open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Nano Nerf ???
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2008.10.07 08:37:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Shadowsword on 07/10/2008 08:37:23
Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 02/10/2008 13:45:26
1 v 1 statistics and scenarios are pointless and stupid to use as a base for any changes to the game. The nerf makes all cruiser sized and smaller ships death traps in gang fighting even if you pimp them out with billions in mods and in snake implants. It reduces gang combat to f1-f8 slug fests where the only ships needed and worth flying are hard hitting BC or larger BS fitted for pure damage and RR.


Removing nano just because a few lazy players do not want to work as a team and use tacklers plus ewar and logistics just like any good roaming gang does is a terrible idea and the sheer amount of problems it has caused to all aspects of pvp on the test server is testament to its stupidity.



There is something even more stupid, tougth, and that's assuming a scenario of 1 nano vs X ganged ships for balance purposes, as if nano ships were always operating solo.

There is no reason why nano ships would be nearly immune to just about anything save a few specialised Ewar ships and other nano ships, in a 1 v 1 situation. If you can't understand that, you haven't got the brains to do any balancing.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.10.07 09:33:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Murina on 07/10/2008 10:11:13

Originally by: Shadowsword


There is no reason why nano ships would be nearly immune to just about anything save a few specialised Ewar ships and other nano ships, in a 1 v 1 situation.


Oh dear did somebody pop your ratting raven?.

1. Nano and other specific pvp fits like sniping are only invulnerable/immune to badly organized/fitted gangs with pve setups and tbh they should be (pvp setups > pve setups) and (organized gangs > disorganized gangs).

You talk about balance but the fact is that the nano gangs i run with have a specific number of very specific ships all with very specific bonuses and very specific roles in combat, so if balance is what you are bleating on about to beat me you should need as many specific (if slightly different) ships and fits to do so.

Originally by: Shadowsword
If you can't understand that, you haven't got the brains to do any balancing.


Now i understand where your ignorance comes from, you think that removing options and abilities is the same as balancingLaughing.

Balancing is not the same as reducing/removing options there are modules in eve that speed ships up for defense and their are modules in eve that slow them down for offence and these modules are available to everybody, that is balance pal. Nerfing specific fits and styles that require specific fits and styles to defeat along with anything else that can beat your ratting setup is not balancing it is reducing the pvp options and the game in general. So removing or nerfing the mods that speed ships up just because ppl cannot be bothered to fit and fly with the mods that can combat them is not balancing and it never will be.

Snipers are a specific fitting style and are invulnerable (when used correctly) to any other ship type and fitting style due to the range they operate at and can be aligned and warp off if anything burns to get near them or drops out of warp near them. They are only vulnerable to other sniper fitted ships so by your "balance" theory every sniper ship should be reduced in range to "balance" them with other less specific fitting styles.

Your idea of balance will have us all in one ship with a single fit and in a sand box.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2008.10.07 10:44:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 07/10/2008 10:45:56
Originally by: Shadowsword

There is no reason why nano ships would be nearly immune to just about anything save a few specialised Ewar ships and other nano ships, in a 1 v 1 situation. If you can't understand that, you haven't got the brains to do any balancing.


So why:
1. why falcon is immune to 99% of ships/setups in 1v1 situation?
2. why arazu/lachesis is immune to 99% ships/setups in 1v1 situation?
3. why passive shieldtanked ships are immune to most setups in this game (except high skilled gank setup battleships)?
4. why permarun dualrep battleships are immune to most setups 1v1 (especially hyperion which can tank carrier)?
5. why snipers are immune to ALL afterburner setup fleets?

I could go into infinity with it and thinking of more and more stupid situations. Thing is - this game is full of rock-paper-scissor setups/ships and nanos are not an exception from this. Tell me when was last time you died in proper PvP battleship to 1 nanoship? I dont think it ever happened. When you die to nanoships its either their wolfpack or you are in NPCing ship. In both situations you would die to snipers/rr/heck - even ceptors.

Only thing totally stupid about nano ships is their "uber" speed. Ships going 15k+ are wrong. But nanos going 3-5km/s are perfectly vulnerable to most damage IF you know how to apply it. Did you ever use AC's + faloff rigs or pulses with locus rigs/TEs? I can tell you - they **** faces of most nanoships. Same neuts - they disable most of them. If something is out of neut range you can be sure that you CAN WARP AWAY. Surprised? Or maybe you dont use neuts/acs/pulses/ecm/webs etc? Then why the **** are you whining? EVE is not f1-f8 game and should never be. Otherwise i could play Starcraft instead and just throw more zerglings (f1-f8 frigs) or ultralisks (f1-f8 battleships).

tl;dr
- you have no clue how to play this game except "blob"
- fix 15km/s+ nanos


EDIT:
o yea its quite funny when people screaming "nanos are overpowered" try to nano sometimes and die horribly to non-nano gangs (NC dying in p3en. 200 nanos vs 100 snipers, 150 kill 30 (?) loss for sniper side)

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2008.10.07 12:48:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

EDIT:
o yea its quite funny when people screaming "nanos are overpowered" try to nano sometimes and die horribly to non-nano gangs (NC dying in p3en. 200 nanos vs 100 snipers, 150 kill 30 (?) loss for sniper side)


I dont know what kind of nano gangs youre running but it is utter fail to die to non nano gangs as a nano gang.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.10.07 12:54:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Murina on 07/10/2008 13:39:48


Originally by: Lyria Skydancer


I dont know what kind of nano gangs youre running but it is utter fail to die to non nano gangs as a nano gang.


Nano gang vs RR BS gang = RR BS own any nano that gets even close to it with nuets but nano has 0 chance to break the RR tank (if the RR BS gang has tackle its a even bigger wipe out for the nano gang).

Nano gang vs fully mixed gang = the logistics and ewar keep the tacklers in the mixed gang alive as they slow the nano then the dmg dealers in the mixed gang melt the tackled nano instantly (regularly used by my corp/alliance as its great fun and involves virtually every ship type and fit in the game and team work + individual piloting skills).

Nano gang vs good sniper gang = sniper gang warps in and out from pounce spots popping nano ships and as soon as the nano closes the aligned snipers warp away and reposition.

Nano vs Carebear ratting ship gang = nano wins and the carebears run to forum crying for a nerf nerf.

ect ect ect...

Your pvp experience is pathetically lacking i suggest you join eve uni and learn the basics.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2008.10.07 13:01:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Deva Blackfire

EDIT:
o yea its quite funny when people screaming "nanos are overpowered" try to nano sometimes and die horribly to non-nano gangs (NC dying in p3en. 200 nanos vs 100 snipers, 150 kill 30 (?) loss for sniper side)


I dont know what kind of nano gangs youre running but it is utter fail to die to non nano gangs as a nano gang.


Im not NC - i was sniping. And "fail"? No - its skill and proper sniper/punce spots. They managed to get close to our snipers only twice bubbling only those who werent at speed/unaligned.

Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2008.10.07 18:30:00 - [37]
 

Back when this debate was really raging I saw a few people suggest that polycarbs be nerfed. Was that too simple?

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2008.10.07 19:15:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Trent Nichols
Back when this debate was really raging I saw a few people suggest that polycarbs be nerfed. Was that too simple?


polys, snakes, claymores

yes its that simple, but guess noone cares. better redo whole system than just tweak it

Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2008.10.07 21:03:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Seth Ruin on 07/10/2008 21:04:29
Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 07/10/2008 13:39:48
Nano gang vs RR BS gang = RR BS own any nano that gets even close to it with nuets but nano has 0 chance to break the RR tank (if the RR BS gang has tackle its a even bigger wipe out for the nano gang).

Nano gang vs fully mixed gang = the logistics and ewar keep the tacklers in the mixed gang alive as they slow the nano then the dmg dealers in the mixed gang melt the tackled nano instantly (regularly used by my corp/alliance as its great fun and involves virtually every ship type and fit in the game and team work + individual piloting skills).

Nano gang vs good sniper gang = sniper gang warps in and out from pounce spots popping nano ships and as soon as the nano closes the aligned snipers warp away and reposition.

Nano vs Carebear ratting ship gang = nano wins and the carebears run to forum crying for a nerf nerf.

ect ect ect...

Your pvp experience is pathetically lacking i suggest you join eve uni and learn the basics.


The problem with any one of your situations in which nano fails is the concept of catching them, which simply will not happen given even a half-intelligent nano pilot. I've never seen a nano gang let a RR BS gang get close to them. I've never seen a nano gang sit in place long enough to let snipers get them. And your argument of a mixed gang simply shows the flaw in nanos: The only way to catch a nano is to be a nano! Otherwise, the nano will engage or disengage at will.

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
claymores


Don't you dare touch my Claymore -.-

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2008.10.08 01:39:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Seth Ruin

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
claymores


Don't you dare touch my Claymore -.-


They are overpowered, period. Giving 30+% (cant remember exact number now) velocity bonus is just stupid. Drop it to 15% and we are set.

Same for snakes - almost 50% velo boost for hi grades... Make it 20-25% and done.

Polys - get in line with modules (actually worse than mods - no rig should EVER be better than module).

And suddenly 15km/s ship speed drops by half.

Fullmetal Jackass
Posted - 2008.10.08 02:54:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 08/10/2008 03:02:08
Originally by: Seth Ruin
The problem with any one of your situations in which nano fails is the concept of catching them, which simply will not happen given even a half-intelligent nano pilot. I've never seen a nano gang let a RR BS gang get close to them. I've never seen a nano gang sit in place long enough to let snipers get them. And your argument of a mixed gang simply shows the flaw in nanos: The only way to catch a nano is to be a nano! Otherwise, the nano will engage or disengage at will.


This. If you ever die in a nano currently, you fail. Nano isn't an "I win" button. It's an "I don't lose" button. It's broken.

As for the speed changes, yes they still need work. I personally think the biggest problem is cumulative speed bonus stacking. It's unrealistic that bonses multiply on top of each other. If I build a car out of carbon fiber, make the engine entirely out of aluminum and titanium, toss in two power plants, super charge both, get some implants, and then have a remote computer command system monitor and optimized everything, will it make me 3000% faster? Not even close.

Speed bonuses (and most bonuses for that matter) should only modify the base attribute, not stack. ADD not MULTIPLY. The only modifier that should mulitiply everything, should be skill bonuses.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.10.08 08:18:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Murina on 08/10/2008 08:45:31

Originally by: Seth Ruin
The problem with any one of your situations in which nano fails is the concept of catching them, which simply will not happen given even a half-intelligent nano pilot. I've never seen a nano gang let a RR BS gang get close to them.


Nor me but then nobody said BS were as fast as nano, roaming nano gangs are looking to kill stuff so they attack the RR BS (by definition a defensive formation) that is when they nuet and kill or tackle and kill the nano.

RR BS is not a mobile formation, stop focusing on what you think is nano's total immunity as its making you not bother to think or try and focus on its weaknesses and it has plenty pal you just need to open your eyes to see them.


Originally by: Seth Ruin
I've never seen a nano gang sit in place long enough to let snipers get them.


You have never flown with burn eden (sniping RAVENS and i thought missiles/caldari sucked at fighting nano ships??Very Happy) or if you prefer have a chat with deva blackfire as triumvirate wasted a whole fleet of NANO ships with snipers a short time ago.

Originally by: Seth Ruin
And your argument of a mixed gang simply shows the flaw in nanos: The only way to catch a nano is to be a nano! Otherwise, the nano will engage or disengage at will.


Anybody can disengage at will, a gang jumping into a camp can burn back to the gate and lose maybe one ship if any at all, a gang can be aligned and insta warp, or even station/pos/gate hug, the ability to disengage with light or no losses is easy in eve for all classes not just nano.

Why do ppl keep bringing the ability to disengage up like its a pure nano issue?, i mean do you actually expect ppl to sit still and let you shoot them if this stupid nerf goes through?.

How is the need for fast tacklers a flaw, you need snipers to kill snipers or they warp off when you get close, you need RR BS and or capitals to kill RR BS or they just tank you.

The need to tackle nano to kill it is a bonus not a flaw as it forces the most fun and skill + teamwork intensive pvp in the game, the ppl complaining about it obviously find it to hard or are lazy and want f1-f8 pvp to rule.




Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:11:00 - [43]
 

Quote:
This is my last post here as you seem ignorant enough to keep rambling about how you can't possibly change your fittings.

Send me a mail once you adapt. \o/

Fly safe o/



don't take this personally now, but you have obviously very little experience with gallente and blaster boats in particular. i know the nano nerf will probably hit minmatar (which you fly) the hardest (i hope not, but that's an entire different story), don't vent your anger on me because of this.

why should a nano nerf hit a blaster boats, which nobody complained about before, it's like a doctor that tries so cure a headache but ends up amputating a leg.

changing the fits as you suggest would yield better results using railguns instead of blasters.



btt and a last attempt to clarify things:



Originally by: Stork DK
Fight in falloff for less tracking \o/


i need MORE tracking not less.

unlike projectiles, hybrid weapons, especially blasters do not use falloff, your damage goes down too much (falloff largest auocannon=16km; falloff largest blaster=10km) lighter blasters with more tracking also have less range and falloff, while projectile weapons have the same falloff in their class. in short, blasters aren't meant to and don't fight in falloff. using falloff rigs makes sense with projectiles, not with hybrids (ok, maybe with rails if you want to snipe)


Originally by: Stork DK
Surprise amarr is a cap race.


i know that, thanks. however i should note that you contradict yourself (not putting the quotes):

- you:
Geddon needs a cap inject just to keep shooting.
Maga uses one to protect against neuting, thus it is optional

- me:
geddon is more cap stable firing guns and mwding, than an uninjected
mega, an injected mega needs the cap for its mwd, and due to the shorter
blaster range, it has to burn the mwd longer to get there.

- you:
amarr is the cap race.

what now? choose: are amarr more cap stable or not?
if the mega indeed needs the one med for the injector to reach cap stability (which it doesn't), it has exaclty the same amount of remaining slots as the geddon (3).
[link http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=887232&page=1#14]
sidenote:
cap stability with an injector is illusionary, because you definitely run out of changes at some point.

Originally by: Stork DK
wtf are you on about?

drawing your attention to contradictory statements


if you really want proof how broken blasters would have been after the
originally anticipated changes, look at this [link http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=834365]
summary: a fully skilled blasterthron (bonuses coming from the BS skill, tracking skill and an implant) using electrons (best tracking) only lands the 1% wrecking shots on a webbed(!) cruiser without fitting.
this is broken and there is no sane argument you can bring to make this seem balanced.

on minmatar ships, drones are optional. not so on gallente ships, you need them to do the damage gallente are famous for.

take a hypothetical fight of a vaga and a deimos (against a random third target, not 1on1 against each other):

the vagabond using ecm drones is effective, because it can dictate range without requiring a lock, and the ecm helps when it slows down to shoot and counters conterwebbing and nos (because they require lock).

the deimos needs the lock for the web, it can't maintain combat distance otherwise
(FYI:
current tq: top speed vaga t2 nano-combat fit= 6kms/ top speed vigiliant t2 combat fit= 3.8kms
stats with original nano nerf: vaga= 3.2kms/ vigilinat= 2.1kms)

and before you get started, the numbers by themselves should not imply that the faster one is broken (it is imbalanced for other reasons, thats a different can of worms, which i dont want to open atm), one will be the fastest and one will deal the most damage. it just shows that one can maneuver itself better into firing position than the other.
[to be continued]

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:13:00 - [44]
 

however the deimos needs the web to keep the target at combat range (requiring a target lock), the vagabond can maneuver and dictate range without it. thats why a lot of nano-vagas use either a second LSE or some electronic module on the last (dare i say spare) slot instead of a web.

now on to web drones(post original nerf):
single web: speed -60%
single web + 2 webdrones: speed -74,1%, dps for mega -15% (lol)
dualweb: speed -83%

not even close to the 90% webs do now. and this is what masked the bad tracking of blasters since day one, as webs were mandatory before the nerf, there was no issue visible with their tracking. with decreased webbing power (no on/off module any longer actually being good) blasters showed their flaw.
this whole thing would have extincted blaster boats as there is nothing that can better switch the overall odds in your favor than an mwd and a web (+ anti warp gear)

so i come back to my options:
considering i indeed manage to free up 2 of my 4 slots, i can fit the following (hitlist style):
tracking rigs: insufficient effect, albeit possible. i can now have these as mandatory modules.
drone nav comp: nice, my drones get to the target faster, a pure drone boat would benefit more from this though
tracking comp: not useful, a second web has a better effect within my combat range
ecm: a single module may reduce incoming overall dps by an average of 10%; maybe more, maybe not at all
eccm: nice, but the executing cruiser can range tank
sensor booster: i have no problem with low targeting speed or range
sensor dampener: i maneuver close to the enemy, well inside what i can dampen down to
tracking disruptor: when the target orbits me, i can indeed lower incoming turret dps, my own guns won't hit better though, so i just die slower or hope that my mates kill the opposition while i play bait (i would prefer a better tank for this kind of work though).
target painter: a bigger sig radius does not help better with tracking than a web or tracking comp, it may help my mates while i play bait though
cap rechargers/batteries: on the long run better than injectors, but that implies that i somehow survive the fight before starting it
shield extenders: hmm... eh?
shield boosters: cap problems guns with this (god forbid i left the mwd on)
hull repairer: i'd rather actively tank armor
ship and cargo sensors: now i can add insult to injury and acctually see what crappy setup killed me


eveo 101 ftv

Stormhold
Art of War
Posted - 2008.10.09 11:45:00 - [45]
 

Nerfing nanos is needed, but I do not know if the proposed changes themselves are be good - due to posted problems with blaster ships for example. Vagabond, atleast, should still be usable for nanoing in some decree. The fact that it can't permarun mwd or shoot while mwding make it a lot more passable than a nano ishtar for example (even though an ishtar's drones are ludicrously easy to blow up.), even though it's max speeds could be nerfed, it - for example - should still be able to use the same tactics for fighting. I mean, what's the point of vaga if it's expected to be an autocannon deimos anyway? Deimos itself is already pointless. I do fear hacs will become bigger AFs with this nerf. Atleast some hacs will need rebalancing if they can't nano up.

What is wrong with nano hacs/recons then? Their ability to flee from anything. The counters are webs and neuts, and only webs can really catch them, since in most cases a good pilot can get out even if hit by neuts. What ships do these two things well enough then? Minmatar recons and amarr recons, which are (apart from pilgrim, but it has no range bonus anyway) nanoed up themselves too. Now, the only really viable way to actually kill and not just drive away nano setups is to surprise them with a rapier or a huginn. So, the only real counter are highly specialized t2 ships of a single race that are also generally nanoed up themselves since it's the most viable setup? Oh god, that is so very wrong. Sure, neuts in battleships or curse can do wonders, but killing a decent pilot even with those will be hard. Sure, they'll flee, but that's not the same.

The above is not the reason I really hate nano ships though. The reason I hate them is that they make me see no point in flying pretty much anything else than remote repairing battleships, nanoed up recons, nanoed up hacs, falcon or interdictors of either variety. I was going to buy myself a hurricane or a harbinger, but it struck me, what do I actually need these ships for? Apart from killing single non-nanoed non-decently fitted-battleship targets (yes, there are that many total idiots, just yesterday a corpmate soloed an idiotically fitted rattlesnake in an onyx.) they wouldn't be really useful, as a nanoed up ishtar could pretty much do the same and also attack battleships or fight with very bad odds. Sure, though, a battlecruiser could actually web that drake who you just happen to encounter at a gate without a faction web and survive it, but it isn't a big enough tradeoff.

In the bottom line, nano ships aren't that miraculously untouchable as some people claim they are, but they are very much so, and that does need to be nerfed. If not for the ships themselves, for making traditional tank and/or gank viable again in smaller size classes too. I for one enjoyed this game more when the only nanoed web avoiding ships were pretty much crow and vaga (and both considerably slower than nowadays, btw). Remember people actually solo roaming in battleships once in a while? Remember interceptor gangs which could solo a battleship - but with a lot of effort? Hell, remember people actually almost always trying to defend themselves from you ganking them (or vice versa) and actually causing you some sort of danger?

That is what I miss in EVE, and EVE could still be more like that, if just CCP had kept things like rigs and gang bonuses and many other things out of the equation, or atleast made them play a much smaller role.

Oh, and along speed nerfs also nerf the ability of battleships to neut the **** out of smaller ships so easily. Make neuts less usable against smaller ship classes (for example heavy should be ok against bs and cs, but against cruiser or smaller it should neut considerably less already). Smaller ships need to survive with something, currently it is speed, and I do firmly believe that a ship two sizes smaller than the ship attacking it should be quite decent at avoiding damage.

Stormhold
Art of War
Posted - 2008.10.09 11:49:00 - [46]
 

Also, with current proposed changes, making afterburners considerably faster (starting from +200% speed or something atleast) might not be a bad idea. Might also allow webs to be a bit stronger than proposed.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.10.09 12:36:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Stormhold
Also, with current proposed changes, making afterburners considerably faster (starting from +200% speed or something atleast) might not be a bad idea. Might also allow webs to be a bit stronger than proposed.


200% speed is mwd boost levels ffs.

What difference do you see boosting afterburners making in gang combat if all you need do is hit f1-f8 to melt the ship using it?.

Nostejio
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:09:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Murina
200% speed is mwd boost levels ffs.

What difference do you see boosting afterburners making in gang combat if all you need do is hit f1-f8 to melt the ship using it?.


It's actually a massive difference. The math on tracking is huge on speed AND sig. A vaga with such an afterburner would do possible 1500? That's 1/4 The speed as the current mwd speeds with decent skills and 2 poly I's. With 1/5th the sig radius. The math on tracking and sig is multiplication. Essentially That means you're losing a 4x on speed but gaining a 5x on sig.

Very rough math not doing rad's/sec here sorry.. someone else can... lol

6000m/s / 550sig radius, diameter from end to end is actually 1100. So the ratio at max trans looking at the ship sideways which is usually the longest way from the guns perspective, is 6000:1100 or 5.4545~

After the nerf it would be 1500:220 or 6.8181~. Its an increased ratio in your favor by 25%. Or in plain english it would make the vagabond 25% harder to hit.

Stormhold
Art of War
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:22:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Stormhold on 09/10/2008 14:23:18
Originally by: Murina
200% speed is mwd boost levels ffs.


Could I have some of those 'shrooms too, please?

http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/EN/shipequipment/propulsion/microwarpdrives/12076.asp
For refrence, t2 mwds still seem to be 550% without any skills just like when I started EVE, t1 500%. 200% base speed afterburners or something like that would hardly make them obsolete in terms of speed when speed is what is needed.

While this would probably not make it viable itself - mind you, I can't be bothered to make more throughout calculations about perfect speed boost amounts etc - I do think it might not be a bad idea to seperate modules which's main function is to get close to the enemy (blaster ships, for example) or far away from the enemy fast and then not care about speed after that and the modules which allow you to keep them on and speed tank, to some degree atleast. This would be a very drastic change and need a pile of other stuff balanced around it, but yeah, aren't they nerfing a huge load of stuff heavily now in any case?

And by speed tanking I don't necessarily mean current stay out of web range-stuff. With nerfed webs that might mean closer orbit. Point is, currently afterburners are rather useless in pvp, and the difference between AB and MWD speed boost is so high that you can easily increase AB speed and possibly make it an useful module. After all, it won't **** your capacitor, needs less cap to run, doesn't increase signature and is easier to fit.

Fullmetal Jackass
Posted - 2008.10.09 16:16:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 09/10/2008 16:32:43
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: Stork DK
Fight in falloff for less tracking \o/


i need MORE tracking not less.

unlike projectiles, hybrid weapons, especially blasters do not use falloff, your damage goes down too much (falloff largest auocannon=16km; falloff largest blaster=10km) lighter blasters with more tracking also have less range and falloff, while projectile weapons have the same falloff in their class. in short, blasters aren't meant to and don't fight in falloff. using falloff rigs makes sense with projectiles, not with hybrids (ok, maybe with rails if you want to snipe)


Straight out of the CCP tracking guide. They even say it twice:
"So to repeat: the goal for every pilot is to find a distance where the range penalty doesn't reduce the chance to hit by too much and the turret is still able to track the target."

Optimal plus falloff is still a 50% hit rate. Battle ship blaster cannons are higher damage and have a faster ROF then BS AC's. They track at almost exactly the same speed. Nuets vs 800mm for example have 1.5 times the optimal but 60% of the fall off. It's still 10km. Use it. There is a 15% diff in opt + fall off. I'm pretty sure blasters put out at least 15% more dps then AC's. Deal with it.

Gallente gank ships have ruled small scale and solo pvp for as long as I've been playing (two and a half years btw). Activate MWD, aproach, scram, web, lauch drones, activate blasters, win. (At least they finally fixed NOS.) Heaven forbid you might have to change tactics and set up a bit. Or even worse, fly in a gang.

Speed is gettin reworked. It's happening. Find a way to make it work like the rest of everyone else.

Kopkiller
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:58:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass


Gallente gank ships have ruled small scale and solo pvp for as long as I've been playing (two and a half years btw). Activate MWD, aproach, scram, web, lauch drones, activate blasters, win. (At least they finally fixed NOS.) Heaven forbid you might have to change tactics and set up a bit. Or even worse, fly in a gang.
.


ROFLMAO

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.10.09 19:07:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Murina on 09/10/2008 19:56:43


Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass


Gallente gank ships have ruled small scale and solo pvp for as long as I've been playing (two and a half years btw). Activate MWD, aproach, scram, web, lauch drones, activate blasters, win. (At least they finally fixed NOS.) Heaven forbid you might have to change tactics and set up a bit. Or even worse, fly in a gang.
.


Yea i mean wtf would eve come to if all the thousands of regular 1 v 1 bs fights in eve suddenly became rare and gang fighting was the norm.......hey wait.......

Dude stop posting every time you post you look more naive and stupid.

PS: NOS still kicks ass if you know how to use it correctly in BS fighting, i challenge you to come on sisi and il give you a lesson in 1v1 BS fighting on my main.

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2008.10.09 20:20:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
...

as stated, my options are limited (more like non existent). i explicitly excluded autocannons from the the arguments because i know less about them than blasters (i confess, after the EA upgrade, i started a minmatar alt. for, you guessed it, nanos, but i'm not complaining about that, i almost lost hope ccp would actually do something against nanos so i tried jumping on the bandwagon. you know, good old "adapt or gtfo")

but i still don't understand why i, as someone who did not use fotm-tactics, has to suffer because someone else did. and this p***es me of the most. i spend a long time getting to t2 blasters, something around half a year, and now this.

you may not have seen how bob was beaten in the late 07 alliance tournament in the final round by 10 thoraxes. hell, that was a hell of a good fight. and nowhere near overpowered (ppl actually said bobs setup was overpowered). you should watch it some time it was really fun.

the ruling of solo pvp by gallente was largely because of favorable slot layout: mids for tackle, lows for tank.
nano put an end to this, vagas, claymores, sacrileges and curses ruled solo pvp, again due to favorable slot layout: enough mids for tackle and tank + speed in the lows (+ polys)

Dizeezer Velar
Caldari
League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
Posted - 2008.10.09 21:15:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Dizeezer Velar on 09/10/2008 21:16:17
double post

Dizeezer Velar
Caldari
League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
Posted - 2008.10.09 21:16:00 - [55]
 


Stork DK
Blasters will be fine even with the web nerf. Most heavy blaster ships have plenty of midslots for a dual web.


Dead wrong, in fact, ridiculous statement.

KiIIBiII
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:43:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 04/10/2008 15:00:09
Originally by: ollobrains2
mmm im a armour tanker u mean ill be more competitive in pvp not necessarily win but not be insta death from a nano gang or a nano pilot - hurrah needs to be a balance


To be competitive in pvp you need to improve your team work and individual skills, crying to ccp to lower the bar so what ever silly ratting fit you are using can be effective against true pvpers fitted to kill things has never been successful and never will be (although the whining on this forum shows that you carebears are still trying lol).

You will still "insta death" (what ever that means) from roaming gangs of ships even if nano is nerfed or are you so deluded that you think pvpers are going to start choosing fits that will lose??.LaughingLaughing

The problem is not nano it is you and the sooner you come to terms with that and start improving youe piloting and teamwork skills the better for eve and yourself tbh.


Lol and lol again, nano need nerfing alot, and don't say things like improving somwhones skills or that if somwhone buy fit/implants for xx bil he should go as fast as they go, simple example, vega going 19km/s webed will go 3km/s and will get out of your web range in half of second, and thats why it need to be nerfed, becouse spending isk and sp can't make you immortal, and such vega is immortal!

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.10.10 08:49:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Murina on 10/10/2008 08:58:32

Originally by: KiIIBiII
Originally by: Murina

Originally by: ollobrains2
mmm im a armour tanker u mean ill be more competitive in pvp not necessarily win but not be insta death from a nano gang or a nano pilot - hurrah needs to be a balance


To be competitive in pvp you need to improve your team work and individual skills, crying to ccp to lower the bar so what ever silly ratting fit you are using can be effective against true pvpers fitted to kill things has never been successful and never will be (although the whining on this forum shows that you carebears are still trying lol).

You will still "insta death" (what ever that means) from roaming gangs of ships even if nano is nerfed or are you so deluded that you think pvpers are going to start choosing fits that will lose??.LaughingLaughing

The problem is not nano it is you and the sooner you come to terms with that and start improving youe piloting and teamwork skills the better for eve and yourself tbh.


Lol and lol again, nano need nerfing alot, and don't say things like improving somwhones skills or that if somwhone buy fit/implants for xx bil he should go as fast as they go, simple example, vega going 19km/s webed will go 3km/s and will get out of your web range in half of second, and thats why it need to be nerfed, becouse spending isk and sp can't make you immortal, and such vega is immortal!


You have never seen a vaga doing 19kms (and 90% web = 1.9kms btw) in combat as its a ultra rare dream fit nobody uses apart from maybe on EFT, sisi or in safe space to show off to buddies, but even if they had it would be useless cos at 6kms it cannot hit anything due to transversal let alone at 19kms.

Needing to use unrealistic and useless fits to add substance to this stupid nerf is disgusting, and screwing over the entire game because of them is pathetic. But hey if the 19kms fits disappeared tomorrow i nor any other pvper would be bothered in the slightest as long as the others were left alone.

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2008.10.10 10:04:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Murina

Dude stop posting every time you post you look more naive and stupid.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.10.10 10:06:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Murina on 10/10/2008 10:35:02

Originally by: Zey Nadar
Originally by: Murina

Dude stop posting every time you post you look more naive and stupid.



Oh look a troll with nothing to add to the discussion.

Full post for relevance:

Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass


Gallente gank ships have ruled small scale and solo pvp for as long as I've been playing (two and a half years btw). Activate MWD, aproach, scram, web, lauch drones, activate blasters, win. (At least they finally fixed NOS.) Heaven forbid you might have to change tactics and set up a bit. Or even worse, fly in a gang.
.


Yea i mean wtf would eve come to if all the thousands of regular 1 v 1 bs fights in eve suddenly became rare and gang fighting was the norm.......hey wait.......

Dude stop posting every time you post you look more naive and stupid.

PS: NOS still kicks ass if you know how to use it correctly in BS fighting, i challenge you to come on sisi and il give you a lesson in 1v1 BS fighting on my main.

KiIIBiII
Posted - 2008.10.10 22:09:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 10/10/2008 08:58:32

Originally by: KiIIBiII
Originally by: Murina

Originally by: ollobrains2
mmm im a armour tanker u mean ill be more competitive in pvp not necessarily win but not be insta death from a nano gang or a nano pilot - hurrah needs to be a balance


To be competitive in pvp you need to improve your team work and individual skills, crying to ccp to lower the bar so what ever silly ratting fit you are using can be effective against true pvpers fitted to kill things has never been successful and never will be (although the whining on this forum shows that you carebears are still trying lol).

You will still "insta death" (what ever that means) from roaming gangs of ships even if nano is nerfed or are you so deluded that you think pvpers are going to start choosing fits that will lose??.LaughingLaughing

The problem is not nano it is you and the sooner you come to terms with that and start improving youe piloting and teamwork skills the better for eve and yourself tbh.


Lol and lol again, nano need nerfing alot, and don't say things like improving somwhones skills or that if somwhone buy fit/implants for xx bil he should go as fast as they go, simple example, vega going 19km/s webed will go 3km/s and will get out of your web range in half of second, and thats why it need to be nerfed, becouse spending isk and sp can't make you immortal, and such vega is immortal!


You have never seen a vaga doing 19kms (and 90% web = 1.9kms btw) in combat as its a ultra rare dream fit nobody uses apart from maybe on EFT, sisi or in safe space to show off to buddies, but even if they had it would be useless cos at 6kms it cannot hit anything due to transversal let alone at 19kms.

Needing to use unrealistic and useless fits to add substance to this stupid nerf is disgusting, and screwing over the entire game because of them is pathetic. But hey if the 19kms fits disappeared tomorrow i nor any other pvper would be bothered in the slightest as long as the others were left alone.


If you never sow such then don't speak up about nano nerf and mayby somtimes visit some 0.0 then you will have good view on how nano is annoing, its simply way to pvp for evryone with lack of brain in fight and tactic (and TS web 80% = 3.8kms btw).


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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