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

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 17:50:00 - [31]
 

I am getting exasperated with Jade, so lets get to someone more reasonable

Originally by: Hardin

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!



Why should a single ship or type be a counter to an entire fitting line? Doesn't that seem a little counter-productive. Especially when that ship is also well adjusted in that fitting line?

I mean, we have "counters" for specific ships which are based on modules and so can be put on anything[ECCM, Sensor Boosers, Tracking modules]. But the counter to speed setups, instead of being a module is a ship.

It seems like we have a progression in the game that goes like this

Ship specific option = module specific counter
module specific option = Module wide counter
Module Wide option = All counters.

E.G.

Countering falcons is ECCM.
Countering Neuts is injectors/cap recharges/cap relays/rigs/NOS
Countering tank is guns and missiles and nos/neuts of all sort

Nanos fall in the same category as neuts, but instead of the counter being "webs you can fit on everything" just as the counter to tank modules is all sorts of damage modules the counter to nanos needs to be at the very least, something that more or less every ship has a reasonable ability to fit.

That is not to say that you should be killing them easily, but that it needs to be possible and that disengagement needs to not be so easy as it is now. That you can't simply ignore people by virtue of being a fast cruiser.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 17:56:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Sakura Nihil

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.


I agree Sakura, and its a problem with analysis originating from EFT theory-crafting with near zero in-game play experience of the ships in comparison really - its very easy to construct hypothetical situations in a 3rd party program on your lonesome and try and build a majestic image of how "you think the game works" - but unless you've actually got a bit of experience in how these things actually work in space, in actual conflict conditions, in actual small gang/medium gang/ even in POS work and territorial conflict itself you do run the risk of looking a bit silly when confronted with the actual practical facts in eve pvp warfare.

I've got a lot of respect for the candidates in this CSM election who know their limits and areas of specialty and don't try to pretend "expert" status on every issue under the sun. The council is going to need people who can listen and understand when they've gotten the wrong end of the stick and genuinely need to alter their viewpoint a bit. Biggest potential problem is going to be this kind of dogmatic EFT mindset that states black is white regardless of all evidence to the contrary and I hope discussions (like those in this thread) will help the voters make an informed choice on how to avoid this sort of thing.

It is very useful to have the "nerf-nano" argument revealed for what it is though. Now we just need a few more CSM candidates to register their answer to the op and its all good Very Happy

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 18:00:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 09/05/2008 18:30:40
Originally by: Sakura Nihil

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


Are you saying that a tier 2 battlecruiser should make a better cruiser than a cruiser?. With speed mods the BC is faster, more agile, and locks faster. Its not a freaking BC anymore, its a freaking cruiser with 6 slow slots, 4 meds, and 7 guns.

Quote:
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.


This is the sort of analysis that should make you go "wow, its really messed up that a vagabond with speed mods is better in every way compared to a Crusader with none" because it means to be a viable ship the smaller ships must fit speed mods and there is no other viable way to fit them. It means there is no range of fitting options that have advantages and disadvantages. It means there is one single way to fit and all reasonable variations are simply how fast you want it to go. It means there is no combat dynamism there is a cookie cutter and if you aren't stamped you can just get right out. It would be nice if we could have, at the very least, a few different models of stamps instead of just one.

EHP and DPS are absolutely is the critical factor here. If the Crusader wants to survive it will be doing Zero damage. If it makes a mistake, it explodes. If a nanoship hits keep at range, it explodes. If it gets into web range, it explodes. With a vagabond? Nope, it just drifts out of web range and keeps going.

I like to bring it up, because they are good at what they do, but how many interceptors and interdictors do you see in BoB gangs any more? A: Zero.

Why? A: Because a cruiser fit with speed mods will do any job they do but better and do other jobs as well and it wont explode if its looked at funny.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 18:03:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 09/05/2008 18:06:50
Originally by: Jade Constantine


I agree Sakura, and its a problem with analysis originating from EFT theory-crafting with near zero in-game play experience of the ships in comparison really - its very easy to construct hypothetical situations in a 3rd party program on your lonesome and try and build a majestic image of how "you think the game works" - but unless you've actually got a bit of experience in how these things actually work in space, in actual conflict conditions, in actual small gang/medium gang/ even in POS work and territorial conflict itself you do run the risk of looking a bit silly when confronted with the actual practical facts in eve pvp warfare.




You going to cut the ad-hominem and make a rational argument or are you going to continue your wily ways?

How can anyone expect to deal with you on a council if you simply dismiss their arguments whenever you feel like it with no logical reason?

Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2008.05.09 18:39:00 - [35]
 

There's a fundamentally flawed comparison being used in this discussion, let's remove it.

If you want to compare fittings, don't give one ship dramatically more expensive fittings and then compare it with another ship running dramatically less expensive fittings.

Its easy to have nano-ship discussion fail on exactly this point. Ships configured with 100-150M in rigs are definitely going to perform in a different class than those which are not. Same story for ships benefitting from full sets of pirate implants.

On that note, consider pirate implants as the possible item which really causes nano-ships to be problematic. These items are hugely expensive and truly differentiate the 'haves' from the 'have-nots'. The average mid-rate spaceholding alliance has no capability to fit its pilots with this kind of hardware, yet a raiding group is often a high end group decked out with it on many of their pilots. In such a case, the ability to engage that raiding group is terrible, in my mind, much more because of the enhancement of the pirate implants, than because of the strength of the base nano-configuration.

Be careful you don't start nerfing the wrong thing. More combat options is a very good thing. The ability to have a speed tank is a very good thing. But an overwhelming advantage (for either side) is a bad thing.

1. Reduce the strength of pirate implants, effectively lowering the high end nano ships.

Similarly, Jade is correct that cyno jammers and jump bridges convey too much advantage for too little work. I've spent a lot of time raiding established alliance space and have my own jump bridges and cyno jammers as well. They are _too_ useful.

Jump Bridges are the worst, since they allow people to bypass normal gate to gate travel, which is the focal point for a huge amount of EVE PvP. Don't do that.

2. Jump bridges in Sov4 station systems only. So you can use them to travel from station to station, but not to bypass normal travel.

Be careful where your vehemence takes you. EVE should ideally leave room for many play styles. Do not give lopsided advantage to any of them. And remember that the environment should never stagnate to the point where it is easy for existing power structures to coast on past accomplishments. That leads to a dead game. Make people constantly work to hold onto their gains, and give room for new players through dint of superior effort, tactics, and planning, to defeat those that have grown complacent or sloppy.



Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 18:48:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Mistress Suffering

If you want to compare fittings, don't give one ship dramatically more expensive fittings and then compare it with another ship running dramatically less expensive fittings.

Its easy to have nano-ship discussion fail on exactly this point. Ships configured with 100-150M in rigs are definitely going to perform in a different class than those which are not. Same story for ships benefitting from full sets of pirate implants.




There are no rigs used in the above, at all, period. A vagabond with 2 overdrive IIs and 1 nanofiber II goes 4700m/s with a t2 mwd

That being said.

1. There is a reason that polycarbs are expensive

2. Cost is not a valid reason to make ships overpowered.

jaffer cake
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.09 18:50:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
stuff about comparing turkeys and geese


Dude, do you know what an interceptor is actually FOR right? Seems you are trying to build an argument out of a Crusader not being able to beat up a Vagabond in a straight fight. The Interceptor is a tackler its for getting points on the target. I don't know why you are fitting an Interceptor for dps and complaining it can't go faster than the faster HAC fitted for speed thats just nuts.

Quote:
EHP and DPS are absolutely is the critical factor here. If the Crusader wants to survive it will be doing Zero damage. If it makes a mistake, it explodes. If a nanoship hits keep at range, it explodes. If it gets into web range, it explodes. With a vagabond? Nope, it just drifts out of web range and keeps going.


Why is your pilot trying to have a 1v1 duel with a Vagabond, a ship that costs 10-20x as much easily and expecting to be doing anything else other than keeping a scramble on?

Quote:
I like to bring it up, because they are good at what they do, but how many interceptors and interdictors do you see in BoB gangs any more? A: Zero. Why? A: Because a cruiser fit with speed mods will do any job they do but better and do other jobs as well and it wont explode if its looked at funny.


I think thats your problem dude, your trying to balance the game based on what you think BOB do. Have you ever actually done any of this yourself?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 19:11:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: jaffer cake

Dude, do you know what an interceptor is actually FOR right? Seems you are trying to build an argument out of a Crusader not being able to beat up a Vagabond in a straight fight. The Interceptor is a tackler its for getting points on the target. I don't know why you are fitting an Interceptor for dps and complaining it can't go faster than the faster HAC fitted for speed thats just nuts.




Its unreasonable to expect the fastest interceptor in the game a ship class defined as the fastest ships in the game to to faster than the fastest HAC, a ship class not defined as faster than interceptors?

An interceptor is not a ship only used for getting points. They are also combat ships. They come in two flavors. Tackling inties and combat inties. The Sader is a combat inty, not a tackling inty. The Malediction is a tackling inty. The Vagabond tackles as well or better than a Sader and does more DPS with more range and more hit points. Its better in every way when fit for speed. And hell, since the vagabond can actually target over 24km its actually better at tackling than the crusader[longer tackle range via overload and/or gang bonuses].

It is unreasonable to want there to be choices when fitting low slots instead of just od/od/nano/nano? I don't think so. But with the current state there is viable interceptor that doesn't fit low slot speed mods. Might as well fly a cruiser and do the same thing but better.
Quote:

Why is your pilot trying to have a 1v1 duel with a Vagabond, a ship that costs 10-20x as much easily and expecting to be doing anything else other than keeping a scramble on?


I am not. You would notice that i never mentioned a 1v1 duel. I simply am comparing the ships in their efficacy against a common target.

Quote:

I think thats your problem dude, your trying to balance the game based on what you think BOB do. Have you ever actually done any of this yourself?


1. Yes, i have
2. No i am not attempting to balance anything based on what BoB does. I am using BoB as an example of what smart people do
3. I do not think anything regarding what BoB does, i know what BoB does i've been fighting them in various capacities for the past year.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 19:15:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Mistress Suffering
There's a fundamentally flawed comparison being used in this discussion, let's remove it. If you want to compare fittings, don't give one ship dramatically more expensive fittings and then compare it with another ship running dramatically less expensive fittings. Its easy to have nano-ship discussion fail on exactly this point. Ships configured with 100-150M in rigs are definitely going to perform in a different class than those which are not. Same story for ships benefitting from full sets of pirate implants.


Definitely agree.

Quote:
Be careful you don't start nerfing the wrong thing. More combat options is a very good thing. The ability to have a speed tank is a very good thing. But an overwhelming advantage (for either side) is a bad thing.


Yep, very true.

Quote:
1. Reduce the strength of pirate implants, effectively lowering the high end nano ships.


Its contentious for a few certainly, some very unhappy rich players but on balance I do agree. I strongly feel the last alliance tournament benefited from removing pirate implants from the options - and if we're going to be forced to balance an issue based on the extreme upper limit of potential then yep, if its the 10,000+ nano loadouts we're really worried about then adjusting Pirate Implants is the way to go.

Quote:
Similarly, Jade is correct that cyno jammers and jump bridges convey too much advantage for too little work. I've spent a lot of time raiding established alliance space and have my own jump bridges and cyno jammers as well. They are _too_ useful. Jump Bridges are the worst, since they allow people to bypass normal gate to gate travel, which is the focal point for a huge amount of EVE PvP. Don't do that.


Exactly, infrastructure items to avoid combat opportunity and the necessity to escort freight and fuel = terrible gameplay design.

Quote:
2. Jump bridges in Sov4 station systems only. So you can use them to travel from station to station, but not to bypass normal travel.


Makes sense again, allows strategic travel but removes all the ridiculous jump bridge hot drop to any outlining system stuff. Its a fair solution.

Quote:
Be careful where your vehemence takes you. EVE should ideally leave room for many play styles. Do not give lopsided advantage to any of them. And remember that the environment should never stagnate to the point where it is easy for existing power structures to coast on past accomplishments. That leads to a dead game. Make people constantly work to hold onto their gains, and give room for new players through dint of superior effort, tactics, and planning, to defeat those that have grown complacent or sloppy.


Couldn't agree more.


Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.09 19:26:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Pezzle on 09/05/2008 19:27:26
Cost should never be a balance factor.

The fact that you can fit these modules/implants and cause fundamental cracks in game balance is the issue. The flaw lies in the ships or modules (or some part of both). Interceptors should be fastest period. Combat ships should all have a role and allow for some variation. There should absolutely be room in the spectrum to allow for plenty of differences between racial types without compromising game balance.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 19:39:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/05/2008 19:52:52

Originally by: Pezzle
Cost should never be a balance factor.
The fact that you can fit these modules/implants and cause fundamental cracks in game balance is the issue. The flaw lies in the ships or modules (or some part of both). Interceptors should be fastest period. Combat ships should all have a role and allow for some variation. There should absolutely be room in the spectrum to allow for plenty of differences between racial types without compromising game balance.


Thats a bizarre statement. Interceptors are the fastest ... period. Use the same grade of equipment and 'ceptors go fast. Plus + I'm not sure where this whole "ships should be balanced regardless of price" thing comes from actually. Its really not very eve-like at core. We've got a market-driven economy, scarce items get more expensive.

You have to factor cost into balance issues even at the fundamental level: Multiple cheaper ships can destroy their weight in single expensive vessels. Its utterly ridiculous to try to argue that a cruiser should be balanced with a battle cruiser when one ship is 4-5 times the price of the other. The balance is that the battlecruiser can be swamped by multiple smaller ships for a decent economic exchange.

Seriously ... "this all ships should be balanced with each other and have role specialization to differentiate purpose" argument is alien to the Eve environment. Some ships are better than others, these ships cost more. Else why exactly does my CNR outperform a vanilla Raven? Why does my domination scrambler outperform my tech2 scrambler? Money. ISK. = balance.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 19:54:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 09/05/2008 19:55:46
Originally by: Jade Constantine


Thats a bizarre statement. Interceptors are the fastest ... period. Use the same grade of equipment and 'ceptors go fast. Plus + I'm not sure where this whole "ships should be balanced regardless of price" thing comes from actually. Its really not very eve-like at core. We've got a market-driven economy, scarce items get more expensive.



Ask yourself this. If isk were not a factor how would you equip your gang?

If you have all one ship or class coming up then you've got a problem. That is the current situation.

There is a point where money stops being a factor and starts being the factor. That is the problem. Now tactics can't overcome the money.

Furthermore there are plenty of expensive options for tanking that will not make your gang as strong as the nano gang. You could officer fit your tanked gang and it would not be as strong as the nano-gang.

So if isk=balance by your standard we would need to boost all other expensive options until they were as powerful as the nano-ships.

Quote:
Use the same grade of equipment and 'ceptors go fast


No, use the same equipment and ceptors go fast. Use the same grade and it depends on the fitting. If the ceptor is fitting speed mods then it will be faster.

Or are you saying that speed mods are simply a higher grade than other modules just because?

Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.09 19:58:00 - [43]
 

EVE has unlimited ISK to my knowledge. There is no cap that I have been made aware of.

Note I made no claim of same module comparisons. Being able to balance something requires looking at each end of the spectrum. Your domination scrambler outperforms a standard because the statistics are better, not because it is more expensive. To balance it (I suppose) is the limiting factor of scarcity. Money has nothing to do with it. It is important to distinguish the difference here.

Yes, you can spend plenty of money for ships and modules to outperform another ship of the same type in the same class. There is even room for some overlap in roles. The trouble is scenarios where one device so thoroughly erodes another devices purpose. In this case we have the proliferation of nano ships. It is a constant and repeating point. It has significant impact on the game and needs to be reevaluated. My issue is not the ships moving fast, it is with severe performance imbalances.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 20:03:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Pezzle
My issue is not the ships moving fast, it is with severe performance imbalances.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 20:36:00 - [45]
 


Pezzle seriously, what does the fact that Eve has no ISK cap got to do with the price of fish? The Domination scrambler is rarer than the tech2 variant, to get them I’m competing with other players bids on the auction, that determines its price (which will be higher than mass produced tech2 equivalent because of its superior capability and fitting stats) – that balance IS the price. It increases the RISK part of the RISK/REWARD equation on any ship I fit it too – if its blown up then I’ve lost some of my material assets reducing my position in competitive economy of the game to a degree.

With regard to nano-ships “eroding the purpose” of another device, nope, its just not proven by debate and factual reality in-game. The “nano-nerf” argument is carried by folks who are annoyed that they have to change their own loadouts and gang-compositions a bit to score kills against nano-gangs (rather than keeping the same old heavy battleship hot drops dock camping shenanigans that traditionally work on slower raiders). Yes you do need to change up your tactics a bit to counter these things – but the counters are certainly there and the pure risk to the nano-gang is pretty high when you look at it from the economics angle.

My corp can generally put out 30 odd man fleets on a decent musters. I can certainly specify “polycarb nano-ships only tonight chaps!” but if I do that I’m going to be ruling a lot of players out of the muster. 200m on a fragile HAC is a big stake for players at certain levels of their Eve experience – sure the 30 man fast nano gang is a good force, but it’s a vastly expensive and uninsurable force and if things go wrong you can pay a hideous price in fiscal impact.

The fiscally sensible alternative is putting people in 30 RR battleships to be honest, insurable, able to tank damage from an equivalent nano force and you’ve got the option to get lucky on drones, lag spikes, miscalculations on the enemy side etc etc.

(but fiscal sense is trumped by 0.0 architecture - if I take those 30 battleships anywhere with jammers and jump-bridges the chances are none of them are ever coming back because we'll be bubbled and hotdropped on by 2-3x the numer with cap support)

ISK plays a role in game balance there’s no two ways about it. Of course if I had a bankroll of 1000000000000000 billion isk I’d probably put every pilot in SF in a snake clone uber-rigged nano-cerb (don’t ask) but I don’t and consequentially we have to balance our gang-fits and fleet compositions to match the collective wealth of the organization and perception of risk/reward dynamics.

A competent nano-hac costs more than a tier3 Battleship and insures for nothing. That’s the “balance”. Its an expensive niche ship that just happens to be worth the investment at the moment because it’s the only way to remain competitive against the overwhelming defence advantage of conquerable 0.0 architecture. Reduce Jump Bridge role, restrict Cyno-Jammers, open up the conflict environment a bit and you can bet I’d rather be leading 30 Abaddons into hostile space than 30 tin cans with polycarbs and bits of string for internal structure any day of the week!




LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.05.09 20:40:00 - [46]
 

What he is saying is that there should be low-supply items, which makes a difference, as far as I can see.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 20:56:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 09/05/2008 21:05:36
Edited by: Goumindong on 09/05/2008 20:57:19
Originally by: Jade Constantine
...



Its not cost that balances it, its scarcity. Cost is a function of scarcity and demand. An EANM II costs as much or more than a Nanofiber II. But you would be an idiot to fit the EANM over the nanofiber on a HAC in todays environment.

Quote:
With regard to nano-ships “eroding the purpose” of another device, nope, its just not proven by debate and factual reality in-game. The “nano-nerf” argument is carried by folks who are annoyed that they have to change their own loadouts and gang-compositions a bit to score kills against nano-gangs


Do you even play this game? There is ample evidence everywhere. Just troll Tri's, BoBs, RzRs etc killboard, or fly anywhere outside of low-sec gates. And no, its nothing to do with your personal attack on the rest of us that leads people to believe that these things are unbalanced its a logical conclusion based on optimal play and the observation of this proliferation occurring.

Its eroding the value of frigates and cruisers.

Quote:

The fiscally sensible alternative is putting people in 30 RR battleships to be honest, insurable, able to tank damage from an equivalent nano force and you’ve got the option to get lucky on drones, lag spikes, miscalculations on the enemy side etc etc.


You will lose many more RR BS and kill many more ships in a HAC gang than an RR gang. RR gangs which are vulnerable to high DPS, snipers, ewar, and smartbombs.


Nano ships are vulnerable to... other nano ships.

Quote:

(but fiscal sense is trumped by 0.0 architecture - if I take those 30 battleships anywhere with jammers and jump-bridges the chances are none of them are ever coming back because we'll be bubbled and hotdropped on by 2-3x the numer with cap support)



This is false as already explained.


Quote:
A competent nano-hac costs more than a tier3 Battleship and insures for nothing. That’s the “balance”


It was just as stupid when it was used to defend titans.

Tannach
The Littlest Hobos
Posted - 2008.05.09 21:57:00 - [48]
 

I dont really see the problem, a decent BS gang can effectively neuter a nano gang (heavy NOS and high tracking guns are a pretty good counter).

Nano ships introduce the light raiding gangs into eve, that you wouldnt get any other way...allowing smaller forces to raid deep into enemy space. The only thing that nano ships generally catch is people ratting (who arent paying attention) or those travelling.

Next you'll be saying how unfair Cloaking ships are since they can also choose how and where they engage.

Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2008.05.09 21:58:00 - [49]
 

The theory that nano is always the right answer is a mistake though.

I have a hanger full of ships, each customized to be optional for a particular usage. Among that hanger are some nanoships for fast roaming, but also close range RR, anti-capital, sniper, fleet action, small group engagement, and several other specific purpose vessels.

Its simply not a matter of 'grab the nano because its the universal answer'. That's just not the case. If that were true, then yes, I'd agree with the premise that there was some huge imbalance that needs to be nerfed to hell and back. But since there is actually quite a variety of useful configurations for different scenarios, I have the tactically rich environment I think we _should_ be striving for. Sure, there's some room for tweaking, but the discussion here doesn't fill me with confidence that that's where it is headed. Instead I hear what sounds like a lot of failure to identify the tradeoffs involved with various choices and how to nudge those to create a more enjoyable environment.


Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.09 22:07:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Mistress Suffering

Be careful where your vehemence takes you. EVE should ideally leave room for many play styles. Do not give lopsided advantage to any of them. And remember that the environment should never stagnate to the point where it is easy for existing power structures to coast on past accomplishments. That leads to a dead game. Make people constantly work to hold onto their gains, and give room for new players through dint of superior effort, tactics, and planning, to defeat those that have grown complacent or sloppy.



Probably one of the more sensible posts on this thread...


Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.09 22:12:00 - [51]
 

In fact role erosion HAS been proven time and again. It is proven in T2 elitism, it is proven in nano gangs (which often will not have inties or even dictors). Hell, it is proven by cap ships online. Now a certain amount of this is expected and acceptable, the problem is crossing the line.

If anything ISK will demonstrate imbalance. It costs more so it should be better? A Titan or mothership should not be superior because they cost more, cost should not be a balance factor at all. A well fit nano cruiser should be formidable, it should not make lesser ships obsolete by virtue of performing every task better.

Now, I am not going to go berserk about nano, they can be beaten of course. The trend IS a problem however. Speed needs revision. A good start is acknowledging that an inty should be undisputed speed king. Being able to run circles around a responsibly fit interceptor with anything but another interceptor points directly at a performance problem. This holds true if you spend 1 isk or 100 billion.



Destr0math
Tritanium Workers Union
Posted - 2008.05.09 22:51:00 - [52]
 

reinforcing my belief that both hardin and goumindong are idiots, voting for jade whoopie

Breha Organa
Posted - 2008.05.09 22:59:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Breha Organa on 10/05/2008 00:32:19
I've been reading the discussion here with keen interest for several reasons. One is that I admit to having very little personal knowledge about the subject, and having been the victim of nano fleet attacks, I have been curious as to why they are so successful. Another reason for my interest is that some time in the near future my corp is looking to move to 0.0. Either join an alliance or try to claim sovereignty ourselves. Thirdly, as a CSM candidate, I can see us having just this kind of discussion at the table.

One of the things that impresses me about some of the more combat-oriented players is their never-ending quest to find an unexpected use for fleets of small ships. So, given the entire field of options for frigate and cruiser-sized ships, they are always trying to find ways to fit them so that they can out-maneouver, outgun, outnumber, outlast, whatever small fleet of BSes they might encounter.

Every strategy should be able to succeed if the enemy is unprepared for it, and every strategy should have a somewhat "balanced" counter-strategy if the enemy *is* prepared for it. How to define "balance"... well, I think it's awesome that one can outrun an interceptor in a speed-tanked HAC... with the right configuration. Just makes the game more interesting, in my view.

I have no problem with nano fleets if there is a way to "win" against them ... or declaring a stalemate when the coward losing the battle chooses to flee. This has been my experience since starting this game, and very often it takes having your a$$ handed to you by some ****y pilot in a Sacrilege... to wake you up and rethink your idea of "strength" and "what it takes to win".

At this point, I can see what both the Hardin-Goumindong camp is saying, but I also appreciate Jade's point of view as well. Bottom line is that I don't think that interceptors (and stealth bombers, etc) are made "obsolete" by speed-tanked cruisers. I have to study this matter a little bit more before coming to a conclusion.

Reto
The Last Resort
Posted - 2008.05.10 00:49:00 - [54]
 

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.




i fully support your point. the development of capital ships being the most important factor in fleetwarfare is another point which underlines this. imo nanos must stay as they are currently the only way to engage in pvp in 0.0 without a big amount of time, planning and players involved.
nano is a compromise to blobing.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.10 02:42:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 10/05/2008 02:43:25
Originally by: Tannach
I dont really see the problem, a decent BS gang can effectively neuter a nano gang (heavy NOS and high tracking guns are a pretty good counter).

Nano ships introduce the light raiding gangs into eve, that you wouldnt get any other way...allowing smaller forces to raid deep into enemy space. The only thing that nano ships generally catch is people ratting (who arent paying attention) or those travelling.

Next you'll be saying how unfair Cloaking ships are since they can also choose how and where they engage.



It can defend against a nano-gang. But it cannot win and that is a very large problem.

Its like playing rock, paper, scissors if paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, and scissors tie against paper. Your cost/benefit matrix solves to "paper". In that in any repeated game everyone will play paper. That does not make an interesting and dynamic game.

Currently there are no effective counters to nano-gangs. All kills are on the part of the foolishness of the pilots and not the skills of their opponents. A good example would be a few solo kills i had down in Delve against insurgency. An aggressed (single LSE arty rapier)Rapier attempted to bump my harbinger off a station... It didn't go so well for him. And then, a gistii crow, knowing that i was packing a 16km web[because i had webbed him and the sabre he was with before] decided it would be a good idea to **** around under 10km.

Nano-ships are not the only light-raiding gangs in eve. And if nanos were brought back in line they would still be viable combat ships. The difference is that they would not be the no risk combat ships they are today. They would still warp as fast as they do, they would still align nearly as fast as they do, they would still lock as fast as they do. They would still be fantastic light raiding ships. But what they would not do is be able to fight and leave at a moments notice. Be able to engage without risk and leave if things go wrong. That is the fundamental disconnect. When one group says "i get to choose when to fight but if you want to choose when to fight you have to ask me first"

Quote:

Next you'll be saying how unfair Cloaking ships are since they can also choose how and where they engage.


Cloaking has been on the line for a very long time as well. Eve is not a game where you can be perfectly safe in space and the tactics that cloaking ships provide are utterly overpowered. I should know, we at GS used them to utterly crush at least one major alliance before we even began the conventional assault on POS.

There is a great Irony with cloaking mechanics as well, in that the same guys who champion the "omg we need to be able to cloak to raid space" mantra are the same guys who complain that people log-off or cloak when someone enters local.

You should never be safe in space. You should always be vulnerable in some capacity. Cloaks break this golden rule and in doing so they also terribly skew the relationship between hunter and hunted.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.10 02:43:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Mistress Suffering
The theory that nano is always the right answer is a mistake though.

I have a hanger full of ships, each customized to be optional for a particular usage. Among that hanger are some nanoships for fast roaming, but also close range RR, anti-capital, sniper, fleet action, small group engagement, and several other specific purpose vessels.

Its simply not a matter of 'grab the nano because its the universal answer'. That's just not the case. If that were true, then yes, I'd agree with the premise that there was some huge imbalance that needs to be nerfed to hell and back. But since there is actually quite a variety of useful configurations for different scenarios, I have the tactically rich environment I think we _should_ be striving for. Sure, there's some room for tweaking, but the discussion here doesn't fill me with confidence that that's where it is headed. Instead I hear what sounds like a lot of failure to identify the tradeoffs involved with various choices and how to nudge those to create a more enjoyable environment.




It doesn't have to be the universal answer if its there is no counter. Since bringing more ships is always a possible and valid option, on a practical level the utility of the ship extends to as many pilots as you can put in them with the exception of shooting POS. On a theoretical level its utility extends forever. The only reason that people have to fly things other than HACs is because they expect to be fighting an engagement at a POS. In which case they fly battleships, gang bonus ships, and HACs.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.10 05:21:00 - [57]
 

You know, we tried a remote-rep BS gang tonight. And you know what?

Hot-dropped, twice in a row by a force that started out evenly-matched against us, and swelled to 2-3x our size with caps.

And people wonder why smaller corps go nano, and rely on them to be able to compete.

Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.10 05:49:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Pezzle on 10/05/2008 05:57:22
Edited by: Pezzle on 10/05/2008 05:55:33
Edited by: Pezzle on 10/05/2008 05:54:26
Our 8 man max battlecruiser hull gang got dropped on by 3 cap ships. This does not legitimize the imbalance in favor of nano. It points out the need for balance and restructuring (see cap ships online for example).

It also illustrates that people will bring more than they need because they can. That is a separate (though important and certainly far reaching) consideration.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.10 05:55:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 10/05/2008 06:08:17
Originally by: Sakura Nihil
You know, we tried a remote-rep BS gang tonight. And you know what?

Hot-dropped, twice in a row by a force that started out evenly-matched against us, and swelled to 2-3x our size with caps.

And people wonder why smaller corps go nano, and rely on them to be able to compete.


Did you have your own caps on standby? Why not?

If they are 2-3 times your size and have the forces ready and available why do you think you should win, or be able to engage without fear of losing ships?

If someones flies a BS into your nano-gang they don't get to complain that they were blobbed and this was unfair. Why do you get to complain when the tides are turned? Why do smaller forces of large ships not have the same ability to engage and then disengage at will like forces composed of smaller ships? Why doesn't a battleship that gets dropped by a bunch of HACs have the ability to say "wait, nope, we aren't going to fight, excuse me while i leave the field".

No, had you come with a nano-gang you simply would have got dropped by a nano-gang 2-3 times your size with cap support and it would have been the same outcome except not as much stuff would have been destroyed on either side[I also note that you got hot-dropped twice, how in the world did you let this happen]

Blobbing is blobbing, that you came in BS just meant that they could come in BS as well and not be utterly useless.

edit: Which of course just makes my point stronger regarding the risks associated with each activity. Maybe it just reinforces the point that Jade makes when she says its O.K. that their 66 man nano-gang killed two motherships[and it was and is O.K] which is "blobbing is O.K. when we do it to you, but not O.K. when other people do it to us"

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.10 06:47:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 10/05/2008 06:08:17
Originally by: Sakura Nihil
You know, we tried a remote-rep BS gang tonight. And you know what?

Hot-dropped, twice in a row by a force that started out evenly-matched against us, and swelled to 2-3x our size with caps.

And people wonder why smaller corps go nano, and rely on them to be able to compete.

Did you have your own caps on standby? Why not?

If they are 2-3 times your size and have the forces ready and available why do you think you should win, or be able to engage without fear of losing ships?

We don't have caps on standby for the simple reason we don't really have caps. Like a lot of small corps out there that don't play the cap game simply because even if we have caps, we don't have the support fleet to use it with. Not to mention it doesn't make financial sense to support one when most of the places you would use it in, 0.0, are cyno-jammed up the ass.

Should we have to invest billions of ISK into carriers if we want to PvP? Should we have to triple our size just to have a chance at being competitive on the global stage?

To paraphrase you from earlier, "I say no".


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