EVE Search - CCP will nerf nanos because :

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP will nerf nanos because :

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Bomberos	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:18:00 - [31] It will get tweaked but don't expect a major nerf..
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:23:00 - [32] Originally by: Xparky Originally by: Tenuo Quote from Jade Constantine on SHC after the latest CSM meeting: Originally by: Jade Constantine Nano's didn't formally get raised. [...] Got a link to that? Here you go _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:40:00 - [33] Originally by: Tenuo Here you go Thanks! .
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 15:54:00 - [34] Originally by: Xparky We can't bring hyenas or huginns to web the nanoers So you're saying to both train for another race AND for nanos to counter nanos? This is like saying that I've got my god mode. If you wish to play you must also have the same god mode. Originally by: Xparky Remote repairing them to keep them alive is out of the question. Remote repping isn't a counter. It doesn't threaten nanos. It is an annoyance. Originally by: Xparky Claymores or other fleet command ships or BCs to boost fleet's web range with ganglinks from a safe spot are also out of the question. We want to win with our T1 ships So you're saying that training for Minm is required? That t1 ships cannot effectively web unless specialists are brought in? Originally by: Xparky Nerf nanos, they shoot us from far away. We don't want to fit remote sensor dampeners to force them closer to target us or tracking disruptors to lower their optimal range, ECM falls under annoyance, and not counter. Originally by: Xparky or use heavy nos to kill their cap when they come closer So now battleships are required to counter nanos? Originally by: Xparky target painters on the nanoers, Target paint something that already has a 550% larger sig radius? At the end of the day we're back at the best counter to nanos are nanos. Cross training for Minm/Amarr/Gallente. Mixed nanos fleets (ie vagas/ishtar/huginn/rapier) with nano support (claymore/falcon/scimitar). Is it somewhat ridiculus to expect an entirely Caldari force in Faction Warfware to have a counter to nanos? I'm not saying it couldn't be done. Crows to web + a few basilisks + nano Cerebuses + falcons. My issue with this is still that if t2 ships are so heavily favored than something is wrong. t1 ships should be viable against nanos. Until then everyone should be training for and flying nanos.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:08:00 - [35] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky We can't bring hyenas or huginns to web the nanoers So you're saying to both train for another race AND for nanos to counter nanos? This is like saying that I've got my god mode. If you wish to play you must also have the same god mode. Originally by: Xparky Remote repairing them to keep them alive is out of the question. Remote repping isn't a counter. It doesn't threaten nanos. It is an annoyance. No, I said remote repaired Huginns are a counter. Way to go quoting it out of context. Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky Claymores or other fleet command ships or BCs to boost fleet's web range with ganglinks from a safe spot are also out of the question. We want to win with our T1 ships So you're saying that training for Minm is required? That t1 ships cannot effectively web unless specialists are brought in? Well if you deal with speed you bring the speed specialist to counter it. Also I don't think the interdiction maneuvers warfare link can be mounted only on claymores. So no, you don't have to train Minmatar command ships. Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky Nerf nanos, they shoot us from far away. We don't want to fit remote sensor dampeners to force them closer to target us or tracking disruptors to lower their optimal range, ECM falls under annoyance, and not counter. I didn't say ECM (target jammers). That would be just an annoyance yes. I said sensor dampeners and tracking disrupters, which seem to effectively counter nanos (i.e. force them to come closer to both lock and fire from optimal turret range, and risk getting hit by a faction neut) Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky or use heavy nos to kill their cap when they come closer So now battleships are required to counter nanos? Why not ? Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky target painters on the nanoers, Target paint something that already has a 550% larger sig radius? Easier to hit ? Originally by: *****zilla At the end of the day we're back at the best counter to nanos are nanos. Cross training for Minm/Amarr/Gallente. Mixed nanos fleets (ie vagas/ishtar/huginn/rapier) with nano support (claymore/falcon/scimitar). Ok. .
