Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:19:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Magnus Thermopyle on 04/09/2006 14:20:55 Make NOSes drain a % of enemy capacity instead of a fixed amount. For example, a large NOS could drain 5% of the enemys cap, a medium one 3% and a small one 1%.
This would have a number of interesting effects: - All NOSes would be equally (in %) effective against all kinds of ships, small and large. In other words, it will take the same amount of time to drain a BS as it takes to drain a frig. - Small NOSes would be more effectively against larger targets, which makes tacklers with 4 small NOSes an interesting alterntive to guns. - NOS domi and other BSes with NOSes would still be very useful against BS, but they will not be an "I Win" button against cruisers and frigs. Just like guns and missiles in other words.
This solution seems so much cleaner and more EVE-alike than the proposed solution of making a small part of the capacitor undrainable (is that a word?).
|
![codepic codepic](https://images.evetech.net/characters/773473270/portrait?size=64)
codepic
Mithril Inc Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:24:00 -
[2]
So 4 nossing domis could suck a titan dry instantly?
|
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:27:00 -
[3]
Originally by: codepic So 4 nossing domis could suck a titan dry instantly?
Well, I somehow doubt the domis will get close enough to the titan in the first place, but maybe each NOS should have a max-cap as well.
For example, a large NOS drains 5% up to 200 in cap, medium 3% up to 100 and small ones 1% up to 40.
|
![Death Kill Death Kill](https://images.evetech.net/characters/143614655/portrait?size=64)
Death Kill
Caldari direkte
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:37:00 -
[4]
What about ships who rely on nos warfare?
Such as the pilgrim![ugh](/images/icon_ugh.gif)
Recruitment |
![Ellaine TashMurkon Ellaine TashMurkon](https://images.evetech.net/characters/833653565/portrait?size=64)
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:47:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 04/09/2006 14:47:29
Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle I somehow doubt the domis will get close enough to the titan in the first place
They will.
|
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 15:09:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Death Kill What about ships who rely on nos warfare?
Such as the pilgrim![ugh](/images/icon_ugh.gif)
They will get bonuses to NOSes just as they do today. The same bonuses will work as well.
NOSes wont be less useful against equally sized targets if this is implemented, they will only work less effectively against smaller targets, and more effectively against larger targets.
In my opinion, NOSes as they work now works really well as long as the ships fighting is of equal size. Its when the ship using NOSes are fighting smaller targets that NOSes are broken.
Take cruise and torp missiles for example. They used to do the same damage to frigs as they did to BSes, but it was changed a year ago so that they do less damage to smaller ships. Large NOSes should work the same way, and will work the same way if they drain a % instead of a fixed amount.
|
![Crumplecorn Crumplecorn](https://images.evetech.net/characters/101287868/portrait?size=64)
Crumplecorn
Gallente Aerial Boundaries Inc. Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 15:12:00 -
[7]
NOS problem? ----------
|
![Death Kill Death Kill](https://images.evetech.net/characters/143614655/portrait?size=64)
Death Kill
Caldari direkte
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 18:11:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Death Kill on 04/09/2006 18:12:29
Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle They will get bonuses to NOSes just as they do today. The same bonuses will work as well.
NOSes wont be less useful against equally sized targets if this is implemented, they will only work less effectively against smaller targets, and more effectively against larger targets.
In my opinion, NOSes as they work now works really well as long as the ships fighting is of equal size. Its when the ship using NOSes are fighting smaller targets that NOSes are broken.
Take cruise and torp missiles for example. They used to do the same damage to frigs as they did to BSes, but it was changed a year ago so that they do less damage to smaller ships. Large NOSes should work the same way, and will work the same way if they drain a % instead of a fixed amount.
But a pilgrim has very little firepower, it relys on its abilaty to nos people to death. Making these changes is helping to whipe out the main characteristics of ships![Crying or Very sad](/images/icon_cry.gif)
RMR stacking penalty/tanking = nerfed Amarrs abilaty to either tank or gank
Nos nerf = So long Amarrian suckers!
Recruitment |
![Cattraknoff Cattraknoff](https://images.evetech.net/characters/164345275/portrait?size=64)
Cattraknoff
Caldari Sha Kharn Corp Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 18:45:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Cattraknoff on 04/09/2006 18:45:05 Speaking as some one who is usually on the recieving end (of the nossing, not the cap ). Really, there isn't a problem with nos.
|
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 20:40:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Cattraknoff Edited by: Cattraknoff on 04/09/2006 18:45:05 Speaking as some one who is usually on the recieving end (of the nossing, not the cap ). Really, there isn't a problem with nos.
Funny how Raven pilots said the same thing about nerfing cruise and torps a year ago?
NOS isn't supposed to be a 100% "I Win" button against smaller ships. The other main weapons (guns and missiles) are also balanced so they do less damage against smaller ships, while NOSes do more "damage" against smaller ships relatively speaking.
And the fact that nos WILL be nerfed is a pretty sure sign that NOSes are broken. But this way of solving the problem is better in my opinion that the proposed solution.
|
|
![Duhmad IbnRa Duhmad IbnRa](https://images.evetech.net/characters/925441155/portrait?size=64)
Duhmad IbnRa
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 00:19:00 -
[11]
signed
|
![Maya Rkell Maya Rkell](https://images.evetech.net/characters/763248825/portrait?size=64)
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 01:04:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/09/2006 01:04:59
It's certainly an idea which could be made to work... but I'm not sure I agree with it.
I'd look at reducing it with sig radius (modified X^4 factor), so it hit cruisers for ~75 and frigates for ~50 cap from a BS 100-energy nos. Then remove the capacitor penalty for MWD's.
//Maya |
![Stilgar Fifrawi Stilgar Fifrawi](https://images.evetech.net/characters/898560903/portrait?size=64)
Stilgar Fifrawi
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 01:16:00 -
[13]
I don't think there is a NOS problem, well not the one you describe. The only thing I would change is that once you have drained 100% of the cap of your target then the NOS should switch off with a short cool-down period before it can be reactivated. This would prevent a total NOS=win scenario and give the target a very limited chance to counter or warp. Make the NOS pilot work for his kill ![YARRRR!!](/images/icon_pirate.gif)
|
![Reggie Stoneloader Reggie Stoneloader](https://images.evetech.net/characters/298585362/portrait?size=64)
Reggie Stoneloader
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 04:34:00 -
[14]
Basing it on sig radius is good, but doesn't make much sense in the context of the weird tech in nos. I'd rather see it based on the capacity of the target ship's capacitor. For instance, have a heavy nos drains 100 energy or 25% or target's total cap, whichever is less. That way, it's more like using a big syphon in a shallow pool.
And in case it comes up, I think neuts should be left the same. You pay a lot for that effect, and there's nothing wrong with the payout being big.
|
![Lazuran Lazuran](https://images.evetech.net/characters/149752564/portrait?size=64)
Lazuran
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 07:58:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle
NOS isn't supposed to be a 100% "I Win" button against smaller ships. The other main weapons (guns and missiles) are also balanced so they do less damage against smaller ships, while NOSes do more "damage" against smaller ships relatively speaking.
What's next? ECM nerf so it is weaker against small ships?
You can have a NOS nerf if webbers are nerfed to slow down bigger targets less and if BS get "large" WCS with +4 strength. ;-)
"The whole of NYC is not 1.0. Some back alley in the Bronx is deep 0.0, while right outside NYPD headquarters is 1.0." -- Slaaght Bana |
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 08:16:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Magnus Thermopyle on 05/09/2006 08:17:59
Originally by: Lazuran
Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle
NOS isn't supposed to be a 100% "I Win" button against smaller ships. The other main weapons (guns and missiles) are also balanced so they do less damage against smaller ships, while NOSes do more "damage" against smaller ships relatively speaking.
What's next? ECM nerf so it is weaker against small ships?
Well, lets compare it to ECM.
One multispec on a ship with no ECM bonus has about 50% chance of jamming a frig. If we compute this as damage, and assume an average frig has 2k of combined shield/armor/hull hitpoints with resistance included, that ECM does 1k or damage.
Now take the same example on a BS. One multispec has a 25% chance of jamming one BS, and an average BS has 20k of combined shield/armor/hull hitpoints, which makes the ECM do 4k of damage.
So you see, ECM already does less damage to smaller ships, just like guns and missiles. Its also interesting to see that a multispec ECM does 4 times more damage to a big ship, which is abuot the same ratio as between small guns and large guns.
However, one large NOS will suck one frig dry in 2 cycles, while it will take many cycles and usually require several big NOSes to completely drain a big ship. In other words, NOSes to more "damage" relatively speaking to small ships than to big ships.
The conclusion is that NOSes works exactly the opposite of other weapons in EVE (guns, turrets, ECN, missiles), and thats why it is broken.
|
![Lazuran Lazuran](https://images.evetech.net/characters/149752564/portrait?size=64)
Lazuran
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 08:35:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle
One multispec on a ship with no ECM bonus has about 50% chance of jamming a frig. If we compute this as damage, and assume an average frig has 2k of combined shield/armor/hull hitpoints with resistance included, that ECM does 1k or damage.
It's a bit far-fetched to interpret the ECM effect as damage. ECM is a defensive mod.
Quote:
However, one large NOS will suck one frig dry in 2 cycles, while it will take many cycles and usually require several big NOSes to completely drain a big ship. In other words, NOSes to more "damage" relatively speaking to small ships than to big ships.
In the same way, every weapon does "more damage relatively speaking" to small ships since they have less hp.
Quote:
The conclusion is that NOSes works exactly the opposite of other weapons in EVE (guns, turrets, ECN, missiles), and thats why it is broken.
And therefore this conclusion is wrong.
"The whole of NYC is not 1.0. Some back alley in the Bronx is deep 0.0, while right outside NYPD headquarters is 1.0." -- Slaaght Bana |
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 08:41:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Lazuran
...
And therefore this conclusion is wrong.
No, lets do the math. One big NOS drains a frig in 2 cycles, meaning it does 1k of damage every cycle. One big NOS drains a BS in 40 cycles, meaning it does 500 in damage every cycle to a BS.
So while turrets, missiles and ECM does less damage to small ships than they do to large, NOSes do more damage to small ships.
Now lets do the same math for a NOS that drains 5% of cap instead. It will require 20 cycles to drain a BS and a frig, meaning it does 1k of damage every cycle to a BS, and only 100 in damage to a frig.
Note how NOSes starts to behave like other weapons if they drain a % instead of a fixed amount. And also note that a NOS that drains 5% is more effective against BS compared to NOSes of today, while its less effective and more balanced to smaller ships.
|
![Lazuran Lazuran](https://images.evetech.net/characters/149752564/portrait?size=64)
Lazuran
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 09:44:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle
No, lets do the math. One big NOS drains a frig in 2 cycles, meaning it does 1k of damage every cycle. One big NOS drains a BS in 40 cycles, meaning it does 500 in damage every cycle to a BS.
Your damage analogies are wrong and useless. Your conclusion is wrong because you factor in the bigger size of the BS twice: once with the larger cap and once with the higher hp. Nos only drains cap, it doesn't damage hp and you can't count that effect twice.
Would you want weapons that do a fixed percentage of the target's hp as damage? I wouldn't.
"The whole of NYC is not 1.0. Some back alley in the Bronx is deep 0.0, while right outside NYPD headquarters is 1.0." -- Slaaght Bana |
![Ohmy Fugod Ohmy Fugod](https://images.evetech.net/characters/707131389/portrait?size=64)
Ohmy Fugod
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 19:04:00 -
[20]
These ideas about nerfing anything that comes close to damaging frigates are really starting to make their supporters embarrass themselves.
Get real, a frigate is a small ship, with little hp's, little cap, requires less skills to be flown effectively and are way cheaper than their larger relatives. They have their pro's and con's, and one of their con's is that if they get hit too hard, they explode.
So please stop trying to "balance" the game in favor of frigates. That's not balance, that's chopping down everything to their level. Keep it going and it will eventually turn anything larger than a frig unworthy of even being looked at. A boring game, it would certainly become. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Quod Natura non da, Salamantica non praesta |
|
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 19:18:00 -
[21]
Well, NOSes WILL get balanced, thats already stated by the devs. The question is how they should be nerfed.
My suggestion actually makes NOSes stronger against big ships but weaker against small ships. The proposed change from the devs will make NOSes weaker against all ships.
So take your pick. I prefer my solution, but as long as NOSes gets balanced I am happy.
|
![Sky Hunter Sky Hunter](https://images.evetech.net/characters/2009613692/portrait?size=64)
Sky Hunter
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 19:23:00 -
[22]
Ive been prolly living under a rock for a past century....IS there a nos problem? -=-
|
![MrTripps MrTripps](https://images.evetech.net/characters/811724349/portrait?size=64)
MrTripps
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 20:15:00 -
[23]
This was a well thought out post, but IMHO there is no NOS problem. A NOS is not a gun. It can not destroy your ship. Given that limitation there is no reason its mechanics should be the same. I do think it should leave enough cap to warp out. Allowing it to be used as a jamming device is a bit much. I'd trade that for lower fitting requirements. :)
Sigs? We don't need no steenking sigs... |
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 08:02:00 -
[24]
Originally by: MrTripps This was a well thought out post, but IMHO there is no NOS problem. A NOS is not a gun. It can not destroy your ship. Given that limitation there is no reason its mechanics should be the same. I do think it should leave enough cap to warp out. Allowing it to be used as a jamming device is a bit much. I'd trade that for lower fitting requirements. :)
The problem with NOSes is when used against smaller ships.
Take a deimos against a megathron for examplem and lets assume that the mega is setup for sniping. This means it should be a perfect prey for a hac like deimos which has resistances against the damage the mega does. And if the mega lacks a nos, its toast.
But if the mega has a heavy nos in its 8 slot, the deimos simply cant win. The nos works like a mod that gives 100% immunity to damage, scrambling and webbing. And that is unbalanced.
|
![tookar tookar](https://images.evetech.net/characters/825493428/portrait?size=64)
tookar
Amarr Krookid
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:25:00 -
[25]
Edited by: tookar on 06/09/2006 10:25:42 Shouldnt a bs be able to get away from a single tackling frig? Multiple frigs are immune to nossing to get rid of their scram points as one will always have regened enough cap during the nos cycle to keep points on before the bs can warp . As for hacs being killed by 1 nos there is a counter called the cap booster. Most bs dont fit more than 1-2 nos and have you ever seen a domi able to nos 5-6 frigs and keep them from scramming him?
Who says hacs should be able to solo bs anyway?
|
![Magnus Thermopyle Magnus Thermopyle](https://images.evetech.net/characters/657667747/portrait?size=64)
Magnus Thermopyle
Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 08:41:00 -
[26]
Originally by: tookar
Who says hacs should be able to solo bs anyway?
A hac that has resistances to the BS guns, and a BS thats setup for sniping, should be an easy kill for the HAC. Like a deimos attacking a mega setup for sniping.
But in EVE, we have a mod that gives 100% immunity to most smaller ships, and ofcourse even a BS setup for sniping will use that mod.
I realize that BS pilots wants to be immune to smaller ships, but I think its unbalanced. And so does CCP since nos will get a nerf. The question that remains is how NOSes should be nerfed.
The proposed change of making a part of the cap unnossable is fine I guess, but it seems like an artificial way of solwing it.
|
![Akita T Akita T](https://images.evetech.net/characters/776304952/portrait?size=64)
Akita T
Caldari Session9
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 09:36:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Lazuran
Originally by: Magnus Thermopyle
No, lets do the math. One big NOS drains a frig in 2 cycles, meaning it does 1k of damage every cycle. One big NOS drains a BS in 40 cycles, meaning it does 500 in damage every cycle to a BS.
Your damage analogies are wrong and useless. Your conclusion is wrong because you factor in the bigger size of the BS twice: once with the larger cap and once with the higher hp. Nos only drains cap, it doesn't damage hp and you can't count that effect twice.
Would you want weapons that do a fixed percentage of the target's hp as damage? I wouldn't.
Really, what do shield boosters and armor repairers run on if not on cap ? Other than passive shield tankers, losing cap == losing HP. And even for passive shield tankers, running their active resists mods uses cap, so you can argue that cap loss equals extra damage to them too.
His analogy might not be 100% accurate, but the "order of magnitude" is just fine. Having NOS draining a SMALL PERCENTAGE of enemy MAX capacitor, up to a certain absolute maximum limit per cycle based on NOS size... that is just fine.
As for the neutraliser... hmm, have it neutralise a certain percentage of enemy max capacitor up to a "maximum maximum" based on size, BUT only use up (out of your own cap) as much as you neutralize from the enemy. All fair now. __ Always question everything. Including yourself. |
![Laboratus Laboratus](https://images.evetech.net/characters/856423319/portrait?size=64)
Laboratus
Gallente BGG Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 12:41:00 -
[28]
Ok, let's go through this again: There are several ways to fight a battle. Attacking the enemy: Ability to maneuver (warp and propulsion jamming) Ability to target (ECM, Sensor damps) Ability to hit targets (weapon distruption) Ability to maintain cap (Nos and Neuts) Ability to survive (raw damage)
Ok, at any case you can only prepare for a few of these, so you are gonna have a few vulnerabilities. Each and every one of the systems must be effective against ships that are not prepared for that kind of warfare and should be able to render the opponent relatively helpless. As well, most of the counter measures must be able to hold their ground against the different attack systems, at least for a while.
Most of the percieved "NOS problems" are simply caused by the fact that the Nossed party has designed his cap to hold when no-one is interfering with it. No reserve, no chance. NOS is not broken, so don't "fix" it. The fundamental problem is with the idea, that you should be able to fit a gank+tank combo that is invulnerable to all forms of EW. That is the problem. Not the different forms of EW in them selves.
I have personally gotten stuck in a 4 NOS EW domi bubble camp and laughed my **** off as I just simply MWD away due to the fact that I had prepared for nosing by fitting cap boosters, instead of rechargers. Not to mention the fact that heavy drones are so slow you can easily outrun them...
The problem here lies in the perception of things and in the consept that EW should not effect unprepared ships. This is what I am against. It should render unprepared ships helpless, as they are caught with their pants around their ankels. Mind control and tin hats |
![MKingery MKingery](https://images.evetech.net/characters/889414649/portrait?size=64)
MKingery
FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 16:33:00 -
[29]
posted the following in the scrapheap
"why can't nos function in a similar way that the cap recharge does? the closer you get to an empty cap, the less each nos cycle takes. that way when the nos gets to your peak cap recharge its doing its job X% less effectively as its initial blast.
you wouldn't need to say "all ships get 20% no matter what" because thats just silly, however needing 2 heavy nos to fully suck an af or something dry would prevent one bs from throwing say 4+ tackles off of them.
im not some uber minnie player, and maybe im missing something, but you shouldn't need to mount a faction scram to take down a bs in a ceptor and the like. as it stands you can't really enter the sweet spot of transversal (and your own small nos range) when engaging anything with med nos or above...
as it stands if you are nossed as a tackle you have two options. pull in close enough to use your own small nos, build cap between the large nos's cycles and spot scramble the sob (fulfilling your objective) or get the hell out of nos range.
(im just putting these down as i think of them)
another solution could be a mod that fortifies your systems cap, providing a certain cap resist. as a low slot it would actually be useful as the lows are often what define and gimp your ship into a certain roll. i wouldn't mind taking off a nano or whatever in order to secure a larger cap base that can't be taken as easily, and heck, if a nos domi needs to direct 4 large nos onto me in order to neut my tackle, so be it, that seems fare to me.
using the sig radius as a measure for how effective nos is, simply puts another gimp on using mwd imo. trading your cap for transversal just seems silly to me.
sorry for the random stream of thought Very Happy
its 5:40am"
now, in retrospect, i do agree. frigs are small, cheap* and meant for really just one task. im not suggesting that mid and heavy nos should be gimped against them as much as other people are, really you should have more tackles than the battleship has nos, however i do agree one cycle at 25k should not drain you of blood. there needs to be a little bit of fall off time.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |