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.
Wild Rho	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:00:00 - [31] The OPs idea isnt too bad tbh. I'm more in favour of having small and med nos boosted a little to be on more even terms with a large nos. Simple example would be give them all the same ranges. This would give tacklers a counter to nos that allows them to tackle while being nos'd the trade off of which is less (or no) weapons fitted to the ship. WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
So'Kar	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:02:00 - [32] Originally by: Nyphur 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. When heavy nos drain small target out of cap he will have to wait that 40sec before activating it again, letting small target regenerate/nos back hes cap and keep modules active. Giving something like 40 sec for small ship to use hes nos means a lot as small noses cycle fast and atleast heavy nos wount be this perfect ecm vs small turret ships as it is now.
Roue	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:03:00 - [33] Originally by: Nyphur 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.. If nosing 10 from a frig is pathetic and not worthy. Then why should there even be small nosferatu? Why? Is it not a frig vs frig nosferatu at it's most ideal?
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:09:00 - [34] A straight sig radius nerf is too harsh. Applying a modified X^4* factor to the sig radius would give what I consider a good result. Alteratively, make it nerf cap recharge, not drain energy at all. A module-based approach won't in any way counter the cross-size problems with nos, given larger ships have the flexability to put these into their setup where smaller ships do not. *Roughly, a Nos which hits a BS for 100 will hit a cruiser for 75-80, a frigate for 40-45 and an interceptor for 25-30. Auman, agreed, the sore thumb of the Stilleto needs to be made more of an offensive ship. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Nyphur	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:12:00 - [35] Originally by: Roue If nosing 10 from a frig is pathetic and not worthy. Then why should there even be small nosferatu? Why? Is it not a frig vs frig nosferatu at it's most ideal? It's pathetic coming from a heavy nos. The heavy nos has a refire rate that is much slower than the small nos. You'd need to balance the amount taken per second, not the amount taken per shot. Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources.
So'Kar	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:13:00 - [36] Originally by: Maya Rkell Alteratively, make it nerf cap recharge, not drain energy at all. That's not bad idea. Anything but tracking, sig radius or some anti nos modules.
Nyphur	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:24:00 - [37] Edited by: Nyphur on 05/05/2006 20:25:58 Originally by: Maya Rkell A straight sig radius nerf is too harsh. Applying a modified X^4* factor to the sig radius would give what I consider a good result. Alteratively, make it nerf cap recharge, not drain energy at all. That's not a bad idea but it couldn't modify the cap recharge rate by a percentage of itself without making injected ships even more powerful than they are now. Currently, injectors feed your cap reserves, which can be stolen by enemy nos. With that change, injected ships are practically immune to nos since they don't need cap recharge rate. A nos would have to lower recharge by a set value per second ratehr than by a percentage value and would have to increase your own by that same value, with teh ability to go into negative recharge rates. This would more or less be what we have now except spread out over the entire duration of the module rather than taking it all in one hit. It doesn't really solve the issue of oversized ones in itself. I like the idea of applying sig radius but only in so much that nos can only drain an amount per second dependant on size class of the enemy ship. It would add another element of risk to using MWDs and make target painters more useful. Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Mazad	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:16:00 - [38] The main problem with NOS (and neuts) are their ability to track and operate effectively on all targets when turrets can't. How about making them area effect weapons - a bit like a smartbomb (with reduced effectiveness to compensate). Or even a rotating cone of effect that scans around a ship? But tbh, nos are fine as is - ew needs fixing a lot more urgently than energy draining weapons.
Saelek	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:36:00 - [39] An interesting module would be one that either causes a % of the aggressors NOS to be treated as a neutraliser, taking their own cap aswell as their targets, so the target doesnt benefit as such but neither does the aggressor. I like the idea of % unNOSable tho, capacitor stabilisers i spose. NOS effectiveness vs ship size is just bad tho id hate to see it affected by sig radius i really would, anything that would damage the way they are now is bad, modules like above i think wouldnt be bad as theyd add a different dimension to it all.
Katamarino	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:41:00 - [40] Edited by: Katamarino on 05/05/2006 21:43:53 A BS Nos has a 12 second cycle. In that time, a smaller ship can Nos more, or use injectors, or just recharge. Also, this is a major point: 1 Nos can only be used on one target at once. Simple, yes? But it means that if the BS is nossing that frig, he cant nos anything else with that module. Now, fair enough if that frig cant now kill him, because A SOLO FRIG SHOULD NOT KILL A SOLO BS! If you want to kill a BS in frigs you should NEED a group of people. And once that target is dry, of course, you have to KEEP nossing him to stop him recharging, but you arent gaining anything yourself. So that one frig has taken out a great deal of your Battleships (yes, BS, the HUGE, very expensive ship) high slot power, and his mates are still free to attack as they wish. If we get to the point where all ships are equal (ie frig is 'balanced' with cruiser which is 'balanced' with BS, what is the point in having more than one ship type at all?? *Nos work together with turrets/missiles - they dont kill anything by themselves. Turrets and missiles (and heavy drones too) are ALREADY balanced against smaller targets, so there is no reason for nos to be too. Even if the frig has no cap, that doesnt mean you can hit it with your huge slow guns.*
Katamarino	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:50:00 - [41] Edited by: Katamarino on 05/05/2006 21:51:09 Maybe I should illustrate with an example: My NosDom was attacked by Scorp, BB, and 4 elite frigs. Luckily i had VERY high sensor strength set - hooray for ECM. THe BB died, the scorp slunk off, the elite frigs kept at me. And things worked FINE. I had only heavy drones with me, and even nossed, they could not kill the frigs properly. They danced round me, holding me nicely, DESPITE my many heavy Nos. I couldnt kill them, so I had to carefully plan Nos to empty them all and escape, or wait for them to go away. This IS balanced. Several frigs were not overpowered by my Nos, as even drained, my BS class weapons could not hit (as it should be). There is NO need for a double-nerfing - NOS and weapons work together, and one being balanced is as it should be. Lets not forget this was in a BS setup primarily to use Nos, and even THIS was not overpowered. No nerfs need to be done, people just need to accept that they can't expect to kill a BS 1v1 in their frigate (assuming equal pilot skills yada yada). If you do, you're an idiot.
Tristan	Posted - 2006.05.05 22:11:00 - [42] Edited by: Tristan on 05/05/2006 22:14:25 @ the OP: I know, lets also let inties hit for 700 a go, as well as giving them more shields than a drednaught. Thus making them even more frikken annoying than they are now. Then, nobody will ever really need to spend millions and Billions building bigger ships, since frigs and inties will be the most uber ships in game. ummm... no. If anything, the frigs should be a bit easier to hit than they already are, ok it needed doing to some extent, since before they where too easy to pop, but it was a bit over the top the way it was done IMO. quit being a cheapass and wanting one of the cheapest ships in game to be one of the most uber. If you want an awesome ship, get your fat butt out of the station and go earn one.
Beringe	Posted - 2006.05.05 22:23:00 - [43] Counter to Nosferatus, posted 2005.01.11 ------------------------------------------- "Never underestimate the power of language." --Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles--
Prestis	Posted - 2006.05.05 22:29:00 - [44] The problem with NOS isnt a 100m BS using it to kill 300k frigs, its the 5m cruiser using it for no-brainer kills on 20m AFs, or 100m BSs insta-draining 200m HACs. I'd like to see some changes to NOS but something that left expensive large ships able to handle lots of much cheaper ones.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.05 22:42:00 - [45] Originally by: Tristan one of the cheapest ships in game Right. Because a ship which costs more than any T1 cruiser and has limited production is CHEAP. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Tristan	Posted - 2006.05.05 22:59:00 - [46] Edited by: Tristan on 05/05/2006 22:59:51 yeah 8 mill for an interceptor is peanuts. ive randomly given waaaaaaay more isk away before now.
Kel Shek	Posted - 2006.05.06 03:47:00 - [47] I think the sig radius idea is probably the best one mentioned. though I'd say it could be very hard to balance.... I think heavy nos on a small target SHOULD do more than a "proper size" nos, but not neccesarily as much as it currently does. I think it should also be a continous drain, not a long cycle based one. or rather extremely short cycles. maybe work it out so a typical BS/Cruiser/Frigate size ship vs the "proper" sized nos, would drain about as much as now per time. maybe have it such that larger ones against smaller targets would drain a little more (more thoroughly "encompassing" the enemy, drawing more power) and smaller ones against bigger targets would drain slightly more than their base amount, from it being larger, more energy more readily "out there" for it to sap off of. but, not so much that its as bad against smaller ships as now, and not enough that a smaller one would be nearly as much as one sized properly for the larger enemy. ~~~~~ To see a World in a Grain of Sand And Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour ~~William Blake
Glyn Davish	Posted - 2006.05.06 05:52:00 - [48] Opponents of NOS changes using the reasoning of "OMG 1 FRIG SHOULDNT KILL 1 BS LOLOLOL!" need to improve their reading comprehension. No one is suggesting that frigates, barring player skill, be able to kill a battleship in a one on one situation. Besides, if you have to depend on just your NOS in a BS vs Frig fight and you're still somehow losing then maybe you should just quit EVE. There's absolutely no reason why a Battleship should only depend on a NOS to beat a frigate when there are Webbers, ECM, Target Painters, Drones etc available to you. Most Battleships have one of more of these modules fitted anyway.
Kunming	Posted - 2006.05.06 06:24:00 - [49] Originally by: Roue 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. Signed... thats the most reasonable solution for NOS and I believe the OP had something similar in mind. Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker 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. Short range HACs are meant to PWN BSs, unless it has a web and short range guns. A heavy NOS is the ultimate defence against anything smaller than a BS atm, doesnt matter what setup you have. That is wrong, if a BS wants to hit smaller ships, it should fit a web/target painter (missiles). If the signature penalty gets implemented, your heavy NOS will still be a problem but not an insta cap-PWN module anymore.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.