EVE Search - A word on Nano's (Civil Debate)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A word on Nano's (Civil Debate)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Wren Alterana Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.07.10 05:24:00 - [1] DO NOT FLAME THIS TOPIC OR I WILL REQUEST IT GET LOCKED, I WANT TO ATTEMPT AT LEAST ONE CIVIL DEBATE IN THIS HELLHOLE. There. Now then, I'd like to talk about nano's get a really decent debate going and try to find a solution that either everyone agrees with or ***es off both groups enough to call it fair. Arguments FOR a nano-nerf There are not enough counters for nano-ships almost all cruiser or smaller ships can be nanoed nanoing prevents the other side from dictating the terms of the engagement, meaning they can get out if they don't like the situation, while other ships can't nano setups devalue a lot of otherwise decent ships its easy to fit nanos but hard to counter them. all races have many nano-ships but only one race has ships that can counter them. Arguments AGAINST a nano-nerf Huginn and Rapier there are plenty of counters devalues all minmatar ships a nano setup is expensive, it should be expensive to counter people want to counter T2 nano ships with T1 vanilla setups *nano ships break blob tactics On this issue I've noticed that both sides make excellent points, but neither is willing to stop flaming each other to come up with a solution, hence this topic. What is my opinion on the matter? yes nano tanking is a valid tank, however it shouln't always be the best tank, just like everything else, it needs its pros and cons. I've seen all kinds of ideas for nano counters, from webbing bubbles to dedicated anti-nano ships. However, those ideas render nanos useless, they don't make them weaker, they ruin them, remember that nanoing is their tank, it doesn't have armor or shield tanking, remove the speed and it goes kersplode. That doesn't mean it should be impenetrable, there should be pros and cons to it, as with any tank. With that in mind I'm opening the floor for a civil discussion with both groups on how to balance nano ships. If the community really wants to solve this problem, then we should be able to work together to find a solution. nano pilots, that means excepting the fact that you won't be untouchable. caldari militia, that means that T1 cruise blobs still won't be able to kill some 500 million isk T2 ships. May the games begin! _______ Make Races swappable in portraits
Apoctasy The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.07.10 05:28:00 - [2] Today, I mined veldspar for four hours in my ibis. I made 10k isk. Life is good. ----
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.07.10 05:41:00 - [3] Edited by: Akita T on 10/07/2008 05:41:53 There's no need for an argument "for or against" some form of nano nerf. CCP devs have stated on several occasions that they feel like the current situation (where BSs can go faster than interceptors) is not a desirable one, and that people bailing out of engagements with impunity is not desirable either (the reason why WCSs were nerfed). A change of the current situation WILL be enacted eventually, the only question is what exactly the change will be. It could be a mass increase in either ships or mass additions for larger MWDs, reducing possible speeds. It could be a nerf to the Rapid Deployment warfare link effectiveness. It could be a nerf to faction MWD effectiveness, or MWD penalities in general (cap use, cap penalty, sig penalty, additional HP penalties and so on). It could be a rebalance of ship base speeds - buff to frigates and slight buff to destroyers, nerf to battlecruisers and more nerf to battleships. It could be the introduction of longer-ranged (but lower speed reduction) webs and maybe even a range increase in scramblers (maybe 3 types of scramblers, with one added point to existing ones, and new single-point, longer-ranged ones). It could be the introduction of lighter, faster webbing drones. It could be the introduction of low-damage high-tracking ammo, less-damage faster drones, low-damage faster and higher expvelo missiles and so on. Or, it could even be the introduction of absolute top speed caps, individual for each and every ship. It could be any or all of the above, or any combination of some of the above, or it could be something entirely different altogether. Fact is, "nano-boats" like we see POSSIBLE now will no longer be possible, EVENTUALLY. It's only a matter of when and how, not if. _ *The mineral/moonstuff balance \|\| THE* nanofix**
Khrillian Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.10 05:46:00 - [4] Originally by: Wren Alterana Arguments FOR a nano-nerf [1]There are not enough counters for nano-ships [2]almost all cruiser or smaller ships can be nanoed [3]nanoing prevents the other side from dictating the terms of the engagement, meaning they can get out if they don't like the situation, while other ships can't [4]nano setups devalue a lot of otherwise decent ships [5]its easy to fit nanos but hard to counter them. [6]all races have many nano-ships but only one race has ships that can counter them. There are argument for the nano-nerf? 1 - read the nano-counter thread again. 2 - thats a fact, not an argument against. Battleships are slow (no more 10km/s typhoons because nanos were already nerfed) and frigs and cruisers are fast. This is the way it's meant to be. 3 - try a WCS, word on the street is they let your warp out of engagements. also, god forbid eve have tactics or something like that. 4 - repeat this 100 times to yourself: "my NPC drake setup is not a pvp setup." 5 - its easy to fit anything, just drag it to your ship fitting screen 6 - 1) all races have nanoships 2) nanoships can kill other nanoships 3) hmm... also, nanoships do mediocre dps and often aren't close enough to scram so you can just ignore them
Karanuv	Posted - 2008.07.10 05:51:00 - [5] Yes they are to busy flaming eachother and I expect your possibly about to get flamed by people who are to stupid to read the entire post Counters that dont completely nuke the ability to nano... increase missile velocity and explosion velocity by 20% and decrease the flight time by the same, increase all turret tracking by 10-15% (apply this to sentry drones aswell), increase base drone speed by 25-50%. None of these completely destroy nanos as the base concept is to be able to dictate range and survive by fleeing if needed. now the problem is while this may decrease nanos effectiveness and give decent counters you haveto take into account how they effect everything else in the game and im not doing all the numbercrunshing and guesswork for that... Thats what devs get paid for not me
Cambarus The Harbingers of Death	Posted - 2008.07.10 05:52:00 - [6] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 10/07/2008 05:41:53 There's no need for an argument "for or against" some form of nano nerf. CCP devs have stated on several occasions that they feel like the current situation (where BSs can go faster than interceptors) is not a desirable one, and that people bailing out of engagements with impunity is not desirable either (the reason why WCSs were nerfed). A change of the current situation WILL be enacted eventually, the only question is what exactly the change will be. I seem to recall a dev mentioning in another thread the things we could be expecting in the near future, no nerfs for nanos were included in his list And akita I think you're ;iving a good 6-8 months in the past. They already nerfed nanos because they thought battleships were moving too fast. With a tech II fit (with a faction MWD) you can easily get a ceptor to go 10km/s. How many battleships top that exactly? And even if it is doable, how many billions of isk are required to do so? To be honest though I wouldn't mind seeing a few new counters to nanos, though IMO the best and easiest way to help the overuse of nanos would be to make pirate faction ships easier to get. (The sansha ships get awesome damage, utility slots for neuts and a tracking bonus, and the blood ships are practically BUILT to kill nanos, with both a neut AND a web bonus) Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.10 05:57:00 - [7] In your "arguments against a nerf" list, could you please add - increases variety - flying really fast is fun! - "difficult to kill" is not unique to nanos (recons, ECM, neut BS) - removing speed tanking effectively breaks the whole class of frigates/cruisers that don't have cloaks or long range weapons. - Please don't nerf nanos before I have a chance to try them CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings Souls of Vengeance	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:00:00 - [8] Originally by: Wren Alterana DO NOT FLAME THIS TOPIC OR I WILL REQUEST IT GET LOCKED, I WANT TO ATTEMPT AT LEAST ONE CIVIL DEBATE IN THIS HELLHOLE. that's what we want, duh. Nonsensical posts get that. Now Please request a lock so we can get this piece of crap done with. _______________ CCP Atropos > I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:02:00 - [9] Originally by: Cambarus I think you're ;iving a good 6-8 months in the past. They already nerfed nanos because they thought battleships were moving too fast. Yeah, they did, but not nearly enough. When a battleship can still go so fast that it's a problem to catch it with a combined Minnie/Gallente recon team with T2 fit (because it can glide out of range with residual speed), and being able to avoid practically ALL damage (from turrets, drones and missiles) of BS-class weapons if not at all bothered by previously mentioned team while STILL being able to dish out respectable damage, then, regardless of how much that ship fit costs, you still have a problem, and whatever "fix" was applied was not nearly enough. My proposed idea was to simply add a "absolute top speed" attribute to ships (possibly modifiable to a small degree by new skills, implants or even rigs) in order to enforce what would be regarded as a "reasonable" speed-tank speed for each individual ship - and whatever extra top speed one would now get that goes above that new cap would grant no extra speed... insted granting things like increased agility (almost always good) and reduced signature radius (still damned useful against turrets, especially when using a MWD - when using an AB, there would be little chance to reach the speed cap regardless of pimping level, so you will never reduce the sig below the original). _ *The mineral/moonstuff balance \|\| THE* nanofix**
Tonkin D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:10:00 - [10] i fly nanos all the time. and ive been killed alot while flying them. soon as ur webbed nueted your dead, no tanking insta pop, and my normal nano fit costs about 350 mill. also countering nanos you can tank up lol my zealot hits hard but when my mwd is on lol dps takes a nose dive. but most of the whines about nanos are peeps that have been killed ratting and not been looking at local. a little tip best way to kill nanos when your nanoed your self is let them chase ya they cant orbit and plus when you stop you can web and have your way with them.

Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:14:00 - [11] Originally by: Tonkin i fly nanos all the time and ive been killed alot while flying them. soon as ur webbed nueted your dead, no tanking insta pop, and my normal nano fit costs about 350 mill If your fit didn't go noticeably above the above mentioned "speed limits", then the fit you fly is not one of the fits people complain about - it's just a regular speed tank. The problem is with those insanely expensive fits that go so fast compared to what would be REASONABLE for their size class that they basically "break" all the existing reasonable counters to them. _ *The mineral/moonstuff balance \|\| THE* nanofix**
Riho Gallente Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:19:00 - [12] oh noes... another stupid thread. there are enough counters for nanos... just most ppl are stupid and dont know how to use them. ---------------------------------- Fighting for Minmatar o7 Yes... this is my main. Extreme Troll Slayer...
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:23:00 - [13] Edited by: Akita T on 10/07/2008 06:24:50 Originally by: Riho there are enough counters for nanos There are enough counters for REASONABLE SPEED nanos. EWar, Neuts, minnie drones, precision T2 missiles, faction/overloaded webs, and so on and so forth. All of the above work on "reasonable" speed fits with a bit of preparation and patience. But... there are no counters for insanely costly, insane speed nanos. Those that go so fast they glide out of overloaded faction web range, that outfly drones and missiles, etc. Battlships going 2-3km/sec ? Meh, I can live with that. Battleship doing 10+km/sec ? HELL NO. And so it goes on for lower ship sizes too. _ *The mineral/moonstuff balance \|\| THE* nanofix**
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings Souls of Vengeance	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:24:00 - [14] Edited by: DubanFP on 10/07/2008 06:24:15 Originally by: Akita T Battleship doing 10+km/sec ? HELL NO. When was the last time you played. 2006? _______________ CCP Atropos > I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:26:00 - [15] In my opinion, nanos are primarily a counter for blobs. Especially for 0.0, where the locals can use their POS network to bring reinforcements in with pretty much no warning, and use system scanners to their advantage as well. Fix blobs first, or try to, then reasses the solution. If nanogangs still exist, then deal with them. Click me! You know you want to...
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:31:00 - [16] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 10/07/2008 06:24:50 Originally by: Riho there are enough counters for nanos There are enough counters for REASONABLE SPEED nanos. EWar, Neuts, minnie drones, precision T2 missiles, faction/overloaded webs, and so on and so forth. All of the above work on "reasonable" speed fits with a bit of preparation and patience. But... there are no counters for insanely costly, insane speed nanos. Those that go so fast they glide out of overloaded faction web range, that outfly drones and missiles, etc. Battlships going 2-3km/sec ? Meh, I can live with that. Battleship doing 10+km/sec ? HELL NO. And so it goes on for lower ship sizes too. Can you show me a 10Km/s BS fit? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:31:00 - [17] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Akita T Battleship doing 10+km/sec ? HELL NO. When was the last time you played. 2006? I didn't say the setups are feasable ISK-wise nor that many BSs could actually reach that speed. But you have to agree pretty much every BS can reach at least 4km/sec with navy fit, set of LG snakes and a rapid deployment link in fleet... with a few (more expensive fit or a speed-friendly hull) going far over that. Yeah, SOME BS fits of today CAN go over 12km/sec, no questions. It doesn't even matter what damage/tank potential they have anymore at that speed - they can simply be used to bump the hell out of any selected hostile target right outside their RR range and into the "friendly" focus-fire area - and that without anybody having a real chance of catching it, because it TRAVERSES the entire range of a Minnie recon's web before the MWD cycle even completes. _ *The mineral/moonstuff balance \|\| THE* nanofix**
Sir Scorpion	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:35:00 - [18] I like Nanos as a game play style adds something instead of the old ôtank/gank/snipe/ tackleö types of game play. Now the problem for me at least comes in this ôMini+Nanoö and thatÆs where the combination works best, there for making them untouchable by the ships that are suppose to hold down all ships AKA ôinterceptorsö. Put it simple enough vagabond or a huggin are simply too deadly to any thing that is able to hold them down, any inti will last 5-10 seconds tackling a vagabond. On the other hand they are too fast for any thing that MIGHT be able to stop them. Making the only solution is more of the problem = more Nano ships. I donÆt want to see any stats nerf on Nano, that will hurt too much to be honest, and will **** off a lot of people, but a natural evolution of counters will be best, there for new ships to counter Nano ships will be the best solution, a Heavy Interceptor class or a heavy sentry Area denial class will balance things out. Why new T2 ships? Well its just fair that the counter must be skill intensive and expensive as the problem. ôAnd I want a boundless creation hurricane with jet black hull and orange/red windows plzö
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:42:00 - [19] Edited by: Akita T on 10/07/2008 06:46:40 Originally by: Malcanis Can you show me a 10Km/s BS fit? Machariel, T2 fit, T1 polys, Mindlinked maxskills Claymore in gang, snakes&co implants - almost 11km/sec. Faction-pimped, one T2 and two T1 polys - up to 15km/sec. Of course, the key is that Claymore - it's granting roughly 50% extra speed compared to going solo. And the snakes&co too, obviously... another 60+%ish increase there too. _ *The mineral/moonstuff balance \|\| THE* nanofix**
Sir Scorpion	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:44:00 - [20] Originally by: Sakura Nihil In my opinion, nanos are primarily a counter for blobs. Especially for 0.0, where the locals can use their POS network to bring reinforcements in with pretty much no warning, and use system scanners to their advantage as well. Fix blobs first, or try to, then reasses the solution. If nanogangs still exist, then deal with them. Counter do exist but counters are leading to flavor of the month game play ôremember curse and Nos Domies?ô If every one trained the Nanoers advise of using the counters this will be your overview in 4-6 months. Vagabond Huggin Rapier Vagabond Huggin Rapier Ibis <<< watch out from this one its steels you loots 0_o Vagabond Huggin Rapier àetc

FlameGlow Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.10 06:59:00 - [21] Originally by: Sakura Nihil In my opinion, nanos are primarily a counter for blobs. ORLY? They might actually encourage blobbing because existing counters to nanos require bringing in more ppl then there are nanos(if you want to kill nano that is, not scare it off for a minute)
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.07.10 07:13:00 - [22] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 10/07/2008 06:51:32 Originally by: Malcanis Can you show me a 10Km/s BS fit? Machariel, T2 fit, T1 polys, Mindlinked maxskills Claymore in gang, snakes&co implants - almost 11km/sec. Faction-pimped, one T2 and two T1 polys - up to 15km/sec. Of course, the key is that Claymore - it's granting roughly 50% extra speed compared to going solo. And the snakes&co too, obviously... another 60+%ish increase there too. ANYWAY... the point wasn't on 10+km/sec speed battleships (which you apparently didn't think it was still possible), it's about something like even 3+km/sec battleships, which are a dime a dozen given polycarbs and the fleet Claymore alone. Having battleships going as low as 3km/sec is already too much, let alone the really expensive stuff that can reach the "unbeliavable" speeds mentioned above. OK well I can see that the flood of T2-rigged Macherials all of whom have friends who have millions of SP trained into leadership skills is ruining the game. But apart from the many, many gang-boosted 5B ISK fit Macherials that I encounter daily, what other justification is there for making posts that make it seems as if battleships in general can go 10Km/s rather than one specific faction BS with a hugely expensive fit and a max skilled leadership buddy? Because otherwise I'm going to counter with a faction/officer fit Bhaalgorn with a max-skilled commandship in gang, with a tank the mach can't break or even get close to without suddenly being neuted to death. Either faction BS can disengage at will. nano battleships just aren't a problem any more and they haven't been for over a year. The "large" nano ships people are complaining about are in fact cruiser-sized. The largest viable nano ship that I know of is the Sleipnir, and really that's pushing the envelope a bit, and only really works because it can fit the Rapid Deployment gang link. And from personal experience I know that gang module bonuses are nice, but they're not all that reliable unless you're defending a system and can park your booster in a nice safe POS. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.07.10 07:24:00 - [23] Originally by: Tonkin i fly nanos all the time. and ive been killed alot while flying them. soon as ur webbed nueted your dead, no tanking insta pop, and my normal nano fit costs about 350 mill. Looking at the Triumvirate killboard does not look like you get killed a lot at all. Further, looking at the Tri killboard I see under Ships Used (global stats): Ship --> Kills 1) Vagabond --> 42,590 2) Crow --> 20,729 3) Ishtar --> 19,233 So, the Vaga beats out your next two most deadly ships combined. Such a lopsided number speaks volumes I think. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Melor Rend	Posted - 2008.07.10 07:33:00 - [24] Quote: *nano ships break blob tactics I do not agree with this argument against nerfing nano. In my opinion the opposite is the case - nanos drastically increase the need for huge blobs because the only viable way to catch a nano ship is either by flying an even better/faster nano ship or by blobbing with 20 people so you can spread the web and neut range over an area wide enough to catch the nano. A normal HAC takes maybe one or two people to catch it - a nano HAC takes 20 people to catch it. I simply can't see how this is supposed to be reducing blobs.
MenanceWhite Amarr Red Light Navy	Posted - 2008.07.10 08:08:00 - [25] Edited by: MenanceWhite on 10/07/2008 08:12:52 Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for ****s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. Nano is fine stop making topics about it. EFTwarrioring is for **s stop doing it. --- Originally by:** Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
Bai ZongTong	Posted - 2008.07.10 08:12:00 - [26] Originally by: Apoctasy Today, I mined veldspar for four hours in my ibis. I made 10k isk. Life is good. when i get back from work ill grant you 10k to make life better! =D
Bai ZongTong	Posted - 2008.07.10 08:13:00 - [27] Originally by: MenanceWhite stuff I like how the formatting turned out. intentional or not.
Angela Toren Amarr Toren Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.10 08:19:00 - [28] look, it's very simple Give t2 webbifiers an optimal range of 15km and a falloff of 10km or script them range vs strength Throw in a couple of new skills to increase these values. If nano ships wanna commit to a fight then they can be snared and killed. that's it, now enough with these topics already _______ Oh Mindy...
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.07.10 08:25:00 - [29] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Tonkin i fly nanos all the time. and ive been killed alot while flying them. soon as ur webbed nueted your dead, no tanking insta pop, and my normal nano fit costs about 350 mill. Looking at the Triumvirate killboard does not look like you get killed a lot at all. Further, looking at the Tri killboard I see under Ships Used (global stats): Ship --> Kills 1) Vagabond --> 42,590 2) Crow --> 20,729 3) Ishtar --> 19,233 So, the Vaga beats out your next two most deadly ships combined. Such a lopsided number speaks volumes I think. No, it means that TRI likes Vagabonds. Hydra likes Drakes It doesn't really mean anything else. TRI is a roaming alliance so they use the best roaming ship, Hydra is a ratting alliance so they use the best ratting ship. Seeing anything else into that is flat out ignorant. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
baltec1 Antares Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.10 08:32:00 - [30] I would like to see a much better supply of bhaalgorn. This is the single greatest battleship for wiping out nano ships but as it stands they cost 1-2 billion just for the ship and there are only 4-5 up for sale in the entire galaxy. Failing that a new line of t2 battleships with the bhaalgorm web range bonus for each race.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.