Right now many professions use a lower QL version of their CC tools (roots, snares, etc) because they have the same chance of landing on any target regardless of the nanos QL and the fact that you can spam the lower QL versions for much cheaper nano cost with similar results. In essence there really is no reason to use the "best" versions of many roots/snares/other cc tools because of how it is handled currently.
I think one of the major flaws in AO that leads to broken toolsets and overpowered fixes is what nanoresist does and represents from the ground up. Essentially, nano resist is "evades vs casters", not resisting the nano.
In most games I've played spells have a series of checks and balances in form of cast times (AO has inits which allow for instacasting), interruptibility, innate hit/miss chance for failures, and so on. But rarely do you see CC tools so greatly marginalized as in AO due to Nanoresist and what it does differently than the rest.
The way AO is setup, theoretically, if the target has a higher NR than the caster then the nano will be next to impossible to land. It's been said a dozen times that diminishing returns with greater chances to land for shorter duration debuffs/snares/roots/etc, would be preferred by many in the forums.
So the question is, do you believe NR is fine as it is and the nanos left with long durations/huge effects but incredibly difficult to land or instead change NR to work as a resistance for real by making it have some type of formula like this:
For every (x) points of NR you gain -1% nano damage modifier and -1% to nano debuff duration and a +1% chance to resist.
What that means is let's say that we take the classic "Fixer vs NT" situation of today. An NT can get we'll say approx 700 more Nanoskills than a Fixer can get NR in a typical nothing special for either player setup. As a result currently the NT just blinks at the fixer and they die.
Now with the proposed adjustments to how NR could work instead, where (x) = 100, a fixer with 2500 NR will have a 25% -damage modifier (making the Nuke hit for less damage), will shorten the duration of a blind/root/snare by 25% and give a base 25% chance to resist the effects entirely.
Now this might not solve the fixer vs nt balance equation itself nor is that the direct intent, moreover, I just used it as an example due to the extreme nature of the situation.
Then I would use Nanoskills vs nano QL with an inverse OE formula to handle the base caster chance to miss. Such as if the casters skills are 700 points higher than the targets NR and the nano that is being used is 30 levels lower than the target will essentially never land because it would be UE (under equipped). Mind you it's late and these are theoretical math formulas to illustrate a point rather than decide the "defacto numbers" to fit into the equation.
Anyway, not sure if anyone will agree or if this will just get flamed into oblivion but when I was talking about the subject with NR with a friend this came to me and I figured I'd flesh it out and then post it up for discussion and it's late so sorry for my horridly tl;dr version. I'll try to clean it up some tomorrow when I wake up.It would actually majorly benefit nanoskill twinking because using a higher QL nano with "more" nanoskills than is required would in my idea either increase the chance of landing or work as an ADD Nano effect modifier.
So let's say that you have a nano that requires 1500 BM and 1800 MC. You have 1689 BM and 1948 MC; in my line of thinking this should add an effect modifier of 337. That effect modifier could be over healing effects/extra damage/extra duration of the nano effect, etc.
Right now if I as a non caster put more IP / buffs / twinking effort into my weapon skills my damage and thusly the effect of the button I am pressing is increased as a result of my effort. In terms of nanos, that is not the case. You simply either have enough skills to cast the nano and it land or not.
Cheers,
Rick