Posted - 2008.03.25 16:57:00 - [362]

 

Originally by: Lord WarATron

---

Anyhow back to the question I asked you, How do you feel aboutweb scripts giving low poer webs, such as 37.5% t1 20km webs(45% for t2) To balance nanogangs?

---

Honestly, people would just keep complaining because they would have to fit multiple webs and nobody but rapiers and huginns like to do that. That makes it to difficult cause you would actually have to think about it for a minute. People, the limited few who have come on and whined about speed, generally want all speed cut by 70-80%, want no way to escape a fight once the forces have started the engagement on grid. Which is why i am so vocal against any changes.

The more important consequence of longer web ranges for non-recons is small ships will just get masacared and we would like to see some buff to them instead of killing them even more.

I kill nano's i lose my ships. With the current state of the game, i honestly don't feel there is anything that needs to be changed. I started off caldari, i flew ferox's and ravens tryin to neut and kill nanophoons, i cross-trained minmitar to actually see how the speed fits work. You can't live in PVP without an MWD, and because there are more people now than in 2006 you really need to be able to disengage or its just total helldeath for everyone unless you ahve 30-50man gangs.

The only way i would go for a nano change is if dock/undock/redock, and docking ranges were nerfed. As a compromise...

Posted - 2008.03.25 16:59:00 - [364]

 

Originally by: Lord WarATron

---

Anyhow back to the question I asked you, How do you feel aboutweb scripts giving low poer webs, such as 37.5% t1 20km webs(45% for t2) To balance nanogangs?

---

This would shift the scale in favor of blobs. As most people in the blob would field 20 km web, they could more easily combine double, triple, N-web against single target, then insta pop it with focused fire.

For small gang warfare, the situation would be different, it could go either way as both sides can use the web to keep range.

To me the shift of power toward blob is too undesirable to go for these web scripts.

Posted - 2008.03.25 17:25:00 - [366]

 

Edited by: Goumindong on 25/03/2008 17:28:04

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Originally by: Lord WarATron

---

Anyhow back to the question I asked you, How do you feel aboutweb scripts giving low poer webs, such as 37.5% t1 20km webs(45% for t2) To balance nanogangs?

---

This would shift the scale in favor of blobs. As most people in the blob would field 20 km web, they could more easily combine double, triple, N-web against single target, then insta pop it with focused fire.

For small gang warfare, the situation would be different, it could go either way as both sides can use the web to keep range.

To me the shift of power toward blob is too undesirable to go for these web scripts.

---

Why should a single ship, caught within 20km of a superior force when it did not warp away before all of them locked the target ship have a chance of getting away?

You can warp faster than any of them can lock, you can move their entire scram range and web range before they can lock you.

Why in the world, when you are caught at a clear disadvantage should the gang that was able to get you into that disadvantageous position NOT be able to kill you?

Personally, i think that there should be some modification so that sig radius is more important, but its very hard to say "Look, i want to be able to get within engagement range of a superior force and have little to no risk of destruction" and be taken seriously

You want to engage a superior force, you should lose, you should not be able to easily disengage.

Imagine how much you would complain if a ratting raven was able to simply ignore every single warp scrambler and dictor bubble it was caught in and warp out before you killed it? No, the raven should die, it was caught by a superior force. You would freak and whine and complain all of the place. Don't believe me? Just look at the warp stab discussions before that nerf, and that wasn't even all that bad because warp stabs don't make you immune to dictor bubbles and there were no infinite point scrams in the game.

If you want to fight a superior force you need to split them and out-run them but in order for the game to be reasonable, you need to have, on the other side of the coin, the superior gang able to kill you if you are unable to do this and still chose to engage, or if it is able to corner you and force you to engage[which would be quite hard without huge agility and lock time changes regardless of any changes to webs]

Posted - 2008.03.25 17:41:00 - [368]

 

Edited by: Goumindong on 25/03/2008 17:43:01

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Originally by: Lord WarATron

---

I see. So in other words, you want nano-pvp without the risk, but dont mind killing the other side?

---

How many times people gotta repeat this point? there are numerous counters in nanoships and according to killboards, plenty of nanoships get wasted every day. There are many risks when flying a nanoship.

Seriously, anyone who thinks they are fighting risk free in a nanoship is welcome to try fight me. I'll use 2 ships, you can bring up to 4 nanoships.

If you can't understand logical arguements, I'll show you by example.

---

The reason lots of nano ships are killed every day is because a lot of people fly nano ships. Back before the first nano nerf and after the i-stab buff people said the same thing "but typhoons die all the time!" they said, and yea, it was because people flew a damn lot of typhoons and dominxes. And a nano-dominix or phoon could catch another nano-dominix or phoon. That didn't make them balanced.

Since you can't understand why your argument isnt logical, ill slow down for you.

The counters to nano-gangs are:


1. Huginns/Rapiers [These are nano ships]
2. Nano ships[these are also nano ships]
3. Skirmish warfare specialized battlecruisers/Command ships[conveniently, very close to a nano-ship]
4. So many ships that the nano-ships lag out and are unable to move before the gang that had already loaded grids is able to kill them.
[ed: forgot hyenas, these are nano ships]

Now, 1-3 [and the edit] are kinda nano-gangs already. And point 4 isn't really reasonable, nor desirable.

And now, even slower for you, and italicized, so you can get it:

The reason there is a problem with nano-gangs is that they cannot be easily be caught and killed in situations where they ought to be caught and killed by superior forces

Also.

Falcon, any damage dealing nano-ship x 3[Alternately, 2 falcons, 2 damage dealing ships, or 1 falcon, 1 rapier, 2 damage dealing ships(zealots/cerbs preferred here)]

I don't care what two ships you bring, so long as they aren't capitals.

Posted - 2008.03.25 17:46:00 - [370]

 

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Currently, the blob tactic is greatly superior to all other tactics, only nanoship gangs come close. Why aren't you obsessing over blobs? Why do you propose new game features that help blobs more than anyone else? Or do you consider the blob tactics to be good and balanced?

---

As has been explained already, the nano-gang is the blob. It doesn't win when there are equal numbers of heavily tanked ships in the fight, they win because they never ever ever have to engage equal numbers of heavily tanked ships, they can run away and kill stragglers/loners/smaller gangs.

You cannot ever make bringing more ships less advantageous, its impossible in eve. Its impossible in any cooperative game. All allowing nano ships to avoid larger gangs does is make larger gangs nano themselves out and become large nano-gangs.

Posted - 2008.03.25 17:51:00 - [372]

 

Originally by: Lady Karma

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

I think there is a problem with nano-gangs because they cannot easily be caught and killed in situations where they ought to be caught and killed by the blob

---

Fixed for you.
If you can't catch and kill a nano gang using "superior forces" then the conclusion must be that those forces were not "superior"

---

Incorrect. Unless you are also saying that the nano-gang is not superior, since it also cannot catch and kill the tanked ships.

But then you have a problem:

Big tanked gang is not superior to a small nano gang.

Big nano gang is superior to a small tanked gang.

Such, all nano-gangs are then better than all tanked gang. Since the tanked gang cannot ever hope to be better than the nano gang.

Which brings us to the problem: there is only one viable fitting and gang option for 0.0 combat.

Posted - 2008.03.25 17:57:00 - [374]

 

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

...there are numerous counters in nanoships and according to killboards, plenty of nanoships get wasted every day. There are many risks when flying a nanoship.

---

Proof of risk isn't proof of balance.

Just because nano battleships could be popped didn't mean it was balanced. An Amarr bs with all damage mods in the lows could be popped, didn't mean it was balanced. A Scorp and double mwd could be popped, didn't mean it was balanced.

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Currently, the blob tactic is greatly superior to all other tactics, only nanoship gangs come close. Why aren't you obsessing over blobs?

---

Blobs are a necessary evil. We'd love to do away with blobs but nano ships aren't the answer. Nanos (or other fotm) in fact increase blobs and destroy pvp variety.

This is like saying that Amarr battleships with all damage mods (and no stacking penalty) are a valid tactic because they can kill multiple hostile battleships before they are popped. Soon the blob *is* nothing but Amarr battleships. If there isn't a reasonable counter to the flavor of the month it kills variety.

Posted - 2008.03.25 18:13:00 - [376]

 

Edited by: Goumindong on 25/03/2008 18:14:31

Originally by: Lady Karma

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Which brings us to the problem: there is only one viable fitting and gang option for 0.0 combat.

---

Well thats obvious and not a problem. If you want to roam in a 5 man gang in 0.0, then the only viable fit is speed.

Fleet combat is different. It is built around battleship numbers. What is your objection to people wanting to fight in 0.0 without having to get 50 people in gang. Nano gangs do not kill POS, they are fun.

Recently in MM space, they dropped 5 carriers 2 MS and around 30 support on our 10 man HAC/Recon gang. We engaged a small gate camp they had...and the response is a ton of cap ships.

Kill nano's and the roaming 0.0 gang is dead. Not everyone likes POS war and lock primary F1-8 lag fests

---

MM hot dropped the state war academy?

And you survived of course.


1. Why should MM not prosecute you to the full extent of their ability?
2. Fleet combat is not different, they still can't kill the nano-gang.
3. Battleships should not be useless except for fighting massive strategic battles.

There needs to be a counter to a gang other than "bring more ships". Nano's do not allow that because the counter to any gang is "bring more nano-ships". That is bad for the game.

Posted - 2008.03.25 18:18:00 - [378]

 

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Every arguement seems to involve a subset of factors as the premise, partly because in reality there are way too many factors to consider. When you talk about gang vs gang, there are at least 10,000 different possibilities. Plus there's the illusive concept of player skill.

I fly in small gangs, usually just 2 people. Often times I encounter solo nanoships, mixed gangs of all sorts, sometimes big blobs. I do not have a problem dealing with the nanoships. If I see too many, I run from them. If I see just a few, I try to kill them. Sometimes I die, but I still get more kills. It's hard to catch nanoships, but I enjoy the challange.

My bottom line is this:

I, as experienced fighter, do not have a problem with the nanoships. Nothing theoretical here, just pure experience and opinion based on that experience. If I can do it, other people can too, they just need to try harder.

---

Jesus ****, we've explained this already why you cannot take player skill into account when balancing the game.

Also, you haven't given me your two man gang that takes my "any 4 nano-ships" gang yet.

Posted - 2008.03.25 18:21:00 - [380]

 

Edited by: Goumindong on 25/03/2008 18:23:54

Originally by: Lord WarATron

---

Now answer me this. If it is acceptable for a rapier to web at 30km+ with 90% web power, what is wrong with a t2 45% web at 20km for conventional ships via scripts?

---

Well, see, if i'm out-numbered 3-1 or more by heavily tanked ships and stick around to get webbed i might die.

This is clearly overpowered, they should need at leave 5 to 1 odds to have a chance at killing me.

edit: In all seriousness, i don't like it because i want some way to differentiate by signature radius thus making actual speed tanking[I.E avoiding damage, not avoiding via range] a viable alternative against guns the same size as your ship.

Posted - 2008.03.25 18:25:00 - [382]

 

Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf

---

Quote wars... again.
I want speed-tanking to become balanced and viable. For this to happen webs need to change first then speed needs to be looked at if problems persist.

---

A better solution IMO would to be not to limit turrets to their tracking speed for target accuracy. Gunner and Firing systems in "Eve's age" should be able to fairly easily predict where the target will be next and set up firing solutions ahead of the targets path.

Perhaps resulting in a reduced rate of fire (as you only get few shots off at that angle) but spreading your guns over the area the target WILL be in (lead tracking) vs trying to pace it (lag tracking). A good gunner would wait for his shot rather than always firing behind the target.

another possible solution would the addition of a flack/bearing casting ammunition. You cant fly at ludicrous speeds through a field of metal shards.

Speed should certainly be an option, but proper counters need to be addressed as well.

Posted - 2008.03.25 18:26:00 - [384]

 

Edited by: Lord WarATron on 25/03/2008 18:27:49

Originally by: Dianeces

---

Originally by: Lord WarATron

---

Now answer me this. If it is acceptable for a rapier to web at 30km+ with 90% web power, what is wrong with a t2 45% web at 20km for conventional ships via scripts?

---

Because it takes several months to competently fly a Rapier or Huginn and less than a week of training to use a T2 web.

ITT: Getting rid of specialization.

---

What is wrong with that since it takes less than a week to train up t2 scrambler? Why is it ok for the counter to nano to be more complex than nanoing up?

Posted - 2008.03.25 18:28:00 - [386]

 

Originally by: iaikami

---

Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf

---

Quote wars... again.
I want speed-tanking to become balanced and viable. For this to happen webs need to change first then speed needs to be looked at if problems persist.

---

A better solution IMO would to be not to limit turrets to their tracking speed for target accuracy. Gunner and Firing systems in "Eve's age" should be able to fairly easily predict where the target will be next and set up firing solutions ahead of the targets path.

Perhaps resulting in a reduced rate of fire (as you only get few shots off at that angle) but spreading your guns over the area the target WILL be in (lead tracking) vs trying to pace it (lag tracking). A good gunner would wait for his shot rather than always firing behind the target.

another possible solution would the addition of a flack/bearing casting ammunition. You cant fly at ludicrous speeds through a field of metal shards.

Speed should certainly be an option, but proper counters need to be addressed as well.

---

Tracking is not really a problem for most ships, its range, getting outnumbered, and being unable to keep a target around to die.

Flak doesn't change anything since the ships can still just leave the engagement area.

That or its so powerful that nano-gangs cannot fight lone ships effectively, which would be bad

Posted - 2008.03.25 18:32:00 - [388]

 

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Also, you haven't given me your two man gang that takes my "any 4 nano-ships" gang yet.

---

There's more than 1 way to do it, I have several good options. I don't want to play a theoretical game.

If you want to find out, fight me, for real. I don't expect to win 100% of the time, but I like my chances of success well enough to try.

I can meet you anywhere in Delve, nothing personal, just trying to prove a point by example. 1 day for perparations should be enough.

---

Minus the fact that i cannot fly 1 falcon and 3 damage ships? Or 2 falcons and 3 damage ships. Or that now that you know what i would bring you can fit specifically against it?

Now, how about you say what you are going to bring and ill laugh at you and explain how the 4 nano ships are going to kill you.

Anecdotes aren't balance.

Posted - 2008.03.25 18:37:00 - [390]

 

Originally by: Goumindong

---

As has been explained already, the nano-gang is the blob. It doesn't win when there are equal numbers of heavily tanked ships in the fight, they win because they never ever ever have to engage equal numbers of heavily tanked ships, they can run away and kill stragglers/loners/smaller gangs.

---

untrue when i was in NFF (do a search if you dont know who they are) we would engage almost all the time, we had to HUNT for pvp, i remember once engaging in a home system for some alliance and they had probably 3 times as much ships. Nanos aint a problem, counter them and you will win. If you dont counter them, die.

All those crying nerf speed, leave your ****e alliance and join a pvp corp for a while. See the difference first hand!