Originally by: FORD ESC0RT

---

Everyone knows there's a problem with speed in EVE, but which ships are the most overpowered when nanod? Here's my list:

nano-vagabond - 6km/sec 500 dps
nano-ishtar - 5km/sec 475 dps - NO TRACKING ISSUES and can perma-run mwd
nano-sacrilege - 4km/sec 500 dps - also no tracking problems
nano-curse -3.5km/sec - 300 dps - no tracking issues and can drain a battleship cap in a few cycles... not overpowered? yeah right
nano-huginn - 4km/sec 355 DPS and 40KM WEBS... wtf.

Most the gangs that field these ships have snake implants or a claymore pilot off grid so add another 2000m/sec to their total max speeds. Even if they remove POLYCARBONS these ships will still be imbalanced. What we really need is 85% 24km webs, remove polycarbons, and add a major stacking penality to all velocity hardwirings and implants. MWD weren't designed to avoid damage they were made to get in range. It doesn't matter if heavy missiles are boosted, nano is the new WCS. Imbalanced is when there are ships that can't be hit by guns, can't be hit by missiles, and never die because they can retreat like cowards at any time. If you can't stop them how do you kill them? Training for a rapier/huginn is not the asnwer.

---

Originally by: Market AltLOLOLOLO

---

Lol, COAD has 300man nano gang in one of there threads. Linked

300 man nano gang

---

Originally by: O Thief

---

Originally by: FORD ESC0RT

---

Everyone knows there's a problem with speed in EVE, but which ships are the most overpowered when nanod? Here's my list:

nano-vagabond - 6km/sec 500 dps
nano-ishtar - 5km/sec 475 dps - NO TRACKING ISSUES and can perma-run mwd
nano-sacrilege - 4km/sec 500 dps - also no tracking problems
nano-curse -3.5km/sec - 300 dps - no tracking issues and can drain a battleship cap in a few cycles... not overpowered? yeah right
nano-huginn - 4km/sec 355 DPS and 40KM WEBS... wtf.

Most the gangs that field these ships have snake implants or a claymore pilot off grid so add another 2000m/sec to their total max speeds. Even if they remove POLYCARBONS these ships will still be imbalanced. What we really need is 85% 24km webs, remove polycarbons, and add a major stacking penality to all velocity hardwirings and implants. MWD weren't designed to avoid damage they were made to get in range. It doesn't matter if heavy missiles are boosted, nano is the new WCS. Imbalanced is when there are ships that can't be hit by guns, can't be hit by missiles, and never die because they can retreat like cowards at any time. If you can't stop them how do you kill them? Training for a rapier/huginn is not the asnwer.

---

You've got it wrong, the Vagabond is SUPPOSED to be fast. That is its role.

Also, a nano-Ishtar wont go much beyond 4km/s with max skills and basic 3% speed-related hardwirings.

I would however agree that its pretty crazy that these supposed 'heavy' assault craft from armor-tanking races can be quite so fast and agile (this coming from a nano-curse pilot).

---

Originally by: Kelli Flay

---

Originally by: Xparky

---

Originally by: Kelli Flay

---

Why is it every time someone complains about Nanos, somebody tells them about the downsides of putting plates on a ship as though extreme Speed setups and slow floating bricks are the only two ways to set up a ship?

---

Well there's speed tanking. You don't like that, I know. Let's remove that. What do you have left ?

Active tanking (which sucks in fleets) and buffer tanking (which is MUCH better cuz you get a chance at being remote repaired).

So.

Plates -> Slow ship -> You get hit easily.
Extenders -> Large signature -> You get hit easily.

---

My point was the extreme reactions to anyone who criticizes extreme speed setups is pretty comical. These posters try to make it sound like everyone wants everybody to fly big slow floating bricks which isn't true. They just want the "I get of jail free cards" taken out of the game.

---

Originally by: Kelli Flay

---

Originally by: Tenuo

---

Originally by: Kelli Flay

---

Originally by: Xparky

---

Originally by: Kelli Flay

---

Why is it every time someone complains about Nanos, somebody tells them about the downsides of putting plates on a ship as though extreme Speed setups and slow floating bricks are the only two ways to set up a ship?

---

Well there's speed tanking. You don't like that, I know. Let's remove that. What do you have left ?

Active tanking (which sucks in fleets) and buffer tanking (which is MUCH better cuz you get a chance at being remote repaired).

So.

Plates -> Slow ship -> You get hit easily.
Extenders -> Large signature -> You get hit easily.

---

My point was the extreme reactions to anyone who criticizes extreme speed setups is pretty comical. These posters try to make it sound like everyone wants everybody to fly big slow floating bricks which isn't true. They just want the "I get of jail free cards" taken out of the game.

---

Please please tell me how to do that without

a) Breaking speed tanking

b) Makeing it too easy to get killed so that the 200mill you invested goes to waste too easy

Untill you have a solution to that I'd shut up about any speed blanket nerf.

---

Yeah I guess myself and every other poster who disagrees should just "shut up" about it since you said so.

If speed tanking = getting out of almost any fight where you bit off more than you can chew {unless you are stupid} then it does need a nerf.

Maybe you should just "shut up" instead?

---

Originally by: Pithecanthropus

---

It comes down to tankability. A nano ship can speed tank fire and have virtually zero damage inflicted on by a dozen ships. A shield or armor tanker can tank, but will eventually get its tank broken by a dozen ships.

Well, then web or nuet the nano... well, no... that's not part of the equation. When you look at missiles and turrets hitting speed tanks versus hitting armor/shield tanks... it is BROKEN.... FLAWED... IMBALANCED.... however you want to say it, its that.

And yes, I'm so wrong it hurts.

---

Originally by: Xaen

---

Originally by: Haakelen

---

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/haake/ishtar.jpg

---

WTF is up with people and putting remote reps on a drone ship? USE REPAIR DRONES IDIOTAnd a cloak? wtf?

Sensor booster? jesus.

That setup is garbage.

Use this and stop sucking so hard:

[Ishtar, Nano Shield T2 guns]
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Inertia Stabilizers II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Warp Disruptor II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 200
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II

Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
150mm Railgun II, Spike S
150mm Railgun II, Spike S
150mm Railgun II, Spike S

Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Polycarbon Engine Housing I

Ogre II x5
Warrior II x10
Ogre II x5
Light Armor Maintenance Bot I x5

You could opt for a cap battery setup instead and drop the injector and shield extenders, but I don't recommend it. Hell, as I already mentioned, I don't recommend this ship period, because you're basically just going to lose all your drones in any engagement where you don't have sufficent gank to kill them first.

---

Originally by: *****zilla

---

This is massive. This is the same advantage that the nano phoons and nano mach had. The same advantage that warp core stabs had.


There really isn't any excuse to fly anything but nanos.

---

Originally by: *****zilla

---

Originally by: Tenuo

---

First of all, vs WCS, there was NOTHING you could do except bumping maybe or bring more people.

---

And fighting nanos has the same issue. Bring lots more people and overwhelm them. Or bring specialized setups. The 5x(?) point lach replaced with the huginn/rapier.

Originally by: Tenuo

---

And no excuse to fly anything but nanos? You've gotta be kidding me, even the biggest "nanofag" alliances in the game use battleships very regularly.

---

And against hostiles with titans etc often the use of nanos is mandated.

Let someone without the isk and sp fly battleships.

Originally by: Tenuo

---

Nanos are specialized ships, they are SO MUCH LESS versatile than battleships.

---

Which explains why the nano fits rarely differ by much.

So lets look at battleships.
1) Ratting
2) Shooting pos
3) Medium & large remote repping gangs
4) Low sec



The point is that nanos have taken over from how battleships were used a few years ago. Battleships are the new cruiser. Look at how large command ship fleets for example have been phased out.

I'm not going to argue that there isn't still a niche for battleships. However in this day and age everyone should be training for nanos.

---

Originally by: Xaen

---

It's fewer. But there are reasons for it. Training time for a good nano HAC is over five months for a new character. And the ships are nearly always 230M each

---

Originally by: Pithecanthropus

---

Originally by: Foocurr

---

The only thing you are proving is that you are just another great pvper with lots of experience and understanding of tactics and strategies.

I don't care who your main is...just give me one in-depth battle report where you think you were overpowered by nano-ships in an unfair and exploitive manner.

---

Aside from the point I already made? LOL

It's about the added elements that you so claim is fair to balance it out, when armor/shield tankers suffer with or without them. Thus, you are the village idiot. I only resort to name-calling because you are so quick to assume who I am, what I am, and my experience. But of course what comes next? Are you gonna flame me for posting with an alt? Yet, that really doesn't matter now does it?

I proved an imbalance that you can not justify without drawing obsurd contradictions, spinning of words, and resorting to bashing the great and respected player I am.

---

Originally by: *****zilla

---

Originally by: Haakelen

---

Seriously, how can you even justify the existence of HACs if they can't go fast? They are completely outclassed for any other use.

---

Mobility, agility. Nanos would still be faster than say a Myrm, but they would be more vulnerable. So for up close fighting a Myrm would be better. For roaming and jumping from system to system, or for maneuvering on a grid the hac would be better.
Not much change from now.


I'm not saying to nerf the speed of hac (except in extreme cases). There is a boundary of around 4km/s where a ship becomes a great nano candidate. Adjust this boundary. Modify the web so that with a script a non nano can adjust that boundary for the nano.

Originally by: Haakelen

---

If your brilliant plan of 'All the bonuses Recons get should be applied to Tech 1 cruisers', then Recons would be completely outclassed, too.

---

There should be or is t1 options for t2 bonuses. The t2 stuff is better however the t1 should be an option. A blackbird jams fine, a falcon/rook better. Damps work better on lachesis/arazu. etc.

The Hyena can jam fine, but the Huginn/Rapier better. There should be a t1 version of the hyena. Or a modified web with a similiar but weak effect.

So even though the blackbird can jam, the falcon might be much more expensive but it is a better option.

---

Originally by: Spineker

---

Edited by: Spineker on 26/06/2008 20:35:22

Originally by: Grath Telkin

---

Edited by: Grath Telkin on 26/06/2008 20:28:02

Originally by: Spineker

---

I find it pathetic that the best argument being made by nano-lovers is the sixth grade mentality of "You just can't pvp loser"

---

i find it pathetic that you ignore every logical argument, and fact, and stomp around with a 4th grade mentality of "I WANT MY WAY!!"

---

Have you ever made a logical argument? Who are you again? Oh no body thanks for checking in.

I have tried logic and get called a moron or a noob that is the mentality of people who need over-powered ships to compete. They are losers.

Originally by: Spineker

---

Get a life and learn some tactics besides go fast cowards. Flavor of the month cookie cutter unoriginal I am too scared to go toe to toe with skillz pussies.

---

So it takes skills to lock a target and jam the f keys? who would've known.

---

Quote:

---

Also, why is it cool for you to tell us to learn new tactics, but when presented with the same challenge yourself, you cry foul.

---

Quote:

---

Also, most nano pilots can tank the crap outa anything they want, just sayin. The money we put in speed mods, you really don't want spent on uber tanks, i can promise you.

Also, just fyi, your an idiot, there are plenty of Nano cerbs, many fitting FOF missiles to deal with jammers and webbers. Go down to Stain, tell them Caldari Hac's don't nano, I'll meet you in your clone home station to debate it after Creamster pod's the crap out of you

---

Originally by: Pithecanthropus

---

Originally by: Tenuo

---

tl;dr on this thread:

People who can't pvp for **** stomping in the ground yelling for ccp to nerf a legit playstyle while making up numbers to prove their point.

I won't bother anymore, it's to no use.

---

So are you saying we should all fly nano speedtanks? BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRING.

Your pewny minnie mind can comprehend the big pictures. It's not about pvp talents, its pure factual damage intake when you compare shield/armor tanks to speedtanks. Take out the other fancy elements you want us to counter your nano with, and explain to me how the 3 tank styles match up? tanks vs dps... straight to the point.

You'll see in the end to win against nanos you ahve to bring far more elements to pop them, if... if they don't run. So its quite the annoyance... the same annoyance you pvp griefers whined when people warp stabbed. See the irony?

---

Originally by: Pithecanthropus

---

Originally by: Grath Telkin

---

all we see is you ignoring facts and rambling. refute one of the facts in any one of the 1000000000 threads you dbags have barraged the forums with, and MAYBE, somebody will take you seriuosly.

---

what facts? that speedtanks are overpowered? I admit that one. I'm not ignoring anything. You all seem to whine more and more about being pro-nano, and all you can say is for the anti-nanos to bring more and more elements and learn to pvp. so i broke it down... and no one here can justify the overpower of nanos when its pure tanks vs dps.

that alone shows an imbalance. can you refute that? no... which is why no one has tried.

/me takes a bow.

---

Originally by: Foocurr

---

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

---

hai guys! lets to pos shooting with our nanos!!!!!

---

ofc, theres no reason to fly anything else!!!

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Originally by: Tenuo

---

Originally by: Foocurr

---

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

---

hai guys! lets to pos shooting with our nanos!!!!!

---

ofc, theres no reason to fly anything else!!!

---

nop, tanks ddds too, killed a titan in this last night lolol.

---

Silly nubs! They should have nano:ed that Titan û then it would have been unkillable!

---

Originally by: Pithecanthropus

---

Originally by: Tenuo

---

]YOU DONT GET IT

YOU NEVER WILL

STOP ******* POSTING

I'm putting my posting privileges on the line with this post but it seems to be the only thing ever getting through to your skull.

---

i don't know ****

---

Originally by: Spineker

---

I have more experience then you will know about any of this. I can fly a nanotar I don't need your lack of understanding on this subject for anything.

---

Originally by: Banjo String

---

OMG, there must be something about nano's ccp should look at to warrant quite so much crap being flung everywhere?

---

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.

---

Originally by: Haakelen

---

Originally by: Pithecanthropus

---

just kidding... nanos need to be nerfed!

Actually, this message is an apology. To all the people out there.... I'm sorry I posted so many of my nano opinions. Even though I may be right, and you are all greatly mistaken and naive. I should of known better and not voice my opinion more than once.

As my vote poll shows... HERE the 'NO' to a nano nerf are winning. Of course, there is a +/- 5% error and human tampering factor you have to take into account. So, basically its a 50/50 and until CCP does their own vote, and until they realize how right I am and nerf the BIG nano's, people will continue to complain. Until CCP realizes that the direction of Eve has gone several ways throughout the years, and its once again time for a new direction. A nano nerf to big ships will not end this game, nor ruin it, it will only make it better, more exciting, and more risking. It won't change the gankers, cuz they will always find ways to grief, but it will change the pure balance of pvp... and for that, I'd be thankful.

For those wondering why the nano threads have increased, it is because of FW... and yes, the nao complaints where there before. So this only goes to show that even when MORE pvp, they see a huge unbalance with nanos. We have more people pvping now more than ever... the problem is on the front page news. That is why nano threads increased. Put your selfish egos away, and do what is best for this game... and zippy-dee-do-daa ships are NOT what should be the major element of Eve.

... and THAT is all folks.

---

---

Originally by: FORD ESC0RT

---

Edited by: FORD ESC0RT on 27/06/2008 06:14:31
Edited by: FORD ESC0RT on 27/06/2008 06:13:52
Edited by: FORD ESC0RT on 27/06/2008 06:13:17
From the Dev Blog:

Why don't we like people going really really fast
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 argument 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.
So whats the plan?
A good idea would be to have modules stacking nerf more. For example have low slot hull modules give percentage velocity instead of fixed number, that way it gets stacking nerfed with microwarpdrives and afterburners. Another improvement is to have agility stacking nerfed. That doesn't help with the max velocity but it does affect how fast you can achieve said velocity. It also makes it harder to you to orbit at extreme velocities, forcing you to lower your speed.

Another thing we're discussing is changing those hull mods so they don't affect as many things. For example overdrives increase velocity, nanofbers agility and inertia stabilizers mass. Well we might then switch the istabs and nanos around as it really makes more sense that nanofibers reduce mass. The only problem is that I'm afraid that the agility mod will be sort of useless.

The biggest factor in the velocity is the microwarpdrive. Looking at microwarpdrive stats it shouldn't come as a big surprise that these modules aren't supposed to be sustainable, they have high cap need and give penalties to capacitor. However they can be, so when in doubt nerf the microwarpdrive! Well not really but we have discussed number of modification of it.

* Make it require charges
* Make its cap consumption dependant on velocity
* Not allow people to use cap booster when mwd is active

Making it require charges has the benefit of you not being able to run it indefinitly and you'd have to reload it once in a while. It however has the massive annoyance factor of having to carry yet another consumable in your ever diminishing cargohold. Disable the cap injector when the mwd is active isn't really a perfect solution as you'd probably be able to sustain it with few cap modules and nosferatus. It however would make such a setup a lot more vulnerable to being nossed itself. I like making cap consumption of microwarpdrive dependant on velocity because it can be done so that it only affects ships going really, really fast.

This isn't all nailed down yet, we're still discussing options and exchanging opinions about this but you can be sure its being worked on.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This proof shows that devs don't like speed either and that's imbalanced and they are figuring out ways to fix it. It's no different than WCS.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Originally by: Steel Tigeress

---

Misinterpretion of the post to make it look like it's in my favour.

---

Originally by: Tenuo

---

Nanos, ******* invincible:

http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7401
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7400
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7354
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7280
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7257
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7133
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7106
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=7068
http://genos.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=engagement&kill=7068 (3 ruptures v nano Ishtar, Vagabond, Stabber and hawk)

this doesn't help the whiners argument ANY bit when Garmon flies around in his Rupture solo murdering Nano hacs or doing it with 1-2 other t1 cruisers or that he kills rapiers with 3 frigs.

---

Originally by: MITSUK0

---

Edited by: MITSUK0 on 27/06/2008 11:46:23
Just wanted to say that a ship that is faster will always be able to escape. Even if its only a few hundred m/s...

Lets make all ships go the same speed amirite?

Or how about adding a load of hard counter IWIN buttons so speed fitting is pointless?

Or we could just learn to use the counters we have and adapt our gameplay eh?

---

Originally by: FORD ESC0RT

---

I guess all the nanofags ignored the bold parts in my previous post:


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.

---

Originally by: FORD ESC0RT

---

Most players feel that nanos are overpowered but they just don't read these pirate/griefer run forums.

---

Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks

---

Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 27/06/2008 17:48:37

Nanoed assualt frigates would be a good addition to Eve. Current AFs are "frigates", but feel more like destroyers/cruisers.
Add 1-2 lows and lower AFs mass/agility proportional this of HACs and T1-cruisers.

---

Originally by: Foocurr

---

THIS JUST IN!!! A SURPRISE EXTRA AWESOME FLASH DEV BLOG.

Here is a taste in case you missed it:

Originally by: CCP Thatoneguy

---

Recently there have been a lot of complaints about the current state of speed. More specifically, Heavy Assault Cruisers. We had merely been brainstorming ideas for how to ease the suffering of the victims of such setups so that they would feel like we were going to do something about it. Meanwhile, we were trying to decide whether or not the people who said they would 'emoragequit' if we didn't "fix" things were serious or not.

Well, we have decided to call their bluff. Even if the entire population of "anti-nanos" were to cancel their accounts, we'd still be in the black as a company. Not only that, we would be left with the players who understand that this game is supposed to be challenging and nothing comes easy. Also, the forums would become a bit less crowded with so-called 'whine' threads, which would be nice.

When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight, but most of us know when risk outweighs gain.

-Regards

---

Welp, glad thats over. You can go back to running missions now guys.

---

Originally by: Epidemis

---

Originally by: Hexman

---

Originally by: FORD ESC0RT

---

MWD weren't designed to avoid damage they were made to get in range.

---

and you know this....how?

First page in another fail nano whine thread

---

It's a pretty accepted theory. Just look at it's sig increase component.

---