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 19:19:00 - [181] Originally by: Haakelen Modules maybe, how is it like that at all in ships? It's not. T2 ships are more advanced than their T1 counterparts, in nearly every situation. That is the reason you fly them. That explains the t2 battleship the blackops? T2 ships are generally fairly specialized with a more limited role than t1 stuff. Hics that can't nano. Easy to jam mauraders. Jump freighters that trade jumping for cargo space. The t1 stuff should be usable. It shouldn't require t2 stuff to counter t2 stuff. Originally by: Haakelen oh smash Hey, we're not the ony ones that fielded large roaming nano fleets. It wasn't unusual for either side to have 40-50 nanos on a roam. Nor is it unusual in a pos op for the battleships to stay in the friendly pos shields while the nanos run around looking for kills. Originally by: THEGREAT LOBO (these guys might know something about pvp) Or they've based much of their tactics around nanos. Neither side isn't without an agenda.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:19:00 - [182] Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 26/06/2008 19:22:39 Originally by: Foocurr 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. LOL... now who is the one with the hypotheticals? I'm proving a point, and you are thick headed to admit how wrong you are, noob. EDIT: adding a scout? hehe, nice fix... yet another element to the equation that shield/armor tankers must do according to you. Yet another imbalance against speedtanks. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:24:00 - [183] Originally by: Xaen 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. This goes back to the vehicle analogy. We can't see what he is doing. He says 12 ships vs 1 tanked HAC WILL MOST CERTAINLY DIE. Well wtf is the tanked HAC doing there in the first place to get utterly annihilated by 12 f'ing ships? All these whiners are complaining about getting crappy gas mileage when they floor it.
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:26:00 - [184] Originally by: Samel Hysta 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. Actually the equivalent isk spent on a tank would provide a huge tank on pretty much anything.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:26:00 - [185] Originally by: ***zilla That explains the t2 battleship the blackops? itt we compare ships to black ops with black ops being the gold standard of ship balance and proper role definition Quote: T2 ships are generally fairly specialized with a more limited role than t1 stuff.[/qote] No, T2 ships generally take a useful attribute of their t1 hull and improve upon it significantly to make it worth using. Quote: Hics that can't nano. Because they're... designed to sit on gates and camp/tackle supercaps/tank DDs, as opposed to regular dictors which are designed for roaming? Quote: Easy to jam mauraders. Missionrunning boats, you would be here yelling how overpowered marauders were if they weren't easy to jam. Quote:** The t1 stuff should be usable. It shouldn't require t2 stuff to counter t2 stuff. So, T2 should be the realm of rich idiots to waste money?
Samel Hysta	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:26:00 - [186] Originally by: Xaen 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. Quote: Perhaps I was not making my self clear, the point is people say "nano's arn't over powered any noob can counter it" yet if that was the case why do people fly them?
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:28:00 - [187] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 26/06/2008 19:22:39 Originally by: Foocurr 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. LOL... now who is the one with the hypotheticals? I'm proving a point, and you are thick headed to admit how wrong you are, noob. EDIT: adding a scout? hehe, nice fix... yet another element to the equation that shield/armor tankers must do according to you. Yet another imbalance against speedtanks. The only thing you are proving is that you are just another no-skill-lemming pvper with no experience or 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.
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:28:00 - [188] Originally by: ***zilla The t1 stuff should be usable. It shouldn't require t2 stuff to counter t2 stuff. This doesn't seem quite rational to me. Please explain using specific ships and modules. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs**
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:34:00 - [189] Originally by: Samel Hysta Perhaps I was not making my self clear, the point is people say "nano's arn't over powered any noob can counter it" yet if that was the case why do people fly them? Perhaps because they trained for a HAC and it's the only setup that makes one worthwhile. Also, they're a happy middle ground between small and fast and big and powerful. And I know you probably think nanos are both worlds, but that's an exaggeration that only make sense if you ignore plated gank battleships and interceptors. Nano cruisers are on average less than half as fast (or slower) than an interceptor, and on average half as ganky as a battleship while tanking a tiny fraction as much or as long. Add in the fact that cruiser sized weapons are inherently better than small (low damage) and large (hard to hit things). This is part of the reason why, if you take speed away from t2 cruisers, they'll be obsolete because people can just use t1 battlecruisers for more gank at way less cost. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:39:00 - [190] Originally by: Haakelen So, T2 should be the realm of rich idiots to waste money? It always has been. Look at the utility versus price for t1 unnamed, named, t2, faction, and officer. The best utility/isk has always been for the cheap t1 stuff. With the recent t2 price crash from invention there has been an inflation of sorts so that t2 is the standard. Better ships and modules has always been about spending a lot more isk for a little more return.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:39:00 - [191] Thank you for admitting that you want to completely obsolete HACs and Recons. Now we can stop paying attention to you.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:42:00 - [192] 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. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:45:00 - [193] 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 fyp. Also, why this thread has been going 7 pages is a mystery to me. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:49:00 - [194] Edited by: Tenuo on 26/06/2008 19:49:25 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. You shot yourself in the foot with the 12v1 thing, please, oh PLEASE look at the following posts: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=806494&page=1#25 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=806494&page=3#73 A nanohac would against decent ships be abseloutly SLAUGHTERED in your scenario, the DPS hitting him would be over 1000 and he's already fragile. Now put a BB and a tackle ceptor with webs in to the equation (if you dont have this in a gang you deserve to die) and said hac would be DEAD. Go watch garmonation 4, he kills vagabonds, IN A RUPTURE! _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:50:00 - [195] 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. Just give us a specific example of a time you were overpowered by a nano-gang or solo nano-ship. From there we can analyze the situation and maybe give you a few pointers on what you could've done differently and what you did wrong. Seem fair?
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:54:00 - [196] Originally by: Haakelen Thank you for admitting that you want to completely obsolete HACs and Recons. HACs and recons will always have a role. Who wants to specialize when flying nanos is superior? Currently hacs are the thing to fly. They've been a flavor of the month for far too long. 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 Training time doesn't dictate utility. Nor does isk. Carriers take far longer to train and lots more isk yet they're specialized. When comparing carriers to battleships the bs is a better deal in terms of dps&tank versus isk. The carrier pilot spends lots more on a relatively smaller advantage. If it takes lots of training time and sp to effectively counter a nano this only serves to discourage newer players.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:56:00 - [197] Nanos are a specialization. How can you not see that?
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:04:00 - [198] Originally by: Icutty Lotz i dont know if someone told the opp yet but i dont wana read though the 7pages to find out vaga gets about 150 dps due to falloff were about 33%of his shots hit and cant even hit when his mwd is on ishtar- you can kill his DPS and cant keep its speed up wile turning curse-again you can shoot the DPS and cant keep its speed up wile turning inside 24km and i dont know were you got that dps from but its lower than that nano sac- slow(for a nano) and no range with HAMs huginn- again dont just make up numbers for dps MWD were made for speed its up to ppl to use them how they want. there are ways to kill nanos and they have been said before so nanos are not overpowered your just to stupid to kill them No, that and the cost of those ships/setups has been explained, but the whiners don't want to admit that its their flying that gets them killed.
HairBrain	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:10:00 - [199] Edited by: HairBrain on 26/06/2008 20:09:59
Grath Telkin Evolving Paradigms	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:11:00 - [200] Originally by: Haakelen Nanos are a specialization. How can you not see that? THEY DON'T CARE. Thats right, they don't want to see it. They have been routed in nearly every thread with solid logic, and actual data, and yet thread after thread the EFT warriors come back, with more made up bullsh*t that has no practical worth or truth. They don't want to know the truth, they want to hold their breath and stomp their feet till mommy gives in. "But isn't that what the pro-nano guys are doing?" No, they are categorically showing you in just about every thread where your numbers are wrong, and why you are in error, but you continuously ignore actual real time data, and stick with what EFT shows you.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:11:00 - [201] Originally by: Haakelen Nanos are a specialization. How can you not see that? I would agree that the vaga was designed for speed. That could be considered the only specialized nano. Nanos are first picked for their ability to nano. Their speed. Take the ishtar. If it had the speed of a cerebus I doubt it would be as commonly used. Speed is the primary consideration. We look for what we can nano first and foremost. then we look at dps etc. Anything that can't get close to the nano speed is mostly ignored. Nanos aren't very specialized. So this is mostly not a case of choosing a specialized ship designed for speed. This is recognizing that a tactic of going fast will work on any ship that can go fast enough. Originally by: Foocurr So, no ship, no utility of said ship. Take an economics course. Not being insulting. Just saying that the word has a slightly different usage. Originally by: Foocurr No, that and the cost of those ships/setups has been explained Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it is balanced.
Tenuo Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:16:00 - [202] 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. _______________________________________________________________________________ EVE Online: The Hand-holding Age** The truth about balance is that it doesn't exist.
Haakelen Force d'action navale	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:17:00 - [203] Originally by: ***zilla Originally by:** Haakelen Nanos are a specialization. How can you not see that? I would agree that the vaga was designed for speed. That could be considered the only specialized nano. And we come right back to Minmatar Cruiser 5. Quote: Take the ishtar. If it had the speed of a cerebus I doubt it would be as commonly used. Of course not, because it'd be worthless, and we'd be forced into using Myrmidons. You know this. Or at least you should. Seriously, how can you even justify the existence of HACs if they can't go fast? They are completely outclassed for any other use. If your brilliant plan of 'All the bonuses Recons get should be applied to Tech 1 cruisers', then Recons would be completely outclassed, too. What about this do you not understand?
Spineker State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:21:00 - [204] Edited by: Spineker on 26/06/2008 20:26:23 Quote: Seriously, how can you even justify the existence of HACs if they can't go fast? Then uhhh what happened to Caldari exactly? Oh and besides one or two HACS ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO GO FAST. Read Heavy Assault Cruiser. As in assault not run away at speeds that should rip a heavy ship apart. HACS should never go at these ridiculous speeds period. 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 mean on the scale of debate that is seriously less then 1 about the dumbest **** I ever heard. "Get some experience noobs" 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 wussies. Oh look I have my get out of jail free ship. I fight who and when I want and I can just run away without fear. For me to fight a nano people expect me to have 5 buddies in inties, falcons, dps. But NO THEY AREN'T BROKEN
Foocurr	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:25:00 - [205] Originally by: ***zilla Take an economics course. Not being insulting. Just saying that the word has a slightly different usage. Actually, I am now sure you mean to speak of value, not utility. As in utility, all ships in the game have practical uses. As in value, some ships have more bang for the buck and are less specialized such as battleships. You pay a lot more for a HAC or a recon that performs well at a specific role. Originally by: ***zilla Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it is balanced. This is a worthless comment. Just because something is expensive, doesn't mean its imbalanced.
Grath Telkin Evolving Paradigms	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:27:00 - [206] 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!!" 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. 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. 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
Ryan Scouse'UK omen. The Requiem	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:27:00 - [207] Why not leave it as it is? no EVE related content in signature. ~Weatherman
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:28:00 - [208] 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.
Grath Telkin Evolving Paradigms	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:30:00 - [209] Originally by: *****zilla 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. Although this is a valid statement, I don't see how in anyway it justifies altering the way Hac's perform. This is a balance issue of a totally different kind
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.06.26 20:32:00 - [210] 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? --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.

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.