EVE Search - Nos stacking penalty?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Nos stacking penalty?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Necrologic	Posted - 2005.12.18 01:39:00 - [1] I have heard rumors that nos has a stacking penalty in RmR. Can anybody verify if this is true or not? And if they don't have them, they should.
KilROCK	Posted - 2005.12.18 01:43:00 - [2] That's a good idea, but i don't really think it's that great... What if 2 ships have 6 nos on a target and one of them can't nos crap because the 3 of his friend were there before his...
Necrologic	Posted - 2005.12.18 01:48:00 - [3] Originally by: KilROCK That's a good idea, but i don't really think it's that great... What if 2 ships have 6 nos on a target and one of them can't nos crap because the 3 of his friend were there before his... It's the same deal with damps, painters, or many other things.
Trelennen	Posted - 2005.12.18 02:08:00 - [4] Originally by: Necrologic Originally by: KilROCK That's a good idea, but i don't really think it's that great... What if 2 ships have 6 nos on a target and one of them can't nos crap because the 3 of his friend were there before his... It's the same deal with damps, painters, or many other things. Well, the difference is that nobody cares who paint/damps/etc., as it has no direct benefit for the one who does it. Nossing on the contrary gives cap to the one nossing, so if the second ship with 3 nos gets nearly nothing from its nos while the first of the two nossing gets nearly everything, it's screwed . But I like the idea of a kind of stacking penalty on Nos (there's none currently, as it was your primary question). Originally by: DarK The cluetrain obviously doesn't stop at this station anymore...
Lipton	Posted - 2005.12.18 05:18:00 - [5] Umm... This i dont get. Why should there be a stacking penalty? Peeps are using it as a "weapon". Dunno what the rest of you think, but i sure as hell dont wanna see a stacking penalty on Turrets/Launchers... _______________________________________________ What?
Necrologic	Posted - 2005.12.18 05:36:00 - [6] Originally by: Lipton Umm... This i dont get. Why should there be a stacking penalty? Peeps are using it as a "weapon". Dunno what the rest of you think, but i sure as hell dont wanna see a stacking penalty on Turrets/Launchers... Ahh, it's very simple actually. Nos is having an identity crisis. Is it "ew"? is it a weapon? Right now it is in a class all it's own (smartbomb is probably next closest thing). It isn't a weapon the way a turret or missle is because those weapons have pros and cons, the most obvious of which is they do less damage to smaller sizes of ships, but nos doesn't. If it is going to be counted as a weapon, it needs to follow the rules like the others do. This is in following with the rest of CCP's logic. If it is not a weapon and is EW it needs a stacking penalty, which all ew has except ECM which is chance based instead.
Lipton	Posted - 2005.12.18 05:46:00 - [7] Edited by: Lipton on 18/12/2005 05:48:03 Originally by: Necrologic Originally by: Lipton Umm... This i dont get. Why should there be a stacking penalty? Peeps are using it as a "weapon". Dunno what the rest of you think, but i sure as hell dont wanna see a stacking penalty on Turrets/Launchers... Ahh, it's very simple actually. Nos is having an identity crisis. Is it "ew"? is it a weapon? Right now it is in a class all it's own (smartbomb is probably next closest thing). It isn't a weapon the way a turret or missle is because those weapons have pros and cons, the most obvious of which is they do less damage to smaller sizes of ships, but nos doesn't. If it is going to be counted as a weapon, it needs to follow the rules like the others do. This is in following with the rest of CCP's logic. If it is not a weapon and is EW it needs a stacking penalty, which all ew has except ECM which is chance based instead. Ye, good point... And sry that i didn't point out my irony better in my last post... _______________________________________________ What?
Amthrianius	Posted - 2005.12.18 06:09:00 - [8] its quit simple, high slot items shouldnt have stacking penalties ---------------
Gierling	Posted - 2005.12.18 06:11:00 - [9] I think that stacking penalties should only work on YOUR ship. snip That's not very appropriate. - Teblin
Gian Bal	Posted - 2005.12.18 06:20:00 - [10] i have not read yet anything about it, but i think its a good idea. to counter a nosdomi people start to equipping apocs with 6 or more nos. the more nos, the better the ship :( stacking nos under weapons with optimal/falloff etc. wouldn't chance a dime on that, then with specialized skills 7 of 'em might be even more effective then now. with a stacking penality this could get solved more easy. i like that
Angelic Resolution	Posted - 2005.12.18 06:29:00 - [11] Smart bombs.. no. Energy neutralizers, yes. And it doesn't count as EW as EW effects tracking, target locking and that's it. However the new nos'ing drones are counted as EW drones so.. =\
Vina	Posted - 2005.12.18 06:34:00 - [12] Stop giving CCP ideas. Soon we will have noses and neuts with sig resolutions. ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
Vehestian	Posted - 2005.12.18 07:21:00 - [13] Problems with NOS? Did someone mention jamming? Kinda the same thing when you think about it, only Jamming works INSTANTLY while NOS takes a little while to render target ship useless/near-useless. Even still, NOS is not as nasty as ECM since some modules can survive it (projectiles come to mind). Plus, NOS ranges suck, unlike ECM. NO NOS NERFAGE DAMMIT@!@1
Wrath Trihellion	Posted - 2005.12.18 07:38:00 - [14] WTF IS EVERYONES PROBLEM WITH HOW THINGS ARE?????? Guys, seriously, is there anything wrong with the way Nos works now?????? Really??? It seems to me that it works just about the way it should. Nos have a limited range, are not effective short term, (as they have such a small effect), and dont really do much more than protect BS against frigs. I swear if this turns into another thread about how frigs should be able to wtfpwn BS and nos are unfair against your AF then im gonna flip. Drones were fine B4, now they are just the same only it will take 8 months for anyone to realize that nothing changed and then someone will come up with another "hey what if we fix this though its not broke?" Nos are fine now, and should NOT be messed with just for the sake of messing. FIX the broken stuff first like damps and tracking disruptors. Gheesh.
Wrath Trihellion	Posted - 2005.12.18 07:39:00 - [15] Any sry i got a little miffed, im going to bed. L8ers.
Necrologic	Posted - 2005.12.18 07:46:00 - [16] Edited by: Necrologic on 18/12/2005 07:48:16 Originally by: Vehestian Problems with NOS? Did someone mention jamming? Kinda the same thing when you think about it, only Jamming works INSTANTLY while NOS takes a little while to render target ship useless/near-useless. Even still, NOS is not as nasty as ECM since some modules can survive it (projectiles come to mind). Plus, NOS ranges suck, unlike ECM. NO NOS NERFAGE DAMMIT@!@1 This is almost enough to make me cry. You are seriously comparing nos and ecm? Let's see what's different... Ecm are medslot, which means only caldari and some large minmatar ship can use them effectivly. Ecm take enough cap that you can only use them on ships setup to use ecm 100% (yes i know there are a few setups not like this, but those are exceptions). The biggest difference is ecm is chance based. It doesn't always work. Ecm also has a fantastic counter in the backup array module. Overall, ecm is a pain to use, but nos is becoming a required module on most close range ship setups. Nos both hurts the enemy and benefits you at the same time, unlike any other module. Also, nos don't really have any sort of counter, unlike every other module in the game. I'm really not going to pursue this topic though. I made a nice topic on nos awhile back that went over 12 pages, and it become very clear to me that i wasn't going to get a logical debate/argument about nos from anybody here, all i was going to get was people yelling and chucking their weight around because they don't want to see their nos brought inline with the rest of the game.
Babilon	Posted - 2005.12.18 07:53:00 - [17] Edited by: Babilon on 18/12/2005 07:54:45 Originally by: Amthrianius its quit simple, high slot items shouldnt have stacking penalties oh come on - turret/launcher stacking for the win - any more then 3 turrets firing at the target will just fade into zeros as the smart man above suggested about nosferatus. if anything the 'phoons of eve would be lovin it. Edit: on a serious note nosferatus is a bit nasty as is - as argued elsewhere some sort of tracking would be nice.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2005.12.18 08:05:00 - [18] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 18/12/2005 08:06:37 Edit: nevermind. WTB: delete post button. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. Check for updates/known issues, feedback welcome.
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2005.12.18 08:12:00 - [19] Originally by: Trelennen Well, the difference is that nobody cares who paint/damps/etc., as it has no direct benefit for the one who does it. I consider extra DPS for my missile boat, or more wrecking shots for my Harpy to be a DAMN good direct benefit. ------------------------------------ Inappropriate signature -zhuge
MysticNZ	Posted - 2005.12.18 09:03:00 - [20] Nos is a high slot. Nos is a weapon. This topic is mute. I don't see why there should be a penalty, you screw your setup to fit nos. -
FiGHT XZen	Posted - 2005.12.18 09:11:00 - [21] maybe you also want, gun , armor rep, Shieldb, cap stuff, even ammmo, stacking penalties also?
Semkhet	Posted - 2005.12.18 10:20:00 - [22] Edited by: Semkhet on 18/12/2005 10:21:39 Another genius.... 1) Each NOS replaces a possible weapon in high slots, and uses as much PG/CPU like a weapon. 2) The only way to improve NOS effectiveness is to use them on a ship with NOS bonuses. No NOS efficiency or range mods exists. 3) NOS only neutralizes a ship's cap, and only after a given number of cycles. It won't kill anything on its own 4) To kill using a specialized NOS setup (Domi), you need either another ship with you, either drones. The Ashimmu can decently tank ONLY when in NOS range, etc... So, what about a stacking penalty on making stupid posts ?
Arti K	Posted - 2005.12.18 11:07:00 - [23] K, nos are weapons, not ewar. I think that guns and missiles should have a stacking penalty, so that having more than 4 guns/launchers on a single target no longer affects them after that. honestly people... Originally by: Skzcaptain 0.0 is a huge dueling zone.
Gary Goat	Posted - 2005.12.18 11:24:00 - [24] I think nos's are overpowered at the moment and need some sort of sig resolution to make them less effective against smaller targets. If you fighting a close range ship then a nos is like an i win button. Its much worse then ecm as it stops you from tanking, shooting, running (mwd or ab), even warping where as ecm stop you from locking but you can still run away or tank some damage. Too many times i've specificly set up my deimos to kill a battleship using tracking disruptors to stop them hitting me and too many times 1 nos has completely crippled me. Give it a few cycles and all i can do is sit there an watch some heavy drones slowly eat me. No way to fight back, no way to counter the nos and no way to escape.
Jennai	Posted - 2005.12.18 11:26:00 - [25] Originally by: Vehestian Problems with NOS? Did someone mention jamming? Kinda the same thing when you think about it, only Jamming works INSTANTLY while NOS takes a little while to render target ship useless/near-useless. Even still, NOS is not as nasty as ECM since some modules can survive it (projectiles come to mind). Plus, NOS ranges suck, unlike ECM. NO NOS NERFAGE DAMMIT@!@1 don't forget how the counter-module for ECM is a waste of a slot that does nothing except counter ECM, but the counter-modules for sensor dampers and tracking disruptors are useful modules that lots of BS fit. nerf ECM and/or fix the other EW.
Ravenal	Posted - 2005.12.18 13:19:00 - [26] imo turrets and missiles should have a stacking penalty as well... the more people shooting at one target, the less the targets signature radius gets. additionally... the more modules the target activates, the bigger his signature radius gets... id still be "ganka" .. but not as much. . Ravenal - Fate is what you make of it.
Dexter Rast	Posted - 2005.12.18 13:39:00 - [27] NOS would be fine if all sizes had the same 20km range, so the smaller ship classes would have a chance to nos back without heavy nos ruling all, maybe giving it sig raius to determine cap drain could be an answer, so in effect heavy nos would work good against battleships but have a lesser effect on cruisers and frigs, giving the smaller nos classes the same 20km range would mean that even battleships can equip a small nos for anti frig work. but i have to agree, as it stands now nos is the win button --------------------------------------------- Please use a signature that conforms with the EVE-Online forum rules for signatures - Jacques'
DarkStar251	Posted - 2005.12.18 13:52:00 - [28] OMG, people complained that bses owned frigs, fair enough. Now, heavy drones, large missiles, large guns, etc, are all useless against frigs. And you want to take out nos too? Then is it SBs? Then making it impossible to fit small guns on a bs? The small ship activists dont want a Battleship to have to fit out specifically to kill frigs, they want a BS to NEVER be able to kill a frig under ANY circumstances. (\_/) (O.o) (> <)
Agent2 Holtze	Posted - 2005.12.18 14:14:00 - [29] Soon we'll have Stacking Penalties on the 7 tachs i'm using on my Geddon :( Nihil est-in vita priore ego imperator Romanus fui.
slapp	Posted - 2005.12.18 14:51:00 - [30] Those who cannot adapt, become the victims of EvE ^^ ------------------------------------------------------ CAREBEAR, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in CCP affairs has always been dominant and controling.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.