Miz Cenuij	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:13:00 - [36] I fly nano vagas and ishtars. I fly them because they are imbalanced. Yes they need a nerf, but until they are, im going to use them. Hit me with the nerf bat CCP, i dare ya! "Men are going to die... and i'm going to kill them"
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:17:00 - [37] Nice sig Miz. .
Steel Tigeress Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:26:00 - [38] Originally by: Tenuo[quote=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. And No one see's that as a nerf? CCP says "We're gonna cut top possible speed by at least 1/2, and make it so MWDs can only be used to approach or flee." These changes are an even bigger nerf, to speed than the first go round.... sounds like this nerf might be enough though. And the pro nano crowd is still saying "Nothing broken, move along, nothing to see here"
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:35:00 - [39] Edited by: Xparky on 25/06/2008 16:35:58 Originally by: Steel Tigeress And No one see's that as a nerf? CCP says "We're gonna cut top possible speed by at least 1/2 [...]" [...] Got a link to that quote ? Also, is Jade Constantine's informal talk with the devs incorrectly related ? As far as I understand it, the devs think only speeds over 8000 m/s are broken. That's pretty uncommon... snakes and faction mwds being so expensive. .
AleRiperKilt	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:36:00 - [40] Edited by: AleRiperKilt on 25/06/2008 16:38:59 Nice sarcastic OP. But seriously (and unfortunately), whining works. In my short time playing this game (6 months) I've seen all major whiners get their nerf somehow: 1. Noobs whined about the lofty scam and it got nerfed. 2. I personally campaigned for CCP to add more systems, we got the Black Rise region. So now, in CCP "nerf todo" list: 1. Nanos 2. Suicide gankers insurance (down from 1 since looks most gankers are now in FW) --- "There is no lag in Jita, NEVER!" - Iraqi Information Minister
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:37:00 - [41] Assuming it's correct, Going to cut top possible speeds != Going to cut average speedfit speeds by default. You're interpreting Jade's comment as 'CCP wants to halve speeds', others are interpreting it as 'CCP wants to limit the upper end of speed, but sees no problem with it in the 4k range where 80% of ships lie'.
Miyamoto Uroki State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:37:00 - [42] Originally by: Tenuo Originally by: THEGREAT LOBO Edited by: THEGREAT LOBO on 25/06/2008 14:14:44 Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Sarcasm is always fine, but speed in eve is still a bit out of the line and ccp knows that. And it's good that there are sooo many threads open for nano's as it first shows there is an issue with them and second it ofc increases pressure on ccp to do an already announced nerf. Because lots of people doing whine threads really shows when there is a problem with something. And where is this already announced nerf ? Where do ccp say they think current avarage nano ships speed 3000-5000m/s is "out of line" ? edit: oh wait, i see that your in the caldari militia. "OH NOES, MY PASSIVE DRAKE CANT KILL NANO SHIPS, I CAN'T CHANGE MY SHIP/FIT TO ADAPT, NERF THEM NOW" They say it isn't. I'll just keep posting this untill all the whines stop, expect to see it, alot. Quote from Jade Constantine on SHC after the latest CSM meeting: It was mentioned in one of the live dev blogs, actually a few months back in time, yeah. And people don't complain about 3-4km/s ships, cause these are easily catchable in non-expensive fitted ceptors and tech1 frigs, people are complaining about the bit more expensively fitted ships that go beyone the 4km/s mark and are not frigates of any type. As I said in another thread, if they for example hardcode speed limits for ship classes or ships so that NO Vagabond goes faster than like 5km/s, whether it got snakes and mindlinked Claymore and polys or whatelse, that would do it perfectly. It is indeed the upper edge of speed ships most people are complaining about, including me. And for the record, I don't fly Drakes. Atm I spend all my time in a 12km/s Crow, picking victims that can't do ** against such fast ships. And that are alot.. Originally by:** Puupuu dude... your face
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:41:00 - [43] Originally by: Xparky No, I said remote repaired Huginns are a counter. Way to go quoting it out of context. Huginns and rapiers are certainly the way to go. However problematic in that cross training is still required. Originally by: Xparky I said sensor dampeners and tracking disrupters, Part of electronic warfare. Same category as ECM. Mostly an annoyance. Most nanos are close enough that sensor damps aren't terribly effective after the last nerf. Damps are great against ceptors but mostly fail against nano'd recons (long base lock range). If they're disrupted it'll likely take longer to kill the target. A vaga often will turn off the mwd to get better damage. Tracking disrupters won't help much here. If an Ishtar is tracking disrupted it won't notice. Most nano pilots won't get close enough to be webbed for any reason. If they realize that damps/disrupters are being used then they'll have an urge to grab an axe. I'm not saying that electronic warfare has no use. It can certainly help to get away. However I wouldn't argue that electronic warfare is a counter. Originally by: Xparky Easier to hit ? Compared to what? A station? If the nano is going fast enough missiles won't be effective. If the nano is orbiting then traversal is the issue. Target painting is mostly for hitting nanos at a distance where they can warp off at will.
Cambarus RillaCorp Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:43:00 - [44] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky ... So you're saying to both train for another race AND for nanos to counter nanos? This is like saying that I've got my god mode. If you wish to play you must also have the same god mode. 1)Hughins and Hyenas are but ONE of the counters to nanoships. 2)They needn't actually be nanoed themselves to catch nanoships. A simple MWD on a Hughin should be enough to allow it to be more then fast enough to catch a nano ship with 2 90% webs on it. Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky ... Remote repping isn't a counter. It doesn't threaten nanos. It is an annoyance. Nanos are not a counter to remote repping either. A single nanoship couldn't possibly hope to kill a well tanked ship. In fact I'd argue that if you spent the bil+ isk on a standard tank/gank battleship, the only thing that could kill it would be another tank/gank ship. I suppose this makes tanks a godmode as well? Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky ... So you're saying that training for Minm is required? That t1 ships cannot effectively web unless specialists are brought in? You're not honestly suggesting that it's unfair that t2 ships require t2 ships to kill are you? Amarr also have a very nice counter for nanos, and properly positionned a few sniper battleships can blow an endless number of nanos out of the sky. (They need only be positioned so that someone moving in any of the 3 dimensions have a transversal of 0 to one of the ships). Caldari don't have a lot of ships that can take on nanos (though any of the rail boats, even blaster fit do a good job with this). Guess what? Caldari aren't the pvp race. They're the pve race. Nerf the raven's ability to run missions to bring it more inline with the other race's ships and THEN complain about how the caldari fleet is in need of a pvp boost. Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky Nerf nanos, they shoot us from far away. We don't want to fit remote sensor dampeners to force them closer to target us or tracking disruptors to lower their optimal range, ECM falls under annoyance, and not counter. I see no mention of ECM, and even on a non-bonused ship sensor damps and tracking disruptors render almost any nano ship useless. Can you immagine spending 1.5billion isk on a single ship only to have it rendered useless by a 500k module? Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Xparky or use heavy nos to kill their cap when they come closer So now battleships are required to counter nanos? I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this. Are you serious? First you complain that recons/EAFs are needed to counter nanos. Then you complain that CSs are required to counter nanos. Then you complain that BSs are required to counter nanos. What were you hoping to counter them with? Drakes? Caracals? You're like a serious version of the OP Originally by: *****zilla I'm not saying it couldn't be done. Crows to web + a few basilisks + nano Cerebuses + falcons. My issue with this is still that if t2 ships are so heavily favored than something is wrong. t1 ships should be viable against nanos. The counters listed here: Recons EAFs CSs BSs You complain that the caldari should not have to cross train to counter nanos. But a well organized sniper fleet (Rokhs/eagles) could chew through a lot of nanos. Will your ravens/caracals/drakes do it? Nope. But guess what? These are NOT PVP ships. Missiles are awesome for PVE, so why the hell should they be any good at pvp? You want pvp go train for hybrid turrets, or another race altogether. Your mission whoring raven/drake/caracals have no buisness being in a PVP fleet, and you have no right to whine about them not being able to do everything. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:55:00 - [45] Originally by: ***zilla If they're disrupted it'll likely take longer to kill the target. A vaga often will turn off the mwd to get better damage. Tracking disrupters won't help much here. If an Ishtar is tracking disrupted it won't notice. Tracking disruptors affect optimal turret range also, not just tracking. True, an Ishtar will shrug it off, it's a special case, but once his drones are dead he's out. The vagabond is also tricky, since TDs don't affect falloff (there were some threads suggesting falloff scripts for TDs). But for non-minmatar turrets I'd say an optimal range reduction can be useful. Originally by: *zilla Originally by:** Xparky Easier to hit ? Compared to what? A station? Sorry, I'm a turret user. I meant easier to track and hit by large turrets. .
Lawk North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.25 16:55:00 - [46] Meh, go ahead and nerf. The whiner's tears will be much more sweet when they realize 'nerf' doesn't save them from sucking.
Steel Tigeress Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:08:00 - [47] Edited by: Steel Tigeress on 25/06/2008 17:10:58 Originally by: Xparky Edited by: Xparky on 25/06/2008 16:35:58 Originally by: Steel Tigeress And No one see's that as a nerf? CCP says "We're gonna cut top possible speed by at least 1/2 [...]" [...] Got a link to that quote ? Also, is Jade Constantine's informal talk with the devs incorrectly related ? As far as I understand it, the devs think only speeds over 8000 m/s are broken. That's pretty uncommon... snakes and faction mwds being so expensive. You already have the link... you even said thanks a few posts up.... Unless you fail to see that them saying "Speeds of 3000-4000 are ok, but 8000 causes problems in the game... if you need the math to point it out.... 3k-4k is = to approx 1/2 of 8k. They always tone down the severity of the nerf when they are talking about it.... if they say they are going to nerf somthing by x ammount... they always seem to nerf it on patch day by x+10
Kristoffer Invicta.	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:09:00 - [48] The Caldari are going to love what we pull out of the box next.
Doonoo Boonoo	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:15:00 - [49] Originally by: Kristoffer The Caldari are going to love what we pull out of the box next. Please let it be sniper BS fly bys. Then they will ask for Large T2 guns to be nerfed.
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 17:26:00 - [50] Originally by: Kristoffer The Caldari are going to love what we pull out of the box next. Keep us posted! .
Xparky Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.25 18:28:00 - [51] Is it nerfed yet? .
Tae'Lin Hynd Aliastra	Posted - 2008.06.25 18:44:00 - [52] Originally by: AleRiperKilt Edited by: AleRiperKilt on 25/06/2008 16:38:59 Nice sarcastic OP. But seriously (and unfortunately), whining works. In my short time playing this game (6 months) I've seen all major whiners get their nerf somehow: 1. Noobs whined about the lofty scam and it got nerfed. 2. I personally campaigned for CCP to add more systems, we got the Black Rise region. So now, in CCP "nerf todo" list: 1. Nanos 2. Suicide gankers insurance (down from 1 since looks most gankers are now in FW) 3. Caldari Ships, specifically the BB, and kitsune, while we are at it, the scorp because he can disengage and flee whenever it wants. 4. Passive drake tanks, we all know this is obscene 5. amarr recons, because, you know that recon belongs to the gallente, along with the ew frig. 6. most importantly, we need a nerf on keyboards.
Spineker State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.25 18:52:00 - [53] Edited by: Spineker on 25/06/2008 18:52:18 They need to nerf them or introduce 15000 m/s missiles Call them nano-polycarbon terrors Of course that is going to break other parts of the game but obviously since CCP has allowed Nanofags to run wild they don't really give a damn about what is broken. So what is one more broken system to them
Tae'Lin Hynd Aliastra	Posted - 2008.06.25 19:42:00 - [54] Edited by: Tae''Lin Hynd on 25/06/2008 19:43:36 Originally by: Spineker Edited by: Spineker on 25/06/2008 18:52:18 They need to nerf them or introduce 15000 m/s missiles Call them nano-polycarbon terrors Of course that is going to break other parts of the game but obviously since CCP has allowed Nanofags to run wild they don't really give a damn about what is broken. So what is one more broken system to them why you have to throw out rude names on the folk that have outsmarted your lil pve fitted drake? are you just that envious that others can find a method that smokes your pve fit that you try to use for pvp? try flying something other then the mission runners boat, and you may have some fun, even when you do engage a poly fit. all the caldari are just crying because they can't finger out how to get their HACs movin. Stop targetting NPC and go for pew pew, and not talkin FW that is for the birds.
Spineker State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.25 20:55:00 - [55] Originally by: Tae'Lin Hynd Edited by: Tae''Lin Hynd on 25/06/2008 19:43:36 Originally by: Spineker Edited by: Spineker on 25/06/2008 18:52:18 They need to nerf them or introduce 15000 m/s missiles Call them nano-polycarbon terrors Of course that is going to break other parts of the game but obviously since CCP has allowed Nanofags to run wild they don't really give a damn about what is broken. So what is one more broken system to them why you have to throw out rude names on the folk that have outsmarted your lil pve fitted drake? are you just that envious that others can find a method that smokes your pve fit that you try to use for pvp? try flying something other then the mission runners boat, and you may have some fun, even when you do engage a poly fit. all the caldari are just crying because they can't finger out how to get their HACs movin. Stop targetting NPC and go for pew pew, and not talkin FW that is for the birds. Another ill-informed noob Don't even try to talk about ships you don't even understand or ever flown. You have no clue
Bomber1945	Posted - 2008.06.25 20:59:00 - [56] op "Remote repairing them to keep them alive is out of the question." you have not seen my first characters scimitar in action. Because that is exactly what I do all the time with minmatar recons. so before you reply confessing that he cannot handle the game just be aware that I actually keep them alive so you must be able to.
Gamesguy Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.25 21:10:00 - [57] I'm going to spam this in every nano thread until someone tells me why this doesnt work. Bring some f*cking interceptors and EW support, like you know, falcons, blackbirds, scorps, etc. Tackle with the inties, which will outrun the nanos easilly, and jam the nanos with your ECM ships so they cant kill your inties, there you go, dead nanoships, no need for rapiers or huginns or neuts. Too complicated for mission runners I guess, if they can't f1-f8 and kill it, it must be nerfed.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.25 21:12:00 - [58] Originally by: Spineker Another ill-informed noob :welp:
Armoured C Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.25 21:14:00 - [59] Originally by: Gamesguy I'm going to spam this in every nano thread until someone tells me why this doesnt work. Bring some fcking interceptors and EW support, like you know, falcons, blackbirds, scorps, etc. Tackle with the inties, which will outrun the nanos easilly, and jam the nanos with your ECM ships so they cant kill your inties, there you go, dead nanoships, no need for rapiers or huginns or neuts. Too complicated for mission runners I guess, if they can't f1-f8 and kill it, it must be nerfed. he knows what he talking about he in BOB one of the greats i consider if he says it can be done then hell i believe him can i join now =(*
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.25 21:15:00 - [60] What makes you think the Caldari Mailitia doesn't nano? Do I sit and ponder if Gallente Militia are flying Drakes? ... hmmm, I think they do. Where the heck do you see a correlation between the nano nerf and Caldari/Gallente militias? The issue is with BIG SHIPS being too overpowered. Like it or not, a BIG nano ship has way too many positives compared to any other ship out there. That is leaning pvp toward a faster is better mentality. ZIPPY! The game has way too many elements to be a Need For Speed VI. Speed should be an element, not a necessity. you fail... hard. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.

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

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