they made it more difficult to transport stuff in industrial ships in ship bays?
Sileam	Posted - 2008.06.25 08:56:00 - [32] Originally by: Odar Ryder 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. There is more "fair way" to do that instead of RANDOM dmg. Just make MWD take (maybe even increased) heat-damage while normal using of this module (and double heat-damage when they are overheated). That way nano-ships can use it for fast attack, they can get away with it, but cannot run it for a couple of minutes to orbit and kill you. Im not against overdive/nano-combo, I just dont like the idea of ALL-IN-ONE ship.
Angry Poster	Posted - 2008.06.25 08:59:00 - [33] Originally by: Tippia On the other hand, come to think of ità àthe OP really does explain nanowhines: it shows that a lot of people seem to be unfamiliar with the intricacies of ≡v≡'s hit calculations û especially the rather nasty downsides of MWDs û and that they get blinded by the admittedly insane numbers you can push EFT into producing. Funnily enough EFT shows that you should do damage on a nano ship with medium guns but every experience I've made in game shows that this is only true if the nano makes a mistake or someone actually manages to tackle them. Why do you think I fly an Ishtar? Because I get hit all the time by other ships or because it's totally overpowered and I can just fly around the place with near impunity? Also to the person calling nano pilots "unkilled noobs": Why don't you fly a nano ship a bit... It's not as easy as you may think because mistakes will kill you instantly and then you'll be losing your dual polycarb'd ship. However I agree with you that (once you've got the needed player-skills) you are totally overpowered if you compare it with an armor tanker with the same "player-skill".
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:04:00 - [34] Originally by: Angry Poster Funnily enough EFT shows that you should do damage on a nano ship with medium guns but every experience I've made in game shows that this is only true if the nano makes a mistake or someone actually manages to tackle them. I was about to point that out too. If its not webbed then all I will manage is 0.1 to 50 with my large pulse lasers on a nano zealot.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:06:00 - [35] .
Shakuul Infinitus Sapientia New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:07:00 - [36] Originally by: Xparky LIES ALL LIES NANOS ARE OP IM GOING TO IGNORE THE MASSIVE BODY OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. I don't believe in evolution either.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:09:00 - [37] Edited by: Xparky on 25/06/2008 09:11:02 And there's always scythes and scimitars that have nice bonuses to tracking links, giving even better tracking, also you can lower the transversal by not sitting on the gate and moving in the same direction your target moves. It seems it's possible to damage them after all ... .
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:10:00 - [38] Originally by: Shakuul LIES ALL LIES NANOS ARE OP IM GOING TO IGNORE THE MASSIVE BODY OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. I don't believe in evolution either. Tut, tut, you broke the forums. Edit your post and remove the quoted image. .
Dihania Mucho Dolor	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:12:00 - [39] Originally by: Jeckes 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. ... 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? I recomend the use of: Webs, slow the ship down if it gets in 13km. Tracking Enhacers, get better tracking for your guns. Target painters, increase the signature of the ship. (about orbiting you with mwd on, please take into consideration the increased sig) Originally by: Jeckes 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. I beg your pardon?! Please count for me how many nano ships can go 11k. Surely all can... Inties go 11k, vaga might go 11k, ok, it's possible. Don't generalize. Please calculate the isk and skill requirements for a ship to go 11k. . EVE: "The Hand-holding Age". I need isk!Accepting donations. Renting sig space.Taking various jobs.
Gamesguy Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:47:00 - [40] Originally by: Jeckes 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. Did you happen to remember that microwarpdrives makes your sig radius over five times bigger idiot? Guess what happens when you plug the increase sig radius into the tracking calculator. THIS
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.25 09:52:00 - [41] Wow… this thread is headed for an image-nerf
Hannobaal Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.25 10:04:00 - [42] Edited by: Hannobaal on 25/06/2008 10:04:07 Way to completely misrepresent how tracking works while refering to the tracking guide (which you apparently didn't use or you would have known that the speed is to a very large extent counteracted by the huge sig radius increase). There is no such thing as going to fast for guns to track in terms of just the speed in of itself. A 100% increse in speed together with a 100% increse in sig radius would leave your ship just as easy to track as it was before the increase even though it is going twice as fast. Even a 10 km/s interceptor can be easily tracked by destroyer guns (long ranged ones), and a cruiser going at that speed is many, many times easier to track thanks to its huge sig radius.
Caelum Dominus Invicta.	Posted - 2008.06.25 10:48:00 - [43] Just another nib whining about something he has no idea about. Nothing to see here, move along.
AltBier Freelance Unincorporated	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:09:00 - [44] Nano complaints aside ... Originally by: Angry Poster ... why the hell would a missile fly half as fast as a ship? That's a really good question.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:29:00 - [45] Edited by: Tenuo on 25/06/2008 11:30:25 Originally by: Xparky You are stupid aren't you? Way to misunderstand a graph. Look on the left side, percentages. at 24km a shocking 78% hit chance on a nano ship! at 60, nearly 100! Way to shoot yourself in the foot. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:31:00 - [46] Originally by: Tudor 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.. Lol at this post, it just goes to show how LITTLE you know. Exploits? Unskilled? Interceptors slower than HACs? I can suck yo ? _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:42:00 - [47] Originally by: Tenuo You are stupid aren't you? Way to misunderstand a graph. Look on the left side, percentages. at 24km a shocking 78% hit chance on a nano ship! at 60, nearly 100! Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Because 78% and 100% chance to hit is not good enough to hit nanos ? .
Doonoo Boonoo	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:42:00 - [48] Ooh look. Another Noob whining about Nanos. More Noobs calling people names because they fly Nanos. Experienced players giving advice and help to the Noobs on how deal with Nanos. More Noobs ignoring everyones advice. If you suck at PvP or taking advice I suggest you : GO BACK TO MOTSU AND FIGHT NPCs.
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:48:00 - [49] Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo Experienced players giving advice and help to the Noobs on how deal with Nanos. Hey! I'm a n00b, and I mostly fight NPCs… …that doesn't mean I don't understand what "Signature Radius Bonus 500%" means.
Noelle Fay State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:49:00 - [50] Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo Ooh look. Another Noob whining about Nanos. More players calling people names because they fly Nanos. Experienced players giving advice and stating that nanos are indeed too strong and present. Me not even reading the thread but trolling around.. If you suck at PvP or taking advice I suggest you : LEAVE ME ALONE, IT TOOK MONTHS FOR ME TO TRAIN A NANOHAC UP TO WHERE I WILL NEVER DIE. fixed -- -- -- -- -- -- -- The secret to success, whether it's women or money, is knowing when to quit. I oughta know: I'm divorced and broke.
Cpt Jagermeister Spacelane Ghosts	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:52:00 - [51] Quote: 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". Hmm, he does make a point. Slowly backs away from topic
Shanija	Posted - 2008.06.25 11:58:00 - [52] Isn't part of the problem in the OP that webifiers are horribly overpowered? It seems like webs would destroy a huge number of ships that are meant to use speed as part of their defense. Just limiting the discussion to nanos seems to miss part of it.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:01:00 - [53] Originally by: Noelle Fay I THINK NANO PEOPLE ARE STUPID IDIOTS I WANT TO KILL THEM IN MY CARACAL THEREFORE I'M FIXING THIS QUOTE BECAUSE I'M A BITTER LITTLE MILITIA IDIOT. fyp. if this is the way you want to discuss then we discuss it like this. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Deja Thoris Invicta.	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:10:00 - [54] Originally by: Odar Ryder 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. Ok, same for your cherished HML2's then please )
Dotard Suddenly Samurai	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:11:00 - [55] Nano'd up ships are fine as they are. STFU. --------------- Nerf You! Buff Me!
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:12:00 - [56] Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Tenuo You are stupid aren't you? Way to misunderstand a graph. Look on the left side, percentages. at 24km a shocking 78% hit chance on a nano ship! at 60, nearly 100! Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Because 78% and 100% chance to hit is not good enough to hit nanos ? By the "20 DPS" i thought you implied that the dps sucked -.- _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
FlameGlow State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:14:00 - [57] Originally by: Hannobaal Way to completely misrepresent how tracking works while refering to the tracking guide (which you apparently didn't use or you would have known that the speed is to a very large extent counteracted by the huge sig radius increase). There is no such thing as going to fast for guns to track in terms of just the speed in of itself. A 100% increse in speed together with a 100% increse in sig radius would leave your ship just as easy to track as it was before the increase even though it is going twice as fast. Even a 10 km/s interceptor can be easily tracked by destroyer guns (long ranged ones), and a cruiser going at that speed is many, many times easier to track thanks to its huge sig radius. Singnature of MWDing ship is 5 times bigger - truth. Tracking MWDing ship is same as non-MWDing - blatant lie. 1. All MWD but the T1 unnamed give greater speed increase then sig increase 2. Skills and implants increase speed boost of MWD 2. Nanofibers/polycarbs increase that speed even more Take a ship and put 3 nanofibers T2 and MWD T2 on it, and look - even with no skills/implants ship goes at 7-10 times its normal speed when MWD is on, and signature is only 5 times greater.
Lea Re Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:16:00 - [58] i wouldn't nerf nano as such. it's an extremely expensive sport and even if you dictate terms of your fight, every now and then, everyone makes mistakes and a istake for nano ship is usually death. cost of mistake for t2 fitted standard tanking ship is only a fraction of cost of nanoship, not to mention what happens when you get podded. nanoships are specialised vessels used by extremely specialised pilots. they use faction fits/expensive rigs and implants. if you used same kind of equipment on a counter nano gang (domi and db webs, faction neuts, gangs with rapiers, arazus and command ships), you'd find that catching a nano ship isn't as difficult as it seems to be. even db webber which costs less than 100mil reaches out to 14km (18.2km overloaded). combine that with some gang bonuses and voilla. or do something out of ordinary eg. fit a scorp with tank, webs, scram, neuts and precision cruise missiles and wait for a nanoship eve is becoming a very specialised game, there is no ship that can counter everything nowadays, so you need to fit for a particular purpose. just to finish with, bulding a nanoship you're sacrificing a lot: tank and dps.. just bear that in mind.
FlameGlow State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.25 12:19:00 - [59] Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Noelle Fay I THINK NANO PEOPLE ARE STUPID IDIOTS I WANT TO KILL THEM IN MY CARACAL THEREFORE I'M FIXING THIS QUOTE BECAUSE I'M A BITTER LITTLE MILITIA IDIOT. fyp. if this is the way you want to discuss then we discuss it like this. Ironically, Caracal is pretty good, it can get it's precision light missile explosion velocity to over 7 km/s
Bo Bojangles Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:09:00 - [60] Nanos are far from impervious as I can attest having lost a few. You guys just need to learn how to fight them. They are not npc's.
Choke Chain	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:11:00 - [61] Edited by: Choke Chain on 25/06/2008 13:11:16 Originally by: Tenuo 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. This guy is one of, I'd say, seven people in eve who know what's going on. Step 1) Get EFT Step 2) Figure out how to use the DPS graph Step 3) Set up some anti nano ships (hint, try ANY medium turret) Step 4) .... Step 5) Profit
Algia Knightstorm	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:13:00 - [62] Op is quite obviously clueless. nothing you posted has anything to do with why (some think) nano is a problem. As previsouly mentioned, Tracking speed works both ways, if you can't hit me, I can't hit you either. Nano DPS sux ass (Ishtar exempt) "good" nano gangs are working with Claymore's and the likes. A BC / BS Fleet that has a Claymore running Armour Buffs has nothing to fear from nano. Infact, I'll go a stage further.... Any fleet the same size, has nothing to fear from nano's, because they wont engage you. Nano's go around in large gangs to gank (hit and run) people because they do P*ss all dmg. The same could be said for any gang that roams around picking on smaller gangs, but more people fly nano's "because they can get away" Something you Mr Op, seem to have eluded from mentioning completely.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:14:00 - [63] Frankly, if you want to smack nanopilots or whine about how its unbalanced, post with your main or GTFO. I'm not going to keep giving the same explanation over and over to alts. Goal Line Blitz, an American Football browser game.
Rhanna Khurin	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:17:00 - [64] remote shield/armour repairers > most nano ships damage, sure you wont be able to kill them any easier, but they wont do anything to you either.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:19:00 - [65] CCP will nerf nanos. .
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:25:00 - [66] Originally by: Tenuo 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. Fine. Then try to do the same with blasters, railguns, AC and artillery, then with light, standard, heavy and heavy assault missiles, and look what the graphs looks like. Using one weapon type to try to justify the argument and there's no issue is fallacy. Same with the "if you can't hit them, they can't hit you" argument. The offensive capacity of a nano isn't limited to guns, it also includes missiles, drones, tackling and EW. There's in fact two issues with nano ships. The first is too much ability to run away from what it doesn't like. I'm not saying it shouldn't at all, but currently it is far, far too easy. The second is invulnerability to ALMOST everything, the almost exluding a hanfull of very specialized ships, a small minority of weapons, and pilot stupidity. The web script solution would be a good one because it deals with both at the same time. Yet I'd prefer something that use the ships's high slots, and could be fitted on a frig, to reduce the boost of targetted ship MWD. ------------------------------------------
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.25 13:35:00 - [67] Edited by: Tippia on 25/06/2008 13:38:19 Originally by: Shadowsword [Fine. Then try to do the same with blasters, railguns, AC and artillery, then with light, standard, heavy and heavy assault missiles, and look what the graphs looks like. Using one weapon type to try to justify the argument and there's no issue is fallacy. …you mean the way the OP tried to do exactly that? (Except, of course, that the OP hideously misrepresented the issue since he didn't use the right numbers in his post). edit: Also, if you bring the wrong weapons to the fight, expect to lose. Blasters, railguns, AC and artillery will yield the exact same result, only at different ranges, but that would happen regardless of whether the target was nano:d or not. Missiles present a slightly diffrent matter, though…
kill0rbunny Jagdkommando RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:07:00 - [68] Edited by: kill0rbunny on 25/06/2008 14:07:10 Originally by: Shadowsword The web script solution would be a good one because it deals with both at the same time. Yet I'd prefer something that use the ships's high slots, and could be fitted on a frig, to reduce the boost of targetted ship MWD. So you think blobs of 100 should be the I-Win button against everything because no one should be able to run away from a bigger gang, amirite? Go places. Kill people.
Hannobaal Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:28:00 - [69] Originally by: FlameGlow 1. All MWD but the T1 unnamed give greater speed increase then sig increase 2. Skills and implants increase speed boost of MWD 2. Nanofibers/polycarbs increase that speed even more Take a ship and put 3 nanofibers T2 and MWD T2 on it, and look - even with no skills/implants ship goes at 7-10 times its normal speed when MWD is on, and signature is only 5 times greater. All true and all irrelevant to the subject of how people are trying to misrepresent the 4+ km/s speeds as being impossible to track with guns by going "omg, they're doing 6 km/s, you cam't hit them, nerf!!!" as if it's the same thing going at those speeds with a mwd as it is with an afterburner or as if a cruiser going at those speeds is the same thing (tracking wise) as it is for a frigate. Pretty much any turret ship smaller than a battleship (both tech 1 and tech 2) can be fit to where they can hit and do reasonable damage to fast cruiser size ships. Fit tracking mods, don't use sniping ammo, and have ships with target painters in your gang, and it is easy.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:41:00 - [70] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: FlameGlow 1. All MWD but the T1 unnamed give greater speed increase then sig increase 2. Skills and implants increase speed boost of MWD 2. Nanofibers/polycarbs increase that speed even more Take a ship and put 3 nanofibers T2 and MWD T2 on it, and look - even with no skills/implants ship goes at 7-10 times its normal speed when MWD is on, and signature is only 5 times greater. All true and all irrelevant to the subject of how people are trying to misrepresent the 4+ km/s speeds as being impossible to track with guns by going "omg, they're doing 6 km/s, you cam't hit them, nerf!!!" as if it's the same thing going at those speeds with a mwd as it is with an afterburner or as if a cruiser going at those speeds is the same thing (tracking wise) as it is for a frigate. Pretty much any turret ship smaller than a battleship (both tech 1 and tech 2) can be fit to where they can hit and do reasonable damage to fast cruiser size ships. Fit tracking mods, don't use sniping ammo, and have ships with target painters in your gang, and it is easy. In other words, change your entire fleet's make up to counter something that shouldn't be in the game in the first place?
Ulstan State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:48:00 - [71] 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. One of the very few good posts in this thread.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:50:00 - [72] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Tenuo 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. Fine. Then try to do the same with blasters, railguns, AC and artillery, then with light, standard, heavy and heavy assault missiles, and look what the graphs looks like. Using one weapon type to try to justify the argument and there's no issue is fallacy. Same with the "if you can't hit them, they can't hit you" argument. The offensive capacity of a nano isn't limited to guns, it also includes missiles, drones, tackling and EW. There's in fact two issues with nano ships. The first is too much ability to run away from what it doesn't like. I'm not saying it shouldn't at all, but currently it is far, far too easy. The second is invulnerability to ALMOST everything, the almost exluding a hanfull of very specialized ships, a small minority of weapons, and pilot stupidity. The web script solution would be a good one because it deals with both at the same time. Yet I'd prefer something that use the ships's high slots, and could be fitted on a frig, to reduce the boost of targetted ship MWD. EVE is becomming a very specialized game, we see more ships with defined roles and a very broad line of ships compared to previous times, fit for the scenario, it's what all those "nanofags" do, I can assure you, they fly battleships, alot. Counter argument this: Rails ACs Artillery is out of the question because of the inherited low tracking, and the fact that they're quite horrible. Blasters sacrifice any range for the highest dps attainable and will not be able to hit any ship at 20km no matter the tracking unless they're BS sized guns and then still they'd be in deep falloff with null. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:54:00 - [73] Originally by: FlameGlow Originally by: Hannobaal Way to completely misrepresent how tracking works while refering to the tracking guide (which you apparently didn't use or you would have known that the speed is to a very large extent counteracted by the huge sig radius increase). There is no such thing as going to fast for guns to track in terms of just the speed in of itself. A 100% increse in speed together with a 100% increse in sig radius would leave your ship just as easy to track as it was before the increase even though it is going twice as fast. Even a 10 km/s interceptor can be easily tracked by destroyer guns (long ranged ones), and a cruiser going at that speed is many, many times easier to track thanks to its huge sig radius. 1. All MWD but the T1 unnamed give greater speed increase then sig increase 550% speed increase, 550% sig radius increase 525% speed increase, 525% sig radius increase I should consider stop posting when people like you are so ill informed. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:55:00 - [74] Originally by: Tenuo Counter argument this: Rails ACs Waaait a minute, are those 2 setups nano killers ? They're not supposed to exist !! Lies, all lies covers eyes and ears lies lies lies lies lies lies lies etc .
Hannobaal Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:58:00 - [75] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: FlameGlow 1. All MWD but the T1 unnamed give greater speed increase then sig increase 2. Skills and implants increase speed boost of MWD 2. Nanofibers/polycarbs increase that speed even more Take a ship and put 3 nanofibers T2 and MWD T2 on it, and look - even with no skills/implants ship goes at 7-10 times its normal speed when MWD is on, and signature is only 5 times greater. All true and all irrelevant to the subject of how people are trying to misrepresent the 4+ km/s speeds as being impossible to track with guns by going "omg, they're doing 6 km/s, you cam't hit them, nerf!!!" as if it's the same thing going at those speeds with a mwd as it is with an afterburner or as if a cruiser going at those speeds is the same thing (tracking wise) as it is for a frigate. Pretty much any turret ship smaller than a battleship (both tech 1 and tech 2) can be fit to where they can hit and do reasonable damage to fast cruiser size ships. Fit tracking mods, don't use sniping ammo, and have ships with target painters in your gang, and it is easy. In other words, change your entire fleet's make up to counter something that shouldn't be in the game in the first place? First of all, everyone allways fits and brings ships that are suited for the task at hand. This is regardless of what the task is and what the enemy fleet is made up of. There is nothing wrong with that. Almost any ship that is useful against fast cruiser gangs is useful in most fleets: Recons (all 4 kinds) are all useful in some way or other against fast ships and are generally useful in any fleet, tech 1 EWar cruisers (all 4 of them) are all useful in some way or other against fast ships and at least 3 of them are generally useful in any fleet (Bellicose is the exception unless it is speed fitted, but then it won't be using target painters), logistics ship are useful when fighting fast ships and are useful in any fleet, light tackling ships are useful when fighting fast ships and useful in almost any fleet, ranged turret ships (Moa, Eagle, Ferox, Vulture, Brutix, Hurricane, Muninn, Harbinger, Zealot, etc. ... ) fit for range and tracking are useful against fast ships and useful in an anti-support role in almost any fleet, remote-repairing battleships are useful in your fleet when fighting fast ship gang and are useful in almost any fleet, using warrior II drones is useful when fighting fast ships and is useful as point defense to fend of light tacklers in almost any type of battle, fitting energy neutralizers is useful when fighting fast ships and useful in almost any other type battle to break the enemy ships' active tanks... And so on and so forth...
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 14:58:00 - [76] Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Tenuo Counter argument this: Rails ACs Waaait a minute, are those 2 setups nano killers ? They're not supposed to exist !! Lies, all lies covers eyes and ears lies lies lies lies lies lies lies etc 1 is a cookie cutter Hurricane the other is a rail brutix with 2 tracking enhancers, you must bring the right tools for the right job, the days of universal setups are long gone. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:00:00 - [77] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: FlameGlow 1. All MWD but the T1 unnamed give greater speed increase then sig increase 2. Skills and implants increase speed boost of MWD 2. Nanofibers/polycarbs increase that speed even more Take a ship and put 3 nanofibers T2 and MWD T2 on it, and look - even with no skills/implants ship goes at 7-10 times its normal speed when MWD is on, and signature is only 5 times greater. All true and all irrelevant to the subject of how people are trying to misrepresent the 4+ km/s speeds as being impossible to track with guns by going "omg, they're doing 6 km/s, you cam't hit them, nerf!!!" as if it's the same thing going at those speeds with a mwd as it is with an afterburner or as if a cruiser going at those speeds is the same thing (tracking wise) as it is for a frigate. Pretty much any turret ship smaller than a battleship (both tech 1 and tech 2) can be fit to where they can hit and do reasonable damage to fast cruiser size ships. Fit tracking mods, don't use sniping ammo, and have ships with target painters in your gang, and it is easy. In other words, change your entire fleet's make up to counter something that shouldn't be in the game in the first place? You could alternatively stop thinking of a fleet as a bunch of people with slightly modified mission setups in 50 drakes and 50 caracals and start fitting so that you have the advantage over the enemy. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:14:00 - [78] Originally by: Tenuo EVE is becomming a very specialized game, we see more ships with defined roles and a very broad line of ships compared to previous times, fit for the scenario, it's what all those "nanofags" do, I can assure you, they fly battleships, alot. Counter argument this: Rails ACs Artillery is out of the question because of the inherited low tracking, and the fact that they're quite horrible. Blasters sacrifice any range for the highest dps attainable and will not be able to hit any ship at 20km no matter the tracking unless they're BS sized guns and then still they'd be in deep falloff with null. Let's see what you did here... For the first graph, you use heavy pulses with scorch, which give 22k optimal and, even with the scorch penalty, more than 120% more tracking than a 250mm II rail. Yet everyone know that pulse pay their range on their "close-range" weapons with more cap and less dps than other weapon sustems. For the second graph, you used 200mm rails, even through 250mm rails are far more common, and 2 tracking mods. For the third graph, you used 3 folloff enhancing rigs. You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Your arguments aren't worth the forum bandwitch they use. PS: inserting insults in your sreens titles is an act of extreme puerility. Leave Eve, you're not mature enough for it. ------------------------------------------
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:17:00 - [79] Originally by: Shadowsword You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Why dishonest ? Is it not necessary to set up ships with the sole purpose of killing nanos? Where is the dishonest part, I don't get it. .
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:18:00 - [80] All I want is an amarr/gallente/caldari ship, with the same web range bonus as the hugginn. Then I might be able to kill nano rather than chasing it away.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:20:00 - [81] Edited by: Tenuo on 25/06/2008 15:21:14 Edited by: Tenuo on 25/06/2008 15:20:31 Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Tenuo EVE is becomming a very specialized game, we see more ships with defined roles and a very broad line of ships compared to previous times, fit for the scenario, it's what all those "nanofags" do, I can assure you, they fly battleships, alot. Counter argument this: Rails ACs Artillery is out of the question because of the inherited low tracking, and the fact that they're quite horrible. Blasters sacrifice any range for the highest dps attainable and will not be able to hit any ship at 20km no matter the tracking unless they're BS sized guns and then still they'd be in deep falloff with null. Let's see what you did here... For the first graph, you use heavy pulses with scorch, which give 22k optimal and, even with the scorch penalty, more than 120% more tracking than a 250mm II rail. Yet everyone know that pulse pay their range on their "close-range" weapons with more cap and less dps than other weapon sustems. For the second graph, you used 200mm rails, even through 250mm rails are far more common, and 2 tracking mods. For the third graph, you used 3 folloff enhancing rigs. You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Your arguments aren't worth the forum bandwitch they use. PS: inserting insults in your sreens titles is an act of extreme puerility. Leave Eve, you're not mature enough for it. For hitting high transversal stuff I'd use weapons with higher tracking tbh. And 3 falloff rigs on a hurricane are VERY common on good fittings, hurricane relies on fighting outside web range, kiting and range tanking. As i said, the times where you have omni setups for everything are long gone and you must now use the right tools for the right job. It's the same with nanoships, they're far from omni ships and even avid nano users use battleships and tanked ships in gangs. It seems like you want omni ships that can do everything, blob, kill nano ships, kill tanked ships, do RR gangs etc. PS: inserting insults in your posts are an act of extreme puerility. Leave Eve, you're not mature enough for it. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:25:00 - [82] Originally by: baltec1 All I want is an amarr/gallente/caldari ship, with the same web range bonus as the hugginn. Then I might be able to kill nano rather than chasing it away. All i want is amarr/gallente/minmatar ships with the same ECM capabilities as a falcon.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:27:00 - [83] Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: baltec1 All I want is an amarr/gallente/caldari ship, with the same web range bonus as the hugginn. Then I might be able to kill nano rather than chasing it away. All i want is amarr/gallente/minmatar ships with the same ECM capabilities as a falcon. touchT _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:31:00 - [84] All I want is to be able to switch ammunition types and be able to have a 100% effective counter to every threat, in any damage type, at any range, independent of tracking/transversal/sig radius.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:35:00 - [85] Edited by: Xparky on 25/06/2008 15:35:46 It is theoretically possible to web from 98.2km - Overheated Domination webber, on a max skilled Huginn, boosted by a max skilled claymore pilot with Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers activated. I'd say 98.2 km is pretty ****in far. .
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:43:00 - [86] Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: baltec1 All I want is an amarr/gallente/caldari ship, with the same web range bonus as the hugginn. Then I might be able to kill nano rather than chasing it away. All i want is amarr/gallente/minmatar ships with the same ECM capabilities as a falcon. touchT Think I rattled the cage with that one But seriously, Having an Amarr ship like that would save me alot of months training another races recons just so I can put a stop to running away, even if it was a BC hull.
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:52:00 - [87] Edited by: Gimpb on 25/06/2008 15:53:12 Damaging nanos really isn't a big issue, they take damage. It's not avoiding damage that makes them so tough to kill, it's the ability to easily escape anything slower and easily kill anything faster. What's a bit more of an issue is the only really effective nano tacklers are other T2 cruisers... that's not so good. IMO, assault frigates being to regular frigates what hacs are to cruisers would go a long way toward resolving this issue. I think people in general just think nanos have too much combat capability to have the survivability of a cov ops / force recon, but maybe they're just missing their natural predator? Someone suggested letting warp disruptors reduce mwd effectiveness and that might work, but would probably be too big of a kick in the jibblies, although having bubbles prevent a quick MWD back to the gate would probably be a good side effect. Maybe if they allowed ABs to stack at the same time? (with stacking penalties, of course) It would make ships with multiple ABs far harder to hit than MWD ships are now, but it would gut your mids to do it. This would certainly fix the issue with gallente recons--holy cow would arazu prices spike. Honestly though, I think this way would be too debilitating to the playstyle and would be too many game changes.
DefJam101 Steel Battalion Souls of Vengeance	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:34:00 - [88] Has anyone ever actually tried to argue about this? Every argument I see defending or attacking nanoships is always a bull** straw man of some type. People also seem to be acting like there are only two solutions to this problem (often in the form of a straw man; "Oh so you want us to fly battleships with 95% resists that go 100ms again? No thanks.") which is total bull** as well. Make a bloody compromise for once. I haven't seen one person actually talk about this, people just hop onto the 'nano-side' or the 'tank-side' and start flaming each other. Some suggestions from me.. To the 'nano haters': You need to start taking the cost of a nano ship into account, as well as how quickly they can die if they make a mistake or lag. Battles do not take place in a vacuum, and strange things can happen. You should also start trying to find some statistics on the survivability of nanoships, as a common complaint is that they rarely ever die; just how much money do you save by flying a nanoship? To the 'nano supporters': You need to start going more in-depth with your explanations and realizing that it is not as black & white of a situation as you make it out to be. The same excuses seem to be made every time people bring up nanoships (rapiers, neuts, faction webs, tracking enhancements), when all of these counters seem to be flawed or at most semi-effective. You should look into these counters more and you might see that while some of them are, on paper, valid counters; most of them could use adjustments or even buffs in order to balance them out. For instance, giving other race's ships webbing bonuses, introducing webbing skills, or changing the way MWDs work. It's also very important to note that the solution to this 'problem', as with any real problem, is not simple and will require multiple changes to the game. Do not look for a single end-all solution to this because you will not find it and you will end up screwing up EVE even more. Try to make a compromise and change multiple aspects of the game slightly rather than taking out the golden nerf bat. ,Def Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Petwraith (mods@ccpgames) Originally by: Destiny Calling Edited by: Destiny Calling on 27/12/2006 14:40:19 edited for simplicity your idea is bad
Tae'Lin Hynd Aliastra	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:58:00 - [89] Originally by: praznimrak Hi all.Well im a nano pilot and i find that BS class and biger have to many slots to fit,i mean como on,thay can tank so much dmg,have to many mid and high slots are overpowerd.I mean it is just not fair that i canot kill bs in my interceptor.Ccp did made a bad game.Just becose batellships is big and have a lot of slots for tanking thay allways survive whan i come in interceptor.So i never kill one.I think that something have to be done.Nerf batellships please so that interceptor pilots can score some kills to.And i find it wrong that bs ships can fit so much tank and interceptor canot.That is so wrong.And than ppl who fly Bs do exploit game engine by fiting so much tank.And also nerf all that recons whit web bonusis.I mean get webed from 60km and my web on interceptor is just 10km range.that have to be changed.I mean all ship class biger than frig shoud be nerfd.Cose it just dont have sence that i canot kill no biger ship.and than how come bs wepons do so much dmg and my nano ship do not. Wait,got an idea.Maybe all eve players shoud fly nano,or beter just nerf all ships that r not nano.I mean i fly nano and i dont see why someone wants to fly Bs taht is so overpowerd:Basicly as i did decid to fly interceptor and i canot kill Bs and all biger than frig CCP shoud eliminate all other ship class and make this game fun. And ppl that can tank 40k on batelships or more.Whith implants and stuff.that just dont have sense.I did some calculations and it results that after 35 days of shoothing well tanked Bs i did make 456,9786434214 of dmg and never get Bs into less that 99% of shild.Do you see it now,it is definitly not fair.I mean something have to be done, now. Resume:If u canot kill something whith your solo ship it dose not mean that your opponent is owerpowerd.It meant that probabli you are not flying adequat ship,probably wrong fighting and lets not forget that eve is multiplayer game.That means gangs and fleets composed of diferent kind of ships whith diferent abilitis.that means strategy.And if u want to kill nano pilots find a way,improvise,be wise,Adapt,bait,use all class of ships,but please dont expect that game will change cose u want to fly one ship and win all.Be wise and find a way to fight nano ship,please. P.S. Im sory for my bad english and for all nonsens i did write QUOTED FOR THE MUTHA HUMPIN WIN HAHA this one was great!! Nerf the BS I should be able to kill in a 3 month old alt with a imicus!!
Bo Bojangles Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:07:00 - [90] Originally by: DefJam101 To the 'nano supporters': You need to start going more in-depth with your explanations and realizing that it is not as black & white of a situation as you make it out to be. The same excuses seem to be made every time people bring up nanoships (rapiers, neuts, faction webs, tracking enhancements), when all of these counters seem to be flawed or at most semi-effective. You should look into these counters more and you might see that while some of them are, on paper, valid counters; most of them could use adjustments or even buffs in order to balance them out. For instance, giving other race's ships webbing bonuses, introducing webbing skills, or changing the way MWDs work. Yeah, well, it is pretty black and white. I don't want to toot my own horn but I've fought on both sides of this nano 'problem' and while fighting nanos is different than fighting non-nanos, it simply doesn't constitute the arguments against it. Nano gangs are the culmination of alot of skill training to put into a fast ship that's a joy to fly up until the point you are webbed at which time you panic because you're about to lose over 200mil isk. And you're right,. these are the same 'excuses' over and over, but wait, they're not excuses, they're solutions that people simply won't do. Tracking mods WORK vs. nanos. Neuts WORK vs. nanos. Webs WORK vs. nanos. And hell the web should be short range, it's one of the most powerful modules in the game if not the most powerful in day-to-day pvp anyway. If they were to script webifiers, how many of you would opt for the half-range, double strength script? Yeah, damn strait you wouldn't, and after all why would you? The only ships in the game that get bonuses to web range are as fragile as glass and for good reason, webs are a dangerous thing and the only real way to get out of a web is to web in turn and mwd out, jam the webber but jamming seems to be only viable on Caldari Recons and Scorps, or destroying the webbing vessel. Upping the range of webbers would break Inties, again, so soon after they've returned to the battlefield, and probably cause no reason to purchase any hac save the Falcon and Rook whatsoever.
Apoctasy The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:07:00 - [91] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 25/06/2008 07:53:39 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. This. Boost current countermeasures instead of nerfing the ships.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:11:00 - [92] Originally by: Xparky Edited by: Xparky on 25/06/2008 15:35:46 It is theoretically possible to web from 98.2km Actually much much further is possible and has been done. Look at the officer webbers and using all reactors in the lows. Yes, this setup has been used on trinity in real pvp. But these numbers mean more and more that Rapiers/Huginns are required ships in gangs/fleets. To the extent that sometimes it is pointless to undock without enough Rapiers/Huginns in gang, ready, and with logistics to back them up.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:13:00 - [93] Originally by: ****zilla But these numbers mean more and more that Rapiers/Huginns are required* ships in gangs/fleets. Well then, better stock up while they're cheap .
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:14:00 - [94] Edited by: Shadowsword on 25/06/2008 17:14:59 Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Shadowsword You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Why dishonest ? Is it not necessary to set up ships with the sole purpose of killing nanos? Where is the dishonest part, I don't get it. That's besides the point. We're not speaking about how to fit to drive off nanos, as we already know that's possible. We're speaking about how the average pvp setup, the one you fight everyday, can or can't return fire if engaged by a nano ship. ------------------------------------------
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:17:00 - [95] Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 25/06/2008 17:14:59 Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Shadowsword You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Why dishonest ? Is it not necessary to set up ships with the sole purpose of killing nanos? Where is the dishonest part, I don't get it. That's besides the point. We're not speaking about how to fit to drive off nanos, as we already know that's possible. We're speaking about how the average pvp setup, the one you fight everyday, can or can't return fire if engaged by a nano ship. Well i dont know about you but the everyday small gang i am in dont fear nanos more than any other type of fleet.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:25:00 - [96] Originally by: Shadowsword That's besides the point. We're not speaking about how to fit to drive off nanos, as we already know that's possible. We're speaking about how the average pvp setup, the one you fight everyday, can or can't return fire if engaged by a nano ship. I get it now, you're talking about 1v1 multi role setup. Well then ... where should I start ... .
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:34:00 - [97] Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Shadowsword That's besides the point. We're not speaking about how to fit to drive off nanos, as we already know that's possible. We're speaking about how the average pvp setup, the one you fight everyday, can or can't return fire if engaged by a nano ship. I get it now, you're talking about 1v1 multi role setup. Well then ... where should I start ... My neut geddon is useless for killing nano. They just scatter from my path and stare at me with a mixture of fear and loathing.
Tae'Lin Hynd Aliastra	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:58:00 - [98] Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 25/06/2008 17:14:59 Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Shadowsword You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Why dishonest ? Is it not necessary to set up ships with the sole purpose of killing nanos? Where is the dishonest part, I don't get it. That's besides the point. We're not speaking about how to fit to drive off nanos, as we already know that's possible. We're speaking about how the average pvp setup, the one you fight everyday, can or can't return fire if engaged by a nano ship. by that logic, all the caldari recons, scorp AND THE BB are WAY OVERPOWERED as now I can longer return fire, right? Oh wait, lets not forget that nasty lil ew frig of theirs as well.
Tae'Lin Hynd Aliastra	Posted - 2008.06.25 18:04:00 - [99] Also, one other thing, you can't complain about nano setups, they follow the most basic rule of nature. Fight or Flight.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 18:07:00 - [100] Originally by: Tae'Lin Hynd by that logic, all the caldari recons, scorp AND THE BB are WAY OVERPOWERED as now I can longer return fire, right? Oh wait, lets not forget that nasty lil ew frig of theirs as well. Actually many would argue this precisely. ECM needs some sort of stacking penalty.
DefJam101 Steel Battalion Souls of Vengeance	Posted - 2008.06.25 19:01:00 - [101] Originally by: Bo Bojangles Originally by: DefJam101 To the 'nano supporters': You need to start going more in-depth with your explanations and realizing that it is not as black & white of a situation as you make it out to be. The same excuses seem to be made every time people bring up nanoships (rapiers, neuts, faction webs, tracking enhancements), when all of these counters seem to be flawed or at most semi-effective. You should look into these counters more and you might see that while some of them are, on paper, valid counters; most of them could use adjustments or even buffs in order to balance them out. For instance, giving other race's ships webbing bonuses, introducing webbing skills, or changing the way MWDs work. Yeah, well, it is pretty black and white. I don't want to toot my own horn but I've fought on both sides of this nano 'problem' and while fighting nanos is different than fighting non-nanos, it simply doesn't constitute the arguments against it. Nano gangs are the culmination of alot of skill training to put into a fast ship that's a joy to fly up until the point you are webbed at which time you panic because you're about to lose over 200mil isk. And you're right,. these are the same 'excuses' over and over, but wait, they're not excuses, they're solutions that people simply won't do. Tracking mods WORK vs. nanos. Neuts WORK vs. nanos. Webs WORK vs. nanos. Again I don't think it is as black & white as you make it sound, all of these things are possible ways to scare off nano ships, not to kill them. If you web a nano he can still MWD out range and probably warp long before you can slow him down to normal speed. The counter to this is to have a nano webber, of course, but I'm not sure that creating more nano ships can be called a 'solution' to the nano problem. Tracking mods work for doing damage, but does not stop the ship from escaping. Neutralizers are probably the best in-game counter to nanoships as of now, the problem is that only BS neutralizers have the range required to stop a nanoship, and a good nanoship will simply warp out if they get neutralized. If you're saying that you can kill a nano ship through the use of any of these tactics alone, I really don't know what to say to you at this point. Of course, a combination of these different tactics is probably the best way to go... but multiple drawbacks occur just from using these tactics (as with any setup): If you want to bring out a non-BS gang for extra mobility, you can't, because you do not have neutralizers to counter a nano gang. Fitting extra tracking mods for a roaming gang may compromise your ability to tank damage, which can be crucial for a small non-nano gang. Lastly, fitting webbing nano ships does not solve the problem at all, because you are just using a nano gang to counter another nano gang. A key counter-point is that people often ignore is the cost of all this. Most nano ships cost hundreds of millions of iskies. The common argument is that a ship that cost so much can afford to run and survive to see another day. This is true, in a way, but I don't see how we can measure how much 'invulnerability' should cost. Nano ships are (IMHO) on the opposite end of the spectrum from faction battleships and the like; they spend a **load of money to be able to do tons of damage and get kills, in hopes of escaping to fight another day. Nano ships spend a large amount of money to kill ships that cannot fight a nanoship, and run whenever they find something that can. Where you draw the line between tactics and cowardice is up to the player I guess. Some people think that the 'spirit' of EVE PvP should be about committing to a fight and paying the price, some don't. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Petwraith (mods@ccpgames) Originally by:** Destiny Calling Edited by: Destiny Calling on 27/12/2006 14:40:19 edited for simplicity your idea is bad
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.25 19:13:00 - [102] Originally by: Tae'Lin Hynd Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 25/06/2008 17:14:59 Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Shadowsword You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Why dishonest ? Is it not necessary to set up ships with the sole purpose of killing nanos? Where is the dishonest part, I don't get it. That's besides the point. We're not speaking about how to fit to drive off nanos, as we already know that's possible. We're speaking about how the average pvp setup, the one you fight everyday, can or can't return fire if engaged by a nano ship. by that logic, all the caldari recons, scorp AND THE BB are WAY OVERPOWERED as now I can longer return fire, right? Oh wait, lets not forget that nasty lil ew frig of theirs as well. I doubt those ships would be able to kill me in 1v1, either. But you're still not understanding what I said. My comment was to illustrate my point that nano setups currently don't have anything to fear from most ships setups currently used. And all they sacrifice is a bit of dps. They don't sacrifice their tank when 2 LSE II give them 9k shield, and the huge advantage insane speed gives them, both in survivability and moving/flexibility is just too huge for having as only price 20% or so dps, compared to classic mwd/tank/dps setups. ------------------------------------------
Karlemgne Tides Of War	Posted - 2008.06.25 19:17:00 - [103] Originally by: Katashi I**uka 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. You've never run into a snaked/faction fit nano-gang boosted by a Claymore, have you?
Tae'Lin Hynd Aliastra	Posted - 2008.06.25 19:20:00 - [104] Edited by: Tae''Lin Hynd on 25/06/2008 19:23:33 Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Tae'Lin Hynd Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 25/06/2008 17:14:59 Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Shadowsword You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Why dishonest ? Is it not necessary to set up ships with the sole purpose of killing nanos? Where is the dishonest part, I don't get it. That's besides the point. We're not speaking about how to fit to drive off nanos, as we already know that's possible. We're speaking about how the average pvp setup, the one you fight everyday, can or can't return fire if engaged by a nano ship. by that logic, all the caldari recons, scorp AND THE BB are WAY OVERPOWERED as now I can longer return fire, right? Oh wait, lets not forget that nasty lil ew frig of theirs as well. I doubt those ships would be able to kill me in 1v1, either. But you're still not understanding what I said. My comment was to illustrate my point that nano setups currently don't have anything to fear from most ships setups currently used. And all they sacrifice is a bit of dps. They don't sacrifice their tank when 2 LSE II give them 9k shield, and the huge advantage insane speed gives them, both in survivability and moving/flexibility is just too huge for having as only price 20% or so dps, compared to classic mwd/tank/dps setups. But it doesn't have to kill you, it can flee, and the caldari ships can pick the place and time to fight, isn't that what everyone is cryin on, the ability for them not to commit to the fight that they started? I have seen this many times by being jammed by the random BB. Why should a BB be able to jam my t2 ship? why should the scorp be able to disengage from a fight with me? Why should the kits be able to jam a carrier, BS, hac anything? far more counters to the nano hac then to the caldari jammers.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.25 19:22:00 - [105] Edited by: Haakelen on 25/06/2008 19:25:10 Originally by: Karlemgne Originally by: Katashi I**uka 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. You've never run into a snaked/faction fit nano-gang boosted by a Claymore, have you? reading, it's fundamental e: also, that is not very common
Gamesguy Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.25 21:07:00 - [106] Originally by: Karlemgne Originally by: Katashi I**uka 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. You've never run into a snaked/faction fit nano-gang boosted by a Claymore, have you? Neither have you, because they don't exist. Even the biggest nanofag corp in THE nanofag alliance didn't have every one in snakes, or even close to it, and I flew with these guys.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.25 21:33:00 - [107] Originally by: Bo Bojangles And hell the web should be short range, it's one of the most powerful modules in the game if not the most powerful in day-to-day pvp anyway. If they were to script webifiers, how many of you would opt for the half-range, double strength script? Yeah, damn strait you wouldn't, and after all why would you? The only ships in the game that get bonuses to web range are as fragile as glass and for good reason, webs are a dangerous thing and the only real way to get out of a web is to web in turn and mwd out, jam the webber but jamming seems to be only viable on Caldari Recons and Scorps, or destroying the webbing vessel. Upping the range of webbers would break Inties, again, so soon after they've returned to the battlefield, and probably cause no reason to purchase any hac save the Falcon and Rook whatsoever. The easy answer to this concern would be to allow again afterburners and MWD to be fitted, and prevent their use at the same time. When CCP designed Eve, Afterburner were meant for that purpose, and MWD were for charging or running away, not for orbiting... ------------------------------------------
Gamesguy Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.25 21:38:00 - [108] Originally by: Shadowsword The easy answer to this concern would be to allow again afterburners and MWD to be fitted, and prevent their use at the same time. When CCP designed Eve, Afterburner were meant for that purpose, and MWD were for charging or running away, not for orbiting... How do you know this, are you a dev? Do you have a quote from ccp stating this is so? When eve was first made guns had perfect tracking and never missed and neither did missiles, unless you went above 3km/s, which was the magical number as all missiles autofailed after you reach that speed. So since the conception of eve, mwd has been meant to be used to avoid damage.
LittleTerror Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2008.06.25 23:14:00 - [109] Tracking comps + Target painter + mega pulse + skillpoints > nano ships
Guillame Herschel The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.06.25 23:24:00 - [110] Originally by: Jeckes P.S. even 6k receives a very nice 1% chance to hit, 1 DPS rating in the tracking guide. stupid nubs. You might have a point if we played Tracking Guide. But we play EVE. So you have no point at all. *-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then* --**
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.25 23:33:00 - [111] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Xparky Why dishonest? Is it not necessary to set up ships with the sole purpose of killing nanos? Where is the dishonest part, I don't get it. That's besides the point. We're not speaking about how to fit to drive off nanos, as we already know that's possible. We're speaking about how the average pvp setup, the one you fight everyday, can or can't return fire if engaged by a nano ship. No, it is not besides the point – it is the entire point. You set your ship up to counter what you expect to meet. If you meet something else, you're screwed. Multi-role, middle-of-the-road setups will come out poorly no matter what they encounter, because – by very definition – they're not properly prepared to deal all that well with anything. If you're going after Caldari, do you try to fit something that deals non-kinetic damage, or you do you charge headlong into battle with weapons with a damage that Caldari ships excel at absorbing? WHen their shields resist 90% of your damage, do you come to the forums demanding a kinetic-resist nerf, or do you (at least attempt to) switch to EM damage?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 00:26:00 - [112] Edited by: ***zilla on 26/06/2008 00:26:21 Originally by: Tippia You set your ship up to counter what you expect to meet. If you meet something else, you're screwed. So what are nanos setup to counter? Everything? How many specialized setups are there for nano? One cookie cutter fitting for speed with very minor variation... Originally by: Tippia Multi-role, middle-of-the-road setups will come out poorly no matter what they encounter, because û by very definition û they're not properly prepared to deal all that well with anything. And yet nanos do so well with their one size fits all. How many times have you heard someone asking to dock up so they can switch ecm,target painters,disrupters, webs, or really much of anything? The issue is that non nanos must make hard decisions to annoy and drive off nanos. Nanos can use the same setup everywhere. If nanos meet something they can't handle they're much more likely to escape and fight another day. Before I flew nanos I had to make decisions about fittings that were specific to the scenerio. Now I decide if I want to use a few faction or t2 mods. Makes outfitting easy. Nanos are a beautiful thing to fly. No reason for everyone to not be flying nanos.
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.06.26 00:46:00 - [113] Edited by: Esmenet on 26/06/2008 00:49:03 Originally by: ***zilla And yet nanos do so well with their one size fits all. No they just have a bigger chance to run away if they are stupid enough to run into a bigger blob. Quote:** The issue is that non nanos must make hard decisions to annoy and drive off nanos. Like what have recons in your gangs or some neuts?? You are right noone would ever want recons in their gangs if not to stop nanos.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 00:56:00 - [114] Originally by: Esmenet Like what have recons in your gangs or some neuts?? Ah, thats why recons are in such high demand. They required for so many gangs. And the 2 best to counter nanos are the Huginn/Rapier which are nearly always ... nano'd. Neuts are one of the few realistic counters to nanos. Except they're useful on battleships only. So we need nanos to effectively kill nanos.
Blind Man Point Blank Carebears	Posted - 2008.06.26 01:18:00 - [115] and the person shooting at you at over NINE THOUSAND m/s transversal hits you HOW?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 01:26:00 - [116] Originally by: Blind Man and the person shooting at you at over NINE THOUSAND m/s transversal hits you HOW? a) points you and calls friends b) missiles c) drones The nano is likely to be setup for the speed, range, and travesal. For example a vaga might want to hit at 20km and have rigs for this. As the nano controls the speed and distance the nano can adjust till the nano can exceed your damage. If it goes wrong the nano has a much greater chance of escape. As they've a definite advantage in speed they control the conflict. They can slow down till the're in a position to do damage. When threatened a nano has a superior chance of getting out of scram range and warping off.
Megan Maynard Out of Order	Posted - 2008.06.26 01:26:00 - [117] Originally by: Jeckes 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. Do you realize the amount of effort it takes to get a ship to 11k? QFT.
ShardowRhino Legion 0f The Damned	Posted - 2008.06.26 02:07:00 - [118] 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! i back that 100%. There SHOULD be a class of ships that get a bonus to web range. Not just 1 t2 ship for 1 particular race. EVERY race should have such a ship. That way we can get all the Caldari recon skilled pilots into a webrange bonus ship, all the gal and Amarr recon pilots as well. CCP should increase the range of neutralizers. The Small and mediums are pathetic and not everyone wants to fly a BS. What would also add to this is either creating various models of webs with various ranges and strength of effect or create scripts so that we can change the range at will. Eve isn't about how much isk you can sink into a ship, your level of isk should give you 100% chance of winning or being able to escape as though you had a full rack of prenerf warpstabs fitted. eve should be about fitting your ship right. Theres absolutely NOTHING wrong when 99% of the different setups can't touch you. Nothing wrong where you can beat all but those that fit specifically to beat your set up but is somehow weak against the other 99% of set ups out there. Nothing wrong with the idea that the 1% of setups that can beat you are only able to make you run off since they can't catch you. nano-safe mode. I to would like to buy a full rack of prenerf warpstabs for my ships so i wont have to worry about losing another ship ever again unless i forget to do 2 simple things. I also want my "invulnerability" sheild hardners to do as they suggest and make sure no one can do damage to me UNless i do something stupid or happen to go afk in the middle of a fight.
Siege Siegecraft Bounty Hunting	Posted - 2008.06.26 02:18:00 - [119] There are lots of ways to eliminate transversal without crazy setups, as by definition it's their movement related to your movement. If you sit still and let him orbit you at close range, yeah.... he's going to be tough to hit. If you start getting some speed and maneuvering, and 1-2km/s can make a big difference here if you're both maneuvering, then it starts getting interesting because there will be spots that the range will close or the transversal will drop. Then your neuts, webs and all those goodies really start to hurt. Then, also consider engaging from range. Drive them out to 20-30km+ and the situation starts to change. If you're in a 20 ship group, and split it apart by 50km or more.... they can't engage either half without getting some low-transversal fire from the other side. Push it to the extreme with a 200km split between sniper BS groups, and you WILL get some good hits in there. A single good salvo from a maelstrom WILL kill most nano setups. Sentry drones can be a nasty surprise, as the normal nano-instinct is to run away from drones, which in this case will make the drones more effective. Particularly if you move away from the drones at a decent speed. Or just deploy them a good distance away from you. What about all them fancy ECM Caldari boats of all sizes? Amarr get that nifty neut range bonus. Tracking disruptors. Target painters. Tracking enhancers and remote tracking enhancers. Get outside of the mindset of one big blob sitting still, and that the biggest guns and ships should always win. There are a lot of effective tools and tactics out there. Use them. ------ begin signature ----- Little known Eve fact, The original race names were: Amarr Empire, Caldar Empire, Minmatar Republic, The Jovians, and The Remanaquie Federation.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.26 02:38:00 - [120] Originally by: ShardowRhino There SHOULD be a class of ships that get a bonus to web range. Not just 1 t2 ship for 1 particular race. EVERY race should have such a ship. Just as soon as I get Minmatar ships that are as good at jamming as the Falcon and Rook, as good at cap warfare/tracking disrupting as the Curse and (lol)Pilgrim and as good at being broken as the Arazu and Lachesis.
Gewurtztraminer	Posted - 2008.06.26 02:39:00 - [121] 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. This tbh. The boost does not need to be large. Right now without rigs I can get cruise up to 8k/sec in some ships. Granted this doesn't help you turret people but still, it is a viable weapon to use against all but the fastest nanoships. If I had a script for webs that extended range...mmm tasty.
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.26 06:35:00 - [122] Originally by: ***zilla So what are nanos setup to counter? Everything? That depends what you put in your high- and midslots. Quote:** How many specialized setups are there for nano? One cookie cutter fitting for speed with very minor variation... As many as there are for any other ship. You've hit on the main problem here, though: people are using cookie-cutter setups rather than thinking outside the box, and are therefore immensely predictable.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.06.26 07:29:00 - [123] Originally by: Gewurtztraminer 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. This tbh. The boost does not need to be large. Right now without rigs I can get cruise up to 8k/sec in some ships. Granted this doesn't help you turret people but still, it is a viable weapon to use against all but the fastest nanoships. If I had a script for webs that extended range...mmm tasty. No no no no NO NO NO NO. Ships in EVE are not, I repeate not based around counters. Wtf is a counter to a sniper fleet sitting at 160km? If you say anything other than your own sniper fleet + dictors then you are a complete nooblet at 0.0 warfare. You don't use short ranged BS because you will get bubbled and then owned by the opposing sniper fleet. A far simpler exmaple is what is the counter to a passive tanked megathron. You use ecm + prayer and damage to destroy it. A bb does not counter a megathron, it does a role of jamming, a hurricane doesn't counter a megathron, it does the role of gank dps. Nanoships do the role of hit and run ships and heavy tackler. They do not do PvP very well, versus any credible well setup fleet they will run like chickens. Just because you brought a big blob, that does not entitle you to bbq every opposing ship. Completely faulty logic here. Nano-ships are D E S I G N E D to avoid tackle. They are the pinnacle of hit and run ships. A key part of a hit and run ship is the run. They are designed to harass and annoying the living **** out of you. Nanoships can pick their battles and simply don't pick the ones in which they might lose. They all eventually die and in far greater numbers and die to non-nano ships all the time. I have seen a nano-rapier get killed by 3 t1 tanked frigates and a 7B+ mach die to a myrmidon so don't tell me nano-ships are invincible. You need to explain to me why hit and run tactics are broken, as without a hit and run style of play you are reduced to gate camp blobs with no other way for a smaller force to fight back or avoid said blob. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.26 08:00:00 - [124] Originally by: Vaal Erit Completely faulty logic here. Nano-ships are D E S I G N E D to avoid tackle. They are the pinnacle of hit and run ships. A key part of a hit and run ship is the run. They are designed to harass and annoying the living **** out of you. Nanoships can pick their battles and simply don't pick the ones in which they might lose. They all eventually die and in far greater numbers and die to non-nano ships all the time. I have seen a nano-rapier get killed by 3 t1 tanked frigates and a 7B+ mach die to a myrmidon so don't tell me nano-ships are invincible. You need to explain to me why hit and run tactics are broken, as without a hit and run style of play you are reduced to gate camp blobs with no other way for a smaller force to fight back or avoid said blob. Nanoships were never designed to avoid tackle. They never were designed in the first place. They only came avalable due to a unforseen fix to I-stabs, Nanofibers and overdrives, which, before then, were almost never used. Also Low Friction Nozzle rigs (which CCP removed from every players ship!) made even typhoons go 10k/sec (20k/sec+ with pimp gear) There is nothing wrong with nano, but seriously, you cannot expect people to use 10km scramblers in pvp. And in nano, 10km webs are pretty much the same thing. How would pvp look if all scramblers were 10km and every gang needed several Arazus otherwise it is pointless undocking? See the problem there? Issue is not nano. Issue is tackling nano is very limited. I know this because I have been doing nano myself for so long. Anyone can look up my nanoship stats and see how stupidly high they are (and hardly any of these are ratter kills, most in small gang outnumbered) Solution is not nerfing nano. Rather, make it more realistic to tackle nanoships. Low power, but longer range web scripts is the solution in my opinion. -- Billion Isk Mission
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.26 08:08:00 - [125] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Shadowsword The easy answer to this concern would be to allow again afterburners and MWD to be fitted, and prevent their use at the same time. When CCP designed Eve, Afterburner were meant for that purpose, and MWD were for charging or running away, not for orbiting... How do you know this, are you a dev? Do you have a quote from ccp stating this is so? When eve was first made guns had perfect tracking and never missed and neither did missiles, unless you went above 3km/s, which was the magical number as all missiles autofailed after you reach that speed. So since the conception of eve, mwd has been meant to be used to avoid damage. I known this because I've played long enough to have been around when CCP did regular dev chats, and it's in one of them that Oveur or TomB stated this, a few years ago. You can search the archives if you wish. Yes, missile and guns mechanics were screwed up back then, and still are to some extent. Doesn't change CCP's intent, however... ------------------------------------------
AKULA UrQuan Druuge Crimson Corporation	Posted - 2008.06.26 08:15:00 - [126] "Propellant injection vents" where removed. We still have "low friction nozzle joints". Put polycarbs inline with nanofibers and see how it plays out before doing crazy stuff that might cause even more problems lateron.
Allen Ramses Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.06.26 08:23:00 - [127] OK, after looking at all the problems with nanoships, and reflecting where their problems may lie, I just now came to a realization. There's one issue I think the anti-nano crowd are overlooking. Nanoships have already been nerfed back into balance. They were broken, CCP decided to fix them. The pro-nano crowd has been saying this all along... However, what everyone seems to forget was that the fix to nanoships occurred before rigs were introduced. Three Polycarbon rigs are able to take off just under 1/3 of the ship's mass, something that was previously reserved for nanofibers. By using three polycarbons, three very valuable low slots are now freed. These are usually filled with three overdrives, or two overdrives and an iStab. Something that was previously not possible. By utilizing rigs, a pilot may add three low or midslots in any ship, and in any way they so choose. This effectively destroys the low/mid/high balance of every ship in the game. The problem is also evident in passive shield tanking. They were fine before purgers were introduced. Now they can permatank more than twice that of a Battleship's active tank (see sig). I didn't ever realize a Drake was supposed to have seven low slots. But now I do, thanks to CCP and their brilliant decision to bring rigs into the game. With the introduction of rigs, minor imbalances (read: nano, passive tanking, quick cap recharge, etc) are amplified to become extremely significant imbalances (zOMG NANO!, WTF I CANT BREAK ITS TANK?!, HE JUST KEEPS ON NEUTING ME FOREVER!!). Nano is the hot thing right now, just as passive tanks were the issue before the recharge nerf (actually, they still are). So after all, I guess I was wrong about nanos not being the problem. I know I'm gonna royally ** everyone off with this statement, but the solution is clear. CCP must nerf rig slots like nothing else they have ever nerfed before. Braces himself for the burning inferno of many angry flames ** ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless.
Market AltLOLOLOLO	Posted - 2008.06.26 09:08:00 - [128] 4 Nano vaga's can do 1300dps and can move around anyware without a problem. 1300 DPS will kill pretty much any ship out there that is not a carrier (and some 2-3 man nano vagagangs have killed carriers as well!)
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.26 09:39:00 - [129] Originally by: ****zilla Edited by: ****zilla on 26/06/2008 00:26:21 Originally by: Tippia You set your ship up to counter what you expect to meet. If you meet something else, you're screwed. So what are nanos setup to counter? Everything? How many specialized setups are there for nano? One cookie cutter fitting for speed with very minor variation... Originally by: Tippia Multi-role, middle-of-the-road setups will come out poorly no matter what they encounter, because û by very definition û they're not properly prepared to deal all that well with anything. And yet nanos do so well with their one size fits all. How many times have you heard someone asking to dock up so they can switch ecm,target painters,disrupters, webs, or really much of anything? The issue is that non nanos must make hard decisions to annoy and drive off nanos. Nanos can use the same setup everywhere. If nanos meet something they can't handle they're much more likely to escape and fight another day. Before I flew nanos I had to make decisions about fittings that were specific to the scenerio. Now I decide if I want to use a few faction or t2 mods. Makes outfitting easy. Nanos are a beautiful thing to fly. No reason for everyone to not be flying nanos. Nanos don't snipe Nanos dont remote rep Nanos dont ... bla bla you get the drift, even the biggest nanofag corps and alliances in the game use battleships and other types of ships often, saying EVERYONE flies nanoship is so full of fail that it's beyond comprehension. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.26 09:41:00 - [130] Edited by: Shadowsword on 26/06/2008 09:41:54 Originally by: AKULA UrQuan "Propellant injection vents" where removed. We still have "low friction nozzle joints". Put polycarbs inline with nanofibers and see how it plays out before doing crazy stuff that might cause even more problems lateron. I'd agree with that... If ccp was actually serious when it comes to fixing things. But when they take anywhere from 6 months to two years to actually patch the issue, I don't want them to just do an half-assed fix that will solve nothing, then wait forever until they try it again. 10% more mass will inprove things a bit, but not nearly enough to put nano setups back into balance. And, given the time CCP takes thinking about how to fix it, "crazy stuff", like you call it, ought to not happen often... Earthrise in coming out in 2009, and it looks more and more like a concentrate of Eve's spirit and intended gameplay in a mmofps form. CCP has better get things fixed faster before it come out, or a lot of it's customers will try that other game. Because let's be honest about it, current pvp in eve is riddled with issues, form lag to capital blobs, from nano to docking aggro, and so on... ------------------------------------------
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.26 09:45:00 - [131] Originally by: Gewurtztraminer 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. This tbh. The boost does not need to be large. Right now without rigs I can get cruise up to 8k/sec in some ships. Granted this doesn't help you turret people but still, it is a viable weapon to use against all but the fastest nanoships. If I had a script for webs that extended range...mmm tasty. Turrets are fine, refer to my previous posts where I outline this against several types of cookie cutter setups with 3% implants and Zors, all going over 4k. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Morux	Posted - 2008.06.26 11:11:00 - [132] Just out of curiosity, how are drones at taking out nano ships? I'm not much of a PvPer, but my drones are nearly maxed and a set of 5 Warrior IIs and a ship fitted with a few Drone-Navi Computers push them to nearly a blur on the screen. I'd be surprised to see any ship outrun em... are they effective at all against nanos?
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.26 11:21:00 - [133] Edited by: Tippia on 26/06/2008 11:21:43 Originally by: Morux Just out of curiosity, how are drones at taking out nano ships? I'm not much of a PvPer, but my drones are nearly maxed and a set of 5 Warrior IIs and a ship fitted with a few Drone-Navi Computers push them to nearly a blur on the screen. I'd be surprised to see any ship outrun em... are they effective at all against nanos? From what I've seen, maxed Warrior II:s can keep up with most standard nanos – the more insane ones will still outrun them though. The problem is more that they can have issues with actually getting in a good firing position and that, even then, they do rather pityful damage. Also, since they never get the chance to orbit their target, they follow it around in a rather static (but fast) little cloud, making them fairly easy to shoot down.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.26 11:46:00 - [134] Originally by: Vaal Erit I have seen a nano-rapier get killed by 3 t1 tanked frigates I was a part of that kill http://killboard.heretic-nation.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=2553 Here it is. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba The Requiem	Posted - 2008.06.26 11:49:00 - [135] all fail nanowhine poasters should burn in the pit of dispare and have their clones changed to jita
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:33:00 - [136] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Tenuo EVE is becomming a very specialized game, we see more ships with defined roles and a very broad line of ships compared to previous times, fit for the scenario, it's what all those "nanofags" do, I can assure you, they fly battleships, alot. Counter argument this: Rails ACs Artillery is out of the question because of the inherited low tracking, and the fact that they're quite horrible. Blasters sacrifice any range for the highest dps attainable and will not be able to hit any ship at 20km no matter the tracking unless they're BS sized guns and then still they'd be in deep falloff with null. Let's see what you did here... Apparently not. He said you have to specialize! Read the first sentence. Then he presented two more specialist ships that would excel at their role. Originally by: Shadowsword You are dishonest. Instead of taking average parameter, you deliberately slanted your "tests" with unrealist parameters to support your claims. Your arguments aren't worth the forum bandwitch they use. He's being completely honest and forthright, you just misinterpreted. A real character would only do 10% less well. There are no faction mods. In what way are the setups unrealistic? [irony] Originally by: Shadowsword PS: inserting insults in your sreens titles is an act of extreme puerility. Leave Eve, you're not mature enough for it. [/irony] - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:51:00 - [137] Edited by: Xaen on 26/06/2008 20:55:46 Originally by: Xparky It is theoretically possible to web from 98.2km - Overheated Domination webber, on a max skilled Huginn, boosted by a max skilled claymore pilot with Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers activated. I'd say 98.2 km is pretty **in far. You can beat that for less ISK and no friends with this nano ship nightmare. It's expensive, but not as much as a claymore + mindlink + friend. And it's utterly realistic, not theorycraft like a claymore pilot. In fact it's using this character's skills. Recon V would have it webbing out to 156km! - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Elendril Helas Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.06.26 21:55:00 - [138] Edited by: Elendril Helas on 26/06/2008 22:01:44 I think this whole discussion is moot. I'm just throwing this idea out there to see what others say about it. Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned comparing AF's to HAC's, and I can see some parallels. You don't have nano fits for AF's. This is probably because there's no point in nano-fitting an AF instead of an inty, but general consensus (as far as I can see) is that AF's are useless because, although they have great tanks and good damage, they don't tank as well or do nearly as much damage as a cruiser, while being too slow and easy to hit. This makes them cannonfodder for cruisers and thus useless. HAC's seem to have a similar problem. While they have great resists and can do great damage, a well-fitted PvP BC will have a much better tank while doing similar damage (actually, much of this is conjecture, feel free to provide setups to support or refute it). So you have a 100+m ship, not including fittings, which can perform as well as a BC, which 1) costs a fraction and 2) is fully insurable (and in some cases, such as the brutix, you will even make a profit). What other ship type uses high speeds and high transversal to avoid damage in order to protect an investment? Interceptors (well, they used to be worth quite a bit more). Ignoring for a moment that they're meant to be this damned fast, it's a great way to protect your uninsurable ship, and it so happens to be a viable setup on HAC's and recons because of the abundance of lowslots, aswell as the usage of implants and rigs. Of course, there remains the question of whether nanofibers/OD's/etc. should allow a cruiser to move faster than T1 frigates (or AF's for that matter) with MWD's, which to me seems a bit strange. It just seems to me like the current mass/agility/velocity/MWD system is a bit out of whack if a cruiser can hit 4km/s or faster. But that may just be me. Dunno. In the end, I just think CCP needs to look at HAC's/AF's and decide what the intended role is ... although I think that's useless too, because as long as nano is a viable setup, it's here to stay unless CCP decides to wield the nerfbat ... or good, effective counters are actually shown to be good and effective (you know, I'd like to see some videos of anti-nano gangs, maybe that would silence whiners and give them something to learn from). The utility of a nano-setup is simply too great ... pick your fights and run from the ones you can't win. Who doesn't want that much control over combat? Wait, I just scrolled through the first three pages on the general forum ... since when did nano-setups become such a big problem? >_> Big woosh here, tbfh. Originally by: Rod Blaine I could kill that impoc with a normal dominix. Posted - 2005.09.18 16:02:00
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 22:03:00 - [139] Originally by: Elendril Helas but general consensus (as far as I can see) is that AF's are useless because, although they have great tanks I stopped reading here.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.26 22:04:00 - [140] Originally by: Tenuo 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. Ummm... yea... invincible... whats the opt range on a heavy pulse II? LOL Take you and your alt and die. You proved nothing. What nano would come that close in the first place? --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.26 22:13:00 - [141] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Ummm... yea... invincible... whats the opt range on a heavy pulse II? LOL Take you and your alt and die. You proved nothing. What nano would come that close in the first place? You really didn't read that post well, did you? Let's quote the interesting bit again: Originally by: Tenuo 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.
