EVE Search - The most overpowered nanoships

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The most overpowered nanoships

» 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 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:42:00 - [151] Originally by: Lawk Jeez, does everyone is smash whine like little ***es? No wonder you guys fail constantly. And Pandemic Legion still adds nothing... Originally by:** Grath Telkin What would all these little noobs do if they came up against a Titan? They could lock it. Shoot it. And see themselves doing a bit of damage. Might not be much. Ultimately people don't want to feel useless. New players feel useless on fighting nanos. Originally by: Grath Telkin Oh, and why is everybody so hardcore on the heavy neuts? Range. Anything smaller and it might as well be a web. To use the neut means needing a mwd + nano'd up a bit to close the distance.
O Thief The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:43:00 - [152] Originally by: Haakelen Originally by: O Thief [But that doesnt stop me being blind to the fact that when you literally have to nano EVERYTHING that things have gone too far and there is a need for some re-balancing. I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: If you can't nano a HAC, what good is it to fly one over a tier 2 battlecruiser? Because they are more fast and agile to begin with, perhaps, even when not nano'd? Although thank you for reminding me - that is also another issue: no-one sensible bothers flying the damage dealing command battlecruisers these days (unless its a nano-sleipnir)... When a whole ship class is made redundant because it can't effectively be nano'd... sorry, its time for a change, and anyone sensible knows it.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:45:00 - [153] Originally by: Tenuo 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. Gogo Bouncers and Gardes. Still have to abandon them to GTFO, or motor around and rescoop after a fight you win. And you have to gimp your capacitor or hp buffer to make them track well enough. The other option is an armor tank with some nos/neut. But then you could do the same thing only better and cheaper in a dominix. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:45:00 - [154] Change to what? Cheapen the build reqs for HACs to make them cost not that much more than T2 BCs? Nerf blobbing (har har)? Of course no one bothers flying them for the most part, they're a waste of time and money when battleships do the job better in almost all situations.
Diehard Si UK1 Zero G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:47:00 - [155] Originally by: *****zilla For someone new this is isk and sp intensive. It requires players that can fly recons well and logistics. Yes, it takes nanos to serious put the hurt on nanos. This is an issue. We're telling new players that they're useless until they can fly t2 and have the isk to support it. We're telling them that the game has no variety. Use cookie cutter ships+fittings to be successful. Thats the same with any class in Eve. If a gang of Astartes, Sleipnirs, Absolutions turn up how much hope do the new players have against that? Ok, you might say they can still tackle... well i'd argue with a bit of help from more experienced players they can be taught to tackle a nano ship in a T1 frig. Just teach them how to cut off orbit paths etc
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:52:00 - [156] Edited by: ***zilla on 26/06/2008 17:55:13 Originally by: Xaen Besides, the skills for a widow are built into effective flight of a Chimera. The sin is garbage. Very true. Reason enough for Caldari 5. Originally by: Xaen I'm assuming you fly caldari for some reason. Oh well.. Mostly either caps or Minm nanos/dictors on an alt. I've "joined them" a long time ago. Originally by: Haakelen Change to what? Cheapen the build reqs for HACs to make them cost not that much more than T2 BCs? Nerf blobbing (har har)? T2 has always cost lots more than t1. If a nerf happened there would still be reasons to fly nanos. Not just a reason for everyone to fly nanos. Any solution to "nerf" blobbing is doomed to failure. Either the blob finds a work around or the blob flies the "solution". Originally by: Haakelen Of course no one bothers flying them for the most part, they're a waste of time and money when battleships do the job better in almost all situations. Have you forgotten the days when we might see a 20-30 man command ship fleet? I remember MC flying these. Superior to battleships. Remote reps etc I think and very very deadly. Then nanos became the rage.
Hannobaal Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:53:00 - [157] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Dianeces Take T2/best named racial ECM. Fit on any ship. Fit 3x SDA IIs. Assume max skills. Racial jam strength: 7.02. Good enough for frigates. Sounds pretty effective to me. First, if you're that much of a noob not to realize how ECM works, then I'm not gonna bother with you. Second, are you telling me CCP only intended a blackbird, rook, and falcon to fit all the numerous ECM mods, They probably didn't originally, but then people whined until ECM was hit so badly with the nerf bat and that became the case (with Revelations I, right when I started playing).
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:54:00 - [158] Originally by: Haakelen I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: If you can't nano a HAC, what good is it to fly one over a tier 2 battlecruiser e: except the sniperhacs? The sniperhacs are already outdone by sniper battleships. Which is why you nearly never see anyone flying an eagle or munin. The only reason you see a cerb is because there are so many caldari players. And the Gallente don't have a sniper HAC is the ishtar w/sentries. The Deimos was born without a role. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:55:00 - [159] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Haakelen Change to what? Cheapen the build reqs for HACs to make them cost not that much more than T2 BCs? Nerf blobbing (har har)? T2 has always cost lots more than t1. If a nerf happened there would still be reasons to fly nanos. Not just a reason for everyone to fly nanos. Yeah, pubbies with more money than sense. You meant 'HACs' not 'Nanos', right? For someone who rails about how 'you shouldn't need to train <not my racial shiptype 5> to do anything', you WOULD need to train for a Vaga and all that goes along with it to use an even slightly fast HAC if you got your way.
Lawk North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.26 17:55:00 - [160] Originally by: *****zilla And Pandemic Legion still adds nothing... I am submitting this dreadful insult to the Pandemic Legion War Committee. Numbered are your days my friend.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:05:00 - [161] Originally by: Haakelen For someone who rails about how 'you shouldn't need to train <not my racial shiptype 5> to do anything', you WOULD need to train for a Vaga and all that goes along with it to use an even slightly fast HAC if you got your way. I'm railing about not being forced to train for a Hyena/Huginn/Rapier. Which many of the Caldari folks will be forced into. I'm railing about not being forced into flying t2 when a t1 alternative should exist. I trained Recon 5 for a Rapier a long time ago. I'm not advocating a nerf bat to HAC speed. Maybe to some of the extreme setups with implants etc. I'd like to see a change to the web. Maybe chance based or something. So 10km @90% or 24km at like 25%. There might even be a way to create a niche for assault frigs here. I don't know the precise solution.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:07:00 - [162] Edited by: Haakelen on 26/06/2008 18:08:46 And why is it such a horrible thing that people feel 'forced' into training 'the only counter' to a single shiptype (nanos), and it's tough ** that you have to train Caldari for ECM (which works on everything, far too well), or Amrr to use a cruiser-sized cap warfare boat? e: I thought the whole point of T2 was that it does one or two things very well and has small niches, and there should be a reason to train for it**. Why must there be a T1 equivalent for every race for every single thing? Why don't you just make all weapons the same, all tanking the same, but just have them use different names, so it's all fair?
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:13:00 - [163] Originally by: Hannobaal They probably didn't originally, but then people (of your kind) whined until ECM was hit so badly with the nerf bat that that became the case (with Revelations I, right when I started playing). Then, a year later with Trinity, the ECM ships were improved to make up for it. So, right now, it's a very rare circumstance when it would make sense to fit ECM on a ship without bonuses. In contrast, a very large portion of pvp fitted ships use webs. Exactly... ECM was hit with the nerf bat, when who? GANKERS whined... warp stabs were nerfed when who? GANKERS whined. GANKERS couldn't grief... awwww. Now that they have a fool proof nano scheme, everything is okay? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. ECM is still very effective with any ship, you will always have chances to jam, and in numbers, its great. Web's in numbers don't do crap unless you get a nano under 10km... and don't tell me to add a Claymore, because that's just another element to off balance the entire nano flaw! You guys keep throwing them in, and I'm hitting them out of the ballpark. No one here can argue that with base damage and no elements added, nano tanks outdo shield and armor tanks hands down. And not just with 1 v 1, but 10 v 1. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:13:00 - [164] Edited by: ***zilla on 26/06/2008 18:15:12 Originally by: Haakelen And why is it such a horrible thing that people feel 'forced' into training 'the only counter' to a single shiptype (nanos), Because these counters are fairly sp intensive (huginn/rapier). They work to exclude new players. Originally by: Haakelen it's tough ** that you have to train Caldari for ECM (which works on everything, far too well), It does work far too well. However it only works well on the ships with bonuses (bad) and doesn't work so hot on anything else (bad). But you can give the skill books to a miner and have one in a blackbird in a few days. Very reasonable. (edit: the poster above is talking about it is better to have ecm on 10 ships that doesn't work so well versus having webs on all but not able to use it). Originally by:** Haakelen or Amrr to use a cruiser-sized cap warfare boat? Because cap warfare isn't a must have like webs. However if there were a t1 Amarr cruiser with a range bonus to nos/neuts then this would be very reasonable.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:18:00 - [165] Edited by: Haakelen on 26/06/2008 18:17:58 Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Haakelen And why is it such a horrible thing that people feel 'forced' into training 'the only counter' to a single shiptype (nanos), Because these counters are fairly sp intensive (huginn/rapier). They work to exclude new players. I have much less SP than other people, and I can't do things they can. Should things get nerfed for my benefit, too? You're advocating removing the real differences between races, and eliminating by and large the usefulness of T2 ships, T2 cruisers in particular. Originally by: Haakelen it's tough ** that you have to train Caldari for ECM (which works on everything, far too well), You didn't address this from the realm of 'ECM is overpowered' (I'M NOT SAYING ECM IS OVERPOWERED CALM DOWN), as you're doing with nanos. Originally by:** Haakelen or Amrr to use a cruiser-sized cap warfare boat? Because cap warfare isn't a must have like webs. However if there were a t1 Amarr cruiser with a range bonus to nos/neuts then this would be very reasonable. So basically you want to obsolete HACs (I don't care what you say, you are wrong, there are about two reasons to fly a non-nano HAC), AND Recons?
Cupdeez Out of Order	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:19:00 - [166] 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. Itz called a rapier and it has a -90% to speed and can web at about 40km range Itz called a hyena and it has a -90% to speed and can web at about 25km range You want to kill nano ships use recon ships.. If they have a 10 man Nano gang have a 10 man recon gang I got money you will win. 4 rapiers / 4 falcons / and 2 arazu's (See how fast a nano gang tries to run from this) www.theo3.org We have no problem killing nano ships they die extremly fast. Note: Rapier has more low slots then a Hugin so in turn the rapier is a faster ship (FYI). I think you should learn more about EVE before you post stuff.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:30:00 - [167] Originally by: Haakelen I have much less SP than other people, and I can't do things they can. Should things get nerfed for my benefit, too? You're advocating removing the real differences between races, While you can't do what they can you should be able to have some of the capabilities using purely t1. I'm advocating buffing other pvp besides speed. I'm advocating encouraging ceptors. I'm advocating finding a niche for assault frigs. The real differences between races isn't purely speed. Minm is a bit faster than the other races. A small difference shouldn't translate into a large advantage. Originally by: Haakelen (I'M NOT SAYING ECM IS OVERPOWERED CALM DOWN), Wait, what? Then I'll say that ECM is a bit overpowered atm. Not abused as much. But it certainly knocks the socks off of target painting/disrupting/damps currently. Originally by: Haakelen there are about two reasons to fly a non-nano HAC), AND Recons? Falcons seem to do ok. The rest are either ignored or nano'd (huginn/rapier). Why did people want to fly the mach so well? Because it could be nanoed. If t2 ships should be specialized then they should be flown for specialized purposes. Nanos are flown because they can go fast. Pick a ship. Assume it could be nano'd. Assume it could go fast. People would be all over it. Speed is currently preferred above all else. This kills variety.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:38:00 - [168] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Haakelen I have much less SP than other people, and I can't do things they can. Should things get nerfed for my benefit, too? You're advocating removing the real differences between races, While you can't do what they can you should be able to have some of the capabilities using purely t1. I'm going to go ahead and guess this isn't the idea CCP had in mind, considering it isn't like this at all in the game. Originally by: ***zilla I'm advocating encouraging ceptors. Because nobody uses interceptors amirite Originally by: *zilla Originally by:** Haakelen there are about two reasons to fly a non-nano HAC), AND Recons? Falcons seem to do ok. The rest are either ignored or nano'd (huginn/rapier). The rest are ignored because they've been nerfed into oblivion. This is what will happen to all Recons (except the Caldari ones) if you get your way. If cruisers can't go fast, and you have this magical T1 variant that has the same abilities (only not as well), and Recons are still 10 times as expensive, why would anyone fly the Recon? 'The Curse is a nice neut boat?' Yeah, so's an Abaddon.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:42:00 - [169] TEST SQUAD -12 ships (3 cruisers from each race) -straight fit to deal damage (no enhancement mods, no drones) PUT UP AGAINST 1. best shield tanked HAC 2. best armor tanked HAC 3. best speed tanked HAC At the highest capacity for each HAC's best defense tank capabilities, which ship would survive the longest? (if they didn't run away) 1. 12 ships would definitely kill the HAC quite quickly. 2. 12 ships would definitely kill the HAC quite quickly. 3. 12 ships would most likely not even scratch the HAC. Now, lets add the elements and have each ship try and survive. No matter how much elements you add... shield and armor tanked HAC's are dead. Stick them with painters, ECM, drones, webs... add tracking links, even a Claymore, and those HAC's are meat. On the other hand, a nano has a wider variety of survivability... drone's may not even catch him! Two scenarios, and two high scores for speedtanks. Thus, a much needed nerf to these BIG ships going too fast. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:52:00 - [170] Originally by: Pithecanthropus TEST SQUAD -12 ships (3 cruisers from each race) -straight fit to deal damage (no enhancement mods, no drones) PUT UP AGAINST 1. best shield tanked HAC 2. best armor tanked HAC 3. best speed tanked HAC At the highest capacity for each HAC's best defense tank capabilities, which ship would survive the longest? (if they didn't run away) 1. 12 ships would definitely kill the HAC quite quickly. 2. 12 ships would definitely kill the HAC quite quickly. 3. 12 ships would most likely not even scratch the HAC. Now, lets add the elements and have each ship try and survive. No matter how much elements you add... shield and armor tanked HAC's are dead. Stick them with painters, ECM, drones, webs... add tracking links, even a Claymore, and those HAC's are meat. On the other hand, a nano has a wider variety of survivability... drone's may not even catch him! Two scenarios, and two high scores for speedtanks. Thus, a much needed nerf to these BIG ships going too fast. Wow, this is ********. If i was flying the ships. 12v1? 1. I would run away 2. I would run away 3. I would run away
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 18:54:00 - [171] Originally by: Haakelen I'm going to go ahead and guess this isn't the idea CCP had in mind, considering it isn't like this at all in the game. We've got t1 snipers, t1 ecm (blackbird), t1 logistics, t1 drone boats. Generally t1 is the mainstay. T2 is way more expensive but for that last bit of performance. Originally by: Haakelen Because nobody uses interceptors amirite Nanos make superior tacklers in most cases. Ceptor fleets have been replaced by nano fleets.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:03:00 - [172] Originally by: Foocurr 12v1? 1. I would die 2. I would die 3. I would run away I fixed it for you. Yet another reason to fly a speedtank. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:07:00 - [173] Originally by: Samel Hysta 10 little points. 1) Nano-pilot zooming around... recon blob sent to kill. Whats worse the blobbers or the nano? 2) I don't mind nano's till they get snake sets. (Make snake sets give increased hull res's ftw) 3) Hac's can tank... its not ment to tank everything so yes Bc's which are really anti-crusier ships will give it a beating but against other targets are Hac is more effective. 4) Yes some ships are meant for speed, but they have draw backs some ships that are nano'd have much less draw backs. 5) The "learn to play" argument is irreverent: Vagabond doing 6km/s aprox is fine a CNR doing the same speed is not. 6) Saying that you can shoot a nano-ishtar or curse's drones is fine 1v1 but when there is 2-3 of them with out smart bombs no chance 7) Having to or being able to fit neuts/smart bombs field huginns in gangs is not an argument that nano's are not overpowered. 8) The lack or very little stacking using overdrives and poly-carbs is a flaw in game mechanics eg the sums don't work I don't mind but they still don't work. 9) I think speed is a viable tactic in eve however its current implication in game like Black-ops needs addressing. 10) I LIKE THE COLOUR BLUE Learn when to engage or not. Seriously. Take the isk cost to fit a ship with polys, faction MWD, clone with snakes. Now use that isk to build a tanked HAC. You'll see the payoff is in a similar extreme, but fill different roles, the monetary risk stays the same.
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:10:00 - [174] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Foocurr 12v1? 1. I would die 2. I would die 3. I would run away I fixed it for you. Yet another reason to fly a speedtank. You're an idiot. If you are in a tanked HAC, you at the very least have a scout so you dont get blobbed by 12 ships. This just shows how 'lead with your face' most of you whiners are. Tanked HAC = Have a scout so you dont get blobbed and die. Speed HAC = Get blobbed, run away unless you get nueted, jammed, or webbed.
THEGREAT LOBO Ataraxia.	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:12:00 - [175] One little thing i have noticed in all these nano whine threads is that 90% of them come from noob corp alts. where as most of the sane people against the random nerfing seem to be from player corps, Most of them dedicated pvp corps/alliances.(these guys might know something about pvp) Just look at the alts in this thread on the anti nano side. Ford escort, Pithecanthropus and of course Kelli Flay. Maybe we would take these people more seriously if they bothered to even post with there main. And of course don't just pull facts about ships out of thin air like the op. /Won't be posting in anymore of these nano threads. Hoping that CCP have the sense to not give in because of all the alt whining.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:13:00 - [176] Originally by: Samel Hysta 10 <s>little</s>invalid points. 1) Nano-pilot zooming around... recon blob sent to kill. Whats worse the blobbers or the nano? Neither. Originally by: Samel Hysta 2) I don't mind nano's till they get snake sets. (Make snake sets give increased hull res's ftw) You do realize a snake set costs as much as much as about three fitted carriers, right? Let them have them. They're gonna cry like little girls when they get podded. Originally by: Samel Hysta 3) Hac's can tank... its not ment to tank everything so yes Bc's which are really anti-crusier ships will give it a beating but against other targets are Hac is more effective. That's the problem here. You point out all these things that HACs should not do. And you're advocating the removal of the last thing they can do better than everything else. Which is guerilla warfare, i.e. nano. Originally by: Samel Hysta 4) Yes some ships are meant for speed, but they have draw backs some ships that are nano'd have much less draw backs. It's fewer. But there are reasons for it. Training time for a good nano HAC is over three months for a new character. And the ships are nearly always 150M each. If you face a fleet of such characters in such ships and all you have are carebears in tech 1 carebear ships, you should almost certainly lose. Only an extremely tricky FC would be able to covercome such odds. Originally by: Samel Hysta 5) The "learn to play" argument is irreverent: Vagabond doing 6km/s aprox is fine a CNR doing the same speed is not. Then explain for us what tactics you have attempted and why they have failed so that we can elaborate on "learn to play" with specific things you could do better. Originally by: Samel Hysta 6) Saying that you can shoot a nano-ishtar or curse's drones is fine 1v1 but when there is 2-3 of them with out smart bombs no chance If it's already 3on1 why on earth do you think you should win? Even three traditionally tanked HACs would tear you apart with sheer gankage. Even more quickly if they're not nano'd. If this isn't the scenario you're talking about, by all means clarify. Originally by: Samel Hysta 7) Having to or being able to fit neuts/smart bombs field huginns in gangs is not an argument that nano's are not overpowered. You lost me with poor wording. Originally by: Samel Hysta 8) The lack or very little stacking using overdrives and poly-carbs is a flaw in game mechanics eg the sums don't work I don't mind but they still don't work. Not really. They sacrificed all tank and in the cases of most ships, DPS for that speed. There are trade offs, but you're only seeing one side of things. A traditional tanked gank fit HAC does way more damage both on paper and in the game than a nano HAC. Even the ishtar! Originally by: Samel Hysta 9) I think speed is a viable tactic in eve however its current implication in game like Black-ops needs addressing. You mean speed for interceptors only? I would agree with you, most of the black ops suck. But that's a different subject. If you take away speed from the HACs and recons, no one will fly most of them in pvp. Originally by: Samel Hysta 10) I LIKE THE COLOUR BLUE I like all kinds of colors. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:14:00 - [177] Heh, in this very thread I have posted with a few alts and a few mains as others have.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:15:00 - [178] Originally by: THEGREAT LOBO One little thing i have noticed in all these nano whine threads is that 90% of them come from noob corp alts. where as most of the sane people against the random nerfing seem to be from player corps, Most of them dedicated pvp corps/alliances.(these guys might know something about pvp) Just look at the alts in this thread on the anti nano side. Ford escort, Pithecanthropus and of course Kelli Flay. Maybe we would take these people more seriously if they bothered to even post with there main. And of course don't just pull facts about ships out of thin air like the op. /Won't be posting in anymore of these nano threads. Hoping that CCP have the sense to not give in because of all the alt whining. Interesting observation. Though I think it was already the general consensus that the people whining were pvp newbs introduced to real pvp in EVE only with the advent of faction warfare. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
THEGREAT LOBO Ataraxia.	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:18:00 - [179] Edited by: THEGREAT LOBO on 26/06/2008 19:18:48 That would be true if the alts in question belonged to a factional warfare corp. /last post. Honest. I really mean it.
Samel Hysta	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:19:00 - [180] Originally by: Foocurr Learn when to engage or not. Seriously. Take the isk cost to fit a ship with polys, faction MWD, clone with snakes. Now use that isk to build a tanked HAC. You'll see the payoff is in a similar extreme, but fill different roles, the monetary risk stays the same. Or I can take the isk it cost me to buy snakes poly-carbs faction mwd and by and fit many t2 fitted tanked ships and loose a lot more of them having just as much fun but several times over. Or I can by Hac and may be a bs and may be huggin and a command ship and may be a logistic cruiser and do many more roles. Something costing a lot of isk dose not make it any less an error in game mechanics or bizarre logic.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: 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.