EVE Search - My take on balancing of wcs and nos/neuts

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

My take on balancing of wcs and nos/neuts

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:41:00 - [61] Originally by: Tuxford The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. The problem with this is that many already fit 1-2 sensor boosters on their setup, so unless the penalty was severe, it wouldn't be that much of a penalty. I don't think just 20% will cut it here. Originally by: Tuxford The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. Unless people are really lucky with the cycle timing compared to the mwd cycle on a ceptor, the ceptor will be unaffected by a nosf or 2. I don't think that is intended, nor wise. But I will make sure to take a good look at the changes, when/if they make it to sisi.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:46:00 - [62] The nos-ceptor issue can be solved easily by fitting a neut instead. Exept I am missing something here?
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.07.24 11:52:00 - [63] Assuming Tuxford is choosing his words with care, it's worth pointing out to those who are a bit confused that sig radius != scan resolution. The penalties Tuxford describes are both pitched at target acquisition being more difficult for a ship with WCS. I have no great feeling about that to be honest. I think Maya's weapons range penalty on both falloff and optimal is better myself. On Nos/Neut, I'm very glad that Tuxford is recognising that the neut is a balanced weapon (because it certainly is and any nerf in performance would need a reduction of its cap cost) while suggesting a sensible change in Nos behaviour so that it is no longer a mod pretty much bereft of tactical choices. Cosmo Jericho Fraction
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:03:00 - [64] Originally by: Tuxford ... WCS This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure there has been any official stand on this from CCP although as I recall TomB has mentioned that he didn't like them. The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. ... Just quoting the WCS section. The ideas all seem to be to drastic. My personal fix would be a slight mod of the 3 warp affecting modules and another favorite. Warp Scrambler range increased to 10km. Warp Disruptor cap use lowered slightly from 25 to 20. Warpcore Stabalizers use same cap as old Warp Disruptor which is 25. Fix ECM. This change would have the greatest impact imho, it will lower the value of mids being used for ECM and people will fit more Scramblers and/or Disruptors. The increase in range of the scrambler will make it more effective as people can get it active sooner. 1 tackler module > 1 wcs, is that not fair? WCS now being active means it isn't just something to throw in a low without thinking, if you run out of cap you lose the WCS effect just like if a tackler is NOS'd it loses its tackle points as the module deactivates. Basically, problem isn't WCS so much as the value of mids and the best counter, the 2 point warp scrambler not being used enough.
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:16:00 - [65] Originally by: Mila Prestoc Warpcore Stabalizers use same cap as old Warp Disruptor which is 25. (but isn't affected by the skill to lower its cap useage) This makes absolutely no difference on any ship except for a frigate, so it's really not a nerf.
Marcus Alkhaar Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:31:00 - [66] My 2 isk about nerfing WCS: make WCS give you 1 falloff meter on any turret/Electronic Warfare you got fitted. Turret example: Now: 1000m Optimal - 10000m falloff = can hit from 0-21 km (say tracking isnt an issue) After: 1000m Optimal - 1m Falloff = Can hit at 998-1002m (its near to impossible to hit your target. Missile Example: Going to do this fast - put Explosion Velocity to 0 m (the missile basicly cant explode, hehe) the same Penalties follows for Electronic warfare - if you dont got falloff you're Toast.... What about drones? You shouldnt be able to CONTROL any kind of drones in space except for Logistic drones (the smalls fellows dont actually kill off the enemy?) Smartbombs..... They dont got a falloff? No - but they got an "Area of effect", put it to 1m of Effect and problem is solved Nosferatu got a "Transfer Range", that one needs to be 1m too... Webbers dont got falloff (only 10-40km optimal) but I think People like Tux can change it so they got 1m optimal and 10km falloff (the module should have 100% effect in the falloff). Who/what do I mess up with these "changes".... well you could start with NPC'ers.... but even those people need to take a risk if they want to earn money - NPC'ing shouldnt be an I-Get-All-Isk-In-EVE-button and you know it - and if you cant solo it, then make your friends help you (I think CCP made lvl 4 missions harder because they wanted people to Teamwork and stop Solo'ing lvl 4's anyway...). the ECM Burst is going to be soooo Bad with these changes - you cant fit your dual/triple bursts on your Hauler anymore and avoid 5 tacklers... but I dont see alot of people using Bursts anyway (not even when people are moving their BS) These changes wont reduce Agility/speed/fitting requirements - which our ships already are strugling with without another module "nerfing it" anyone want to comment on my Idea? PS. this isnt flame bait for anyone who dont like WCS/NOS/ECM-threads - Be constructive and "modify" my ideas if you point out one of my flaws. ---------------------------------------------- Marcus Alkhaar > so you're saying that I got the Pottsey-stamp? Pottsey > first class stamp Collector edition. Marcus Alkhaar > <--- Dances
ParMizaN Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.24 12:33:00 - [67] 1 lone frig should not be immune to bs really UNLESS 1 frig on it's own loses the ability to lock down a battleship. Giving a range penalty to wcs seems like a good idea but setups like the nos domi that can only operate in close range are a massive part of the problem and this just shuffles around them. sig edited for lack of pink really PINK -eris
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:03:00 - [68] Originally by: ParMizaN 1 lone frig should not be immune to bs really UNLESS 1 frig on it's own loses the ability to lock down a battleship. Giving a range penalty to wcs seems like a good idea but setups like the nos domi that can only operate in close range are a massive part of the problem and this just shuffles around them. The Nos domi is a Nos and ECM problem, Parm... the WCS range nerf idea is aimed more at snipers and vagabonds
Gariuys Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:10:00 - [69] Edited by: Gariuys on 24/07/2006 13:11:54 Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 24/07/2006 12:35:43 My 2 isk about nerfing WCS: make 1-8 WCS fitted give you 1 falloff meter on any turret/Electronic Warfare you got fitted. Turret example: Now: 1000m Optimal - 10000m falloff = can hit from 0-21 km (say tracking isnt an issue) After: 1000m Optimal - 1m Falloff = Can hit at 998-1002m (its near to impossible to hit your target. Here's a flaw, you don't understand how turrets work.... Edit: intended to ignore the rest, but can't resist a short... horrible idea... removes them as a choice completely, penalties is good, unusable completely is not good.
Laboratus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:10:00 - [70] Edited by: Laboratus on 24/07/2006 13:13:06 Originally by: Mitchman Originally by: Tuxford The changes we've been looking at is pretty simple really. Just give penalty to targetting range and scan resolution. It only gimps people going into combat but wouldn't affect people travelling that much. The problem with this is that many already fit 1-2 sensor boosters on their setup, so unless the penalty was severe, it wouldn't be that much of a penalty. I don't think just 20% will cut it here. Now to counter a normal tackler fit (2x7.5km scram, 4 point strength) with a 20% penalty, with no stacking penalty of course, it would bring it down to (0.8^4=0,4096 ~=) 41% of original range and sensor strength. Requiring 2 mid slots to get back to the status quo. As proven above, avoiding a single tackler eats 6, six gentleman, six slots from your ship. 4 low and 2 mid. This is broken. Broken I say Broken. Wouldn't you rather just release the t2 W Sramblers, distruptors and stabs. That would mess up the status quo enough to make things interesting. Originally by: Tuxford The "solution" we've been looking at is to make it not leech of your last X% of cap. That X% number can then be lowered by having more nosferatus on your target. I'm pretty much fine with leaving neutralizer as they are now, so you would have to choose whether you want to leech of cap of your oppenent or completely zap his cap. Ach! If it ain't broken don't fix it. Mind control and tin hats

Deva Blackfire DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:12:00 - [71] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 24/07/2006 13:12:26 Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar Turret example: Now: 1000m Optimal - 10000m falloff = can hit from 0-21 km (say tracking isnt an issue) After: 1000m Optimal - 1m Falloff = Can hit at 998-1002m (its near to impossible to hit your target. My friend: you should read tracking guide, because thats not how optimal+falloff works unfortunately. 1000m Optimal - 1m Falloff = can hit at 1-1002m actually (depending on tracking ofc.) EDIT: doh... 2nd ;p
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:27:00 - [72] Originally by: Mitchman Originally by: Mila Prestoc Warpcore Stabalizers use same cap as old Warp Disruptor which is 25. (but isn't affected by the skill to lower its cap useage) This makes absolutely no difference on any ship except for a frigate, so it's really not a nerf. Who said it was a nerf? I'd call it a balance which is what is needed not a all out nerf. Look at the overall proposal not just one line. And it would affect all ships to, especially those that use MWD and can't afford to fit a cap booster. 5 cap per second when recharge is at most 15 cap/sec will be noticable where WCS are not noticable now. If using a Raven and you want to fit 3 or 4 of them in your lows then thats 15 to 20 cap per second, ok a cap booster counters that but the module is now doing a noticable difference to the ships defencive capabilities for the bonus of the chance of escaping.
Admiral IceBlock Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:37:00 - [73] Make Warp Core Stabilizers to a medslot item and give them capacitor usage. Problem fixed!
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:47:00 - [74] I love these silly threads, 'My opinion on blah blah'. All these self absorbed individuals who think that they're opinion/thoughts are so important than the average rabbles that it deserves not only its own thread, but a reminder in the title that this knowledge is being handed from a deity. "Yes Tomb, read this 1298732978 thread on NOS/WCS and how to 'fix' them - cause we all know their borked despite being in game for YEARS - not because Ive come up with some new and inventive way of 'balancing' them, but because I, Mitchman [even that name smacks of ego and idiocy) has graced this forum with my golden doodoo of an opinion." Die mitchman. If I come back to this thread and you've responded, I'll war dec your corp and turn your EVE into a **hole. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever**

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.07.24 13:51:00 - [75] Originally by: Jim McGregor Thanks for the comment. Havent seen you post for months now. I know you mentioned the reasons for it in your last dev blog, but you not posting AT ALL is no fun at all. Just post and let us know you are reading (like you just did). About adding additional sig radius to wcs... well, it will hurt haulers. They will take more damage, specially when having lots of them equipped. I think you should rethink this and find a penalty that affects combat ships in a negative way while not hurting haulers. We had quite a talk about WCS some time ago, and when I mean talk I mean all the devs ganged up on me. We agreed on sig res and target range penalty. We had a talk about number of other ones like sig rad and agility decided not as it just nerfs industrials which is not really what we want to achieve. So its just a simple misunderstanding between me and LeMonde. Originally by: Jim McGregor And for the nos nerf... well, what can i say. Just another reason to be using an elite frigate with multispectrals. They are already pwning any other ship out there. ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Originally by: Jim McGregor Another thing with making nos not completely drain the enemy cap is that you will make it very hard to kill gallente blasterboats. The best way to kill those is to drain their cap and hope they dont have a cap injector, or use electronic warfare. It looks to me that they will be even harder to kill with this change. You can still use neutralizers to get that last bit of cap from it. _______________

Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:04:00 - [76] Originally by: Tuxford ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Amazing... would make us all very happy if you find a good solution to this. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:07:00 - [77] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Tuxford ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Amazing... would make us all very happy if you find a good solution to this. Yeah thats gonna happen _______________

Kai Lae Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:12:00 - [78] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Tuxford ECM thing is already being looked at, more on that later. Amazing... would make us all very happy if you find a good solution to this. Yeah thats gonna happen It's easy. You just make the countermeasure modules effective, so that if you fit enough of them it's impossible to be jammed, just like in the old days. The ECM system isn't broke, the fact that there's no countermeasure that can be applied that is 100% effective is. Raptor and Ares Fix
Leandro Salazar Aeon Industries	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:15:00 - [79] Okay I realize thread hijacking is bad, please chastise me. But Tux, can you please reply on the Khanid MkII thread? Even if its just another bump. Give it that yellow stripe! Pretty please! --------- ZOMG my sig was concordokkened! Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
Mitchman Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.07.24 14:52:00 - [80] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg "Yes Tomb, read this 1298732978 thread on NOS/WCS and how to 'fix' them - cause we all know their borked despite being in game for YEARS - not because Ive come up with some new and inventive way of 'balancing' them, but because I, Mitchman [even that name smacks of ego and idiocy) has graced this forum with my golden doodoo of an opinion." Well, I've been PvP'ing for over 3 years and other PvP'ers know me and respect myself and my corp. Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Die mitchman. If I come back to this thread and you've responded, I'll war dec your corp and turn your EVE into a ****hole. Excellent, I'm looking forward to your war declaration.

Ath Amon	Posted - 2006.07.24 15:11:00 - [81] i'll go with my picks :P WCS: -15% to cap and shield regeneration NOS: keep them as they are now but give them a high slot as other weapons eg domi 6high 6turrets 2nos.
Ysolde Xen Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.24 15:14:00 - [82] Scan res nerfing (along with the targetting delay) is much better than the Sig Rad mixup. Phew! ----- It's not a crap ship, you're just flying it all wrong.
FireFoxx80 Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 15:23:00 - [83] Whatever happened to propulsion disruptors being chance based? (hence the introduction to propulsion type/strength?)
Dupac Corsets and Carebears Whips and Chains	Posted - 2006.07.24 15:46:00 - [84] Originally by: FireFoxx80 Whatever happened to propulsion disruptors being chance based? (hence the introduction to propulsion type/strength?) I think that's even worse than the current system - look what it did to ecm You have ten points on some BS and he still gets a chance to warp - no thanks. Sig res (not radius) and range penalty seems to have it covered imo - doesn't impact industrials that much, unless they were planning on jamming the person scramming them. Hopefully will have a nasty impact on combat ships and should kill off stabbed up snipers, sniping is fine if you want to do it but doing it with loads of stabs is the poorest form of combat I can think of.
Milkminer Independent Frontiers	Posted - 2006.07.24 16:59:00 - [85] Originally by: Tuxford You can still use neutralizers to get that last bit of cap from it. This depends on how much "the last bit of cap" is. If the last bit of cap is actually 20% then that ship can still semi tank, without neuts on it, also can fire weapons happily (unless its a scrap heap challenge ship of course). I can only base my view(s) on my own experience and as such I fly Curses/Pilgrims and although on my Curse I fit a neut its not able to run if constantly to keep cap dry, Neuts use far to much cap to do such a thing for all scales, even with cap skills. If a change of such a scale was to change nos's id suggest adding an advanced Energy Emission System skill to help compensate for the new requirment of leaving neuts on almost constantly to make sure the target is dry. Without such a thing specialised nos+neut setups(as well as ships) will lose alot of their current effectivness and could endup being just another unused ship. Not a flame I promise, was wrote with a true beleif that currently its just a suggestion and every bit of imput adds to the greater goal. -Krissy (aka Milkminer) Originally by: John Moscroft Goons are a renewable resource. There are no recruitment problems.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:16:00 - [86] Got that wardec yet mitchman What an idiot eh ? Anyways, sig rad and lock range sounds ok, as long as the penalty is at least 40% to each for each wcs. Old blog
Crux Australis MotorSaikol LadrUNZ	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:18:00 - [87] Rof penalty, imho Assuming that you have a 10 sec base rof: 1 wcs = 20 sec rof 2 wcs = 40 sec rof If you want to travel safer, you can do it. If you want to stay and fight, you don't fit them. If you want to travel/npc/whatever to/in unsafe areas you have to make choices, bring friends or both. End of problems. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Originally by: Frezik Detaurus isn't a person. It's a state of mind.
Merin Ryskin Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:31:00 - [88] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 24/07/2006 17:33:34 Originally by: Tuxford The problem is that when you go into a fight you should commit to it. The problem with this is the assumption that all players in a fight wanted to be involved in it. An NPC-ing pilot who gets ambushed by a focused PvP pilot (who is engaging because he knows his setup has the advantage and will likely win) doesn't want to be in the fight. And with WCS penalties, you can't decide you're going to fight in some situations and run in others, it's all or nothing. Keeping the ability to run when confronted with a fight you don't want shouldn't require sacrifices beyond the considerable sacrifice of the lost slot. PvP in EVE already strongly favors the attacker, with the ability to pick only targets you know you can kill. The last thing we need is to tip this balance even farther. By punishing WCS use, you now turn a single scrambler on a attacker into an instant I-win button that leaves no chance of escape for the victim. Or will there be some balancing to take away the automatic no-escape scramble to prevent the I-win button effect?
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:35:00 - [89] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 24/07/2006 17:35:31 Disagreed, anyone killed while NPCing made the fatal mistake himself, and it had nothing to do with forgetting or declining to fit WCS. As long as local exists, you don't ever need to die outside of voluntary pvp and maybe travelling you can't or don't want to delay. The attacker is not favoured at all except at gates, and that's fine. Old blog
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.24 17:42:00 - [90] Edited by: Aramendel on 24/07/2006 17:45:55 Originally by: Milkminer Originally by: Tuxford You can still use neutralizers to get that last bit of cap from it. This depends on how much "the last bit of cap" is. If the last bit of cap is actually 20% then that ship can still semi tank, without neuts on it, also can fire weapons happily (unless its a scrap heap challenge ship of course). I can only base my view(s) on my own experience and as such I fly Curses/Pilgrims and although on my Curse I fit a neut its not able to run if constantly to keep cap dry, Neuts use far to much cap to do such a thing for all scales, even with cap skills. If a change of such a scale was to change nos's id suggest adding an advanced Energy Emission System skill to help compensate for the new requirment of leaving neuts on almost constantly to make sure the target is dry. Without such a thing specialised nos+neut setups(as well as ships) will lose alot of their current effectivness and could endup being just another unused ship. Not a flame I promise, was wrote with a true beleif that currently its just a suggestion and every bit of imput adds to the greater goal. -Krissy (aka Milkminer) Well, with maxed skills for energy emission and recon and the best named neut you'll kill 3.2 of they cap for every 1 of yours which you'll invest. An apoc with max ship skill regenerates averagely 6.5 cap/sec, a cruse and pilgrim do 3.6 cap/sec. With the 3.2:1 effeciency for the energy neuts you could disable a 11.5 cap/sec regeneration using only your own cap regeneration, the apoc would need 2 cap power relays or 3 cap recharger IIs to achieve that. Which wouldn't be that a unrealistic fitting but note that this would be only if the apoc uses no other cap - keeping an repper active will cost him far more than you keeping your tracking disruptors online.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: 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.