Gamesguy Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.26 22:17:00 - [142] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Shadowsword The easy answer to this concern would be to allow again afterburners and MWD to be fitted, and prevent their use at the same time. When CCP designed Eve, Afterburner were meant for that purpose, and MWD were for charging or running away, not for orbiting... How do you know this, are you a dev? Do you have a quote from ccp stating this is so? When eve was first made guns had perfect tracking and never missed and neither did missiles, unless you went above 3km/s, which was the magical number as all missiles autofailed after you reach that speed. So since the conception of eve, mwd has been meant to be used to avoid damage. I known this because I've played long enough to have been around when CCP did regular dev chats, and it's in one of them that Oveur or TomB stated this, a few years ago. You can search the archives if you wish. Yes, missile and guns mechanics were screwed up back then, and still are to some extent. Doesn't change CCP's intent, however... Why should I waste my time to prove your point for you? Provide links to these quotes or stfu.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.26 22:34:00 - [143] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Pithecanthropus Ummm... yea... invincible... whats the opt range on a heavy pulse II? LOL Take you and your alt and die. You proved nothing. What nano would come that close in the first place? You really didn't read that post well, did you? Let's quote the interesting bit again: Originally by: Tenuo 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. Yea, put missiles into that factor. Do shield and armor tanks completely make and entire weapon base non-existant? What Tenou tries to disprove is irrelevant, because nano's do not behave that way. And it still doesn't take into account that the nano is constantly altering course, moving at varying distances, and can run at any time. Its a flawed presentaion, and proves nothing more than what we all ready know by in game experience... nanos are broken. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Hannobaal Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.26 22:40:00 - [144] Originally by: Pithecanthropus whats the opt range on a heavy pulse II? LOL Take you and your alt and die. You proved nothing. What nano would come that close in the first place? Scorch They're nice. Or you could have actually followed his link and seen the dps graph and the ranges in question before posting, instead of looking like an idiot.
Hannobaal Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.26 22:45:00 - [145] Originally by: Elendril Helas Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned comparing AF's to HAC's, and I can see some parallels. You don't have nano fits for AF's. This is probably because there's no point in nano-fitting an AF instead of an inty, No, that's not the reason. The reason is that assault ships are incredibly super ******* heavy for their hull size.
Steel Tigeress Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.06.27 03:43:00 - [146] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Shadowsword The easy answer to this concern would be to allow again afterburners and MWD to be fitted, and prevent their use at the same time. When CCP designed Eve, Afterburner were meant for that purpose, and MWD were for charging or running away, not for orbiting... How do you know this, are you a dev? Do you have a quote from ccp stating this is so? When eve was first made guns had perfect tracking and never missed and neither did missiles, unless you went above 3km/s, which was the magical number as all missiles autofailed after you reach that speed. So since the conception of eve, mwd has been meant to be used to avoid damage. I known this because I've played long enough to have been around when CCP did regular dev chats, and it's in one of them that Oveur or TomB stated this, a few years ago. You can search the archives if you wish. Yes, missile and guns mechanics were screwed up back then, and still are to some extent. Doesn't change CCP's intent, however... Why should I waste my time to prove your point for you? Provide links to these quotes or stfu. Because your'e the one trying to refute what a devblog thats a few years old said... I read it too and can concur that MWD's were originally intended to be use for closing distance or fleeing, while AB's were supposed to be the speed mod used during combat.
Kery Syander The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.27 04:22:00 - [147] wow, congratulations for the most factual appearing antinano whine thread. Unfortunately for you, anyone who actually plays this game and understands things like falloff, missiles, and a whole slew of other mods and their use in conjunction WITH ACTUAL TACTICS, knows that you are a complete moron. Don't worry, you have plenty of friends around here, so you're not alone. Perhaps I'll use total effective HP as the single statistic to help people understand why nano ships are highly underpowered. -----
Sliver Dragon	Posted - 2008.06.27 04:26:00 - [148] I believe this is the devblog in question? http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427 Over a year old, but it gives a perspective.
Trathen	Posted - 2008.06.27 04:40:00 - [149] Not that I have a problem with nano balance in general but I do have to point out that MWDs as a concept are intensely stupid. Its like a warp, but tiny and not really a warp because warp disruptors don't apply! Not to mention they look like afterburners and do that tunneling thing that lets you clip through planets. Did someone just slap them in the game while drunk?
Steel Tigeress Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.06.27 05:18:00 - [150] Originally by: Sliver Dragon I believe this is the devblog in question? http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427 Over a year old, but it gives a perspective. Actually I just dug that up for the Ford Escort thread that got moved to fittings forum... but its not the one that says what the intended purpose of MWD's were. The one that covers the intended role of MWD's was one that was released right around the same time MWD's were first added to the game. I just cant remember if it was patchnotes or a devblog that described the original MWD.
Herateis	Posted - 2008.06.27 05:22:00 - [151] Originally by: Sliver Dragon I believe this is the devblog in question? http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427 Over a year old, but it gives a perspective. FYP for clarity and ease of use in the link so others can see actual DEV perspectives on the game, which just so happen to coincide with all the "nanowhiners". conclusive evidence. all you nano fan boys lose.
Khorvek	Posted - 2008.06.27 06:27:00 - [152] Originally by: FlameGlow 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 doesn't that tell you something of the direction this game has headed past the scope of the intention of the developers?
Kery Syander The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.27 06:30:00 - [153] Edited by: Kery Syander on 27/06/2008 06:29:52 Originally by: Herateis Originally by: Sliver Dragon I believe this is the devblog in question? http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427 Over a year old, but it gives a perspective. FYP for clarity and ease of use in the link so others can see actual DEV perspectives on the game, which just so happen to coincide with all the "nanowhiners". conclusive evidence. all you nano fan boys lose. good point there. Maybe bringing back a devblog from the days where you could have multiple MWDs fitted to your ship would be appropriate in this discussion as well. I would tell you to stop posting, but the more idiots I have to laugh at the better. I'd go for 'srs discussion' but it's quite obvious that your tiny brain would almost certainly be overwhelmed. Well I don't want you to have read all these big words without a shiney link so here's something that might explain things in a way you'll understand: Linkage
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.27 06:30:00 - [154] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Tenuo 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. Ummm... yea... invincible... whats the opt range on a heavy pulse II? LOL Take you and your alt and die. You proved nothing. What nano would come that close in the first place? I proved that they can all be hit at scramble range, if they're outside scramble range, why don't you just warp off then? if they move closer than that to avoid damage they'll be very exposed to mwd movement + webs. Again you shot yourself in the foot Originally by: Herateis Originally by: Sliver Dragon I believe this is the devblog in question? http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427 Over a year old, but it gives a perspective. FYP for clarity and ease of use in the link so others can see actual DEV perspectives on the game, which just so happen to coincide with all the "nanowhiners". conclusive evidence. all you nano fan boys lose. Back then it was heavily needed with a nerf, battleships aren't meant to go fast, cruisers cruise, some cruise at higher speeds because it's the only way to make them worth the money I counter attack your falicious argument with this: Originally by: Jade Constantine Nano's didn't formally get raised. I had a couple of informal chats with the devs on the subject though - and they are seeing some nano use as a problem (up in the 8000mps+ bracket) where the game logic breaks down. And that ties into some comments that Mistress Suffering has made previously on these forums. But its one of these areas where the solution if anything might be pretty radical with a whole bunch of knock on effects - like buffing ab's and making them the orbit module while mwds are for burn-outs and point to point travel. Its complicated though so no idea whats going to happen there ultimately. Reminded me a bit of the buff AF's discussion where ccp were saying this is an area that might need to re-write the webifier and scrambler logic first. Its probably fair to say that "nano" usage in the 3000-4000 mps mark isn't much of a problem, whereas the snakes, polycarbs, drugs and heat fueled 8000mps+ stuff does break the game engine a bit. This wasn't something the CSM thought was a priority this time around though and it wasn't raised as a formal issue.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.27 06:31:00 - [155] Originally by: Khorvek Originally by: FlameGlow 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 doesn't that tell you something of the direction this game has headed past the scope of the intention of the developers? I came to play a sandbox game with many options, if you want to pidgeonhole every single ship in to one role even more than they are at the moment then fine, I just don't want to.
Steel Tigeress Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.06.27 06:33:00 - [156] So your reply is a quote that basically says the devs still think nano's are broken, they just dont know what to do yet because changes would affect alot of other things... way to make our case for us.
Gamesguy Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.27 06:38:00 - [157] Originally by: Herateis Originally by: Sliver Dragon I believe this is the devblog in question? http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427 Over a year old, but it gives a perspective. FYP for clarity and ease of use in the link so others can see actual DEV perspectives on the game, which just so happen to coincide with all the "nanowhiners". conclusive evidence. all you nano fan boys lose. How typical, maybe I should bring a dev blog from back when turrets had no tracking and you could fire cruise missiles out of kestrels as well? Back then nanos was overpowered because you had battleships outrunning interceptors and that can turn on a dime, deal heavy dps, and nos your opponent so he cant tank. All of the things that was talked about in the dev blog has been implemented. It talks about making overdrives percentage based, guess what they are now? It talks about propellent injection vents(the mwd speed rig), and guess what? It was removed. Mass, agility, etc are all stacking nerfed now. How about you show a definative dev blog from AFTER these changes were implemented?
Gamesguy Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.27 06:42:00 - [158] Originally by: Steel Tigeress Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Shadowsword The easy answer to this concern would be to allow again afterburners and MWD to be fitted, and prevent their use at the same time. When CCP designed Eve, Afterburner were meant for that purpose, and MWD were for charging or running away, not for orbiting... How do you know this, are you a dev? Do you have a quote from ccp stating this is so? When eve was first made guns had perfect tracking and never missed and neither did missiles, unless you went above 3km/s, which was the magical number as all missiles autofailed after you reach that speed. So since the conception of eve, mwd has been meant to be used to avoid damage. I known this because I've played long enough to have been around when CCP did regular dev chats, and it's in one of them that Oveur or TomB stated this, a few years ago. You can search the archives if you wish. Yes, missile and guns mechanics were screwed up back then, and still are to some extent. Doesn't change CCP's intent, however... Why should I waste my time to prove your point for you? Provide links to these quotes or stfu. Because your'e the one trying to refute what a devblog thats a few years old said... I read it too and can concur that MWD's were originally intended to be use for closing distance or fleeing, while AB's were supposed to be the speed mod used during combat. Devblog? What devblog? Post said devblog or stfu.
Steel Tigeress Gallente Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.06.27 06:54:00 - [159] Originally by: Gamesguy How typical, maybe I should bring a dev blog from back when turrets had no tracking and you could fire cruise missiles out of kestrels as well? Back then nanos was overpowered because you had battleships outrunning interceptors and that can turn on a dime, deal heavy dps, and nos your opponent so he cant tank. All of the things that was talked about in the dev blog has been implemented. It talks about making overdrives percentage based, guess what they are now? It talks about propellent injection vents(the mwd speed rig), and guess what? It was removed. Mass, agility, etc are all stacking nerfed now. How about you show a definative dev blog from AFTER these changes were implemented? Wow, they've ALL been implemented then? Meening when a nano warps somplace it has to commit to the fight? Oh thats right, they can still almost leave at will... so that still applies. MWD's arnt supposed to be sustainable...but they are. So that still applies. And from the link Tenuo was kind enough to post again, thinking it help the nano crowd how...I dont know. This is basically what we've been trying to find in a devblog. CCP saying MWD's are for Closing distance or fleeing, but not using during battle: Quote: But its one of these areas where the solution if anything might be pretty radical with a whole bunch of knock on effects - like buffing ab's and making them the orbit module while mwds are for burn-outs and point to point travel.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.27 07:05:00 - [160] Originally by: Steel Tigeress Wow, they've ALL been implemented then? Meening when a nano warps somplace it has to commit to the fight? Oh thats right, they can still almost leave at will... so that still applies. You mean the same way every other ship doesn't commite to a fight? You mean like RR fleets deagressing and jumping/docking, how how ECM ships jams and warps off, like how snipers warp out as soon as they get primaried/tacklers get close? Pretty much the only ships that "commite" to a fight in this game are t1 cruiser blobs, every other kind of gang do not "commite" to fights. Quote: MWD's arnt supposed to be sustainable...but they are. So that still applies. They are not sustainable, how about you look up some nano-hac builds and see how many can perma run the mwd? Quote: And from the link Tenuo was kind enough to post again, thinking it help the nano crowd how...I dont know. This is basically what we've been trying to find in a devblog. CCP saying MWD's are for Closing distance or fleeing, but not using during battle: Quote: But its one of these areas where the solution if anything might be pretty radical with a whole bunch of knock on effects - like buffing ab's and making them the orbit module while mwds are for burn-outs and point to point travel. Except thats not ccp saying it, thats some random CSM guy saying it, the same CSM that elected some random chick that doesnt speak English and wants to ban pvp. Also, nice of you not to quote the relevant parts, where CCP says its only when nanos get up to the 8km/s+ area thats when the game starts having problems. 95% of all nano-hacs/recons are far below this speed. If 8km/s hacs is a problem, then the solution is to nerf snakes and gang warfare mods, not the 3km/s hacs that aren't causing any problems except for noobs in caracals.
Steel Tigeress Gallente Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.06.27 07:11:00 - [161] Quote: Its probably fair to say that "nano" usage in the 3000-4000 mps mark isn't much of a problem "Is not much of a problem" does not equal "Fair and balanced" And like i just said in another thread... "Is not much of a problem" still implies there IS a problem. Now its your turn... the devs are done adjusting speed mods, and have things where they like them....go find proof of a dev stating this or STFU.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.27 07:13:00 - [162] Edited by: Gamesguy on 27/06/2008 07:14:33 Edited by: Gamesguy on 27/06/2008 07:12:56 Originally by: Steel Tigeress Quote: Its probably fair to say that "nano" usage in the 3000-4000 mps mark isn't much of a problem "Is not much of a problem" does not equal "Fair and balanced" And like i just said in another thread... "Is not much of a problem" still implies there IS a problem. Now its your turn... the devs are done adjusting speed mods, and have things where they like them....go find proof of a dev stating this or STFU. Yes ignore the rest of my post and claim victory, typical troll. Not much a problem implies exactly that, its not a big enough problem for them to worry about changing it. If it IS a problem then they'd change it. You still haven't shown me where the devs said the MWD is only meant for moving from point A to point B. Also, remind me how frigates are supposed to survive without the mwd? Are you going to shield tank 5 hobgoblins in a crow now? Or any missile ship including f*cking ravens?
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.27 09:05:00 - [163] Originally by: Gamesguy Edited by: Gamesguy on 27/06/2008 07:14:33 Edited by: Gamesguy on 27/06/2008 07:12:56 Originally by: Steel Tigeress Quote: Its probably fair to say that "nano" usage in the 3000-4000 mps mark isn't much of a problem "Is not much of a problem" does not equal "Fair and balanced" And like i just said in another thread... "Is not much of a problem" still implies there IS a problem. Now its your turn... the devs are done adjusting speed mods, and have things where they like them....go find proof of a dev stating this or STFU. Yes ignore the rest of my post and claim victory, typical troll. Not much a problem implies exactly that, its not a big enough problem for them to worry about changing it. If it IS a problem then they'd change it. You still haven't shown me where the devs said the MWD is only meant for moving from point A to point B. Also, remind me how frigates are supposed to survive without the mwd? Are you going to shield tank 5 hobgoblins in a crow now? Or any missile ship including f*cking ravens? Just to point out. My Retribution does armour tank drones long enough for me to kill them without a MWD.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.27 12:44:00 - [164] Edited by: Shadowsword on 27/06/2008 12:44:26 The dev blog is old, true, but that doesn't change the fact that parts of it are still relevant. Quote: One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE. Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same arguement as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off. ------------------------------------------
Tenuo Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.27 12:47:00 - [165] Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 12:48:11 Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 27/06/2008 12:44:26 The dev blog is old, true, but that doesn't change the fact that parts of it are still relevant. Quote: One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE. Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same arguement as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off. And how are you planning on fixing that? ships that are faster than their opponent will always get away if they kill the ceptors. 1 thing is saying "I WANT TO NERF THAT" another is suggesting how to, I doubt you and the other crying on the forums will help speed up the process, as I think if this was a problem (which it isn't according to devs unless you snake and faction fit it) then they'd already know since it's their game, they play it and they design it. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.27 14:13:00 - [166] Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 12:48:11 Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 27/06/2008 12:44:26 The dev blog is old, true, but that doesn't change the fact that parts of it are still relevant. Quote: One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE. Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same arguement as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off. And how are you planning on fixing that? ships that are faster than their opponent will always get away if they kill the ceptors. 1 thing is saying "I WANT TO NERF THAT" another is suggesting how to, I doubt you and the other crying on the forums will help speed up the process, as I think if this was a problem (which it isn't according to devs unless you snake and faction fit it) then they'd already know since it's their game, they play it and they design it. 2 possible solutions, among others: - scripted web, double range, half effect. - allow use of both AB and MWD on the same ships, but not on the same time, and prevent the use of any offensive (weapons, tackling, EW, nos/neut) module while the mwd is active. In both case some indivudual ships would need a bit of tweaking, but that's the general idea. ------------------------------------------
Kery Syander The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.27 14:23:00 - [167] Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 27/06/2008 12:44:26 The dev blog is old, true, but that doesn't change the fact that parts of it are still relevant. Quote: One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE. Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same arguement as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off. quoting a devblog that took place a year ago and was on the otherside of a pretty massive restructing of how speed worked/was calculated and using it to support your argument now is incredibly misleading. There is always a trade off for 'commiting to a fight'. By your rational interceptors, snipers, any ship that operates outside of 24km is in need of a nerf. That's just moronic. Just because nanos (one of MANY MANY WAYS OF AVOIDING FIGHTs, fyi) can be used to avoid combat in no way means that the devs want them nerfed, so please stop taking their statements out of context. -----
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.27 14:51:00 - [168] Originally by: Shadowsword - allow use of both AB and MWD on the same ships, but not on the same time, and prevent the use of any offensive (weapons, tackling, EW, nos/neut) module while the mwd is active. In both case some indivudual ships would need a bit of tweaking, but that's the general idea. Wow....just....wow.. So you don't want interceptors to exist anymore? You obviously didn't think this through for even a split second. This means that all ships will be able to escape from all fights. Which I think is the exact opposite of what you want. Think about it, if you can't activate a scram with a MWD on, your target decides to bail, hits his MWD and starts pulling away from you fast. The one of two things happen, with the same result. Option 1) You hit your afterburner to keep up, he's using a 550% speed boost module, you're using a 120%. He pulls away because he's going way faster. Option 2) You hit your MWD and your scram turns off. He gets away immediately. Try again plz. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.06.27 15:39:00 - [169] Edited by: Straight Chillen on 27/06/2008 15:43:35 The solution is simple http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=807897 sorry forgot about that stupid value
Haakelen Gallente Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.27 15:40:00 - [170] Originally by: Straight Chillen The solution is simple http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=807897 If you're going to keep spamming this **** on every thread, perhaps you could make it link right for once?
Tenuo Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.27 15:44:00 - [171] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Tenuo Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 12:48:11 Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 27/06/2008 12:44:26 The dev blog is old, true, but that doesn't change the fact that parts of it are still relevant. Quote: One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE. Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same arguement as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off. And how are you planning on fixing that? ships that are faster than their opponent will always get away if they kill the ceptors. 1 thing is saying "I WANT TO NERF THAT" another is suggesting how to, I doubt you and the other crying on the forums will help speed up the process, as I think if this was a problem (which it isn't according to devs unless you snake and faction fit it) then they'd already know since it's their game, they play it and they design it. 2 possible solutions, among others: - scripted web, double range, half effect. - allow use of both AB and MWD on the same ships, but not on the same time, and prevent the use of any offensive (weapons, tackling, EW, nos/neut) module while the mwd is active. In both case some indivudual ships would need a bit of tweaking, but that's the general idea. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.27 16:14:00 - [172] Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 27/06/2008 16:14:36 Originally by: Shadowsword 2 possible solutions, among others: - scripted web, double range, half effect. - allow use of both AB and MWD on the same ships, but not on the same time, and prevent the use of any offensive (weapons, tackling, EW, nos/neut) module while the mwd is active. In both case some indivudual ships would need a bit of tweaking, but that's the general idea. But, isn't that a nerf to nanos? Isn't that what Tenou doesn't want? Of course, everything in Eve is based on what he wants. Don't get me wrong, I love your idea, it's just Tenou will rant and rave, and stomp his foot if it happens. So, probably won't fly. guess who's back.. back again... Pit is back... tell a friend. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.06.27 16:16:00 - [173] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 27/06/2008 16:14:36 Originally by: Shadowsword 2 possible solutions, among others: - scripted web, double range, half effect. - allow use of both AB and MWD on the same ships, but not on the same time, and prevent the use of any offensive (weapons, tackling, EW, nos/neut) module while the mwd is active. In both case some indivudual ships would need a bit of tweaking, but that's the general idea. But, isn't that a nerf to nanos? Isn't that what Tenou doesn't want? Of course, everything in Eve is based on what he wants. Don't get me wrong, I love your idea, it's just Tenou will rant and rave, and stomp his foot if it happens. So, probably won't fly. guess who's back.. back again... Pit is back... tell a friend. Yea super idea really. Who needs interceptors anyway.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.27 16:20:00 - [174] Originally by: Esmenet Yea super idea really. Who needs interceptors anyway. it could use tweaking, what if it locked up all your hi-slots only? there I fixed it... what's next? --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.06.27 17:10:00 - [175] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Whats the opt range on a heavy pulse II? Heavy Pulse Laser II + Sharpshooter V + Trajectory Analysis V + Scorch M = 22.5 km optimal, 5km falloff. It's quite good. __________________________________
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.27 17:24:00 - [176] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Esmenet Yea super idea really. Who needs interceptors anyway. it could use tweaking, what if it locked up all your hi-slots only? there I fixed it... what's next? It would turn into EVE into Hello Kitty online since nobody could die while being chased or chasing anyone. Or do you want a game where everyone sits still in their ship and spams missiles? I think I smell a drake pilot. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Corstaad Minmatar Vardr ok Lidskjalv Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.06.27 17:44:00 - [177] It will be extremely funny if they nerf the Minny HAC and Recon.
Tenuo Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.27 17:49:00 - [178] Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 17:49:28 Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Esmenet Yea super idea really. Who needs interceptors anyway. it could use tweaking, what if it locked up all your hi-slots only? there I fixed it... what's next? So, what about the ships that depend on range to win but aren't nano'd, like .. the rupture? Oh, and have you considered the effect this would have on interdictors? I mean .. not being able to launch bubbles at high speed would be devastating. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.27 18:46:00 - [179] Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 27/06/2008 18:47:48 Originally by: Tenuo Oh, and have you considered the effect this would have on interdictors? I mean .. not being able to launch bubbles at high speed would be devastating. Afterburners... duh. Or, just deactivate your mwd when at range... duh. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:46:00 - [180] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 27/06/2008 18:47:48 Originally by: Tenuo Oh, and have you considered the effect this would have on interdictors? I mean .. not being able to launch bubbles at high speed would be devastating. Afterburners... duh. Or, just deactivate your mwd when at range... duh. Yeah, and then your unwilling target just burns out of your range. You seriously want everyone to just sit still and plink away at each other, don't you? It's a good thing EVE isn't your game, Alty McAlterson. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:53:00 - [181] Originally by: Xaen Yeah, and then your unwilling target just burns out of your range. You seriously want everyone to just sit still and plink away at each other, don't you? It's a good thing EVE isn't your game, Alty McAlterson. WAIT WAIT WAIT... so you saying its NOT okay for an unwilling target to burn out of range, but its TOTALLY okay for nanos to do that EVERY FRIGGIN DAY! You're a tool. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Tenuo Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:56:00 - [182] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 27/06/2008 18:47:48 Originally by: Tenuo Oh, and have you considered the effect this would have on interdictors? I mean .. not being able to launch bubbles at high speed would be devastating. Afterburners... duh. Or, just deactivate your mwd when at range... duh. You are dumb aren't you? _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Quelque Chose New Eden Roller Disco Supply	Posted - 2008.06.27 21:01:00 - [183] Not that I even care at all by now, but just out of curiosity: Have any of the nerf advocates had the clarity of thought at this point to recommend simply increasing the calibration requirements of polycarbs? Or is there some insanely high minimum complexity requirement for a nerf to be considered satisfactory? ___________________________________________
Hannobaal Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.27 21:06:00 - [184] Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Pithecanthropus Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 27/06/2008 18:47:48 Originally by: Tenuo Oh, and have you considered the effect this would have on interdictors? I mean .. not being able to launch bubbles at high speed would be devastating. Afterburners... duh. Or, just deactivate your mwd when at range... duh. You are dumb aren't you? He has never flown an interdictor. That's for sure. -------------------------- recruit me
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.27 21:11:00 - [185] Originally by: Quelque Chose Not that I even care at all by now, but just out of curiosity: Have any of the nerf advocates had the clarity of thought at this point to recommend simply increasing the calibration requirements of polycarbs? Or is there some insanely high minimum complexity requirement for a nerf to be considered satisfactory? In order for it to be satisfactory they have to be able to kill the ship with whatever ship they prefer to fly with ease regardless of their preferred ship or what ship they're facing. It must be doable with tech1 ships and modules and they must not be required to think, devise tactics, an overarching strategy, or in general, be required to use their brains, train skills, or put expensive ships or modules on the line. In short, they're outclassed in skillpoints, player experience, ships, modules, tactics, and strategy, and they're whining about it because they cannot overcome any of their shortcomings with their meager brains. So they whine about it on the forums. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.27 21:13:00 - [186] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Pithecanthropus Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 27/06/2008 18:47:48 Originally by: Tenuo Oh, and have you considered the effect this would have on interdictors? I mean .. not being able to launch bubbles at high speed would be devastating. Afterburners... duh. Or, just deactivate your mwd when at range... duh. You are dumb aren't you? He has never flown an interdictor. That's for sure. Flycatcher... Sabre... yes, very well. Very succesful... atleast I'm aiding advice, giving ideas... because there is OBVIOUSLY a problem with nanos, yet thick heads and egos don't go far. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Quelque Chose New Eden Roller Disco Supply	Posted - 2008.06.27 21:25:00 - [187] Edited by: Quelque Chose on 27/06/2008 21:26:18 Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Quelque Chose Not that I even care at all by now, but just out of curiosity: Have any of the nerf advocates had the clarity of thought at this point to recommend simply increasing the calibration requirements of polycarbs? Or is there some insanely high minimum complexity requirement for a nerf to be considered satisfactory? In order for it to be satisfactory they have to be able to kill the ship with whatever ship they prefer to fly with ease regardless of their preferred ship or what ship they're facing. It must be doable with tech1 ships and modules and they must not be required to think, devise tactics, an overarching strategy, or in general, be required to use their brains, train skills, or put expensive ships or modules on the line. In short, they're outclassed in skillpoints, player experience, ships, modules, tactics, and strategy, and they're whining about it because they cannot overcome any of their shortcomings with their meager brains. So they whine about it on the forums. Well, the point of increasing cal. on polycarbs is to force people to fit less of them, which means reduced speed, which would seem to solve the putative problem no? Hell, if CCP really wanted to impose a speed limit all they'd have to do would be figure out what that limit was and then make small alterations to things like base mass, base max speed, bonus- per- module, etc etc. It would take a couple hours on the drawing board, a couple days of arguing about it and then a few small alterations to the db. Certainly wouldn't require anything as Rube Goldberg as some of the stuff these guys are cooking up. edit I also don't really understand why they feel they ABSOLUTELY MUST KILL the nanoship as it seems to me that taking it out of the fight should work just fine. But then there's a lot of stuff happening here I just don't understand. ___________________________________________
Haakelen Gallente Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.27 21:28:00 - [188] Originally by: Quelque Chose edit I also don't really understand why they feel they ABSOLUTELY MUST KILL the nanoship as it seems to me that taking it out of the fight should work just fine. But then there's a lot of stuff happening here I just don't understand. You're being reasonable, you understand English and can graspbasic ideas and concepts, and you're not a mental defective. Which is why you aren't seeing it like the whiners are.
Hannobaal Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.27 21:28:00 - [189] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Sabre... yes, very well. Very succesful... So, you would rather I agree that you're an idiot? -------------------------- recruit me
Dracon Zethera Gallente Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.27 21:43:00 - [190] I personally like nano's. No I do not fly them yet, but I do plan to. I know there is a problem with the officer fit, gang modules, and implants that make the ship reach unreasonable speeds, but most nanos are not overpowered in the least. For one thing here is a simple equation: Recon/Ewar > Nano Now before you say recons are nanoed, they do not have to be and are still greater than nanos. All you people saying nanos are too overpowered because they can disengage is a stupid arguement. Many RR Battleship gangs can jump in, sit at the gate, take out support, tank the rest of the damage, and jump out of system without a loss. Maybe the coordination of a RR Battleship gang is too overpowering and they should be nerfed too? Ewar stomps on nanos, just like it stomps on most other gangs so why not try using it more? Webs, of course are powerful against the nano, slows it speed, rapier and huginn get range bonus, yada yada yada. Target painters make nanos easier to hit, why people dont use them more often is beyond me. Try taking out a ship designated to use target painters and use them! It is quite a simple conscept really. Your turrets will track better and you will score more hits on the target. RSD, although they suck now, force a nano pilot to get closer to get a lock. Why is this useful? Because you get them closer to your dedicated webbing ships! What a thought. Neutralizers, on curses with their increased range do very nice things to nano pilots. Try flying more curses. Heavy neutralizers also do wonderful things. Tracking disruptors, you reduce the optimal, you reduce the damage and they either have to get closer or disengage. They can also decrease the tracking, which makes the nano have to orbit slower. ECM, hopefully I do not even have to explain this one. Now a recon gang, with nothing nanoed, can easily win a fight against a nano gang as long as they are coordinated. By win I do not mean kill anything (although I am sure they will if the nanos try to engage) but an enemy retreat is a win. Nerf the ridiculously fast nanos (ie. 11k vagas), but nanos in general are not a problem.
Terror Rising Death Of Fallen Angels	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:07:00 - [191] Originally by: Tudor 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.. "Lame asses" .. whine .. "unskilled idiots" .. moan .. "ccp suck" .. check .. "RUN RUN" .. "Poor Kills" .. "nano pilots go suck my dck" .. Check .. 12 year old kid with pen*s envy spotted, or at least a very good anti-troll
Spurty Caldari The Pikey Rebellion II	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:10:00 - [192] umm no to nerfing nano any more. Its already nerfed a lot. You can no longer fit 3 MWDs on your Domi nanofibres no long act like overdrivers+interiastabs (oops) you need to mix it up. polys are expensive for a reason, they give you a chance to secure an escape route. They do not add DPS. nano ships are easily countered, just because you are flying a fail train ship vs them, doesn't mean they need attention. CCP needs to fix the client so it doesn't lock the hell up when you get your vaga popped by a drone swarm gate camp and lag out for more than 30 seconds. Screw your server side work CCP (you've had years), fix the clients. They are all the customers really care about. Thats all we ever 'use'. Work on things like being able to control your ship without having to click like a maniac as the overview hasn't loaded as the client is too busy loading the sodding market / trying to draw polygons. None of these matter, only control of your ship! Also, T2, make T2 worth having. So many places T1 is better, its just as awful to read the specs as another nano-nerf-whine. -- Two cannibals eating a clown. One says to the other "Does this taste funny to you?"
Terror Rising Death Of Fallen Angels	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:12:00 - [193] Edited by: Terror Rising on 27/06/2008 22:13:05 Originally by: Pithecanthropus Flycatcher... Sabre... yes, very well. Very succesful... atleast I'm aiding advice, giving ideas... because there is OBVIOUSLY a problem with nanos, yet thick heads and egos don't go far. Seriously, every thread .. every week .. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=799912
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:13:00 - [194] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Pithecanthropus Sabre... yes, very well. Very succesful... So, you would rather I agree that you're an idiot? I'd rather you stop wasting your life away in a game that you don't understand. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:13:00 - [195] Edited by: ***zilla on 27/06/2008 22:15:12 Edited by: ***zilla on 27/06/2008 22:14:53 Originally by: Dracon Zethera Many RR Battleship gangs can jump in, sit at the gate, take out support, tank the rest of the damage, and jump out of system without a loss. While they can jump back they must deal with whatever is on the other side. Sometimes thats a hot drop or another fleet. So they can be trapped and forced to engage. Yes its a bit different when a rr gang is hugging a high sec gate. Imho I think its foolish to even engage then. Too much like docking games. Remote repping gangs aren't exactly known for their ability to pursue or lock down a target. Originally by: Dracon Zethera Ewar stomps on nanos, just like it stomps on most other gangs so why not try using it more? Ewar annoys them. Doesn't make them commit. Originally by: Dracon Zethera Webs, of course are powerful against the nano, slows it speed, rapier and huginn get range bonus, yada yada yada. Takes nanos to catch nanos. t2 only (rapier/huggin/hyena). Excludes lower sp players. Requires fleets to have rapiers/huginns + other nanos to effectively counter. Originally by: Dracon Zethera Target painters make nanos easier to hit, why people dont use them more often is beyond me. Because nanos are already target painted. Some 550% sig radius increase from the mwd. Usually its the tracking speed, or missiles can't match the speed, or the explosion radius can't keep up. Originally by: Dracon Zethera RSD, although they suck now, force a nano pilot to get closer to get a lock. Why is this useful? Because you get them closer to your dedicated webbing ships! What a thought. Nanos usually work around 20km or so. To get within web would mean 10-13km. This would have worked before the RSD nerf. After the nerf most ships can't give up the mid slots for mwd, scram, web, cap boosters, plus a multiple rsd's. An RSD won't do much to a nano'd recon. It'll take multiple RSD's before a vaga is likely to notice. Isn't the ownage it once was. Originally by: Dracon Zethera Neutralizers, on curses with their increased range do very nice things to nano pilots. Try flying more curses. Heavy neutralizers also do wonderful things. Back to needing t2 nanos (curse). Heavy neuts are bs only. Originally by: Dracon Zethera Tracking disruptors, you reduce the optimal, you reduce the damage and they either have to get closer or disengage. Yes, this will negate some damage. Most nanos when they see this won't get closer. Doesn't help against missiles. Originally by: Dracon Zethera ECM, hopefully I do not even have to explain this one. Annoys. Doesn't kill. Originally by: Dracon Zethera Now a recon gang, with nothing nanoed, can easily win a fight against a nano gang as long as they are coordinated. So it takes a t2 gang with high skill points and having spent nearly as much isk as the nano gang? An enemy withdraw isn't a win. That is called a draw. Originally by: Spurty polys are expensive for a reason, Poly's are expensive because limited supply for a single required component. If the supply issue were fixed the price would drop like a rock. T2 was once expensive. Doesn't mean that t2 was that much better than t1 (named). The price of t2 has dropped because of increased supply. We've seen what has happened. Just because something takes a long time to train or lots of isk doesn't mean it should be great. There should be t1 counters. Ultimately the best counter to nanos is to fly nano's yourself.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:14:00 - [196] Originally by: Terror Rising Edited by: Terror Rising on 27/06/2008 22:13:05 Originally by: Pithecanthropus Flycatcher... Sabre... yes, very well. Very succesful... atleast I'm aiding advice, giving ideas... because there is OBVIOUSLY a problem with nanos, yet thick heads and egos don't go far. Seriously, every thread .. every week .. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=799912 Do you have a point? next. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Terror Rising Death Of Fallen Angels	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:15:00 - [197] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Terror Rising Edited by: Terror Rising on 27/06/2008 22:13:05 Originally by: Pithecanthropus Flycatcher... Sabre... yes, very well. Very succesful... atleast I'm aiding advice, giving ideas... because there is OBVIOUSLY a problem with nanos, yet thick heads and egos don't go far. Seriously, every thread .. every week .. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=799912 Do you have a point? next. Yes .. Do you have a main? Next ..
Dracon Zethera Gallente Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.28 00:29:00 - [198] Edited by: Dracon Zethera on 28/06/2008 00:31:50 Originally by: ****zilla Edited by: ****zilla on 27/06/2008 22:15:12 While they can jump back they must deal with whatever is on the other side. Sometimes thats a hot drop or another fleet. So they can be trapped and forced to engage. Yes its a bit different when a rr gang is hugging a high sec gate. Imho I think its foolish to even engage then. Too much like docking games. Remote repping gangs aren't exactly known for their ability to pursue or lock down a target. They are never forced to engage. Originally by: ***zilla [ Originally by:** Dracon Zethera Ewar stomps on nanos, just like it stomps on most other gangs so why not try using it more? Ewar annoys them. Doesn't make them commit. You quote this not taking into account what I consider a won battle. Originally by: ***zilla [ Takes nanos to catch nanos. t2 only (rapier/huggin/hyena). Excludes lower sp players. Requires fleets to have rapiers/huginns + other nanos to effectively counter. Not if the nano flies within range. And a second time look at what I refer to as a "won" battle. Originally by: *zilla [Because nanos are already target painted. Some 550% sig radius increase from the mwd. Usually its the tracking speed, or missiles can't match the speed, or the explosion radius can't keep up. Increase the sig radius even more and turrets will start to track them. Originally by: *zilla [ Originally by:** Dracon Zethera RSD, although they suck now, force a nano pilot to get closer to get a lock. Why is this useful? Because you get them closer to your dedicated webbing ships! What a thought. Nanos usually work around 20km or so. To get within web would mean 10-13km. This would have worked before the RSD nerf. After the nerf most ships can't give up the mid slots for mwd, scram, web, cap boosters, plus a multiple rsd's. Read more carefully, I said get them closer to dedicated webbing ships not the ship doing the dampening itself. Originally by: ***zilla [ Originally by:** Dracon Zethera Neutralizers, on curses with their increased range do very nice things to nano pilots. Try flying more curses. Heavy neutralizers also do wonderful things. Back to needing t2 nanos (curse). Heavy neuts are bs only. I get that heavy neuts are BS only... that is why I mentioned it in a seperate sentence from curses. And the curse doesn't have to be nanoed, if the nano come to engage, it is probably getting in range of the nuets. Originally by: ***zilla [ Originally by:** Dracon Zethera Tracking disruptors, you reduce the optimal, you reduce the damage and they either have to get closer or disengage. Yes, this will negate some damage. Most nanos when they see this won't get closer. Doesn't help against missiles. Most nanos dont use missiles. Originally by: ***zilla [ Originally by:** Dracon Zethera ECM, hopefully I do not even have to explain this one. Annoys. Doesn't kill. Keeps you alive. Again look at my definition of a "won" battle. Originally by: *****zilla [So it takes a t2 gang with high skill points and having spent nearly as much isk as the nano gang? An enemy withdraw isn't a win. That is called a draw. An enemy withdrawn is a win. A draw is a standoff at a stargate or some other thing like that. Whoever holds the field wins. You are tearing apart every piece of Ewar module saying it isn't going to work against certain nanoships. Yeah that is how most modules work. You can't have an "I WIN" button with one module against every single ship type.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.28 00:31:00 - [199] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: Pithecanthropus Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 27/06/2008 18:47:48 Originally by: Tenuo Oh, and have you considered the effect this would have on interdictors? I mean .. not being able to launch bubbles at high speed would be devastating. Afterburners... duh. Or, just deactivate your mwd when at range... duh. You are dumb aren't you? He has never flown an interdictor. That's for sure. Flycatcher... Sabre... yes, very well. Very succesful... atleast I'm aiding advice, giving ideas... because there is OBVIOUSLY a problem with nanos, yet thick heads and egos don't go far. So you fly a sabre with an Afterburner very successfully? Tell me, whats your secret in not being owned by one volley of heavy missiles from a drake?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.28 00:49:00 - [200] Remote rep gangs are forced to fight. They can be bubbled at a gate. They can be scanned effectively. Originally by: Dracon Zethera An enemy withdrawn is a win. A draw is a standoff at a stargate or some other thing like that. Whoever holds the field wins. Then according to this logic there is a module that nearly any ship can use and will nearly always result in a "win". A cloak. See a hostile and cloak. If they're unable to decloak you they can't kill you. They'll get bored. They'll leave. You'll hold the field. You win. Otherwise according to your logic if you can maintain a buffer around you free of hostiles you've won. So you use ecm. Nanos start to orbit at 50km. Neither can do much. So by your logic you've won. You hold the field for all 50km around you. The nanos own everything else in system. How is this a win precisely? What you've described is a draw. Two forces engage or standoff. Insignificant losses on both sides. Not much happens. A win would involve something going pop. Enough so that one side is forced to flee. Notice "forced". If nanos test defenses but don't get any where they withdraw. Notice the word "draw" in there. So imagine if a gang of nanos hits a gang of non nanos. Then a pack of rapiers uncloak to help out the non nanos. There would probable be "win" in here somewhere. With most other ships you can pursue. You can trap. You can empty the system out and put gate camps on all gates. You can run continous probes. I'm not a fan of afk cloaks but at least they must jump through gates and don't require huginns/rapiers/ceptors/dps to catch and kill.
Dracon Zethera Gallente Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.28 00:56:00 - [201] Withdraw: to go or move back, away, or aside; retire; retreat reference: dictionary.com I do not see a "draw" in there at all and I was always told that a retreat was a win. By your logic a jellyfish is a fish but we all know it isn't. I guess it must be because it has fish in the name.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.28 01:09:00 - [202] Quote: Remote rep gangs are forced to fight. They can be bubbled at a gate. They can be scanned effectively. Bull. RR gang would just deagress and jump through, pwn whatever you have on the otherside real quick while mwding out of the bubble(if there is one), then hop safespots till aggression is gone then log.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.28 01:37:00 - [203] Originally by: Gamesguy pwn whatever you have on the otherside real quick while mwding out of the bubble(if there is one), then hop safespots till aggression is gone then log. So they had agression? They had to fight to get out of the bubble and warp off? Sounds like they had to fight on either side of the gate. Sounds like they were forced to fight. I said nothing about the rr gang not wining. Only that a fight could be forced.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.28 02:59:00 - [204] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Gamesguy pwn whatever you have on the otherside real quick while mwding out of the bubble(if there is one), then hop safespots till aggression is gone then log. So they had agression? They had to fight to get out of the bubble and warp off? Sounds like they had to fight on either side of the gate. Sounds like they were forced to fight. I said nothing about the rr gang not wining. Only that a fight could be forced. Nanos have to kill the tackling inties too to warp off, so you conceed that nanos are balanced because the tacklers force them to fight? If thats the best troll you can come up with, concession accepted.
Flowstone Armada.	Posted - 2008.06.28 10:54:00 - [205] Originally by: Katashi I**uka 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. Lol @ 6k, you obviously havn't seen many good vaga pilots. Vagas can get up to 17km/s, including the one i killed earlier. Linkage _______________________________________________ If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence you tried.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.28 12:29:00 - [206] Iam sitting on a gate when a nano ships pops up near me. Now little does he know that I am armed with Nos Neuts a 15km web and a 24km scrambler. Thinking that I cannot ever hit him with my large guns he engages. Now my options are fight or jump through the gate and fight him anyway. So I employ the sit and wait for him to get in range tactic. The nano ship moves in orbiting me at 20 km. In range of my scrambler but not the web. I turn on the cap suckers and the nano pilot realises his folly, and runs out of range... Blast a draw. This happens every time, even when they out number me. Sure im still alive but so are those nano ships who can then move onto killing targets that cant fight back like me. What I would like is a T2 battleship based off the geddon which has a web range bonus that will let me project a domination web out 30km with max skills.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.28 14:50:00 - [207] Originally by: Flowstone Lol @ 6k, you obviously havn't seen many good vaga pilots. Vagas can get up to 17km/s, including the one i killed earlier. Linkage lol @ you thinking anything above 6km/s is the norm, instead of the exception.
MenanceWhite Amarr Fruit Fellatio	Posted - 2008.06.28 14:50:00 - [208] Edited by: MenanceWhite on 28/06/2008 14:50:48 Originally by: baltec1 q If they're directly flying away from you without the mwd on, should'nt you be able to mwd after them and shoot+send drones at them? also, no heat? what?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.28 17:50:00 - [209] Edited by: ***zilla on 28/06/2008 17:59:03 Originally by: Gamesguy Nanos have to kill the tackling inties too to warp off, so you conceed that nanos are balanced because the tacklers force them to fight? So what tacklers do we need? More nanos? This is an issue. Or as you said ceptors? So we agree that it takes t2 to be viable? This is sad. Then we're back to requiring specific ships just to pursue. Not kill, pursue. With a remote repping gang an ibis with a t1 scram can get a point and be remotely useful. Nearly anything can go after a remote repping gang. Most anything can force a fight against most ship types, ceptor for nanos. Even an ibis can bump a mothership out of alignment if it can't point it (supercaps are still messed up). Nanos control the range. I rather doubt they stick around for the tacklers unless they want the free kills. It remains that the only thing to pursue a nano are more nanos or maybe lots of ceptors. As we know ceptors don't do so hot against nanos. Buff frigs/ceptors/assault frigs. When t1 ships can go after a t2 vaga and have a decent chance to web it then we might have something. Originally by: MenanceWhite If they're directly flying away from you without the mwd on, should'nt you be able to mwd after them and shoot+send drones at them? A nano with the mwd off isn't that much slower than a mwd with a mwd. This tactic works if the nano is very close. If the nano is out towards the edge of scram range it doesn't work so hot. Drones either won't catch, won't do enough damage to be noticable, or will follow at 0 traversal where medium guns can chew up very very quickly. If heavy drones had the speed of warrior t2 drones then this might be viable. Otherwise the only drones that are remotely useful might be webbing or sentry drones. Then we're back to needing a battleship. Mwd after a nano is mostly a waste. The only time mwd would help would be if you time the orbit of a nano just so that you mwd where they will be to close distance a few km and get a web. Or you catch the nano when its not running the mwd and you use yours to close. Shooting is mostly a waste. With a scram you won't do enough damage to an 8km nice resist shield buffer tank.
Jahah Smith Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.06.28 18:35:00 - [210] one thing I havent seen posted here yet is the fact that a beam zealot or a rail eagle makes nano pilots avoid them and put a "bubble" around them as they can hit these ships from long range for excellent damage
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.29 09:33:00 - [211] Originally by: MenanceWhite Edited by: MenanceWhite on 28/06/2008 14:50:48 Originally by: baltec1 q If they're directly flying away from you without the mwd on, should'nt you be able to mwd after them and shoot+send drones at them? also, no heat? what? If they were flying away withot their MWD while in range then I would drain their cap and rip them apart with my drones and guns. So far this has not happened. The nanos always get out of range before their cap runs dry, or before their MWD cycle is finished or they coast out on their momentum and reactivate their MWD as soon as they can.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.29 10:10:00 - [212] Originally by: ***zilla So what tacklers do we need? More nanos? This is an issue. Or as you said ceptors? So we agree that it takes t2 to be viable? This is sad. Then we're back to requiring specific ships just to pursue. Not kill, pursue. Yes its a real chore training 3 weeks for an inty, its totally unreasonable, yep. Quote:** With a remote repping gang an ibis with a t1 scram can get a point and be remotely useful. Nearly anything can go after a remote repping gang. Most anything can force a fight against most ship types, ceptor for nanos. Even an ibis can bump a mothership out of alignment if it can't point it (supercaps are still messed up). T1 frig can be fitted to outrun most nanoships quite easilly. Quote: Nanos control the range. I rather doubt they stick around for the tacklers unless they want the free kills. You have something called a warp disruptor, I suggest you look it up. I hear inties that outrun nanoships is quite good at webbing them. Quote: It remains that the only thing to pursue a nano are more nanos or maybe lots of ceptors. As we know ceptors don't do so hot against nanos. Ceptors do fine against nanos, provided you have proper support for them. Ceptors dont do so hot against battleships either, one neut cycle and they're forced to warp or die. So you think battleships are overpwoered? Quote: Buff frigs/ceptors/assault frigs. When t1 ships can go after a t2 vaga and have a decent chance to web it then we might have something. So thats the real point of your whine. You want a blob of caracals to beat nanos. [qyite]A nano with the mwd off isn't that much slower than a mwd with a mwd. Plus when a mwd runs it generally pulses the mwd. Once or twice and theres no chance. A neut gimps the nanos cap but doesn't entirely remove it (must time it so that a nano has been orbiting for some time and getting low on cap). A nano with the mwd off isn't that much slower? Are you on ***** *? A nanohac without the mwd runs around at about 300-400 m/s. You get low on cap from warping, often a single heavy neut will render you unable to mwd after you finish a warp. Quote: Drones either won't catch, won't do enough damage to be noticable, or will follow at 0 traversal where medium guns can chew up very very quickly. If heavy drones had the speed of warrior t2 drones then this might be viable. Otherwise the only drones that are remotely useful might be webbing or sentry drones. Then we're back to needing a battleship. Please stop talking. You keep proving how dumb you are. Medium guns dont need 0 transversal to "chew up nanos", my absolution will *your vagabond when you're flying in circles around me at 6km/s. Sentry drones are worthless against nanos, utterly crap, they have terrible tracking and the 400 sig resolution just kills their chances at hitting a nanoship. Webbing drones are just crap in general. Quote:** Shooting is mostly a waste. With a scram you won't do enough damage to an 8km nice resist shield buffer tank. No wonder you're having so much trouble, you dont even bother shooting at nanos! A t1 cruiser can force a nanoship to disengage easilly.
trading hub	Posted - 2008.06.29 21:15:00 - [213] thats all fine, but I still like to be able to cry kalabunga and fly through enemy territory all the bubles and **** in my ceptor, which would not be possible unless the speed was 5k+ LEAVE NANO ALONE !
Lucai Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.29 22:16:00 - [214] Admittedly didnt read the whole thread, but my 0.1 isk: I fly a nano-zealot from time to time. So im not able to hit anything cause i use guns. Fine. Makes lots of sense, and explains why i fly the ship, to not hit stuff. If i can hit you you can hit me, if not youre doing something wrong, like having the wrong guns, at the wrong range, and so on. Bottom line, its your fault. Did you know you can hit nano HACs and such even with battleship guns like pulse lasers quite fine? No? Didnt think so.
Hannobaal Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.01 01:52:00 - [215] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Pithecanthropus Sabre... yes, very well. Very succesful... So, you would rather I agree that you're an idiot? I'd rather you stop wasting your life away in a game that you don't understand. Quoted for immense irony -------------------------- recruit me
Steel Tigeress Gallente Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.07.01 02:37:00 - [216] I just had a thought, that may work for everyone saying races other than Minmatar need a counter to nano's. I know its been proposed befor but I think it really might be the solution of choice as it would'nt be a change to the nano modules at all. Make MWD's get shut down by warp scramblers. Every race has some ships that get bonuses to them, so it would be a non-racial fix. Plus its a added buff to Inties. I'm sure there has to be some drastic downside to this that I have not thought of.... Thoughts?
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.01 02:38:00 - [217] guys guys guys nanos are invincible 02:33:11 Combat [G.R.] Herustar *Absolution* strikes you perfectly, wrecking for 498.1 damage. sacrilege while MWDing, about 3400m/s
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.07.01 03:09:00 - [218] 3400m/s is far from nano. Sir.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.01 04:56:00 - [219] Originally by: Gamesguy Yes its a real chore training 3 weeks for an inty, its totally unreasonable, yep. 3 weeks for a new player? To buy not only the ship plus the fittings? Still fairly steep entry cost for what is a suicidal tackler with a steep learning curve. Originally by: Gamesguy You have something called a warp disruptor, I suggest you look it up. I hear inties that outrun nanoships is quite good at webbing them. Scramming? Yes. Webbing? Not really. If the nano has a web then the ceptor is quickly toast. Originally by: Gamesguy Ceptors do fine against nanos, provided you have proper support for them. So we need multiple ceptors. Plus jammers. Plus dps. And most likely we'll pop a single nano out of the group (if luckly) and the rest are gone. Better to get the entire gang in nanos themselves. They'll simply be more effective. The tacklers are simpler and the best thing to threaten a nano gang is another nano gang. Originally by: Gamesguy A nano with the mwd off isn't that much slower? ...You get low on cap from warping, often a single heavy neut will render you unable to mwd after you finish a warp. If a bs pulses the mwd it takes time to speed up. The bs has to be aligned just so. The relative speed isn't that much. So maybe 500m/s difference with the bs at full speed and the nano hanging at 20km away. Takes a bit even to get in range for a web overloaded (more training). Not impossible. But not a simple tactic. Originally by: Gamesguy ...my absolution will ***your vagabond when you're flying in circles around me at 6km/s. Yes. t2 ships and fittings can hit stuff. Can you web the nano? Do you expect the nano to approach and wait for you to kill it? Originally by:** Gamesguy A t1 cruiser can force a nanoship to disengage easilly. As can a battlecruiser. However a disengage isn't a kill nor a win. So the t1 solution is lots of t1 frigs setup for a suicidal run. They need good skills to keep up. The need great ecm/logistical support to stay alive. They need battlecruisers/cruisers for damage. Oh wait. These have limited range (the tacklers are probably 50-100km before they get some good tackles). So now we need nano'd cruisers to close or "long range" cruisers. Or we need battleships to snipe. In the end it is just easier to just fly nanos. The best answer to nanos are nanos.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.01 05:34:00 - [220] Originally by: ***zilla 3 weeks for a new player? To buy not only the ship plus the fittings? Still fairly steep entry cost for what is a suicidal tackler with a steep learning curve. 3 week old player in any ship against any gang is not an effective member. Dont give me that crap about noobs tackling in rifters, they die in 2 seconds to warrior IIs from anything. Quote: Scramming? Yes. Webbing? Not really. If the nano has a web then the ceptor is quickly toast. Most nanos do nont, and thats what ECM support is for, to keep your ceptors alive. Quote: So we need multiple ceptors. Plus jammers. Plus dps. And most likely we'll pop a single nano out of the group (if luckly) and the rest are gone. You spread your tacklers and tackle as many as you can, rest will probably flee, how is this different from battleships? Even a fleet of sniper bs jumping into a gatecamp can usually get the majority of its ships out unless there are anchored bubbles on the gate or something. Quote: Better to get the entire gang in nanos themselves. They'll simply be more effective. The tacklers are simpler and the best thing to threaten a nano gang is another nano gang. Nanoships are not particularly good at killing other nanoships. Its not easier to get the entire gang into nanoships, because the whiners typically do not have the isk or the skill to effectively fly a nanoship. Not to mention nanogangs kill each other with rapiers, not because putting nanos on an ishtar will somehow allow it to hit other nanoships. It will not. Rapiers would work just as well in a normal gang. Quote: Yes. t2 ships and fittings can hit stuff. Can you web the nano? Do you expect the nano to approach and wait for you to kill it? Shift the goalpost some more please. You stated that medium guns cannot hit nanos unless they are webbed, this is blatantly false. Quote: So the t1 solution is lots of t1 frigs setup for a suicidal run. They need good skills to keep up. The need great ecm/logistical support to stay alive. They need battlecruisers/cruisers for damage. Oh wait. These have limited range (the tacklers are probably 50-100km before they get some good tackles). So now we need nano'd cruisers to close or "long range" cruisers. Or we need battleships to snipe. Yes, if you want to use a bunch of noobs in t1 ships you will need a lot more than the t2 gang you're trying to fight. How is this any different for any other gang? You need to seriously outnumber a RR bs gang if you want to take it down with t1 frigs and cruisers. Quote: In the end it is just easier to just fly nanos. The best answer to nanos are nanos. Its easy for 3 week old noobs to fly 200m nanohacs when you say inties are too difficult/expensive for them to fly? Its amusing how much you constantly shift the goalpost. Oh and here's a clue for you, nanoing a hac does not suddenly make it capable of killing nanoships, most nanoships CANNOT effectively engage other nanohacs all that well. The reason nanogangs do well against their own counterparts is because they tend to have rapiers, falcons, and scimitars. They have logistical and ECM support with specialized tacklers. If you put thohse in a normal gang it will ***a nanogang too.
Solid Trust Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.01 05:47:00 - [221] 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! I think they should take it farther. We should take no chances. They should remove the speed bonus on nanofibers, create an entire new class of cheap frig sized ships with electronic warfare bonuses, then lets buff the existing Intys so they can scram from 30km away and a bonus so it can run scram forever, and just to be on the safe side lets throw something in where you can over boost your web range for a short period of time. Long enough to stop the nano-ship so others can tackle and kill it. And because we are evil, lets make the Polycarb rigs cost 50 million a piece so if they do nano we will suck them of their isk. I am tired of CCP doing Absolutely NOTHING to counter nanos. This is unnacceptable.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.01 18:12:00 - [222] Edited by: ***zilla on 01/07/2008 18:12:44 Originally by: Gamesguy 3 week old player in any ship against any gang is not an effective member...they die in 2 seconds to warrior IIs from anything. And ceptors do that much better? What makes the difference is speed, speed, and speed. But only some of the ceptors work. 2 slot layouts versus 3 slot layouts. Originally by: Gamesguy Most nanos do nont, and thats what ECM support is for, to keep your ceptors alive. And for every one or two tackler we need an ECM ship. So one somewhat overpowered (ECM) to counter another. Originally by: Gamesguy You spread your tacklers and tackle as many as you can, rest will probably flee, how is this different from battleships? Even a fleet of sniper bs jumping into a gatecamp can usually get the majority of its ships out unless there are anchored bubbles on the gate or something. So wildly grab tackles. Hope that the ECM boats can figure something out. Meanwhile non nanos can be forced to fight with dictor bubbles, anchored bubbles etc. A sniper fleet going through a gate camp can be forced to deal with everything from t1 frigs, drakes to other battleships. Few of which a sniper fleet can effectively deal with (its sniper, configured for long range and not short range slug fests). Originally by: Gamesguy Its not easier to get the entire gang into nanoships, because the whiners typically do not have the isk or the skill to effectively fly a nanoship. Certainly not easy but if they must train long term than nanos are a better bet than battleships etc. A nano isn't that much more expensive than a battleship (polys versus faction webs etc, bs pays out insurance etc). Add in the t2 weapons and the nano looks good. Add in the ability to survive and the nano is a done deal. Originally by: Gamesguy Not to mention nanogangs kill each other with rapiers, not because putting nanos on an ishtar will somehow allow it to hit other nanoships. It will not. Rapiers would work just as well in a normal gang. Not quote. Rapiers are fairly close range. 35-40km is usually the effective range. But they need to be paired with Arazu's to point, or they must nano themselves after the nanos and try to point, hopefully with logistics backup. So we get the nano dance. Two gangs face off. They try and distract the other and close. Then all of the cloaked rapiers uncloak. Anyone not gone in 5-7 seconds (re-cal time) is primary. Can't have huginns or there wouldn't be a fight. So then we get the vaga's replacing a lse for a web. So nanos are the most effective way to go after nanos and support rapiers etc (nano support). Originally by: Gamesguy You stated that medium guns cannot hit nanos unless they are webbed, this is blatantly false. Medium guns can hit. What nano pilot will wait there to be popped when they're not webbed? Yes you can drive them off. Then draw versus win argument. Originally by: Gamesguy Its easy for 3 week old noobs to fly 200m nanohacs when you say inties are too difficult/expensive for them to fly? Something that is expensive or takes more training time should give an edge. Not a significant advantage. Originally by: Gamesguy The reason nanogangs do well against their own counterparts is because they tend to have rapiers, falcons, and scimitars. They have logistical and ECM support with specialized tacklers. If you put thohse in a normal gang it will *****a nanogang too. Ah. This is the part where nano support is required. Takes Rapiers (nano'd), Scimitar (nano'd), and falcons (not nano'd). Takes t2. Takes fairly expensive ships. In a normal gang all that happens is the tacklers outpace the dps. So then you get a blob ball on a gate with the dps etc all close up. The nanos try and seperate the rapiers/tacklers from the blob ball so they can be primaried. Mobility wins.
Spineker Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.01 18:20:00 - [223] The answer for overpowered nano ships according to gamedude is A kool-aid pack you can sprinkle in space and insta spawn a falcon and inty wingman. I mean they aren't overpowered or nothing Of course your inty is a kamakazi because they go pop.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.07.01 19:49:00 - [224] EZ fix to nanos the universe over: BS sized webs. Small web (current) - 10km up to 90%. Light web drones - 3500m/s, 10% velocity reduction. Med web - 15km up to 75% Medium web drones - 3000m/s, 12% velocity reduction. Large web - 30km up to 50% Heavy web drones - 2000m/s, 15% velocity reduction. There, nanos fixed. And you wouldn't even need to boost missile speeds.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.01 22:30:00 - [225] Originally by: ***zilla And ceptors do that much better? What makes the difference is speed, speed, and speed. But only some of the ceptors work. 2 slot layouts versus 3 slot layouts. Ceptors t2 fit with no rigs will outrun warrior IIs, a very important thing that keeps them alive against any ship with 25m3 of drone bay. Quote: And for every one or two tackler we need an ECM ship. So one somewhat overpowered (ECM) to counter another. What kind of ECM ships are you flying that can only jam one or two targets? A falcon will practically permajam a hac with just one jammer, you should be able to lock down 4-5 targets per falcon easilly. Quote: So wildly grab tackles. Hope that the ECM boats can figure something out. Yes I suppose thats what smash does, maybe if you guys weren't such utter failures it would work better. I'm sorry if it takes more coordination than just calling primary, secondary, and tertiary. Quote: Meanwhile non nanos can be forced to fight with dictor bubbles, anchored bubbles etc. A sniper fleet going through a gate camp can be forced to deal with everything from t1 frigs, drakes to other battleships. Few of which a sniper fleet can effectively deal with (its sniper, configured for long range and not short range slug fests). A sniper fleet jumping through a gatecamp is intentionally engaging, its not forced to do anything. Any gang with decent scouts don't have to engage if they don't want to. . Quote:** Certainly not easy but if they must train long term than nanos are a better bet than battleships etc. A nano isn't that much more expensive than a battleship (polys versus faction webs etc, bs pays out insurance etc). Add in the t2 weapons and the nano looks good. Add in the ability to survive and the nano is a done deal. Inties are too much for newbies to train for but nanohacs are not? Shift goalpost more please. Nano is MUCH more expensive than a battleship. My fully t2 fitted un-rigged fleet BS will run me 25-30mil to replace, rigged will run me about 60-70mil. A nano-hac will run you 250mil to replace, or the cost of 10 unrigged BS or 4 rigged BS.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.01 22:39:00 - [226] Quote: Not quote. Rapiers are fairly close range. 35-40km is usually the effective range. But they need to be paired with Arazu's to point, or they must nano themselves after the nanos and try to point, hopefully with logistics backup. So we get the nano dance. Two gangs face off. They try and distract the other and close. Then all of the cloaked rapiers uncloak. Anyone not gone in 5-7 seconds (re-cal time) is primary. Can't have huginns or there wouldn't be a fight. Any gang that doesn't want to engage will not. If a nanogang engages then it must come within WD range, at which point you can web and kill them with rapiers. Huginns don't scare off nanogangs, competently flown and supported ones do, and you don't know which it is until you've lost a few ships to it already. Quote: So then we get the vaga's replacing a lse for a web. So nanos are the most effective way to go after nanos and support rapiers etc (nano support). You're gonna go in web range with a vaga? When every other nanoship can kick its ass in webrange and moving at 500m/s? Is this standard fit in smash? Quote: Medium guns can hit. What nano pilot will wait there to be popped when they're not webbed? Yes you can drive them off. Then draw versus win argument. Your vaga with a web will be popped. Quote: Something that is expensive or takes more training time should give an edge. Not a significant advantage. Eh what? You're telling me battleships dont have a "significant advantage" over battlecruisers? Or battlecruisers dont have a significant advantage over cruisers? Or how about recons vs their t1 counterparts? Curses dont have a significant advantage over arbitrators? Crusaders dont have a significant advantage over executioners? So you think every t2 ship and big ships should all be nerfed? Oh wait, you just like double standards. Quote: Ah. This is the part where nano support is required. Takes Rapiers (nano'd), Scimitar (nano'd), and falcons (not nano'd). Takes t2. Takes fairly expensive ships. In a normal gang all that happens is the tacklers outpace the dps. So then you get a blob ball on a gate with the dps etc all close up. The nanos try and seperate the rapiers/tacklers from the blob ball so they can be primaried. Mobility wins. In fail gangs the tacklers outrace the ecm/logistical support. A conventional gang vs a nano-gang you maintain a "sphere of death" inside which any nanoship gets quickly tackled and die(usually 50-60km), noob tacklers will leeroy and get killed off when they find themselves 200km away from their gang and isolated. With proper discipline and coordination this works very well. And no, before you say it, its not better to put everyone in nanoships, because the same noob tacklers that leeroy a gang of 10 will also leeroy them in his shield boosting vaga and get killed, then get the km posted in a comedy km thread.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.02 00:28:00 - [227] Originally by: Haakelen guys guys guys nanos are invincible 02:33:11 Combat [G.R.] Herustar *Absolution* strikes you perfectly, wrecking for 498.1 damage. sacrilege while MWDing, about 3400m/s you know perf strikes can happen even when they have a 0% chance to hit you, right? being instapopped in your inty by a random perfstrike from a 1400pest is never fun... ...
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.02 02:42:00 - [228] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Originally by: Haakelen guys guys guys nanos are invincible 02:33:11 Combat [G.R.] Herustar *Absolution* strikes you perfectly, wrecking for 498.1 damage. sacrilege while MWDing, about 3400m/s you know perf strikes can happen even when they have a 0% chance to hit you, right? being instapopped in your inty by a random perfstrike from a 1400pest is never fun... Absolution has nearly 100% chance to hit any orbitting nanohac.
Spurty Caldari The Pikey Rebellion II	Posted - 2008.07.02 02:46:00 - [229] laz0rs have great tracking, but 100% to anything, even a secure can when stationary is not my experience of eve.
Ekrid	Posted - 2008.07.02 14:00:00 - [230] Edited by: Ekrid on 02/07/2008 14:01:32 I'd just like to point out, everyone defending their nano setups with arguments like "I nano so maybe you cant hit me, but I also cant hit you! waaa....". Missile on nano ships arent subject to transversal, while nanoships reduce missile damage 100% and turret damage 100%. so in essence, you will see people use missiles on nanoships because they will work 100% of the time vs non nano ships, and you with your turrets OR missiles wont have a chance in hell to hit them back. move along.
Fredonan Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.02 15:08:00 - [231] While I don't particularly like nano-ships, having lost 2 Ravens to them in the past. (Darn 0.0 Pirates) I don't see them as a cheap or cheating style of fighting. Just different, they're the BnZ ships of EvE. To draw a parallel: Most ships in EvE are comparable to WWII dog-fighters. You use a certain plane for a certain job, if you want to turn-fight well you take up a Zero or a Spitfire. If you want durability with engine power you take of a Corsair or a P-47. The really skilled fighter pilots can take these aircraft and do amazing things in them. Then there are the fighter pilots that everybody hates. These are the guys flying 109-K4's, 190D-9's, Spit 14's, P-51 B's, P-38's, and ME-262's. These are the BnZ pilots who practice the exact same fighting technique used by Nanoships. I wonder how many nanopilots play Aces High 2. <S> Their aircraft are deadly, have massive firepower, and insane engine power compared to larger, slower, or better turning aircraft. But even when a fighter has better accelerration, better top speed, better rate of climb, better turning radius, better maneuverability, better firepower. Its the method and the tactics that the BnZ pilot uses that makes their ships so deadly. They engage at will, they have the tactics and most usually the ride to control the fight. When they sense they are losing they break away and re-engage when the advantage is theirs or is neutral. However, a BnZ pilot is easy to defeat if you know how and are willing to do it. Doesn't matter if you're in a Hurri IIC, a Zeke, or a Pony. If you know how to do it, and you're willing to take the time and effort to do so you can force even with an inferior plane a BnZ pilot to do one of the following: 1: Disengage and run home. The BnZ pilot gets no kills. Neither do you, but you still forced him home with an inferior (cheaper) ride. 2: Make a critical mistake. (Whoops, hey there's a rock right there you didn't quite see, poof) You either kill or cripple his ship and he runs home in a pod or with alot of big scratches on his hull. 3: You force him into a disadvantage, and own the frack out of his lame running arse. The problem isn't the Nanoships, its the lack of ingenuity of the people fighting the nanoships. Same problem in Aces High. 2 Guys at altitude in BnZ rides can slaughter 30+ turn-style aircraft at will. Why? Because they use speed, and altitude to their advantage and only engage when they can pick off a fighter. But the second a fighter gets equal or above them in altitude they book it for home. One Raven fitted out with T1 gear can either destroy, or force a Nanoship home. One Armageddon fitted out with HEN's and Megapulses can either destroy or force a Nanoship home. A battlecruiser can destroy or force a Nanoship home. Hell even a small group of cruisers can do it. A group of frigates will have a tough time, but if they're prepared for it they can take down a nanoship. It simply takes patience, preparation, and the determination to do it. What's even better, is that the same fittings used to wtfpwn nanoships, are still viable against non-nanoships. Take a T-1 cruise Raven, put a decent buffer on it and a Heavy Energy Neutralizer, and in two cycles anything HAC sized and under has zero capacitor. When the ship slows down, unleash cruise missile hell. Plop two HEN's on an Armageddon, a MWD and some megapulses, wait for the nanoship to engage, bam zip cap and full impulse on intercept course while shredding the hell out of him. Few nanoships will engage at range because the longer the range the less of an impact transversal has, and therefore the more nonspecific ships become viable in hurting it. Plues the longer the range the better chance the other ship can get away. Nano ships are limited in their range while the ships that can kill/defeat them aren't. One Scorpion, well-flown can shut down 2-3 nanoships from over 100 Km. Nanos aren't the problem.
Reiaandra Ilin Caldari Solstice Systems Development Concourse	Posted - 2008.07.02 17:01:00 - [232] Hey, OP... you're kinda slow we should probably slap a couple polycarbs in your brain. I'm an inty pilot. You know what scares me more than fast vagas? Rapiers or anything with a web for that matter. A smart pilot will know how to counter my transversal or hit me with a neut and damn I'm done rather quickly. This applies to most nanoships. Missiles suck against fast ships..so okay. shoot 'em. The guide doesn't take into account actual piloting/ Don't ***** at CCP to change the game. That is the problem with most whiners in this game. You don't think tactically. Can't beat a titan? OMGNERF can't beat a Vagabond? OMGNERF can't find a cloaker? OMGNERF That is your ilk's answer to everything: "We can't think of a way to beat it so it must be overpowered." Get a tactician, read the Art of War. Do something instead of whining every time you lose a ship. And don't complain because a nano ship can dictate whether it wants to fight or not. A win in defense is survival. Killing the other guy is icing on the cake. This is supposed to be a game. Take away the challenge and fear and you'll have F1-F9 online, and I wouldn't like that. Alternately, leave. Can I have your stuff? Or since it is so easy to make a ship go 11KM/S. Why don't you buy me a set of HG snakes since it is so easy. Please and Thank you. -Reiaa
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba The Requiem	Posted - 2008.07.02 17:03:00 - [233] Originally by: Gamesguy leeroy them in his shield boosting vaga and get killed, then get the km posted in a comedy km thread. or dual T1 MAR, lazor vaga.... some of the people arguing about nano's are actually on KM's like that... pure comedy
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.02 21:50:00 - [234] Originally by: Gamesguy Ceptors t2 fit with no rigs will outrun warrior IIs, a very important thing that keeps them alive against any ship with 25m3 of drone bay. Which makes ceptors required. Mostly those with more than 2 slots. And leaves t1 stuff in the dust. Originally by: Gamesguy A falcon will practically permajam a hac And we're back to having t2 being required. Originally by: Gamesguy A sniper fleet jumping through a gatecamp is intentionally engaging, its not forced to do anything. A sniper fleet can a) engage, b) be chased and held up with bubbles, c) hop safe spots while being probed and trapped, d) log off. The other options are to get no where close to the system or not undock. Snipers that warp to on grid are likely to have an engagement forced. Originally by: Gamesguy Nano is MUCH more expensive than a battleship. Price shouldn't set utility. Certainly not t2 price. So a hac is only 4x more expensive than a bs, but thats only after insurance. Insurance itself costs a bit. Before insurance in terms of assets a nano isn't that bad. Add in the ability to survive and the nano is a good deal. Originally by: Gamesguy [Eh what? You're telling me battleships dont have a "significant advantage" over battlecruisers? Or battlecruisers dont have a significant advantage over cruisers? Or how about recons vs their t1 counterparts? Curses dont have a significant advantage over arbitrators? Crusaders dont have a significant advantage over executioners? Show me a battleship that can negate nearly all damage. Show me one that can't be effectively scrammed. Big ships increase dps but decrease mobility and the ability to deal with small stuff. The issue with speed as that as ships go over certain boundaries game mechanics start to break down. Originally by: Gamesguy shield boosting vaga and get killed, then get the km posted in a comedy km thread. Oh yes. This is because variety is nearly dead. There are very few fits for nanos. Very little variation. There is a fitting screen but it is entirely to apply one of a few approved templates. Other setups are comedy because of how much better the approved ones work. Originally by: Reiaandra Ilin I'm an inty pilot. You know what scares me more than fast vagas? Rapiers or anything with a web for that matter. Rapiers with 90% webs are a bit overpowered. Partly a problem with how webs currently work. Webs are mostly an all or nothing module. I'd prefer to see changes that buff ceptors.
Reiaandra Ilin Caldari Solstice Systems Development Concourse	Posted - 2008.07.02 22:06:00 - [235] Edited by: Reiaandra Ilin on 02/07/2008 22:09:50 Inties are fine IMO. As far as negating all damage? Show me a nano which once caught can live until its mates nail it down. Show me a good permarun MWD setup. And once again Tactics tactics tactics. There are ways to negate transversal without webbing them. Think about it Also, what is the big deal about t2? an inty is a pretty low tier t2 ship. Also, we get into cost VS effectiveness. Why should a 300K ISK ship be able to take out a 300+ Million ISK ship? That is like saying you should be able to play EVE on a commodore 64. Come on man...that is not apples to apples. This doesn't make sense. I wouldn't say the rapier is overpowered. They take a huge train, die easily and put out very little DPS to anything but small stuff.
Demarcus Killjoy.	Posted - 2008.07.02 22:20:00 - [236] Originally by: Katashi I**uka 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. I have seen more than one battleship do over 10k, so thank you come again. ------------------------------------- You are all worthless, and weak.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.02 23:12:00 - [237] Originally by: Demarcus Originally by: Katashi I**uka 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. I have seen more than one battleship do over 10k, so thank you come again. Those battleships? They have the turning radius of a planet, cost as much as half a dozen capitals (when you include the HG snakes needed to get a BS to 10km/s) and are really only useful for one thing: bumping people. That's like saying we should nerf shield tanking because a fully officer fit Wyvern can tank 75k DPS. In the grand scheme of things, if you are honestly concerned about nano-BS, you really need to reevaluate your position.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.02 23:45:00 - [238] Originally by: ***zilla Which makes ceptors required. Mostly those with more than 2 slots. And leaves t1 stuff in the dust. So you want warrior IIs nerfed? Quote: And we're back to having t2 being required. Scorpion will do just as well, blackbird can but you need more of them, just like everything else t1. You need two t1 snipers to do the damage of a t2 sniper. Quote: A sniper fleet can a) engage, b) be chased and held up with bubbles, c) hop safe spots while being probed and trapped, d) log off. The other options are to get no where close to the system or not undock. Snipers that warp to on grid are likely to have an engagement forced. No, a sniper fleet can simply decide not to jump through the gate because its a deathtrap. In fact, this happens a lot, you end up with two fleets sitting at sniper ranges on different sides of a gate staring at each other, neither willing to jump through. Quote: Price shouldn't set utility. Certainly not t2 price. So a hac is only 4x more expensive than a bs, but thats only after insurance. Insurance itself costs a bit. Before insurance in terms of assets a nano isn't that bad. Add in the ability to survive and the nano is a good deal. Price shouldn't set utility? Wtf are you talking about? Price sets utility all the time, do you see many sniping feroxes in fleet bs gangs? Price sets utility for practically everything in eve. Want a cov op cloak? You better use t2 then. Want specialized EW? Again t2. Is this a whine about nanoships or a whine about you being too poor to afford t2 ships? Originally by:** Gamesguy Show me a battleship that can negate nearly all damage. Show me one that can't be effectively scrammed. Big ships increase dps but decrease mobility and the ability to deal with small stuff. Show me a nanohac that can negate nearly all damage. Show me one that can't be effectively scrammed. You're back to lying again I see. Battleships ***everything smaller than them, they have an easier time doing this than even battlecruisers(which have a hard time against frigs). Its called a heavy neut. Quote: The issue with speed as that as ships go over certain boundaries game mechanics start to break down. Yes, 8km/s for hacs, as the devs have said. Originally by:** Gamesguy Oh yes. This is because variety is nearly dead. There are very few fits for nanos. Very little variation. There is a fitting screen but it is entirely to apply one of a few approved templates. Other setups are comedy because of how much better the approved ones work. Because the other fits simply do not work. Vaga does not tank well, its designed to speedtank, are you going to shield tank your crow for the sake of "variety"?
Kel Gunrunner Dark Destiny Inc. Total Eclipse Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.03 00:04:00 - [239] Its all unbalenced at the min, nano gangs are a risk free way of hunting, im not saying it should be impossible to make something difficult to hit, im just saying the way it is now is almost impossible to counter its an unbalance in the pvp model. which hurts the game for alot of players. The thing is CCP often totaly nerf out tactics like this, it happened to nos setups and snipers and dampeners and if u keep nerfing these things u end up with a boring game. these tactics should be possible(with implants etc and real expense).... It just all needs balenced.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.03 01:03:00 - [240] when I fly nanoHACs, I do it for 2 reasons: - They can MWD back to the gate if they hit a camp - They arn't scared of ceptors It's the combination of mobility, combat effectiveness and survivability that makes them so popular. It's really up to the devs if they want ships to be able to do that, but as far as being overpowered goes... about the only ship that I can truely class as that is the Rapier. (which ironically is also the best counter to nanos, but whatever) ...
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.03 01:26:00 - [241] Originally by: Rawr Cristina but as far as being overpowered goes... about the only ship that I can truely class as that is the Rapier. (which ironically is also the best counter to nanos, but whatever) This is clearly propaganda from the anti-nano crowd. The Rapier and Huginn are perfectly fine.
Ekrid	Posted - 2008.07.03 04:15:00 - [242] Edited by: Ekrid on 03/07/2008 04:15:25 Originally by: Ekrid Edited by: Ekrid on 02/07/2008 14:01:32 I'd just like to point out, everyone defending their nano setups with arguments like "I nano so maybe you cant hit me, but I also cant hit you! waaa....". Missile on nano ships arent subject to transversal, while nanoships reduce missile damage 100% and turret damage 100%. so in essence, you will see people use missiles on nanoships because they will work 100% of the time vs non nano ships, and you with your turrets OR missiles wont have a chance in hell to hit them back. move along. this post is full of win. Ekrid is hit the nail on the head.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.03 07:31:00 - [243] 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? (a) <13000m is webrange. (b) At the speeds you're talking about, you're using a MWD. Retry with 200m3 sig radius. (c) MWD-ing in a frig in webrange is a very awesome way to die. Originally by: Jeckes Notice too, how 5000 transversal isnt even close to the speed of current nanoships? Non-snaked polycarbon-fit nanoships mostly go at 4.5km/s-5km/s -ish, except Vagabonds which are faster. Anyway, tracking nano-ships which are not horribly pimped (read: snakes, faction stuff and polycarbon rigs) is preety easy. Originally by: Jeckes 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. But, you nubbin, MWD increases your sig radius 5 times. That's what makes it fairly easy to track nanoships in the first place. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Forge Lag	Posted - 2008.07.03 08:06:00 - [244] What the OP describes is actually why AFs are such nerfed flying bricks. Without that they would be only vulnerable to one uncommon class of guns. HACs are just too good. They need some weakness, because weakness defines stuff as much as strength. In case of AF it is speed. In case of HACs the least problematic tweak would be removing the traces of tank, their already rather low buffer compared to faction cruisers hints at this and it would set them even more apart from BCs. Or introducing other inherent weakness. If you look at Minmatar, devs are very aware of how huge advantage speed is and the race pays for it dearly in missing slots and projectiles issues and mixed weapon systems. Now look at HACs which are not really penalized.
MenanceWhite Amarr Fruit Fellatio	Posted - 2008.07.03 08:48:00 - [245] Just me or does Jeckes seem like an hardcore theory onry EFTwarrior after reading riftermasters post? --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2008.07.03 09:27:00 - [246] The predominance of 'nano-ships' - and typically Nano-hacs is just a symptom of a previous series of nerfs. 2 years ago ECM and Nosferatu & stabs were all the rage. Sure people flew nano-ship but because ECM was so powerful players tended to fit that instead (most nano ships will mid slot shield tank vs ECM midslot E-war). Nos, notably large nos also ensured that nano-hac gangs were much less effective but even medium nos ensured that if you could get close enough; even for a few seconds the dual effect of a web and medium nos would bring a nano-hac to its knees in pretty short order. The other module change that has contributed to the rise of the nano ship is the warp core stabilisier. It provided a unpenalised chance of escape. The important thing to consider (baring the cost of a HAC in mind) is that whilst most players like to 'win' virtually no one want to loose. The combined effect of Nos, ECM and Stabs meant a typical ship had a good chance of escape. Nano ships simply rely upon speed to achieve similar effects: the ability to flee or the ability to drasticaly negate the capabilities of your opponent (as nos and ECM did). Even if you nerf Nano ships this will still be the goal of pretty much all players. Id anticipate for example a massive rise in the use of ECM drone ships, perhaps even a return to warp core stabiliser use. So to an extent you're arguing for a nerf to a 'playstyle' that is simply human nature. Oh and I think most of your numbers are off. The Sacri cant go any where near 11km/s - Ive tried. C. VITOC - Amarr Corp for Faction Warfare!
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.03 09:59:00 - [247] Originally by: Cailais The predominance of 'nano-ships' - and typically Nano-hacs is just a symptom of a previous series of nerfs. 2 years ago ECM and Nosferatu & stabs were all the rage. Sure people flew nano-ship but because ECM was so powerful players tended to fit that instead (most nano ships will mid slot shield tank vs ECM midslot E-war). Nos, notably large nos also ensured that nano-hac gangs were much less effective but even medium nos ensured that if you could get close enough; even for a few seconds the dual effect of a web and medium nos would bring a nano-hac to its knees in pretty short order. The other module change that has contributed to the rise of the nano ship is the warp core stabilisier. It provided a unpenalised chance of escape. The important thing to consider (baring the cost of a HAC in mind) is that whilst most players like to 'win' virtually no one want to loose. The combined effect of Nos, ECM and Stabs meant a typical ship had a good chance of escape. Nano ships simply rely upon speed to achieve similar effects: the ability to flee or the ability to drasticaly negate the capabilities of your opponent (as nos and ECM did). Even if you nerf Nano ships this will still be the goal of pretty much all players. Id anticipate for example a massive rise in the use of ECM drone ships, perhaps even a return to warp core stabiliser use. So to an extent you're arguing for a nerf to a 'playstyle' that is simply human nature. I find your logical reasoning offensive ...
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.07.03 11:07:00 - [248] Originally by: Rawr Cristina when I fly nanoHACs, I do it for 2 reasons: - They can MWD back to the gate if they hit a camp - They arn't scared of ceptors It's the combination of mobility, combat effectiveness and survivability that makes them so popular. It's really up to the devs if they want ships to be able to do that, but as far as being overpowered goes... about the only ship that I can truely class as that is the Rapier. (which ironically is also the best counter to nanos, but whatever) Any ship that can bypass blockades while still being combat effective is overpowered by it's very nature. That's the exact reason why WCS were nerfed in the first place. ------------------------------------------
Father Dibbles Drunks And Addicts Combined	Posted - 2008.07.03 11:11:00 - [249] I don't know if anyone has said this or not but, an old friend and myself agreed in the past that this was really the only logical way forward (although there are probably oodles of oversights) - oh and flame all you want, Diablo 3 is on its way (8 ******* years baby), and yes you can have my stuff : Remove MWD's completely & compensate to those ships that previously relied on speed for e.g. give an AB bonus to the blaster boats.... (and a signature penalty upon activation for AB's). There are a large number of downsides to this... but from where I sit its one of the few preventative measures available for any ship obtaining speeds outside of its intended role/function. It will mean a number of things: Interceptors will be the fastest ship in the game - thus the best tacklers (as intended). Theoretically however their speed will be reduced sufficiently so that they will be fully hit by light missiles/take medium damage from heavies/light damage from cruises (sig radius). Tracking is no longer an issue to hit the target in most cases (except vagas/inties where current anti-nano methods (but less severe!) will need to be utilised) - and equally tracking disruptors will become a favourite EW method, rather than the simple use of speed to offset the problem of being tracked by turrets. No HACs or cruiser size vessels except for the Rup/Vaga will be able exceed 1k m/s - counters to which will be as before (although people whine about it enough to make everyone believe the contrary) - web drones are approximately 2-3kms(?) - job done. 90% web ~ 100 m/s job done. Heavy / Med neuts - Job done. Tracking disruptors vs Rup/Vaga job done. Light - Med drones (speed of those may need adjusting as well!) - job done. The only specific skill (I think?) that becomes obselete is high speed maneuvering (-5% cap activation) - A suggestion would be -5% reduction in sig radious penalty upon AB activation. There will be things I have thought about for a long time thats been missed out, but noone will read or comment and just continue on the barbaric waffle, so I dont really give a damn. Of course if you slapped on a stat to MWD's that reduced your isk by 10million per second while activated, that would work too.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.03 11:53:00 - [250] Edited by: Esmenet on 03/07/2008 11:54:04 Originally by: Father Dibbles Silly stuff Lol.
Father Dibbles Drunks And Addicts Combined	Posted - 2008.07.03 12:04:00 - [251] Originally by: Esmenet Edited by: Esmenet on 03/07/2008 11:54:04 Originally by: Father Dibbles Silly stuff Lol. And back at you for having to edit a four character long, pointless post.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.03 13:25:00 - [252] Originally by: Father Dibbles Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Father Dibbles Silly stuff Lol. And back at you for having to edit a four character long, pointless post. You're a terrible troll.
Thargat Caldari North Star Networks Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.07.03 13:49:00 - [253] Originally by: Father Dibbles Diablo 3 is on its way (8 ***ing years baby), and yes you can have my stuff : Your stuff... give it to me. There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius.*
Father Dibbles Drunks And Addicts Combined	Posted - 2008.07.03 13:57:00 - [254] Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Father Dibbles Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Father Dibbles Silly stuff Lol. And back at you for having to edit a four character long, pointless post. You're a terrible troll. Kiss my arse?
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.03 15:10:00 - [255] Originally by: Kel Gunrunner Its all unbalenced at the min, nano gangs are a risk free way of hunting Multiple killboard prove this statement false. Were it risk free, you wouldn't ever see any nano killed. Or were you exaggerating? Originally by: Kel Gunrunner , im not saying it should be impossible to make something difficult to hit, im just saying the way it is now is almost impossible to counter its an unbalance in the pvp model. which hurts the game for alot of players. No it isn't. It's impossible to counter by rolling your head across the fkeys, yes. Originally by: Kel Gunrunner The thing is CCP often totaly nerf out tactics like this it happened to nos setups Two of my favorite setups are energy warfare based, primarily energy vampires, not neuts. I even invested in a high grade talisman set which I completed last week. So I would argue NOS was balanced, not nerfed. Originally by: Kel Gunrunner and snipers I must have missed this one....they nerfed snipers? Originally by: Kel Gunrunner and dampeners they needed it. You could put a single module on half the ships in a gang and win almost every fight. Originally by: Kel Gunrunner and if u keep nerfing these things u end up with a boring game. So you're saying nerfing things makes the game boring, but nerf nanos? wtf? Originally by: Kel Gunrunner these tactics should be possible(with implants etc and real expense).... They are, to start, learn the difference between tactics and strategy. Originally by: Kel Gunrunner It just all needs balenced. I agree actually. But just taking speed away from HACs will make them completely useless. That's not balance, it's ruination. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.03 15:12:00 - [256] Originally by: Ekrid Edited by: Ekrid on 03/07/2008 04:15:25 Originally by: Ekrid Edited by: Ekrid on 02/07/2008 14:01:32 I'd just like to point out, everyone defending their nano setups with arguments like "I nano so maybe you cant hit me, but I also cant hit you! waaa....". Missile on nano ships arent subject to transversal, while nanoships reduce missile damage 100% and turret damage 100%. so in essence, you will see people use missiles on nanoships because they will work 100% of the time vs non nano ships, and you with your turrets OR missiles wont have a chance in hell to hit them back. move along. this post is full of win. Ekrid is hit the nail on the head. It's a tiny little nail. There is precisely one missile nano ship. One. I guess you could put launchers on a curse, but they would do squat for damage cause it doesn't get bonuses to missiles, and you'd waste the bonuses it does get. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.03 15:46:00 - [257] Originally by: Father Dibbles Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Father Dibbles Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Father Dibbles Silly stuff Lol. And back at you for having to edit a four character long, pointless post. You're a terrible troll. Kiss my arse? Eat whirlwind, biatch. I played diablo II/expansion for like 6 effing years. I do NOT have time for diablo III. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.03 16:48:00 - [258] Edited by: ***zilla on 03/07/2008 17:27:24 Originally by: Xaen Multiple killboard prove this statement false. By that reasoning nano battleships were balanced. They could be killed. Occasionally a nano phoon/mach would grace someones killboard. A faction nano mach costs a lot. If it is expensive with expensive implants and expensive faction mods then it must be all right! Originally by: Xaen they nerfed snipers? Yes. The scripts for the sensor boosters. Snipers no longer get an advantage to range + lock time. Not a major nerf, but still. Originally by: Xaen I agree actually. But just taking speed away from HACs will make them completely useless. That's not balance, it's ruination. Which is why many argue for nerfing the crazy non stacked speeds (ie 8km/s+). Adjusting the stacking of poly's. Adjusting the stacking of implants. For most of the normal nanos keeping the speed roughly what they are. But introduce scripts for webs. Introduce sig radius as a factor for the webs ablitiy to be effective. Buff assault frigs somewhere in here. So assault frigs + ab's would be weakly affected by webs (low sig radius). A ceptor with mwd would be hit hard by a short range 90% webber. However if a ceptor is hit with 24km 25% webber it wouldn't hurt that much with the reasonable sig radius. A battleship would hurt with even the 24km 25% webber variety much less a 10km 90% webber. A nano would still find the 10km 90% webber to be death. However the nano can trade tank etc for a 30km 25% webber itself which improves the nanos chances. Take away a bit of the bonus from the Rapier/Huginn. Worst case it would web at 120km-150km at 25% (plus would have 2-3x webbers). Rapiers can web now that far on Trinity with officer gear. So possibly reduce the 60% bonus to range.
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.03 17:30:00 - [259] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen Multiple killboard prove this statement false. By that reasoning nano battleships were balanced. I said they're not risk free, the killboards prove that as far as it went. You're taking my argument further than I was. Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen they nerfed snipers? Yes. The scripts for the sensor boosters. Snipers no longer get an advantage to range + lock time. Not a major nerf, but still. Barely rates IMO. They're already out of lock range of a lot of ships, so they hardly need a tank. It just required a little bit of module adjustment. Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen I agree actually. But just taking speed away from HACs will make them completely useless. That's not balance, it's ruination. Which is why many argue for nerfing the crazy non stacked speeds (ie 8km/s+). Adjusting the stacking of poly's. Adjusting the stacking of implants. But most people are arguing that the realistic speed ships (3k-4k) also need nerfed. About the only thing that goes 8km/s is a snaked or claymored overloaded vagabond. I know because I fly one. With near perfect navigation skills, rogue 3%s and a hyper-link it barely breaks 5km/s. It'll do 7km/s if I overload for about 3 MWD cycles before I burn something up. I've completely maxed out cost effective speed and it doesn't do 6km/s. Admittedly I fly with a kinetic shield rig and 3 gyros, but that's how I choose to fly my vagabond. Originally by: ***zilla For most of the normal nanos keeping the speed roughly what they are. But introduce scripts for webs. Introduce sig radius as a factor for the webs ablitiy to be effective. Buff assault frigs somewhere in here. So assault frigs + ab's would be weakly affected by webs (low sig radius). A ceptor with mwd would be hit hard by a short range 90% webber. However if a ceptor is hit with 24km 25% webber it wouldn't hurt that much with the reasonable sig radius. But think this through, if you provide a completely reliable way to counter nanos, then they'll be completely dead just as if you'd completely nerfed speed, because nobody wants to fly something that's reliably killed by anyone with a web. If you're going to moderate or otherwise nerf speed of t2 cruisers, HACs especially need something given back to them to keep them useful. Without speed they're outclassed in every respect by t1 battlecruisers. It's clear from your proposals that you're frustrated with not being able to kill nanos, but you're letting your frustration get in the way of objectivity. Any boost or modification to another ship or module that requires no specialization that can reliably bring down a nano is just as effective at ruining HACs as a blanket HAC speed nerf. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.03 18:37:00 - [260] Edited by: ***zilla on 03/07/2008 18:41:11 Originally by: Xaen They're already out of lock range of a lot of ships, so they hardly need a tank. Snipers already had no tank. The issue is that while they can lock at range it takes them a while to do so. This means snipers are less effective against small ships. Less effective in quickly locking a friendly for remote reps. Losing effective dps while waiting to lock the next target (ie: Primary pops, secondary insta pops, and still locking the next targets). Less effective in handling ships that do get close (the scripts can be switched, just takes time). Not a major change, but still significant. Originally by: Xaen most people are arguing that the realistic speed ships (3k-4k) also need nerfed. I'd like to see a light counter to this. Ie a 24km web script at 25% effectiveness. About what webber drones might do. It won't complete stop a nano but would increase the effectiveness of guns/missiles. Something that won't hose frigs/ceptors. Originally by: Xaen completely reliable way to counter nanos, then they'll be completely dead just as if you'd completely nerfed speed A web script wouldn't kill nanos. Nanos would take a bit more damage if the pilot had a web (like a target painter). Nanos would still have the speed advantage even while webbed. The main use would be for a ship to disrupt the orbit to close within 10km. Or for a ceptor to use to lightly web a nano so that a ceptor has a better chance to survive. Nanos can still counter web. Nanos wouldn't be completely stopped even if they were webbed at long range. Consider this. A nano can scram a target with 100% reliability and no specialization. A long range webber would only cut some of the speed from the nano. Now we have choices. A non-nano could play bait with most of the mid slots of long range webs for example. The major change is that a nano could not always use the same cookie cutter setups. They would have to sacrifice tank for webs so that they could counter web. Nanos in small groups may need to coordinate so that some sport scrams and some webs. I mostly fly dictors and nano'd cruisers with my alt. I'd love to have some more varied fitting options. I bulk buy most of my t2 ships with exactly the same fittings every time. There is very little reason these days to fly anything but a cookie cutter setup.
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.03 19:18:00 - [261] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen most people are arguing that the realistic speed ships (3k-4k) also need nerfed. I'd like to see a light counter to this. Ie a 24km web script at 25% effectiveness. About what webber drones might do. It won't complete stop a nano but would increase the effectiveness of guns/missiles. Something that won't hose frigs/ceptors. Light counter? And what's to stop you from using two webs? 3.5km/s * .75 = 2625 2625 m/s * .75 = 1968.75 (T1 cruiser speed with a MWD and 0 to 1 speed mods.) G'bye nano ships entirely! Think about that for a second. A 250M ISK ship with a full rack of speed mods in the lows, and 100M in rigs with over three months of skills trained owned by a 12M ISK ship with a week old pilot with two 24km webs. Or hell, slap on three webs: 1968.75 * 0.79 (stacking penalty) = 1554.72 = T1 cruiser with no speed mods. So any cruiser with 5 mids immediately becomes 100% reliable at killing nanos. Yay! And that doesn't look like a balance issue to you? Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xaen completely reliable way to counter nanos, then they'll be completely dead just as if you'd completely nerfed speed A web script wouldn't kill nanos. Nanos would take a bit more damage if the pilot had a web (like a target painter). Nanos would still have the speed advantage even while webbed. The main use would be for a ship to disrupt the orbit to close within 10km. Or for a ceptor to use to lightly web a nano so that a ceptor has a better chance to survive. Nanos can still counter web. Nanos wouldn't be completely stopped even if they were webbed at long range. I disagree, it would completely stop them in their tracks. Not to mention it completely obsoletes the minmatar recons. Or did you not even consider putting two 24km webs on? Even with stacking penalties it spells certain death from 24km. Originally by: ****zilla I mostly fly dictors and nano'd cruisers with my alt. I'd love* to have some more varied fitting options. I bulk buy most of my t2 ships with exactly the same fittings every time. There is very little reason these days to fly anything but a cookie cutter setup. There are plenty of reasons. None of my setups are cookie cutter. My curse and domi still use NOS. My vagabond is fit for damage and kinetic resistances, not speed. I gave up on the ishtar, because none of the cookie cutter setups were worth a damn due to inherent flaws in a HAC with 800m/s drones. It's not my fault you think cookie cutter is the only way to go. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.03 19:29:00 - [262] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 03/07/2008 19:30:18 Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 03/07/2008 19:30:11 Originally by: Xaen 1968.75 * 0.79 (stacking penalty) = 1554.72 = T1 cruiser with no speed mods. So any cruiser with 5 mids immediately becomes 100% reliable at killing nanos I mean, I wouldn't call 3 webs to reduce a nanoHAC to 1.5km/s 100% reliable. You're telling me you couldn't escape a completely untanked Caracal in a 1.5km/s HAC? ...
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.03 19:33:00 - [263] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Originally by: Xaen 1968.75 * 0.79 (stacking penalty) = 1554.72 = T1 cruiser with no speed mods. So any cruiser with 5 mids immediately becomes 100% reliable at killing nanos I mean, I wouldn't call 3 webs to reduce a nanoHAC to 1.5km/s 100% reliable. You're telling me you couldn't escape a T1 Cruiser in a 1.5km/s HAC? Not without heavily investing in neuts or ECM. Answer your own question. How would you escape such a cruiser? You're webbed to the point you're slower. You're already scrammed. Just how exactly are you supposed to get away? Wishful thinking? - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.03 19:37:00 - [264] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 03/07/2008 19:30:18 Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 03/07/2008 19:30:11 Originally by: Xaen 1968.75 * 0.79 (stacking penalty) = 1554.72 = T1 cruiser with no speed mods. So any cruiser with 5 mids immediately becomes 100% reliable at killing nanos I mean, I wouldn't call 3 webs to reduce a nanoHAC to 1.5km/s 100% reliable. You're telling me you couldn't escape a completely untanked Caracal in a 1.5km/s HAC? Hah, my last post was in before you turned it into a straw man. The caracal is garbage in PvP and almost everyone knows it. Try a rupture, arbitrator, stabber, thorax, or vexor. Throw in the fact that the nano hac has already sacrificed effective hitpoints and a traditional tank for speed (which you've just taken away) and they're completely obsolete. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.03 19:37:00 - [265] Edited by: ***zilla on 03/07/2008 19:46:07 Edited by: ***zilla on 03/07/2008 19:44:28 Originally by: Xaen And what's to stop you from using two webs? Whats stopping us from using more neuts etc? Originally by: Xaen A 250M ISK ship with a full rack of speed mods in the lows, and 100M in rigs with over three months of skills trained owned by a 12M ISK ship with a week old pilot with two 24km webs. Thats how it should be. A ship specifically fitted out to handle nanos that has given up everything else. Originally by: Xaen So any cruiser with 5 mids immediately becomes 100% reliable at killing nanos. And a cruiser still has mids left for a mwd (oh wait), tank (oh wait), scram (oh wait), anything else (oh wait). About a blackbird is the only thing that could pull this off. And we know how fast they pop. t1 cruisers are limited in the number of mids they've got. Originally by: Xaen And that doesn't look like a balance issue to you? Yep. Just as non nano can load up on webs, a nano must balance scrams, webs, and tank. The same choice that every ship must make. Originally by: Xaen Or did you not even consider putting two 24km webs on? Even with stacking penalties it spells certain death from 24km. Certain death by what? A cruiser that gives up nearly everything could slow a nano a bit. It'll be torn apart by anything else. The nano is still likely faster than the cruiser. If the nano counter webs and sacrifices some of its mids then the nano is still likely faster. If the nano isn't faster comparing mwd versus mwd, then the nano will have greater buffer tank, resists, damage, more drones, etc. Originally by: Xaen Try a rupture, arbitrator, stabber, thorax, or vexor. Only the arbitrator could dual web with mwd + scram. The others are 3 slot fits. Doesn't sound like a great threat to me. Originally by: Xaen traditional tank for speed (which you've just taken away) However some nanos still fit in a LSE t2 or 2x. Pushing them to about 8k shield buffer with decent resists. Would be a shame if they had to decide between scram, web, and buffer tank.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.03 19:46:00 - [266] Originally by: Xaen Hah, my last post was in before you turned it into a straw man. The caracal is garbage in PvP and almost everyone knows it. I used "T1 Cruiser" initially, yes, but then I thought about it and the Caracal and Blackbird are about the only ships with enough medslots to do what you say. That's honestly a tiny speed reduction when you think about it, seeing that a single Domination Webber being overheated and boosted by Skirmish Links achieves the same range, in less modules, with much greater effect - yet I don't see anyone calling that overpowered. ...
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.04 03:05:00 - [267] Originally by: Father Dibbles Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Father Dibbles Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Father Dibbles Silly stuff Lol. And back at you for having to edit a four character long, pointless post. You're a terrible troll. Kiss my arse? Right back at you.
SirMoric Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.07.04 03:17:00 - [268] Why don't people just train for nano's? rgds
Stab Wounds	Posted - 2008.07.04 03:33:00 - [269] Edited by: Stab Wounds on 04/07/2008 03:34:23 Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Demarcus Originally by: Katashi I**uka 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. I have seen more than one battleship do over 10k, so thank you come again. Those battleships? They have the turning radius of a planet, cost as much as half a dozen capitals (when you include the HG snakes needed to get a BS to 10km/s) and are really only useful for one thing: bumping people. That's like saying we should nerf shield tanking because a fully officer fit Wyvern can tank 75k DPS. In the grand scheme of things, if you are honestly concerned about nano-BS, you really need to reevaluate your position. I've also witnessed a Vindicator going 12km/sec. So don't tell us that these setups are as uncommon as you think. and anyway price does not equal BALANCE.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.04 04:29:00 - [270] Originally by: Stab Wounds I've also witnessed a Vindicator going 12km/sec. So don't tell us that these setups are as uncommon as you think. and anyway price does not equal BALANCE. Awesome, you completely managed to miss every single point I made. Originally by: Dianeces They have the turning radius of a planet Means it will not hold that speed in an orbit, leading to: Originally by: Dianeces really only useful for one thing: bumping people This is compounded when factoring in that BS sized turrets are going to have a very difficult time tracking at high speeds, meaning they do very little DPS. As for the rest of your post: Originally by: Stab Wounds I've also witnessed a Vindicator going 12km/sec. "A". One. Singular. Seems pretty **ing uncommon to me. Again, you are trying to make sweeping generalizations from extremes which are both uncommon and almost useless outside of one particular niche. You are then using said sweeping generalizations to try and nerf an entire play style because you don't like it. Originally by:** Stab Wounds and anyway price does not equal BALANCE. Except ISK is a factor in balance. Otherwise, why do I have to pay up to 10x as much as a T1 cruiser for my HACs or Recons? Surely it isn't because they have capabilities in excess of what their T1 cousins have?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.04 05:10:00 - [271] Edited by: ***zilla on 04/07/2008 06:06:10 Originally by: Dianeces Otherwise, why do I have to pay up to 10x as much as a T1 cruiser for my HACs or Recons? Surely it isn't because they have capabilities in excess of what their T1 cousins have? You're absolutely right. A t1 stasis webber is 10k isk, and a t2 webber is about 1mil isk. Thats a 100x price difference. A t1 stabber is 3.5mil isk. So a vaga should cost 350mil. A great imbalance exists. A vaga can be purchased for 82mil. So yes this price imbalance needs to be fixed. A vaga should cost more? Utility doesn't set price. Price is set by demand and by the relative value. Consider this. I purchased a name shuttle for way more than a normal shuttle. The utility is precisely the same. However the shuttle is named and in limit supply. The relative value is vastly increased versus a lesser (but not in stats) unnamed shuttle. So t2 need not be better to be expensive. Only limited and different. If the t2 module/ship is slightly better in some regards then we would say it has increased utility but a much higher value. T1 named, T2, faction, and officer stuff has always cost way more than t1. Often the abilities aren't that massive compared to the t1 stuff. A bit easier cpu/pg fittings. Some more resists. A few km here and there of range. If price is an issue than raise the price of a vaga to 350mil. Hacs are very cheap wnen comparing other t1 versus t2 ships/items. They're better than the t1 options in about all regard. So just because something is expensive does not mean it is balanced. It does not mean that the item must have a vastly increased utility. A t2 item/ship should be different or slightly better than the t1 option. And it can still cost 10x or 100x more and have value. Price does not dictate balance.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.04 06:58:00 - [272] Originally by: ***zilla Price does not dictate balance. You're right. I totally said price determined balance. That's exactly it. Originally by:** Dianeces Price is a factor in balance. Yep, looks the same as what you claim I said. Originally by: ***zilla A t1 stasis webber is 10k isk, and a t2 webber is about 1mil isk. Thats a 100x price difference. A t1 stabber is 3.5mil isk. So a vaga should cost 350mil. A great imbalance exists. A vaga can be purchased for 82mil. So yes this price imbalance needs to be fixed. A vaga should cost more? The point was the Vaga is more expensive, in part, because it is better than a Stabber. Way to go on trying to twist my point into something stupid. Seriously, though, there are only two reasons to pay more for something: 1.) it's a collector's item, such as your shuttle example, or 2.) it's better than the cheaper version. Case in point are T2 Armor Plates. Currently in Domain, T2 1600 plates are about 400k more than 1600 RT plates. There is absolutely no reason to purchase the T2 version, when the named version is equal or better in all attributes. This is borne out by the market history, which shows that 1600 RT plates are bought 10x as frequently as the T2 version. Most of the purchasers of the T2 plates most likely don't know about the disparity and simply assumed T2 was better. I don't believe you can honestly tell me you would spend more for a T2 plate that is different (worse) than a RT one simply because it is different. Now before you start trying to say this disproves my point about balance, the only reason T2 items in these cases are more expensive than best named T1 is because they require additional resources to invent and manufacture. If T2 plates didn't have to be invented, or didn't require additional materials, they would** be cheaper than the best named plates.
emma louise	Posted - 2008.07.04 07:07:00 - [273] Originally by: Katashi I**uka 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. Lol @ vaga speed.....mine goes a little faster than that johnny
emma louise	Posted - 2008.07.04 07:21:00 - [274] Curse Huggin Rapier Heyena Friends ...and dare i say it profit the op of this tread is a tosser...90% of those *****ing about nanos are noobs...or noobs that brought older accounts and have not figured it out yet. The only good thing minmitar ships have going for them is speed....its what they where designed for.. Sure im not a fan of nano cerb and all the other bullshit getting around these days...but that dont mean i whinge about it....get a clue kthanksbye
Father Dibbles Drunks And Addicts Combined	Posted - 2008.07.04 09:05:00 - [275] Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Father Dibbles Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Father Dibbles Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Father Dibbles Silly stuff Lol. And back at you for having to edit a four character long, pointless post. You're a terrible troll. Kiss my arse? Right back at you. Imitation... disappointing
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.04 09:34:00 - [276] Originally by: Demarcus I have seen more than one battleship do over 10k, so thank you come again. nanoBS are pretty much useless except for novelty value tbh, the sheer amount of ISK you need to spend to make a ship like that dangerous in some way is ludicrous - so much so that since the nano nerf, the only BS I've seen exceed 3k/s (let alone 10) were all Macharials, and they only shined in their ability to bump people out of warp disruptor range, allowing them to warp off... ...
Thargat Caldari North Star Networks Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.07.04 09:38:00 - [277] This thread needs to die.... like a week ago. Seriously, there are people truly beliving in their hearts that the earth was created in 7 days.... and that's in the so called real life. It's no use trying to convince people who won't listen to reason.... yay vacation There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius.

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.