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 - 2008.05.10 07:11:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Sakura Nihil

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".


No you should not have to have carriers to pvp, but should you expect to not lose an engagement when someone is willing to take those risks and mobilize those forces? If you have 10 tech 1 cruisers and run into a 30 man HAC gang you can't expect to win and you can expect to lose. They have every advantage over you, size of gang and general quality of ships.

Should you expect to play with the big boys without taking the risks involved?

I understand both the wish to be small and the wish to be relevant, but they don't go hand in hand you don't get to be small and relevant unless you are doing something equally small.

As i said earlier, would it have mattered if you go droped by 3x your number in nano-hacs and recons?[no, it would not]

No, when someone says "i want a larger, more skilled, better prepared force willing to take more risks than me to not be able to kill me" that is when they stop wanting to play a multi-player game and start wanting to play a single player game. And when people who want to play single player games start making balancing suggestion I shudder, because that is a thing that will kill the game and i rather enjoy playing it than not.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.10 08:16:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
I understand both the wish to be small and the wish to be relevant, but they don't go hand in hand you don't get to be small and relevant unless you are doing something equally small.

"Relevance" is subjective.

If people are having fun PvPing on their own scale, why should they care whether someone in an alliance of thousands thinks it's relevant or not?

/Ben

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.10 08:32:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Ben Derindar
Originally by: Goumindong
I understand both the wish to be small and the wish to be relevant, but they don't go hand in hand you don't get to be small and relevant unless you are doing something equally small.

"Relevance" is subjective.

If people are having fun PvPing on their own scale, why should they care whether someone in an alliance of thousands thinks it's relevant or not?

/Ben



They shouldn't. They just don't get to claim that they have any right to win said fight or even to not lose, when they are doing the exact same thing to others.

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.05.10 10:58:00 - [64]
 

a. nanos arent broken and dont need changing.

Coco Puff
Posted - 2008.05.14 11:34:00 - [65]
 

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.


I find this statement to be the funniest thing ive seen on the forums in a good minute.

So, you went into hostile territory, and got spanked? oh my god you poor thing.

Heres what I think:

Your smaller corp shouldnt even be ABLE to compete with a large, well formed, well funded alliance/coalition, period.

The problem is this, its entirely TOO easy for nano's to run as it stands now. Their ability to outrun agression is what makes them overpowered.

If you choose to bring 10 ships(of any type) into someone elses territory, and they bring a 30 man fleet to arms against you, you should die, point blank.

I know as it stands right now, I dont even bother to stop what im doing when a nano ship enters my little corner of the world, for one reason, I know he cant kill me in what im flying, I will just laugh at him, turn my tank on and watch him run, and then laugh some more. In a decently tanked, fitted t1 battleship you can take on 3-4 nano's and hold your own, most of the time you can make them run.

The other night I got caught in a nano gang gate camp, dictor and all, I gate jumped back and forth a few times, and then engaged em for the hell of it(yes I got bored), took them 5 mins to bust thru my tank, and their was 18 ppl on the kill mail.

Thats all good and well, they had a nice sized gang, now what would have happened if we had dropped say a 10 man BS gang on them? They would have run for the high hills in a heartbeat. Thats the inherant problem right there.

ShardowRhino
Caldari
Torque Theory
Posted - 2008.05.14 12:41:00 - [66]
 

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,



You do realize that nanoships are not purely 0.0 ,right? Nano in empire, nano in lowsec ,nano everywhere. You can't assume that by changing 0.0 that your going to change nano globally. The question wasn't how do you fix nano in 0.0.

IF eve was RL then the various governments would see that they need an answer to a specific threat. First they would develop their own nanoships. Second they would develop anti nanoship weapons,gear and ammo. They would create multistage missles,design better propulsion systems and proximity fuses. Anti nano guns would basically be Flak with proximity fuses and target tracking+prediction. You don't need the fastest moving turrets around if you can predict where the target is going to be at a certain time and know your rounds are going to affect an area.

I've been hit consistently by a nanoship all while watching my missiles do absolutely nothing. I've also had a hard time nailing him with railguns while being hit constantly by the nanoship. If they are going so fast that i cannot hit them then they should be going so fast they they cannot hit me.

A few possible fixes is to either increase webrange to that of an equal meta level warpscram OR make various versions of webs. Instead of a standard web we could have a long range web that requires much more cpu/grid then a standard but acts as a standard with increased range. Another way is to give it the same requirements but have a longer range but reduced effectiveness. There could be a BS class web, a medium(regular web) and a light web for smaller ships that are similar to nos and neutralizers. At least in the sense that the larger ones get longer range,do more but are resource hogs.

Another way to go is adding scripts to webs. Allowing players to change the way their webs work with a switch of a script might be the easiest way to go.

Either way it would allow for a ship to fit in one way or another to counter nanoships. This wouldnt exactly destroy nanoships since people can choose not to add a revised web to their ship,much like people dont always add a capbooster to counter vampire ships. A change to webs would sidestep the need to create a whole new breed of turrets,ammo and missles.

It brings nanos in line as there is now an effective counter to them. The idea that everyone should have to skill train for a specific ship is insane. It is truely insane since it is a t2 ship. The idea that someone is trading off armor for the right to leave a fight is a joke. It is a joke since those players are virtually untouchable,therefore the idea that they are trading armor for the ability to flee when they please is moot.

That argument is similar to the idea of prenerfed warpstabs. "i gave up my lows so i can flee" apparently didn't fly to well. You could say warpstabbed ships was a playstyle and did not need "fixing" just like nanoships. Either do something to fix nanos or unnerf warpstabs as it was an unjustly nerfed "playstyle".

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.15 04:17:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Coco Puff
Your smaller corp shouldnt even be ABLE to compete with a large, well formed, well funded alliance/coalition, period.

The problem is this, its entirely TOO easy for nano's to run as it stands now. Their ability to outrun agression is what makes them overpowered.

If you choose to bring 10 ships(of any type) into someone elses territory, and they bring a 30 man fleet to arms against you, you should die, point blank.

The kind of EVE you envision makes me shudder. While I agree that a well-organized, well-organized alliance should have an edge over defenders, it should not be so overwhelming that small-gang raids into enemy space should "die, point blank".

Otherwise, you're going to start having serious borders. Which means when people cross it, they're likely going to cross it in force or not all - what does that mean? A local alliance group's space becomes very safe, allowing the carebears to do their thing with much less danger than they face currently, and the average gang size during fights increases dramatically.

The blob is prevalent and dangerous enough as it is already, to increase its lethality is a bad idea for the server stability and the health of PvP in general.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.05.15 05:35:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 15/05/2008 06:00:53
Originally by: Coco Puff
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.


I find this statement to be the funniest thing ive seen on the forums in a good minute.

So, you went into hostile territory, and got spanked? oh my god you poor thing.

Heres what I think:

Your smaller corp shouldnt even be ABLE to compete with a large, well formed, well funded alliance/coalition, period.

The problem is this, its entirely TOO easy for nano's to run as it stands now. Their ability to outrun agression is what makes them overpowered.

If you choose to bring 10 ships(of any type) into someone elses territory, and they bring a 30 man fleet to arms against you, you should die, point blank.

I know as it stands right now, I dont even bother to stop what im doing when a nano ship enters my little corner of the world, for one reason, I know he cant kill me in what im flying, I will just laugh at him, turn my tank on and watch him run, and then laugh some more. In a decently tanked, fitted t1 battleship you can take on 3-4 nano's and hold your own, most of the time you can make them run.

The other night I got caught in a nano gang gate camp, dictor and all, I gate jumped back and forth a few times, and then engaged em for the hell of it(yes I got bored), took them 5 mins to bust thru my tank, and their was 18 ppl on the kill mail.

Thats all good and well, they had a nice sized gang, now what would have happened if we had dropped say a 10 man BS gang on them? They would have run for the high hills in a heartbeat. Thats the inherant problem right there.


What's up Cimmaron? FANG Alliance alt posts hell yeah.

Originally by: Goumindong
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"



Can you tell me exactly what experience you have with nano gangs? Post set-ups for a nano-ishtar, vagabond, nano-zealot, or any other nano ship that you are familiar with. Do you have, or have you had, snake sets before? Do you frequently fly around in small gangs? I know Jade and Hardin are experienced pilots and FCs, but I'm not familar with your qualifications.

cimmaron
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.05.15 10:45:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Dungar Loghoth
Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 15/05/2008 06:00:53
Originally by: Coco Puff
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.


I find this statement to be the funniest thing ive seen on the forums in a good minute.

So, you went into hostile territory, and got spanked? oh my god you poor thing.

Heres what I think:

Your smaller corp shouldnt even be ABLE to compete with a large, well formed, well funded alliance/coalition, period.

The problem is this, its entirely TOO easy for nano's to run as it stands now. Their ability to outrun agression is what makes them overpowered.

If you choose to bring 10 ships(of any type) into someone elses territory, and they bring a 30 man fleet to arms against you, you should die, point blank.

I know as it stands right now, I dont even bother to stop what im doing when a nano ship enters my little corner of the world, for one reason, I know he cant kill me in what im flying, I will just laugh at him, turn my tank on and watch him run, and then laugh some more. In a decently tanked, fitted t1 battleship you can take on 3-4 nano's and hold your own, most of the time you can make them run.

The other night I got caught in a nano gang gate camp, dictor and all, I gate jumped back and forth a few times, and then engaged em for the hell of it(yes I got bored), took them 5 mins to bust thru my tank, and their was 18 ppl on the kill mail.

Thats all good and well, they had a nice sized gang, now what would have happened if we had dropped say a 10 man BS gang on them? They would have run for the high hills in a heartbeat. Thats the inherant problem right there.


What's up Cimmaron? FANG Alliance alt posts hell yeah.

Originally by: Goumindong
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"



Can you tell me exactly what experience you have with nano gangs? Post set-ups for a nano-ishtar, vagabond, nano-zealot, or any other nano ship that you are familiar with. Do you have, or have you had, snake sets before? Do you frequently fly around in small gangs? I know Jade and Hardin are experienced pilots and FCs, but I'm not familar with your qualifications.


Sorry wasnt paying attention to the forums preferance not ever saving to my main.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 11:11:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 11:12:31
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth

Can you tell me exactly what experience you have with nano gangs? Post set-ups for a nano-ishtar, vagabond, nano-zealot, or any other nano ship that you are familiar with. Do you have, or have you had, snake sets before? Do you frequently fly around in small gangs? I know Jade and Hardin are experienced pilots and FCs, but I'm not familar with your qualifications.


I fly fast cruisers/HACs whenever i can[typically omens and Zealots], followed by skirmish gang-mod battlecruisers oftentimes in small gangs. I am familiar with a number of setups for various nano-ships, but me going and posting them here will not provide much benefit to the subject and will take up a whole lot of space.[its not exactly complicated, guns/missiles, mwd, point, as many LSE as you can fit, damage mods, od/nano in the lows depending on how you rig it, at least for the majority HACs, sprinkle in neuts, sensor boosters and ewar to taste depending on the exact ship and enemy gang.]

I do not fly with snake sets, nor do i fly with rogues though i would if i had the money[well, maybe not the rogues for various reasons]

Nor does any of that have to do with the post you quoted.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.15 12:25:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: ShardowRhino

You do realize that nanoships are not purely 0.0 ,right? Nano in empire, nano in lowsec ,nano everywhere. You can't assume that by changing 0.0 that your going to change nano globally. The question wasn't how do you fix nano in 0.0.


1. Non, 0.0 plays by different rules. No jump-bridge reinforcement, no-surprise blobs, low-sec has gate guns and anyone can hot-drop. I'm completely aware of the balance between the different environments - suffice to say I've played with and played against nano in each of them.

Quote:
IF eve was RL ...


2. Going to stop you at "if eve was RL..." reality is that speed-tanking is a technique, there are guns in eve that hit fast moving targets better than others. Admittedly missiles suffer against nano but they have many other advantages besides (And I'm caldari specialized missile maxed Raven/Cerb pilot trust me).

Quote:
I've been hit consistently by a nanoship all while watching my missiles do absolutely nothing. I've also had a hard time nailing him with railguns while being hit constantly by the nanoship. If they are going so fast that i cannot hit them then they should be going so fast they they cannot hit me.


3. Missiles are rubbish against nano-ships. Railguns are rubbish against nano-ships. Sorry Rhino but there it is. On the other hand Pulse lasers and Neutralizers and tracking enhanced mid-range guns can work. You summoned the ghost of RL earlier - are you really arguing that an F16 doing a strafing run against a stationary target shouldn't be able to hit that target if defensive guns in position are incapable of tracking fast enough?

Quote:
A few possible fixes is to either increase webrange to that of an equal meta level warpscram ...


I think we will see many changes to webs in the propulsion inhibition overhaul the devs are working on, but this will have a large impact on game in many ways, it would be wrong to rush these things through as an anti-nano kneejerk when many counters to nanos already exist in balanced conflict environments.

Quote:
It brings nanos in line as there is now an effective counter to them. The idea that everyone should have to skill train for a specific ship is insane. It is truely insane since it is a t2 ship. The idea that someone is trading off armor for the right to leave a fight is a joke. It is a joke since those players are virtually untouchable,therefore the idea that they are trading armor for the ability to flee when they please is moot.


Effective counter? Close range nano is destroyed by Neutralizers and Pulse Lasers (or other rapid tracking weaponry from battleship platforms). Long range nano is destroyed by tracking computers and longer range weaponry from battleship platforms. Battleships are cheaper and less skill intensive than good nano-ships. Try it.

Quote:
That argument is similar to the idea of prenerfed warpstabs. "i gave up my lows so i can flee" apparently didn't fly to well. You could say warpstabbed ships was a playstyle and did not need "fixing" just like nanoships. Either do something to fix nanos or unnerf warpstabs as it was an unjustly nerfed "playstyle".


If you want to deliver victims under your guns who can't win and can never escape then you are barking up the wrong tree really. Nano is counter-able. I'd urge you not to listen to EFT-warriors who have never taken part in actual skirmish fighting or dealing with these problems on the live server. Nano-ships fulfill an expensive niche role of the 0.0 raider in hostile territory. In lowsec and empire these ships have less of a role. It is very easy to place cost-effective counters into the field.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 12:31:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Nano is counter-able.



By other nano ships.

Your "counters" are simply not so. They are defenses. Not counters. Counters allow you to kill the target. Defenses only stop you from dying.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.05.15 14:31:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
I fly fast cruisers/HACs whenever i can[typically omens and Zealots], followed by skirmish gang-mod battlecruisers oftentimes in small gangs. I am familiar with a number of setups for various nano-ships, but me going and posting them here will not provide much benefit to the subject and will take up a whole lot of space.[its not exactly complicated, guns/missiles, mwd, point, as many LSE as you can fit, damage mods, od/nano in the lows depending on how you rig it, at least for the majority HACs, sprinkle in neuts, sensor boosters and ewar to taste depending on the exact ship and enemy gang.]

I do not fly with snake sets, nor do i fly with rogues though i would if i had the money[well, maybe not the rogues for various reasons]

Nor does any of that have to do with the post you quoted.


It has everything to do with this thread. You don't fly with snakes or rogues, you don't fly any other nanoships outside of, "omens and Zealots" (an omen isn't a nano-ship fyi), and you won't post any set-ups for them, I would guess because you a) have no experience flying them or b) have only fit them in EFT.

To me, this is akin to someone who knows nothing about POSs suggesting ways to fix POS war-fare; how can you claim to know something is broken if you never use it, have no familiarity with how it works, and have made no honest attempt at countering them? How do you expect to catch a vagabond when your ship of choice is a fleet Harbinger? If you're specced amarr, why not fly a curse to counter them, without cap every nano ship, without exception, is rendered useless.

I can respect both Hardin's and Jade's opinion because I know, at least by reputation, that they both are experienced enough as pilots to have solid background experience for their stances on the issues. With you, I'm not convinced.

If you aren't willing to post set-ups, fine, let me ask you another hypothetical question: 15 people jump into a gatecamp of 40. What happens in your version of EVE where nanos are neref?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:00:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 15:03:35
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth

It has everything to do with this thread. You don't fly with snakes or rogues, you don't fly any other nanoships outside of, "omens and Zealots" (an omen isn't a nano-ship fyi), and you won't post any set-ups for them, I would guess because you a) have no experience flying them or b) have only fit them in EFT.


No, it really doesn't. You are justifying an argument to authority. This is an logical fallacy because the logic behind my argument has nothing to do with who I am or what I do. Either there is a method that does not involve nano-ships that kills them instead of just forcing them to run away[there isn't], there is a flaw in my reasoning[there isn't], or I am right. There are no other ways about it.

An omen is the most nano-ship of all the cruisers in the game, yes even the caracal. It has ~30km range and will go a decent enough speed with high agility and decent DPS(I run 350 before [email protected]). I can post setups, I just did not. I am not sure what the EFT comment is supposed to mean. Does Jade get negative points because he can't fly an Ishtar?

But then here is one for a vagabond

5x220II{barrage}, 1x HML/Med Neut[faction preferred]

Mwd, Scram, 2xLSE

2x OD, 3x gyro

2x poly[Other options are 2/1 od/nano(or the reverse depending if you want top end speed or a bit of agility), with 2 ambit extensions and 2 gyros, or 2x aux thrusters with 2 nanos instead of ods]

Drones = 5x Warrior/Hobgoblin[slower, but the thermal damage is something vagas are typically lacking], or EC-300s.

Here would be one for a zealot

5x HPII(scorch)

mwd, scram, wildcard[depends on skills and rig fits]

2x od, 2x nano, 3x HS [Feel free to swap one for a rep]

2x Locus or 2x poly or 2x aux[and then replace the worse stacking module with some combination of DC/SAR/MAR/better stacking speed mod depending on fitting left]

Here is how you would probably fly a sac

5x HML, 1x med neut[faction preferred]

mwd, scram, lse, lse[A web is also a good option though we aren't using it on this example]

od, od, nano, bcu, bcu

2x poly/aux[flip to 2/1 nano/od if above]. Though I am not too up on sac fittings at the moment and there are a lot of specialized things you can do with them that are valuable and will deviate from this set.

Quote:

I can respect both Hardin's and Jade's opinion because I know, at least by reputation, that they both are experienced enough as pilots to have solid background experience for their stances on the issues. With you, I'm not convinced.


So you are saying that you lend more credibility to someone who thinks titans should be stronger than they are than you do someone who makes a logical argument? Amazing.

Quote:
How do you expect to catch a vagabond when your ship of choice is a fleet Harbinger?


You're asking people how I expect to catch a vagabond with a fully skirmish warfare spec'd Harbinger? Well that is easy, I am the WC and i bring a friend in a huginn or rapier all nano'd out so they have 40km points when overloaded and 50+km webs. It works pretty well, but it still relies on nano ships. On a camp its remote sensor boosters on inties/recons with webs[overloading to 16km, typically within jump in range] and pure overwhelming force to keep the inties alive.

That or i hope they do something incurably stupid. Which people are wont to do.

Quote:
let me ask you another hypothetical question


It depends. The last thing they do is engage and then leave on that side of the gate[which will easily happen if the camp does not have significant nano'd support]. They would probably wait out their session change timer and break back to the gate. Whether or not they get through would depend on how fast the enemy was with their webs. If the 40 splits into 20 on each side as a few aggress. then you have a really interesting situation.

If they did engage and then make a run for it you would expect a few to get tackled and die.

no space, question in next post.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:02:00 - [75]
 



Now let me ask you a question:

Why should a gang that has scored a tactical victory by getting significantly more forces(that is, enough to overcome a gang type advantage or skill/fitting advantages] onto a choke point ahead of your gang be denied a real victory that they have already earned?

Xofii
Hedion University
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:08:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine


If you want to deliver victims under your guns who can't win and can never escape then you are barking up the wrong tree really. Nano is counter-able. I'd urge you not to listen to EFT-warriors who have never taken part in actual skirmish fighting or dealing with these problems on the live server. Nano-ships fulfill an expensive niche role of the 0.0 raider in hostile territory. In lowsec and empire these ships have less of a role. It is very easy to place cost-effective counters into the field.




It seems that you tend to mix the fact that nanos are the only viable option to participate in skirmish warfare in hostile territory with saying that they are balanced. I will not advocate another nano nerf because atm there are no other choices, that in it self still says that nanos are overpowered.

The balance problems with nanos are that they sacrifice their tank for speed, which should maintain dps and instead give a possibility to flee. Problem is that speed tanking is even more viable as a "tank" than what those slots could have been used for with ehp. Easiest solution to nanos are to create a more dynamic "opt out" system.

If speed tanking became relegated to simply avoiding dammage OR to create an opt out option it would be balanced. When it becomes and AND instead it obsoletes all other forms of cruiser sized skirmish warfare. Hence either give active/passive shield/armor tanking as viable escape options or nerf one of the aspects of nanos.

Since escape gangs are the only gangs you can take into hostile territory, I'd prefer more ways to "flee". A module that breaks 1 point and uses HP to activate would mean that you can sacrifice tank for escapism even on tanked ships, and hence create a more dynamic skirmish warfare field.

//Xofii

Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:24:00 - [77]
 

I fail to understand what demanding a fittings post is supposed to prove? Nano setups can easily be garnered from forums friends and killboards with minimal effort.

A broken mechanic needs to be fixed. I am confident there is room in eve for nano ships, they simply need proper balance.


Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:41:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 15/05/2008 15:46:14
Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 15/05/2008 15:45:48
Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 15/05/2008 15:45:21
Originally by: Goumindong


No, it really doesn't. You are justifying an argument to authority. This is an logical fallacy because the logic behind my argument has nothing to do with who I am or what I do. Either there is a method that does not involve nano-ships that kills them instead of just forcing them to run away[there isn't], there is a flaw in my reasoning[there isn't], or I am right. There are no other ways about it.




neuts on a curse means they can't run away. The curse doesn't need to be nanos to neut. A rapier and huginn don't need to be nanoed to web. Named neuts on a battleship are enough to cripple a nano-ship - this has happened to me several times in the last few days, and I will give BRUCE credit where it is due; having a large named neut on every battleship makes nanoing exceptionally difficult. They've come up with a tactic that counters nanos extremely well; why can't you?

Quote:
An omen is the most nano-ship of all the cruisers in the game, yes even the caracal. It has ~30km range and will go a decent enough speed with high agility and decent DPS(I run 350 before [email protected]).


Case in point. Most nano ships (the exception being the ishtar) can't do ANY damage outside of 30km. Vagabonds, sacs, zealots, your omen, are all confined to a very small area in which they can actually hurt someone. That same range is also the range at which neuts (curse or BS), webs, jammers, damps, tracking disruptors, warp disruptors, and just about everything else in the game works at. As I said before, BRUCE have come up with a good counter to nanos by mandating that everyone fit neuts. It works well. You should try it.

Quote:
So you are saying that you lend more credibility to someone who thinks titans should be stronger than they are than you do someone who makes a logical argument? Amazing.


I don't see what the candidate's stances on Titans has to do with this thread, at all. I don't know where they stand about Titans, and I don't really care in the context of this thread. You should be trying to promote your own unique set of experiences and knowledge instead of stepping on the backs of others to get elected.

Quote:
It works pretty well, but it still relies on nano ships.


No, it doesn't. You/your friend chose to put nanos on that ship. You could lock and web him with a double-sensor-boosted huginn/rapier without the nanos.

Quote:
It depends. The last thing they do is engage and then leave on that side of the gate[which will easily happen if the camp does not have significant nano'd support]. They would probably wait out their session change timer and break back to the gate. Whether or not they get through would depend on how fast the enemy was with their webs. If the 40 splits into 20 on each side as a few aggress. then you have a really interesting situation.


I don't really understand this answer.

Originally by: Goumindong
Why should a gang that has scored a tactical victory by getting significantly more forces(that is, enough to overcome a gang type advantage or skill/fitting advantages] onto a choke point ahead of your gang be denied a real victory that they have already earned?


"scored a tactical victory" translates to "getting a giant gang together and taking the jump-bridge".

The fact you think they "already...earned" a victory by simply making the other side jump into them is a terrifying thought - if victory was all but assured every time the other side jumps in, no one would jump in on each other. You obviously have a pretty huge chip on your shoulder about these nanos if you think "balance" boils down to the bigger side winning every single time.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:48:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Pezzle
I fail to understand what demanding a fittings post is supposed to prove? Nano setups can easily be garnered from forums friends and killboards with minimal effort.

A broken mechanic needs to be fixed. I am confident there is room in eve for nano ships, they simply need proper balance.




That's exactly my point. You wouldn't ask someone who's never produced anything to run an alliance's industrial activities. Why would you want Gourmindong to be the one to try and fix nanos when all he can do is ask his friends for set-ups and admits he has no experience with them?

Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:56:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Pezzle on 15/05/2008 16:01:17
Dungar I believe one of the issues raised with nano is that standard fleet engagements become win or withdraw for nano fleets vs draw or lose (though I suppose you can call enemy withdrawing a win the ships remain active).

Yes your curse can sap some nano strength. If that curse is not nano itself the chances of enemy escaping are much higher. The same with webbing and scram.

If the enemy gangs are moving at such a rate that they can outrange your counter unless you nano up as well it seems to defeat the purpose.

*edit*
and damn you for replying to me as I was replying again!

As for your point about posting the fits. Eh? You asked him to post nano fit I thought? Was the intent of that to discredit his fitting as part of an argument suggesting nano is fine?

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:19:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Sariyah on 15/05/2008 16:21:16
Haha, broken, nano, lol.
We should all have stationary ships that can only warp & jump not move, with 1 module to activate (just to make it simpler) right. And that'd promote small scale warfare, right again.
Amazing how easily some frustrated individuals can call certain features as "broken" as they wish. I'm sure happy this game isn't ran by community enthusiasts.
If you prefer to sit and wait or crawl at 100 m/s with your super plated bs tough ****e, then sit and die. Approach mwd activate modules and wait is boring while I can see how this "tactic" can challenge some simple minds.

Edit: most of the "reasoning" is really flawed here since yes you can counter a nano fleet with webs o a better nano fleet. Non-issue...
Just as a nano fleet could call remote repping plated stuff "exploit" since 3 nano ships can't possibly kill 3 remote rep well tanked ones, yes they can but really slowly. Griefing tactics I say! :)

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:23:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 15/05/2008 16:27:04
Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 15/05/2008 16:24:27
Originally by: Pezzle
If the enemy gangs are moving at such a rate that they can outrange your counter unless you nano up as well it seems to defeat the purpose.


How do you counter RR BS gangs? Bring more RR BS.
How do you counter sniper battleship gangs? Bring more snipers.
How do you counter capital gangs? Bring more capitals.
How do you counter Nano gangs? Bring more nanos.

Why are you only focusing only on the nanos? The best counter now a days, sadly, is more of the same thing the other side brought. People don't fight a RR gang with nanos because it doesn't work. They don't fight sniper gangs with capitals because it doesn't work.

Many ships have specialized roles, and people like Gourmindong, who bring the wrong ships and fittings to the fight and then complain about getting beaten, need to adjust their set-ups and expectations, not change the way the game is played.

The problem is, and Jade pointed this out earlier, is that 90% of the time, the non-nano gang will hug a station or a gate, well within jumprange, and the nano-gang will pick off what tries to tackle it. If the other side isn't willing to get off out of dock/jump range, then they should not be able to kill nanoed ships. If there was any kind of coordination, the curse or battleship pilot would neut, or the rapier/huginn would web, one target, and everyone would go kill him.

What I think a lot of people seem to be mistaking here is superior tactics and fittings over the brokenness of nanos. For example, when one of our gangs goes out, I can tell you what every single person has fit, and I know what they are capable of doing with the ship. Standard fittings and knowing that everyone is going to be able to hit the same targets makes a world of difference. This is one of the reasons BRUCE's neut gangs are so good at stopping nanos - because everyone is flying the same basic set-up, so the expectations and capabilities of everyone is almost uniform.

If you have some people with blasters, some with artillery, some with neuts and still others that don't have a microwarp-drive, of course your gang isn't going to be as effective. Half the people in the gang won't be able to shoot the primary, either because they can't get into range or they don't have any DPS.

As to tactics, you don't see month old players in nanoships. You don't see sucessful pilots without a significant number of skillpoints, isk, experience, and ability in nano ships.

The other night, four of us were roaming around outer-ring, and some of the residents brought a battleship-heavy gang with three scorps and a falcon, hugged the gate, and *****ed at us until we left about how unfair nanos were. Well, is it any surprise that they didn't manage to kill any of us? When one of them asked me what we would do when they nerfed nanos, I told him we'd come back and show him how to use a battleship gang.

Frankly, they were bad pilots - we killed a lot of them off because they had no coordination, no logistics, weren't shooting primaries, came in one-at-a-time, and consistently were double and triple jamming some of us. The fact we were in nano-ships was irrelevant, the same thing would have happened if we were in RR battleships, sniper BS, a regular hac gang, or a bunch of vexors.

Are you guys really arguing that because they had more, bigger ships an we jumped into them repeatedly, that they should have won? Don't think I'm one of those people that believes that just because you have a lot of sp/isk/time that you should decimate those with less. I know that nanos can be countered effectively given the right amount of coordination and proper fittings - I've done it, and I've had it done to me.

Gourmindong has, by his own admission, done neither.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:27:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Dungar Loghoth


neuts on a curse means they can't run away. The curse doesn't need to be nanos to neut. A rapier and huginn don't need to be nanoed to web. Named neuts on a battleship are enough to cripple a nano-ship - this has happened to me several times in the last few days, and I will give BRUCE credit where it is due; having a large named neut on every battleship makes nanoing exceptionally difficult. They've come up with a tactic that counters nanos extremely well; why can't you?


Inertia says you are wrong. What are you doing ****ing around next to multiple battleships long enough for them to lock you?

Quote:


Case in point. Most nano ships (the exception being the ishtar) can't do ANY damage outside of 30km. Vagabonds, sacs, zealots, your omen, are all confined to a very small area in which they can actually hurt someone. That same range is also the range at which neuts (curse or BS), webs, jammers, damps, tracking disruptors, warp disruptors, and just about everything else in the game works at. As I said before, BRUCE have come up with a good counter to nanos by mandating that everyone fit neuts. It works well. You should try it.


Not really. First because of inertia. Secondly because you are limiting your fleets to Vagabonds and Omens[Ishtar, Zealot, Cerb, Rapier/Huginn, Curse, Falcon, etc all hit well outside 30km where 24km is the top of neut range], and thirdly because BRUCE just got destroyed as an entity because of competent nano pilots.

Quote:


I don't see what the candidate's stances on Titans has to do with this thread, at all. I don't know where they stand about Titans, and I don't really care in the context of this thread. You should be trying to promote your own unique set of experiences and knowledge instead of stepping on the backs of others to get elected.



It has as much to do with this thread as asking me for fittings. Actually i would say it has more to do with this thread since it shows an incompetence in dealing with player actions.

Quote:

No, it doesn't. You/your friend chose to put nanos on that ship. You could lock and web him with a double-sensor-boosted huginn/rapier without the nanos.


Not effectively. See: Inertia.

Also see: Incoming DPS from enemy ships.

Can me and a dual sensor boosted Huginn kill a vaga that jumps into us on a gate? Probably. Can it kill two? Can it kill a Nano-Huginn that jumps into us on a gate? No

Pretty soon your "counter" is "everyone flies Huginns/Rapiers"

That is not a good counter

Quote:

I don't really understand this answer.


You don't understand how ships burn back to a gate and jump through? Seriously?

Quote:


"scored a tactical victory" translates to "getting a giant gang together and taking the jump-bridge".

The fact you think they "already...earned" a victory by simply making the other side jump into them is a terrifying thought - if victory was all but assured every time the other side jumps in, no one would jump in on each other. You obviously have a pretty huge chip on your shoulder about these nanos if you think "balance" boils down to the bigger side winning every single time.


Yea, it is. Unless you think that smaller numbers of ships should defeat larger numbers of ships. Or get a free pass for no reason at all. If you get more forces into the same area as your opponent you have scored a tactical victory of maneuvering. That is how you win fights in eve. That the other side jumped into you with less than half your numbers should mean that you should be winning that fight. No penalties for your opponent being stupid.

If you do not think so maybe you would like to play a game more to your liking. Something like Serious Sam.

Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:38:00 - [84]
 

Actually my objection to nano does not come from the perspective of a RR plated BS pilot. Earlier in this thread I pointed out my issues. In summary I tend to fly an inty. I have offered my evidence as to why cost should not be a balance factor. I believe that intys should be the fastest of ships period. Other ships easily outpacing an inty points me to a broken mechanic. I believe there is a place in eve for nano, and if you decide to nano that is fine, there should be room in the game for it. It should not cause ship roles to become meaningless or nearly guarantee at best a draw. Please note that at no time have I advocated the destruction of nano as a style in Eve.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:39:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 16:40:20
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth


Gourmindong has, by his own admission, done neither.


This is a lie. No, you do not know that nanos can be effectively countered. Your claims are akin to me saying that harbingers are counters to gistii crows and rapiers because ive killed gistii crows and rapiers solo in harbingers. No, it means the 10km/s crows ive killed in harbingers are stupid pilots and the rapiers are even more stupid.

Quote:


How do you counter RR BS gangs? Bring more RR BS.
How do you counter sniper battleship gangs? Bring more snipers.
How do you counter capital gangs? Bring more capitals.
How do you counter Nano gangs? Bring more nanos.


Why are you only focusing only on the nanos? The best counter now a days, sadly, is more of the same thing the other side brought. People don't fight a RR gang with nanos because it doesn't work. They don't fight sniper gangs with capitals because it doesn't work.


No its not. If the best counter was more of what the other guy brought then it would be impossible to have fights between equally sized/strength gangs of differing composition.

1. Ewar, smartbombs, bumping, snipers.[pick one/two]
2. Fast cruisers, short range gank battleships, capitals
3. RR battleships, ewar, smartbombs
4. Bring more nanos.

Quote:

The problem is, and Jade pointed this out earlier, is that 90% of the time, the non-nano gang will hug a station or a gate, well within jumprange, and the nano-gang will pick off what tries to tackle it. If the other side isn't willing to get off out of dock/jump range, then they should not be able to kill nanoed ships. If there was any kind of coordination, the curse or battleship pilot would neut, or the rapier/huginn would web, one target, and everyone would go kill him.
They would not be able to kill the nano-gang whether or not they left jump/dock range. Their leaving jump/dock range has nothing to do with their ability to kill ships. It has everything to do with self preservation and risk aversion.

Quote:
Many ships have specialized roles, and people like Gourmindong, who bring the wrong ships and fittings to the fight and then complain about getting beaten, need to adjust their set-ups and expectations, not change the way the game is played.


This is a lie and an ad-hominem.

Quote:
This is one of the reasons BRUCE's neut gangs are so good at stopping nanos - because everyone is flying the same basic set-up, so the expectations and capabilities of everyone is almost uniform.


BRUCE is terrible at stopping nanos. For more information see PL and GF Black OPs.

Quote:

Are you guys really arguing that because they had more, bigger ships an we jumped into them repeatedly, that they should have won?


It depends entirely on how many more. Numbers are a variable just like isk, skill, skills, and and coordination. They all have value.

Originally by: Pezzle
Please note that at no time have I advocated the destruction of nano as a style in Eve.


No one has.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:45:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Inertia says you are wrong. What are you doing ****ing around next to multiple battleships long enough for them to lock you?


Web + MWD means you can catch something regardless of inertia. Even on a BS you should be able to keep up with a webbed anything. Try investing in a named web.

Quote:
Secondly because you are limiting your fleets to Vagabonds and Omens[Ishtar, Zealot, Cerb, Rapier/Huginn, Curse, Falcon, etc all hit well outside 30km where 24km is the top of neut range], and thirdly because BRUCE just got destroyed as an entity because of competent nano pilots.


My zealot has an optimal of 31. A curse can neut out to 32km with recon IV. A falcon isn't a nano-ship. Faction neuts are cheap and can hit out to 29km. If someone is flying a 250m isk paper ship and you aren't willing to even put on named webs, MWDs, or faction neuts, you should not kill them. This is risk versus reward - you sit on a gate or station with a T1 fit ship, no MWD, and full insurence, and they're running around with T2, rigged, uninsurable, rigged out ship that will die if they make a single mistake. Sounds balanced to me.

Quote:
It has as much to do with this thread as asking me for fittings. Actually i would say it has more to do with this thread since it shows an incompetence in dealing with player actions.


Asking to see your credentials about a topic in which you are so passionate about is a lot more relevant than dragging in other candidate's stances on issues that aren't even being mentioned here.

Quote:

You don't understand how ships burn back to a gate and jump through? Seriously?



If you had simple phased it like that, I would have understood it. But obviouslt you and I fight very differently, because (almost) every nanogang I'm part of jumps in and fights instead of MWDing back to the gate and running away.

Quote:
Yea, it is. That the other side jumped into you with less than half your numbers should mean that you should be winning that fight. No penalties for your opponent being stupid.


Well, then your view of how EVE should be "fixed" is only going to promote larger gangs, more NAPing, and effectively end the niches that roaming and small corporations fill. That's not an EVE I want to be part of, where only alliances with huge numbers and giant gangs can do anything. I'm only glad that you are probably the only person in your corporation and alliance that thinks this way.

If EVE ever does get to the point in which you want it to, I probably will look into serious sam.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:47:00 - [87]
 

here's an ad-homin attack gormindong: you're an idiot and i'm done with this thread

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:51:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Pezzle
Actually my objection to nano does not come from the perspective of a RR plated BS pilot. Earlier in this thread I pointed out my issues. In summary I tend to fly an inty. I have offered my evidence as to why cost should not be a balance factor.


Did you explain why CNR's are better than Vanilla Ravens? Or why tech2 pulse lasers are better than tech1 pulse lasers? Did you in fact explain why rare things tend to be better in eve and rare things from their scarcity cost more ISK?

Quote:
I believe that intys should be the fastest of ships period. Other ships easily outpacing an inty points me to a broken mechanic.


It actually points out that you aren't fitting your interceptors correctly. (Either that, or you are not investing as much isk into rare implants, drugs and rigging as other pilots are). I can certainly loadout a tech2 fitted interceptor that can outpace any similarly tech2 outfitted nanoship. If that nanoship pilot is using faction kit, snakes and rogues and drugs to push his performance why should my default tech2 fit automatically beat his? Are you saying that niche fitting modules, implants and drugs shouldn't give an advantage to those using them?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:01:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Dungar Loghoth
here's an ad-homin attack gormindong: you're an idiot and i'm done with this thread


No, that is an insult combined with an expression of exasperation[or declaration, one or the other]. An ad hominem attack would be "you're an idiot and that is why you are wrong".

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:12:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Dungar Loghoth


Web + MWD means you can catch something regardless of inertia. Even on a BS you should be able to keep up with a webbed anything. Try investing in a named web.


Inertia again. How long does it take a BS to get to its top speed, or even the nano-hacs non-mwd speed? How long does it take a nano-hac to avoid that BS with a single burst of its MWD?

Ive got plenty nice webs and plenty nice MWDs.

Quote:
My zealot has an optimal of 31. A curse can neut out to 32km with recon IV. A falcon isn't a nano-ship.


You're zealot hits 31+4.8. My Zealot hits 41+4.8. A falcon is a nano-ship as is a cerberus and makes perfect compliments to said gangs even though they are slower than many others.

Here you are making the "OMG i spent more than you" argument. No. You do not need to bring faction equipment to kill a faction tanked battleship. You just need more ships. Why do i need faction equipment to kill a nano-ship?

Quote:


Asking to see your credentials about a topic in which you are so passionate about is a lot more relevant than dragging in other candidate's stances on issues that aren't even being mentioned here.


Maybe you are mis-interpreting things here. Neither of these are very relevant. But if any one of them is relevant it would not be my lack of lack of experience[as despite you claiming so it is not true in any sense of the word], it would be the inability of one party to understand how games are played because such knowledge is necessary to understanding the situation.

Quote:

If you had simple phased it like that, I would have understood it. But obviouslt you and I fight very differently, because (almost) every nanogang I'm part of jumps in and fights instead of MWDing back to the gate and running away.



If every nano gang you are in always fights then no wonder you die a lot. Your lack of ability to understand and carry out the optimal play for your ships has nothing to do with the ships strengths and the strength of its optimal play.

Quote:


Well, then your view of how EVE should be "fixed" is only going to promote larger gangs, more NAPing, and effectively end the niches that roaming and small corporations fill. That's not an EVE I want to be part of, where only alliances with huge numbers and giant gangs can do anything. I'm only glad that you are probably the only person in your corporation and alliance that thinks this way.

If EVE ever does get to the point in which you want it to, I probably will look into serious sam.


No, because i understand what you can do to make gangs smaller and what you cannot do to make gangs smaller. Current nano-mechanics do not promote small gangs, they promote large gangs of nano ships. I think the best example would be CVA vs tri in Providence when CVA held a gate with snipers and tri dumped their BS and got 150 vagabonds.


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