EVE Search - Dev's Nos Nerf Bad Idea

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Dev's Nos Nerf Bad Idea

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Keta Min Pre-nerfed Tactics	Posted - 2006.07.30 12:38:00 - [31] i saw "Domi gets even suckier" in OP and i laughed. funny like most of the "argument" but this one was a gem.
Jerick Ludhowe Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2006.07.30 12:50:00 - [32] Originally by: Ithildin 3. Tracking, for instance, simply leaves the battleships one defence only - drones. Drones are a bit... iffy... as a solution because only drone dedicated gallente ships can pack enough drones to safe-guard themselves. Battleships need to become less Solopwnmobileish. A batleship's defense against smallers ships should be smaller ships. Making battleships far more vulneriable to smaller ships via the nos nerf will make the game more dinamic as a whole.
Dixon	Posted - 2006.07.30 12:50:00 - [33] Originally by: Keta Min i saw "Domi gets even suckier" in OP and i laughed. funny like most of the "argument" but this one was a gem. QFT
Merv Tring GeoTech	Posted - 2006.07.30 12:54:00 - [34] Un-nossable batteries in combination with sig-based draining get my vote.
Mr rooflez GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2006.07.30 12:55:00 - [35] Originally by: Fortior Sweet jesus, you all want a module to counter NOS? I have one for you that already exists but is quite useless. Cap Batteries! Very simple, cap batteries should reserve a certain amount of cap that can't be NOSsed, only used up by the ship itself. This amount could either be a flat amount (like the amount of cap they add for instance) or a percentage of the total cap after you fit them. If going by the flat amount they wouldn't have to be balanced between the different ship classes either. The unNOSsable amount would be balanced from the get-go. Now we would have a counter to NOS and we would have another balanced and useful module to be used in our setups. This is a great idea. If you implemented the dev's idea that the last 10% can't be nossed, and add batteries to this. It would mean that most ships would have enough cap to run their guns, ew, scrambling, hardeners, etc, but not the actual repair modules. Meaning if you're super nossed you can still be a threat and not shut down completely, even if you're in a pretty bad situation because you can't repair as much/at all. Also it would for most ships lead to a choice between cap injector and cap battery, as both modules are mid slot and take lots of pg/cpu. Someone get a dev to look at this!
Dethis Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.30 13:36:00 - [36] Tbh nos is fine, a couple ships might abuse it but its not ruining eve or anything. I vote for the capacitor battery idea where it adds more cap and the cap it adds cant be nossed. But just making nos leave some cap on every ship with no loss on thier end is retarded -------- Kill em all and let god sort em out
Dixon	Posted - 2006.07.30 13:46:00 - [37] I think the only problem with NOS is the stacking effect, activate as many nosferatus on a single ships as you can and he will be dry in a matter of seconds. A stacking penalty would make cap rechargers and boosters more effective as countermeasures and make NOS less of a no-brainer mod.
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.07.30 14:05:00 - [38] Originally by: Sarmaul Slap the stacking penalty on it for starters Exactly what I thought about 30 seconds before I read your post. ------------------------- Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
Ithildin Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.30 14:21:00 - [39] Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe Originally by: Ithildin 3. Tracking, for instance, simply leaves the battleships one defence only - drones. Drones are a bit... iffy... as a solution because only drone dedicated gallente ships can pack enough drones to safe-guard themselves. Battleships need to become less Solopwnmobileish. A batleship's defense against smallers ships should be smaller ships. Making battleships far more vulneriable to smaller ships via the nos nerf will make the game more dinamic as a whole. Don't fool yourself. Battleships aren't "solopwnmobiles" any more than interceptors are "solopwnmobiles". What battleships are is a, hopefully, serious investement from a single player. While this shouldn't result in simple win-win situations and obsoletion of smaller ships, it should, however, result in an advantage. Now, you'll notice that I wrote "defence" and not anything else. I am of the feeling that Nosferatu should not be a dead sure win against smaller ships, but also that smaller ships should in no way have it risk-free attacking a larger ship just because they are larger. Most of all, the primary job of smaller ships is to scramble and web people - to catch them and hold them - until the real damage dealers (battleships or battlecruisers) arrive. If Nosferatus go down on a "tracking" based efficiency (I have the feeling that what people mean is a missile-like signature resolution factor), then the efficiency of a heavy Nosferatu on a small ship will be so low that it will hardly dent it's capacitor. This will mean that the smaller ship is more or less invulnerable and can run too many modules. If, however, you go with the protected capacitor capacity solution, then the smaller ship will be left with a very small amount of capacitor that, if well managed, can be enough to execute it's job. Oh, last but not least, that "smaller ships should be the defence against smaller ships" is really, to be perfectly honest, a load of idiocies. Everyone knows that in order to do a job properly, you optimize loadouts and you optimize time and personell consumption. This means that you do not have any room for simplistic escorts. Battleships just aren't worth that much. Put into context of EVE, the escort duty is something that only needs be done with capital ships. Battleships actually belong in the "smaller and less expensive ships" group. They ARE the escort ships. Dark skies torn apart Heavens open before me I, the light of death
Dixon	Posted - 2006.07.30 14:36:00 - [40] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe Originally by: Ithildin 3. Tracking, for instance, simply leaves the battleships one defence only - drones. Drones are a bit... iffy... as a solution because only drone dedicated gallente ships can pack enough drones to safe-guard themselves. Battleships need to become less Solopwnmobileish. A batleship's defense against smallers ships should be smaller ships. Making battleships far more vulneriable to smaller ships via the nos nerf will make the game more dinamic as a whole. Don't fool yourself. Battleships aren't "solopwnmobiles" any more than interceptors are "solopwnmobiles". What battleships are is a, hopefully, serious investement from a single player. While this shouldn't result in simple win-win situations and obsoletion of smaller ships, it should, however, result in an advantage. Now, you'll notice that I wrote "defence" and not anything else. I am of the feeling that Nosferatu should not be a dead sure win against smaller ships, but also that smaller ships should in no way have it risk-free attacking a larger ship just because they are larger. Most of all, the primary job of smaller ships is to scramble and web people - to catch them and hold them - until the real damage dealers (battleships or battlecruisers) arrive. If Nosferatus go down on a "tracking" based efficiency (I have the feeling that what people mean is a missile-like signature resolution factor), then the efficiency of a heavy Nosferatu on a small ship will be so low that it will hardly dent it's capacitor. This will mean that the smaller ship is more or less invulnerable and can run too many modules. If, however, you go with the protected capacitor capacity solution, then the smaller ship will be left with a very small amount of capacitor that, if well managed, can be enough to execute it's job. Oh, last but not least, that "smaller ships should be the defence against smaller ships" is really, to be perfectly honest, a load of idiocies. Everyone knows that in order to do a job properly, you optimize loadouts and you optimize time and personell consumption. This means that you do not have any room for simplistic escorts. Battleships just aren't worth that much. Put into context of EVE, the escort duty is something that only needs be done with capital ships. Battleships actually belong in the "smaller and less expensive ships" group. They ARE the escort ships. Just to get this straight... have you ever lost a BS to a single interceptor? Or do you just not like the fact that interceptors are very good at intercepting things?
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.30 15:17:00 - [41] Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski Edited by: Andrea Jaruwalski on 30/07/2006 11:35:13 I think CCP needs to take changes in slowly. WCS nerf, see how it goes. ECM nerf, see how it goes. Nos nerf, see how it already fallen apart from WCS nerf. Seriously, if you all change this in one step, it's going to wreck alot of things in EVE Originally by: Sarmaul Slap the stacking penalty on it for starters Yes, And maybe do that for smartbomb, Launchers and turrets and every other highslots in the game so this becomes a lovely stacked up piece of crap game. Shesh, Sig radius affecting nos? No. It doesn't make much sense. /me concurs with kilrock. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
NOC Point	Posted - 2006.07.30 15:22:00 - [42] The big problem with Nos is that certain races are generally affected by it more than other (read Amarr) Therefore a fix needs to also be available to all races. Having a mid slot taken up by an un nosable cap battery may seem like a great idea but it completely favours those races that generally have more mids and don't need cap for their offensive weapons. As I see it, Amarr are supposed to be experts in energy manipulation ie lasers, cap etc. Wouldn't it make sense for them to have worked out a system by now for making their ships less prone to nos attack?
Cosmo Raata Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2006.07.30 15:40:00 - [43] Originally by: NOC Point The big problem with Nos is that certain races are generally affected by it more than other (read Amarr) Therefore a fix needs to also be available to all races. Having a mid slot taken up by an un nosable cap battery may seem like a great idea but it completely favours those races that generally have more mids and don't need cap for their offensive weapons. As I see it, Amarr are supposed to be experts in energy manipulation ie lasers, cap etc. Wouldn't it make sense for them to have worked out a system by now for making their ships less prone to nos attack? I completely agree, its like eccm's, yeah, they were boosted, but guess what? AMARR DOESN'T HAVE SPARE MIDS!!! Everything about this nerf that has relation to keeping some cap ignores amarr. I'll repeat some things i've already said: 1) Unless you make the amount of cap that is undrainable race related (which will make other races cry) then amarr will get short end of the stick, as we need more cap than other races to function. 2) Any Fix that requires the use of mid slots is also unfair, as Amarr already needs them for very basic cap functions or the very little pvp mods we can use. E.G. Cap rechargers, Cap boosters, Web, Scram, Ab or MWD....We already rarely fit EW because we dont have the cpu or the room to spare. 3) Nos is a highly used weapon or cap helper to amarr, nerfing it any way whatsoever also nerfs amarr. One of the only useful Setups on Apocs is the Vamppoc setup....Now what would we set it up as? A Neut Boat alone is almost just a suicidal boat. In conclusion again, Most people dont think anything is wrong with NOS, you're getting alts posting what they think (which could be the same unhappy person posting 5-10 times to make it seem like tons hate it). Wish we could make decisions like this with a voting system per account. This whole post to get what you want is getting very tiresome. It seems to work only if you're minmitar, caldari or gallente anyways...Dont know if Amarr have gotten anything boosted EVER! Nerf after Nerf after Nerf. Something needs to change, I can't deal with it much more. Tux, RESPOND to something!!! Please. NOS DOESN'T NEED A NERF. The only ship that people have problems with it are Domi's....ECM nerf is apparently coming, You want to gimp it even more?? I dont even fly a domi, yet I can see you'd be killing it as a pvp ship if you did both nerfs.
Cummilla	Posted - 2006.07.30 15:58:00 - [44] Originally by: Sarmaul Slap the stacking penalty on it for starters Herein lies the start of a true fix. And I'll tell what one should be out to do before getting specific: The vampdomi and nos\neut apoc need to be completely eviscerated as a viable setup. In particular of importance for this is putting some balance back into the game for these ship setups vs. capital ships. BTW, I couldn't give a rat's arse what this does to those new elite cruisers with nos bonuses. I think that entire line of ships was overpowered and ill-advisedly added to the game anyway.
Double TaP The Establishment	Posted - 2006.07.30 16:27:00 - [45] see, things like nosf and nosf ships are what adds variety to the game, and makes your fights less generic. I think the only thing that needs to be done is have the unnossable cap battery.
Jerick Ludhowe Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2006.07.30 16:35:00 - [46] Originally by: Double TaP see, things like nosf and nosf ships are what adds variety to the game, and makes your fights less generic. I think the only thing that needs to be done is have the unnossable cap battery. People are not arguing to remove nos ships from the game. They are arguing that nos is too powerfull and needs to be reballanced. I personally feel nos is too powerfull simply because it is a no brainer module, if you have the free slots you fit nos. However I do not want to see nos ships nerfed to the point of uselessness, I just simply want the modules to become less of a no brainer, that is all.
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.30 16:42:00 - [47] Originally by: Ghargon anyway i was doing fine until i realised that iwas being nos'd Thats your own dumb*** fault. Would the poster above me please stand up?
Kellyl ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.07.30 17:22:00 - [48] Quote: Whats the point of nos then, except making it BS vs BS weapon only. Nos + drones is only thing you have left vs interceptors. A simple counter: Don't fly your BS solo. As the devs keep saying, EVE is a group based game. If you have some smaller ships with you, you won't need to rely on nos to take out smaller ships. BS'es are meant to have difficulty tracking smaller ships. That is why we have tracking, sig radius, and explosion velocities. Heavy Nos should not affect frigs as much as other ships... They are in the same category as other BS size weapons, and as such should have less effect on small ships. Why are all the other BS size weapons dependant on your opponents sig radius, where nos aren't? Heavy nos should have less effect at smaller sig radius targets, like missiles. If a ship is MWD'ing, you will suck more cap. Originally by: HippoKing pretty much all caldari ships ming something terrible
Soros	Posted - 2006.07.30 17:27:00 - [49] make it a skilled module so that it actually requires more than 2 days in the game to be using 6x heavy nos on a dominix just as effectively as a 3 years 40mil sp pvp'r. <p>
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.30 17:31:00 - [50] Originally by: Kellyl A simple counter: Don't fly your BS solo. Rubbish. Would the poster above me please stand up?
Luric Vizjier The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.30 17:51:00 - [51] This is totally ridiculous. NOS is fine as it is. The only thing I could possibly see is having basic Large Nosferatu's range reduced to 15 so inty's can still be buggers and WS from outside its nos range. But even that is not fair to the BS as it kills the pilot's 1 of 3 ways of escaping: NOS, ECM, and ECM Bursts. Not to mention that smaller ships have very easy defense against NOS: ECM, ECM Bursts, Cap Injectors. Tracking and stacking penalties for NOS are stupid, and if they do happen I expect to see a drastic boost in NOS and Neutralizer amounts. Jeez, next thing thing ya know Webs and Warp Scramblers will get tracking and stacking penalties and then intys will be totally invincible. -----------------------------------------------
Lienzo Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.30 18:25:00 - [52] Edited by: Lienzo on 30/07/2006 18:25:35 Math is too simple. How about always take a % of an existing quantity within a maximum absolutes? L/M/S have descending absolutes. Neutralizers should not have absolutes qualities and just be percent based on the output end. Nos should not have the severe range limitations of neuts. L nos sucks the amount it normally does in the opening salvos. Let's say an Apoc has 4800cap, and a nos always takes 120 (not the real numbers). That's 40 sucks, or 6.6 rounds if you've got 6 nos, but probably 3 cycles if the target has already lowered himself to 50% cap. It keeps sucking 120e with declining efficiency until the capacitor reaches 1200 cap, which is approximately what a maller contains. At that point it would have scaled down on a linear slope to 12e drain efficiency per cycle, which btw, will still drain an unamped maller with just 1 or 2 heavies. Assault Missile Launcher Improvement
Noriath	Posted - 2006.07.30 18:51:00 - [53] Nos amount should be percent based with a cap. Any NOS sucks a flat 5% of your cap, but the amount transferred is maxed at the same number the NOS transfer rate is now. That means if you NOS a ship with 100 cap with a large nos you get 5 cap back, and if you NOS a ship with 1000 cap you get 50 cap from it, but if you NOS a ship with 5000 cap you don't get 250, because the max ammount is 100. That way NOS works the same way it did before on same sized targets, but is considerably weaker on smaller ones. Tada, problem solved.
Jacob Swell	Posted - 2006.07.31 00:14:00 - [54] Originally by: Dethis Tbh nos is fine, a couple ships might abuse it but its not ruining eve or anything. Eh, that is the same situation with WCS, but everyone is crying for a nerf for that. The problem with NOS is that it is its own best counter. All the suggestions of using Cap modules, etc still pale in comparison of simply firing back with the same NOS module and recovering what energy is being leeched. I think the developer nerf is fair. I'd prefer it go a bit farther, such as adding stacking penalty to NOS modules. That way it makes it less of an 'IWIN' button versus smaller ships and more of a supplemental module for an over offensive ship.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.07.31 00:16:00 - [55] Originally by: Levin Cavil Make nos pull cap based on sig radius, it worked for every other module in the game. Problem solved. Yes, and then we can make webs do it too, then we can all fly around in inties.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.07.31 00:22:00 - [56] Originally by: HappyKitten Originally by: Cosmo Raata 1) I'm getting tired of the alt posting, they need to hurry up & fix that. Not all alts are bad people On the other hand, take a look in the corp and alliance discussion. Ulynidd has issued a campaign against alt posts there, and it seems to have improved things. Yes they are. Alts need to be puuurged. I don't know who you are, but POST WITH YOUR MAIN FFS!
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.07.31 00:24:00 - [57] Originally by: Cosmo Raata I want the large nos to hit the frigs/inties still, just with smaller cap hits. So dont give them such bad tracking that they dont do anything to them, make the hit we currently get an excellent hit or something like that. If it's less effective on smaller ships, the smaller ships will just orbit, using THEIR NOS to full effectivness, and probably completely neutralize the larger NOS. While a BS shouldn't go around pwning the world, afrig shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking down a well setup BS.
Roshun Gudaul	Posted - 2006.07.31 00:52:00 - [58] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia While a BS shouldn't go around pwning the world, afrig shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking down a well setup BS. 1 frig will never kill 1 bs unless the bs pilot is garbage
AlphaBaker	Posted - 2006.07.31 01:32:00 - [59] Could we please just get everything to have racial varients? that would solve the problem. NOS, 4 types as effective as now, but only 20% effective against other races, plus 1 Multi NOS, at 50% efficiency. Webs, 4 Types, plus multi same as above Warp Scrambles, 4 types plus multi Alternativly, add tracking to web, warp scramble and NOS mods. Might as well, since we are at it....
Mike Atropos	Posted - 2006.07.31 02:44:00 - [60] Why not make NOS affect cap recharge rate instead of the actual, current, capacitor reserve? L/M/S Nos affect, 10%, 7.5%, 5% of the ships regen with the same stacking penalties as Cap Rechargers. I.e. 2 Large Nos on the victim will slow its cap recharge rate at around 18% (not bothering to do the actual calculation for stacking penalties) and improve the users cap recharge rate by around 18%, if he doesn't have any cap recharges already installed. If the victim has Cap Rechargers, the stacking penalities will cancel themselves out, essentially. +18% with 2 cap chargers, -18% with two large Nos. This seems to me to be the fairest solution. You dont outright suck a poor guy dry, there are modules to reduce its effectivness (cap rechargers), and using cap rechargers with Nos become redundant.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: 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.