Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
5v3N
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 06:11:00 -
[301]
10/10 flame bait OP uses alt i surppose yes i bite the bait, yo uknow what's great about it? i am using an alt
|
FORD ESC0RT
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 06:12:00 -
[302]
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.
|
Trigos Trilobi
X-Fire
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 06:17:00 -
[303]
The one thing I find amusing in these threads is the amount of people who complain that nano setups need specialized setups to counter, and then go on and claim that 90% of people fly nanos.
If 90% of people would fly nanos, wouldn't the anti-nano setup be the cookie cutter default fit, and you'd use specialized setups if you think you have to face rr/mixed gangs?
|
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 06:32:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi wouldn't the anti-nano setup be the cookie cutter default fit, and you'd use specialized setups if you think you have to face rr/mixed gangs?
If flying a nano the cookie cutter mostly works well anywhere. Against a rr gang its better to bring more falcons with standard fits then try and change a cookie cutter nano fit.
In cases where the nano has limited options (like a decent rr gang) then the best options are to disengage and try to pick off stragglers. Then bring more nanos next time.
Most nanos change little except the fleet composition.
|
Trigos Trilobi
X-Fire
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 06:48:00 -
[305]
Originally by: *****zilla
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi wouldn't the anti-nano setup be the cookie cutter default fit, and you'd use specialized setups if you think you have to face rr/mixed gangs?
If flying a nano the cookie cutter mostly works well anywhere. Against a rr gang its better to bring more falcons with standard fits then try and change a cookie cutter nano fit.
In cases where the nano has limited options (like a decent rr gang) then the best options are to disengage and try to pick off stragglers. Then bring more nanos next time.
Most nanos change little except the fleet composition.
I think I may have been a bit unclear, I meant fitting non-nanoships for anti-nano duty, and the contradiction wether such fittings can be considered specialized if 90% of your opponents are nanos.
|
Tenuo
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 06:50:00 -
[306]
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.
That was before nanophoon nerf.
Then they swinged the nerf bat very very hard.
Now it's balanced. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Tenuo
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 06:53:00 -
[307]
Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 06:54:07 Also, because you people have still not read this, I'll repost.
I've bolded the important part
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.
_______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Tenuo
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 07:02:00 -
[308]
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. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Steel Tigeress
Gallente Steel-Wolfs
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 07:03:00 -
[309]
Edited by: Steel Tigeress on 27/06/2008 07:04:07 Really? Because I see them saying "3000-4000 is not much of a problem"
"Is not much of a problem" dos not = "balanced"
If fact... "3000-4000 is not much of a problem" still implies there IS a problem, its just getting smaller.
Care to stop posting that drivel that makes our point for us now, or do the devs need to write it out in crayon for everyone.
e: typing
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 07:09:00 -
[310]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress Edited by: Steel Tigeress on 27/06/2008 07:04:07 Really? Because I see them saying "3000-4000 is not much of a problem"
"Is not much of a problem" dos not = "balanced"
If fact... "3000-4000 is not much of a problem" still implies there IS a problem, its just getting smaller.
Care to stop posting that drivel that makes our point for us now, or do the devs need to write it out in crayon for everyone.
e: typing
Nice leap of logic, not much of a problem does not mean its imbalanced, infact it means its pretty balanced. Or it would BE a problem.
|
|
Tenuo
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 07:12:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress Misinterpretion of the post to make it look like it's in my favour.
Nice one, ranks right up there with pics 200 vote poll that should supposedly represent the eve community as a whole. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Steel Tigeress
Gallente Steel-Wolfs
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 07:13:00 -
[312]
I've provided proof now of dev statements and intent.
You go find some proof now or STFU, because you have nothing but what YOU think...and that is obviously not much.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 07:19:00 -
[313]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress I've provided proof now of dev statements and intent.
You go find some proof now or STFU, because you have nothing but what YOU think...and that is obviously not much.
Yes thank you for the ONE dev statement that proves my point.
Originally by: devs, not random csm guy 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.
Devs think SOME nano use in the 8000km/s+ bracket as a problem, meaning the rest of the time nanos are NOT a problem. Concession accepted. Thank you for proving my point for me.
|
Tenuo
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 07:44:00 -
[314]
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.
invincible nanos
Discuss agaisnt that steel tigress, unless you wanna sling off "But they were **** pilots!!!". He's killed 85 HACs when he was in genos. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 08:16:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress
You didnt even read the link did you? The dev isn't talking about WCS's.... he's talking about balancing speed because speed has the same effects as fitting WCS's....
Are you mentally okay? You even quoted the part that talked about WCS. Do you know what WCS stands for? It is warp core stabilizers. Please read my post again.
Originally by: Steel Tigeress "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."
I bolded the part where you link in that dev blog the part about WCS. You talked about WCS being like nanos and I refuted your arguements but you won't even listen to any reasonable arguement. You don't give me the repsect of readingm y post so out goes the window with your respect, I hope you are ready, you dork.
Guess what NOOBLAR! I was THERE and playing when that dev blog was released! Do you know what that was about? That was about ISTAB BATTLESHIPS! Nothing to do with todays nano-hacs. Nano BS were zooming around 5km/s with the agility of an interceptor and using NOS to suck your cap dry and sustain the MWD as well as using an injector to run whatever else the Istab BS needed.
This was changed in Rev 1.3/1/.4 in response to that dev blog and a HUGE nano thread where even the pilots of the nano ships admitted it was completely broken: Overdrive Injection Systems give a velocity bonus only. Nanofiber Internal Structures give a mass reduction bonus only. Inertia stabilizers give an agility bonus only.
The mods were also given penalties then as far as I remember, the ODs specifically give -cargo so you cannot keep a lot of injector charges + ammo + loot in a OD nano-ship.
If you really want to see an unbalanced nano ship, just revert the game back to Rev1 ships. I will show you an unstoppable nano-ship. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 08:27:00 -
[316]
Originally by: FORD ESC0RT Hi guys. I'm an idiot that thinks an active no MWD drake with a pt and web is an AWESOME way to PvP fit a drake. However, the entire rest of the PvP playerbase tells me I'm a noob and I don't know how to PvP. They are so right
Come on. Go away. Leave your own thread. You have ZERO PvP ability and ZERO knowledge of game mechanics and ZERO knowledge of how anything works in EVE.
It's a shame I have to sleep or else I'd pwn you caldari drake-loving-no-talent noobs all freaking day on the forums just like I do ingame. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Tenuo
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 11:40:00 -
[317]
Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 11:40:33 If you whined about this: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=466083 then i'd think it was justified, but above got changed ages ago. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
MITSUK0
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 11:46:00 -
[318]
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?
|
Tenuo
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 12:36:00 -
[319]
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?
Actually, this is very true, I've jumped brutixes in my vexor before and if they had rails or shot my drones I've always just used my speed to get out. Any ship that's faster than another and fights on the edge of scramble range will be able to escape in many cases, only a few cases nanos will escape and others not, and nanos will have advantage vs ceptors (much harder to tackle targets going 3.5km/s than 1km/s). _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Ion Hound
Mortis Angelus The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 14:57:00 -
[320]
As was said, its a terrible thread. Such megawhine is just terrible.
But I cannot hold myself to comment on this, although Im not gonna mention (again) how to counter nano.
I just want to tell to you, all nano whiners, why you fail: even if nano gets nerfed in some way or another, this playerbase telling you that 250mil cost hac going 3-4k or 8bil cost faction bs going 6-8k etc is not broken, if nano gets nerfed, these same people will adapt and find new ways how to pwn your azzes again. Thats how eve works. And you what? going to start new whining?
good luck |
|
Nul Settys
Caldari UnderDog Industries Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 15:18:00 -
[321]
Quote: Ceptor is quite likely to die. The nano has a good chance. The nano spots the ceptor, makes a gut check, breaks from the target and starts to head directly away from where the ceptor is approaching.
The only major problem I have with nano-cruisers is that it is far too easy for medium turrets to hit frigate-sized ships. If the medium weapon signature was increased substantially, they wouldn't be the tacklerpwnmobiles that they are now.
|
FORD ESC0RT
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 15:19:00 -
[322]
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.
|
Tenuo
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 15:47:00 -
[323]
Edited by: Tenuo on 27/06/2008 15:47:30
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.
Do you know that nano is just one of the many many many many ways you can escape a fight?
Just have a faster ship than the opposition and you're golden, doesn't matter if you only go 1.5.
Also I think it's quite delusional for you to think that once a fight starts 1 side has to die no matter what.
Also, someone ******* nerf his annoying manga japenese **** signature, it's not eve related, at the same time ban him because he contributes nothing. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist. |
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 15:47:00 -
[324]
Edited by: *****zilla on 27/06/2008 15:48:44
Originally by: Nul Settys
The only major problem I have with nano-cruisers is that it is far too easy for medium turrets to hit frigate-sized ships.
Very true. Medium turrets hit both frigs & battleships far too well. If they couldn't effectily hit the sig radius of a frig then that would seriously buff ceptors/assault frigs/frigs.
Then while larger ships would have to be careful of nanos, nanos themselves would be threatened by the small stuff.
This could actually give a role to the sniper hacs as they might have a bonus to hitting small stuff. In this way they would be unique from sniper battleships as they would be better suited to snipe frigs.
The issue is that a frig with a mwd makes a fairly large target. So we're back to needing some way to reduce sig radius on frigs besides implants etc. Or using an AB needs to be viable on frigs to run down nanos.
|
Haakelen
Gallente Force d'action navale
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 16:07:00 -
[325]
Originally by: *****zilla
This could actually give a role to the sniper hacs as they might have a bonus to hitting small stuff. In this way they would be unique from sniper battleships as they would be better suited to snipe frigs.
You or someone else like you would be back within five hours of downtime crying about 249km Eagles w/Scimitar backup instapopping frigs on gates in lowsec.
Is the new point of the nano crying lot now that Tech 1 frigates aren't useful enough? Is that what you've moved to for a compelling argument?
|
AstroPhobic
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 16:23:00 -
[326]
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.
I had ignored this thread until now, but GTFO. Why should we commit a 250m HAC to a fight with a 10m-after-insurance battleship? Sounds like if he kills us one out of 25 encounters, it's "fair".
While we're at it, let's just remove MWDs, because we should commit. WCS, because we should commit. ECM, because we should commit. Damps, because we should commit. Let's increase web strength to 99.5%, because obviously we should commit. Let's make disruptors have 11 points, because we should commit. Let's just remove speed entirely, so we can't even try to run away. Let's make all weapons have the same optimal, because we're not going anywhere. While we're at it, they should all deal the same damage types too.
Oh, wait. That sounds boring.
|
Selia Rain
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 17:01:00 -
[327]
Probably already been said, but:
Vaga: You can deal up to 518DPS(3x gyro, 220 II, barrage, hobII, and an HML II), but DPS figures are at 2km, at 15-20, dps is reduced significantly due to falloff, and has tracking issues&tiny cap, Vaga is a fragile nano and doeasn't deal that much dps in the field, but since it's so fast, it has zoom zoom going for it
Ishtar: You're slow for a nano(compared to minmatar anyhow), you can setup to perma your MWD, but you can't stop your drones from being raped because you have to stay out of overloaded webber range. Your drones have such large sig that most weapons will hit them for full damage. With 5 mids you can have an awesome shield buffer or any configuration, or a halfassed armor tank with your nano(2 slots max)
Zealot: You are even slower than ishtar, but you deal excellent damage to over 30km with scorch, however your cap is fragile, and your ship is too, as with a full nano setup you either have a light armor tank(2-3 slots max), or a bad shield buffer(3 mids for shield tankinglol).
Sac: You're a bit faster than an ishtar, you deal reasonable dps, and can fit 2 damage mods without losing much speed(with a shield buffer), you can deal good dps at sub 20km, or reasonable out past your own lockrange with javelins. You can perma your MWD or a medium neut witout any cap mods whatsoever, and your dps is not destroyable. This is probably the most dangerous nanohac in my opinion, and it still deals only 450 dps or so tops, easily tankable by a tanked battleship. If you're gettign neuted, you can generally just saunter to the edge of scram range with your monster cap and regen and disengage.
Huginn/rapier: The huginn is a bit better for dps, but we're talking about 3 heavy launchers and 3x d180autos at around or exceeding max falloff, along with 4 medium drones(or a mix), so dps is okay, but still around T1 cruiser levels at falloff. Your advantage is total range control(ubar webs), not speed, but you can still outrun most of the "nano" HACs, and if you can't kill them(you can kill most in a huginn), you can at least get out of scram range and GTFO. Rapier DPS is lol, but you are a gang ship anyhow, so who cares?
Nano curse: You *****cap. Your dps is both silly(T1 cruiser dps, here), and easily destroyable, but you can carry a lot of spares. You need to carry cap boosters to do an efficient job, and you have to refill after every fight since you'll be almost constantly cap boosting. You're very very slow for a nano, so you'll spend a lot of time around max scram range attempting range control, espescially against cap boosting targets. You can EW turret boats to negate some of their dps.
Nanocerb and nanoeagle are both lol due to low speeds/not enough lowslots. I've never seen a nano deimos, but it seems kinda silly to me. Nano pilgrim is crap due to neut range. Nano arazu/lach work just like huginn/rapier, but with scrams instead of webs and also you're slow. FAlcon and rook realy don't have the cap or agility for nano, and munnin doesn't have the range without using your rig slots for falloff, plus there's no real advantage over a vaga there. The new faction cruisers can nano very well, but they are all paper thin and have low dps(fleet scythe and stabber peticularly have very good speeds though).
The point I'm trying to make in this comparison is this: All nanos have some sort of drawback, and they're all more or less paper-thin if you actually hit/catch them, and they're mostly pointless solo except for the ability to run away, which doesn't always hold true anyhow. Overloaded web, overloaded scram, heavy neuts, any recon ship, any EW frigate can really help in defeating nanos, all it takes is some thought and effort, which coincidentally it also takes to fly one sucessfully. Nanos are very much gang ships, where they can take advantage of their superior speed to disengage when and if the situation turns bad for them, plus skirmish mods basically rock.
|
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 17:19:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Haakelen You or someone else like you would be back within five hours of downtime crying about 249km Eagles w/Scimitar backup instapopping frigs on gates in lowsec.
A battleship can snipe like this fairly well currently. Ginger used to try this all the time. Except he couldn't scram so if someone was paying any sort of attention it wasn't a big deal.
When they can scram from 249km then we'll have a problem. When you enter a random low sec, see 2x ppl from the same alliance/corp and can reasonably assume its a Eagle/Scimitar combo then we'll have a problem.
|
FORD ESC0RT
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 17:23:00 -
[329]
Originally by: AstroPhobic
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.
I had ignored this thread until now, but GTFO. Why should we commit a 250m HAC to a fight with a 10m-after-insurance battleship? Sounds like if he kills us one out of 25 encounters, it's "fair".
While we're at it, let's just remove MWDs, because we should commit. WCS, because we should commit. ECM, because we should commit. Damps, because we should commit. Let's increase web strength to 99.5%, because obviously we should commit. Let's make disruptors have 11 points, because we should commit. Let's just remove speed entirely, so we can't even try to run away. Let's make all weapons have the same optimal, because we're not going anywhere. While we're at it, they should all deal the same damage types too.
Oh, wait. That sounds boring.
It wasn't my quote it was DEV quote in regards to nanos.
|
FORD ESC0RT
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 17:30:00 -
[330]
Edited by: FORD ESC0RT on 27/06/2008 17:32:23 What's wrong with fully committing to fights? The devs never intended for people to start a fight and leave at their leisure. That's why they nerfed WCS in the first place. They want combat ships to fight not run.
Maybe we do NEED 99.9% webs, 11 point disruptors and not being able to activate any types of weapons while MWDing. The game would be a lot more interesting. Nano-Online is the beginning of the end of EVE and most people realize this except for the vocal minority who keep spamming the same useless tactics over and over again.
Most players feel that nanos are overpowered but they just don't read these pirate/griefer run forums.
BTW no cares if your Vagabond is expensive. It's a player based economy so the value is arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |