open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Dealing with Nano HACs...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic

Captain Schmungles
Caldari
Freelancing Corp
Confederation of Independent Corporations
Posted - 2008.01.16 07:00:00 - [91]
 

Heavy neuts are generally a good strategy, but honestly any kind of nos/neut is better than none. If everyone in your gang fit one neut then that'd be fairly effective.

With nano drone boats you can also just shoot down their drones as most pilots will hit you with their drones while they orbit you at 1 billion km/s.

Beth Heke
Posted - 2008.01.16 09:03:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Gamesguy


Learn to read. The drake can hurt it's tanking ability by fitting a skirmish warfare mod and mindlink(taking months of training time in a highly specialised line), now he has 18km overheated t2 webs that still don't guarentee the web sticking.

Just because I'm a typical lamer douchebag doesnt mean everyone is.


Fixed!

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.01.16 09:42:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Gamesguy on 16/01/2008 09:47:16
Originally by: Beth Heke
Originally by: Gamesguy


Learn to read. The drake can hurt it's tanking ability by fitting a skirmish warfare mod and mindlink(taking months of training time in a highly specialised line), now he has 18km overheated t2 webs that still don't guarentee the web sticking.

Just because I'm a typical lamer douchebag doesnt mean everyone is.


Fixed!


Ah so thats what it comes down to. You want to be able to pwn nanoships without changing your setup one bit, or do any training.

I guess the nanohac didnt need to train any skills either, nope.Rolling Eyes

EDIT: Oh and "months" of training my ass. You need 1 rank 5 and 1 rank 2 skill to 5, thats less training then just being able to fly a hac.

Dromidas Shadowmoon
Minmatar
54th Knights Templar
THORN Alliance
Posted - 2008.01.16 09:49:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 16/01/2008 09:51:36
Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 16/01/2008 09:49:47
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Beth Heke
Originally by: Gamesguy


Learn to read. The drake can hurt it's tanking ability by fitting a skirmish warfare mod and mindlink(taking months of training time in a highly specialised line), now he has 18km overheated t2 webs that still don't guarentee the web sticking.

Just because I'm a typical lamer douchebag doesnt mean everyone is.


Fixed!


Ah so thats what it comes down to. You want to be able to pwn nanoships without changing your setup one bit, or do any training.

I guess the nanohac didnt need to train any skills either, nope.Rolling Eyes


My minmatar came with 2.5 mil sp in navigation, 2.5 mil in engineering, 4+ mil in gunnery, and 1 mil in drones which is about what it takes to successfully nano a ship and have a chance of killing another ship fit for pvp.
Didn't yours?

Edit:
Ooops! forgot the 2.5 mil in Leadership to be able to nano gang well, since a gang of the same size in actual support and battleships would rox0rz a nano gang (or make them flee)

Edit2:
Oh I just noticed he was complaining about training those skills I just said we had to train to nano effectively.. so does that mean you need around the same skills to have a fair fight? OVERPOWERED NERF WORLDOFWARCRAFTIFY! GET TO DA CHOPPA!

Beth Heke
Posted - 2008.01.17 05:12:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon
Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 16/01/2008 09:51:36
Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 16/01/2008 09:49:47

My minmatar came with 2.5 mil sp in navigation, 2.5 mil in engineering, 4+ mil in gunnery, and 1 mil in drones which is about what it takes to successfully nano a ship and have a chance of killing another ship fit for pvp.
Didn't yours?

Edit:
Ooops! forgot the 2.5 mil in Leadership to be able to nano gang well, since a gang of the same size in actual support and battleships would rox0rz a nano gang (or make them flee)

Edit2:
Oh I just noticed he was complaining about training those skills I just said we had to train to nano effectively.. so does that mean you need around the same skills to have a fair fight? OVERPOWERED NERF WORLDOFWARCRAFTIFY! GET TO DA CHOPPA!


Let's see:

Investing SP into the PVP skills you would be learning anyway (Gunnery, Engineering, Navigation, Drones)

vs.

Investing SP into a highly specialised line of skills that rely on the weakest attribute (Charisma), which don't work unless you're in a gang and serve the sole purpose of stopping nano-*****s.

You're right; they're exactly the same!

Oops, I almost forgot that training all the way to Mindlink/Interdiction Gang Mod doesn't even guarentee a Web sticking on a nano-ship!

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.01.17 05:20:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:21:03
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:19:51
If you cannot see the benefit of every ship in gang having a de-facto faction web/distruptor for 450K + 2M ISK, alongside with a nice speedboost, then you need to go back missioning in high-sec and stop discussing PvP balance in ships and modules.

Best thing is, even though multiple people have stupidly said it, people will still not train it. It messes up their SP count because it's based on a bad attribute, geez.

Next you'll whine about heat being necessary and skill intensive and say that nanoships can just overheat MWD to get of range. Laughing

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2008.01.17 05:21:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
multiple people have stupidly said it


This. Seriously. Gah, people... it's one thing to give away secrets, it's another to give away Teh Sekrit!

-Liang

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.01.17 08:58:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:21:03
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:19:51
If you cannot see the benefit of every ship in gang having a de-facto faction web/distruptor for 450K + 2M ISK, alongside with a nice speedboost, then you need to go back missioning in high-sec and stop discussing PvP balance in ships and modules.

Best thing is, even though multiple people have stupidly said it, people will still not train it. It messes up their SP count because it's based on a bad attribute, geez.

Next you'll whine about heat being necessary and skill intensive and say that nanoships can just overheat MWD to get of range. Laughing


No, you're missing the point. The thing that people complain about, is that in order to 'deal' with a nanoship/gang, you NEED to counter fit. It's not about what tactics work, and what don't. It's about the opportunity cost of _having_ to do so.

Most ships and setups, sure, if someone's got a well co-ordinated gang/tactic going, they have an advantage. That's entirely fine. But having a situation where _either_ you have a counter fit to this particular tactic, or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE because you're guaranteed to lose, is, and remains the problem.



Ione Hunt
Storm Solutions
Posted - 2008.01.17 09:05:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:21:03
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:19:51
If you cannot see the benefit of every ship in gang having a de-facto faction web/distruptor for 450K + 2M ISK, alongside with a nice speedboost, then you need to go back missioning in high-sec and stop discussing PvP balance in ships and modules.

Best thing is, even though multiple people have stupidly said it, people will still not train it. It messes up their SP count because it's based on a bad attribute, geez.

Next you'll whine about heat being necessary and skill intensive and say that nanoships can just overheat MWD to get of range. Laughing


No, you're missing the point. The thing that people complain about, is that in order to 'deal' with a nanoship/gang, you NEED to counter fit. It's not about what tactics work, and what don't. It's about the opportunity cost of _having_ to do so.

Most ships and setups, sure, if someone's got a well co-ordinated gang/tactic going, they have an advantage. That's entirely fine. But having a situation where _either_ you have a counter fit to this particular tactic, or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE because you're guaranteed to lose, is, and remains the problem.




Well, in that case I want my Vagabond to do a lot more damage or get a much better "regular" tank as a standard...because it's not fair I have to refit when facing an enemy who has double webs or a good tank I can't normally break. Rolling Eyes

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.01.17 09:14:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Ione Hunt
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:21:03
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:19:51
If you cannot see the benefit of every ship in gang having a de-facto faction web/distruptor for 450K + 2M ISK, alongside with a nice speedboost, then you need to go back missioning in high-sec and stop discussing PvP balance in ships and modules.

Best thing is, even though multiple people have stupidly said it, people will still not train it. It messes up their SP count because it's based on a bad attribute, geez.

Next you'll whine about heat being necessary and skill intensive and say that nanoships can just overheat MWD to get of range. Laughing


No, you're missing the point. The thing that people complain about, is that in order to 'deal' with a nanoship/gang, you NEED to counter fit. It's not about what tactics work, and what don't. It's about the opportunity cost of _having_ to do so.

Most ships and setups, sure, if someone's got a well co-ordinated gang/tactic going, they have an advantage. That's entirely fine. But having a situation where _either_ you have a counter fit to this particular tactic, or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE because you're guaranteed to lose, is, and remains the problem.




Well, in that case I want my Vagabond to do a lot more damage or get a much better "regular" tank as a standard...because it's not fair I have to refit when facing an enemy who has double webs or a good tank I can't normally break. Rolling Eyes


A tank you cannot break, doesn't cost you your ship.

Ione Hunt
Storm Solutions
Posted - 2008.01.17 09:19:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Ione Hunt
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:21:03
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 05:19:51
If you cannot see the benefit of every ship in gang having a de-facto faction web/distruptor for 450K + 2M ISK, alongside with a nice speedboost, then you need to go back missioning in high-sec and stop discussing PvP balance in ships and modules.

Best thing is, even though multiple people have stupidly said it, people will still not train it. It messes up their SP count because it's based on a bad attribute, geez.

Next you'll whine about heat being necessary and skill intensive and say that nanoships can just overheat MWD to get of range. Laughing


No, you're missing the point. The thing that people complain about, is that in order to 'deal' with a nanoship/gang, you NEED to counter fit. It's not about what tactics work, and what don't. It's about the opportunity cost of _having_ to do so.

Most ships and setups, sure, if someone's got a well co-ordinated gang/tactic going, they have an advantage. That's entirely fine. But having a situation where _either_ you have a counter fit to this particular tactic, or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE because you're guaranteed to lose, is, and remains the problem.




Well, in that case I want my Vagabond to do a lot more damage or get a much better "regular" tank as a standard...because it's not fair I have to refit when facing an enemy who has double webs or a good tank I can't normally break. Rolling Eyes


A tank you cannot break, doesn't cost you your ship.


A tank I can't break doesn't get me a kill Rolling Eyes

Diomidis
Pod Liberation Authority
Posted - 2008.01.17 09:24:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Beth Heke
Oops, I almost forgot that training all the way to Mindlink/Interdiction Gang Mod doesn't even guarentee a Web sticking on a nano-ship!



Nothing Guaranties anything in EVE's PvP, or it shouldn't anyways...actually that's what makes it so interesting.

If you are looking for "Guaranteed" fights, go pirate some noobs or choose another game

- and that's generally speaking, I'm not referring personally to Beth Heke btw...

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2008.01.17 09:25:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 17/01/2008 09:29:35
Originally by: James Lyrus

No, you're missing the point. The thing that people complain about, is that in order to 'deal' with a nanoship/gang, you NEED to counter fit. It's not about what tactics work, and what don't. It's about the opportunity cost of _having_ to do so.

Most ships and setups, sure, if someone's got a well co-ordinated gang/tactic going, they have an advantage. That's entirely fine. But having a situation where _either_ you have a counter fit to this particular tactic, or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE because you're guaranteed to lose, is, and remains the problem.



A list of modules that are imbalanced by this definition:
- ECM, because it requires ECCM or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- ECM Burst, because it requires ECCM or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Damps, because they require sensor boosters or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Tracking Disruptors, because they require tracking comps / enhancers or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Target painters, because they require a halo set or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Neutralizers, because they require a cap booster or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Nos, because they require a cap booster or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Cap boosters, because they require a nos or neutralizer or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Webs, because they require a MWD or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- MWDs, because they require webs or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Interdiction Spheres, because there is no counter and you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Warp bubbles, because there is no counter and you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Warp Disruption Field Gens, because there is no counter and you JUST DON'T ENGAGE

I could probably go on. There are lots of styles of fighting in this game that require someone to have seen it coming and fit accordingly (ewar, remote repping, nano, etc) in order to counter it.

Removing those styles of play will make the game exactly like a tanking sim for Eve that I wrote. And that's what we've got certain whiners complaining about.

It's actually funny, though, because what the whiners want is just to watch a little red bar drop a little bit before they die. ECM stops this, damps stop this, tracking disruptors stop this, speed stops this, their own stupidity stops this. When they don't see that little red bar drop, they become frustrated - even if they got caught out 5 jumps from anyone in a ratting raven.

Those are all victims of recent nerfs, btw (ECM, Damps, TD's, Speed).

-Liang

Ed: Also, most of those "hard to fit" counters that have "opportunity cost" to fit can and should be fit on any PVP ship. Complaining that you can't kill everything under the sun in your PVE battleship is just a *LITTLE* silly...

And the fact that you didn't bother to fit *ANY* of the counters on your *PVP* ship just means you willingly left unprepared for what you might face (such as ECM, damps, td's, speed, whatever) - or you prepared to face the wrong thing.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.01.17 10:13:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 10:14:25
Originally by: James Lyrus

No, you're missing the point. The thing that people complain about, is that in order to 'deal' with a nanoship/gang, you NEED to counter fit. It's not about what tactics work, and what don't. It's about the opportunity cost of _having_ to do so.

Most ships and setups, sure, if someone's got a well co-ordinated gang/tactic going, they have an advantage. That's entirely fine. But having a situation where _either_ you have a counter fit to this particular tactic, or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE because you're guaranteed to lose, is, and remains the problem.



You're wrong, actually.

You are NOT guaranteed to lose because you are using a setup which is not a specific counter.

In fact, many of your average decently PvP fit *Battlecruisers* will deal with a nano-HAC just fine and force him to disengage or die. A Hurricane/Cyclone can do this without too much issue and have only really the Cerb and the Sacriledge to fear. Harbringer preety much can as well. Drake can too.

Almost all the battleships fit active tanks and/or neutralisers as standard equipment and can just shrug off the damage, or even kill the nano-hac by a timely neutraliser activation. So are we talking about 'guaranteed to lose'? Obviously not.


Want situations where you have to counter-fit to a particular tactic or you just don't engage?

Liang just made you a nice list. Myself, I will never ever engage a gang with EWAR unless I have matching capabilities of our own, for one - is there any way to win over a ECM-heavy gang without ECM or dampeners of your own, or fitting ECCM a lot? No. Should there? No.

You are supposed to fit (and/or bring ships) to counter.

Beth Heke
Posted - 2008.01.17 10:46:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 17/01/2008 09:29:35

A list of modules that are imbalanced by this definition:
- ECM, because it requires ECCM or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- ECM Burst, because it requires ECCM or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Damps, because they require sensor boosters or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Tracking Disruptors, because they require tracking comps / enhancers or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Target painters, because they require a halo set or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Neutralizers, because they require a cap booster or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Nos, because they require a cap booster or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Cap boosters, because they require a nos or neutralizer or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Webs, because they require a MWD or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- MWDs, because they require webs or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Interdiction Spheres, because there is no counter and you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Warp bubbles, because there is no counter and you JUST DON'T ENGAGE
- Warp Disruption Field Gens, because there is no counter and you JUST DON'T ENGAGE




Oh boy...

The original poster provided a classic example of what's wrong with this analogy. One of the nano-ships was a Curse with Tracking Disruptor, but this was completely irrelevent to the engagement because they were incapable of hitting the Curse in the first place!

ECM is supposed to lock down a target, yet ECM boats are still vulnerable to FoF missiles (oh noes have to spend 10 seconds swapping missiles), drones and are hugely unreliable in anything but a dedicated ECM ship. Then there's the small matter of ECCM.

None of the others on the list are anything that can't be dealt with by a typical PVP setup.

MWD, Webber, Jammer? Guess what...I've got one too!

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.01.17 10:49:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Ione Hunt
Originally by: James Lyrus


A tank you cannot break, doesn't cost you your ship.


A tank I can't break doesn't get me a kill Rolling Eyes


And that would largely be the point of this discussion:

You: Kill or disengage.
They: Stalemate or die.

Originally by: Liang Nuren

- Target painters, because they require a halo set or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE


Laughing

Actually I'd agree with you on the bubbles - there's a reason a MWD is mandatory in 0.0. But y'know, you can jump a gang into a bubble, and fight, and ... well, actually y'know, reasonably expect to win. The bubble really doesn't change that.

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 10:14:25
Originally by: James Lyrus

No, you're missing the point. The thing that people complain about, is that in order to 'deal' with a nanoship/gang, you NEED to counter fit. It's not about what tactics work, and what don't. It's about the opportunity cost of _having_ to do so.

Most ships and setups, sure, if someone's got a well co-ordinated gang/tactic going, they have an advantage. That's entirely fine. But having a situation where _either_ you have a counter fit to this particular tactic, or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE because you're guaranteed to lose, is, and remains the problem.



You're wrong, actually.

You are NOT guaranteed to lose because you are using a setup which is not a specific counter.

In fact, many of your average decently PvP fit *Battlecruisers* will deal with a nano-HAC just fine and force him to disengage or die.



Oh yes. Sorry, my mistake. When I said 'guaranteed to lose' I actually meant 'guaranteed to not be able to win'.

Clearly, a stalemate is something we should all be looking for in our combat.

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.01.17 10:49:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: MotherMoon on 17/01/2008 10:50:20
posting in a NO NOES EVE TAKES TACTICS post.

get a huggin... done.

BAM!

no not a solo huggin, a huggin out side of the cruses nos and stuff. with webs on full power.

get nice webs that already have more than 10km range.

yes I know one ship to bet another ship.

but I thought most people were worried about eve becoming one ship one fit?


/rant

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.01.17 11:03:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 11:06:33
Originally by: James Lyrus

Oh yes. Sorry, my mistake. When I said 'guaranteed to lose' I actually meant 'guaranteed to not be able to win'.

Clearly, a stalemate is something we should all be looking for in our combat.


If the BC is fit to counter as it has been said, nanoship is guaranteed to not be able to win and very likely to, in fact, lose. Do you see now?


Diomidis
Pod Liberation Authority
Posted - 2008.01.17 11:21:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus
Oh yes. Sorry, my mistake. When I said 'guaranteed to lose' I actually meant 'guaranteed to not be able to win'.

Clearly, a stalemate is something we should all be looking for in our combat.


As I've stated before, convincing an opponent that choses to fight you (almost each and every nano ship, ceptor etc) that it's "flee or die" for them is hardly a Stalemate. You beat an opponent in his own field...in Sports the "visitor" is considered in a disadvantageous position already, so even a tie is a small "victory" that's rewarded with points.

Why ppl won't be satisfied with less than everything, I don't get.

Live to die another day is actually a valid tactic.

And when we are talking "cheaply fitted T1 ships" vs. "really expensive, rigged and pimped T2 ships", again its "playing safe" for the "visitor"...

Beth Heke
Posted - 2008.01.17 11:22:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 11:06:33
Originally by: James Lyrus



If the BC is fit to counter as it has been said, nanoship is guaranteed to not be able to win and very likely to, in fact, lose. Do you see now?




Oh boy...

The Drake would have to be fit with twin Faction Webbers, an Interdiction Warfare gang mod and a Mindlink in order to land a web on the nano-ship (screwing his tank in the process). Anthing less has a very, very low chance of sticking against a nano pilot orbiting at 20km.

It's not like fitting a nano-abusing HAC and being able to avoid nearly all damage and run from anything you can't beat.


Ceremony Garp
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.01.17 11:23:00 - [111]
 

I imagine I'm probably the same as many other players, insomuch as I have fought against nano-ships, as well as fly a couple myself.

A few posters have alluded to some excellent tactics for fighting back against nano-ships or wining small victories when the nano is forced to run away. There's no if's or but's about it: That IS a victory. Not dying is always a victory Very Happy

However. There is something I would like to add to this discussion. EvE is a very long-term game. Afaiac, there isn't an end-game to EvE, therefore making it a seriously long term investment. Why therefore, are people always seeking instant I-Win buttons?

Nano-ships are just another in a long line of situations in EvE that good pilots will adapt to and overcome. I have no idea if nano's will get nerfed again, but if they do? They do. That's all. But whilst they ARE still here, try to remember, that they are providing you with an invaluable opportunity to adapt to a situation and attempt to overcome it. In the long-term, the experience gained will undoubtedly come in useful for future situations where something else becomes [allegedly] overpowered. Without this experience, you may not be able to overcome the next - and as yet, unforeseen - situation.

Learn to love your enemy and his/her tactics, for they will most assuredly help you [should you choose to] learn future tactics. You cannot buy experience, but you should start to appreciate it when it presents itself for your own advancement.

Beth Heke
Posted - 2008.01.17 11:27:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Diomidis


And when we are talking "cheaply fitted T1 ships" vs. "really expensive, rigged and pimped T2 ships", again its "playing safe" for the "visitor"...


It only takes around 130m max to pimp out an Ishtar (not using Poly rigs)

Looking at the killmail(s) from the original poster, the Drake was in nearly fully tech2 and worth 80m while the Ishtar was worth 120m.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.01.17 11:52:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Beth Heke

Looking at the killmail(s) from the original poster, the Drake was in nearly fully tech2 and worth 80m while the Ishtar was worth 120m.


Inappropriately fitted Drake. I'm suprised it got the Ishtar, clear sign of Drakes being way imba!

First, it was using T1 weapons. Now, seriously.

Imagine me fitting 220mm 'carbine' ACs on a Hurricane and complaining how I died to a Vagabond - people would just say "lol noob, t2 guns". If you can't fit T2 guns on your BC, you might as well not fly it in PvP.

That said, it's a preety bad semi ratting semi PvP fit (mix of passive/active tank, has afterburner (lol), etc. And still he menaged to kill a expensive, specialised HAC, and he's whining because he couldn't kill a Curse as well?

Besides, a Deimos (a Thorax probably too) and a Falcon/Rook would have killed both of you even more effectively tbh ;)

When recons come into play, you die in a horrible way if you do not fit and compose gang to counter.

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.01.17 11:53:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Beth Heke
Originally by: Diomidis


And when we are talking "cheaply fitted T1 ships" vs. "really expensive, rigged and pimped T2 ships", again its "playing safe" for the "visitor"...


It only takes around 130m max to pimp out an Ishtar (not using Poly rigs)

Looking at the killmail(s) from the original poster, the Drake was in nearly fully tech2 and worth 80m while the Ishtar was worth 120m.


Except the ishtar most likely had polys, so it would be ******ed to discount them. Not to mention all the speed figures so far cited by you and others...included poly rigs.

Also drake gets insurance, while the ishtar does not(in significant amounts). The drake if lost would cost the pilot maybe 30-40m to replace, the ishtar would cost around 230.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.01.17 11:56:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Gamesguy

Except the ishtar most likely had polys, so it would be ******ed to discount them. Not to mention all the speed figures so far cited by you and others...included poly rigs.

Also drake gets insurance, while the ishtar does not(in significant amounts). The drake if lost would cost the pilot maybe 30-40m to replace, the ishtar would cost around 230.


I just looked at the KMs. They're on battleclinic.

Ishtar had other speedrigs, actually (thruster + agility), probably didn't want to shell out the ISK for polycarbons.

In all honesty, the Drake would've probably nailed him preety easy with precisions, but the Drake had T1 missile launchers, and preety strange fit as well.

Gorefacer
Caldari
Resurrection
Gentlemen's Club
Posted - 2008.01.17 12:00:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/01/2008 10:14:25
Originally by: James Lyrus

No, you're missing the point. The thing that people complain about, is that in order to 'deal' with a nanoship/gang, you NEED to counter fit. It's not about what tactics work, and what don't. It's about the opportunity cost of _having_ to do so.

Most ships and setups, sure, if someone's got a well co-ordinated gang/tactic going, they have an advantage. That's entirely fine. But having a situation where _either_ you have a counter fit to this particular tactic, or you JUST DON'T ENGAGE because you're guaranteed to lose, is, and remains the problem.



You're wrong, actually.

You are NOT guaranteed to lose because you are using a setup which is not a specific counter.

In fact, many of your average decently PvP fit *Battlecruisers* will deal with a nano-HAC just fine and force him to disengage or die. A Hurricane/Cyclone can do this without too much issue and have only really the Cerb and the Sacriledge to fear. Harbringer preety much can as well. Drake can too.

Almost all the battleships fit active tanks and/or neutralisers as standard equipment and can just shrug off the damage, or even kill the nano-hac by a timely neutraliser activation. So are we talking about 'guaranteed to lose'? Obviously not.


Want situations where you have to counter-fit to a particular tactic or you just don't engage?

Liang just made you a nice list. Myself, I will never ever engage a gang with EWAR unless I have matching capabilities of our own, for one - is there any way to win over a ECM-heavy gang without ECM or dampeners of your own, or fitting ECCM a lot? No. Should there? No.

You are supposed to fit (and/or bring ships) to counter.



Actually no. I'm not here to whine about nano ships, but for the sake of argument there is something you are still missing.

"is there any way to win over a ECM-heavy gang with ECM?" Yes. Have enough ships of ANY type and they cant "ECM tank" all your damage.

There is a difference between the tanking styles and speed tanking does have something other tanks don't. Let's assume noob ships as the test of not needing a specific setup to break an enemies tank (lowest denominator). Enough noob ships will break any tank style other than insano speed (Theoretically, not counting server limitations). Speed is the only tank that requires certain modules, ships, or setups other than raw numbers or amount of DPS to defeat it.

This disparity in tanks comes from speed being the only tank able to reduce DPS done to it to 0 for any random PVP ship not setup a certain way. Other tanks will break to mining lasers if there are enough of them.

Whether this is good or bad for gameplay in EVE, or is "inbalanced" is opinion based and differs for each person. Trying to "prove" the opposition "right" or "wrong" is futile, but keep at it if that's what entertains you.

Personally I don't enjoy speed warfare, but I don't feel that speed setups are overpowered either. I'm almost inclined to vote to keep speed even though I don't think that would enhance my gameplay any, just so that the people that do enjoy speed don't leave the game.

Also, good tip on the Warfare Link Drake setup, hadn't thought of that before.


Gorefacer
Caldari
Resurrection
Gentlemen's Club
Posted - 2008.01.17 12:02:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Diomidis
Originally by: James Lyrus
Oh yes. Sorry, my mistake. When I said 'guaranteed to lose' I actually meant 'guaranteed to not be able to win'.

Clearly, a stalemate is something we should all be looking for in our combat.


As I've stated before, convincing an opponent that choses to fight you (almost each and every nano ship, ceptor etc) that it's "flee or die" for them is hardly a Stalemate. You beat an opponent in his own field...in Sports the "visitor" is considered in a disadvantageous position already, so even a tie is a small "victory" that's rewarded with points.

Why ppl won't be satisfied with less than everything, I don't get.

Live to die another day is actually a valid tactic.

And when we are talking "cheaply fitted T1 ships" vs. "really expensive, rigged and pimped T2 ships", again its "playing safe" for the "visitor"...


I can be satisfied with living to fight another day, but I won't ever call it a victory.


Beth Heke
Posted - 2008.01.17 12:10:00 - [118]
 

From the set-ups of the ships involved, it looks like the Drake and Megathron were ratting in 0.0 then quickly refitted to kill the pirates.

Even with Precision Heavies, the Drake wouldn't have been able to kill the Curse and at the very best may have been able to force it to flee.

Beth Heke
Posted - 2008.01.17 12:17:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Gamesguy


Except the ishtar most likely had polys, so it would be ******ed to discount them. Not to mention all the speed figures so far cited by you and others...included poly rigs.

Also drake gets insurance, while the ishtar does not(in significant amounts). The drake if lost would cost the pilot maybe 30-40m to replace, the ishtar would cost around 230.



The rigs are listed in the killmail and it gave an estimated value of 120m for the Ishtar and 82m for the Drake.

The quote you gave is almost double the estimated value of the Ishtar.

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.01.17 12:28:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Beth Heke
Originally by: Gamesguy


Except the ishtar most likely had polys, so it would be ******ed to discount them. Not to mention all the speed figures so far cited by you and others...included poly rigs.

Also drake gets insurance, while the ishtar does not(in significant amounts). The drake if lost would cost the pilot maybe 30-40m to replace, the ishtar would cost around 230.



The rigs are listed in the killmail and it gave an estimated value of 120m for the Ishtar and 82m for the Drake.

The quote you gave is almost double the estimated value of the Ishtar.


Wow, you're actually going on kb figures.

Did you happen to notice that the rigs had 0 isk value on the kb? Or that t2 ogres were listed as 300k?

Not to mention kb values dont take into account insurance, and are notoriously inaccurate, for a while all the kbs had t2 ammo listed as costing billions/round.Rolling Eyes

That ishtar probably costed 160m or so to replace, the drake costed maybe 20m at the very most.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

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