EVE Search - TUX : Fair NOS change?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

TUX : Fair NOS change?

» 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)
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.05.16 11:51:00 - [1] I was thinking, after reading all the stupid arguments of pro NOS nerfs. So I wanted to ponder about a change that wouldn't be so much as a nerf but a welcome change. Basically... Tux... is it possible to add signature radius to NOS that will affect ONLY range and duration of the NOS module? The basic idea is that if I use a Heavy Diminishing NOS which has a fixed 25km range on a frigate depending on the sig of the frig the effective range of my NOS goes down. Also, It won't be every 12 seconds it might go up to 20 seconds. This way NOS still will be able to incap any ship it meets it will just take longer and possibly need closer range. The Energy Emmission skill might decrease the sig radius penalty by say 5% or something reasonable. I would think this would be applyed to Energy Neutralizers too. I leave numbers up to people more qualified but the general idea is not to adjust NOS to be less effective at what they do but add some downside when they do it to smaller targets. I also don't like the idea of a counter mod. So what everyone think? Anyone good at numbers that could make a forumula or something? Would you think this is fair? Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
jbob2000	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:11:00 - [2] Nos are fine. A frig costs 500k. A battleship can cost anywhere from 60-100mil. It should be able to *****a frig.
Mahavy Seth	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:16:00 - [3] Originally by: Kaylana Syi I was thinking, after reading all the stupid arguments of pro NOS nerfs. So I wanted to ponder about a change that wouldn't be so much as a nerf but a welcome change. Basically... Tux... is it possible to add signature radius to NOS that will affect ONLY range and duration of the NOS module? The basic idea is that if I use a Heavy Diminishing NOS which has a fixed 25km range on a frigate depending on the sig of the frig the effective range of my NOS goes down. Also, It won't be every 12 seconds it might go up to 20 seconds. This way NOS still will be able to incap any ship it meets it will just take longer and possibly need closer range. The Energy Emmission skill might decrease the sig radius penalty by say 5% or something reasonable. I would think this would be applyed to Energy Neutralizers too. I leave numbers up to people more qualified but the general idea is not to adjust NOS to be less effective at what they do but add some downside when they do it to smaller targets. I also don't like the idea of a counter mod. So what everyone think? Anyone good at numbers that could make a forumula or something? Would you think this is fair? Tux pls, can also you create a doomsday device for frigate class vessel? It is so unrealistic and bad that a frigate cannot destroy a battle ship! Also, with an executioner I am so small! I want to be able to enter the hangar bay of a battlehsip and kill it from inside!
Exiled One	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:17:00 - [4] Bring back POD OR POST !
jiane	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:18:00 - [5] True, the nos doesn't really need a nerf/change it just needs something to counter it... ECM is too weak, Boosters just run out over time...need a new addon imo.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:20:00 - [6] The Problem Is Not Nos VS Small Targets, It Is Nos In General Nos is both offensive and defensive, it needs to be one or the other. Nos should take energy from targets cap and disapate it into space! OR nos should take energy from space and add it to your cap!!! and perhaps give ability of NOS to change from one to the otehr in the 10sec reload! -------------------Sig----------------------- welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s
piercer	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:24:00 - [7] Originally by: jiane it just needs something to counter it... OMG.... a counter to nos! Lemme see: Cap Boosters Cap Rechargers Nos EW Range You have cap boosters, you get cap back. You have cap rechargers, your cap regens faster. Nos.. you suck your cap back. EW makes them whine because they cant lock. Range means they cant use their Nos I've had an apoc that can beat a nos domi.... because i had good regen and a cap booster. Its not a hard thing to counter.
Mahavy Seth	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:25:00 - [8] You all must yet answer to my request to be able to kill a battlehsip from inside!
piercer	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Gronsak Nos should take energy from targets cap and disapate it into space! OR nos should take energy from space and add it to your cap!!! 1st one... its called a neut. 2nd one, how would you get cap from space? That would just be the same as fitting a cap booster yet it using no charges! If Nos are to be changed i suggest changing it so it sucks a different amount depending on what ship its sucking. Lets say a heavy nos sucks 50cap... on a BS it would suck that full 50cap... where as on a frigate it would only suck say 20cap. Tbh i dont think nos need a nerf, just people dont want to change their setups to counter it (yes, there are counters!).
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:30:00 - [10] Originally by: jbob2000 A frig costs 500k. A battleship can cost anywhere from 60-100mil. It should be able to ****a frig. A dread costs 1 billion, it should be able to easily annihilate multiple battleships solo. What's that? It can't even hit the things if they are too close? Nerf battleships! And what about the poor freighters? At 800 - 1b price, you'd think they could also stomp on battleships. But no, they die to a single t1 frigate, given enough patience. The injustice of it all. My point being, using pricing as an absolute measure of how effective ships are or should be is silly. That's not to say it should be easy* to kill a much more expensive combat ship in a cheap one, but for game balance reasons expensive ships should not automatically stomp cheaper ones. Good tactics and flying should always be the winning factor. That said, I'm not sure if nosfes need a nerf. Sure, they are very effective. On the other hand, they are one of the few defenses a battleship has vs. small craft. Unlike, say, precision cruises, I don't really see nosfes as a problem. They are just one thing you have to take into account when flying ships, especially small ones vs. bigger ones.
AnxietyAttack	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:33:00 - [11] Why should it only be defensive or offensive. I seriously don't see a problem with it at all, i use it if needed, i've had it used against me also. Sum talk of it havin sig radius and trackin malarky like a turret, it's nt a turret or it would use a turret slot. There are so many counters to it already but seems peolple dnt want to change there tried and tested loadouts to adapt. What do you think will happen if nos is nerfed like 'some' want. My guess is that neuts will see mre light of day, with no penalty to trackin, sig, whatever and after x amount of weeks/mths, the same ppl will be on here complaining that neuts are overpowered coz they helped kill me or whatever. This isn't directed at the OP, moreso at the pilots who think by moaning the loudest they can change the game to how they think it should be. Personally, i think if they do reduce the effectiveness of nos, they should consider changing how turrets damage different sized ships, been discussed or at least mentioned before. So a frig would do 50% against a bs, cruiser 75% etc, you see where its going. That would be balanced in the fact that although a bs would do full damage, it's less likely to hit smaller targets well Kiss it
Spleef	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:33:00 - [12] One thing i really fear about any kind of nos nerf. It is the one item I can think of that can give can give a t1 ship a good chance against a t2 ship. There may be other things just as effective but I haven't found them yet. Now to all those who want a nos nerf i have one question for you: In which direction do you see HAC prices going if nos is made less effective against them? Keeping nos as it is wont help the t2 situation, but do you really want it to get worse?
Justice Bringer	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:41:00 - [13] I agree whole heartedly, NOS Sucks, and so it should do. Long may it do so. You guys keep asking for this change ie give nos a timer, or a signature penalty etc etc, but you will unwittingly open the flood gates for all others to complain about every other module. Granted some need changes, but for the most part it's not the modules that require the change, it's the pilots who rush headlong into a conflict with no rhyme nor reason and get whooped and so the complaints begin. How about this for a module change: "Hey Tux, can you make it so that scrams and disrupters also have a signature penalty. Or basically create scrams for each class of ships, much the same way as we have with AB and MWD. This will have the benefit of allowing frigs to tackle frigs, cruisers to tackle cruisers/BCs and BS to tackle BS. So this would mean it would require at least 3 or 4 frigs to tackle a BS, and 2 or 3 cruisers to tackle a BS. I think this is a great idea, so please do it tomorrow. Thanks" Do you think this is a good suggestion? Why not go through the entire Item Database and make ship class versions of all modules? I don't think so. Nos are fine, just learn how to fight against it, and sometimes fighting against it does actually mean running away. Just deal with it Justice PS: On thinking of what I've just said sarcastically, I actualy think it is a good idea. Heavy webifier drones only have a 30% affect on the target, well I think a frig fitted with a scram should have a similar effect in that it cannot on its own hold a craft several hundred times its own size. I mean that's just plain silly, but hey this is just my opinion.
Mahavy Seth	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:42:00 - [14] The problem here is that EVE Online combat system is too "arcade". CCP is putting balance over all others game concepts and, in my little opinion, it will bring eve to have serious problems when similar titles will coming out (ie. Star Trek Online). All problems that arise here is that all players can obtain all ships and have absolutely no maintenance. So problems relativly to "balance" battlehsips and frigates arise. In a realisatic concept, a battlehsip will kill a frigate instantly without any effort, but also, a battleship need absurd maintenance and large number of crew members. CCP have totally removed all these factor, so "balance" is the order word here... When all ships will be perfectly balanced, there will be no more points in drive a ship instead of another one.
McCool	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:45:00 - [15] nos are fine...
jbob2000	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:46:00 - [16] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: jbob2000 A frig costs 500k. A battleship can cost anywhere from 60-100mil. It should be able to ****a frig. A dread costs 1 billion, it should be able to easily annihilate multiple battleships solo. What's that? It can't even hit the things if they are too close? Nerf battleships! And what about the poor freighters? At 800 - 1b price, you'd think they could also stomp on battleships. But no, they die to a single t1 frigate, given enough patience. The injustice of it all. My point being, using pricing as an absolute measure of how effective ships are or should be is silly. That's not to say it should be easy* to kill a much more expensive combat ship in a cheap one, but for game balance reasons expensive ships should not automatically stomp cheaper ones. Good tactics and flying should always be the winning factor. That said, I'm not sure if nosfes need a nerf. Sure, they are very effective. On the other hand, they are one of the few defenses a battleship has vs. small craft. Unlike, say, precision cruises, I don't really see nosfes as a problem. They are just one thing you have to take into account when flying ships, especially small ones vs. bigger ones. I knew this would come up, and I dont really want to argue this. It's a fair point. As it stands already, frigates have speed and small sig radius to defend themselves from BS. I recently fought a Crusader with my blasterthron. Even with him webbed and nos, his orbiting me at 500m at 100m/s still threw my tracking off enough so that it took as long to destroy him as it would normally take me to destroy a BS.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.05.16 12:55:00 - [17] Got killed as tackler? ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! Corporate Consultation Services
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.05.16 13:14:00 - [18] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Got killed as tackler? You gotta be kidding me. 28mil SP and I can't even fly an interceptor. I only started an open discussion on fair changes. Everyone here wants to turn this into flaim bait. If it were up to me I would leave it as is but it is not up to me and they are going to change some aspect that will affect BS pilots AND frig pilots alike even if that comes from using a cap hardner or some dumbarse mod like that. Wait... Nevermind... make a cap hardner and make it a lowslot module. 50% resistance to cap drain. Oh wait... My idea is basically the same thing but requires no change to adding modules to a ship. Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.05.16 13:17:00 - [19] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Got killed as tackler? You gotta be kidding me. 28mil SP and I can't even fly an interceptor. I only started an open discussion on fair changes. Everyone here wants to turn this into flaim bait. If it were up to me I would leave it as is but it is not up to me and they are going to change some aspect that will affect BS pilots AND frig pilots alike even if that comes from using a cap hardner or some dumbarse mod like that. Wait... Nevermind... make a cap hardner and make it a lowslot module. 50% resistance to cap drain. Oh wait... My idea is basically the same thing but requires no change to adding modules to a ship. Fine, you change NOS now and you let all BSes get destroyed by frigates. What defenses do BS have now? Let me lock frigates in 3s and I dont mind allowing you to have NOS protection. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! Corporate Consultation Services
Terminus Shade	Posted - 2006.05.16 13:20:00 - [20] NOSFERATUS *ARE FINE* AS IS. "Look mom, I contributed absolutely nothing to this 1741463rd thread about nosferatus!"
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.16 13:25:00 - [21] There are two problems with nosferatus. Two. 1. Nosferatus are perhaps too effective against smaller ships 2. Nosferatus cost nothing to use I feel that by adressing number 2 you adress number one, as well to a lesser extent. However, by adding a counter-nosferatu module you do not adress any problems considering that the ships in most need of such modules have not the slots to fit them. Also, considering how... unattractive... neutralizers are, perhaps one shouldn't make any sweeping changes to energy vampires in general. My idea is to simply add a capacitor cost to nosferatus which is doubly countered by the drain amount. For examble, say it cost 60 to activate a large nosferatu, the amount drained on the enemy would be 60, but the capacitor gained on the nosferatu would be 120. If you follow what I mean. Another issue to look at is the fitting requirements on Nosferatus and Neutralizers. By changing the fitting requirements on medium and large nosferatu and neutralizers, you effectively counter a great deal of the nosferatu abuse. Note, though, that small nosferatus are fine as they are. Or, putting it in a different way, it is extremely hard to fit 4 Heavy Neutralizers on a Dominix, but rather easy to fit 4 Heavy Nosferatu New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
jbob2000	Posted - 2006.05.16 13:45:00 - [22] Edited by: jbob2000 on 16/05/2006 13:50:11 Originally by: Ithildin 2. Nosferatus cost nothing to use Originally by: Item DB Heavy Nosferatu I powergrid usage 2000 MW cpu usage 50 tf Quote: My idea is to simply add a capacitor cost to nosferatus which is doubly countered by the drain amount. For examble, say it cost 60 to activate a large nosferatu, the amount drained on the enemy would be 60, but the capacitor gained on the nosferatu would be 120. If you follow what I mean Then why not just halve the amount each Nos drains? The nos then deactivates when the enemy's cap is at 0. Quote: Another issue to look at is the fitting requirements on Nosferatus and Neutralizers. By changing the fitting requirements on medium and large nosferatu and neutralizers, you effectively counter a great deal of the nosferatu abuse. Note, though, that small nosferatus are fine as they are. Or, putting it in a different way, it is extremely hard to fit 4 Heavy Neutralizers on a Dominix, but rather easy to fit 4 Heavy Nosferatu If anything the nosferatu and neutralizer req's should be switched. Neuts destroy cap while using some of your own. Nos have less of an effect on the enemy ship, but also give a bonus to your own ship. Tbh, I would be fine with swapping the requirments for the two modules.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.05.16 14:02:00 - [23] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 16/05/2006 14:02:14 Originally by: Terminus Shade NOSFERATUS *ARE FINE* AS IS. "Look mom, I contributed absolutely nothing to this 1741463rd thread about nosferatus!" The only ship that has beatmy NOS domi under 25km was another NOS domi. No other Battleship and under has been able to best me. So... something is wrong. A NOS Domi and NOSPhoon are low SP juggernaughts at 25km and under combat. Faction mods make them even more so outlandish. As long as ECM is retarded then NOS will be abusive. Even if ECM gets fixed... there will always be nerf the NOS threads. Something fair needs to be done to both sides of the plate. Either increase the fitting on the NOS or add built in penalties to sig radius or tracking. I for one would rather it be sig radius that affects the range and duration then the amount or the ability of the module. Then allow the skill to give bonus. It would also help out frig/destroyer vs Interceptor NOSing in the process. But I guess its easier to contribute nothing to a thread then to actually read anything but the title. Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Meiso	Posted - 2006.05.16 14:04:00 - [24] Originally by: Mahavy Seth You all must yet answer to my request to be able to kill a battlehsip from inside! That. Would be so. Cool. Atron: Wheeeee, I'm inside an apoc! Apoc: That tickles! I must laz0r j00! Apoc laz0rs at the Atron while it's inside Apoc: Oh noes! I am teh dead! Atron: FTW! Maybe not... ------- I love me brick.
Hephaesteus	Posted - 2006.05.16 14:07:00 - [25] OMG another nos thread "THUD" ----------------------------------------------- Knowing all, when all is unknown.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.16 14:07:00 - [26] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 16/05/2006 14:02:14 Originally by: Terminus Shade NOSFERATUS *ARE FINE* AS IS. "Look mom, I contributed absolutely nothing to this 1741463rd thread about nosferatus!" The only ship that has beatmy NOS domi under 25km was another NOS domi. No other Battleship and under has been able to best me. So... something is wrong. A NOS Domi and NOSPhoon are low SP juggernaughts at 25km and under combat. Faction mods make them even more so outlandish. That's actually less wrong than you seem to think. Dominix is the only battleship that is ineffective past 20km regardless of setup (more or less, you can push it as with any ship, but the key word is "ineffective") New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
LWMaverick	Posted - 2006.05.16 14:35:00 - [27] Originally by: jbob2000 Nos are fine. A frig costs 500k. A battleship can cost anywhere from 60-100mil. It should be able to *****a frig. Jbob dammit.. How about 200m Field command ships, or not to talk about hac's?.. Or just every other ship in the game except capital ships? As gronsak said... its nos in general Spirits in the night! ALLLLL NIGHT!!!
LWMaverick	Posted - 2006.05.16 14:36:00 - [28] Edited by: LWMaverick on 16/05/2006 14:40:47 Originally by: piercer Originally by: jiane it just needs something to counter it... OMG.... a counter to nos! Lemme see: Cap Boosters Cap Rechargers Nos EW Range You have cap boosters, you get cap back. You have cap rechargers, your cap regens faster. Nos.. you suck your cap back. EW makes them whine because they cant lock. Range means they cant use their Nos I've had an apoc that can beat a nos domi.... because i had good regen and a cap booster. Its not a hard thing to counter. So tell me, how is a frig supposed to counter a heavy nosf? ECM is getting a nerf, what then? Range... 25k, how are you able to get out of that range if you're nosfed?(mwd/ab dosent work then) And ffs.. you using the ship with the largest cap except capital ship ones , in the friggin game as an example.. try again will ya? Spirits in the night! ALLLLL NIGHT!!!
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.05.16 14:40:00 - [29] Originally by: Hephaesteus OMG another nos thread "THUD" Agreed. thud
InsanlyEvlPerson	Posted - 2006.05.16 15:28:00 - [30] The NOS is a good idea in theory, but it adds to the solo pwnmobile attribute of battleships. If you look at RL navies, a BS NEVER operates alone. The huge guns cant hit smaller faster targets, therefore other smaller ships fly with it to clean them out. I believe this should be the way things work in EvE. NOS just makes BS invulnerable to frigs, which is not the way things really work. It may take forever for a small ship to kill a BS, but the BS itself should have very little defense against it. It is a matter of how ships are meant to be flown, BS are for killing larger targets, dont make them frig killers.

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.