Nano mania is destroying EVE

Agricola1 · February 2007

It seems that Nanofibres are the new ECM now. I'm watching nanophoons going faster than interceptors now and believe that the DEVs need to add a stacking penalty to nanofibres and overdrives.

I don't think that it got this bad even with ECM. A few days ago I was in a group with half the ships being nano ships, an Absoloution warped in at 60km to snipe us and was being bumped by a Typhoon that managed to close the distance in seconds. We destroyed the ship and got TS loot but afterwards I just thought to myself "that's so gay!".

Now you can't swing a dead dog by the tail without hitting a nanoship, and with warp to 0 interceptors can't lock battleships quick enough before they warp off. I mean intys with SB II's a scan res of say 3k and they can't lock a Dominix before it warps away. I don't know about you but I'm sick of this crap and feel that nanos are destroying EVE. I've heard the same complaint from many alliance mates, if they don't complain it's because they're in nano ships.

Would other players agree with a stacking penalty for nanofibres and overdrives? Or do you think I'm over-reacting.

Fakonamo · February 2007

I agree completely. This Flavor of the Month's time is up. The novelty has worn off and now it's just annoying.

bawldy · February 2007

Originally posted by Agricola1

It seems that Nanofibres are the new ECM now. I'm watching nanophoons going faster than interceptors now and believe that the DEVs need to add a stacking penalty to nanofibres and overdrives.
I don't think that it got this bad even with ECM. A few days ago I was in a group with half the ships being nano ships, an Absoloution warped in at 60km to snipe us and was being bumped by a Typhoon that managed to close the distance in seconds. We destroyed the ship and got TS loot but afterwards I just thought to myself "that's so gay!".
Now you can't swing a dead dog by the tail without hitting a nanoship, and with warp to 0 interceptors can't lock battleships quick enough before they warp off. I mean intys with SB II's a scan res of say 3k and they can't lock a Dominix before it warps away. I don't know about you but I'm sick of this crap and feel that nanos are destroying EVE. I've heard the same complaint from many alliance mates, if they don't complain it's because they're in nano ships.
Would other players agree with a stacking penalty for nanofibres and overdrives? Or do you think I'm over-reacting.

nano's sure do work....but I don't think it is nano's that have ruined the game...ccp did.

I used to fly a nanophoon...worked very well, but like you I thought it wrong, so stopped using it. (ya, moral choices, exploit a flaw, or dont and have those with no morals mock you...I choose to be mocked instead of lossing my morals).

RollinDutch · February 2007

iStabs were a terrible idea from the get-go.

Rigs as a whole were a terrible idea from the get-go.

Multiple bad ideas at once combine to form the Megazord of imbalance. Welcome to 2007's Gankageddon.

Taram · February 2007

Ok first of all, I agree... the ISTAB issue has to stop. But please make sure you understand the problem before posting about it because constantly blaming nanofibers is only going to confuse people. The problem is not, has never been and should NOT be attributed to NANOFIBERS

The problem is the fact that Inertial Stabilizers have too many benefits and not enough drawbacks. They are WAY overpowered, especially when used on larger ships with tons of lowslots. Ships aren't going 40x faster than they used to because they are fitting nanos. They're doing it because they are fitting 3, 4, even 5 Inertial Stabilizers and turning battleships mass into something akin to a frigate. Then that 100mn MWD mounted on there is hurtling them along at ungodly speeds. Speeds it was never supposed to be able to attain. Speeds that are so fast, in fact, that interceptors can't even tackle these speed boats any longer.

Adding to that problem is speed rigs (hell rigs in general). Which allow ships to fit 2 and 3 extra speed boosts, which suffer no stacking penalty, to their ship. FURTHER increasing their ungodly speeds.

But, again, the problem isn't nanofibers. The problem is Inertial stabilizers and, to a lesser extent, speed rigs do not have enough stacking penalty. IMO they shouldn't stack at all but it's not my call.

I agree... they need a nerf badly. But please, stop calling them nanoships. They're not nanoships they're Istab ships.

Tulisin · February 2007

I believe in a recent dev blog CCP stated that they do have a problem with the current speed that some of the larger ships are going, they listed several ways they were considering to fix the issue (including adding stacking penalties, or maybe just nerfing MWDs), so it isn't as if they're ignoring the issue.

iCeh · February 2007

Originally posted by Tulisin

I believe in a recent dev blog CCP stated that they do have a problem with the current speed that some of the larger ships are going, they listed several ways they were considering to fix the issue (including adding stacking penalties, or maybe just nerfing MWDs), so it isn't as if they're ignoring the issue.

Ah, good to know. I remember when they changed the way Target Jammers worked, I really hated the change and almost every ship seemed to have just one damn jammer that worked every freaking time! Domi's were the most annoying ships for them, and I had serious thoughts of quitting the game due to too many boring fights against said setups. Luckily they did something at the right time. >.<

GunnyFisher · February 2007

Originally posted by Taram

Ok first of all, I agree... the ISTAB issue has to stop. But please make sure you understand the problem before posting about it because constantly blaming nanofibers is only going to confuse people. The problem is not, has never been and should NOT be attributed to NANOFIBERS

The problem is the fact that Inertial Stabilizers have too many benefits and not enough drawbacks. They are WAY overpowered, especially when used on larger ships with tons of lowslots. Ships aren't going 40x faster than they used to because they are fitting nanos. They're doing it because they are fitting 3, 4, even 5 Inertial Stabilizers and turning battleships mass into something akin to a frigate. Then that 100mn MWD mounted on there is hurtling them along at ungodly speeds. Speeds it was never supposed to be able to attain. Speeds that are so fast, in fact, that interceptors can't even tackle these speed boats any longer.

Adding to that problem is speed rigs (hell rigs in general). Which allow ships to fit 2 and 3 extra speed boosts, which suffer no stacking penalty, to their ship. FURTHER increasing their ungodly speeds.

But, again, the problem isn't nanofibers. The problem is Inertial stabilizers and, to a lesser extent, speed rigs do not have enough stacking penalty. IMO they shouldn't stack at all but it's not my call.

I agree... they need a nerf badly. But please, stop calling them nanoships. They're not nanoships they're Istab ships.

QFT, Nano's are not the problem, Istabs are.

Jizzlobber85 · February 2007

The speed is a problem and the devs are addressing it. There will a stacking penalities. Dont worry its just a new phase and will soon be change, then another thing will be a phase etc etc

Also Amarr are going to be increased

Agricola1 · February 2007

Sorry I thought it was mainly nanos, I knew some were using inertial stabalizers but didn't realize they were the main culprit. Either way I feel both need to be brought in line with every other module in EVE and be given a stacking penalty. Thanks for correcting me.

Mcgreag · February 2007

Istabs is NOT the main reason these ships go so fast. Switching nanos to istabs only give a few 100m/s extra top speed. They are part of the reason but not so much because of the speed increase as the agility increase. Without the increased agility it wouldn't be as useful to have a huge top speed as it would take forever to reach it and to turn while maintaining it.

The thing that gives these super high speeds are a combination of rigs and implants.

binjuice · February 2007

Its that inertial stableisers reduce the mass of the ships, with 5-6 stabs (+ rigs) the bs's mass can be reduced (because there is no real stacking penalty) by 10-15% per istab... + the speed boosts of the nano's make the top speed of the BS, not 500% more (a mwd's speed math boost) but the thrust over the mass which is giving the mass of a cruiser or frigate the boost of a BS MWD(something in the range of 150,000,000 thrust. which makes said ship fly up and beyond frigate able speeds. This also enables the ship to take off at phononable speeds and turn at them, better then a crow (my istabbed crow, with nano and rigs cannot out warp a nano phoon or manuevre or catch. And I have decent to good nav skills and SC too) This is the problem

Bahemoth · February 2007

The Rigs play a part in it its Istabs that are the biggest factor though. the reduction in mass make speed increases nasty. what makes it worse is that less mass also allows them to maintain higher speeds while making sharp turns.

honestly if they revert Istabs to normal and leave everything else alone (i believe rigs are fine honestly well barring the shield tanking rigs their drawback isnt signifigant enough) the nanoships wil lose alot of their effeciveness

Mcgreag · February 2007

Originally posted by binjuice
Its that inertial stableisers reduce the mass of the ships, with 5-6 stabs (+ rigs) the bs's mass can be reduced (because there is no real stacking penalty) by 10-15% per istab... + the speed boosts of the nano's make the top speed of the BS, not 500% more (a mwd's speed math boost) but the thrust over the mass which is giving the mass of a cruiser or frigate the boost of a BS MWD(something in the range of 150,000,000 thrust. which makes said ship fly up and beyond frigate able speeds. This also enables the ship to take off at phononable speeds and turn at them, better then a crow (my istabbed crow, with nano and rigs cannot out warp a nano phoon or manuevre or catch. And I have decent to good nav skills and SC too) This is the problem

The mass reduction is stacking penelized. At most you will benefit from 4 istabs, for most setups 3 is the sweet point.

I know exactly how they work. Instead of taking numbers from the air why not do some real math. The numbers below assume max skills and best named istab/nano.

Typhoon
Speed: 187.5 m/s
Mass with mwd: 150.000.000 kg
Mass with mwd and 7x istab: 95.020.246 kg
Mass with mwd and 4x istab: 97.085.054 kg
Mass with mwd and 3x istab: 101.388.305 kg
Mass with mwd and 2x istab: 110.878.080 kg

Speed with 7x nano and t2 mwd: 3130 m/s
Speed with 7x istab and t2 mwd: 2222 m/s
Speed with 4x istab + 3x nano and t2 mwd: 3225 m/s
Speed with 3x istab + 4x nano and t2 mwd: 3435 m/s
Speed with 2x istab + 5x nano and t2 mwd: 3476 m/s

So we see here that best speed is actually with just 2 istabs but 3 is probably better because of the agility increase. The reason just 2 istabs is best here is because of the low base speed, the faster the ship is from the start the more istabs will give compared to nanofibers. For most ships 3 istabs will be the best option.

We also see that istabs only give at most 10% speed increase over a classical nano setup. Compare that to pirate implants that can give 53.6% speed increase and mwd boost rigs that give 52% boost for 3x t1. If we take the classical 7x nanofiber setup and add a highgrade snake set and 3x t1 mwd boost rigs it will suddenly go 7307 m/s and that's without a single istab.

So I will repeat what I said. Inertial Stabilizers are NOT the reason why we have nanophoons etc today. The only thing inertial stabilizers do is to allow you to turn on a dime, they will NOT allow you to move really really fast.

Nicoli · February 2007

Problem with nanophoons IMO is not the speed. its the ability to get up to that speed so fast that makes them so annoying. Its difficult to web one slow enough to allow you to keep him in web range. The near insta warp and ability to coast out of web range is the problem that is caused by the I-stabs. a pure nanoned ship takes longer to get into warp to to the lower agility. that said there is something about those combos that needs work though cranking out a bit more math would be required by CCP to determine at what point of the mix is the worst part and try to at least penalize it. I'm fine with the 9km/a BS just not one that can do it and warp near instantly is the problem.

pihlssite · February 2007

hm I cant se the problem in Nanos ?
I have been using those one some of my smaller ships
apocs and soo But hm I havent hear any "whines"
so far in my corners.

lowrads · February 2007

The problem comes from endless stacking of effects without sufficient holes being opened in one's defenses.

With the nano setups, ships can evade fire from point-blank weapons, use nos/missiles/drones, and effortlessly get out of scramble/web range on similar sized ships. The deadly part is the nano-nos combination because interceptors have a very fragile capacitor balance. Even at high levels and with good equipment, a tackler cepter is just getting by on cap, or is burning it up over the next few "rounds" in hopes that backup can finish the job in time. With heavy nos in the picture, a cepter goes from full cap to no cap as quick as lockon. While a cap booster could power a scrambler, it cannot power an mwd.

CCP have stated they are going to nerf cap boosters and mwd combos anyway. Go figure.

With nanosetups, you have uber mods stacked on top of uber skills stacked on top of uber rigs stacked on top of uber implants stacked on top of combat boosters.

Except for the mods themselves, most of those things carry no real drawbacks. A T1 nano setup doesn't work, but that's not what I'm getting at.

An example would be if adding an explosive hardener reduced your thermal resistance. You increase on defence by abandoning another.

Istabs should make your sig increase stack. Likewise, implants and combat boosters and rigs need stronger penalties. And above all that, skills which affect stats globally need a nerf or substitution. Skills which specialize you in a particular weapon or ship are ok, but the ones that just make you uber over noobs or intermediate players are retarded. They serve no other reason than to extend subscriptions on already hooked players. Once upon a time they were needed as a buffer time for CCP to crank out more skills and content, but that time has passed.

In a way though, the nanosetups are not that much of a problem in the game. They are good for raiders, and the nanosetup generally does not pack enough DPS to menace any equally sized group. Mostly it's the running away that bothers people, but I think that is a symptom of other problems with general "economics" of engagement in the game moreso than the running away itself. I won't debate aesthetics of BS going more 1km/s, but clearly it's the role of the cepter vs. the nanoship that is more of a problem. Naturally, that is more of a problem of the nos than the nano.

Without nos, the interceptor would be king of all small engagements though. While I am responsible for crusading on behalf of the cepter back when BS could track frigs with large bore guns, the pendulum has been needing to swing the other way for a long time. NOS does need to be tweaked, and interceptors do need to make life hell for the solo BS pilots of the universe. However, cepter dps is a bit on the high side (+33% easy) although a good pilot or two should (and is) more than fair match for a single set of small drones. The problem of getting out of combat is still bad with cepters. For something like a natural foe to emerge and to complete Natural Circle of Violence, cepters need to be hitting +95% velocity in order to warp. Something like a destroyer or a snipe cruiser might have a real role then. They in turn will always be susceptible to heavier hulls in similar numbers.

Howdy, Stranger!

Nano mania is destroying EVE

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Nano mania is destroying EVE

Comments