EVE Search - Balancing NOS

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Balancing NOS

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fortior	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:48:00 - [1] As Tux stated in his blog, he doesn't want NOS'ing to be tracking dependant. What are the alternatives? Here's my idea. Make NOS'ing signature radius-dependant only, no tracking. This will solve a lot of possible imbalances. Frigs and inties will be very hard to NOS with a BS size NOS for instance, due to their miniscule sig rad. This could be further balanced with named NOS being less dependant on sig rad, and NOS module size as well. Now, how can a ship improve it's defence vs NOS? Make batteries save a % of your cap as 'unNOSable'. That would make batteries a more viable fit (how many players use them really?) and some more setup-variety. Small batteries would of course save a smaller % compared to large batterie. Maybe it shouldn't even be a % but a % of the cap the batteries add. That way it would be balanced for BS fitting small batteries for NOS-defence. I don't know, this has perhaps been stated before. How about a healthy, flame-free discussion about this?
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:53:00 - [2] Battleships would equip cruiser/frigate sized NOS then i suppose, which would not be nearly as effective. But if nerfing the NOS is what the devs want, i think its a good suggestion. --- The Eve Wiki Project
Cerberal	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:55:00 - [3] actually, i like nos the way it is. But if they wanna change it, then yeah why not make a module such as cap batteries useful, and make it a "You cant touch this" energy source. Maybe percentile, 25% per large, 12.5% per medium, 7.5% per small, etc.
Fortior	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:57:00 - [4] Originally by: Jim McGregor Battleships would equip cruiser/frigate sized NOS then i suppose, which would not be nearly as effective. But if nerfing the NOS is what the devs want, i think its a good suggestion. Sure, it wouldn't be nearly as effective with a cruiser/frig NOS but that's the same deal as with turrets. They've repeatedly stated that a BS shouldn't be a SOLOPWNMOBILE, this would be a step in that direction. And yes, a nerf or 'rebalance' of NOS is coming. Just read the blog. This way we can speculate unhindered by fact
Bazman	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:02:00 - [5] Two words, Capacitor Resistance. Innate 25% resists to cap sucking/draining, add in Cap Hardener modules. Nosferatus are still effective, but now have a specific counter. Everyone is happy \o/ ----- Hi TomB! All out Do or Die Blasterboat for tier 3 Gallente battleship please! Make it look cool too. Thanks.
Tehyarec	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:13:00 - [6] If you think about it, it really is quite silly that you can't protect your capacitor power reserve from some sort of weird energy drainer. That's kind like using an unshielded nuclear power plant in a modern submarine, makes about as much sense. So, I'm all for a "capacitor shielding module".
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:17:00 - [7] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 05/05/2006 14:17:57 Edited by: Jim McGregor on 05/05/2006 14:17:37 Originally by: Tehyarec If you think about it, it really is quite silly that you can't protect your capacitor power reserve from some sort of weird energy drainer. That's kind like using an unshielded nuclear power plant in a modern submarine, makes about as much sense. So, I'm all for a "capacitor shielding module". Yeah well, 3 sailboats would not be able to take down a aircraft carrier either. In the above: Frigate = sailboat battleship = Aircraft carrier --- The Eve Wiki Project
Rutoo	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:20:00 - [8] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 05/05/2006 14:17:57 Edited by: Jim McGregor on 05/05/2006 14:17:37 Originally by: Tehyarec If you think about it, it really is quite silly that you can't protect your capacitor power reserve from some sort of weird energy drainer. That's kind like using an unshielded nuclear power plant in a modern submarine, makes about as much sense. So, I'm all for a "capacitor shielding module". Yeah well, 3 sailboats would not be able to take down a aircraft carrier either. In the above: Frigate = sailboat battleship = Aircraft carrier Ummm I think the Aircraft Carrier of EVE is the Mothership Try again though :P ________________________________ Club Seals Not Sandwichs
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:21:00 - [9] Nos is just fine the way it is. Leave nos alone and fix other issues instead.
DarkElf	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:24:00 - [10] I have to disagree with you. i think nos is absolutely fine the way it is. frigates have been made way more poweful due to recent changes and nos is a reasonable defence to them. they can still operate effectively however even if they are totally nos'd. Nos does take high slots remember so they should be a very effective weapon. having nos yourself is an effective countermeasure to it even if you have only 1. i really don't see any problems with the way it works atm
Fortior	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:31:00 - [11] Hehe, you make it sound like this is all my idea Read Tux's latest blog so you all know I'm talking about. I'll quite the relevant part for you all here: Originally by: Tuxfords latest blog Nosferatus/Energy Neutralizers Bigger = better when it comes to nosferatus. That might not necessarily be a bad thing but the only way to counter a nos is by using a nos, so a frigate can't sacrifice some of its slots to defend itself from a battleship's nosferatus. Personally, I'd want to see some counter-nosferatu mods rather than adding "tracking" to it. Regardless if we want it or not, a nudge to the use of NOS is coming. This thread was supposed to give the devs some input as to what we think.
Semantics Man	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:34:00 - [12] Perhaps NOS should target only a specific module and force it to consume more CAP? i.e. Make your opponents' hybrid guns consume more CAP or Shield booster use more CAP.
Nyphur	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:37:00 - [13] Nos resistance plating, low slot module. You'd sacrifice tanking ability or damage for a resistance to nos. Since nos are used to break tanks, this is a good choice, in my opinion. Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Pepperami	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:38:00 - [14] I'm not quite sure what the frigate pilot expects.. Invulnrability to nos and guns? The moon on a stick? I love my frigs, but they don't need to be solopwnmobiles, if you want them to be that - remove precision missiles from the game [Art of War][- V -]
Nyphur	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:56:00 - [15] Originally by: Pepperami I'm not quite sure what the frigate pilot expects.. Invulnrability to nos and guns? The moon on a stick? I love my frigs, but they don't need to be solopwnmobiles, if you want them to be that - remove precision missiles from the game They're getting nerfed anyway. Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Bacchuss	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:58:00 - [16] NOS is fine the way it is, leave it alone ************************************ "What you gonna do, when I come for yoU?!" ************************************
Pepperami	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:59:00 - [17] Edited by: Pepperami on 05/05/2006 15:00:11 Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: Pepperami I'm not quite sure what the frigate pilot expects.. Invulnrability to nos and guns? The moon on a stick? I love my frigs, but they don't need to be solopwnmobiles, if you want them to be that - remove precision missiles from the game They're getting nerfed anyway. lol, such is eve Edit; oh, hold on, you meant precisions.. I thought you meant I had a fair arguement but nos is getting nerfed anyway.. [Art of War][- V -]
Roue	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:09:00 - [18] First, all the people saying fine leave it as it is. Pointless, Tux has said it is slated for some sort of change. Your opportunity to help decide what is now. Secondly I aggree with a sig radius system. Boost all NOS to the same range 20km. It needs to be usable first off and their extremely short range is a terrible detriment to the ability to counter Nos. Currently, Small 8 cap Medium 30cap Heavy 100cap Change to: Small Nos 40m sig 10cap Medium Nos 120m sig 30cap Heavy Nos 400m Sig 100cap So now if a frig nos's a frig it does 10 cap. If the other frig has a nos he nos's back his 10 cap. If a battleship gets nos'd by a frig he losses 10 cap, if the battleship nosses the frig he gets his 10 back. A total Nosferatu Battleship would be devastating to another battleship. It would discourage cruisers from remaining near for long and frigates would be unable to maintain an easy engagement. However it would be the, activate module insta kill frigate as it is now. It would force the frigates to have to pull away to safer range. The scary ships would then be ships that receive nosferatu effectiveness bonuses. Like the Curse and blood ships. Their bonuses making them effectively dangerous with Nosferatu.
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:18:00 - [19] trouble is the DPS of tech 2 ships would have to lowered as well. NOS kinda keeps things in balance when that blaster HAC slams against a BS the BS just hits the NOS and brings it into cruiser vs BS balance.
Nyphur	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:22:00 - [20] I'm all for balance but do we have to make everything exactly equal? Should blobs of smaller ships always be better than bigger ones? Taking 100 cap out of a frig with a BS nos is too harsh, I agree, but taking 10 out is pathetic. Of course, it would make target painters a little more useful. I still like the idea of nos resistance plating for a percentage resistance to nos. Bigger ships have more low slots to fit them in but smaller ships don't rely so much on the tank. perhaps we could have passive platings for the low slots and active resistance fields for mid slots. The mid slot ones would only take 1 cap every 30 seconds and would give more bonus but could maybe have a penalty to sensor resolution. This would make them less useful if you're going to fight small ships and more useful if you're going to fight big ships. It's just an idea.. Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Xaeon	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:22:00 - [21] There's already a counter to nos, it's called ecm. ================================= 23/03/06 - Chapter III: The Campaign of Keshirou =================================
So'Kar	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:30:00 - [22] Ultimate nos solution When Nos try drain cap, but target ship dont have enough cap left for the nos, then nos will stop and have cool down before it can be activated again. Heavy nos 40 sec Medium nos 20 sec Small nos 10 sec
Dirtball	Posted - 2006.05.05 17:45:00 - [23] Nos is fine as is there is way to get around it and ways to know your getting hit by it and if you arent quick on the trigger in a frig ot get out of range its your own fault. The system as is has ways to get around it or to make it not that great. If the bs gets nerfed any further towards small ships eve is gonna get ***ed.
Auman	Posted - 2006.05.05 17:49:00 - [24] Interceptor bonus's should get revised at the same time NOS "balancing" is looked at.
Cosmo Raata	Posted - 2006.05.05 17:56:00 - [25] I think the sig radius plan is probably the closest idea to what would work well. Not quite as harsh as everyone is suggesting. As an example, if a large nos takes 100 cap (round numbers to make it easier) from another bs, then he should take between 60-90 from a cruiser & 30-60 from a frig. The biggest thing that needs to be thought about when nerfing nos is how not to nerf the curse, pilgrim, & other nos faction ships. Truthfully, they need to be left untouched, otherwise they become the crappiest Recon ships. Nerf of Nos = ok, Nerf of ships dependant on Nos = I hate eve.
Lo3d3R	Posted - 2006.05.05 17:59:00 - [26] ECM needs nerfing, allot of nerfing , stabs need some nerfing, NOS however is just fine the way it is. imo offcourse 0/ ____________________ Eating Chopped Bear
Nyphur	Posted - 2006.05.05 18:01:00 - [27] Originally by: So'Kar Edited by: So''Kar on 05/05/2006 16:36:17 Ultimate nos solution When Nos try drain cap, but target ship dont have enough cap left for the nos, then nos will drain whats left and have cooldown before it can be activated again. Heavy nos 40 sec Medium nos 20 sec Small nos 10 sec "Ultimate" apparantly does not mean what you think it means. Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources.
So'Kar	Posted - 2006.05.05 19:43:00 - [28] Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: So'Kar Edited by: So''Kar on 05/05/2006 16:36:17 Ultimate nos solution When Nos try drain cap, but target ship dont have enough cap left for the nos, then nos will drain whats left and have cooldown before it can be activated again. Heavy nos 40 sec Medium nos 20 sec Small nos 10 sec "Ultimate" apparantly does not mean what you think it means. What do you think that I think it mean? [ ] Ultimate [ ] Ultimate [ ] Ultimate [ ] none of above I am going to teach you some english [ ] I am totally serial
Nyphur	Posted - 2006.05.05 19:50:00 - [29] Originally by: So'Kar Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: So'Kar Ultimate nos solution "Ultimate" apparantly does not mean what you think it means. What do you think that I think it mean? I was inferring that your nos solution is woefully inadequate. It doesn't actually address the problem at hand and doesn't really change anything. Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Iberi	Posted - 2006.05.05 19:52:00 - [30] Current balance is great and I see no reason why we have to make small ship invulnerable to big ships. Possibly precision missiles require easy, very easy nerf. And drones have to be nerfed.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.