| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wesley Harding
   |
Posted - 2005.11.26 05:40:00 -
[1]
My idea is that NOS has it's effectiveness vary along the capacitor recharge curve. Instead of working at 100 percent on anything in range and has cap to drain, how much it soaks up depends on how much cap your own ship has. Like if you have almost max cap or are almost empty, the drain and the recovery is lessened significantly, while if you are around the half way mark on your capacitor, the NOS drains and replishes much more quickly.
This way it has a more ultiarian nature, to assist in maintaining your cap, while leaving neutralizers as the primary way to drain an enemy's cap.
I think it'd add new variables to PVP. Perhaps even strangly enough, using Logistics ships to maintain an enemies cap so that he overextends himself? 
|
Furion35
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 05:42:00 -
[2]
That sounds about right but why would you want it to help you much less if you are almost empty?
|
bundy bear
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 05:47:00 -
[3]
Bad idea.
Nos shouldnt just work well for people with **** cap. How about reward people that take the time to balance their tank with cap rechargers/boosters.
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 05:47:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Furion35
That sounds about right but why would you want it to help you much less if you are almost empty?
Probably because that's the way the cap recharge curve normally works - when you're around half cap, that's when you're at your peak cap recharge rate.
As for the idea itself, I dunno... I personally think nos are fine as-is.
-Wrayeth
|
Jon Xylur
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 09:14:00 -
[5]
Juist another Inty pilot whining how a battleship didn't jsut auto selfdestrucs as he started tackling it and actually had somethign to fight back with....Please CCP, ingnore them. Nos is the only frigate defence left now that drones got nerfed. Besides most ship onyl carry 1 nos, enough to disbale 1 frigate, and I don't think ti woudl be fair that 1 frigate shoudl be able to kill a battleship that had absolutely no way of defending himself.
|
Ralitge boyter
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 09:49:00 -
[6]
Problem is that this should be in the ideas lab section of the forms and as pointed out before this would be the ultimate reward for people who setup a bad tank...
It would mean that I should be looking to over extend my cap usage so I can make best use of my NOS and still not have to worry about the over extended cap usage. Nah, A module should be effective or nto not halfway in between and only work well when you create a bad ship setup.
-------------------------------------------
Should you disagree with me, well I guess that is because I disagree with you. If you have a problem with that please feel free not to tell me. |
Pointless Vengence
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 10:14:00 -
[7]
No.
NOS and Neuts are there to suck cap. They are a weapon and they do their job well. There are tons of posts addressing this. So I will skip the lesson and go directly to your post.
Exactly how many BS pilots hit a frig w/ a Heavy NOS expecting the results to maintain their cap? The answer is NONE. The purpose is to cripple the frig. Switching to the system you propose goes against every 'vamp' based setup and will render the NOS a useless weapon and turn it into a supplimental energy source.
-Pointless
|
Dexter Rast
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 13:20:00 -
[8]
Simple solution to make NOS a bit better,
Make all NOS 20km range standard, keep the same cycle times for all NOS`s
Make the NOS work on the same priciple as the missiles do now, using sig radius to determin how effective the NOS will be,
for example a large NOS v`s an inty would have less effect that using a small NOS, but BS v BS the large NOS would work at full strength.
increasing all the NOS ranges to 20km would enable small NOS users a chance to counter NOS a larger target and maybe give the frig pilot a chance to mwd out of range.
maybe the above idea has a few flaws but i cant realy think of any myself, but feel free to add anything i could of missed
.
---------------------------------------------
Please use a signature that conforms with the EVE-Online forum rules for signatures - Jacques' |
Scalor Valentis
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 13:36:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Jon Xylur
drones got nerfed.
WHAT?
angade brains?
light drones got huge boost!
they actualy HURT figates now, alot.
|
Professor McFly
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 14:07:00 -
[10]
This is silly, you might as well do the same for Cap Injectors too for all the sense this makes 
__________________
Retard's handbook |
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 17:09:00 -
[11]
Nosferatu and Neutralizers are fine.
~Captain Cutie, ISC Event Horizon
Biomass fears me.
Sovereignty 2.0 |
Hephaesteus
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 17:49:00 -
[12]
NOS are fine
Wes your idea sucks  |
Foomanshoe
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 19:15:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Dexter Rast
Simple solution to make NOS a bit better,
Make all NOS 20km range standard, keep the same cycle times for all NOS`s
Make the NOS work on the same priciple as the missiles do now, using sig radius to determin how effective the NOS will be,
for example a large NOS v`s an inty would have less effect that using a small NOS, but BS v BS the large NOS would work at full strength.
increasing all the NOS ranges to 20km would enable small NOS users a chance to counter NOS a larger target and maybe give the frig pilot a chance to mwd out of range.
maybe the above idea has a few flaws but i cant realy think of any myself, but feel free to add anything i could of missed
.
Great, BS are even more helpless against interceptors with that *brilliant* idea
_______________________________________________
Originally by: Oveur
To the nerfmobile!
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 19:41:00 -
[14]
I think we need a long range, low tracking NOS, and a short range, high tracking NOS. The short range version could be more intense than the long range one.
They definitely need alot of falloff if they are to recieve more varied Battleship to Battleship usage. Mid-range combatants (Amarr) would appreciate this.
Targetting Sig Variance -- "Everything I love is combustible." |
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 20:05:00 -
[15]
NOSses and neutralizers are simple, balanced and working modules. Any change to them would probably make the computation and network traffic more complex resulting in more lag.
Don't fix what ain't broken.
|
Sentani
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 20:10:00 -
[16]
the NOS and neuts are overpowered...
it should be affected by the targets signature...
and the "its the BS last defence" argument is flawed to hell...
if you want procation from frigs when your in a BS then fly with a friend in a smaller class...
theres a reason for the MMO in MMORPG...
____________
The cargo bay is overloaded and cannot be made to fit Expanded Cargohold I.
It is currently only capable of fitting 8772.12 units and it is currently jammed full with 9558.33 units. |
Detaurus
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 20:13:00 -
[17]
You all need to ask yourselves this question.
Would this change occur as indicated in this thread, would the life of a tackler become easier or more difficult.
THE INTY LOBBY IS DAILY FIGHTING FOR SMALL SHIP INVINCIBILITY
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 21:59:00 -
[18]
"Nos is the only frigate defence left now that drones got nerfed."
... Except the light drones actually got boosted, and webbing drones along with target jamming drones got added, providing you with extra options to deal with these frigates..?
|
Dexter Rast
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 22:17:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Foomanshoe
Originally by: Dexter Rast
Simple solution to make NOS a bit better,
Make all NOS 20km range standard, keep the same cycle times for all NOS`s
Make the NOS work on the same priciple as the missiles do now, using sig radius to determin how effective the NOS will be,
for example a large NOS v`s an inty would have less effect that using a small NOS, but BS v BS the large NOS would work at full strength.
increasing all the NOS ranges to 20km would enable small NOS users a chance to counter NOS a larger target and maybe give the frig pilot a chance to mwd out of range.
maybe the above idea has a few flaws but i cant realy think of any myself, but feel free to add anything i could of missed
.
Great, BS are even more helpless against interceptors with that *brilliant* idea
not at all, you could fit small and medium nos if you wish and they would work better agaisnt frigs and cruisers, again trying to get away from the heavy nos -> everything..
i do detect a slight ammount of sarcasm in your post, try to be a bit more constuctive and you wouldnt come across as an **********
---------------------------------------------
Please use a signature that conforms with the EVE-Online forum rules for signatures - Jacques' |
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 22:25:00 -
[20]
So you're telling me that with drones changes, small drones are better against frigates, and heavy drones are better against larger targets?
How simply awful for you to feel forced to make such a decision. 
Personally, I don't mind the "overpowered" NOS, because it encourages frigateers to make a decision regarding usage of ordinary afterburners.
More choices are always better than more generalized nerfs and buffs. Gank from the hangar and all that rot. You never get to choose your strengths, only your weaknesses.
Targetting Sig Variance -- "Everything I love is combustible." |
Guntaro
|
Posted - 2005.11.26 23:06:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jon Xylur
Juist another Inty pilot whining how a battleship didn't jsut auto selfdestrucs as he started tackling it and actually had somethign to fight back with....
Amen, so true.
|
Naurhir
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 01:42:00 -
[22]
Quote:
not at all, you could fit small and medium nos if you wish and they would work better agaisnt frigs and cruisers
Because an inty will not orbit you inside the range of your small nos, likely not even the medium nos. It would severely gimp nos.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 01:47:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Lygos
Personally, I don't mind the "overpowered" NOS, because it encourages frigateers to make a decision regarding usage of ordinary afterburners.
Choice? There is NO choice.
Without a MWD, you will die to another frigate with one. You will not be able to close in time to tackle. And when you get nossed, you wouldn't be able to run an AB *either*.
Your point, again?
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Aeaus
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 02:45:00 -
[24]
How about CCP just remove the damn light show.
|
MysticNZ
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 05:13:00 -
[25]
leave nos alone, jesus.
Originally by: Nyphur
I'm hungry and naked. That answer your question?
|
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 07:48:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Sentani
the NOS and neuts are overpowered...
it should be affected by the targets signature...
IMO webs and scramblers are overpowered, they should be affected by target mass.
Originally by: Sentani
if you want procation from frigs when your in a BS then fly with a friend in a smaller class...
And the frigs need to fly with a friend of what class? Yes, frigs. No other ship class is needed (except maybe dreads for POSses and stuff). This one way balancing (power to the small ships) effectively forces us all fly frigs in PvP.
|
Hephaesteus
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 08:30:00 -
[27]
Ok this is getting silly, the point of tacklers is to hold down your prey till the big stuff arrives. It is not for a frig or inty to be able to go one on one with a bs.
BTW cant wait for the new small drones  |
bundy bear
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 09:22:00 -
[28]
Who ever said that webbs and scramblers shouldnt do as much against battleships and larger targets clearly does not PvP enough. The sole purpose of a frigate in a fleet is to take out enemy frigates and to lock enemy BS down. What is the point in any combat without being able to scramble the enemy so he cant warp away. Right now battleships are way to slow to tackle and cruisers are not far behind. Also cruisers have a tendancy to blow up when targeted by a battleship.
For the people who think noss should be nerfed. Its a battleship FFS!. It should have way to fight off little ships as it costs 50 times more. What you are implying is that a battleship should have no way of defending itself against smaller ships? . Tackling shouldnt be easy. There should be risks when trying to combat much larger ships. If you dont like not being invincible dont fly an inty.
|
Dexter Rast
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 14:13:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Naurhir
Quote:
not at all, you could fit small and medium nos if you wish and they would work better agaisnt frigs and cruisers
Because an inty will not orbit you inside the range of your small nos, likely not even the medium nos. It would severely gimp nos.
i did say that ALL nos should have the 20km range, even small and medium, that would help loads if the nos were used by the sig radius rule
BTH as it stands now the ranges of the small and medium nos are what realy make the large nos more effective, increasing all nos classes to 20km would be a great improvement,
---------------------------------------------
Please use a signature that conforms with the EVE-Online forum rules for signatures - Jacques' |
Dexter Rast
|
Posted - 2005.11.27 14:15:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Dexter Rast on 27/11/2005 14:16:09
Originally by: Dexter Rast
Originally by: Naurhir
Quote:
not at all, you could fit small and medium nos if you wish and they would work better agaisnt frigs and cruisers
Because an inty will not orbit you inside the range of your small nos, likely not even the medium nos. It would severely gimp nos.
i did say that ALL nos should have the 20km range, even small and medium, that would help loads if the nos were used by the sig radius rule
TBH as it stands now the ranges of the small and medium nos are what realy make the large nos more effective, increasing all nos classes to 20km would be a great improvement,
---------------------------------------------
Please use a signature that conforms with the EVE-Online forum rules for signatures - Jacques' |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |