open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [PROPOSAL] Counter-nano ships: a modest proposal
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Kesper North
Caldari
Gentlemen of Means
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:04:00 - [1]
 

[I think that the reason why so many people are frustrated in combat with nanoships, and the reason why people complain about them, is not necessarily that they are overpowered.

The real problem is that only one race, the Minmatar, can field ships with any real ability to counter them. The Huginn, Rapier and Hyena have stasis web range bonuses that let you snare a nanoship long enough to bring its speed down in spite of inertia. The Gallente, of course, have decent nanoships that might at least be able to keep up. The Caldari have the Crow and... uh... the Crow. Amarr? Forget about it.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who complain about nanoships are flying Caldari and Amarr, and possibly Gallente to some degree. They can't fly Huginns or Rapiers without about a year of training for Matari ships, it's frustrating, they feel helpless. Their corp may not have many Matari pilots who might be able to supplement their gangs to provide anti-nano capability.

To counter this frustration while still allowing nanoship pilots to keep their beloved speed demons, I propose the either of the following:

1) Each race that doesn't already have one gets a HAC or recon ship with a web range bonus, so we poor Caldari pilots can one day eventually hope to get revenge against the nanogangs that blew us to pieces when we were noobs,

or

2) The introduction of a stasis field generator, with a relatively wide area of effect (say 30-40 km). Similar to a warp disruption bubble, the stasis field slows down all ships within its area of effect. This will need to have a few limitations: firstly, warp disruption bubbles and stasis fields should not be able to be colocated -- you can't create a bubble that intersects with a stasis field and vice versa; secondly, the stasis field generator can be fitted only by interdictors, and you cannot fit BOTH a stasis field AND a bubbler at the same time.

I think option 2 provides some interesting opportunity for tactical innovation on the part of the nanogangs. For instance, one could imagine pairing nanogangs with stealth bombers to couter the counter-nano ships: SB's warp in at 100+km and decloak, letting fly a salvo or three at the interdictor until it pops, at which point the nanogang can sweep in and do its usual business. At the same time it allows non-Matari pilots to feel like they have some chance of killing these previously (for them) unkillable ships. And nanoships can still do what they like to do best: gank big slow ships that are caught alone or in small numbers without support.

[TL;DR SUMMARY] Nanoships aren't overpowered, the Matari just have an unfair monopoly on anti-nano ships. We need to either give other races ships with web range bonuses or create a stasis field generator for interdictors to optionally use instead of warp disruption bubbles.

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:16:00 - [2]
 

The problem with nano's is with the mathematics involving inertia and how webs affect agility.

See Nyphur
http://www.eve-tanking.com/20080505.html

And the thread he spoke about regarding the solution
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/669784

Fix the agility problem and the nano issue goes away.

Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:21:00 - [3]
 

Hmm, your post seems pretty serious but the title says otherwise.

Grann Thefauto
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:24:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Grann Thefauto on 16/06/2008 20:25:43
I partially agree, but I don't think its entirely true that the minmatar have a monopoly.

I actually can't think of a race that doesn't have a HAC that could legitimately kill a nano ship except maybe the Caldari, I really don't have any experience fighting a nano with missles.

Gallente: Fit an ishtar with small drones and/or a drone speed mod.
Amarr: some quite capable nanoed HACs which good tracking
Caldari: HAMLs with precision missles.

In addition, the recons of each of those have some very decent nano counters:
Caldari: Jamming (doesn't kill, but a nano that can't shoot you isn't going to attack you)
Gallente: Sensor damping a nano to force them to be closer and thus orbit slower
Amarr: Curse, nuff said.

Webs aren't the only way to kill nanos, it just requires a little more creativity if you're not Minmatar.

Edit: cleaned up a bit.

Kesper North
Caldari
Gentlemen of Means
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:35:00 - [5]
 

Grann, in my experience HAMLs don't have the range to take on nanoships, which tend to withdraw to cruise-missile-only ranges in between attack runs, so I'm not sure they're viable antinano weapons.

The other problem is that most of the antinano countermeasures you mention there work fine for small nanogangs, but for large nanoblobs you run into the following problems:

1) You can't jam or dampen every ship all the time, so they don't get discouraged;
2) (re: Ishtar, Curse anti-nano operations) If you go out to meet them, they'll tear you apart, because if you're not already in a nanogang, you probably don't have an even number of nanoships, and they can draw you out of range of the rest of your fleet and call you primary.

I was recently in an engagement between a 15-person nanoblob and a 15-person conventional T1/T2 blob that ended in a nearly perfect stalemate because neither party was able to engage the other -- if they got too close we'd web them, and if we went out to meet them they'd pick us off one by one. There was a lot of frustrating sitting around watching one another across 300km of space and waiting for the other party to blink. The nanoblob eventually left because they had to go to bed. I'd like to see something that can lead to a decisive victory for either party with good planning and tactics.

Parsival
Minmatar
The Avalon Foundation
The Drift.
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:42:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Kesper North
1) Each race that doesn't already have one gets a HAC or recon ship with a web range bonus, so we poor Caldari pilots can one day eventually hope to get revenge against the nanogangs that blew us to pieces when we were noobs


Caldari have ECM, giving them a Caldari skinned Rapier/Huginn would destroy racial specialisation and balance. Same argument goes for Amarr and Gallente with their respective recons.

Originally by: Kesper North
2) The introduction of a stasis field generator, with a relatively wide area of effect (say 30-40 km). Similar to a warp disruption bubble, the stasis field slows down all ships within its area of effect. This will need to have a few limitations: firstly, warp disruption bubbles and stasis fields should not be able to be colocated -- you can't create a bubble that intersects with a stasis field and vice versa; secondly, the stasis field generator can be fitted only by interdictors, and you cannot fit BOTH a stasis field AND a bubbler at the same time.


I like the principle of this idea, but not the practical application. A much easier solution to implement in my mind would be to increase decloak range to 30+km off a SG so that the incredibly frustrating situation where you get webs and tackle on a target and land possibly 2 volleys of whatever your weapon of choice is just to see them jump can be balanced more effectively.


Grann Thefauto
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:46:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Kesper North
Grann, in my experience HAMLs don't have the range to take on nanoships, which tend to withdraw to cruise-missile-only ranges in between attack runs, so I'm not sure they're viable antinano weapons.
Ah ok, I stand corrected.

Originally by: Kesper North
I was recently in an engagement between a 15-person nanoblob and a 15-person conventional T1/T2 blob that ended in a nearly perfect stalemate because neither party was able to engage the other -- if they got too close we'd web them, and if we went out to meet them they'd pick us off one by one. There was a lot of frustrating sitting around watching one another across 300km of space and waiting for the other party to blink. The nanoblob eventually left because they had to go to bed. I'd like to see something that can lead to a decisive victory for either party with good planning and tactics.


I think that this story really is a better indication of the balance than of something being wrong. If there were no Nano ships at all a T1/T2 fleet versus a T1/T2 fleet in a similar stand off would probably end the same way, or with minimal survivors. The big difference being nano gangs (lacking in DPS and tank) get to dictate range.

How about, instead of more webbing (which nano gangs will avoid anyway), boost sniping so that killing at 300km or so is not impossible?

Kesper North
Caldari
Gentlemen of Means
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:52:00 - [8]
 

Quote:
How about, instead of more webbing (which nano gangs will avoid anyway), boost sniping so that killing at 300km or so is not impossible?


Not a bad idea. The Caldari Rokh platform would be great for this, but it would also be nice to have a missile solution in place as well. Missiles are probably the worst anti-nano weapon in the game. Maybe missile speed and range bonuses would be the way to go.

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.17 03:36:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Kesper North
Quote:
How about, instead of more webbing (which nano gangs will avoid anyway), boost sniping so that killing at 300km or so is not impossible?


Not a bad idea. The Caldari Rokh platform would be great for this, but it would also be nice to have a missile solution in place as well. Missiles are probably the worst anti-nano weapon in the game. Maybe missile speed and range bonuses would be the way to go.


Again.. the best fix is just to add an agility change to webs.

Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Posted - 2008.06.18 17:07:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
The problem with nano's is with the mathematics involving inertia and how webs affect agility.

See Nyphur
http://www.eve-tanking.com/20080505.html

And the thread he spoke about regarding the solution
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/669784

Fix the agility problem and the nano issue goes away.

I also spoke about the issue in more depth here:
http://www.massively.com/2008/05/12/eve-evolved-the-nano-problem/

Ulstan
Posted - 2008.06.18 18:10:00 - [11]
 

A lot of the ire against nano ships is coming from the fact that when people ask how to kill a nano ship they are told they have to go fly minmatar HAC's.

Most people want an option against nano ships within their chosen 'race' or weapons system, and I feel such choices should be available to them.

Probably caldari pilots have it the worst: their ships are slow and heavy, and missiles suck vs nanos because precision heavies are randomly and inexplicably terrible.

But basically, telling people they need to go fly minmatar HAC's to counter nanos would be like telling folks upset at sniper fleets that they needed to go skill up for caldari marauders. Diversity is good, but the counters can't be *that* restricted, each 'race' or 'weapons system' should have it's own 'flavor' of counter, some of which can be better, and some worse.

I don't think your specified proposals capture that racial flavor we want to maintain, but you do raise a good point. I think it could be better fixed by bringing polycarbons back in line with other rigs, instead of being way better than the equivalent module, and by making heavy precision missiles not so god awful terrible, so that at least cruiser missile ships can hit HAC's.

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.18 18:21:00 - [12]
 

Still feel that the simplest fix, is to adjust agility modifier on webs so that the ships slow down faster. It should allow small nano ships to maintain speed as intended, and larger nano stuff like battleships to be taken down right quick.


 

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