Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 11:25:00 -
[1]
Detectable by being a module practically every PVP fit contained?
Well now its Energy Neutralisers.
They pretty much ruin PVP for smaller classes of ships vs bigger ships. Yes, I'm aware of cap boosters, which are also now a "must fit" for almost any cap dependent ship - but this in itself shows the imbalance.
Am I the only person to think this?
And I am sorry to produce a poorly expressed whine thread on a Friday of all days, but I'm grumpy today for some strange reason (no, I haven't just been Neuted to death - I actually haven't played Eve in 2 weeks due to PC problems); But [Incoming methaphor] seeing the nail sticking out I decided it is time to get (it) hammered.
|
KayaYautja
Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 11:46:00 -
[2]
Given the relatively recent changes to several tackling mods, large weapon tracking and/or explosion stats and the ease with which drones can be killed off, a Neut is the best defence a large ship has against a smaller ship.
So no, Neuts aren't overpowered, they're doing exactly what they were intended to be doing. ---
I'm the omega |
Stefan F
Enrave Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 11:47:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Stefan F on 25/09/2009 11:47:57 your nice ab/scram fitted AF is and will never be the sole pwnmobile you want it to be.
Its perfectly balanced that BS pilots should be able to get rid of a single AF. Its the swarms of them (too many to disable with the limited tools a BS has) that kill BS,not the lonely AF pilot who thinks a frigate should be able to kill a BS. Fit a small nos if you want to want to be invulnerable for the single large neut a BS fields, or does that hurt your dps too much?
Following your line of reasoning we should remove warp disruptors and scramblers aswell, as everybody uses them they are clearly overpowered. Same goes for drones, everybody able to will field them.
|
Mikael Mechka
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 11:48:00 -
[4]
I do remember the days when Nos was overpowered, I lost my first brutix the night before the nerf, and it was due to nos.
More to the point, I don't think neuts are overpowered, not because they are used in nearly every setup, but because you don't see many of them on ships. Nos was different, as long as you had another way to deal damage you could cram your highs full of nos and run a mean active tank and no one would be able to beat you without overwhelming numbers... or more nos than you.
Neuts at least cost you cap, so running a full rack of them means you can't run an active tank (not that it matters too much with the prevelance of buffer tanks currently but for ships who's guns use cap it's an issue) due to burning away your own cap.
Fitting to counter small ships while in a large ship means you're sacrificing yor setup vs equal/bigger ships. With the prevelance of remote reps as well, that is two high slots that are more or less considered already "filled". On ships that can't spare that many utility highs it becomes a real problem. -------------------------------------------------
Originally by: Lana Torrin
I just reported you for being informative in a troll thread. Please leave.
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 11:51:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/09/2009 11:51:42
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Detectable by being a module practically every PVP fit contained?
Well now its Energy Neutralisers.
They pretty much ruin PVP for smaller classes of ships vs bigger ships. Yes, I'm aware of cap boosters, which are also now a "must fit" for almost any cap dependent ship - but this in itself shows the imbalance.
Am I the only person to think this?
And I am sorry to produce a poorly expressed whine thread on a Friday of all days, but I'm grumpy today for some strange reason (no, I haven't just been Neuted to death - I actually haven't played Eve in 2 weeks due to PC problems); But [Incoming methaphor] seeing the nail sticking out I decided it is time to get (it) hammered.
No.
Nothing overpowered about neutralizers, and they're one hell of a lot weaker then the old NOS.
Neutralizers also neutralize you. Which means you either have a limited time running them, or you're cap injecting yourself (most of my ships equipped with neutralizers for instance, don't cap inject).
Compare it to the old NOS which you could run forever and it gave you more capacitor.
Cap boosters are far from "must fit on any PVP ship" - they're "must fit on any really cap-dependent PVP ship", which means most ships using cap-intensive guns (bar BCs to some extent - you can get by without one if you're willing to endure lasting only circa 3 minutes of fire) or any ships using a active tank / remote reps. In reality, this applies to a lot of ships, but the cap boosters aren't really used so much to combat neutralizers as to power your own stuff in general. So the argument that cap boosters are so needed because of neutralizers does not hold water at all.
As things are, neutralizers are preety much the only effective counter left vs smaller ships and come at a fairly high fitting price in addition to lowering your DPS on some ships (eg. Hurricanes and such) for little gain vs ships of same size (excepting full neut setups) and draining your capacitor.
It's preety damn balanced as it is.
Old NOS was easier on the fitting, gave you extra cap, was a better small ship counter then neutralizers (shorter cycle time ftw), could be run forever and ever, and really had no downsides except expending slots.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 11:53:00 -
[6]
I agree with the first post that due to tracking nerfs etc, neut and light drones are your only real defense in a turret BS vs a frig in close...
But what if Neuts drained a percentage of cap per cycle instead of a set amount? Larger neuts perhaps getting +X% versus lower ship classes and vice versa? - Obviously Cap ships would need to be exempt.
|
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 12:00:00 -
[7]
Fair points Branko, I guess it is just me feeling that way coz I'm grumpy today and probably needed something to grumble about!
Best that I go get hammered myself instead.
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 12:05:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/09/2009 12:06:41
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I agree with the first post that due to tracking nerfs etc, neut and light drones are your only real defense in a turret BS vs a frig in close...
But what if Neuts drained a percentage of cap per cycle instead of a set amount? Larger neuts perhaps getting +X% versus lower ship classes and vice versa? - Obviously Cap ships would need to be exempt.
The BS vs frigate example is rather pointless.
Heavy neuts are practically worthless vs frigs due to cycle time and trivially countered by just a small nos, or even nothing. If you're in a ship which can kill the drones or ignore them (eg. Jaguar) a heavy neut or even two in less cap dependent ships won't stop you at all. A Dominix will work, sure, because of the huge dronebay of bonused drones, but everything else either has ECM drones and bugs out or dies. This is preety-much well known.
Medium neutralizers are rather good thanks to 1/2 the cycle time, but you really want two of them. One won't cut it, except maybe in combination with a web+T2 lights. Even with dual neuts some ships will not care (Jaguar with a nos, for instance) but any cap-dependent frigate hull will feel the pain. It's moderately efficient vs ships your own size if they are very weak capwise to begin with (eg. dual-rep cruiser hulls).
Dual smalls or small+medium is the optimal combination. The much faster cycle time makes it more likely to break the all-important scrambler which is really what you're after. Downside is that it's fairly useless vs anything your own size, of course, unless it's already buggered for capacitor.
If you really need to stop frigate hulls, then small+med is probably the optimal choice both regarding how quickly you cap it out (the second med neut cycle should see it at 0 cap) and how well it keeps the capacitor at 0 (which is important for killing the scrambler).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Veliria
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 12:44:00 -
[9]
Neuts kill your own cap as well, take up a good chunk of PG (200 for a medium one) and their range is limited. If you're really afraid of neuts, fly Minmatar ships with NOS and Cap Boosters, or a Drake.
|
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 12:54:00 -
[10]
1/10
|
|
Captain Vampire
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 13:04:00 -
[11]
The problem is much more complicated than just neuts.
Neuts are atm the only real counter to pesky frigs and other small ****. Imo, it should stay this way. It is better than the 90% web in terms of balance.
However, I dislike neuts because they practically ruin active tanking, in particular when you get semi-blobbed. Active tanking needs a buff, as even injected setups dies horribly to one or two battleships with 2x Heavy neuts alone.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 13:29:00 -
[12]
I mostly agree that Neuts have lead the game o a bad place.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
VanNostrum
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 14:20:00 -
[13]
Originally by: TrollmoreX 1/10
he actually somewhat diverted the attention to "those were the days" kinda of nostalgia emote, disguising his whine
for that effort he gets a 1+1/10 = 2/10 from me
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:00:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Captain Vampire
However, I dislike neuts because they practically ruin active tanking, in particular when you get semi-blobbed. Active tanking needs a buff, as even injected setups dies horribly to one or two battleships with 2x Heavy neuts alone.
Blobbing ruins active tanking tbfh. And being too damn slot-intensive & cap intensive to get a decent tank, most sub-bs ships which need damage mods can't pull it off.
The very fact that a normal ship can't run even a single rep with his own capacitor at max skills is one of the, imo, silly things regarding active tanking.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: VanNostrum
Originally by: TrollmoreX 1/10
he actually somewhat diverted the attention to "those were the days" kinda of nostalgia emote, disguising his whine
for that effort he gets a 1+1/10 = 2/10 from me
Why thank you, thank youverymuch.
Those were the days indeed, a time when UK were actually a threat and station holding alliance. Hehe.
As for Neuts, well yeah, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, maybe active tanking needs improving compared to buffer tanks instead.
Good to see my keystroke efforts weren't wasted.
|
goazer
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:28:00 -
[16]
Neuts are fine, they are much rarer than ECM anyway. NOS should get a buff.
|
Spaztick
Terminal Impact Kairakau
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:43:00 -
[17]
Nos is perfectly fine as a defensive measure against neuts, which is what they have been changed to be.
|
Krist Valentine
Amarr Black Apocalypse REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:06:00 -
[18]
neuts use a huge amount of cap, can only be used on 1 target at once unless youve got more than 1 neut in highslots (which few ships do bar the obvious ones like pilgrims) and, well, they do what theyre meant to.
poor attempt, sorry
|
Lego Maniac
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 19:55:00 -
[19]
Originally by: VanNostrum
Originally by: TrollmoreX 1/10
he actually somewhat diverted the attention to "those were the days" kinda of nostalgia emote, disguising his whine
for that effort he gets a 1+1/10 = 2/10 from me
1+1/10 is actually 11/10
that is some serious trolling __________________________________________________________
˄ ____________ ˄ |
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 20:14:00 -
[20]
I hope for OP's sake he's trolling.
Cap boosters on cap dependant ships being mandatory is suddenly a proof of neuts being overpowered? Remove neuts from the game and I can assure that you'll still see cap boosters being fitted on these ships.
AF's are already getting a huge boost and there are currently means to deal with neuts anyway, such as nosferatus, capacitor boosters and heck, even ECM-drones.
Neuts are fine.
|
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 20:20:00 -
[21]
god i wish they unnerfed nos. really 1 dominix killing an entire gang was ****ing hilarious
Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Dynast
Eve Defence Force Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 22:36:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Detectable by being a module practically every PVP fit contained?
Well now its Energy Neutralisers.
They pretty much ruin PVP for smaller classes of ships vs bigger ships. Yes, I'm aware of cap boosters, which are also now a "must fit" for almost any cap dependent ship - but this in itself shows the imbalance.
Interceptors and AFs dominating anything with a sig radius over 35 would not make for much of a game. No, five warrior 2's does not constitute a credible defense against something you can't hit with your guns. This coming from a Taranis pilot.
|
Axebreaker Jones
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 00:49:00 -
[23]
tbh if anything BS's should have more ways to deal with frigs, neuts and drones not really doing much exepept on droneboats, or ofc a good ranged shot with low transversal
|
Talon Calais
Gallente 1st Steps Academy Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 02:08:00 -
[24]
lolnosdomi.
|
Durethia
Department of Defence Prismatic Refraction
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 10:16:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Durethia on 26/09/2009 10:17:11 Yes I remember the days of when a NOS-Domi was the deadliest 1v1 BS in the game... then came the Amarr RECONs...
The first group of skills I had all maxed out were Capacitor related skills. If it gave more cap, increased recharge, reduced the amount required for activating <insert whatever module I used>, I banged it to 5.
PvP was a lot different back then. As a Deimos pilot, being NOS'd to death was my primary worry above all other things. Probably so for many other pilots who weren't running around in a NOS/Neut Domi at the time.
Speaking of NOS Domis... I remember when a hand full of them could NOS a capital ship to death!
What do I worry about today? Blobs :\
|
BiggestT
Caldari Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 11:02:00 -
[26]
Edited by: BiggestT on 26/09/2009 11:04:35 The nos-nerf marked the beginning of the Gallente decline.
Mega's no longer ruled the skies...errr spaces..hmm, well anyway the active solo tank was dead. Once the web and drone nerf hit, Gallente weren't so uber anymore, and blasters were reduced to a bastard child with not the range of pulse nor the cap stability of torps.
The way was paved for slow, lumbering buffer setups that we see today, which was the prelude to the success of amarr once they were boosted.
Luckily for me, caldari was not affected by any of these changes, in fact it was a slight boost to caldari ship potential after the nos nerf..
I'd like to see the end of neuts so that active tanks could once again reign supreme, however the invincability of frigs after such change makes this doubtful.. EVE Trivia EVE History
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 11:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: BiggestT
I'd like to see the end of neuts so that active tanks could once again reign supreme, however the invincability of frigs after such change makes this doubtful..
That and active tanks could only reign supreme in BS-sized ships (due to the damage/rep scaling as you go down) and in small gang encounters on top of that (<5).
Anything larger, and the active remote rep reigns supreme.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 12:27:00 -
[28]
I dont like Neuts and light drones as your only defense either.
Crazy idea, but what about having a group of "point defense" slots on BS where you could only fit a couple of small guns/launchers?
And why are slots hard limited to 8? Could Eve's ships grow beyond this to have for example a 10 highslot gunship (with appropriate disadvantages)?
Yes, I am the 11/10 troll you're looking for...
|
BiggestT
Caldari Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 12:31:00 -
[29]
Edited by: BiggestT on 26/09/2009 12:31:55
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: BiggestT
I'd like to see the end of neuts so that active tanks could once again reign supreme, however the invincability of frigs after such change makes this doubtful..
That and active tanks could only reign supreme in BS-sized ships (due to the damage/rep scaling as you go down) and in small gang encounters on top of that (<5).
Anything larger, and the active remote rep reigns supreme.
edit: nvm, misread EVE Trivia EVE History
|
Klee Tarris
Amarr Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 14:53:00 -
[30]
Personally, I'd like to see ALL forms of EW subject to scripts, optimal & falloff. Because of that, their default usage would have to be compromised, but imo I think it would be more balanced.
I know when scripts were introduced it was a major "WTF !" moment for everyone, though it impacted certain races more than others. Luckily, ECM did get the nerf it deserved later on and the 200km Falcon got put deservedly back in it's place as just a recon like any other.
Some EW has optimal & falloff, like turrets - why not all ? After all, why would a Heavy Neut be able to cripple as much energy at 25km as it does at 5km, compared to say a RSD which does lose it's effectiveness at longer ranges ? In fact, it makes more sense that something as powerful as a Neut would lose it's ability to suck energy at higher ranges. Anyone who has ADSL broadband in the UK knows that even their download speeds are NEVER what they are promised unless they live next door to the exchange, so if a direct copper link suffers signal degredation over short distances of 1 or 2km, why wouldn't an energy sucking power beam suffer similar over 25km of empty space ?
For mods that have dual uses like Tracking Disruptors for example (lock range or tracking speed), a script bossts one or the other, or you go with he default which is in the middle. For mods with a sole purpose like Neuts & Nos, why not have scripts that either boost range at the expense of energy neut/vamp'ing amount or vice versa ? Make them affected by optimal & falloff like everything else.
Obviously, ships of a race that have that kind of EW as their speciality should get bonuses to their EW field, and the more specialised the ship then the better the bonus (Recons for example).
I also would like to see ECCM mods have scripts to be able to attempt to counter certain EW attacks. There's already ECCM vs jamming, why not be able to load scripts to try and boost resistance against neuting or nos'ing ? For one it would reduce the amount of mods available and simplify the market. Have 1 ECCM mod (but with named, T2 variants etc), but load it against LADAR, RADAR etc for jamming, or resistance against other types of EW. If anything, make specific ECCM mods for propulsion attacks (WCS, with scripts - boost WCS strength, but screw over agility), Electronics (anti-ECM strength, but screws over CPU), Engineering (anti-Neut/Nos, but screws over speed). I haven't thought of the specifics but it's all feasible, and would certainly enhance the meta-gaming. Also not sure how this would impact certain other mods like Sensor Booster's vs RSDs... Hmm, food for thought !
I'm not a number cruncher like some people, so this is just an idea, and something that's been going on in my head now for ages, but this post reminded me of it (I forget things easily...).
As mainly a frigateer, BSs with Neuts are a pitfa, but I accept the risk that my Crusader is gonna get fried if I mix it with a BS with a Neut. It just seems that some EW is more chance based, and some things are absolute certainties - it doesn't all quite add up...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |