Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
bellevegasj
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 15:06:00 -
[121]
/signed.
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 19:02:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Serilla
Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Yes the nos should be an iwin versus tacklers. They are in a FRIGATE, you are in a BATTLESHIP. Why should a frigate be able to completely immobilize a battleship indefinitely and call in friends to kill it at will?
The Bismark
good one.
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 19:05:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Pilgrippa
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: Pilgrippa Good post Wierda. I like the way nos works right now, and don't think it needs a big nerf. However, a couple of the tweaks you suggested are great:
1.) Make the module deactivate when there's no cap left. NOS is designed to drain cap, so it should only turn off if there is none left. Don't like the idea of having to have a certain amount before you can suck it.
2.) Maybe apply a stacking penalty to reduce the dominance of full nos setups, like the domi and nanophoon, or at least force these pilots to think more creatively about their setups.
3.) Battleships need this defense against tacklers. The nerf already comes from their slow lock time leaving inties time to retreat. If any nos defense module were to be made for frigs, it should also nerf their ability to tackle.
In regaurds to number 3, so you either bring 5 tacklers, or 5 battlships to every one of your opponents so you can kill him before he has a chance to finish locking your tackler.....
Not sure I understand the comment, but teamwork has always been encouraged in Eve. I just think it's silly for a single little frig to be able to hold down a battleship indefinitely. Currently, the best defense against that is nos. Light drones and webs are easy to avoid.
teamwork is one one thing, blobbing is another.
|
Ga'len
Amarr Wandering Druid
|
Posted - 2007.01.29 20:18:00 -
[124]
I really like this idea, falls more in line of how NOS should have been setup to work in the first place.
Yes, I am the exception that defines the rules. |
Djafa
|
Posted - 2007.01.29 20:36:00 -
[125]
I read somewhere, that once nos was module which drained energy from your enemy, but didnt gave you this energy back. I think it was very well balanced, dont know why they changed it.
|
Almarez
|
Posted - 2007.01.29 20:41:00 -
[126]
In all honesty, this is one of best ideas I've heard. And your fix for the Curse (and Pilgim) is also a fine idea.
I guess my question to you is this. All a ship would have to do now is substitute one or two of the large NOS for a combination(s) of medium and small NOS. So in essense they might still be able to achieve the same thing. Do you see this as a problem, or do you feel that these smaller NOS would not be able to compete with the recharge rate of ships (assuming were talking BS here)?
|
Almarez
|
Posted - 2007.01.29 20:45:00 -
[127]
Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 19/01/2007 21:32:09
"The Nos Change - NOS deactivate if there is not enough cap in target ship for them to 'suck full load' - there is no energy transfer on any cycle that there not enough energy for full transfer - Activation cycle will have to 'wait out' till next cycle before reactivation can occur"
Reminds me of one of sily ideas i had when the nos thread bounced around last time or earlier ^^;
that one was similar in nature, although simpler -- it was to utilize the mechanics which are already present in the energy neutralizers, and to give certain cap cost to run the drainer. I.e:
* heavy nos: cost to activate 50 - energy emission skill bonus, amount drained 100 or whatever is left on target
etc. Basically it was to both slightly reduce the gain people get currently from the nos *and* to make them watch what actually happens in game, as the nos left to drain already empty capacitor would mean burning one's own cap with no benefit. So the pilot would have to decide themselves if they want to keep the nos running, or maybe rather turn them off, etc. (but without the auto-deactivation.. well as long as the ship using the modules still has enough cap itself to run them, i guess. Then they turn off like everything else)
A potential advantage for such approach would be perhaps, it still allows battleships to utilize heavy nos as defense vs small ships, but when facing a few of such small ships the bs could actually wind up blowing its own capacitor while trying to keep the small targets drained over extended period of time... which could be certain risk for the pilot o.O;
I think this really defeats the purpose of the NOS. The reason you get less amounts on NOS than neuts is because your energy required is taken into account. At least that's the way I've always seen it.
|
Davey Oaks
Minmatar Original Production Material
|
Posted - 2007.01.29 21:10:00 -
[128]
This would be very helpful for frigates as it would allow frigates to be able to stil activate armor repers or shield boosters but have to be careful while doing it, as currently a battleship with one or two heavy nos's on will imobilise an assualt frigate in one or two cycles depending on what your cap was liek to start with.
/signed
WooT ! |
Cotton Tail
Rage of Angels Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.01.29 21:56:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Cotton Tail on 29/01/2007 21:55:27 I like the idea, but just for the sake of discussion I'll toss out my own too.
Make the chance of Nos working be directly equal to the % cap left on your target. If your target is at 60% cap nos only has a 60% chance of a successful cycle. This would quite radically alter the way a nosferatu can impact a fight, it would give battleships a good defense against frigates but it would pretty much end up as a one shot weapon as once you take out a frigates cap with the first nos salvo. As the chances of landing successive nos cycles is very low, this means a frig will have a chance to regen enough cap to keep mwd running for a cycle or two to get away.
It would also mean that more nos would not actually make you more effective in some situations, if you suck too much of the enemies capactior you'll start to lose all the benefits of extra modules because they can't get cycles in, effectively giving nos the much needed stacking nerf. Ofcourse in any chance based system it would still be possible to have annoying lucky nos streaks that lock down your target as badly as you can do nowdays, but atleast it would now give an additional opportunity cost for fitting nos modules.
|
Elitus
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 07:49:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Elitus on 30/01/2007 07:54:46 Edited by: Elitus on 30/01/2007 07:50:32
Originally by: Davey Oaks This would be very helpful for frigates as it would allow frigates to be able to stil activate armor repers or shield boosters but have to be careful while doing it, as currently a battleship with one or two heavy nos's on will imobilise an assualt frigate in one or two cycles depending on what your cap was liek to start with.
/signed
The point of putting 1-2 nos on a battle ship, so you can kill assault frigs ceptors and cruisers it is a battleship after all. its the abuse of nos that neefs nerfing.. i dont know if an idea like this has been said but i would like to see.
A stacking penalty of 25% to reduce the effectiveness each time you add more then one so it would go as follows 1 heavy nos = 100 2 heavy nos = 75 each 3 heavy nos = 56.25 each
The extra skill added (or old) would reduce the stacking penalty by 3% a lvl at maxed out skill it would only be 10% penalty. the penalty can be avoided by fitting med and small nos at the loss of range, imo this would destroy alot of nano nos setups because of lack of cap coming in with 3+ L nos or having to get within 12km or less to use the mix of large and med nos to get more cap over range
I personaly think this is a sweet idea for hitting two birds with one stone
(the stacking penalty would not apply to ships that are ment to nos such as the curse)
|
|
Almarez
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 15:43:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Elitus Edited by: Elitus on 30/01/2007 08:01:15
Originally by: Davey Oaks This would be very helpful for frigates as it would allow frigates to be able to stil activate armor repers or shield boosters but have to be careful while doing it, as currently a battleship with one or two heavy nos's on will imobilise an assualt frigate in one or two cycles depending on what your cap was liek to start with.
/signed
The point of putting 1-2 nos on a battle ship, so you can kill assault frigs ceptors and cruisers it is a battleship after all. its the abuse of nos that neefs nerfing.. i dont know if an idea like this has been said but i would like to see.
A stacking penalty of 25% to reduce the effectiveness each time you add more then one so it would go as follows 1 heavy nos = 100 2 heavy nos = 75 each 3 heavy nos = 56.25 each
MAXED OUT SKILL
1 heavy nos = 100 2 heavy nos = 90 each 3 heavy nos = 81 each
The extra skill added (or old) would reduce the stacking penalty by 3% a lvl at maxed out skill it would only be 10% penalty. the penalty can be avoided by fitting med and small nos at the loss of range, imo this would destroy alot of nano nos setups because of lack of cap coming in with 3+ L nos or having to get within 12km or less to use the mix of large and med nos to get more cap over range
I personaly think this is a sweet idea for hitting two birds with one stone
(the stacking penalty would not apply to ships that are ment to nos such as the curse)
Another interesting idea but what do you do for ships like the Curse and Pilgrim. I think ships like this would lose too much of what they're supposed to do. Are there stacking penalties to webbers for Minmitar recons, or EW for Caldari, or warp disrupters for Gallente?
See what I mean, you have to be real careful with what you do with NOS because it hurts a good ship in a race that is thin on good ships.
|
Almarez
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 15:44:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: Serilla
Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Yes the nos should be an iwin versus tacklers. They are in a FRIGATE, you are in a BATTLESHIP. Why should a frigate be able to completely immobilize a battleship indefinitely and call in friends to kill it at will?
The Bismark
good one.
Sorry, Audri where does the quote in your sig come from. Sounds military but I can't figure it out.
|
Elitus
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 19:20:00 -
[133]
(the stacking penalty would not apply to ships that are ment to nos such as the curse)
Another interesting idea but what do you do for ships like the Curse and Pilgrim. I think ships like this would lose too much of what they're supposed to do. Are there stacking penalties to webbers for Minmitar recons, or EW for Caldari, or warp disrupters for Gallente?
See what I mean, you have to be real careful with what you do with NOS because it hurts a good ship in a race that is thin on good ships.
i did say the stacking penalty would not apply to real nossing boat, so in the info of the ship it would say this and it would not be a bonus for the ship
|
Blue Rider
Coonass Cajun an dem Crawdad Capsewl Combatuns Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 19:50:00 -
[134]
I have to add to the number of posts as I hope this to be how THE NOS FIX will be implemented.
I totally agree, the less brainless the module the better.
This would still allow those pilots that want their solopwnBS, but not be the immune to tacklers. Smaller vessels coming up against larger nos'd vessels will still need to be weary but no longer have to 100% avoid the ships, that in the current state, completely null all smaller ships by deactivating all enery dependant modules (reps, boosters, turrets, scrams, webs, hardners, etc.).
G R E A T P O S T
|
Apollo Kreed
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.02 00:15:00 -
[135]
I think it's an awesome idea but only if taken in conjunction with some alterations to neuts.
Adjust the cap expended to cap drain ratio on neuts so they'll be more appealing as a means of killing someones cap off. Possibly lower the total cap drain on all models and alter the cycle time. Currently the mentality leans towards, 'If I need to empty someone's cap I'll just pile on more nos', which says that nos is overpowered and neuts need to be rebalanced.
If we look at just heavy nos and neuts as they are now we can get an idea of how things might be more balanced to allow neuts to become more desirable.
As it is Heavy Nos Heavy Neut Power Cost -100 500 Power Drained 100 500 Cycle Time 12 24 Power Drained per 24 second interval... 200 500
In this example for the cost of 0 energy the nos pilot has gained 200 energy in 24 seconds and cost his opponent 200. The neut pilot has lost 500 energy and removed 500 from his opponent.
An example of how nos and neuts could be reworked.
Heavy Nos Heavy Neut Power Cost -100 100 Power Drained 100 200 Cycle Time 12 12 Power Drained per 24 second interval... 200 400
In this example neuts remain the king of killing the opponents cap. The cycle time has been scaled back to be more in line with how a nos will work. The overall cap they can drain per 24 second interval has dropped by 20% but the amount of cap required per point of cap removed has been cut back by 50%.
While in the short term they wouldn't be as affective as neuts are currently (alpha striking cap so to speak) over the course of a longer fight they would be more affective as the pilot would be able to better maintain his own cap levels.
Keep in mind that all of the above should be taken in conjunction with Weirda's suggestions.
I also love the idea of moving target painters up to hi slots that someone posted earlier. Giving pilots more options for hi slot fitting will add variety to ship set ups.
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.02.02 00:42:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Almarez
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: Serilla
Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Yes the nos should be an iwin versus tacklers. They are in a FRIGATE, you are in a BATTLESHIP. Why should a frigate be able to completely immobilize a battleship indefinitely and call in friends to kill it at will?
The Bismark
good one.
Sorry, Audri where does the quote in your sig come from. Sounds military but I can't figure it out.
There are two quotes, the take well aimed shots is a paraphrasing of what my first shooting instructor told us when I was a noob Pvt. in the USMC. paraphrased because the actual quote would offend the mods. The "Have faith in God, but believe in antimatter/ a 5.56mm 62 grn. round" is what I told my students, when I became a shooting coach, when I wasn't such a nubcake anymore
|
0raven0
Independent Fleet O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.02.02 01:25:00 -
[137]
/signed
as always, weirda rules
|
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm Eternal Rangers of Terror
|
Posted - 2007.02.02 01:43:00 -
[138]
Edited by: HankMurphy on 02/02/2007 01:40:58 Wouldn't it just be easier to give ships NOS hardpoints just as we have for guns and missiles!?!?!?
Keep the ships that should have a full rack of nos w/ them, and the ones that shouldn't are restricted to 1, 2, 3 whatever devs would think appropriate?
because this:
Originally by: Weirda The Nos Change - NOS deactivate if there is not enough cap in target ship for them to 'suck full load' - there is no energy transfer on any cycle that there not enough energy for full transfer
just seems to leave tacklers at a huge advantage in combat (never loose that scram or web no matter how many nos get put on you).
I have just seen the issue as the real prob w/ nos is how you can fit a half / full rack of it on ships that just shouldn't be able too. Think about if a nanophoon could only fit 1 or 2 nos, or if a dominix could only fit 1 or 2 nos..... things become much more sane at this point, and doesn't require a whole redesign of the Module.
Hardpoints not enouogh of a nerf for ya? Impliment a stacking penalty on top of it and give ships that SHOULD be able to fit full rack an immunity to stacking penalties for NOS (amarr recons)
|
Justus Sandrius
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 07:27:00 -
[139]
I've tried to read through all of these posts, and a lot of good idea's are present. Weirda certainely lauched an interesting en well-thought-out topic here. However, I have one problem with the NOS issue.
Is there a real problem with NOS-es?
I'd argue there is not, not more than with other single tactic approaches.
Yes, a heavy NOS can drain a frig, and yes 4 heavy NOS-es can drain a BC quite easily, however, this is only a problem if we assume a cap-intensive setup.
It is perfectly possible to have a no-cap setup (e.g. a drake with passive tanking). These setups are THE counters for NOS ships: heave damge output, and NO cap use whatsoever.
All ships and setups have pro and cons and I just don't see why NOS need a special treatment, as there are counters. Just dont try to fight a BS with 2 frigates. Use a swarm instead, with passive setups.
Btw, fitting a NOS removes DPS as less weapons can befitted, so NOSes do have a negative side-effect.
(and yes, I also lost ships due to being NOS-ed, it just made me change tactics).
|
Rocketta
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 07:50:00 -
[140]
Though now I come to think about it, I do agree with Weirda that the one thing that might a fair thing to do is:
1) The NOS should either deactive when no cap is available for the cycle. 2) OR, the NOS should include sig radius/speed penalties.
Either one of these (not both) would already solve many of the problems with NOSes, many of you addressed.
I'd opt for the first, as it;
a) Adds new gameplay, is simple and understandable b) Is most usefull for ALL NOS targets, not just the smaller ships. c) follows EVE logic (smaller mods needed to counter smaller ships, e.g., smaller laser on BS agains frigs) d) Related to c. -> Still allows BSs to NOS frigs (have to fit smaller NOS) e) Has no implications for the NOS ships (as they are already a huge threat to frigs, and now still are a threat to BCs or BSs). d) Removes the "skillless nos use", NOSes now need your valuable mouse clicks, and attention f) Leaves frigs with enough cap to, e.g., warp away. Leaves most cruiser with enough cap to SHOOT, but not to active TANK: so: the NOS still has a purpose, and doesn;t kill gameplay. g) etc.
This is really K.I.S.S. (as in Weirda's words).
|
|
Rocketta
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 08:28:00 -
[141]
Hmm this seems to be pretty much Weirda's suggestion, now that I read it again. Jee did I get swamped with all the ideas in the posts :-)
So, \signed provided that a solution is found to the tackler frigs issue.
Or, not signed (just keep things as they are, see post Justus)
|
Slaughterford
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 11:05:00 -
[142]
absolutely rocks Weirda. I like the ops idea.
|
R3DSKULL
Amarr CCCP INC
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 11:40:00 -
[143]
Well why nerf nos at all. Why not make counter nos. Nos in essence is something that steals energy why not have some module that defends against it like defenders do against missles. jamming stops nos. why dont people use ecm bursts to stop nos. well how about a module that counters nos kinda like gives it a feedback burst that shorts out a cycle of nos.
That way all the ships built around nos like domi, curse , pilgram, and so on. dont get ruined the faction ships have bonuses to nos. Nos doesnt need to be changed it need something that keeps us from being helpless against it. see Jamming used to be that way if jammed you were jammed so it was giving a certain percentage chance. Dampning while once going is a little bit strong unless u have sensor boosters or are close. Tracking disruptions only good against turrets. But nos works all the time no tracking no nothing just range and lock.
So why not just make the counter nos module that disrupts it. Then some people will play roles of nos defenders in fleet. as ew ships have there roles. Its a form of ewar to be a nos defender. Same with missles should be able to have defender boats that can knock down missles such as ff defenders. But im digressing the point is that its the helplessness of nos that makes people want it nerfed. So help them make something to counter it. A anti nos burst pulse. not to get all star trek on everyone but how many times do they reverse pulse energy attacks to stop them. Make it miss a few cycles. If a domi comes in it releys on its nos. The drones do the job. SO now it doesnt have to change. but it has to be weary of its nos not always connecting because now somone can counter it. Create a balnce using a yin yang style. NOs counter nos. nuets same way. Counter nuets. I see that as best option to keep everyone happy then nos dont change but folks are not defensless.
|
Pattern Clarc
Queens of the Stone Age
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 14:48:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Zixxa CCP! Just remove nosf from the game. After removing ECM it will be just consequent step ahead to stupid, plain and tedious world.
LoL, i's Zixxa the pvp idiot again.... I cant remember what exactly, but you've written some really dumb threads in the past. How stupid and tedious is cap warfare?? It's neither fun to the victim or the aggresser as it's just a plain and simple wait till all hardeners and mods knock out whilst his 20 dps slowly removes the victims hitpoints....
I support wierda's thread, however I believe that Nos should be stacking penalised, like all Ewar mods, as right now you can activiate 8 heavy diminishing, and hit for perfect damage every time. Try doing that with all other forms of ewar... even guns don't work that way. Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus |
Dwindlehop
Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 17:01:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Tyler Lowe Edited by: Tyler Lowe on 19/01/2007 04:35:07 I think my problem with them is they have no true counter aside from fitting your own Nos. ... Do you feel that some form of hardening should be an option against Nos?
I agree. Nos needs a counter or two that isn't "more Nos". ECM has both a med slot and a low slot counter. Dampening has both a med slot and a low slot counter. Nos has no effective counter except more nos.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 17:26:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Dwindlehop Nos has no effective counter except more nos.
Well, ECM and Damps are a counter to it. As are passive tanking, capless weapons, injectors, and even medium range, to varying degrees. For me the issue isn't so much a lack of counters as it is the "one (large) size fits all" nature of the module.
Weirda's suggestions address that nicely, and make NOS more interesting to use. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Ico Seduvaar
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 17:50:00 -
[147]
Great idea. All for it.
|
Clavius Der
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 18:05:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Clavius Der on 20/03/2007 18:04:25 I think good concept for nosferatus is
nosferatu recharge koef. 0,9x signature for large nosferatu 400m nosf are stacking nerfed
-Target has signature 400m and above My recharge = current ship cap recharge time * 1,1 Target recharge = current ship cap recharge time * 0,9
- Target has 200m signature My recharge = current ship cap recharge time * 1,05 Target recharge = current ship cap recharge time * 0,95
etc..
this is only plain concept
This concept i personaly like because nosf ships arent nerfed, nosferatu is usable and target ship isnt totally sucked in 1 cycle but simple loosing cap recharge time.
|
smallgreenblur
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 18:33:00 -
[149]
Wierda - sgb like the idea, however this means frigates will be considerably more able to sit at 18ks and keep a bs tackled indefinately, as has already been pointed out. You would definately need to either have a large autocannon style nos with a very high rof, or simplay change med and small nos to give 20-25k range transfer.
I quite liked another idea I read in one of these threads about making warp disruptors high slot modules and in small med and large flavours but I think this will involve changing the whole of EvE a little too much.
It is very nice to read through an entire thread like this and only find 2 people dumb enough to make a 'j00 are dumb, nos are fine, lern 2 pl4y' post.
sgb
|
Yukiko Kanezaki
Tsunami Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 23:09:00 -
[150]
This is one of the better nos ideas, and definitely deserves a look.
Props to mazzilliu for the sig!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |