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) |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
757
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 14:02:00 -
[121] - Quote
How to really fix Nos without ill-thought-out screwing with its mechanics:
Cut cycle time of all Nos sizes to 3 s as suggested by someone above. This emphasises the anti-neuting role. Cut PG requirements. Nos is too hard to fit on many ships.
After that, have a look at the drain amounts to see if med and heavy Nos are draining enough to be useful to their host ships, which tend to have priorities different to the "keep tackle running" of frigates, which must be recognised in med/heavy Nos drain amounts. |
Gustav Mannfred
the bring back canflipping corp
61
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 14:06:00 -
[122] - Quote
and what is with the usage of nos against NPCs? Will you still get cap from them? i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183 |
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
54
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 14:08:00 -
[123] - Quote
Another suggestion for a very simple NOS mechanic: transfers X% of their current cap pool, to a maximum of Y.
I would go as high on X as 50%, and set Y to be between one half and one third of a neut (after accounting for cycle times).
When their cap pool is near full, it works as a weak neut that also adds (rather than drains) your own cap. As their cap pool becomes empty, it drains less and less, making it hard to suck them dry (and beyond).
With a large imbalance, it works the same as the proposed change. But it also means that NOS-ing a ship with a smaller cap pool isn't a complete waste. Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
455
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 14:09:00 -
[124] - Quote
Gustav Mannfred wrote:and what is with the usage of nos against NPCs? Will you still get cap from them?
People. Really. Hate reading. Don't they?
It was said in the first couple of pages that the usage of NOS against NPCs will not change. |
Johan March
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 15:00:00 -
[125] - Quote
I think this is a good start, but CCP should also look at the cap drain and fitting requirements of nosferatu's as well. Pyfa tells me that the Meta 3 nos has less than half the cap drain and slightly higher fitting requirements of the equivalent size neut.
Obviously nos' shouldn't drain the same amount as neuts, but I'm guessing 2/3rds of the equivalent drain w/ 3/4tths the fitting requirements would be more appropriate. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1191
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 15:06:00 -
[126] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: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. lets not forget to add a t1 MWD also, that 25% reduction in cap will do wonders for abusing the new NOS mechanic. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 16:01:00 -
[127] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: lets not forget to add a t1 MWD also, that 25% reduction in cap will do wonders for abusing the new NOS mechanic.
Not really. If you're facing a same-class opponent it'll make your nos work against them for a couple of cycles and then be just as useless as it was before. The enemy will have 6% less cap than they would have had otherwise. Why would anyone waste a high slot and deliberately nerf their own total cap by using a sub-par mwd for such an irrelevant bonus? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4288
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 16:13:00 -
[128] - Quote
Thank you gentlemen!
I really kind of hate it when people say this, but I put this proposition forward a couple of years ago pretty much word for word. My main problem was that nobody could make the mental distiction between relative cap percentage and relative raw cap amount.
All tricks aside, in basic terms this change will mean the following.
If you are in a larger ship and want protection from tacklers, stick with a neut.
If you are in a small ship and want to remain in close but cap stable, stick with a NOS.
Larger ships will rarely have less raw cap available than a smaller vessel (though there are clever ways around that), so a Nos is of little use to them vs tacklers... but excellent against same size or larger (caps).
Smaller ships will almost always have less raw cap available than a larger ship (often their target), so a NOS will usually be an excellent choice for them as it sustains them while still weakening their larger target.
In the case of a Curse or Pilgrim you'll need to make some choices, depending on what you want to be most effective against... or fit both NOS and Neuts to maintain flexibility (but reduced effectiveness). I think that considering their standard uses these two vessels are put to you will see Curses stick to running mainly Nuets, while Pilgrims will tend to run NOS to enhance their ambush tackle and grind them down role. Exceptions will exist of course.
NOS will now make running a MWD a much more attractive option for a tackler, as previously a NOS was a very undependable beast to have mounted. Even against a larger target you could still easily have a higher percentage of cap, rendering the NOS useless. Now, however, if tackling a larger target (or any target that is neuting your cap) the NOS will be very, very helpful and reliable.
I'll have to take a closer look at the Dragoon now, as I think it may help bring them up to a more effective level... but I think that will depend of if the module fitting requirements stay the same.
All in all, I couldn't be happier... and Curse/Pilgrim/Dragoon/Bhaalgorn (and it's smaller siblings) pilots throughout the game should give you a big thumbs up. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4288
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 16:19:00 -
[129] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: lets not forget to add a t1 MWD also, that 25% reduction in cap will do wonders for abusing the new NOS mechanic.
Not really. If you're facing a same-class opponent it'll make your nos work against them for a couple of cycles and then be just as useless as it was before. The enemy will have 6% less cap than they would have had otherwise. Why would anyone waste a high slot and deliberately nerf their own total cap by using a sub-par mwd for such an irrelevant bonus? In practical application, if properly set up, it can allow you to permanently run that MWD on fits that could not do so before while still putting the other opponent at a disadvantage. Keep in mind that a NOS is more about helping yourself than doing harm to your opponent (although it does do them SOME harm)... where as a Nuet works more the other way around.
There will be many fits that can be cap viable for much longer periods of time than possible now, against a wider variety of targets.
This also allows the option to run new setups that burn a lot more cap than you would currently be comfortable with without taking up a mid for an injector (although it is a bit riskier).
One other thing to consider, if you run up against an opponent that doesn't care if it has cap or not, running a Nuet will only hurt you... while running a NOS cannot hurt your cap in any way. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Naomi Anthar
Loza Szydercow Li3 Federation
72
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 16:49:00 -
[130] - Quote
This change is **** , don't push it. I really like many changes , many odyssey changes were great (except exploration). But here we don't have fix for nos. We just have nos buff for minmatar ships alone as they always start fight with less cap amount compared to amarrian, gallente ships.
We don't need fix NOW. We can wait , but i'm pretty sure that Devs can come up with solution that will be benefit slasher with NOS as it will benefit Executioner with NOS. As it is now , ships with bigger cap pool will hate this change. And Losematar will welcome it as any other undeserved buff they receive now or in future. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4288
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:00:00 -
[131] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:This change is **** , don't push it. I really like many changes , many odyssey changes were great (except exploration). But here we don't have fix for nos. We just have nos buff for minmatar ships alone as they always start fight with less cap amount compared to amarrian, gallente ships.
We don't need fix NOW. We can wait , but i'm pretty sure that Devs can come up with solution that will be benefit slasher with NOS as it will benefit Executioner with NOS. As it is now , ships with bigger cap pool will hate this change. And Losematar will welcome it as any other undeserved buff they receive now or in future. Most Minmatar ships don't burn cap and have little use for a NOS over a Nuet. Amarr ships burn huge amounts of cap and need all the help they can get to maintain it, and usually have a utility slot free for NOS.
Minmatar pilots will tend to use Nuets, Amarr ships (especially frigates and cruisers) will go back to their old ways of using cap hungry lasers supported by NOS and cap injection. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Naomi Anthar
Loza Szydercow Li3 Federation
72
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:05:00 -
[132] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Thank you gentlemen! and stuff
Seeing your description i can add one thing mate. There is time when it's not tears. Devs ask now if we like change or not. It's time to post , as you cannot outproduce , outfight ... whatever.
After change going live if someone will complain it will be too late tho. Because they can now prevent this disasterous change from going live.
You explain how this works , but actually i see you don't know how it works. Or you lack knowledge about fittings of many ships.
Let me put one example : Rifter cap amount (one of candidates to put nos in his utility high) - 250 (base amount before skills etc) And Punisher cap amount (also can use nos - but probably wont with changes like that) - 400.
Now if you don't see those nos changes being more beneficial to Rifter (and other minmatar ships like RFF or slasher) then stop posting in this thread.
You were saying like frigate is frigate, destroyer is destroyer, cruiser is cruiser. No my dear friend you are VERY WRONG. Amarr ships as race advantage got bigger cap pool (hardly can call it advantage when we need to shoot lasers but whatever) , Minmatar - everything (except maybe maybe cap pool) - be it sig radius, speed, versatility etc. Now we are on edge of devaluation Amarr race "advantage".
Now let me explain WHY I'M RIGHT. If you think this is how it is supposed to work then why webs don't slow only ships that are faster than you ? And no slow at all if they are not ? Oh sorry it would be bad for Minmatar - sorry for ever mentioning it. Or another example TP only increase sig radius if target got less sig radius than yours. Oh sorry it would hurt minmatar most. As always anything that ***** on amarr race goes through without opposition.
BUT NOT THIS TIME.
|
Qestroy
Bio-Tech Research Tribal Band
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:08:00 -
[133] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Hmm, I did not realize it worked that way. Shows how much I, as an industrialist, know about cap warfare.
I thought it worked by always transferring x cap from the target to you, unless the target had less than x in which case it transferred all available. You get nothing from a drained ship.
Whats wrong with it working like that? Because that makes it universally better than neuts and extremely powerful for small and large ships alike. The eternal draining of the old NOS was just one part of the problem, even with your proposed change you'd essentially be getting all the power of a neut while usually gaining cap instead of losing it. But I thought a neut killed far more of the target's cap than a nos. That gives newts more power even with my change. This, either make it so neuts drain far more than nos's, at the expense of your cap, whereas nos's give you back the cap you took, but the cap you take is much less (but still meaningfull in terms of getting it back) Or, make NOS and neut drain similar ammounts, as they do now (Neut still has an advantage), and make NOS much harder to fit than neuts. So NOS will drain their cap, and give it to you, which is great, if you can fit it, Neut is easier to fit, and drains a bit more cap than nos, so neut still has an advantage in that regard. Give each of them distinct advantages and disadvantages, rather than nos's being slightly less effective neuts which gives you a piddle of cap in return. Also FIX T2 NOS AND NEUT |
Naomi Anthar
Loza Szydercow Li3 Federation
72
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:09:00 -
[134] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:This change is **** , don't push it. I really like many changes , many odyssey changes were great (except exploration). But here we don't have fix for nos. We just have nos buff for minmatar ships alone as they always start fight with less cap amount compared to amarrian, gallente ships.
We don't need fix NOW. We can wait , but i'm pretty sure that Devs can come up with solution that will be benefit slasher with NOS as it will benefit Executioner with NOS. As it is now , ships with bigger cap pool will hate this change. And Losematar will welcome it as any other undeserved buff they receive now or in future. Most Minmatar ships don't burn cap and have little use for a NOS over a Nuet. Amarr ships burn huge amounts of cap and need all the help they can get to maintain it, and usually have a utility slot free for NOS. Minmatar pilots will tend to use Nuets, Amarr ships (especially frigates and cruisers) will go back to their old ways of using cap hungry lasers supported by NOS and cap injection.
Cap hungry lasers ? Yes NOS - not every ship got utility high (tormentor, omen, maller , abaddon etc) , so invalid argument Cap boosters ? How i'm supposed to fit cap booster on punisher ? On slicer ? On Coercer ? On Dragoon ? Hell it's even hard to fit it on 3 mid ships as it is always hard choice to give up web (tho we are only race who has to give up anything here).
So yeah cap hungry lasers yes, but no NOS - it will be terribad mod for amarr ships (except dunno maybe ewar ships). No cap boosters - we got no mid slots for this fancy stuff.
And to prove i'm not just crying here what i would like to see:
Keep nos as it is but reduce req fittings. Atm it consumes huge amount of pwg and cpu , while it doesnt give much in return. Reduce cycle time by 50% also. It will be useful module, commonly used . |
mama guru
Thundercats The Initiative.
130
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:42:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So they still require you to have less cap than your target correct? Yes, but it would compare the actual amounts of cap instead of percentages of the ship's full pool.
The heavy nosferatu is still underpreforming with these changes, since battleship capacitor pools are larger overall. ______
EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4288
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 18:09:00 -
[136] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:This change is **** , don't push it. I really like many changes , many odyssey changes were great (except exploration). But here we don't have fix for nos. We just have nos buff for minmatar ships alone as they always start fight with less cap amount compared to amarrian, gallente ships.
We don't need fix NOW. We can wait , but i'm pretty sure that Devs can come up with solution that will be benefit slasher with NOS as it will benefit Executioner with NOS. As it is now , ships with bigger cap pool will hate this change. And Losematar will welcome it as any other undeserved buff they receive now or in future. Most Minmatar ships don't burn cap and have little use for a NOS over a Nuet. Amarr ships burn huge amounts of cap and need all the help they can get to maintain it, and usually have a utility slot free for NOS. Minmatar pilots will tend to use Nuets, Amarr ships (especially frigates and cruisers) will go back to their old ways of using cap hungry lasers supported by NOS and cap injection. Cap hungry lasers ? Yes NOS - not every ship got utility high (tormentor, omen, maller , abaddon etc) , so invalid argument Cap boosters ? How i'm supposed to fit cap booster on punisher ? On slicer ? On Coercer ? On Dragoon ? Hell it's even hard to fit it on 3 mid ships as it is always hard choice to give up web (tho we are only race who has to give up anything here). So yeah cap hungry lasers yes, but no NOS - it will be terribad mod for amarr ships (except dunno maybe ewar ships). No cap boosters - we got no mid slots for this fancy stuff. And to prove i'm not just crying here what i would like to see: Keep nos as it is but reduce req fittings. Atm it consumes huge amount of pwg and cpu , while it doesnt give much in return. Reduce cycle time by 50% also. It will be useful module, commonly used .
Let me simplify this for you.
Amarr have more cap before the fight begins. Amarr have far less cap moments after the fight starts.
Nobody cares how big your cap pool is before a fight.
What is the easiest way for Minmatar (or any ship really) to kill most Amarr vessels? Remove it's cap. What keeps this from happening? Cap Injectors or (especially if you can't fit a cap injector) NOS.
By the way this change benefits the frigate and destoyer classes you mentioned, particularly those that burn a lot of cap, FAR more than any other classes.
Stop putting projectile weaponry on your Amarr ships. If you're clever you'll be able to run those lasers now.
Stop basing your opihion on EFT fittings, try using the ships in question in combat when they hit the test server.
I've used NOS (and Nuets) on ships of every race, both looooong before the NOS nerf and after (especially on the Pilgrim and Curse). I can say with complete confidence that the race that will benefit most from this change will be the Amarr, followed closely by the Gallante.
I'm pretty sure it won't take you long (in practice) to figure out the same thing. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
758
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 19:28:00 -
[137] - Quote
mama guru wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So they still require you to have less cap than your target correct? Yes, but it would compare the actual amounts of cap instead of percentages of the ship's full pool. The heavy nosferatu is still underpreforming with these changes, since battleship capacitor pools are larger overall.
That's because this "idea" is a straight-up nerf to heavy Nos. Nice one, CCP.
This isn't the fix that you're looking for. |
Tasha Saisima
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:07:00 -
[138] - Quote
Why just not have it work against any ship as long as it has cap? Level restrictions makes no sense |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4288
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:23:00 -
[139] - Quote
Tasha Saisima wrote:Why just not have it work against any ship as long as it has cap? Level restrictions makes no sense Think of it as a leveling system between two vessels filled with water.
If there is more water in the other vessel, this module enables it to flow to you with no cap expenditure of your own.
It essentially has a check valve in place to make sure that if you have more "water" than the other vessel your "water" can not flow the wrong way (out of you and to him).
This enables you to leverage this ability by using cap hungry weaponry (or other modules, such as active repair) for a much longer period of time, and offers you some protection against Neuts. Plus it cannot harm you in any way like a Neut can, a NOS can only benefit your cap situation (or at worse case do nothing negative to you until the situation changes, such as if they use a cap injector or neut).
What you propose is very similar to how they used to work, however that shifted them a bit too heavily towards being an offensive weapon that did great things for you as well. It was a bit over the top, and left little reason to choose a Neut instead. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:40:00 -
[140] - Quote
You have to give CCP credit...
They came up with the one idea that simultaneously buffs NOS's for use in frigates where they're already popular due to their low cycle times and relative cap drain to fitting.
...while at the same time nerfing them for the large ships where they are not used at all due to weak drain, obnoxious fitting, and long cycle times....none of which were addressed with the change AT ALL.
Do you guys just see that no one is using NOS's and come up with the one idea that doesn't address any of the underlying issues or do you actually ask the player base why they're not fitting them? |
|
Paul Leonard Kersey
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:47:00 -
[141] - Quote
CCP: Fixing another problem by making it worse.
How about you stop playing with useless crap and work on keeping the server and sites from going down every day? |
Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:49:00 -
[142] - Quote
Tasha Saisima wrote:Why just not have it work against any ship as long as it has cap? Level restrictions makes no sense
Why do something simple and logical when you can make it convoluted and arbitrary to confuse the player base?
...Yes it makes perfect sense that a battleship with a very expensive deadspace NOS can't drain a single cap from a frigate with a 10k isk cheap NOS that can be permanently run on the huge battleship. Then the BS can fit a cheap Neut and perma cap the frigate in a single pulse ....and then we scratch our heads wondering why the BS still won't fit a NOS with CCP's wonderful change. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
104
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 21:04:00 -
[143] - Quote
Two step wrote:I agree that a fitting change is also needed. Why do they use MOREthe same PG/grid as Neuts?
FYP. And they also use MORE CPU.
---
Please take this opportunity to re-examine NOS fitting requirements across the board. I really think at the least they should be no harder to fit than an equivalent neut. The might really help the decision get a bit harder in high slots - especially in the realm of frigs. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
764
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 22:57:00 -
[144] - Quote
Akimo Heth wrote:You have to give CCP credit...
They came up with the one idea that simultaneously buffs NOS's for use in frigates where they're already popular due to their low cycle times and relative cap drain to fitting.
...while at the same time nerfing them for the large ships where they are not used at all due to weak drain, obnoxious fitting, and long cycle times....none of which were addressed with the change AT ALL.
Do you guys just see that no one is using NOS's and come up with the one idea that doesn't address any of the underlying issues or do you actually ask the player base why they're not fitting them?
Pretty much. I really cannot emphasise just how poorly thought out this idea is.
It's like the idea of an AB bonus to AFs - it sounded good at first, but then people realised that it would make lowsec AB AFs overpowered while leaving nullsec MWD AFs useless, thereby not solving any of the actual problems with AFs. |
Perihelion Olenard
172
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 02:35:00 -
[145] - Quote
I use a couple nosferatus on my navy Vexor. A small change is better than no change at all.
In addition to nosferatus improved I'd also like to see the ridiculous fitting requirements of the capacitor batteries reduced and the batteries themselves improved a bit. Right now, one may as well fit a downgraded cap booster. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Zircon Dasher
250
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 02:39:00 -
[146] - Quote
For being a module that is "useless" and "never used" these changes sure have shoved a corn cobb in some folks pipes. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S The Shadow Eclipse
78
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 03:24:00 -
[147] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:For being a module that is "useless" and "never used" these changes sure have shoved a corn cobb in some folks pipes. This is mostly because it was good at one stage, however they nerfed it so bad that it was useless, and now they are saying that it is getting a fix/buff and they are actually nerfing it again(or at least in relation to Amarrian Ships) |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4288
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 03:35:00 -
[148] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:For being a module that is "useless" and "never used" these changes sure have shoved a corn cobb in some folks pipes. This is mostly because it was good at one stage, however they nerfed it so bad that it was useless, and now they are saying that it is getting a fix/buff and they are actually nerfing it again(or at least in relation to Amarrian Ships) Quite the opposite actually.
Before the nerf Neuts were rarely used, even though they drained more cap. This was because although Neuts drained more, NOS not only drained your enemy but it was also a large help to every module you use that consumes cap.
It was vastly more useful than Neuts in most situations, which also explains why the fittings are as they are.
I'm not opposed to the fittings being evened out between the two systems, but even if they aren't NOS will once again become a very powerful tool in many situations. You will have a reason to make a choice between NOS and Neuts, as they will have different advantages in different situations.
And again, as Amarr are the most cap hungry race... as well as the most vulnerable to Neuting, Nos will once again become a valuable tool for them to use. Remember, it doesn't matter one whit how much cap you have respective to your opponent before the fight starts... what matters is how quickly your cap depletes in relation to your opponent. Gallante, with their cap hungry active repair bonuses and energy consuming weapons will benefit as well. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4288
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 03:42:00 -
[149] - Quote
Akimo Heth wrote:Tasha Saisima wrote:Why just not have it work against any ship as long as it has cap? Level restrictions makes no sense Why do something simple and logical when you can make it convoluted and arbitrary to confuse the player base? ...Yes it makes perfect sense that a battleship with a very expensive deadspace NOS can't drain a single cap from a frigate with a 10k isk cheap NOS that can be permanently run on the huge battleship. Then the BS can fit a cheap Neut and perma cap the frigate in a single pulse ....and then we scratch our heads wondering why the BS still won't fit a NOS with CCP's wonderful change. If your opponent has more capacitor than you, you can drain it and use it yourself. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
The BS has huge energy reserves for a frigate to leach, not the other way around.
BS fit with high cap using weapons and modules (like active repair) will benefit immensely from NOS when facing other BS or Caps (and often against BC's or even cruisers).
BS that are worried about frigate defense will continue to use Neuts, as will those using capless weapons (Drones, Missiles, Projectile).
It's called choosing the right tool for the job and the fit you are using. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4288
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 03:45:00 -
[150] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:I use a couple nosferatus on my navy Vexor. A small change is better than no change at all.
In addition to nosferatus improved I'd also like to see the ridiculous fitting requirements of the capacitor batteries reduced and the batteries themselves improved a bit. Right now, one may as well fit a downgraded cap booster. Very much agreed. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
|
|
|
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 |