open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Speed Tanking: A litmus test for some voters.. Candidates?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Eima Nalt
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:23:00 - [1]
 

I have noted that many of the candidates don't find that speed tanking is a hot-button issue according to their quick cards, yet my experience in the game is that many pvpers find it to be a hot-button issue. This single topic could swing a significant count of voters, so I think it deserves its own posting and individual responses.

The problem is, largely, that there isn't a good way to counter nano-ships except with other nano ships or, in certain circumstances, nano'd or un-nano'd race-specific recons. Heavy neuts come to mind as do a few other things, all of which end up nerfing your typical setup just in case you come across some nano ships. The other side of the coin also is that nano ships can do the very thing that CCP tried to engineer out of the game: they have the capacity to leave a fight once begun.

Speed tanking is possible because the game mechanics permit ship-class vessels to fly faster than drones or missiles can fly and faster than turrets can track. The very same speed making these ships immune to conventional ship setups also gives them the power to leave a fight that turns against them.

There aren't a lot of places for a candidate to go with this one. Either a) there is no problem or b) some combination of slowing ships down and/or speeding offensive mechanisms up should be examined seriously by CCP or c) come up with some other way to prevent nano ships from leaving a fight that has begun (and address whether or not a stale mate should be an acceptable outcome and, if not, how should things be different to allow one side or the other to prevail).

Letouk Mernel
Caldari
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:31:00 - [2]
 

Slight derail: that's one thing I've noticed, a lot of candidates have given their long term goals and beliefs, but the truth is that a lot of us will vote based on whether our particular issue gets fixed, and now!

I hope your question gets answered.

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:35:00 - [3]
 

First off let me start by saying that I like speed, just so you know my bias off the bat. Somehow I just prefer the image of little quick ships dealing with other little quick ships while the big boys slug it out around them.

Whenever it comes to balancing things out I'm more for adding options rather than "nerfing" existing mechanics/rules. Therefore I'm more for adding additional means of dealing with speed pilots rather than slowing down the fast ships. I'm not certain that definitively answers your question so I'd lean towards "C".

And to be clear, I'm not too certain I like the blanket idea that no one can leave a battle. There may be situations where the fight is "to the death," and others where the tides of war can force a retreat. Even though pilots may understand that entering the battle may cost them their ship, that doesn't mean that a particular ship load-out, planning, or tactics couldn't create other options for breaking off from the battle.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:41:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: LaVista Vista on 08/05/2008 19:42:25
I personally find a heavy neut to be extremely effective. As you say, a Rapier is also good.

But the problem is that people fly nano ships, because blobbing is so prevalent. That goes back to the game only promoting big gangs. So we need small goals for 5-10 man gangs. This will discourage nano gangs, and rather promote cruiser, BC and BS gangs.

It's a bit like shooting the messenger. If we remove nano ships, we will just see people not undocking. That will be bad for everybody.

But IF you want to nerf nano ships, you should decrease the tracking on said ships, so that they can't do so many things at once(Basically remove the DPS). But I don't really think it's a good solution either.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:41:00 - [5]
 


A) there is no problem with NANO.

(Reasoning here is that nano-ship configuration is a reaction to the current overwhelming defense advantage of territorial powers with 0.0 POS infrastructure allowing near-instant jump-bridging on any engagement in their sphere of influence. Nano is a trade off, sacrificing firepower and sustainability for the ability to disengage when the defending forces bring the uber blob to win on pure weight of numbers.)

If you want a "fix" for nano-ship usage look at reducing overwhelming defense advantage in 0.0 combat, reduce the power/capability of jump-bridging/ deal with the one-sided capital use in cyno-jammed systems and basically even the playing field between attack and defense and then you will find that nano-ship pilots mysteriously evolve back to battleship pilots and heavier gangs again the moment when they can engage without being instantly blobbed back to the stone-age by a sitting territorial power.

But at the moment you cannot deal with this situation by nerfing "nano" - all that will achieve is forcing people not to fight in these environments altogether since its never a tactically sound prospect to enter a pitched and committed battle with an enemy who can instantly deploy overwhelming reinforcements to the battlespace.

Proof of this of course - look at empire warfare between declared combatants, look at lowsec fighting, look at any kind of fighting away from the conquerable 0.0 model - here you still see remote-rep battleship gangs are king, balanced fleets, proper configuration of gangs to the task at hand.

The issue is that 0.0 has a broken defense balance at the moment. Its ceiling has been made too low for aggressor fleet variety, and you don't nerf people stooping when its the architecture to blame.


cimmaron
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:49:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

A) there is no problem with NANO.

(Reasoning here is that nano-ship configuration is a reaction to the current overwhelming defense advantage of territorial powers with 0.0 POS infrastructure allowing near-instant jump-bridging on any engagement in their sphere of influence. Nano is a trade off, sacrificing firepower and sustainability for the ability to disengage when the defending forces bring the uber blob to win on pure weight of numbers.)

If you want a "fix" for nano-ship usage look at reducing overwhelming defense advantage in 0.0 combat, reduce the power/capability of jump-bridging/ deal with the one-sided capital use in cyno-jammed systems and basically even the playing field between attack and defense and then you will find that nano-ship pilots mysteriously evolve back to battleship pilots and heavier gangs again the moment when they can engage without being instantly blobbed back to the stone-age by a sitting territorial power.

But at the moment you cannot deal with this situation by nerfing "nano" - all that will achieve is forcing people not to fight in these environments altogether since its never a tactically sound prospect to enter a pitched and committed battle with an enemy who can instantly deploy overwhelming reinforcements to the battlespace.

Proof of this of course - look at empire warfare between declared combatants, look at lowsec fighting, look at any kind of fighting away from the conquerable 0.0 model - here you still see remote-rep battleship gangs are king, balanced fleets, proper configuration of gangs to the task at hand.

The issue is that 0.0 has a broken defense balance at the moment. Its ceiling has been made too low for aggressor fleet variety, and you don't nerf people stooping when its the architecture to blame.




Herin lies the overal problem with nano's. Having established soverinty in space is MEANT to make defending easier, use of JB and defense gangs is WHY people conquer 0.0 space to begin with.

What your saying is basically, dont nerf nano's nerf defense ability of player controlled space, which is about the dumbest damn thing ive ever heard. They need to nerf the ability of players to come into controlled space and outrun everyone and their uncle that isnt in a nano ship. Entering someone elses territory should be dangerous and should more often than not lead to your untimely awakening in an empire clone vat, not the run around and gang fest till you get chased off for 5 mins and come back to do it again loophole we have now.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:58:00 - [7]
 

*gets popcorn and a good seat in preparation for the essay Razz*

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 20:01:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 08/05/2008 20:03:01

Originally by: cimmaron

Herin lies the overal problem with nano's. Having established soverinty in space is MEANT to make defending easier, use of JB and defense gangs is WHY people conquer 0.0 space to begin with.


Owning outposts makes it easy to defend 0.0 because you have a place to dock/fit/muster etc. The issue is that sovereign 0.0 has become TOO easy to defend and much TOO easy to muster overwhelming blobs on demand for conventional fighting.

Quote:
What your saying is basically, dont nerf nano's nerf defense ability of player controlled space, which is about the dumbest damn thing ive ever heard. They need to nerf the ability of players to come into controlled space and outrun everyone and their uncle that isnt in a nano ship.


Its "dumb" until you sit down with a nice cup of tea and remember that what we're talking about here is a space combat GAME not some altered reality real life sim where the object is to prevent combat at all costs. Eve is a Space Opera, its a Space War game. Its about Spaceship Combat, and at some level the game mechanics need to encourage people to fight not provide overwhelming disincentive to fighting.

Quote:
Entering someone elses territory should be dangerous and should more often than not lead to your untimely awakening in an empire clone vat, not the run around and gang fest till you get chased off for 5 mins and come back to do it again loophole we have now.


Not if it damages the dynamism, excitement and inclusive appeal of the game. Nerf nano in the current environment and you simply make conquerable 0.0 space more boring, more static, more safe, and you hasten the end of the dymanic political environment in 0.0. People will rightly stop raiding 0.0 entirely and focus their PVP activities on sanctioned decs against empire dwelling underbellies of 0.0 entities, the 0.0 entities will shift their activities to alt-corps and npc-hauling. The net outcome is less pvp combat and a weakening of Eve's founding draw as a single-server dynamic war sim and political simulation. 0.0 space slips even further into the "sim-city-in-space" mold and the game of Eve declines to the detriment of all.



Asphilenos
Astro-Support Services
East India Company
Posted - 2008.05.08 20:15:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Asphilenos on 08/05/2008 20:17:03
Clearly, you can enter someone else's sovereign 0.0 territory if you truly "bring it". The idea that you can only go into someone else's territory with nanos is not true simply because large battleship and mixed cap/BS fleets still roam the galaxy and do enter other alliances' territories. This same argument applies to those who say that nobody will undock if nano-ism is reigned in: the fact is, plenty of people undock now who don't nano.

However, even if these conditions that strike some as undesirable defense imbalances were to be corrected in a manner pleasing to them, people would continue to fly nanos because they will continue to provide a significant advantage. So, blaming the architecture and claiming that we need a remodel in and of itself will not address the problems that nano ships pose to the playability of the game.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 20:36:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 08/05/2008 20:47:13

Originally by: Asphilenos

Clearly, you can enter someone else's sovereign 0.0 territory if you truly "bring it". The idea that you can only go into someone else's territory with nanos is not true simply because large battleship and mixed cap/BS fleets still roam the galaxy and do enter other alliances' territories.


Speaking as a person who has commanded large battleship fleets on such incursions I'm going to have say you have a rose-tinted view of what is possible. The state of the play in 0.0 sovereign space right now is that you are playing against whatever you bring vs whatever the enemy has prepared ANYWHERE in their space via jump-bridge network, most often you are playing against the possibility of home side Capital-ship drops (and of course unless you want to assault the Cyno-jammer at pos you don't have this option yourself. This means you have a fixed size of fleet that is scouted, reported, and will be countered by enemy blob that doesn't even have to travel through conventional space to hit you (hence your own scouting is rendered null). What will happen is that your 60-80 battleships will be bounced by twice that number with cap support rendering a pitched battle effective suicide.

Quote:
This same argument applies to those who say that nobody will undock if nano-ism is reigned in: the fact is, plenty of people undock now who don't nano.


Don't oversimplify the argument to make a point please. I said that the incidence of raiding attacks on conquerable 0.0 space will reduce if nano-ships are nerfed. This is nothing to do with undocking or notions of courage - this is purely to do with defense advantage and nano-ability to disengage against the sudden appearance of the uber-blob making continued fighting irrelevant.

Quote:
However, even if these conditions that strike some as undesirable defense imbalances were to be corrected in a manner pleasing to them, people would continue to fly nanos because they will continue to provide a significant advantage.


Reduce jump bridge availability and radically reduce the number of cyno jammers in space and conventional gangs will become popular again because both sides will have the risk of hotdrops from cyno's sure, but good scouting will once again be able to detect the advance of hostile fleets. We are simply going to agree to disagree on the reason for nano-ship popularity.

One of the biggest blind spots the anti-nano people appear to have is not appreciating that much is sacrificed in the build and gang composition of a nano-fleet, these ships are expensive, limited in dps, fragile and unforgiving on mistakes. I can outfit a fully tech2 battleship (with good insurance payout) for the price of a nano-zealot.

The reason for flying the nano-zealot is not because its a good alternative for dps/sustainability/remote repping or any economic motive, its simply that if the battleship gets bubbled and jump-bridged its dead. The Zealot has the opportunity to disengage and fight elsewhere. But really, give me an environment without jump bridges and cyno jammers and you'd be a fool to ask for 10 nano-zealots rather than 10 remote repping pulse abaddons. thats the proof of the pudding.

Quote:
So, blaming the architecture and claiming that we need a remodel in and of itself will not address the problems that nano ships pose to the playability of the game.


Obviously I disagree. I don't believe you are reaching a sound conclusion. Further, you speak of the "playability" of the game while advocating extreme defense advantage and speaking in favour of a nerf that will further reduce the ability of the attacker to function in enemy space. Maybe the playability you are talking of is nothing to do with actual pvp combat then? If so then at least I can understand your bias.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.08 21:01:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 08/05/2008 21:59:23

Nano's are currently and fundamentally broken in that there is no win condition against these tactics except using the same tactics. It ruins the ability of close range ships to be viable combat ships. It ruins the ability of non-nano ships to partake in pvp, it creates a hegemony of the old and rich, it removes otherwise viable fitting options of for all sub battleship ship classes, and as a "no lose" choice they encourage and promote everyone to follow the same model which is boring, stagnant, and offers no legitimate meta options except bringing more nano-ships. Which is to say it promotes blobbing.

There needs to be both a reduction in speed and a proliferation of more counters. Ive done some work in the area

Anyone telling you different is either disingenuous or stupid. The proliferation of fast ships has nothing to do with jump bridges or cyno jammers and everything to do with people making rational decisions to reduce risk. They were doing this long before cyno jammers and jump bridges existed with the perfect example being nano-phoons/domis, double MWD battleships, WCS, etc, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure those were "just a response to cyno jammers and jump bridges that were going to be introduced 8/12/24 months later". Fixing jammers and bridges, while important will do nothing to stem the tide of nanoships which are a direct result of the change in speed mods from their pre-nov 07 condition allowing larger ships to travel faster, with more hit points and more dps than a tanked version of the smaller ship.

edit: Its gotten so bad that many large and powerful alliance simply do not use frigates of any kind for any purpose. BoB being the good example[as they are good at what they do], don't even bother with frigates[that is, anything on a frigate hull, their support for battleships will be huginns/rapiers/vagaonds/ishtar/etc] for tackling and warp-ins for their battleship fleets.[why bother when you can use a cruiser?]

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.09 00:27:00 - [12]
 

Here's the thing.

When a group hits an enemy in 0.0 these days, due to POS mechanics, they are limited to BS fleets. The defenders not only have the ability to cyno in caps (as they regulate the cyno jammer the system likely has), but the ability to undock support or BS more than you, or jumpbridge in reinforcements, or simply undock caps on you.

In comparison, when you take a roaming gang into an enemy's territory, you don't usually have the luxury of more reinforcements nearby, or a high-speed transport network. That kind of defender advantage encourages the blob, which in turn encourages the use of nano tactics that don't force a side to really commit to a fight, which allows the smaller groups out there a shot at the bigger boys and girls.

Remove nano, and you're going to dissuade combat even more, really. Because, now, you need numbers to do anything, which means when you go into an enemy system, you will need a lot of numbers in heavier ships to counteract the possibility of what the enemy might field.

The result, fewer but larger fights, the exact opposite of what CCP has been trying to develop as of late.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 01:29:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Sakura Nihil



No, this is stupid. People blob because blobbing is safe. They will always blob. And anything you do in the game will not get people to stop. People will always bring as many forces as are willing to come. Do you think someone will say "Oh look, lets go have a fight, but you 5 can't come"?

No, they aren't. They are going to bring as many as they can each time they go out. People always do because its natural to reduce risk. And bringing more people reduces risk.

Nano's do not counter the blob. Nothing counters the blob and nothing can reasonably counter the blob without stopping combat all together. When i speak of a counter i am meaning "killing it" because if you do not kill it, then you have tied, or you have died. (well, sometimes)

If you think that they do, and that people aren't simply choosing this option because its strong then you are foolish. How does BoB defend its space? With roaming HAC gangs. Why? Because if they encounter something they can't fight they just run away. I.E. you win, or you tie. Everything else can win, tie, or lose. Unless they are fighting a nano gang. In which case its tie, or lose.

Clearly everyone chooses the option where they can't be killed by an opponent by virtue of what that opponent brings only by virtue of how large they are. And this especially causes blobbing. Because when someone brings an RR gang you, you can bring a sniper gang out with lots of ewar[and a few smartbombing ships]. And if someone brings a sniping gang out with lots of ewar you can bring fast gank or fit ECCM. And if someone brings a fast gank you can bring an RR.

But when someone brings a nano-gang its bring a nano gang or don't bother. Note the "or don't bother". This is what is making fights happen less. Because people can just leave if things go bad.

And this doesn't even get into the problems it creates with blasters[which are balanced around having enough hit points to close the distance between two ships, the nano'ing of which means that it either never happens or they lose too many hit points in closing to win, pretty much ever], missiles [tracking independent means they can kill what they want without slowing down], drones[see above], or the problems with heavier ships being faster than smaller ones.

A good example of the above is battlecruisers. It is impossible to build a tech 1 cruiser without speed mods that is not beaten in every way except signature radius by a battlecruiser with speed mods on it. It is impossible to build a frigate without speed mods better than a cruiser with speed mods. Its impossible to build an interceptor without speed mods better than a HAC with speed mods. These ships need meta-fitting options for their low slots as much as any other ship needs meta-fitting options to remain interesting and relevant. Should we just throw-away DPS inties as irrelevant? Should we just throw away ships smaller than cruisers and demand players play for 6-8 months before they even matter in a gang?

I say no.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.09 02:13:00 - [14]
 

The speed craze has come and gone before; back in the day it was possible to fit multiple ABs/MWDs, every man and his alt did so, and finally CCP nerfed it into oblivion.

This time around it's a combination of several smaller factors all introduced into the game separately, all adding up over time: we have Advanced Skirmish Warfare and Mindlinks, T2 overdrives and nanofibers, speed and mass reduction hardwiring implants, deadspace and officer microwarpdrives, and speed and mass reduction rigs.

Assuming history continues to repeat itself, it's not just a matter of if CCP swings the nerfbat again, but when.

/Ben

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 08:57:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Ben Derindar

This time around it's a combination of several smaller factors all introduced into the game separately, all adding up over time: we have Advanced Skirmish Warfare and Mindlinks, T2 overdrives and nanofibers, speed and mass reduction hardwiring implants, deadspace and officer microwarpdrives, and speed and mass reduction rigs.



Actually the factors that we are dealing with were nearly all introduced at the same time. When Rev 1 was released we saw rigs make an introduction and we saw a change to i-stabs.

We had overdrives as a moderate +% speed with an agility penalty. Nanofibers as +x speed, and istabs with -% mass and +% Agility[newly changed], and then +mwd/AB speed rigs.

This was Nov 06, and battleships were going as fast as frigates due to istabs and +mwd/AB speed rigs making speed more a factor of the number of low slots you had.

4-5 months later MWD/AB speed rigs were nerfed and overdrives/Nanofibers/istabs got a unified change to where they are today. This has created two overlapping bonuses on speed which were never there before. Compared to the Rev 1 changes these new changes made smaller ships faster than they made larger ships and didn't make ships as agile in total.

But they still make ships too fast. When you have class differentiation in speed being broken by speed modules you know something is wrong. Just as it would be detrimental to balance if you could break class barriers in DPS and Tank with tanking modules and DPS modules it is detrimental to balance when you can break class barriers in speed. With the speed barrier broken we need to either fix it, or to change damage bonus modules and tank modules such that fitting them to a frigate will produce DPS and tank greater than a speed fit cruiser. That is to say a taranis would need to be able to do some 650 DPS when fit for damage.

Clearly that is foolish and not a way we want to go[unless you would like to see gank-a-geddons return].

Probably the best solution at the moment is to change overdrives to +% speed, nanofibers to +%agility, and inertial Stabalizers to -% signature radius. Now you don't have overlapping bonuses[two unpenalized +speed bonuses in overdrives and nanofibers, and two unpenalized +agility bonuses in nanofibers and istabs].

Rigs of course would need a corresponding change.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.09 10:08:00 - [16]
 

I agree with Goumindong on this one.

The fact is that people use nanos because it allows people to kill stuff with minimal risk to themselves.

Those who argue that 'nanos' are merely a consequence of sov warfare are not being realistic or are deliberately trying to mislead for their own reasons.

People will use nanos (as they stand) even if jumpbridges were removed tomorrow.

The fact is that 'enlightened' organisations such as Omniscient Order were using speed tanking tactics long before they were adopted by the general EVE playerbase because they reduce they reduce the risk so significantly for one side.

Indeed the phenomena of 'hot dropping' capitals onto roaming gangs probably had more to do with encouraging people to nano than anything specifically related to sov warfare. And as Goum points out probably the main impetus to nano came about with the introduction of rigs and changes to modules such as I-stabs which meant that people simply COULD.

Yes sov warfare probably has played a small part but removing jumpbridges will not do anything to reduce nano usage - not unless we decide to ban hot dropping, DD's and blobs too! So why nerf a marginally relevant element of the game when more direct changes will be much more effective?

Now don't get me wrong - I am not anti-nano - they are a perfectly acceptable answer to the 'blob' and certainly people should have the option for 'guerilla style' roaming and hit and run, but those arguing that changing sov mechanics will make a major dent in nano usage are sadly deluded.

As Goumindong stated people will blob. That is human nature and has been evident in EVE from Day 1. Indeed nanos actually contribute to this as they have lead to an increased need for anti-nano blobs as 'defenders' either have to nano themselves or bring multiple ships (HICS/Dictors supported by Rapiers/Huggins/Fast Inties) to catch the nanos.

I have a lot of experience in Providence catching nano-ships. If you want to catch them coming through a gate you need a number of dedicated ships (and an element of luck) to catch even one or two (if they know what they are doing) and by the time you have caught one or two the rest of the gang is already at range and running and they will not engage and have a fight if they know the defenders have the ships to actually fight back.

As Goum points out anyone thinking of engaging a nano gang has a choice a) choose not to engage or b) get the right ships and engage (knowing that at best you might catch a couple of the gang).

We have had a number of fights with eXceed nano-gangs recently in Northern Provi. These guys know what they are doing with their nanos.

In one recent fight in 9UY we chose to engage as we had the right ships ready and our view is even catching a couple is better than nothing (and it is Holy Amarrian Providence after all). We engaged, caught a few, and the eXceed gang moved out of our space. However when we look at their killboard an hour later we see that they have completely devastated a larger gang of our neighbours with virtually no losses of their own. Will that neighbour even bother to engage next time? After all the nano gang doesn't really pose a strategic risk (apart from irritating ratters and travellers).

From my perspective the neighbour should learn their lesson, wise up, get the right ships in place and train the relevant anti-nano skills - but realistically that is a lot of effort to go to prepare for the (random) incursion of a nano gang which will simply run away when confronted by a PvP force capable of actually tieing them down and inflicting casualties.

Saying all that I do NOT believe that speed tanking needs major changes or nerfing. Speed tanking/nanos do have a place in the game because there does need to be viable ingame options for people to harass space holders with the option to extract themselves from sticky situations.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.09 10:09:00 - [17]
 

However, I do feel that small tweaks can be made which gives specifically prepared 'anti-nano' forces (not blobs) more ability to force engagements and cause pain to the nanoers!

Clearly as it stands the 'nano' issue is percieved by many to be majorly imbalanced. However I would rather see dedicated 'anti-nanoers' given a boost (encouraging more people to dedicate themselves to that field) than nanoers given a nerf.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 10:30:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Hardin

From my perspective the neighbour should learn their lesson, wise up, get the right ships in place and train the relevant anti-nano skills - but realistically that is a lot of effort to go to prepare for the (random) incursion of a nano gang which will simply run away when confronted by a PvP force capable of actually tieing them down and inflicting casualties.


As someone fully specialized in skirmish warfare mindlinks the counters to nano-gangs are not nearly prevalent enough. I had 25m SP before i got tech 2 large guns[Amarr specced], which means i fly ships with high range and long range webs[or bonuses to speed] pretty much exclusively and its still not a realistic counter, because i cannot be around all the time. And hedging a counter on a single person or few people who have trained the anti-nano ships is just not productive.

You should not need Huginns and Rapiers to begin to compete and the requirement to have them is very damaging to the game.

I suppose the best way to describe it would be a tech 1 cruiser litmus test. Ask the question. "How many tech 1 or tech 2 fit tech 1 cruisers would it take to kill the above ship if it engaged instead of running immediately?"

For battleships and battlecruisers the number is low. A thorax with ECM drones, rupture with damage drones, both with big plates, an arbitrator tracking disrupting, a celestis lock time damening, and a blackbird jamming can expect to kill pretty must any Battleship in the game if it chooses to engage.

A tech 2 speed fit HAC? Nothing, you would need enough cruisers that you could alpha the ship because otherwise its going to simply burn out of range. In the current nano enviornment there are now four useful cruisers[I said in my recent interview, 3, but i left one out]. The Blackbird and Arbitrator[defensive via TD's/Jamming], the stabbler[disposable fast web that won't explode immediately if looked at by a single nano-hac like inties will], and the Omen[the only cruiser able to project DPS out to ranges likely to hit a nano-cruiser, and only with tech 2 guns].

That isn't to say speed is bad, but people need to be realistic about the advantages that mobility bring. Fast ships are and ought to be "the blob". They win by overwhelming their opponents. The question is "why can they overwhelm their opponents and why it it reasonable?". And the answer is "because speed allows players to bring more forces to the fight faster, where heavy gangs cannot"[A pretty standard tactic is to fan your fast gang out into many systems/gates and then when someone gets a point the gang scrambles there, and this doesn't work with heavy gangs since it takes longer to get there and since you can't expect to hold the point as long/well]

Originally by: Hardin
However, I do feel that small tweaks can be made which gives specifically prepared 'anti-nano' forces (not blobs) more ability to force engagements and cause pain to the nanoers!

Clearly as it stands the 'nano' issue is percieved by many to be majorly imbalanced. However I would rather see dedicated 'anti-nanoers' given a boost (encouraging more people to dedicate themselves to that field) than nanoers given a nerf.


You do not counter neutralizers with guardians/basilisks where if your opponent fits neutralizers you must have multiple guardians/basilisks in your gang in order to have a chance to kill them just as you do not counter nano-fit HAC/Recon gangs with specific ships where you can't kill the targets without them. At least, you don't if you want the game to be balanced with advantages and disadvantages to bringing different sizes of ships.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:13:00 - [19]
 

Well Letouk Mernel

I think you can see this particular topic: “nano-nerf?” is quite a polarising one. I see it as a continuation of the small gang warfare vs territorial advantage debating raging around POS/Sovereignty actually, it’s generally the same people on either side and tends to divide between those who want a significant role for small unit warfare and those who believe that conquerable 0.0 should be made more difficult to attack.

I’m obviously not expecting to pick up many votes from people who believe that ownership of a POS and watching sovereignty develop for 30 days is a good alternative to actually fighting with spaceships for their space claims (and that said ownership should provide “buffs” to their pvp skill as a fair defensive bonus as payoff for ice hauling tedium etc).

By the same measure the people here talking about the need for conquerable space to be even more difficult to raid and attack aren’t going to be collecting many votes from people who feel Eve 0.0 currently lacks combat opportunity and role for small/medium sized fleet activities.

So leaving aside some of the wilder EFT theory-crafting of territorially-biased respondents to the issue above, the reality is that Nano-gangs have their uses, they have their counters and they represent a focused reaction to current defence advantage in conquerable 0.0. Eve ship customization is a rich and varied arena and tends always to advantage those with the imagination and vision to properly utilize it.

I’m flown nano-ships, I’ve killed nano-ships. These things have uses and they have weaknesses and they are very simple to confront if you put a little thought into the engagement.

What I’ve personally witnessed in 0.0 is a lot of frustration from space-holding pilots that what they can’t do – is kill “nano-ships” from the docking range of stations without putting themselves at appreciable risk to achieve the kill. Well, I’ve got to say “you don’t get everything you want”.

Look at it from the other end of the argument. How exactly do you kill a docking range triple-trimarked Abaddon playing dock/undock games at a station with a huge redock radius?

Answer is unless you have a vast fleet with near instant alpha you don’t. But that’s eve, sometimes there are targets that you cannot kill without changing your tactic, with baiting, with vigilance and sometimes simply going away and trying again in the future when your target is less prepared.

End of the day “nano” is a tactic not the be all and end all of Eve combat. Outside conquerable sovereignty 0.0 space combat dynamism is alive and well and still a whole lot of fun:

Yesterday evening for example my corporation took part in a surgical strike against a pair of Motherships at a hostile third party POS in Alparena System with about 10mins notice and the most ad-hoc rush to combat you possible imagine.

Excellent fun, no cyno-jammers, no jump-bridges, no instant teleporting in defensive uber blob to dissuade engagement and you can bet we didn’t specify “nano-ships” as our gang composition to support our allies on this occasion.

Brutal Eve combat as we fought to keep points on an Aeon and Nyx class Mothership pair while both sides were being at shot at by POS guns and swarms of fighters were confronting the incoming tide of allied forces. It was great!

To listen to some “anti-nano” people you’d think nobody else in the whole of eve ever fights without nano-ships but since these are the voices of people who generally never themselves fight beyond the range of their friendly POS architecture/jump bridges/cyno-jammers you can see why their perception is both flawed and incomplete.

End of the day yep, it’s a polarizing issue and voters will vote on what they want to see for the game. Increased Dynamism and Combat Opportunity or (even more) Buffed defence bonus for territorial powers.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:47:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

I think you can see this particular topic: “nano-nerf?” is quite a polarising one. I see it as a continuation of the small gang warfare vs territorial advantage debating raging around POS/Sovereignty actually, it’s generally the same people on either side and tends to divide between those who want a significant role for small unit warfare and those who believe that conquerable 0.0 should be made more difficult to attack.



This is a flat out lie. No one, not a single freaking person here on the "other side" supports making conquerable space more difficult to attack. And each and everyone on wants a significant role for small unit warfare. I do, Hardin does, Bane does, Darius does. ****, i cant see any major candidate who thinks its too easy to attack space.

Is this the sort of discourse we can expect from you? Lying about other candidates? I admit, i should be used to it since its par for the course from you. But I'm still disgusted.

Quote:

So leaving aside some of the wilder EFT theory-crafting of territorially-biased respondents to the issue above, the reality is that Nano-gangs have their uses, they have their counters and they represent a focused reaction to current defence advantage in conquerable 0.0. Eve ship customization is a rich and varied arena and tends always to advantage those with the imagination and vision to properly utilize it.


No they do not, and have never. Nano-ships have existed in many forms and been overpowered in many forms before the concept of sovereignty even existed, they will continue to exist in many forms as long as you can reduce your own risk significantly against enemies of any type by giving yourself the ability to disengage at will against all opponents who are not taking advantage of the fast tweak of the moment.

You cannot react to something that does not exist, and nano-ships being popular in many forms before the thing that you claim they are a reaction to means that its impossible for your assertion to be correct.

Furthermore there is no "EFT-warrioring" going on. Nano-ships are stupidly powerful in all situations. If anything, "EFT-warrioring" would discount the strength of nano ships because it would not be able to quantify the advantages involved in running away and the advantages involved with being able to bring more ships to the fight faster.

This is exemplified by looking at how the large and powerful alliances defend their space, guess what, they defend it with blobs of nano-ships. Why? Because they can bring more forces to the fight faster and if things go bad they get to bail out with no or minimal losses, they aren't stupid. The ones who aren't doing this simply do not have the resources and are so pushed out of the game because they are not a old boy 0.0 powerhouse.

If that is what you call small gang dynamism i don't want any of it.

Quote:

Look at it from the other end of the argument. How exactly do you kill a docking range triple-trimarked Abaddon playing dock/undock games at a station with a huge redock radius?


Bump it, bait it, kill it. Maybe its a problem that huge re-dock radius's are bad for the game and should be changed? Maybe its that freaking everyone has problems with these? Its not that nano-ships are the only problem in eve, its that they are the most prevalent and most important to deal with.

Quote:

To listen to some “anti-nano” people you’d think nobody else in the whole of eve ever fights without nano-ships but since these are the voices of people who generally never themselves fight beyond the range of their friendly POS architecture/jump bridges/cyno-jammers you can see why their perception is both flawed and incomplete.


No, but we see a situation when they should never fight without nano-ships. And we can see the stagnation it creates in 0.0 combat.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:51:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/05/2008 15:55:22

Originally by: cimmaron

Having established soverinty in space is MEANT to make defending easier, use of JB and defense gangs is WHY people conquer 0.0 space to begin with.

Originally by: cimmaron
They need to nerf the ability of players to come into controlled space and outrun everyone and their uncle that isnt in a nano ship.

Originally by: cimmaron
Entering someone elses territory should be dangerous and should more often than not lead to your untimely awakening in an empire clone vat


As I said, its a polarizing debate and does show the bias of Both sides in a way that will allow the electorate to make an informed decision on which way to cast their vote.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:07:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Cimmaron

As I said, its a polarizing debate and does show the bias of Both sides in a way that will allow the electorate to make an informed decision on which way to cast their vote.



Cimmaron is neither a candidate or nearly the entire "other side of this debate" let alone anywhere close to half of it. And if we take a poll in this thread its 1 person to 4 who think what you claim. And ****, if you were paying attention to the debate you would know that the major players in it are all players in large alliances with little to nothing to do with making space easier or harder to defend.

There is no bias here on "our" side. Unless you count the bias of wanting to make the game as fun for everyone as possible and not supporting ****ty mechanics. Not sure about the bias on your side. But you are the one claiming we have some "territorialist agenda" that you are going to fight against. Yea, the same fight that you uphold in the game. Strange that.


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:11:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Sakura Nihil
Here's the thing.

When a group hits an enemy in 0.0 these days, due to POS mechanics, they are limited to BS fleets. The defenders not only have the ability to cyno in caps (as they regulate the cyno jammer the system likely has), but the ability to undock support or BS more than you, or jumpbridge in reinforcements, or simply undock caps on you.

In comparison, when you take a roaming gang into an enemy's territory, you don't usually have the luxury of more reinforcements nearby, or a high-speed transport network. That kind of defender advantage encourages the blob, which in turn encourages the use of nano tactics that don't force a side to really commit to a fight, which allows the smaller groups out there a shot at the bigger boys and girls.

Remove nano, and you're going to dissuade combat even more, really. Because, now, you need numbers to do anything, which means when you go into an enemy system, you will need a lot of numbers in heavier ships to counteract the possibility of what the enemy might field.

The result, fewer but larger fights, the exact opposite of what CCP has been trying to develop as of late.


Have to agree with Sakura here, its sound analysis and very much the issue.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:23:00 - [24]
 

Isnt the issue not that blobing is 'bad' per se, or that nano-fleets are 'bad' but that EVE has entered a period where these two extremes of warfare are used exclusively?

Shouldnt we be looking at other fleet types? Covert recon gangs? Assault Frigate gangs? EAS swarms? - why not improve these rather than hamstring blobs and nanos?

C.




Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:24:00 - [25]
 

The issue of nanos has virtually nothing to do with the "small gang warfare vs territorial advantage debate raging around POS/Sovereignty" - no matter how much some people wish to paint it that way to further their own 'anti-territorialist' ambitions.

The simple fact is that nanos allow people to kill things and run away - with minimal risk to themselves. That is why they are popular and that is why people whinge about them. It is human nature both to like them and loathe them.

However, trying to convince people that nerfing 'territorial advantage' will somehow result in nanos becoming balanced is about as ridculous as me claiming that global warming can be avoided if every resident of Luxembourg gives up smoking.

I really don't see how nanos as they stand add to 'Dynamicism' in space combat when space 'combat' is the one thing that nano-ships are designed to avoid.

The impression being given is that 'good fights' simply can't exist within the confines of a 'territorialist' system yet that is quite simply not the case and there are plenty of examples to demonstrate that point.

Here is one: I was involved in an epic battle with TCF a few weeks ago. They came to CVA space in Battleship/HAC fleet and we had a great slugfest on a gate. We lost stuff - they lost stuff. Yet this was in 'territorialist' space. How could such a thing happen? It happened because TCF came looking for a fight and weren't caring about their killboard efficiency and CVA didn't drop a fleet of Titans, Motherships and Carriers on their head... and we have had similar 'good fights' with BoB, -A- and many of the others who visit Providence in force.

In my view it is the psychology of players and the natural human instinct to minimise risk whilst maximinsing reward - eptimosed by the 'Killboard Efiiciency' culture - that has led to the preponderance on 'nano-ships' - simply because they appear to be the - 'i-win' button currently.

Anyway, as I have said above I am not a believer in 'nerfing' nanos - nor do I spend my time *****ing about them - they are a fact of EVE life - and add to the variety of this game.

All I have said is that it might actually be more interesting (and dynamic) if there were more realistic options available to those who wish to specialise as 'anti-nanoers'. Who knows that might even result in more PvP!


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:32:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 09/05/2008 16:42:07
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Sakura Nihil
Here's the thing.



Have to agree with Sakura here, its sound analysis and very much the issue.



It can't be a sound analysis when its logically impossible. Nano ships cannot be a response to limited increased mobility while in space owned by your own alliance[Jammers take time to take down and put back up and when down means you can easily bring in your own caps and if you can't then you would have been beyond your capitals range anyway so there can be no real complaint since the jammer actually makes it harder for them to get caps in when you couldn't bring yours anyway, bridges are fixed and if you are paying attention known highways] when they were devised and implemented in practice well before those changes were made.

In late 2006 were you just practicing for when jump bridges and jammers were going to go up in Summer 2007 by flying Nano-Phoons and Domis? Were you just practicing in February for Summer 2007 when you were flying Nano-HAC gangs? Did you telepathically know that these things were going to be implemented and plan ahead?

Did anyone? No, they have always been flown because the ability to not fight at your whim unless your opponent brings the same thing as you is fundamentally overpowered. It was overpowered with double mwds, it was overpowered with oversized afterburners, it was overpowered with WCS[when nothing could fight them], and it was overpowered with titans and motherships[when also, nothing could fight them].

The assertion that this is the reason for these developments is absurd. The assertion that changing the mechanics of POS defense to make it easier to attack is going to have any negative effect on nano-ship use[when its more likely to make them more viable for attacking economic and strategic POS modules] is absurd.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:42:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Isnt the issue not that blobing is 'bad' per se, or that nano-fleets are 'bad' but that EVE has entered a period where these two extremes of warfare are used exclusively?

Shouldnt we be looking at other fleet types? Covert recon gangs? Assault Frigate gangs? EAS swarms? - why not improve these rather than hamstring blobs and nanos?

C.



Because nanos currently represent a fundamental problem in the game where they are able to break the class distinctions. Build me an Omen without low/rig slot speed mods and i will build you a harbinger that does what the Omen does, except it will be better in every single way. Why? Because speed mods make the harb as agile or more, faster or more, while still having more hit points and dps. The extra slots make up the rest of the difference.

A t2 interceptor at max skills with 0 speed mods except an MWD will go about 4300m/s for the fastest of the bunch[I used a sader]. A Vagabond with 2 overdrives, and 1 nanofiber in a t2 fit will go 4700m/s. It will do 376 DPS before drones with barrage to a falloff of nearly 26kmbefore drones. The inty will do maybe 200 DPS to 10km[3 HS, 4x MP II + scorch Crusader which doesn't actually fit on CPU or PG]. The sader will have 2,400 EHP. The Vagabond will have 25,000 EHP. So the Vagabond is faster, does twice the DPS at twice the range and has 10 times the hit points when the sader is not using low slot speed mods.

Clearly something is wrong there. If the Vagabond is getting as fast as the sader it needs to be making large DPS or tank sacrifices so that the only differences don't become tracking[irrelevant when you can just keep at range on a smaller ship], and signature radius which are way unable to make up for all the rest. That or it should just not be possible(except in a few cases like destroyers/battlecruisers being outrun by cruisers/battleships since those are specialty ships with specialty roles)

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 17:26:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/05/2008 17:28:12

Originally by: Cailais
Isnt the issue not that blobing is 'bad' per se, or that nano-fleets are 'bad' but that EVE has entered a period where these two extremes of warfare are used exclusively?


Well, I think its fair to say that full scale "blobbing" IS bad, but generally thats because it breaks the game. The Servers cannot handle full on alliance-scale dog-pile fights at reinforcement battles. So thats a slightly different issue and we need to be advocating distributed sub-targets and breaking down the business of territorial warfare into smaller engagements to improve the game in those respects.

But I do see your point in the matter of ad hoc Blob (ie hotdropped 100 battleships on any incursion) vs fast roving nano gang, that is a contest of ideological opposites and its what happens when neither side is willing to play to the middle ground or fight a pitched battle. The defenders figure "its our territory why shouldn't we have all the advantages" the attackers know the defenders are thinking that way so choose to bring a force that allows them to have fun, pvp, score some kills and disengage when things turn sour. So yes, in conquerable 0.0 space this is the phase we've entered.

Quote:
Shouldnt we be looking at other fleet types? Covert recon gangs? Assault Frigate gangs? EAS swarms? - why not improve these rather than hamstring blobs and nanos?


Well it can be done but you have the problem being - essentially, what are these gangs hoping to achieve? Reality in conquerable 0.0 is that the defenders are either lone ratters, POS'ed up behind shields, or prepping a bait and drop via jump bridge with heavy ships. Sure, recon gang can kill ratters. Fast frigates and recons can break some gate camps and score some kills. But the moment the jump-bridge blob is formed you have an issue and that issue is you can't afford to fight it with similar ships (because you become capital ship bait) you must be able to disengage. Hence we're back to Nano.

The problem is twofold really: its about the overwhelming defense advantage at the moment (bridges and jammers and all that jazz) + the lack of intermediate objectives to be hit to cause measurable harm to the sitting territorial power.

For Example: somebody suggested the following idea in a public channel the other day:

How about moon mining arrays didn't just magically teleport the moon minerals into the silos but each moon mining array produced some npc haulers that appeared in orbit around the moon and had to slowboat 500 kilometeres or so (or at least outside pos gun range) back towards the silo to deposite their load. Maybe a hauler spawns each 30mins or so and carries incremental loads from the days take. Point is to provide a target for light raiding ships that the defender would have to fight against if they wanted uninterrupted moon mineral income.

You could actually impact the wealth of a sitting territorial power by selectively targeting and harnessing rare moon income and force fights beyond POS gun range. More combat opportunity and breaks the polarity of current conquerable space where:

A) you're there to kill the POS with tanked battleships + logstics + overwhelming numbers for the reinforcement battle.

or

B) there is absolutely nothing you can do to defenders infrastructure aside from shoot a few ships and since thats all that can be achieved why take risks of getting tied into a bad engagement and getting jump bridge-blobbed?

In any case, yes, it definitely a problem with the game at the moment and will certainly become a focus for CSM discussion IF we get the right selection of candidates on the council. Fingers crossed the voters choose to trust their votes to people with the ability to see the big picture on general combat dynamism and conflict opportunity and not get bogged down in EFT discussions on speculative theory-craft minutiae with no bearing on the live server.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 17:43:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
that is a contest of ideological opposites and its what happens when neither side is willing to play to the middle ground or fight a pitched battle.


No, its not. Now quit saying it is. If you want to make an argument as to why it is, then go right ahead, but all the people you are arguing against are taking the exact opposite stance with regards to what you claim they are.

Quote:

But the moment the jump-bridge blob is formed you have an issue and that issue is you can't afford to fight it with similar ships (because you become capital ship bait) you must be able to disengage. Hence we're back to Nano.


Are you going to keep your hands on your ears screaming "la la la la la, i can't hear you", or are you going to respond to the issue that these tactics have been in use long before the mechanics came into play that you claim cause them?

I want to know this because I really want to know how we can have a reasonable discussion with you if you cannot acknowledge such a clear logical point. This isn't esoteric, this isn't economics, this isn't a tangential application of game theory, there is no complicated math. Its just pure and simple that you cannot respond to something that has not happened yet.

Quote:

For Example: somebody suggested the following idea in a public channel the other day:


Are you sure it wasn't me, in my manifesto, suggesting the same thing multiple times across many different threads?[though not at moons, granted]

Quote:
More pos stuff


So you're saying if we make small fast ships more able to do damage to alliances then small fast ships will get used less. Are you insane?

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.09 17:43:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Because nanos currently represent a fundamental problem in the game where they are able to break the class distinctions. Build me an Omen without low/rig slot speed mods and i will build you a harbinger that does what the Omen does, except it will be better in every single way. Why? Because speed mods make the harb as agile or more, faster or more, while still having more hit points and dps. The extra slots make up the rest of the difference.

Or maybe because you're comparing a cruiser to the tier 2 battlecruiser?

Originally by: Goumindong
A t2 interceptor at max skills with 0 speed mods except an MWD will go about 4300m/s for the fastest of the bunch[I used a sader]. A Vagabond with 2 overdrives, and 1 nanofiber in a t2 fit will go 4700m/s. It will do 376 DPS before drones with barrage to a falloff of nearly 26kmbefore drones. The inty will do maybe 200 DPS to 10km[3 HS, 4x MP II + scorch Crusader which doesn't actually fit on CPU or PG]. The sader will have 2,400 EHP. The Vagabond will have 25,000 EHP. So the Vagabond is faster, does twice the DPS at twice the range and has 10 times the hit points when the sader is not using low slot speed mods.

This kind of analysis makes me shudder.

The Vagabond is not faster than the Crusader, with the same speed mods and T2 MWD on, the Crusader does about 6.9km/s (that's about 50% faster). An inty fit for speed and anti-tackle, as the one referenced above is, would be doing a bit over 100 with pulses and scorch loaded; finally, EHP isn't the critical factor here, as anyone who flies an inty knows, if you're hit, you're dead. The emphasis for almost all inties is to avoid direct fire in missiles, not try to absorb them - the Vagabond, on the other hand, is able to generate a decent buffer with 2 LSE II, but it will need it as you'll need to take some fire to do your damage.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only