| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
vile56
Nubs.
Anarchy Empire
   |
Posted - 2006.12.22 22:37:00 -
[31]
great idea, i would like to suggest that its less usefull aginst specific ships, ie this would hurt the curse alot since its main weapon is nos.
/flamepants on
|
Witch Doctor
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 22:38:00 -
[32]
I think nos should have a sig radius factor similar to projectiles/missiles where a large nos' absolute value drain is nerfed based on the target's size. If you accept that premise, then the cap battery could reduce the signature size of the capacitor. This could be in addition to the immune cap reserve, which I think is a great idea but might require significantly more coding than applying the sig radius code to nos.
|
Kat Jupiter
Warspite Developments
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 22:38:00 -
[33]
got to admit i really like the idea Rod.
It would have to be drummed out, so that you couldnt make a sustainable capacitor using only the added percaentage, thus becoming invunerable to Nos compleatly, but on the surface it looks pimp
|
Majin82
Caldari
g guild
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 22:52:00 -
[34]
While I like the idea and something does need to be done I still think a Stacking pen is the way to go with Nos.
1st = 100%
2nd = 80%
3rd = 60%
4th = 40%
5th = 20%
6th = 0%
-------------------------------------
Proud member of G Guild! |
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm
Eternal Rangers of Terror
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 23:14:00 -
[35]
Edited by: HankMurphy on 22/12/2006 23:15:21
I could support the increase to batteries. I think we should even have the option to use xlrg.
But as far as not letting that battery be affected by nos? NO way.
I hate being drained by a nosdomi just like the next guy, but there are a couple reasons i say this.
1) passive setups leaving just weapons that require energy would be getting too much of a boost. on battery for your weaps ensures you invinsible to nos
2)a ship that is nos focused (amarr recons, any nano-ship) relies on killing the enemies cap before you die (either run outta cap or HP).
Its a touchy balance and having the option to last out a little longer vs a nos dependant ship just throws a wrench into the works.
Cap boosters work fine. Just kill your enemy before you run outta charges (gotta fit them damage mods).
Cap batteries could use some love but not THAT much love.
i would also agree w/ some form of stackingn penalty to nos, but not where fitting above 3 is useless (too extreme). Would be a touchy scale to outline and not one i'm going to assume i can guess at... just too many factors w/ how integrated/important nos is to pvp
|
Ihar Enda
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 23:33:00 -
[36]
 Originally by: HankMurphy
Edited by: HankMurphy on 22/12/2006 23:15:21
I could support the increase to batteries. I think we should even have the option to use xlrg.
But as far as not letting that battery be affected by nos? NO way.
I hate being drained by a nosdomi just like the next guy, but there are a couple reasons i say this.
1) passive setups leaving just weapons that require energy would be getting too much of a boost. on battery for your weaps ensures you invinsible to nos
2)a ship that is nos focused (amarr recons, any nano-ship) relies on killing the enemies cap before you die (either run outta cap or HP).
Its a touchy balance and having the option to last out a little longer vs a nos dependant ship just throws a wrench into the works.
Cap boosters work fine. Just kill your enemy before you run outta charges (gotta fit them damage mods).
Cap batteries could use some love but not THAT much love.
i would also agree w/ some form of stackingn penalty to nos, but not where fitting above 3 is useless (too extreme). Would be a touchy scale to outline and not one i'm going to assume i can guess at... just too many factors w/ how integrated/important nos is to pvp
QFT.
Nos needs some balancing, but without screwing it up completely in the process, along with the Amarr recons. Like I said, nos resistance would be best, like 15-20% less energy drained per battery, with standard stacking penalty.
The idea of part of cap beging totally immune is bad, for the reasons already stated.
|
Rod Blaine
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 23:46:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 22/12/2006 23:47:29
K, give me an amarr or gallente ship that can run its guns based on the recharge rate it has between 0% and 20% cap then.
There is none. Having the last 10-20% of your cap immune to nossing only helps you when ti comes to either one or two rep cycles, one minute of shooting, or a fair while of running active hardeners or webs/scramblers.
You see, I agree that nos should be able to stop a non-dedicated-anti-nos enemy ship from tanking and shooting and scrambling you all at the same time. And they will, even with the last 10-20% of the cap invulnerable to your nos.
Tellme how the curse would suffer btw. I'm fairly curious in which way the curse is currently challenged by countermeasures already possible against it's nossing, and how you would see it being challenged by occasionally runnning into enemies that have the ability to actually use 10-20% of their cap before it's drained ?
We're only talking a small bit of cap here, just enough to not always make you win, but not enough to make you lose either.
Old blog Originally by: Vriezuh
Naz: John is a realist
|
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm
Eternal Rangers of Terror
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 00:09:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 22/12/2006 23:47:29
K, give me an amarr or gallente ship that can run its guns based on the recharge rate it has between 0% and 20% cap then.
There is none. Having the last 10-20% of your cap immune to nossing only helps you when ti comes to either one or two rep cycles, one minute of shooting, or a fair while of running active hardeners or webs/scramblers.
You see, I agree that nos should be able to stop a non-dedicated-anti-nos enemy ship from tanking and shooting and scrambling you all at the same time. And they will, even with the last 10-20% of the cap invulnerable to your nos.
Tellme how the curse would suffer btw. I'm fairly curious in which way the curse is currently challenged by countermeasures already possible against it's nossing, and how you would see it being challenged by occasionally runnning into enemies that have the ability to actually use 10-20% of their cap before it's drained ?
We're only talking a small bit of cap here, just enough to not always make you win, but not enough to make you lose either.
to be fair, ships like curse are not ships like nos domi. so... the opponent should be fighting from the get go, thus using his cap as its being drained (and while he tries to counter it we hope)
i agree w/ you that the last litte bit from the battery probably wont sustain their weapons much longer (i dunno, would have to test it) but its still an additional buffer that was never there before.
ie: a litte bit of cap is a HUGE difference from NO cap. i think we can all agree on that. what if the person just stops firing when he hits his battery buffer? if its a passive tank he could make the fight last a good bit longer, perhaps for friends to show up?
the scenario's are endless. i think you hit the nail on the head w/ everything you've said except something about un-NOSable cap, no matter how much i try to consider it.... just doesnt sit well w/ me.
but ppl are using a midslot for those cap batteries... so there hsould be something to make the capbattery more appealing than making certain cap shy frigs warp longer
|
Tyler Lowe
Minmatar
DROW Org
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 17:00:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 22/12/2006 18:44:26
The only real abuse potential I see is fitting oversized (large on a hac for example). But for a hac the fitting requirements would be huge, and well, there's not that mnny hacs with medslots they don't have a use for is there ? The moment they fit the battery they lose an extender, and ecm mod, or something else they tend to really need. And for what ? So they can still tank fot two cycles when nossed ? That doesn't help them much when they're getting shot at instead of nossed 
Besides that there's the option of fitting both the cap booster AND the battery, effectively making part of the cap you boost invulnerably to nossing. A powerfull use on ships with the midslots to fit it. Except that those ships tend to need those midslots for other stuff already (scorp, raven). But even if they did, that would simply make them good against nos, not win setups by default as they'd lost a slugmatch with a ship that didnt fit like that and doesnt rely on nosses. So that argument falls down pretty fast tbh, people simply adapt.
Not so much an argument, as an observation Rod  .
I think you're seeing the batteries as they are now rather than as they would be given a change that boosts an increased flat amount, and shields that amount from Nos. I do think the revamp of cap batteries can be a portion of Nos balancing, but only part. Nos could really use a stack penalty that makes fitting more than 3 pretty pointless, in addition to a module that counters a portion of their effectiveness. I don't see just the one or the other as solving all of the issue. I'd also rather see the counter reduce their effect rather than make a portion of the cap un-nossable. This would limit Nos without killing the module.
J.A.F.O.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 17:13:00 -
[40]
I don't think that the way to combat an overpowered module is to make another module required to stop them.
To top that off, Cap Batteries are actually useful in some cases. I use small cap batteries on my T1 frigate to extend its jump range. Also, the larger cap batteries are ALMOST worth using for tanking in some cases... they are very close to being better than cap regen mods. So imo the easy fix for batteries is to simply increase them all by 25-30% and see if that does the trick... if so then good.
Then you simply nerf NOS and you're good there too 
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Hakera
Freelance Unincorporated
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 17:16:00 -
[41]
Apportioning the capacitor beween a drainable main and an untouchable reserve is certaintly one possible method.
There are also other possibilities, you introduce a capacitor hardning which acts to reduce the effect of the nos much like shield hardners.
I personally dislike adding tracking as a variable of nos myself (it begs far too much of destroying the big to small ship balance). Instead I prefer a make capacitors racial attribute and nos much like ECM have a racial balance to their effectiveness.
|
Alitha Maru
Minmatar
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 17:32:00 -
[42]
I love NOS as much as the next guy, but agree that they can be overpowering especially to some races. But what about the idea of only being able to use 1 NOS pr. target. Can be explained by some calibration overload something-or-other. With only 1 NOS pr. target possible you can still use 6 NOS on 6 targets and get your share of power, but you can't spam someone with everythin at once. Just an idea. I'm hungry, going to eat now
|
Shayla Sh'inlux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 17:50:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Shayla Sh''inlux on 23/12/2006 17:51:26
I kinda like the idea, but it would do absolutely nothing to fix the Nos problem.
The ships that need some counter to Nos the most are the ones with few medslots and to top it off cap batteries have insane fitting requirements in the CPU department - something neither Amarr or Gallente ships have spare. All this idea would do is give Caldari *another* boost and make non-Caldari ships with 4+ meds that are already high on the powerscale (ships like Myrmidon, Vagabond etc) more powerful.
What we really need to do is move warp disruptors to the highslots thereby adding TONS of versatility to ships with few medslots and finally give some love to all those pointless "utility" (nos) slots. Then severaly reduce the CPU needs of cap batteries and we might have a working fix.
Of course then the shield tank vs armor tank balance needs to re-evaluated since with disruptors in highslots there will be no real reason to armortank anymore. Especially now that we have caprigs that are yet another god-gift to shieldtanking.
Originally by: "Cy4n1d3"
You can't PVP with 4 mids.
|
Stamm
Amarr
Three Holdings
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 18:02:00 -
[44]
It doesn't make or break any points here. But just FYI a large cap battery is really nice on a cruiser. Tough to fit, but really nice.
|
mallina
Caldari
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 18:46:00 -
[45]
I posted a topic like this a couple of months ago with pretty much the exact same points, so umm yea i agree 
at current the only ships really worth fitting cap batteries to are low-tier cruisers, i believe one of my Omen setups used a cap battery which gave it roughly 30% more cap and thus recharge,but this is mainly due to the Omen's poor base cap rather than anything else
using one on a Battleship is simply out of the question.
-----------
vids:
Terrorseries
Turbulance |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |