Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Hyperforce99
Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 16:57:00 -
[301]
Originally by: Valea Silpha
So c'mon... what is a viable offensive tactic against a nanobs ... i fly a huginn and i
I don't like spamming but I do want to make my point clear, check here for a good solution to what you just described as to be the problem.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863 The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863 |
Sae Marr
Amarr 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 17:04:00 -
[302]
I'm a minmatar pilot. I had flown the nanophoon when they weren't as common as they are now.
With that out of the way, I agree with the original poster, although maybe not to that extent, that the nano/instab setups, especially bs ones, need to be brought down a notch.
The previously universally flown and hated Nos+EW whorage has turned into whoring Nos and speed.
Now, I'm not saying speed setups should not be viable, but they should not be as powerful and as ridiculously easy to fly as they are right now. Also, ships should probably randomly appear farther from the gate on jump-in than they do now.
End rant. -
|
Sawirek
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 17:06:00 -
[303]
Okay i seen what a fleet of nanoships can do lately, i don't want to whine that it is too overpowered and do something to nerf it, well could a little, but i would advise to put something (no i don't know, but i am not payed for it) that can counter it. Okay take a huggin, that is how you counter one nanoBS, and now someone tell me how to counter a fleet of nanoBS ? With another nanoBS fleet would be the answer, but it is a kinda fuzzy coz with the way this is going we all gonna fly just nano ships in matter of year.
|
Hyperforce99
Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 17:26:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Sawirek Okay i seen what a fleet of nanoships can do lately, i don't want to whine that it is too overpowered and do something to nerf it, well could a little, but i would advise to put something (no i don't know, but i am not payed for it) that can counter it. Okay take a huggin, that is how you counter one nanoBS, and now someone tell me how to counter a fleet of nanoBS ? With another nanoBS fleet would be the answer, but it is a kinda fuzzy coz with the way this is going we all gonna fly just nano ships in matter of year.
people, please read: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863
This is a very nice way to disable Nano ships from becoming invincible because of they're speed, its a new form of EW, please check it out and comment on it people. this is my last plug of this for now. I'll stop spamming this now. -=-=-=-=-=-=-= SIGNATURE =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863 |
Khavi Vetali
Team Americas Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 18:44:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Wizzkidy
Originally by: Kagura Nikon And Istabs are ALREADY STACK NERFED FOR GOD'S SAKE!
I'll think your find they are not on the mass side of things mate.
Yes, yes they are. However, the agility bonus on them doesn't appear to be stacking nerfed.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 19:06:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Solar Blade
Its a tactic that only got known untill recently when someone took a typhoon and invented a new defence for battleship, speed defence.
No, it is a tactic that has been known for a long time, however when inertia(l) stabalizers were changed to include a mass reduction with them it made the tactic much much much stronger and easier to achieve. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 19:10:00 -
[307]
Actually, rigs gave it a bigger boost than the changed instabs
But, yes, it is an old tactic, almost as old as eve itself. Ultra speed setups surfaced and vanished again with module changes & balancing.
|
rinkanu
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 19:14:00 -
[308]
personaly i cant see how people can actually say that the nano / inertia stabs isnt a problem...
once u cant kill a ship in a 1 on 1 battle even when fully prepared for the enemies fitting there is a problem. (considering both players have same sp , funds ,... u get my point)
simple as that
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 19:31:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Aramendel Actually, rigs gave it a bigger boost than the changed instabs
But, yes, it is an old tactic, almost as old as eve itself. Ultra speed setups surfaced and vanished again with module changes & balancing.
Yea, but remove either one and the problem mainly goes away. The i-stabs are enablers just as much as the rigs are.
Originally by: MrDisposable
Nano setups do very very poor dmg.... and they are not cap stable. without NOS they cannot work.
5 heavy drones + 4 bonused torps is not "very very poor damage"
5 bonused heavy drones is not "very very poor damage"
Its not super fantastic, but its not bad.
---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
GankYou
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 19:42:00 -
[310]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Aramendel Actually, rigs gave it a bigger boost than the changed instabs
But, yes, it is an old tactic, almost as old as eve itself. Ultra speed setups surfaced and vanished again with module changes & balancing.
Yea, but remove either one and the problem mainly goes away. The i-stabs are enablers just as much as the rigs are.
Originally by: MrDisposable
Nano setups do very very poor dmg.... and they are not cap stable. without NOS they cannot work.
5 heavy drones + 4 bonused torps is not "very very poor damage"
5 bonused heavy drones is not "very very poor damage"
Its not super fantastic, but its not bad.
For clueless monkeys: give me a stabphoon setup with sieges that will go 6km/s without snakes.
|
|
MrDisposable
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 19:50:00 -
[311]
Sorry, I did overstate it.... but thier damage is not un-tankable... far from it. Its the NOS thats untankable.
|
Taipan Gedscho
Taipan Industries
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 19:59:00 -
[312]
nos can be "tanked". cap injectors anyone?
and the trick is NOT to inject more than youre drained, but rather injecting exactly the amount you use, JUST BEFORE you use it. so the opponent sucks on your empty cap.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 20:02:00 -
[313]
Originally by: GankYou
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Aramendel Actually, rigs gave it a bigger boost than the changed instabs
But, yes, it is an old tactic, almost as old as eve itself. Ultra speed setups surfaced and vanished again with module changes & balancing.
Yea, but remove either one and the problem mainly goes away. The i-stabs are enablers just as much as the rigs are.
Originally by: MrDisposable
Nano setups do very very poor dmg.... and they are not cap stable. without NOS they cannot work.
5 heavy drones + 4 bonused torps is not "very very poor damage"
5 bonused heavy drones is not "very very poor damage"
Its not super fantastic, but its not bad.
For clueless monkeys: give me a stabphoon setup with sieges that will go 6km/s without snakes.
Best you will hit with non-faction gear is 4km/s
Oh noes, only 4km/s!
Its still too fast. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
MrDisposable
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 20:13:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Taipan Gedscho nos can be "tanked". cap injectors anyone?
and the trick is NOT to inject more than youre drained, but rather injecting exactly the amount you use, JUST BEFORE you use it. so the opponent sucks on your empty cap.
Cap injectors have a lifespan.. Nos does not.
|
Sonjared
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 20:30:00 -
[315]
Reasonable solution that addresses most if not all issues presented:
MAKE IT SO that the bigger the ship and the faster the big ship goes, the slower it can turn.
So you CAN make a BS to from 300 to 10000 (with rigs,implants and so on) - but it would also take a long long time to accelerate AND stop. And it wouldn't be able to orbit at 10000 speed at less than 100 KM away etc.
|
Black Night
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 20:47:00 -
[316]
I think the problem has been over blown. The only problem with the ship is its ability to turn on a dime (and that will be fixed).
Nevertheless, I believe the nanobs are need for gate campers. Why have 5 or more ppl gang up one ship, and that ship not have a way to escape.
Therefore, the real problem is gate campers, someone found a way to get away from gate campers, and they do not like it.
find a way for ppl to escape gate campers, and then slow down the nanobs.
|
Sonjared
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 21:02:00 -
[317]
Edited by: Sonjared on 26/01/2007 21:01:01
Originally by: Nicocat I have found the answer to nano ships:
Medium T2 autocannons hurt like a *****. Medium drones can catch up. Might need T2 minmatar ones, though. Noone uses lasers, so I haven't tested them ;)
So there you have it. When fighting a ship with no tank, medium guns work fine.
a) the nano ship would drain Amarr of cap as nanos like NOS = no lasers b) Only Warrior II can catch up and will be smartbombed so c) Turrets have hard time tracking because you're going 3-10 km/s and using a tracking disruptor. d) torps won't hit and cruises make little damage
Heavy missiles and heavy assault javelins are pretty much the only thing that work. Anything shorther range like blasters and so on are quite useless as nano ship can easily adjust orbit to the heavy nos limit.
|
Uhu
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 21:10:00 -
[318]
There are several things that need fixing.
1. Introduce structural overload - hull damage on fast manevuers/collisions. Make agility an adjustable parameter (like overpowering the manevuer engines as a special action), resulting in different ammounts of structural damage. We will be able to turn BS real quick, but not more than 2-3 times before it falls apart. And we will be able to suicide ram things :)
2. battlesip agility. The things aree too fast to turn, even without instabs. Introduce max safe turning/accelerating speed dependant on sig radius (to avoid structural overload)
3. Delete nosferatu from the game. Or make them EM damage type weapons, affected by resists and sig radius to calculate the stolen cap ammount.
|
Hyperforce99
Gallente Strike Force I Omega Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 21:38:00 -
[319]
Everyone is talking about nerfing NOS, or nerfing stabs and nano's but I found a perfect solution to nano-battleships. besides people are all saying that battleships shouldn't go so fast but if you adapt them the right way, why shouldn't they, if you lighten them up and change it offcourse it will be able to move faster, the only thing having any influance in space is mass, the lesser mass the faster things go, and by decreasing the ships mass it will be able to change direction quicker.. but enough about that. I found a way to counter this by nullifying the mass adition, thereby making nanoships far less invincible.
check this link for more info.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863&page=1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-= SIGNATURE =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The perfect solution against Nano-Battleships without nerfing anything :D
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465863 |
Reto
The Last Resort
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 22:04:00 -
[320]
Edited by: Reto on 26/01/2007 22:02:42 [crosspost]
i agree to a certain point with the op.
since:
bs are hard-hitting powerhouses which are the foundation of a gang or a fleet. they are deffo not solopwn mobiles and should never be.
but:
the "speed over tank" option however is something which must be preserved. ppl should be able to fly their ships fast to avoid dmg if they wish to. especially the smaller ship classes like cruisers and frigates should be able to hit high speeds (interceptors in general and cruisers like the vagabond or the deimos should be highspeed boats).
big ships however shouldnt without sacrificing A LOT of their actual capabilities (no large nos, heavy arms, heavy tank). a bs on its own should NOT be able to take out other bs without risking at least getting hit and maybe destoryed aswell.
nanos currently have to less drawbacks for bigger ships. if a bs can attack my battleship without me being able showing resistance there is something wrong with the basic game design ccp wants to implement to make ppl work as a team.
there is no heavy nerf of a module neccesary here. simply decrease the effect of inertia stabs proportional to the mass of the ship. i reconned that istabs have less effect the bigger the ship is. i reach a great speed with 2 TI stabs on my ares but the effect isnt that good if i use em on my thorax for example. this should be further increased or make i-stabs like afterburners dependant on shipsize. inertia stabilizers should need powergrid to compensate the momentum of a ship. the bigger the mass the more pg u need.
for example: frig sized i-stabs -> let em as they are 1 pg med sized i-stabs -> small pg use...like 20 pg bs sized i-stabs -> 100-200 pg use...enuff to gimp nos+torp+mwd+ipwnuall setups
however it is highly recomended that such a change should include thinking about oversized i-stab fitting and further details. bs sized i-stab on a cruiser shouldnt lead to a maller going 100000m/s...
this is what came to mind after i read all of the previous nano-fad threads. im striclty against the uber-nerf of i-stabs or piracy but im for the precise and reasonable modification of ships according to their role within combat.
[/crosspost]
Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
|
|
Taipan Gedscho
Taipan Industries
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 22:14:00 -
[321]
Edited by: Taipan Gedscho on 26/01/2007 22:11:22
Originally by: MrDisposable
Originally by: Taipan Gedscho nos can be "tanked". cap injectors anyone?
and the trick is NOT to inject more than youre drained, but rather injecting exactly the amount you use, JUST BEFORE you use it. so the opponent sucks on your empty cap.
Cap injectors have a lifespan.. Nos does not.
invalid argument. example: projectile guns have a lifespan. a repper doesnt.
so?
stop whining, just because you dislike nos.
and, no, i dont use a nano or nos ship.
i just dont like brainless nerfing
|
MrDisposable
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 23:01:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Taipan Gedscho Edited by: Taipan Gedscho on 26/01/2007 22:11:22
Originally by: MrDisposable
Originally by: Taipan Gedscho nos can be "tanked". cap injectors anyone?
and the trick is NOT to inject more than youre drained, but rather injecting exactly the amount you use, JUST BEFORE you use it. so the opponent sucks on your empty cap.
Cap injectors have a lifespan.. Nos does not.
invalid argument. example: projectile guns have a lifespan. a repper doesnt.
so?
stop whining, just because you dislike nos.
and, no, i dont use a nano or nos ship.
i just dont like brainless nerfing
Ok then how about this.... how long can you run a repper on cap boosters vs how long can you fire your guns assuming either cargo is 100% filled with either?
Exactly... you could fire for ages, you can boost for like 2-3 minutes. Also if you know your opponent is using a booster why even waste the ammo until you are sure his cap is completely dead?
|
xVx Scarecrow
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 23:29:00 -
[323]
Okay i dont know if any1 has suggested this cuz am not readin thro 10 pagies but how about a stacking nerf for nanos and i-stabs e.g the stacking nerf of dmg mods so it wouldnt be as bad for smaller ships cuz thay only fir 1 or 2 where as the bs fits more. [URL=http://img478.imageshack.us/my.php?image=siggy6.jpg][/URL] |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 23:41:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Goumindong Yea, but remove either one and the problem mainly goes away. The i-stabs are enablers just as much as the rigs are.
Well...no. Using 3 nanos + 3 instabs instead of 6 nanos gives my nanophoon a 7% higher MWD speed.
Using 3 vent rigs gives it a 47% higher MWD speed.
As far as responsible boosts go the one of instabs is rather small. You could remove it entirely and not change much.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 23:44:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Goumindong Yea, but remove either one and the problem mainly goes away. The i-stabs are enablers just as much as the rigs are.
Well...no. Using 3 nanos + 3 instabs instead of 6 nanos gives my nanophoon a 7% higher MWD speed.
Using 3 vent rigs gives it a 47% higher MWD speed.
As far as responsible boosts go the one of instabs is rather small. You could remove it entirely and not change much.
I suppose you are right then. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Tovarishch
Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 23:48:00 -
[326]
Edited by: Tovarishch on 26/01/2007 23:48:13
Originally by: Solar Blade
Stop Whining and Adapt to your advisaries.
The same could be said to you... and everyone else who makes this stupid comment.
How about YOU stop whining and adapt to life without a battleship that is as fast and agile as an interceptor.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 00:01:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Aramendel on 27/01/2007 00:02:36
Originally by: Goumindong I suppose you are right then, but with just the MWD ive noticed significant differences in the speed increases when moving from nanos to i-stabs in a proper configuration.
Not on battleships. On frigs (and even cruisers) instabs have a FAR greater effect because the speed boost from nanos is relatively small compared to their base speed.
For example, on a claw fitting 2 nanos + 2 instabs instead 4 nanos gives me a 19% speed boost. 2 vent rigs still give me a greater boost, though.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 01:28:00 -
[328]
"Well...no. Using 3 nanos + 3 instabs instead of 6 nanos gives my nanophoon a 7% higher MWD speed.
Using 3 vent rigs gives it a 47% higher MWD speed."
This isn't very fair comparison -- on one hand you have "replace 3x +speed module with 3x -mass module" and on the other hand you have "3x +speed module vs nothing".
Try something more analoguous... how much speed do you get out of "3x nano + 3x i-stab" ship when compared to just "3x nano" ship?
|
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 01:29:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Sadist
Originally by: Tomb A battleship is NOT and SHOULD NOT BE a SOLO-pwnmobile. (with the exception of Instab whoring on the typhoon or dominix)
Fair enough. Take this to its logical end. We will all sit 10km apart f1-f8 and log when we get to structure. He with the best tank wins. BORING.
Now add in the flavour of a pack of nano ships- dancing in and out- first mistake is their last.
The basic issue is that speed tanking is viable. I have spent $300m to try it out. I have ratted in it and was shocked to find it works. When ratting you orbit at 20-25km - f1-f8 and watch as you win. Cap management is everything. It is not for the feint of heart as your first mistake results in tears as your ship dies.
So now we have a new tanking systenm - one that cannot be stopped easily. If you want to - spend $300m. Nanophoons escape gate camps - yet the one I saw over the last week was in structure by the time he got away. That's the balance - speed is his tank. He cannot be slow or he dies.
Do not nerf this new tanking system. Otherwise the game stagnates. Move with it. Drop your tanks and get nanoed up. Spend the isk to compete - don't whinge about it.
And by the way - a nanophoon in a small gang is an awesome tackler - but for damage - forget about it. I know I can be very easily tanked. All I can do is hold, drain and run. Without friends - I am dead - against a two on one - I cannot fight.
That means a nanophoon is not a solo pwn mobile. One on one - it has enormous advantages but for anything else - its gonna die fast if it gets called primary and cannot get 50km away in ten seconds.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 01:44:00 -
[330]
Edited by: j0sephine on 27/01/2007 01:41:51
"Fair enough. Take this to its logical end. We will all sit 10km apart f1-f8 and log when we get to structure. He with the best tank wins. BORING.
Now add in the flavour of a pack of nano ships- dancing in and out- first mistake is their last."
This isn't "taking things to logical end", but rather exaggeration and simplification in attempt to prove one should be allowed to squeeze square peg in round hole.
The ships dancing in and out and meeting the end when they make mistake have been in the game from the beginning. They're frigates and to some extent cruisers, along with their tech.2 variants. At the same time you have ships which are more about plain duking it out -- with heavier armour, more of punch and able to fight at short, medium and long distances. But consequently deprived of high speed and maneuverability of these lighter dancers.
You don't need to "all sit 10km apart f1-f8 and log when we get to structure" and you don't need a nano battleship to already have this different sort of playstyle. The thing is, some people don't actually like the "first mistake is the last" part of that alternate gamestyle no matter how much they try to use it in defense of being able to use heavily armoured ship with speeds and agility of vessels... that are granted fraction of battleship hitpoints for a reason. And so they try to buy themselves the extra protection without caring how it affects the game on the whole.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |