Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

CCP wants ppl to commit themselves to a fight. If you go in, you stay there until either you've won, or died. Running should never be an easy option.

---

Originally by: teji

---

Originally by: Max CAOD

---

And teji.. fail at trolling... HAC's will be slower then interceptors, but faster then cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, commandships etc. They can still speedtank, but can no longer be invulnerable to a whole fleet shooting at them.

---

Nice troll. They were never invulnerable to a whole fleet shooting at them.

---

Originally by: Rathion

---

Originally by: teji

---

Originally by: Rathion

---

Teji, you really fail at this, Do you know Why you don't see ANY nano' BC's right now, BECAUSE BATTLE CRUISERS ARE TO FAT AND SLOW TO NANO, this has not changed, HAC's are fast enough to do this, Battlecruisers are not.

Sorry had to edit taken out of context thats not quite true, right now on SiSi HAC's are still fast enough to speed tank but only inside web range Battlecruisers are not. Go try it.

---

I never said to nano out a battlecruiser. After all as you stated they are too fat to nano. After these changes goes through you won't see nano HACs either as they will be too fat to nano as well. If you don't nano a close range hac generally you are better off in a BC hull.

Patch intended to make more ships viable breaks one ship type and the game keeps right on going. Just a minor speed bump in relegating HACs to AF status.

---

Teji, Thats the point, You can currently On SiSi, TANK FIT your Hac, and still AB Speed tank inside web range against battleships, the Battlecruisers are however to fat to do this, thats the advantage of a HAC vs BC.

---

Originally by: Rathion

---

Ok So the ship is FAIL because it cannot SINGLE handedly kill 1 of the enemy ships when facing a entire well balanced group.... Right


If you want a ship that can do that why not just request a IWIN button....

---

Originally by: Rathion

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Edited by: Andnowthenews on 29/07/2008 20:45:09

Originally by: Rathion

---

Ok So the ship is FAIL because it cannot SINGLE handedly kill 1 of the enemy ships when facing a entire well balanced group.... Right


If you want a ship that can do that why not just request
a IWIN button....

---

The ship's (HAC'S) and this nerf are fail because it is reducing gang combat to a stationary slug fest between BC's (proly drakes tbh).

---

And those ever so fast Battlecruiser are going to do so well trying to tackle a battleship and holding it there.

Seriously Combat has roles again not a do everything Tech 2 Cruiser Hull.

And you want a cheaper ship for heavy tackling the Assault Frigs are viable as a gang heavy tackler as well.

---

Originally by: SuiJuris

---

So your disapointed because you cannot use a full gang of HAC hulls, and a well balanced gang with battleships+ support will take them out?

I don't see a problem in a Diverse gang being able to take out 1 where people just spam 10 of the same class of ship...

---

Originally by: Rathion

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: SuiJuris

---

So your disapointed because you cannot use a full gang of HAC hulls, and a well balanced gang with battleships+ support will take them out?

I don't see a problem in a Diverse gang being able to take out 1 where people just spam 10 of the same class of ship...

---

So you do not want the nerf to happen either cos thats exactly as things are now if the mixed gang have any combat experience and reasonable in game gang skills tbh.

---

No I do want the Nerf to happen I like the changes. because with the changes most ships HAVE to commit to a fight and stick it out. You can't just speed tank outside web range and if shit goes south gtfo. You have to commit to get the kill that adds a whole new element to the PVP, Greater risk you can't just lower your risk with your wallet.

---

Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom

---

Interestingly I read all these threads entirely backwards from the way you do. I see lots (and LOTS) of folks screaming "Oh my GOD this nerf is awful! YOU'RE KILLING MY SHIP (skillpoints/implants etc.).

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

A cruise raven cant break a proper tanked BS tank, so not a Anti BS weapon.

---

Originally by: Kalintos Tyl

---

Falcon jams 70% time huricane with 75 sensor strenght. Overloaded meta 4 eccm x2. Nice isnt it?

Ow also going 1,2km/s

---

Originally by: Matrixcvd

---

Originally by: Hitachi Morimoto

---

It's not the end of the EVE world, people. It's a dynamic change. You influence it and they listen, so why are you being big babies about it?
.

---

So for 2 years we had to listen to garbage players complain whine and ***** because they can't seem to wait for the sp/isk and train themselves to fight roaming gangs, the game has to change? And now when THE MAJORITY OF PILOTS OPPOSE THE CHANGE, thats called being a baby?

This is not a dynamic change, or tweek. This is poiting PVP and the game at risk by destroying the complexity of combat for the sake of allowing stupid people the right to blob effectively.

The Devs should have just put concord in 0.0. it would have been alot easier. Why not just remove implants/poly's instead of nerfing them to stupidity? Why did 1 obsolute module, the AFTERBURNER, need to cause the excitinction of 10 or 12 modules? All because people can't learn? right... thats dynamic... dynamically stupid.

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

Originally by: SATAN

---

stuff

---

You seem to know a lot about what other people do or dont do.

Fact is the current implementation on SiSi needs some major tweaking.

How long did you bother to test btw? More than 8 hours? I did only log onto TQ to change skills since the patch came, now tell me, how much testing did you actually?

---

Originally by: Desoro

---

Originally by: Darahk J'olonar

---

Now one question if you would? Would it be possible to test the inverse to see what results you get? HACs w/ tank in close and orbiting with an T2 AB?

---

How is a HAC going to survive while slow-boating out to a sniper at 200km from the gate going 500 m/s?

---

Originally by: gavhriel

---

Originally by: Haakelen

---

Yes, please break a good portion of the game so we can use Assault Frigates. This is entirely reasonable.

---

have you tested the changes ? :)

if so let's have a convo pls:) in game. I'm curious about your views and the forums are infested with trolls and not moderated enough ... too hard to have a conversation here.

---

Originally by: HankMurphy

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

stuff

---

sounds like fun.

so we will fix AF by destroying hacs AND we will 'recreate the blob' just a handful of months after the 'break up the blob' project.

I have to ask, is the mastermind behind all these changes a bowl of applesauce?

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

YES.


We have tested:

1.NANO VS snipers....snipers owned
2.NANO VS battle cruisers/hacs and recons(general mix tbh)..mixed fleet owned
3.NANO VS RR bs....rr bs fleet owned
4.NANO VS Other nano (although im not sure why)...lol
5.Conventionally Tanked HACS/RECONS vs a mixed gang of BC, CS, HACS RECONS....mixed gang owned.
5.Conventionally Tanked HACS/RECONS vs a mixed gang of BC....mixed gang owned.


All nano pilots had HG snake sets and both gangs consisted of 10-20 players each to keep the numbers level so no blobbing on either side.(A consideration we all doubted a 0.0 alliance would show a roaming gang).

In all of the serious tests the hacs lost all if not 90% of there fleet while the other ships lost nothing in also virtually all cases.

The guys assigned as the "hacs/roaming gang" eventually got p*ssed off and hot dropped the assigned "defender team" with a large fleet of RR bs and carriers.

---

Originally by: Viper ****zIe

---

While I'm glad State War Academy is taking the time to test these changes, it's obvious that the people facing the nano gang are highly inept.

---

Originally by: Viper ****zIe

---

There's no way an even numbered nano gang can break a RR BS gang before they lose most of their ships.

---

Originally by: Viper ****zIe

---

A general mixed fleet can be easy for a nanogang to target, but at the same time a mixed gang that's properly run can also be one of the most dangerous for a nanogang to face.

The fact that your "tests" involved HG Snakes on all nano pilots further invalidates your findings.

---

Originally by: Viper ****zIe

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Maybe the guys facing the nano gang were inept but the fact is that in every test they owned the nano gang almost if not 100%. And its not just the "State War Academy" that is taking a interest as your very own XxangelxX was leading the nano gang that got so massively owned against a mixed BC,CS cruiser gang.

---

I actually misread what you were saying, for some reason I thought you were implying that the nanogangs were winning the fights. Not to mention having Angel as an opposing FC is pretty much guaranteeing that you're going to win anyway.

---

Originally by: Dendo Ordoss

---

btw, were ccp/devs represented in the gangs to see the results?

---

Originally by: gavhriel

---

how did you fit the "nano" ships ? :)

---

Originally by: Otellus

---

Originally by: gavhriel

---

how did you fit the "nano" ships ? :)

---

With the exception that we didn't try to run away, since it was the intention that we tried to fight/kill our enemies. That obviously makes losses higher as on TQ no gang would have stuck around after losing 50% of its ships without inflicting serious damage.

But the point stands, nanoships get slaughtered under these conditions. Without speedtank, the ships are completely obliterated in seconds.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

I have some questions...

Nano vs Sniper, what did the nano gang do? Did they warp in close on the snipers? Did they try to slowboat to the snipers? Did they have gangmates in smaller faster ships trying to make warpin spots? Did the snipers have support to pin down the nano`s?

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

In two of the expamples you say the mixed fleet won, so in other words, bringing a mix of ships wins against a pure nano HAC gang. Isnt that how eve is supposed to be?.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

And RR BS gang, without support, how where they able to hold down the nano ships? Or did they have support?

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

So the snipers where sitting inside their own bubble close to the gate, or bubble on the gate? Did the snipers have support to pin down the HAC`s?

Where the HAC`s able to get out of bubble?

Could the HAC`s have dissengaged?

Could the HAC at any point have gotten on top of the snipers, if the situtaion had been there? Someone to warp to? Covert ops probed them down? etc.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Regarding the RR BS gang, same there could the nano HAC gotten out of the bubble and warped off without to many dead?

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Cause all thoose tests show NANO HAC`s by themself trying to go up against a similar sized gang, with mix of ships and bigger hull sizes to counter the nanos, and loosing.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Originally by: Dendo Ordoss

---

ppl need to understand that the only reason burn eden wants this nerf to happen is cause it benefits their style of play greatly and that really fast ships is close to the only threat they have. If these changes happen they will actually be able to be even more effective while every other gang not spending hours cloaked at jump bridges will be far less effective.

so while they try to make it look like they want balance to eve its only balance as long as they have something to gain from it.

---

It benefits everbodys style of play tbh.

And in case you didnt know, we have raven pilots doing 10km/sec, dictors doing 5km/sec, hyenas doing well above 10km/sec, and claymores and eoses doing well over 20km/sec. So stuff it, speed is out of hand and you know it.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Quote:

---

I contemplated going close but they were all sitting inside bubbles on the gate (think 4 or 5 large bubbles), which would have made warping out even harder, so I didn't tell anyone to go close.

---

Was this the RR gang or snipers? If they where sitting all grouped up on the gate, would it be possible to use bombs to break them up?

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Quote:

---

I contemplated going close but they were all sitting inside bubbles on the gate (think 4 or 5 large bubbles), which would have made warping out even harder, so I didn't tell anyone to go close.

---

Was this the RR gang or snipers? If they where sitting all grouped up on the gate, would it be possible to use bombs to break them up?

---

Both.

And the tests were about the viability of roaming gang so its not like in a normal situation ppl in a roaming gang could swap out for bombers or that the BS would happily sit there and let us bomb them anyway.

---

Ok, but according to Malachon Draco, you had no big issues to kill tacklers close to the gate and get out of bubble. The problem was going toe to toe with the big gang there to kill you. So, you could have wapred off and kept on roaming.... Am I rite?

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

Good tests there Andnowthenews.... and good work with the constructive comments there TZeer.

The bottom line now is:

• Gangs consisted of nano-only ships will die with the patch. Gangs will have to be mixed (not bigger) and tactics will have to be more creative if you are to succeed to engage a bigger gang.

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

This will not kill guerilla warfare and definatelly not kill roaming gangs. On the contrary!!! Roaming arround in mixed gangs of inties, recons, non-nano HACs and CSs will be fun again, because they won't die hopelessly to "Zoom zoom" nano HACs.

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

Roaming arround in lowsec and piracy will increase again. (for the same reason as the second point on this list)

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

All the speed nerfs are good on this patch. I just think that some of the new stuff needs to be tweaked a bit so the close range ships don't get hit by the nerf bat aswell...

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

How many ships did they loose out of the total gang? If they had fitted some sort of a small tank, buffer tank, whatever. Would it increased their chance in getting out alive? Less ships popped?

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

No, it shows even if you are roaming with nano hacs you need to choose your fights accordingly.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

And I would like to see any other shipclasses that are able to jump through a gate, fight off tacklers, get out of 4-5 bubbles, withstand firepower from 6 snipers while killing tacklers, then when that is done go toe to toe without loosing a great deal of their force and be agile, fast and manuverable...

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Quote:

---

No roaming gangs will get blobbed camped and have a choice to either leeroy or log.

---

Is that on the way in or out?

And I thought roaming was all about moving around, making it hard to set up camps. If you stay long enough in a system so they can set up bubbles and blob you, you are not roaming.

You should already know if there are targets you can kill before you enter that system. You should be in, kill, leave. No messing around in the system, trying to get a fight out of station huggers, if you then get blobbed up and they get reinforcements, it`s you own god damn fault for staying there for to long.

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

angry rant

---

Originally by: Damned Force

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

angry rant

---

Get on the test server, put together gangs and post your own results. But do not try to spin mine and others efforts into into summat it is not.

---

Your test was great and we tnx for the effort.

justa small suggestion. All the Nanopilots on your test are common nanopilots on TQ. They have the interest to show that the nanos now are broke on SiSi(what are i think). Maybe try to change the roles. The peoples who hate nanos should try to fight in nanostyle to see how hard is. But u can be sure they would do the best to show u that the patch is good :)

To the guy who posted the Golem-Hurricane picture.....Jesus Christ u have no clue :)

---

Quote:

---

What im trying to say is, I have no problem with speed tanking in general, and I dont think rest of eve has either. The problem is when you can "outrun" and negate the damage completly.

---

Quote:

---

But if we went with your suggestion, wouldn't we be open to the accusation that if we let non-nanopilots be the testers on Sisi, that their performance would be worse


because they simply don't know how nanofleets work best and don't know how to properly fit/use nanoships?[/i][/u]

---

Quote:

---

The main issue i have is that if speed tanking does not reduce virtually all damage 100% ppl will not look for counters to speed the will just bring more damage.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

You serious? It`s like me spending billions on a setup that gives me 99,9% resits all over. You can still take me down, you just have to pin me down and drain my cap before you have a chance. Same with nanos, they need to be pinned down, but problem is they are doing same speed as an average interceptor, and the inty dies.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

And you say, but but, bring rapiers, bring tacklers. Even if the blob does all that, the incomming tacklers will get killed while you zoom around the blob speed tanking the damage.

---

Quote:

---

Do your tacklers (hyenas and rapiers) in BE get killed when they go after ships?...nope (or at least not often) because your falcon pilot prioritizes certain ships called by the hyena pilot (or others) to be jammed so he can lay a safe tackle and your dmg dealers can pop them.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Right there in your example it takes 3 ships to deal with one... Who said nano dont increase blobing?

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

On TQ right now:

1- If a nano gang of 20 pilots (HACs and recons, all fast) encounters a 80 men camp (mixture of everything, no "anti-nano" setups) in a system it will either be a hell of a good fight where in % both sides will lose about the same ammount but the nanos will have a lot more kills then the mixed campers. (this is for most cases a good thing) or the nanos will be able to pass thru the camp with 0-2 losses. Result: Good fight!!! or easy run

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

2- If a nano gang of 20 pilots (HACs and recons, all fast) encounters a roaming gang of 20 mixed ships (let's say 3 huginns, 2 falcons and the rest frigs, BCs, CSs and a cuppa BSs), it is important to point out that it is a mixed roaming gang, no anchored bubbles and not "anti-nano only" fitted. It will be a "fight" of about 1 minute until those 3 huggins and 2 falcons are dead, the rest of the mixed gang will be sitting ducks and slaughtered by the remaining nanos... Result: Nanos wins

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

3- If a nano gang of 20 pilots (HACs and recons, all fast) encounters a camp of 20 mixed ships. As example 2, the nanos will take a few losses before the rest of the camp will be trapped in their own bubble with no support. Result: Nanos wins

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

4- If a nano gang of 20 pilots (HACs and recons, all fast) encounters a camp of 20 mixed ships totally and completelly "anti-nano" fitted. The nano gang will prolly have 1 or 2 kills before they realize that they have had 4 or 5 losses and that they are facing a anti nano gang, so the remaining will bail. Result: Nanos will have smal losses but will be able to run from the fight

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

5- If a nano gang of 20 pilots (HACs and recons, all fast) encounters a roaming gang OR a camp of 20 RR BSs with a cuppa support ships. Since most of the BSs of a RR gang are close range, the gang's average range will be 10k (wich is the magichal range that no nano pilot goes into). The nano gang will lose 1, maybe 2 ships while escaping bubble/popping the BSs support. No more RR BS will die, no more nanos will die. Result: Nanos will get a cuppa more kills and then run away to the next system.

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

These scenarios are very common on TQ and as you can see, the nano-HAC gangs pretty much kills whatever anyone would call a "fair fight". The only fair fights (by that I mean against the same numbers) nano gangs can have, are against other nano gangs. The rest you will only either win very unfairly or be able to easilly run away. THAT is a sign of that something needs to be balanced.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

You actually need to start using tactics again. Not just relying on a module to rub off 99% of the damage and you still zooming away happely.

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

Tzeer, along with many others are just here arguing with you nano-fans that the current nano-mechanichs is broken (along with LOTS of other stuff in the game right now) and needs to be fixed. Even tho nanos are great against bigger blobs, nanos are ruining every type of pvp in the game that isn't either <<nano vs nano>> or <<nano vs blobs>>.

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

What other forms of pvp?..you have already said that a well led well balanced and skilled gang can beat nano so tbh this is about lowering the bar for reta*rd's who cannot be bothered to train up and has nothing to do with improving or fixing anything.

---

Oh gosh... you either can't read right or are more stupid then I thougt. For the sake of this thread to be constructive feedback I will now stop responding your funny posts.

A piece of advice: Posting about the tests you are making on SiSi is good... but when you comment other players arguments you are only making yourself look bad mate.

GL mate

---

Originally by: Natalia Kovac

---

Edited by: Natalia Kovac on 31/07/2008 15:35:16

Originally by: Damned Force

---

[Claymore, Claymore]
Domination Overdrive Injector
Domination Overdrive Injector
Domination Overdrive Injector
Domination Nanofiber Structure

Gistum A-Type 10MN MicroWarpdrive
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]

Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers
Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers
Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Polycarbon Engine Housing II
Polycarbon Engine Housing II

with full set of implants and overheat
17Km/s without boosters

---

Setup costs five to ten billion. Shut the hell up.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

And they will still be essential, they just wont be the overpowered ships they where before.

Im just amazed that noone seems to remember fighting pre nanoage.....

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

And some people who seems NANO hacs should be able to:

Intercept sniping BS without taking damage
Running through gate camps, both way`s without much risk
Completely speedtank the firepower from the main blob, at the same time killing of any tackler that are stupid enough to come within their range.

And after that is done, or they get tired, warp off and dissengage.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

What isnt cannon fodder for snipers? I`ll give you a hint, it`s T2, goes about 5km/sec without gangbonuses or implants and is made for intercepting....

And to be able to kill stuff in a sniper you need someone to keep the target there.

Last thing there is a viable concern. I can see the problem there cause fitting cap supporting modules wont do jack shit anyway, and the 10sec delay is maybe over the top tbh..

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Anyway, when looking at SISI now, what would in your eyes need to be tweaked on the HAC`s? Or in general? Please come with numbers and facts.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

We all go play Pirats of the burning sea and Age Of Conan

I can only talk for myself here, the other might hit me with a hammer

Even if we have good k/d ratio, doesnt mean we pwn every gang that comes our way.

Anyway

Scouts, know what you are up against ( Helps you k/d ratio )

And secondly know you limits, even our setups have limits. And fight within them.

Just a thought I had on that testing you did on SISI, did you have a cov op in there before you jumped in? Could he have made a spot for your HAC`s?

Would snipers be able to slaugher you in the same way if you had been closer to the snipers?

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Anyway, when looking at SISI now, what would in your eyes need to be tweaked on the HAC`s? Or in general? Please come with numbers and facts.

---

Top speed and acceleration (or in other words the nerf).

It was the only thing that made them worth flying cos if you increase tank or dps you remove the usefulness of BC or CS.

They were a expensive niche ship that filled a very important role in roaming pvp but now they are an expensive waste of time.

---

Wasnt the answer I was hoping for....

Was hoping you could come with something like:

at x speed x weapon are doing x amount of damage, my tranversal speed and my general speed is so and so.

Now you are just making a general claim, without any numbers to back it up.

---

Quote:

---

Roaming will and jumping through gates into other gangs (even gangs with lesser numbers or "lesser ships) will become nothing but a skilless slug fest with the winner being decided by who has any ships left when the smoke clears.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

May I remind you that we have also jumped into numerous gatecamps?

And we have done ok, and we dont use RR bs, or general nanofits on our BS.

---

Quote:

---

The same applies to nano ships on TQ at the moment but this nerf is removing that option for highly skilled play all together for roaming gangs.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

No, it actually separates the skilled ones from the wannabees. The ones who know their stuff will still kill stuff as before, while the ones who been using ISK and broken game mechanics will die horribly.

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

And the dps on that fit is?.

I think you will find that a lot of nano players will call that fit a exploit but it can be sorted by simply making BS sized MWD's fit only on BS.

---

Gistum a-type 10mn MWD is CRUISER sized MWD. Its rare as hell - iirc it costed around 1,5bil.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Look at Wild`s second movie: Burninr Eve 2

First fight we jump in 4 bs and 4 support.

On the other side is:

2x Drake
1x Hurricane
3x Vexor
1x Harbinger
1x Vagabond
1x Malediction
1x Ares
1x Jaguar

---

Quote:

---

instead of giving a real answer when i asked what roaming gang ship and fit you would use if you were forced to roam does that make you a wannabe or do you have a few insights and tactical advise (apart from hide/cloak until they have less)?.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Neither are you when I ask you to show numbers like, transversal velocity, damage taken, speed in general and damage taken, all you say is it`s not working... Give examples...

---

Originally by: Dendo Ordoss

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Quote:

---

I have never seen or heard of BE jumping into a bubbled gate camp unless it was to gank a very limited few ships. And certainly nowhere near the amount you can gank while you are fully setup and entrenched in your normal gate camping positions.

---

Look at Wild`s second movie: Burninr Eve 2

First fight we jump in 4 bs and 4 support.

On the other side is:

2x Drake
1x Hurricane
3x Vexor
1x Harbinger
1x Vagabond
1x Malediction
1x Ares
1x Jaguar

Quote:

---

instead of giving a real answer when i asked what roaming gang ship and fit you would use if you were forced to roam does that make you a wannabe or do you have a few insights and tactical advise (apart from hide/cloak until they have less)?.

---

Neither are you when I ask you to show numbers like, transversal velocity, damage taken, speed in general and damage taken, all you say is it`s not working... Give examples...

---

so you want a pat on the back for jumping in 4 battleships and 4 support ships to kill some t1 ships???
wow, great pvp there m8.
but to be fair its probably the most exiting fight u guys have had in a long time seeing how proud you are of it

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Might be, but I just replied to your post:

---

Quote:

---

I have never seen or heard of BE jumping into a bubbled gate camp unless it was to gank a very limited few ships. And certainly nowhere near the amount you can gank while you are fully setup and entrenched in your normal gate camping positions.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

You have too look at it from a 1 vs 1 also, how many setups could we say was bad or needed tweaking if we solely looked at it from a gang perspective?

All I hear is that HAC`s are supposed to be able to break through gatecamps with impunity, fight sniping bs, kill tacklers, generally kill most stuff unless they get a web on it...

---

Originally by: Orange Faeces

---

Originally by: Aenis Veros

---

Heavy Assault Cruisers - Combined Assault Cruiser and Interceptor, since there is no cruiser-class variety of the Interceptor

---

No. What part of the word "Heavy" means "Fast" to you?

OF

---

Originally by: RuriHoshino

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

All I hear is that HAC`s are supposed to be able to break through gatecamps with impunity, fight sniping bs, kill tacklers, generally kill most stuff unless they get a web on it...

---

That's because people are arguing the wrong point. Since this is the official feedback thread, I'll spell it out here: CCP have stated that they want to "break up the blob" and encourage people to fly a wider variety of ships. With the mechanics that large 0.0 alliances have at their disposal, namely jump bridges and cyno jammers, the only way for corps and smaller alliances to fight in 0.0 is to do so in ships that are fast enough to cover a large amount of territory, and escape from bubble camps.

Nano ships themselves were not the problem. The nano style of play became popular because it was the only option left to a large group of players who wanted to be involved in 0.0 but did not have the resources to simply match a large alliance's numbers. However, rather than address the underlying cause of nano ship's popularity CCP has decided to remove it as an option alltogether. In doing this, they have (perhaps inadvertently) also made not one but two entire classes of ships obsolete (most HACs, and Interceptors), rendered blaster ships largely ineffective, and drastically altered the dynamic in 0.0 between large and small alliances.

The changes currently implemented on Sisi do nothing to address why nano ships became the "de facto" combat style (a statement that itself is highly dubious). Nor were they necessary to allow non-nano ships to effectively combat nano ships, as I would expect any decent pilot could attest to. There are plenty of ways to counter nano gangs that already exist in game, and the fact that so many people either refuse to admit it, or are unwilling to even try, is extremely disheartening.

The majority of smart nano pilots are perfectly willing to admit that the advantages conferred by polycarbs, high grade snakes, boosters, and faction gear were excessive and not strictly necessary to allow their ships to perform well. We would be fine with changes to these modules that brought them in line with the rest of our kit. But to begin with the problem, "how do we break up blobs," and end at a solution where an interceptor is no longer fast enough in absolute (not relative!) terms to tackle a battlecruiser with a reasonable expectation of surviving, is excessive almost to the point of being insulting. Combine this with the unfathomable addition of mass to Minmatar battleships that makes autocannon platforms slower and less agile than tracking-independent missile ships, and the fact that medium and large blasters no longer track targets in web range well enough to hit them, and it is not difficult to see why so many people are so upset.

Nano ships allowed a smaller number of very expensive and highly specialized and limited ships to find engagements that they could win and run from ones they could not, which in no way "breaks the game" unless you feel personally insulted whenever you fail to kill someone. CCP have mistaken a symptom of a larger problem for the problem itself, and proceeded to make sweeping adjustments to fundamental combat mechanics game-wide, while leaving the real issues untouched. Jump bridges and cyno jammers confer such an overwhelming advantage to large, entrenched alliances that fighting them even with equal numbers is difficult, and fighting them with fewer numbers is near impossible. There are a myriad of possible solutions. The changes implemented in this patch solve nothing, except making it easier for poor pvpers to get kills.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

So this thread turned into constanenous posting of (10-man) pro-nano camp with the main argument being how small gang PvP got nerfed now in 0.0 - a valid concern.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Generally speaking, you claim that currently:
- nano HAC/recon setups are way better then non-nano ones (Surely something is broken if there's only one way of fitting a certain ship which simply outdoes all the other fits by miles?)

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

- nano gangs are the only way to fight a superior force (Why should you be able to do that? That's not guerilla warfare, anyway. Guerilla warfare is running away from superior forces and engaging inferior ones. Going through someone's space in inties and ganking their ratters / outnumbered people would, for instance, qualify as guerilla warfare. Attacking their fleets isn't.)

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

- nano gangs are the only way not to lose ships to a gatecamp (You should be completely invulnerable to gatecamps even if you jump in unscouted? Orly?)

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

If what you say is true, then they really are broken. So if you're going to champion the "keep nanos" cause, at least don't list arguments which work in the favour of 'nerf nano' brigade.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

No it`s not. You and others are saying you dont like the nerf cause now you cant bust through gatecamps at will...

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Just look at Andnowthenews post, he feels if the damage isnt reduced with close to 100% they are useless.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

People are running tests on the testserver where the scenario is to bust through a gatecamp with a similar sized gang.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

You sure as hell are able to kill of a great deal of tacklers, but at the same time you are taking damage. If you had dissengaged there and then, you would have been able to roam on. But instead the gang decides to go head to head against a sniping BS group within their sniping distance, and gets killed... Then complain and feel it`s unbalanced....

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Pro nano people has also said the following:

If there`s a anti nano gang, they wont engage, and the anti nano gang wont be able to catch them even if the nano gang goes through their camp (loose maybe 1 or 2)

So you pro nano people have even said it yourself, theres nothing that can touch you while romaing, even if it`s setup for it, unless you start fighting....

---

Originally by: Malachon Draco

---

Lots of options.

Step 1. Remove all the speedbonuses from snakes and turn them into agility/signarius bonuses.
Step 2. Nerf polycarbs to be more in line with the speedboost of Aux thrusters.
Step 3. Nerf Gisti MWDs to not give greater speedbonuses than 550% (the T2 MWD) but instead give them less fitting/cap use/sigradius increase.
Step 4. Reduce the speedbonus from claymores and add an agility bonus. Currently its 38% speed and 0% agility. I think a 25% speed (which it is on Sisi at the moment) and 20% agility would be a good change.
Step 5. Unnerf T2 precision heavy missiles. If you check their stats compared to others, there is something wrong.
Step 6. If still needed, nerf the other speedboosting implants.


Step 7. Check what it does in real terms.

What I would be looking for in terms of balance is a setup where:
- interceptors are the fastest ships, hitting 7kms with a T2 fit and maybe 10 when pimped to the max.
- the most pimped other types of ships will not exceed 8kms (pimped vagabond/machariel/panther/claymore)
- Standard T2 fit Vagabond goes close to 6kms.
- Other T2 fit HACs stay as they are now, but also not exceeding 5kms.

What you then have is a system where interceptors can catch everything, it might just take some effort to keep them alive, but that is part of the challenge for the defender.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

But why havent you been testing against ship compositions that are are just that? YOu havebeen jumping into antinano gang...

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

4-5 large bubbles on gate, tacklers on gate, snipers at range, how is that not set up to catch nanos? The 4-5 bubbles, just that makes is impossible to get into warp fast enough...

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

You cant compare that, cause you need someone to tackle thoose megas. And the megas would have multiple options... Our tacklers would be in line of fire... but because of insane speeds, drones dont do much...

Go back to gate.
Engage tacklers and try to get out of bubble.
If a covert op was in system they could try and put the megas smack on top of us if they where able to fend of the tacklers...

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

But that camp was set up to catch YOU! It was not a non specced gang. It was set up to actually kill nanos, fast tracking laser boats at around 100km to get best tracking, tacklers on the gate, and 4-5 bubbles to keep you from going into warp so they could get a web and point on you before you got away...

---

Quote:

---

Docking, sitting in a POS, cloaking, bouncing from ss to ss, logging off, leaving the area. Theirs nothing that can touch anybody unless they choose to fight

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Yeah, but all of thoose things you mentioned there requieres the gang to stay away from the other force... Pro nano want to either engage and get away, or just plain run through the other force...

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

If you would have problems doing it with intys, getting past gate camp that is, then, yes I can see you concern. But with cruiser sized ships against bubbles, tacklers, snipers and what not, nah...

---

Originally by: Malachon Draco

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Simply put, you have to die as often as others for the game to be balanced!
(yes, I know the thought is abhorrent to your camp)

---

Bolded the relevant part.

You have to die as often as others? Are you insane? So all skill, fitting, preparation, tactics that make you die less often than the ****** ramming his head on his keyboard is bad?

Bullshit. If skill and preparation and thinking is supposed to have any effect in this game, it has to mean that people who use them die less often.

That is the main difference between nano-pilots and just another blob. We agree beforehand who flies what ships, what ships we need in gang to be effective, whether we focus on sniper HACs like zealots or we go for an ishtar gang. How many rapiers are needed. How many scimitars we need to be able to sit at an enemy POS to camp the jumpgate with our nanogang. We work on tactics, get chewed out when things go wrong, when people don't follow orders. Discuss specific setups, train our characters along exact skillpaths for months to get our T2 sentry drones for our ishtars or max our logistics skills to 5 for our scimitars.

Blobs don't do that. Blobs whine when they can't fly their blackbird, then whine again when their gang consisting of raven, caracals and drakes gets slaughtered by people who did take the time to prepare and who did prepare. But don't worry, eventually CCP gets tired of the whining of the ****** brigade and nerfs the complexity of the game until you can win simply by hammering your head into the keyboard faster than the other guy.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Then why havent you said so earlier? All you have said is that you have jumped into equal sized gangs. Never said the bubbles where not there and so on.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

And if you had tanked thoose HAC`s you could have slowboated through that bubble, and the snipers couldnt have done much. You could even put remote rep drones on each other.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Atleast Malachon Draco are comming up with numbers, expamples, suggestions, all you do when I ask for expamples or suggestions you hide behind: it`s gang, you cant use 1 vs 1 stats, cause you are engaged with multiple people and so on.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

If an allince has 2000 members and can get them to unite under one goal, props to them!! If an alliance are willing to round up 100man gate camp to fend off 20 hostiles, props to them, it shows they are commited to keeping their space and are not interested in gangs roaming through it.

---

Originally by: Malachon Draco

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

If an allince has 2000 members and can get them to unite under one goal, props to them!! If an alliance are willing to round up 100man gate camp to fend off 20 hostiles, props to them, it shows they are commited to keeping their space and are not interested in gangs roaming through it.

---

Of course. Noone is saying numbers should not count for anything. But that is different than counting for everything. In my experience, the absolute maximum for a traditional nano-HAC gang to engage is somewhere between 1:2.5 to 1:3.5 odds against them even with a pretty unskilled opponent.

Meaning that a 20 man nano-HAC gang has a good shot at defeating 40 clueless noobs, but somewhere around 20 vs 50 to 20 vs 70, it just won't work anymore. Too much jamming, too many tacklers, you start to lose control of the situation which means you start losing expensive ships.

Also, I don't know any 20 man HAC gang that would jump into any 70 man blob, unless it were say, all battleships. A mixed 70 man blob with ceptors and cruisers will generally always catch several HACs if the HACs have to jump in. This tactic has its limitations. Less limitations than many other gangs, but also far more expensive than other gangs.

And of course if its not a 50 man blob, but instead a anti-nanogang specially fitted and experienced in fighting nanoships, even jumping in 20vs20 would be costly.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

If you get a 100-man gang protecting a gate, 20-man gangs (of any composition) simply should not have the option of driving through that camp. You can call it skillless and mindless laggy blobbing, and it's maybe distasteful to you that numbers win, but at some point numbers win out - they have to.

It's like that for everyone else who flies conventional ships; if we get too outnumbered, we'll die regardless of our skills and abilities (and superior ships, if the numbers are high enough), and we obviously made a mistake in engaging (or jumping through that gate) in the first place.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

If you read the notes I put into Malachon Draco post, you can see i gree on many of the things he suggested.

What I am curious about then is, where do you stand? What speeds do you see could be ok and acceptable on TQ on nano hacs?

Or are you totally against it and want it to stay as it is?

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

Not that huge distance, sometimes we are not more then 100km off the gate. And regarding scanning, not many do that anymore, even when you are looking at 25 sec scanning time, it`s more efficient to just zoom towards the snipers with nano HAC`s.

---

Originally by: TZeer

---

True, the problem is when the speeds reach such stupid speeds that they just zoom past the defence. Or when the HAC`s do inty speeds and just whacks anything on their way up to the snipers.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

100v20 is a exaggeration (although burning back to a gate if the lag isn't too bad is a option), but let's ramp it down for 25v5 (preserving the same ratio). What now? Could/should you be able to burn away with taking little to no losses? Should the gang be able to force nanoships to fight or burn back (or sustain losses otherwise), or should they be able to continue roaming? This sort of thing is what's being fundamentally changed now.*

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Would, for instance, increasing the number of entrances to a region/constellation serve the purpose of diluting defences so bypassing them is more feasible?

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

I wonder how you can possibly test the large implications this will have for 0.0 warfare on sisi?

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Are you now arguing that nano-pilots are so much better pilots than the average non-nano pilot that they SHOULDN'T die as often as others?.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Are you arguing that nano-gangs are always lead by better FC's than any other type of gangs that they're entitled to wipe them out?.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

You just have the self-delusion of being an 'elite pilot' because you've fitted the I-Win buttons that enables you to win no matter whether the people you're up against are equally good!

But of.c., you know all this...... That's why you're fighting this game balance correction so hard....

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Yes and this is the problem i am mostly concerned with, that you wont really be able to see on sisi. So why are we beeing asked to jump on sisi and test before complaining?

---

Originally by: Vastation

---

I think this speed change would be much easier to swallow if you made changes to ship insurance payout.

Because the current problem seems to be that a lot of people think HACs should be better then battleships since they cost so much more. The only thing so far that has made HACs better then battleships was the ability to speed tank large size guns.

Make T1 and T2 insurance payout equal, either they both pay the full value of the ship at 100% or they both pay a small amount much like current T2 insurance.

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Yes and this is the problem i am mostly concerned with, that you wont really be able to see on sisi. So why are we beeing asked to jump on sisi and test before complaining?

---

We have pit together as many small gangs as possible and had varied mock battles to test as much as possible but numbers are some times a issue as are other factors.

---

And thats pretty much completely irrelevant to the issue.

---

Originally by: Malachon Draco

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

4-6 km for hacs recons would be fine, but not if you have to spend 2 billion to get it.

---

Agreed. Let's leave all the theorycrafting EFT fittings out of the discussion really (yes, that means you Nozh), and focus on realistic setups that people actually fly in 95% of the nanogangs.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

...Assuming similar gang-sizes (and experience):
a. A non-nano gang, no matter how good they are can only fight a nano-gang if they're so specialised they can't effectively fight any other type of enemy.
b. A nano-gang otoh, can fight any other gang type except that very specialised one and win.

---

Originally by: Chi Quan

---

or a single h-dictor warping right in the middle of them,

or not sitting on a plate where you can be hit by those bs (move away),

or ecm, or good old kill-the-tackler-and-gtfod,

or probe and get a warpin for your own fleet.

---

Originally by: Chi Quan

---

yes, but only because the 20 man nano gang can not bring more than 20 scramblers, but those 20 nonanos scrambeled WILL DIE.

---

Originally by: Pattern Clarc

---

vote or die tbh

---

Originally by: Rocket Ajax

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

[
Because 8 heatsink geddons and invulnerable scorpions were balanced and shouldn't have been nerfed, because caving in to whiners is bad.

---

Trying to think of the last time I saw a nano ship that was invincible or had the dps of an unstacked 8 heat sink geddon...or even the dps of an un heatsinked geddon...

oh well I can't think of the time. Funny considering an average nano ship would cost more than either of those 2 ships anyways. probably combined

---

Originally by: Blind Alfonso

---

I like the speed nerf. once again ships will have tanks, real tanks with armor reppers and shield boosters and resists.

---

Originally by: Blind Alfonso

---

It'll be like playing Eve again instead of a racing game with an "I win button". Battles will have tactics and strategy and not just "I'm very fast, therefore invincible."

---

Originally by: Adaline Gray

---

Now back in dream world in my bed...


Nano made it impossible to tackle people.

---

Originally by: Adaline Gray

---

Tanks do matter in smaller engagements, even up to sizes of 50 on 50. 10 ships will NOT alpha strike one ship.

---

Originally by: Adaline Gray

---

I suck at pvp so im overjoyed that this is going to hopefully lower the bar to closer to my sucky level (although il proly start *****ing about summat else SOON after the nerf as the problem is me not the game)

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Oh, hai, I can still troll the thread on my alt and whine endlessly.

---

Fixed.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Or maybe we can all go to low sec and gank noobs and mission runners one at a time like you?.

---

Alt trolls don't cut it for low-sec piracy, they end up whining on the forums how they're broke and piracy is broken

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

Originally by: Lady Borgia

---

Hope to see how eve-online suffers in actual $'s in the future.

---

It will probably increase the income. Fight nano ships is boring, I would say extremelly boring. They pop really fast, but 99% of the times you pop 1 or 2 and you see the others running, wich is VERY frustrating.

With the nano nerf you will see fights again. If you commit in a fight you better do it at 100%, and not like today where you see people mwd back to the gate, or go running to long range and pop some ceptors that went after them trying to tackle.

EVE will be FUN again.

---

You know those "frustrating" 10 man nanogangs wont be replaced by 10 man suicide gangs in battleships or battlecruisers. They will die out and be replaced by an occasional 150 man battleship gang going for stupid posbashing if anyone is still bothering with 0.0.

---

Originally by: Wizzkidy

---

This is very funny:D Of course cancel your account before they have even brought in any changes LOL!

My GOD you nano whines are the FUNNIEST I have ever heard, so much for adapt then?

Please STOP your moaning.

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

You can always "screw the fry" with tracking disruptors, jamming, neutralizers, logistics, etc, etc...

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

You can always "screw the fry" with tracking disruptors, jamming, neutralizers, logistics, etc, etc...

---

You know that resembles a anti-nano setup tbh if you swap out the tracking disruptor's for webs you are there in fact and they go on the same ships.

Do ya feel me?.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

This is where you have to be smarter than your enemy. If you have managed to get yourself trapped behind a bubble camp, you only have yourself to blame. Either you find another way out, or if you got yourself trapped in a dead-end or two-gate system, you only got yourself to blame!

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Whoever you're fighting has a right to expect on average just as many kills as you per player (adjusted for skill and skills of.c.). Anything else would not be fair.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

I know this is horrible to speed-freaks, but pardon me for saying this: You're not better PvP'ers than other players. You've just been exploiting broken game mechanics.

Fits nicely

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

You're the attacker. You have the initiative! If you manage to throw that advantage away by lingering too long in the same area, yes, you DO deserve to be viped out!.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Why SHOULDN'T an alert and active alliance be able to catch and kill intruders into their area?.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

I know this is horrible to speed-freaks, but pardon me for saying this: You're not better PvP'ers than other players. You've just been exploiting broken game mechanics.

Fits nicely

---

So your saying that for all this time ppl have been deliberately not flying NANO but choosing to fly vulnerable ships so they die, or purposely flying NANO badly?.

Cos im sure its always been available for everybody and that kinda brings us back to skill being the only difference does'nt it?.

---

So you're saying that smart players nano up?

Now why would that be...... Because nano gives them the best K/D ratio?

You just proved right there and then that even you think nano'ing is overpowered

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

It certainly isn't fair as it is today since the 10-man nano-gang CAN NOT EFFECTIVELY be engaged unless they want to.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

No im saying its a good multi purpose fit for use when roaming, and while there are task specific styles and fits that are always better than NANO at specific tasks when you are roaming you cannot "swap out" for a more suitable fit.

Ask PL or TRI what ship types they would bring to fight a NANO gang entering their space, i can tell you it would not be another NANO gang bud not even close.

---

You have correctly identified the OTHER imbalance in nano'ing (not just the ability to avoid engagement).

To fight a nano-gang, you either have to be one yourself, or be so very specialised you can ONLY fight nano-gangs.

So, a nano-gang can fight everyone BUT that very specialised group, while that group can not fight anything BUT nano-gangs.

HUGE imbalance there! If a certain way of fitting is effective against most other setups, logic dictates that most other setups should be effective against it too. Otherwise that way of fitting has too large an advantage and..... NEEDS A NERF!

Thanks for proving my point again....

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

It certainly isn't fair as it is today since the 10-man nano-gang CAN NOT EFFECTIVELY be engaged unless they want to.

---

No gang can be engaged unless it wants to fight.

They can fit cloaks, log, run, bounce around safe spots even dock if its npc space.

Right now they try to fight cos nano give's a chance but without that gang vs gang fights will only occur when one side thinks it can totaly win, instead of just maybe have a good fight with a few kills and a few losses on both sides.

---

If you manage to land yourself on top of any other type of gang, you can lock and scramble at least some of them. A nano-gang, even if you land on top of them, will be out of web and thus scrambler range with a single press of the MWD button before you can even lock them.

Thus, 'can not effectively be engaged'! If you manage to catch a nano-gang this way, they SHOULD suffer losses (heavy if they're outgunned), but today, they will not! Thus the need for a big nerf!

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Maybe im using another language or you just have no clue at all but the fact is that the perfect anti nano gang (if you had a clue) is a fully mixed fleet with part logisics, ewar, web, nuet, a bit of speed and damage (ranged and close).

And that pretty much a great fleet setup for killing anything coming into your home systems...wanna nerf it?.

---

So you're saying that it is perfectly reasonable that to kill a 10 man nanogang, you need a 50+ man fleet???

Seriously, you need to climb out of that nano-boat and get some perspective, if you can't see how ridiculously unbalanced you AGAIN prove nano-gangs to be.....

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

This is exactly the attitude that is the problem. For some reason people think everything should die to their camp.

Furthermore, they seem to think their victims enjoy jumping a 15-man gang into a 50-man blob, getting slaughtered without killing a single ship since they cant break the RR-tanking, or just being hotdropped for lols.

Get real, people, they are playing the game to have fun, not to get killed by your failcamp. If you cant kill them now, you'll never kill them because they dont want to get killed, the only kills you'll get will be a bunch of noobship scouts.

If they decide to commit to a fight, they bring at least twice the numbers you have, and wipe the floor with your gang while your pilots cry in TS that they're permajammed...

Welcome to Eve, the other guy wont let you win, you have to win by yourself

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

If you're still thinking of roaming arround in cruiser sized only, you still havn't got what this patch is about. Instead of being 3 cruisers roaming, make it 1 inty, 1 cruiser (HAC if you want) and 1 CS and that BS won't have a chance if you know what you're doing.

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: AshtarDJ

---

If you're still thinking of roaming arround in cruiser sized only, you still havn't got what this patch is about. Instead of being 3 cruisers roaming, make it 1 inty, 1 cruiser (HAC if you want) and 1 CS and that BS won't have a chance if you know what you're doing.

---

So you have: 1 dead inty on gatecamp (scout), cruiser and BC goes back home. There is quite good chance that when going back home (unscouted) they will meet jumpbridging camp and go back in pods. bye bye, you roaming gang just got reduced to pile of nothingness.

EDIT:
also why do you need 3 ships to gank NPCer? Even after nano nerf its doable in 1 HAC. Those "3 cruiser nanogangs" were supposed to engage enemies in 1-10 ships range. Can you do this in 1 inty 1 cruiser 1 BC?

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

Well my experience is diferent... They kill NPC'ers, travellers, and when a gang apears to fight them, they SS, log off, run, cloack... Why do you think I'm so frustrated with nano's ??? IS BORING. You just dont have a decent fight with them.

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

they SS, log off, run, cloak...

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

They can make the most stupid movements and jump to a camp, or go to dead end systems, no problem.

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

They turn the mwd on and after some secs you are out of harm, drones will not catch you, missiles will be useless, only insta damage weapons will be usefull to do damage for a brief period .

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

Oh man we tackle, we scram, we web, we pursuit...there are always 1-2 unfortunate guys that will be caught, but the big majority will be out. The unbalanced speed forgives all kind of mistakes.

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

Regarding roaming gangs after patch, we have seen that roaming gangs fielding heavy ships are always a problem, and their removal is always a bloody one. In the end everybody has fun and the final result is always a surprise. You can end looting or with a big bloody nose.

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

So you think that every fight should end in a blood bath and that nerfing nano will achieve this?.
Bud you seem like the stereo typical pilot who thinks that his eve life will change for the better if X was just removed or changed.
It wont bud... ppl are not NPC's and changing game mechanics will not make them let you kill them or force them to engage when they do not want to, you will need to improve or go roaming and looking for good fights yourself if you want to find them.

---

I'm the kind of pilot that thinks when people are looking for trouble and they find them, they better face consequences of their decisions and not run untouched taking advantage of game flaws namely speed, witch is completly unbalanced at the moment. After the patch intys will continue to do +5K, Vagas will continue to do more then +5K, webs were nerfed..., but you will not be faster then weapon systems, and it will take you more time to reach higher speeds. Like you guys used to say "Adapt or die". Well is your turn now...

---

Originally by: DeadDuck

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

You the kind of pilot that wants ppl to behave like NPC's and as i have said they do not and never will so you will keep calling for and supporting nerfs and blaming the game for your incompetence.

If this stupid patch goes through we will adapt, we will continue to kill you, you will continue to kill only a few of us and instead of improving or going out in you own gangs looking for the fights you want you will continue to blame the game or things in it.

Its you who are flawed in your thinking that this nerf will change the attitude of ppl flying the ships, they will never fly stuff and just sit there in skilless slug fests.

It does not matter how many nerfs are done or how much you complain about it, it will always be ppl like you who need to adapt cos ppl like us will never sit still and let you shoot us in skilless blob fights...ever.

---

Oh annoyed... Ok ok uber skill PVP pilot, incompetent NPC lover out

---

Originally by: Kreeak

---

The *fact* is that speed tanking is far superior to both shield and armor tanking which is why all these nano**** are choir whining. They know they will get spanked to oblivion and lose their precious ships once this patch goes through. Although, I will miss how fast these cowards can run away from a fight.

---

Originally by: Kreeak

---

I "get it", thanks.

Do not deign to call yourself a PvP'er. If you had any sense at all you would see this patch as a boost to variety and new strategies instead of an end to broken propulsion.

---

Originally by: Kreeak

---

Players might break out their close range battleships again

---

Originally by: Kreeak

---

and interceptors will get their jobs back. Electronic warfare (indirect boost to damps - if you don't understand why...)

---

Originally by: Kreeak

---

mid-range sniping and missiles will increase in effectiveness.

---

Originally by: Demus DaVet

---

Originally by: Kreeak

---

I fly Minmatar ships exclusively and know that several of them use the crutch of speed to mask serious flaws, but hopefully some change is coming soonÖ once this patch exposes fully what is obvious to many.

---

So this patch makes sense to you because it's so well thought out that it puts a whole faction in the freezer until new nerf/buff comes into play Soon(tm) to put them back in the game.

Right.... how about the amar ? How Soon(tm) did CCP buff them and did an unbalanced job at that as well ?

I can see how you support the patch since this warped logic of yours (since when is speed tanking a "crutch" ?) is exactly the logic that inspired it in the first place.

---

Originally by: Selnix

---

Sorry to tell you guys, but you are likely just wasting your time by making all of these posts. When Interdictor speeds were nerfed in late 2007, there was a thread that was kept alive for 6 months with suggestions and comments regarding why the nerf was wrong and how it had utterly destroyed a style of play along with an entire class of ships as well as with requests for GM/Dev response.

Response thread to the Dev's first time making this mistake.

Granted, not all of the posts were well-reasoned and not all of them were even remotely logical. The crux of the situation is that despite 6 months of their players asking for help to make what they had once flown (some to the point of exclusivity) viable once more, the thread received exactly 0 replies from the Devs and GMs. If they can completely ignore the player base for 6 months it seems quite unlikely that they will listen to you guys after just a couple of weeks, despite the higher post count given this change is planned to destroy more than just one small specialty ship class.

It would be nice if CCP would choose to learn from and rectify their earlier mistake instead of implementing a larger and more far-reaching version of it.

---

Originally by: Kreeak

---

more r*tarded mornic trolling

---

Originally by: fazeley

---

I still can't believe there is all this palaver about an issue which could simply be resolved by a quick rebalance of polys and possibly snakes.

Not terribly optimistic. They've kicked the crap out of everything and will now make minor concessions based upon this huge change. It's perfectly clear that the reasoning behind this is so that home fleets comprised of any old shitty pve ship the pilots happen to be ratting in at the time can get kills on an organised and well fitted gang.

I can't help but think that it won't be long before the well organised gangs find a new way of making the crap-o-fleets whine. The wheel turns.

---

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

---

Geesh. It does not matter that you never encounter a 27km/s mach or that it costs billions. IT IS REDICILOUS THAT A BS CAN GO 27km/s END OF STORY. You gotta be a real ****** if you think this is intended game mechanics. This is one of the reasons Im so happy they are nerfing the crap out of nano's because people that think these are normal game mechanics deserve a good nerf bat spank.

---

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

---

Geesh. It does not matter that you never encounter a 27km/s mach or that it costs billions. IT IS REDICILOUS THAT A BS CAN GO 27km/s END OF STORY. You gotta be a real ****** if you think this is intended game mechanics. This is one of the reasons Im so happy they are nerfing the crap out of nano's because people that think these are normal game mechanics deserve a good nerf bat spank.

---

I have yet to see any pro nano player support or care about BS that goes 27km/s so stfu and stop using it as a flag to wave. Screwing over and reducing to uselessness entire classes of ships just because of a few hardly used BS is totally r*tarded.

You are happy about this nerf because it will lower the bar on skilled pvp in eve and so making your idea of pvp (a skilless slug fest between 2 blobs of virtually stationary ships) one of the few options left.

---

Yeah because I'm known to not fly frig sized ships yeah (sarcasm meter explodes)? Go fail in some other thread mate.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

And the odd part is your own speed should be effecting your own systems, the faster you go, the smaller your window of opportunity is for you to fire and hit your targets to.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

A Hac jumps in system, uses its superior warp speed to get to targets, with its heavy tank, takes the hits, dishes out alot of damage and uses its superior warp speed to run off staying ahead of most T1 Ships and some T2 if it has a head start.

THATS Garrialla Warfare amongst the larger ships such as Crusiers and above.

---

Originally by: Uzuki Shootmenow

---

Oh and boost drakes, new players have to be able to kill a multi-million isk ship and 3 yrd player, because they pay for the game.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

Bringing BCs into the equation based purely on the cost of HACs seems to achieve nothing other than to obfuscate the central issues and promote imbalance within the cruiser class, so if reducing the cost of HACs also alleviates that problem then so much the better.

---

Cost shmost..a BC is in every relevant pvp way better than a nerfed HAC it has more dps, better tank, in most cases the same or better range.

Not only that but with the rest of the baggage this absurd nerf is bringing with it a BC gang in medium sized gang combat out classes every other ship in the game in tank + boom for buck.

Originally by: sparroth

---

There was (is) a doctrine for naval warfare that says you should be able to out gun anything you can't outrun and vice-versa.

Also, I believe it said something about being armored well enough to stand against your own guns.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Because bonuses to things like range, better agility and speed don't matter at all? Hmmm, OK.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Rubbish. BC gangs are only good vs targets which have no EW (as they're way less resistant then BS), aren't RR BS gangs (because they just wipe them out), etc.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

If you said "snipers are going to rule", you might've had a point.

---

Originally by: Stab Wounds

---

HACs will still always be faster than BC/BS. A vagabond will be just as good if not better after the nanonerf because everything else is slower.

HACs will still rule the game after the nanonerf.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

If you said "snipers are going to rule", you might've had a point.

---

Roaming sniper gangs?????. Typically short sighted low sec noob popping gate camper comment ftl.

---

No, they'll just rule at murdering your roaming BC gang.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

More RL comparisons that mean nothing in a sci fi game.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

As for people making statments about this being a Sci Fi game, get a grip, it gets its ideas from reality. And when you use reality, people like a certain logic to work along their Sci Fi. Most Sci Fi lovers I know LOVED Battlestar Galactica just BECAUSE if felt so REAL and reconizeable.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

I think the bottom line is, a group of people have found something they enjoy in spite of how it effects the game and everyone else in it.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

Realistically I highly doubt its a bunch of carebears who whine about this, most carebears dont ever see combat, Nano or otherwise. So more then likely with a out cry this big against Nanos, you have a large combined group of both unskilled and very skilled pvpers who see things out of balance here and want it fixed for their money.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

So people will argue from both sides as is their RIGHT and the chips will fall where they may. Either people will adapt to the Nano Ships or leave if CCP doesnt fix it OR Ex Nano Pilots will adapt or leave EVE if CCP does fix it.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

The subscription rate will prove what the right call was. I know from first hand experience at the gaming places I go to, word of mouth about Nanos has hurt new subscription.

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

This is what NANO does for EVE:

1. Fly a combat fitted ship in pvp instead of a ratting ship.
2. Work and improve as a team.
3. Actually gain some combat piloting skills instead of just "lock target - f1-f8".
4. Fly a variety of ships and use a variety of fittings to be effective.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

Assuming you are talking about the nano HACs are you really suggesting that without them there would be no pvp or teamwork in Eve?

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

If so, firstly can you support this seemly nonsensical assertion, and secondly why are you even making this point? There is no plan to get rid of fast HACs, the only plan on the table is to slow them down to the point at which frigates, drones and missiles can actually catch them.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

Additionally are you also suggesting that no other playstyle other than nano entails any combat skill whatsoever? If so, can't you recognise how incredibly self-indulgent that is going to make you appear to everyone here?.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

Undoubtedly nano tactics do increase the variety of fittings available to certain ships, but obviously so does any other tactic requiring specific modules. So again what is your point?

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

And lastly. If you stick to explaining your views and discussing the issues in a friendly and open-minded fashion instead of throwing around juvenile accusations of lying and incompetance, there will be far less chance of you coming across as an utter knob.

---

Originally by: Hugh Ruka

---

btw Andnowthenews, I noticed you are using nano hac gangs as the only team work and skill needed ships. all others are quickly named blobs.

---

Originally by: KIAEddZ

---

Having read about 20 random pages of this monster, it seems to me that there are a lot of selfish people that play Eve.

"Nano" are totally dominating Eve warfare right now, I should know KIA has flown them exclusively for about 12 months.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

I have nothing to add to this discussion so il snip out specific sentences of others posts and past them in such a way that hopefully will lessen their impact.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

Firstly a mixed gang of that nature takes times to form up, and longer to get in position.

Next, there isn't really a huge amount they can do to keep their own tacklers alive against a HAC gang.

And lastly any gang with a few BS in it is a very juicy target.

A mixed gang of half a dozen BS plus all the specialized medium ships and tacklers required to tackle a sizeable nano HAC gang is in many cases just a big fat target waiting to get hot dropped.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

In your 3 premise assertion above there is another issue. You state that a nano HAC gang requires the most skill to operate, but also the most skill to defeat.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

So which is it? Does a nano HAC gang require the most skill, or does your suggested counter, the mixed gang, require the most skill?.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

And to a certain extent if mixed gangs were so effective in the face of nano gangs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, since Eve would be full of mixed gangs all roaming around. But instead there is a preponderance of nano HAC gangs, and I think its pretty obvious to anyone prepared to be even a little bit open-minded that Eve isn't full of nano HAC gangs because they are the most difficult type of gang to be effective with

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

In small gang conditions that is a fragile situation since the loss of only a ship or two can render you ineffective. A homogenous nano HAC gang does not suffer from this fragility and has greater flexibility especially when operating in non cyno-jammed systems etc.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

That's not what I'd call a nano gang at all, I think you're talking about something different now. The nano gangs which generate the perception that nano roaming is excessively easy and risk free are the gangs that consist of practically nothing other than nano HACs and recons, plus the odd guy in a ceptor who doesn't yet have the skills or isk to fly a HAC.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

Non-nanoed roaming gangs consisting of as many types of ships as possible that you describe above is exactly what this nerf is striving to promote.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

I agree this is indeed the desired outcome to aim for. But I'm getting the impression that you think that this is what we already have, whereas I (and I suspect many others) see more pure nano HAC/recon gangs than mixed gangs. Perhaps we just inhabit areas of space with different inhabitants.

---

Originally by: Hugh Ruka

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Here is the question i used to ask new recruits:-

Do you consider yourself a experienced pvper and out of all the ships you have lost in combat what percentage do you feel were due to a mistake you made?.

What would your answer be?.

---

That is actualy a funy question.

ALL ship losses are caused by a mistake you made. Usualy the mistake is that you did engage the opponent or did not bail when you still had time to do so.

If you do not do a mistake, you do not die. Plain and simple :-)

---

Quote:

---


[ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh

[ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really

[ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting

[ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed

[ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really

---

De facto??????...there seem to be more and more de facto methods in eve every time i turn around.

Originally by: DOARota

---

In all fairness, that's not quite true.
The Minmatar command ship excels at nano and is very common due to the speed bonus it gives.

---

Originally by: DOARota

---

The minmitar logistic nano's very well also .

---

Originally by: DOARota

---

The recon(falcon) is somewhat of a non-factor since it can approach cloaked and is incredibly powerful at what it does(jamming).

---

Originally by: DOARota

---

Just making the point that these are almost "always" nano'd instead of "never" nano'd.

---

Originally by: DOARota

---

I did say "not quite true", I didn't say never true.
The examples I gave were to point out the most commonly used ships in nano gangs and the fact that they were commonly set up that way.
Honestly, how many nano gangs would choose an eos over a claymore lol.
As it goes, not many armor gangs would choose a claymore over a damnation.
Before you get all worked up, I actually don't want any rebalance save for the nature of webifiers.
If they would just introduce battleship class webs, all would be fixed. Give them extended range with less %, maybe a 50% speed reduction,and make the slow down very fast.
It would give a defense to nano, make the bs pilot gimp their setup, and make the hac think before engaging as there wouldn't be an easy out if things go sideways.
It would also be a far more simple fix than all this rebalancing.Would probably take 20 minutes to implement and 1 day to test.

---

Originally by: Kepakh

---

Eww...anytime I was using non-naoned ship in nano roaming gang, I lost it :-/

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

It takes a whole lot more to fight a Nano gang in Skill and Time then it does to fly one.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

Because the bottomline is, if you have a proper scout, why would you risk such a expensive gang if you see they are set up just to kill you?. You Don't. My gangs didnt.

Only issue was running across another Hostile Nanoed Gang and there was that odd pause to enguage or move on. Most of the time both parties move on unless they just so happened to land on top of each other.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

I think there should be a base damage that a weapon never goes below no matter what the speed.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

The whole idea of Cloaking was based off the idea of the Sub Hunt.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

IMO Nanos were the only Tard way of dealing with this Fubard system.

---

Originally by: StarWars BadGuy

---

So, is anyone listening to Andnowthenews? Im sure he could make some good points, but the retort of "Your unskilled, and Im better than you because you hinted nano's ships might be a little overbalanced" is getting a little old now.

---

Originally by: Kreeak

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Q. How many POS or POS modules have been destroyed with nano?.
A. None, Capitals and battleships do that.

---

It can be done with the right set of speed ships.

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Q. How many motherships or titans have been killed with NANO?.
A. None, Capitals and battleships are needed for that.

---

It can be done with them.

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Q. How many Sniper+support blobs guarding a home system gate from a invasion have been killed with NANO?.
A. None, invasions on that scale are done with snipers and support.

---

It can be done with them.

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Q How many RR BS gangs have been defeated with NANO gangs?.
A. None, NANO is ineffective at breaking the spider tank of RR BS and if it gets to close it gets nueted and insta popped, you need capitals or your own RR BS gang.

---

It can be done, not all speed ships are close range.

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Q. How many NANO gangs that entered hostile space have been beaten with a pure NANO gang?.
A. None, the best defense against a NANO gang is a mixed fleet that includes some NANO ships but also needs a lot of non-NANO ships to be fully effective.

---

Wrong. To beat a speed gang, you must first catch them.

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Q. Does a good NANO gang consist of just super fast HAC's and RECONS.?
A. NOPE fast HAC's and RECON's are only part of a good roaming gang, you also need command ships/BC, falcons, logistics all of them NON-NANO.

---

Your whole post is a pile of crap. Either you are incompetent or have an agenda. Most likely both.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

Blah blah i want eve to change totally and be played and setup exactly how i want it.

---

Originally by: Stab Wounds

---

this ain't no twitch game. it's a strategy game.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Originally by: Stab Wounds

---

this ain't no twitch game. it's a strategy game.

---

I am a Gankaho, I like the game as it is, its all about me killing you no matter how unbalnced it is or what it costs the other players.

Its my fun that is important not balance as a whole.

---

Fixed it for you.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

When my Alliance was at war with others, we had major fleet conflicts down to Nano Gangs that roamed day and night destroying their capacity to mine and rat destroying their abliity to sustain themselves. Used Nano and Interceptors to run by POSs and run out their ammo bins, and then gank their ships that tried to refill them so you could EASILY take out their POS later.

Our Nano teams by themselves BROKE a entire alliance, yes they could not take the space, but that was not their job, the were no longer able to sustain themselves, that is how effective they were.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

You have proved nothing and made statements without proof.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Nhilist

---

Oh hey look, this thread is still going on. Hasn't everyone realized that it was more of a "feel good, you can pretend to be involved" kind of thing, rather than a "your voice has any sort of impact on the decision" deal?

---

I think some people really think that using 4-5 alts constantly rehashing the same old "the games broken" crap will somehow promote changes in what was supposed to be a feedback thread for "proposed" and "to be tested" changes, but oh well.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Andnowthenews

---

Are you MR super gamer, uber tactician, super strategist, war game legend, game fixer, game balancer, alliance killer, convention warrior and pvp god Meina Lamia's main?.

---

I don't feel the need to post with three alts... and I certainly don't see the point of practically spamming with 'don't change anything' crap. I wish they just made a 'whining' sticky to put all the 'omg, me and my three alts can generate a lot of post count saying the same stuff over and over' stuff

Then again, maybe you are using your main, you never know I hear State War Academy is totally awesome at forum warfare.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Actually, CCP started this thread - for feedback on SISI changes. At one point it just got overrun with 3-4 alts and me on my main trolling. Of course this is cos i support the nerf as even though i mostly just gank noobs i want ccp to slow other ships so i can get even more easy kills.

---

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

---

I don't know if this has already been mentioned somewhere in this thread, and I'm disinclined to trawl through it to find out. But won't 50% webs put another nail in the coffin of solo PvP? I mean how will any solo ship that can't double web ever catch anything at a gate ever again?

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

So I have actaully made claims of destroyering entire alliances?

You mean as in me alone? Without help or being apart of a alliance? Was this in a Nano Hac, Destroyer or a T3 Shuttle or Nano Deathstar by chance?

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

Our Nano teams by themselves BROKE a entire alliance, yes they could not take the space, but that was not their job, the were no longer able to sustain themselves, that is how effective they were.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

To actually believe that ships should fly at such speeds,...that ships of their own base class shouldnt have any effect against them without bringing in specialty vessels and mods?

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

Did not the speed of the Blitz and going around the French Wall in WWII teach you anything?

I am going to make a good guess that you know how to fly ships but you are very clueless beyond the gang combat.

---

Originally by: Meina Lamia

---

1.So show me what leads you to believe that EVE wants to break way from the image of RL that EVE has followed this long

2.in its ship class's,

3.Weapons,

4.and economic system

---