EVE Search - Nosferatu Nerf?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Nosferatu Nerf?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
xKillaH Minmatar Cruor Frater Coalition of Carebear Killers	Posted - 2006.12.11 12:41:00 - [1] Hey there. I was told that Nosferatu was going to get nerfed. Ships like Rokh and Domi are the uber nos ships. Nos are probably being nerfed because of theese two ships. I was just wondering if they get nerfed what will CCP decrease? It must be the drain ammount. Instead of decreasing drain ammount then CCP should consider having it like the damage mods. After 3 damage mods you're bonus you get from the next damage mod you fit will decrease. For Nosferatu it'll be after 2-3 nos (dunno how many) the drain ammount will decrease. Discuss For A Extra Christmas sig click Here (too big for the forums)
slothe Caldari Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.12.11 12:44:00 - [2] Tbh nosferatu has been discussed to death recently. Any nerf is just speculation but may (or may not) happen. No-one knows basically so this is a speculation thread rather than discussion. *Before complaining about any ship try flying Minmatar*
Dixon Caldari Hells Donkeys	Posted - 2006.12.11 12:46:00 - [3] Edited by: Dixon on 11/12/2006 12:46:56 I'd actually prefer to see an effective counter-module and a stacking penalty. And if they introduce a counter-mod they should make it Amarr-friendly (low cpu usage). - - - - - - Originally by: Ath Amon as long as there will be such umbalance there is no hope to make ships balanced...
velocoraptor Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.12.11 12:53:00 - [4] I used to use some nos on nos-orientated ships (aka Domi). Now, after Kali it's rly the i-win button and I admit I use it as much as possible. Still, yeah, it possibly needs a nerf. However I'm afraid that as usually in this game, the devs are going to hit it hard and make it UNDER-powededededereredered. Probably the best nerf to Nos would be a 'sig-radius penalty' sort of thing and maybe a counter measure, too. Kali IS the goddess of destruction after all
Fodderrr	Posted - 2006.12.11 13:49:00 - [5] If enough whiners complained about nos it will get changed. Many of my setups dont involve nos but if it did get a sig penalty like a previous poster mentioned then players simply wouldnt use it for solo activity a rocket/assault missile launcher would be a better alternative so effectively nerfing the mod to uselessness. Just seems to me the only players really complaining are those in their neutron taranises ripping through ships that dont like people with any sort of counter to their insane dps.
Diehard Si	Posted - 2006.12.11 14:01:00 - [6] I'm a NOS user, but i'd prefer combat to be more about actually shooting things than just sucking the energy out of them.. maybe i'm just old fashioned though -------------------------------------- Lets face it, people that use the word 'noob' are blatantly either 12 or with more friends on the internet than in real life!
Dixon Caldari Hells Donkeys	Posted - 2006.12.11 14:10:00 - [7] Originally by: Fodderrr If enough whiners complained about nos it will get changed. Many of my setups dont involve nos but if it did get a sig penalty like a previous poster mentioned then players simply wouldnt use it for solo activity a rocket/assault missile launcher would be a better alternative so effectively nerfing the mod to uselessness. Just seems to me the only players really complaining are those in their neutron taranises ripping through ships that dont like people with any sort of counter to their insane dps. Nos doesn't need to be nerfed to uselessness. It does need a nerf however and a proper counter. - - - - - - Originally by: Ath Amon as long as there will be such umbalance there is no hope to make ships balanced...
The Anointed Caldari StarBug Industries	Posted - 2006.12.11 14:26:00 - [8] I always thought some sort of module you fit that will either decrease the drain amount by a certain % for anyone trying to nos you, would be good. Or what about once a ship has, lets say less than 30% cap, the nos will no longer take anything, and you would have to use a neut if you wanted to get rtid of any more cap. There are workarounds for people crying for it to be nerfed, i think the main problem is where you get large nos being able to suck dry smaller ships too quickly. How about the nos amount being directly linked to signature radius of the ship your trying to nos? That way it falls inline with other offensive weapons like missiles and turrets.
slothe Caldari Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.12.11 14:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Fodderrr If enough whiners complained about nos it will get changed. Many of my setups dont involve nos but if it did get a sig penalty like a previous poster mentioned then players simply wouldnt use it for solo activity a rocket/assault missile launcher would be a better alternative so effectively nerfing the mod to uselessness. Just seems to me the only players really complaining are those in their neutron taranises ripping through ships that dont like people with any sort of counter to their insane dps. dude your post is extremely biased and therefore pretty useless. i have flown ships that used nos in the past all of the time. i prob flew nos domis before people had heard of the idea. i tend not to overuse them now i.e. fill my high slots full, as they can be an i-win button , like ecm used to be. i think personally they are overpowered if stacked like that. therefore a stacking penalty could work to heavily nerf people that use over 3. that could work. *Before complaining about any ship try flying Minmatar*
Xori Ruscuv Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.11 14:35:00 - [10] Edited by: Xori Ruscuv on 11/12/2006 14:38:45 @ OP: There have been a lot of rumors going on for the last several months. At this point, no solid idea has been introduced as to how such a nerf would work. Anything that is said is speculation at this point. Originally by: slothe therefore a stacking penalty could work to heavily nerf people that use over 3. that could work. That is the one I'm rooting for. It would allow ships like the Tempest and Raven to still fit their 2 NOS effectively, yet it would allow ships that CAN fit more to do so... yet not beyond reason. Sig radius penalty might also be interesting. I am against a "counter" - it will become just one more must-have module on an already crowded list of things one "must" have. Besides, a "counter" already sort of exists (cap boosters? ) Originally by: Fodderrr Just seems to me the only players really complaining are those in their neutron taranises ripping through ships that dont like people with any sort of counter to their insane dps. There are tons of players that don't like nos... pretty much any ship that mounts guns that use cap at a high rate... or anyone who has to actively tank. Hurts like hell for people who have to actively tank and require tons of cap to do damage. It's great playing Caldari-online, isn't it? This IS my main! I just did a portrait swap...
Tiger Tamer	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:03:00 - [11] My favorite idea so far: Give standard T1 nos a power cost equal to the power drain. The energy emission systems skill already lowers this cost, so it would actually become useful for NOS users as more than just a prerequisite. (The skill currently has no effect on the module itself.) The function of NOS as a cap drain would not be affected! Named and / or T2 could function at a higher efficiency making them the preferred modules. NOS would finally have SOME drawback. For example: using a NOS that drains 100 cap, with level 3 in Emergy Emission Systems would cost 85 cap on activation, resulting in a cap gain of 15 for the user if the target has 100 cap to drain. Smaller ships would still be affected fully by the NOS drain, however this could result in a power LOSS for the user. Turning on a full rack of NOS and waiting for the enemy before you to keel over dead will eventually become dangerous as their cap taps out and you start losing power on your cap modules (though you COULD still have the option to keep using them to keep them out of capacitor if you have the cap to spare). This would overall kill NOS as an I-win button but still leave it viable as a cap draining module, and a defense against smaller ships, without too much fuss...
Jin Freaks	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:06:00 - [12] It took CCP years to make it any good and maybe it's to good now maybe it's not. It's still not good enough as those "instant no more ability to lock someone" mods. EW sucks but it's part of the game
Xori Ruscuv Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:09:00 - [13] Originally by: Tiger Tamer My favorite idea so far: Give standard T1 nos a power cost equal to the power drain. What would be the point of Neuts then? It's great playing Caldari-online, isn't it? This IS my main! I just did a portrait swap...
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:12:00 - [14] Decrease the drained/neutralized amount by 50%, increase curse/pilgrim/bhaalgorn/cruor/ashimmu nos bonuses by 50%. It's great being Amarr, aint it?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:15:00 - [15] Originally by: Xori Ruscuv Originally by: Tiger Tamer My favorite idea so far: Give standard T1 nos a power cost equal to the power drain. What would be the point of Neuts then? Same as normal, just harder to use proposal. CAP removed =1 CAP retruned =1 CAP Cost =1 So with 0 skills running a NOS takes 0 capacitor, with level 1 in energy emmission systems the CAP cost would be reduced by 5% and you would get .05 back. It would remove the power of NOS to power your own tank ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Tiger Tamer	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:17:00 - [16] Originally by: Xori Ruscuv Originally by: Tiger Tamer My favorite idea so far: Give standard T1 nos a power cost equal to the power drain. What would be the point of Neuts then? Come on now, at least read the rest of my post NOS would still result in a cap gain, due to the Energy Emission Systems skill, provided the target had the cap to drain. Nuets would just be a stronger power drain (and a respective higher activation cost), which is all they are meant to be right?
Razin	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:22:00 - [17] My favorite Nos nerf is to make the last 30% (or thereabouts) of the target ship's cap and any battery cap supplement untouchable by Nos. This would have to come with buffing the cap batteries somewhat. ...
Exogene	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:31:00 - [18] Fitting Nos should be like fitting EW. Just like Caldari is specialized in using EW, Amarr (since they already have REAL nos ships such as curse/pilgrim, and the faction ships such as bhaalgorn) should be specialized in NOS and Neutralizers. As for effectiveness of NOS, there have been many suggestion best of which i think was the one suggesting that NOS should fully drain the amount of same class ships but less for smaller class ships. That is, a Heavy NOS on a battleship would drain another BS for the full amount but less from a Battlecruiser, even less from a cruiser, even less then that from a destroyer and the least from a frigate.
Latex Mistress Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:38:00 - [19] While we're just throwing Nerf idea's out there without any consequences... If your cap is full, you can't suck more from the other ship (because you've nowhere to put the energy). It takes a high slot, why not require tracking? Make it an area-effect weapon (like a smartbomb)? And while we're on the topic... NOS drones (have just about every other kind out there)? NOS batteries on POS's Overcharge (opposite of NOS, floods target ship w/ your cap energy and blows a function of their ship (kills targeting/tracking ability for 20 seconds, or offlines a gun for 10 seconds... whatever). LM Latex Mistresss: bringing truth to the truculent one post at a time
Xori Ruscuv Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:57:00 - [20] Edited by: Xori Ruscuv on 11/12/2006 16:02:05 Originally by: Latex Mistress It takes a high slot, why not require tracking? Ooooh, can we give missiles tracking then? Quote: Make it an area-effect weapon (like a smartbomb)? How would that even work? Quote: And while we're on the topic... NOS drones (have just about every other kind out there)? I believe this already exists... energy neutralizer drones. It's great playing Caldari-online, isn't it? This IS my main! I just did a portrait swap...
DiuxDium The Graduates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.11 17:14:00 - [21] NOS is fine, and keeps the game from just becoming "Orbit at Optimal, Fire till dead" you actually need to consider what range you come into with NOS. Please don't gimp something that adds an element of danger to PvP. Not like everyone can't use NOS. Timeout! Party time.
Insidi Us Amarr The Imperial Commonwealth The Sundering	Posted - 2006.12.11 17:25:00 - [22] Well I would hope that ships that rely on NOS to survive, like the Pilgrim, would still be viable. If the last 30% remains, that's enough to power a tank to hold off the 5 medium drones a pilgrim will be using against you. Unless you make it so that energy neuts can take off that remaining 30%, and the NOS will keep it down. So basically a NOS couldn't bring you below 30%, but it could KEEP you below 30%. With the higher requirements of the neut this could be a balancing factor. I'm just tired of the setup I keep training for gets nerfed 25 days before my 200 day training plan is over :( -----------
Elaron Minmatar Legio Immortalis	Posted - 2006.12.11 17:30:00 - [23] Originally by: Latex Mistress NOS drones (have just about every other kind out there)? Neutraliser drones good enough?
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2006.12.11 17:46:00 - [24] Making nos only take upto 70% of the targets cap isnt enough. How much of anything can anyone do with 30% cap left, and why does the nos only stop there? I dont like that idea, and seeing how precisous cap is, just reduce the nos amount! Stealing cap through the hull, armor and shield of a cap is already pretty ridiculas it stopping at a certain piont is sheer madness. Face it nos sux, and the only reason it sucks so much is it gives ALOT of energy to the attacker from the victim, so just reduce the amount by alot. And perhaos do what happened to ECM half it and boost nos ships with bonuses. Or even more crazy, make nos chance basied and reduce the nossed amount!
Rezeik Aurelius	Posted - 2006.12.11 17:49:00 - [25] Stacking penalty would be a nice start. Really, I don't see a problem with one or two NOS, it's the ships that have a full rack of them and can still deal damage and jam that's a problem. Stacking penalty would mostly resolve that issue. If more nerfs are needed, then they can try something else later.
Azerrad InExile	Posted - 2006.12.11 17:52:00 - [26] Originally by: Tiger Tamer My favorite idea so far: Give standard T1 nos a power cost equal to the power drain. Don't forget to give nos falloff and signature resolution.
Razin	Posted - 2006.12.11 18:18:00 - [27] Originally by: Insidi Us Well I would hope that ships that rely on NOS to survive, like the Pilgrim, would still be viable. If the last 30% remains, that's enough to power a tank to hold off the 5 medium drones a pilgrim will be using against you. Unless you make it so that energy neuts can take off that remaining 30%, and the NOS will keep it down. So basically a NOS couldn't bring you below 30%, but it could KEEP you below 30%. With the higher requirements of the neut this could be a balancing factor. That was pretty much what I was thinking: the Nos setups would be tempered by having to mount Neuts to be able to completely incapacitate their targets. ...
dust monkey Minmatar Tender Loving Care Muffins of Mayhem	Posted - 2006.12.11 18:50:00 - [28] Originally by: Dixon Edited by: Dixon on 11/12/2006 12:46:56 I'd actually prefer to see an effective counter-module and a stacking penalty. And if they introduce a counter-mod they should make it Amarr-friendly (low cpu usage). in test today, after i nossed Jiekon to death and made my friend in a Thron invincible with remote reps he thed said that he was now changing nos so they have a stacking penalty. ( this was after he Dooms Dayed ffa 1 to death. ) ---
Tiger Tamer	Posted - 2006.12.11 18:54:00 - [29] Originally by: Azerrad InExile Originally by: Tiger Tamer My favorite idea so far: Give standard T1 nos a power cost equal to the power drain. Don't forget to give nos falloff and signature resolution. Why? NOS doesn't need to work like a gun, we have guns for that. But it does need some kind of drawback as a weapon. In other words, right now there's no tactical reason to NOT equip one and there needs to be. What I suggested would keep the draining ability of NOS intact while giving it an effective drawback that the user could control somewhat. As for cap immunity... NOS / neuts should still be able to fully drain a ship's cap, as ultimately that is their main function. This doesn't mean that cap batteries should never be given some attribute like that (or maybe a NOS / neut resistance added to them).
Xori Ruscuv Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.12.11 19:16:00 - [30] Originally by: dust monkey in test today, after i nossed Jiekon to death and made my friend in a Thron invincible with remote reps he thed said that he was now changing nos so they have a stacking penalty. ( this was after he Dooms Dayed ffa 1 to death. ) \o/ \o/ \o/ If you are telling the truth, I <3 you! It's great playing Caldari-online, isn't it? This IS my main! I just did a portrait swap...

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.