Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Easley Thames
The Maverick Navy
31
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:09:00 -
[91] - Quote
This is a very minor improvement, but one that reduces inconsistency, which is always nice.
In truth, small nos generally does what I want it to do - keep tackle running against a medium neut.
Medium nos I find much less effective, but I think it would be worth using on a few other ships if the drain amount were a bit higher (maybe 50 for T2 instead of 36).
On the other hand, this does almost nothing for the heavy nos, which is completely unseen outside of PVE.
|
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:21:00 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I have another balance announcement for our Odyssey 1.1 release to share: we are going to make NOS good again.
In ye old times, Nosferatu was fairly broken. It used to drain cap from your target regardless of how much cap your target had, and deposit it into your cap pool. This meant you could generate cap from thin air as long as you could target any ship. We had nano Dominixs permanently cap stable by draining some cap-dry frig and all kinds of other nonsense.
Unfortunately when this got addressed, it was nerfed into the ground by basing the success of the NOS activation off the relative PERCENTAGE of cap for each ship. NOS went from extremely overpowered to fairly useless. You can never depend on your opponent having a higher % cap than you, and especially not when you're using a ship that wants to win the cap war by neutralizing the enemy.
Our plan for this is fairly simple - we want to make successful NOS activation based on relative cap amount, not percentage.
This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 125 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 370, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.
The biggest effect here will most likely be that any time you're fighting up a class (frig vs cruiser, cruiser vs BS, etc) NOS will become a much more attractive choice. It also means that in fights with several ship sizes present, deciding on a target for your NOS should be more intuitive (target something big).
Gimme feedback o/
(PS - this would of course effect all sizes and all metas) Sound like a good change, especially for frigates. +1 |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 01:44:00 -
[93] - Quote
Galphii wrote:Reduce the fitting cost a bit, and possibly increase the amount drained too. Otherwise it's still in the realm of a novelty module.
What he said. Or the module will still just be used by frigs only, and thats when they got nothing else/better to use in that utility slot.
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
151
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 02:00:00 -
[94] - Quote
I like this, but it doesn't go far enough. The problem is nos's get you back much less cap/s than a neut of the same size kills. Nos have a faster cycle time which is good, but the cap/s should be equal between nos and neut, or at least close.
Currently a small nuet kills 9GJ/s and a small nos gives you 3.2GJ/s, it's a joke. Given nos has a half cycle time, one could accept a 100% increase, but as it stands they're pretty horrible.
I'm really not sure of any reason why a nos shouldn't get you back the same cap, it uses the same slot, same pg and MORE cpu, which balances against the quicker cycle time. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1018
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 02:13:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I have another balance announcement for our Odyssey 1.1 release to share: we are going to make NOS good again.
In ye old times, Nosferatu was fairly broken. It used to drain cap from your target regardless of how much cap your target had, and deposit it into your cap pool. This meant you could generate cap from thin air as long as you could target any ship. We had nano Dominixs permanently cap stable by draining some cap-dry frig and all kinds of other nonsense.
Unfortunately when this got addressed, it was nerfed into the ground by basing the success of the NOS activation off the relative PERCENTAGE of cap for each ship. NOS went from extremely overpowered to fairly useless. You can never depend on your opponent having a higher % cap than you, and especially not when you're using a ship that wants to win the cap war by neutralizing the enemy.
Our plan for this is fairly simple - we want to make successful NOS activation based on relative cap amount, not percentage.
This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 125 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 370, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.
The biggest effect here will most likely be that any time you're fighting up a class (frig vs cruiser, cruiser vs BS, etc) NOS will become a much more attractive choice. It also means that in fights with several ship sizes present, deciding on a target for your NOS should be more intuitive (target something big).
Gimme feedback o/
(PS - this would of course effect all sizes and all metas)
This is pretty cool but only really buffs the nos when fighting larger opponents (We are going to be seeing nos's on a lot of fleet BS's though i recon)
I still think you should lower the cycle time on nos's to make them better at fighting off neuts. I want to fit a nos to my harbinger without being laughed at damn it and this isn't enough for that =<
Akturous wrote:I like this, but it doesn't go far enough. The problem is nos's get you back much less cap/s than a neut of the same size kills. Nos have a faster cycle time which is good, but the cap/s should be equal between nos and neut, or at least close.
Currently a small nuet kills 9GJ/s and a small nos gives you 3.2GJ/s, it's a joke. Given nos has a half cycle time, one could accept a 100% increase, but as it stands they're pretty horrible.
I'm really not sure of any reason why a nos shouldn't get you back the same cap, it uses the same slot, same pg and MORE cpu, which balances against the quicker cycle time.
Basically this. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
|
Bigg Gun
Flying Bags Inc. Bulgarian Space Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 02:41:00 -
[96] - Quote
So if your cap is full but it's still less than the cap of your target, say a BS nos-ing a supercarrier, would it still take away the super carrier's cap, even though it has nowhere to put it? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10226
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 05:27:00 -
[97] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:As noted above, the biggest problem with them atm, especially as "neut defense" is that they're just too weak.
This certainly doesn't apply to small NOS; a small NOS can easily keep a frigate tackling a BS with a large neut for instance, because the cycle time is far smaller
1 Kings 12:11
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 06:57:00 -
[98] - Quote
As many have already said, reduce the fitting costs of Nos. It has less utility and adaptability than a Neut, so the fittings should be less. |
Ambrose Oni
Sons Of Alexander AL3XAND3R.
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 07:32:00 -
[99] - Quote
I love the module in it's idea but I dont really like the limited potential of the module post-change.
I have a suggestion, hopefully I can math: amount transferred = MIN(1, baserate*(theircap*(1/yourcap)))
-where theircap and yourcap are decimals (i.e if you have 10% cap left, it's 0.1). Hopefully the math is right.
This probably requires more tweaking with base rates and such (not to mention fitting requirements) but i think the idea should absolutely include: a) the less cap they have, the less it drains - so it can't keep someone capped except maybe on a bonused hull. b) the more cap you have, the less it drains. These do not need to be linear relationships, they could follow a similar curve to the stacking penalty curve for multiple modules - only playtesting and smarter people than myself could get the specifics right. If a proper curve was found, the condition making the base rate the maximum could be removed. c) i like absolute percentages rather than amounts, but I can see the appeal of creating a module which is better when up-fighting.
The comment earlier regarding Amarr problems is pretty valid too. Larger base pool for us poor suckers really screws us out of NOSing.
I pity the EFT warrior if something like this gets implemented.
I would like to point out as well, damps have sort of a dual function (target speed and target range), both of which are useful in many different ship-class fights. Can't we have something the same for amarr bonuses? Neut/nos |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
752
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 07:46:00 -
[100] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
Our plan for this is fairly simple - we want to make successful NOS activation based on relative cap amount, not percentage.
This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 125 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 370, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.
This is a bad idea, at least on its own. It changes nothing about Nos in substance, or how Nos will be used.
Small Nos are relatively common and useful, being used as neut-defence on tacklers, while large Nos are virtually unused because of cycle time, drain amount, fitting requirements and the different cap requirements of heavy ships.
Your proposed change helps small Nos vaguely, but it is actually a straight nerf to large Nos because it is more likely that the numerical cap level will not be met when trying to Nos a target. You have come up with an idea that boosts the Nos that is close to balance and flat nerfs that the Nos that really needs help. Please think again.
IMO the % mechanic is fine, you just need to look at drain amounts, cycle times and fitting requirements. |
|
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Cerberus Unleashed
64
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 08:14:00 -
[101] - Quote
Ok, so what if ALL NOS were balanced to have 3s cycle time? Then their primary purpose would be to keep vital modules running against enemy neuting. That would be something that is useful also for battleships, wouldn't it? (atm, the cycle time of the large NOS doesn't help much)
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Scope Gallente Federation
468
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 09:06:00 -
[102] - Quote
Bang up job on this one Rise and fozzie! These are the kind of simplistic well thought out changes this game needs.
My only suggestion would be to review cap drain amounts and cycle times a small bit. For example, Id suggest lowering the duration between cycles for the medium and large variants and also lowering the drain amount by a similar margin. Overall cap drainage should remain similar (slight buff may be warranted). |
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
25
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 09:27:00 -
[103] - Quote
Doesn't this change indirectly nerf the still very, very niche Cap Batteries? They may be in need of another balance pass. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1140
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 09:49:00 -
[104] - Quote
Sounds good to me.
Got good cap and a spare high use? use a neut Got crappy cap/hungry ship and a spare high? use a nos
The way it was planned to work with the last change, essentially. Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
425
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 09:53:00 -
[105] - Quote
It is still a bit too weak Rise. You could open up space with qa modifier value on both NOS and neuts, but mainly in NOS. That woudl affect the treshold on the NOS.
Example NOS meta 1 treshold 1.0. When your enemy has 100 cap and you have less than 100, your NOS works. Meta 9, multipliers 0.6. When you have 100 cap.. you can drain from opponents with 160 or more cap.
That woudl open space for reasonable MORE VALUE of meta levels, and even space for a NOS/NEU "damage mod" that amplifier the treshold on the NOS and the ammount or cycle speed on the NEUT. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
87
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 10:02:00 -
[106] - Quote
I would be all in for the old NOS but I get that you never should be able to "manufacture" capacitor out of thin air (like cap transfer mods do).
So reducing the powergrid needs for the modules and reducing the cycle times for them would go a long way.
For the draining amount let's say laser boats should all be happy to have at least one NOS to keep thier guns fireing while being under cap pressure.
I would just love to have my Harbinger have a medium NOS and slurp enough cap to keep fireing and repping.
Oh and while you are at it, please reduce the capacitor need amount for medium and large armor reps by 50%. |
Sakkar Arenith
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
71
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 10:07:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:[...]
This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 125 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 370, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.
The biggest effect here will most likely be that any time you're fighting up a class (frig vs cruiser, cruiser vs BS, etc) NOS will become a much more attractive choice. It also means that in fights with several ship sizes present, deciding on a target for your NOS should be more intuitive (target something big).
Gimme feedback o/
(PS - this would of course effect all sizes and all metas)
in effect this means that cruisers can never nosf frigates, and battleships can never nosf BCs/Cruisers.
This in turn means that this module is pretty much useless except on a very few select frigates with a utility high AND the spare PG/CPU, aka, hardly any ships at all.
While its obvious that Nosferatu need a good buff, this isnt helpful to anyone ever.
While the old nos was overpowered and thus ubiquitous, the main problem was within the aforementioned nos domi, nos phoon, who could generate cap out of nothing AND were able to stop all small ships with a single cycle.
Heavy Neuts have largely taken the role of the former nos (after they good buffed years ago), and while they dont generate cap, they are still the ultimate weapon on a battleship against a smaller craft.
The problem with cap warfare at the moment, arent nos, neuts etc, its the broken mechanic kept alive by cap boosters. Cap boosters negate most forms of sensible cap warfare, and have become a MUST FIT module on most PVP ships.
So while I could suggest changing x or y on nosf, the problem lies within the entire system and mostly cap boosters.
That is where the balancing needs to happen!
|
BadSeamus
Chaos Army
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 10:16:00 -
[108] - Quote
Sweet change. Last time I saw NOS actually being used was the day before the nerf.... 'bout time! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
425
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 11:07:00 -
[109] - Quote
Sakkar Arenith wrote:CCP Rise wrote:[...]
This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 125 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 370, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.
The biggest effect here will most likely be that any time you're fighting up a class (frig vs cruiser, cruiser vs BS, etc) NOS will become a much more attractive choice. It also means that in fights with several ship sizes present, deciding on a target for your NOS should be more intuitive (target something big).
Gimme feedback o/
(PS - this would of course effect all sizes and all metas) in effect this means that cruisers can never nosf frigates, and battleships can never nosf BCs/Cruisers. This in turn means that this module is pretty much useless except on a very few select frigates with a utility high AND the spare PG/CPU, aka, hardly any ships at all. While its obvious that Nosferatu need a good buff, this isnt helpful to anyone ever. While the old nos was overpowered and thus ubiquitous, the main problem was within the aforementioned nos domi, nos phoon, who could generate cap out of nothing AND were able to stop all small ships with a single cycle. Heavy Neuts have largely taken the role of the former nos (after they good buffed years ago), and while they dont generate cap, they are still the ultimate weapon on a battleship against a smaller craft. The problem with cap warfare at the moment, arent nos, neuts etc, its the broken mechanic kept alive by cap boosters. Cap boosters negate most forms of sensible cap warfare, and have become a MUST FIT module on most PVP ships. So while I could suggest changing x or y on nosf, the problem lies within the entire system and mostly cap boosters. That is where the balancing needs to happen!
Have become? Cap injectors always were a MUST fit since eve Day 1! |
Sakkar Arenith
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
72
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 11:15:00 -
[110] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Have become? Cap injectors always were a MUST fit since eve Day 1!
Well as someone who has been around since day 1, i can say that isnt quite true.
But for a very long time now, cap boosters have been unsubstitutable in PVP.
Which is wrong, and must not happen, "tweaking" nos now, is like putting $5,000 rims on a $800 car with a broken engine. |
|
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1140
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 11:23:00 -
[111] - Quote
Sakkar Arenith wrote:
in effect this means that cruisers can never nosf frigates, and battleships can never nosf BCs/Cruisers.
so what?
surely a huge cap battery trying to suck a tiny bit of cap from a tiny one would be pointless anyway so, whats the big deal?
Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
754
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 11:31:00 -
[112] - Quote
Sakkar Arenith wrote:CCP Rise wrote:[...]
This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 125 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 370, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.
The biggest effect here will most likely be that any time you're fighting up a class (frig vs cruiser, cruiser vs BS, etc) NOS will become a much more attractive choice. It also means that in fights with several ship sizes present, deciding on a target for your NOS should be more intuitive (target something big).
Gimme feedback o/
(PS - this would of course effect all sizes and all metas) in effect this means that cruisers can never nosf frigates, and battleships can never nosf BCs/Cruisers. This in turn means that this module is pretty much useless except on a very few select frigates with a utility high AND the spare PG/CPU, aka, hardly any ships at all. While its obvious that Nosferatu need a good buff, this isnt helpful to anyone ever.
This man gets it. I can't believe that so many people are saying that this is a great change. The idea has not been thought through in the slightest. It's a stupid idea.
The idea helps small Nos against larger ships - but small nos is actually already quite good, having a distinct niche role in neut-defence on tacklers. People are talking about fitting four Nos to a tackler to be almost neut-immune - but you can already do this! The mechanic change alters nothing in practice for small Nos, as frigates using one as neut-defence almost always has a lower cap % than the neuter anyway.
But it's on heavy Nos that the failures of the idea are clearest. Heavy Nos is unused today - yet this idea nerfs it, but making it ineffective against smaller ships. What kind of crazy logic leads to the conclusion that heavy Nos needs nerfing?
|
Naomi Anthar
Loza Szydercow Li3 Federation
69
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 12:20:00 -
[113] - Quote
As previous poster , people have no idea if they claim its good change. It will leave nos useless for high cap ships (amarr) and also on all bigger ships (especially amarr) .
You guys need to actually play game and use module - or at least try it once upon time . Because if you don't then you come to topics like this and claim that you are pretty sure this change is good.
Hell i will say even more ! This change is actually nerf to nos for many ships in many situations.
So what ccp is basically asking me is to engage cruisers with frig else this module is useless (especially for amarr as they got biggest cap pool so they will hardly nos other frigates). And i doubt i want to engage cruisers with many frigates. Sure it is possible but only certain ships and vs certain cruisers.
Truth is module should be useful in frigate vs frigate situation and cruiser vs cruiser. You did nothing to fix NOS, you actually break this module for many ships that use it already, but after change it will be useless for those.
Once again big -1 . It's better to keep nos as it is, even if it is useless and broken. Making it even worse or only good for ships with low cap pool (minmatar) is absolutely bad idea. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
102
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 12:49:00 -
[114] - Quote
Potentially a start. They definitely need a look into.
I'd like to see it on a sliding scale of some form. Not sure on the numbers. ie if my NOS ship is low on cap, and I use it against a ship with lots, I get the max amount of cap back. Whilst if he has no cap, and I have lots - i get near enough bugger all. I don't like the "enemy must have more than you" part. Although I'm sure there is probably a good reason for it.
Regardless I'd like to see the fitting requirements dropped quite significantly! |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard BootCamp
256
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 12:51:00 -
[115] - Quote
I-¦d like to see NOS working also from large to small tbh. If i got a spare utility slot on a battleship atm i 'have' to fit a neut to fight of tacklers. Would be awesome if a nos would also work (takes longer then the neut but still would work). My true stories |
TuccarAbla
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 12:57:00 -
[116] - Quote
If this change happens, you should remove the curse from game, it is already a weak ship and now if this change happens, it wont be able to kill a simple frigate. |
Stetson Eagle
ROC Academy The ROC
47
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 13:20:00 -
[117] - Quote
Kobea Thris wrote:Minor side point to this, but if you go ahead with this, you may want to look at how it will affect PVE ships who use NOS against rats, and how you want it to affect them. I would imagine that currently, Rats always have 100% cap, but don't have an actual cap amount. Going forward, that would likely mean NOS wouldn't work at all against rats.
And here I was planning a solo WH build on this.
How do the ship bonuses apply? Drain more from target, or yield more cap only?
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
454
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 13:40:00 -
[118] - Quote
It was already specified earlier in the thread that the NOS changes will have no effect on how they work in PvE. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 13:55:00 -
[119] - Quote
Excellent change, should have been like that already.
+1 "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
454
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 14:00:00 -
[120] - Quote
TuccarAbla wrote:If this change happens, you should remove the curse from game, it is already a weak ship and now if this change happens, it wont be able to kill a simple frigate.
Capacitor Flux Coils would like to have a word with you in the hallway. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |