EVE Search - The nosferatu and the capacitor battery as it's counter.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The nosferatu and the capacitor battery as it's counter.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.22 17:26:00 - [1] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 22/12/2006 18:04:29 K, we've had alot of discussions about nosferatus and how they're overpowered under some circumstances. We've also kinda forgotten the capacitor battery as one of those modules in dire need of a usefull role. We've seen boosts to inertia stabs, bulkheads and some other moduels to bring them out of people's default queue for their "to refine" cans, and Tux seems to have succeeded in giving some of those a popular yet fitting role. So, to the meat of it. On one hand there's nosses, they suck your cap dry, make you guns stop, your hardeners go offline and your tank useless. The obvious counter in small fights is the cap booster and a bunch of charges to go with it. Fitting that admittedly works decently enough, but really does nothing against nosses of a greater caliber then your booster. So, we have cap batteries. They come in micro (eeerh, wtf), small (I sometimes use them on cap poor frigs), medium (wtf part 2) and large (wtf part 3). They theoretically come close to being usefull, weren't it for cap rechargers that give more recharge boost for alot less fitting. So, how about adding a single little characteristic to them and tweaking their stats a bit to turn them more usefull ? Not uber, just usefull, especially the large and medium versions (and assuming no XL version is forthcoming). How about increasing the cap they add by 20-30% across the line, and turning the battery-added capacitor charge invulnerable to energy draining weapons ? Nosses would remain usefull, but would only drain so much if the target has a battery fitted. That means that say a BS with one large battery gets to keep a small bit of cap, enough to run hardeners or guns or something else, or just enough for a single MWD boost perhaps. It also would increase the recharge boost provided by the battery to something slightly over that of rechargers (if i have my numbers right, if not, then please change them so that they become right :p), say a 25%-30% recharge rate depending on ship (larger natural cap giving lower relative boost, naturally). Now, this would also affect nosses as primary weapon against smaller ships, if they fit that battery. It would mean that nossing a frig doesn't make it stop right away, just makes it stop one mwd cycle later. Or that nossing an BS with your nosdomi doesn't stop it from firing, just from tanking or mwding. Nos less of a win button, but still potent, and battteries with a modicum of usefullness (they are hard to fit remember, and a vagabond with a battery for example is missing a large extender... trade-off is already guaranteed). Silly or Spot-on ? Old blog Originally by: Vriezuh Naz: John is a realist
Sku1ly STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.12.22 17:36:00 - [2] After the ships normal cap has gone, from nossing or not, would the cap battery nos then drain normally (not from the nos, from module use)? Also, how would it be seen on the GUI? An active module? STK-S
Rosabella	Posted - 2006.12.22 17:40:00 - [3] It's a great idea, Rod. I support it.
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.22 17:42:00 - [4] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 22/12/2006 17:42:47 Originally by: Sku1ly After the ships normal cap has gone, from nossing or not, would the cap battery nos then drain normally (not from the nos, from module use)? Also, how would it be seen on the GUI? An active module? Yes, it drains normally from use, just not from nos. I'd suggest keeping it passive tho, altho making it active (and thus only adding it's cap when activated) might make for some nice tacticla use (only activate after you've been fighting for a while maybe, would definately be surprising :p) Anyway, yes, the gist is that that last say 10-20% of total cap you have is invulnerable to energy draining but behaves like normal cap in all other respects. In that way it's mroe or less the same as making nosses drain a maximum % of your total cap (something else that's been thrown around as an idea), except that of course this requires you to fit for it at some cost. It should work better when the ship gets smaller this way too, which is a good thing imo. Large nos against small cap battery becomes less of a win, but against a large ship with a large battery it still earns the user alot of cap and leaves the target with relatively little energy (BS have more cap, but use relatively more of it for their modules then frigs). Old blog Originally by: Vriezuh Naz: John is a realist
Enigmier	Posted - 2006.12.22 17:55:00 - [5] the idea is a sound one, it has been suggested a few times in the past, bt we can only hope that this happens, nos are the most crap and boring module in the game the way they work atm the ability to shut down an entire ship with 1 module cant be right, ecm was nerfed because of it and rightly so, nos has the same effect on alot of ships and should have a counter at least, and i would throw in a nerf too because they are that overpowered
Atius Tirawa Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2006.12.22 18:09:00 - [6] With the right fitting requirments, and possibly a nice skill to go with it. I think this is a very nice way to counter the 'tyranny of nos'. NoS is a very powerful wepon right now, and it would bring me great pleasure to see it nerfed a bit. A little bit of batting, and a module that behaved like this would really help reduce these crazy 'Nos on the top, EW in the mids, tank in the lows' I-win setups. They would bring more variation to the playing field. Will these mods be mid or low slot items? I am thinking low.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2006.12.22 18:12:00 - [7] When Tux was tossing around NOS-nerf ideas, this was one of the one's he mentioned, in addition to making a small percentage of regular capacitor undrainable. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.22 18:15:00 - [8] They are mid and should stay mid imo. Yes, they would cost you to fit, as is reasonable. I think nosses are too powerfull, but not by a very large margin. I support the usefullness of nosses and ecm because both make combat about more then gank v tank. And that variration is definately needed. What I don't like is the way nosses are a must-have atm. Take the top solo and small gang setups for cruisers and up and you've got mostly nos fittings right now. That could do with being slightly less pronounced. If you KNOW you are going to be nossed, a cap booster would still make more sense then a battery. In that respect there'd me little change. However, if you might get nossed, but aren't sure, and can afford to fit a battery instead of something else (recharger for example, makes cap II's less of a market breaker too), you end up with some possibility of defense OR offense. It simply adds more variation, makes nos slightly less of a win, and puts batteries back into the picture. Old blog Originally by: Vriezuh Naz: John is a realist
Sir Howard Gallente Four Rings Myriad Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.22 18:20:00 - [9] Edited by: Sir Howard on 22/12/2006 18:20:09 In most cases equiping a battery in the place of a recharger will indeed give you a better recharge rate. Yes yes I know it doesnt sound right, but run the math and you'll see it does. But they still have horrible fitting requirements. "This is a bad idea wrapped in a horrible plan and shipped in a retarded box"
Christopher Dalran	Posted - 2006.12.22 18:27:00 - [10] Edited by: Christopher Dalran on 22/12/2006 18:31:39 The cap battery idea is neat, Perhaps even special batteries that add a little less Cap energy but are shielded from nos/neuts completly (gotta have some kind of downside). Untill then here is how i deal with NOS boats (quite effectivly) Nos has its own set of downsides. 1. Nos uses jsut as much PG as the largest guns of its class but cause no damage. DPS will be signifigantly lowered. 2.Most pilots count on energy gained from nos, deny then this and they normally cannot run their tank and full effect (usually have 2 large t2 reppers so 1 less tank slot that does not get used) 3. They also rely on Nos to kill a targets tank, without them there is no hope to break their targets tank. Now to the counters, 1. Long range fights outside Nos range, keep large damage dealing ships far outside NOS range but have someone in a small fast ship in close scramming them (or use the gal cov ops to scram from 30km). Smaller faster ships do not have much cap so the target gets very little energy from them. Dampers are your friend, proper usage can keep the smaller ships from getting locked. Dampers are great, with a few people in a gang you can run several dampers and just fly out of locking range and then back inside to prevent them from being able to nos anyone at all. Just make sure you have enough people and stagger when they enter the targets locking range so that someone is ALWAYSE scrambling the target. You can take out a NOS domi with a pack of 3 cruiser no problem this way (I used a single celestus and 2 rax's decked out for max DPS with t2 medium drones to kill all the domis drones in quick order, even t2 ogres drop fast to t2 mediums). ALL NOS ships are horrible tankers if they cant nos, it is almoast as if the pilots have gotten so used to running 5 or so nos on their targets they just dont know how to function without them. Use this to your advantage.
Tyler Lowe Minmatar DROW Org	Posted - 2006.12.22 18:29:00 - [11] I like the idea Rod, but I think it might be just as well to change the nature of battery sizes and place a graduated cpu fitting cost and grid percentage penalty on them based on the size of the module. The bonus I would place on them would be a 25% cap total bonus (same effect on regen as a cap recharger II with added benefits vs Nos in exchange for higher fitting costs) for the tech II large variant, with the standard version starting off at a 20% increase (worse than a cap recharger II). Micros might start off at 10% or something along those lines. Nos effectiveness against the ship fitted with the batteries could be reduced by a percentage equal to the bonus granted, and the bonuses would be stacking nerfed (two large cap battery II's would make the ship about 45% resistant to the effects of nosferatu). Working off percentages, both in terms of fitting requirements and for bonuses could eliminate some of the potential for abuse and allow the module to be elevated in it's effectiveness. J.A.F.O.
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.22 18:42:00 - [12] 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 when nosses ? 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. Old blog Originally by: Vriezuh Naz: John is a realist
Nir The Doldrums	Posted - 2006.12.22 18:52:00 - [13] Too bad all current and proposed NOS defenses all focus around 2 things: CPU and medslots. The most Nos-weak race in the game has both these in (very) short supply. Its the same problem with the ECM/ECCM debacle, the race with the least CPU and slots to fit ECCM modules is also the race with the lowest base sensor strength. :\| But i'll stop there before I turn this into an Amarr thread.
Echo Degnar Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:01:00 - [14] I believe the biggest issue with NOS is that a Heavy Nosferatu is going to drain the capacitor on a Frigate right quick, and the Frig can't do anything about it. I believe Nos should have some sort of penalty depending on the targets size and speed, similar to missiles. That would prevent a Heavy Nosferatu from being an I WIN against Frigates, for example. At least giving Frigates a chance to escape, if not a fighting chance. Granted, this is an extreme example... when both parties are PvP fitted, chances are the Frigate is always going to pop.
mechtech	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:06:00 - [15] I don't know if this is the right solution, but something needs to be done about nos. Its really overpowered after the HP boosts. Maybe make them easier to fit and 1/2 as effective or something, while keeping neuts the way they are. Nos should be a module to help tanking a bit and hurt the opponent a bit. Neuts should be the module for cap draining.
No Touching	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:12:00 - [16] Why not just add a module called a "Capacitor Shield". The module could do something like this: Activating this Module will shield 30% of the capacitors energy from energy attacks. Stacking more than one module of this type will result in stacking penalties. Problem solved. If you really wanted to counter a nos boat, simply throw on 3 of them and something like 70% of your cap would be shielded. This would work well because your mid slots would be gimped, and Nos user would still have some cap to drain off from you. I foresee tacklers using these modules. On the downside, Battleships need a slightly better defense against frigates etc if this is implemented. In fact, making this module take energy to activate might be perfect, because frigate users could survive LONGER against battleship nos than they currently do, but eventually the module would run the frigate itself out of energy. To show Amarr some love, there could be a Capacitor Buffer (weaker version of the capacitor shield) that fits in low slots.
Ihar Enda Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:21:00 - [17] Edited by: Ihar Enda on 22/12/2006 19:21:43 Bad idea. If a percentage of cap was immune to NOS, using cap boosters while staying in that last percentage of cap would render NOS useless for the better part of the fight. This would make the (arguably) overpowered module very, very impractical. Better idea would be perhaps to make batteries give some resistance to draining, maybe 15-20% per battery along with standard stacking penalties. This way the target wouldn't be drained as fast, but NOS would still be usable for the whole duration of the fight. I just don't want another useful module / weapon nerfed in uselessness.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:25:00 - [18] Edited by: Malthros Zenobia on 22/12/2006 19:27:36 Originally by: Rod Blaine snip I posted this idea a week or two ago. You cannot do a flat cap increase though. I made mention that cap batteries don't have a size ratio. The Small batteries give a TON of cap for frigs, compared to what you'll get out of a large battery for a BS (or even a BC really). Batteries need to give less of a recharge boost than cap rechargers, or have the heavy fitting reqs to offset it so that midslot cap mods aren't made obsolete by fixed cap batteries. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Jerick Ludhowe Internet Tough Guys Inc.	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:28:00 - [19] Originally by: Ihar Enda Edited by: Ihar Enda on 22/12/2006 19:23:38 Bad idea. If a percentage of cap was immune to NOS, using cap boosters while staying in that last percentage of cap would render NOS useless for the better part of the fight. This would make the (arguably) overpowered module very, very impractical. Better idea would be perhaps to make batteries give some resistance to draining, maybe 15-20% less energy drained per battery along with standard stacking penalties. This way the target wouldn't be drained as fast, but NOS would still be usable for the whole duration of the fight. I just don't want another useful module / weapon nerfed in uselessness. Go fit some nuets instead of spammings your hight slots with nos.
No Touching	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:31:00 - [20] Originally by: Ihar Enda Edited by: Ihar Enda on 22/12/2006 19:23:38 Bad idea. If a percentage of cap was immune to NOS, using cap boosters while staying in that last percentage of cap would render NOS useless for the better part of the fight. This would make the (arguably) overpowered module very, very impractical. Better idea would be perhaps to make batteries give some resistance to draining, maybe 15-20% less energy drained per battery along with standard stacking penalties. This way the target wouldn't be drained as fast, but NOS would still be usable for the whole duration of the fight. I just don't want another useful module / weapon nerfed in uselessness. I'm completely happy with Nos modules being useless for the remainder of the fight, in fact, I had thought of that as a viable strategy. In MY opinion, nos modules should be used to supplement passive tanks, or keep certain setups from falling into complete cap failure. I do not think they making ships go completely dead stick should be a viable method of combat. I was thinking about another option though that you might find interesting: Change the way ships cap curves work. When a ship gets to 20% of CAP that cap will not regen if modules on the ship are active. Make it so boosters only have 50% effectiveness if the cap is at these low levels. Also make this 20% invulnerable to nos naturally. Tone down the Capacitor Shields to say 15-20% which would mean that with 3 stacked you would have to very carefully manage your cap boosters to make them effective. I do believe that cap boosters ARE the anti-nos, though as it is right now, using cap boosters only strengthens your opponents tank because you're feeding them energy, which seems stupid to me. One might say that a completely passive tank also works, but that leaves 2 races (Amarr, and Gallente) out of the loop. These two races really need a GOOD way to counter NOS, and currently there is none. At least the other two can do decent passive tanks and heavy gank setups to break NOS boats.
Andargor theWise Disbelievers of Fate The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:33:00 - [21] Originally by: Ihar Enda I just don't want another indispensable module / weapon nerfed in uselessness. Fixed. As it is, Nos is mandatory. Even a drain resistance will not be enough to take it out of standard setups. With cap batteries giving immunity, it's a far better mechanic to force a choice of using Nos or swapping out for something else entirely. - Got grief? Revelations MySQL Database
Andrea Jaruwalski Caldari Angel Deep Corporation	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:33:00 - [22] Well, I know it has nothing to do with this topic. But maybe it does, It would be fun if: When your ship uses it's own cap, the cap used viewed on the GUI should show as a transparent color (let's say blueish - to say the cap was used by your own modules) then if you get nossed or neutralized by someone, the cap gone shows as a transparent, Redish color. That would be sexy to know how badly you're getting shafted in a fight..
Porphyro Coreli Corporation	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:35:00 - [23] Edited by: Porphyro on 22/12/2006 19:36:17 I like the idea but the area of peak cap recharge is an issue to consider. If one battery effectively shields 10-20% of your cap from nos, then it is not particularly effective as the shielded section is well below peak cap recharge. Once down to this point you will only have enough cap to run scrams and maybe one volley from your guns, perhaps a single rep or mwd cycle if you're lucky. However with a second cap battery the shielded section (around 40%) will cover the area of peak cap recharge making two batteries immesurably more beneficial than a single battery, as you will have plenty of cap to run guns, reps, etc, while under nos. And fitting more than two batteries would be pointless. I'm not sure that this is a huge issue given the fitting constraints but the big gap in effectivness between one and two batteries could be a bit problematic.
icechip	Posted - 2006.12.22 19:39:00 - [24] I think putting a timer on a Nos so it can only run for 20 seconds and needs to "cooldown" before its active again. That and NOS can only drain Energy if it has somewhere to put it.
Ihar Enda Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.22 21:49:00 - [25] Originally by: Andargor theWise As it is, Nos is mandatory. Even a drain resistance will not be enough to take it out of standard setups. With cap batteries giving immunity, it's a far better mechanic to force a choice of using Nos or swapping out for something else entirely. Why exactly do you want to take it out of standard setups? Make another module useless? Why not take guns out of standard setups? NOS adds variety. It may be a bit overpowered, but I still don't like the idea of % of cap being immune. Adding resistance to draining is much better, as it doesn't make nos obsolete. If CCP were to implement such changes, everyone would drop nos and start using neuts and we'd just have another exotic module that nobody bothers to fit on their ships...
Magnus Card Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.22 21:59:00 - [26] Originally by: Ihar Enda Why exactly do you want to take it out of standard setups? Make another module useless? Why not take guns out of standard setups? NOS adds variety. It may be a bit overpowered, but I still don't like the idea of % of cap being immune. Adding resistance to draining is much better, as it doesn't make nos obsolete. If CCP were to implement such changes, everyone would drop nos and start using neuts and we'd just have another exotic module that nobody bothers to fit on their ships... Nos/neuts decrease variety, not add to it. It has become almost an absolute requirement that Nos be included in every pvp setup right now. Eliminate nos/neuts from the game completely and you will see much greater variety.
Ihar Enda Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.22 22:12:00 - [27] Originally by: Magnus Card Nos/neuts decrease variety, not add to it. It has become almost an absolute requirement that Nos be included in every pvp setup right now. Eliminate nos/neuts from the game completely and you will see much greater variety. How exactly? Now people fit weapons and nos, get rid of nos completely and they will fit weapons only. Yeah, that adds to variety.
Shinjuro The Priory Shroud Of Darkness	Posted - 2006.12.22 22:18:00 - [28] Very much spot on Rod. /me shows tux the way to this thread.
Magnus Card Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.22 22:27:00 - [29] Edited by: Magnus Card on 22/12/2006 22:27:47 Originally by: Ihar Enda Originally by: Magnus Card Nos/neuts decrease variety, not add to it. It has become almost an absolute requirement that Nos be included in every pvp setup right now. Eliminate nos/neuts from the game completely and you will see much greater variety. How exactly? Now people fit weapons and nos, get rid of nos completely and they will fit weapons only. Yeah, that adds to variety. Oh so having just about every ship fitted with 1/2 nos + 1/2 missles or projectiles gives variety how? The trend now has shifted almost all pvp setups to not rely on any sort of cap. You will see nothing but passive tanked non cap weapon using ships in the near future. I mean Variety as in different weapons and tactics used, your "variety" is everybody nossing and not much else.
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.22 22:35:00 - [30] Usnig neuts is fine, neuts gank your own cap as bad as they do you enemies'. That's like being hit by your own smartbomb, fine tradeoff imo. And yes, I als noticed how a combination of one battery and one booster with charges would mean you essentially have a load of cap that is not 'nossable' (in the form of the charges in your hold, if used wisely). However, this requires you to give up two medslots. How many ships can actually do that under the same circumstances where NOS now are seen as overpowered (small gang/solo combat) ? Answer: none can. A raven could, but would need to armortank, which means less damage and less tank. Yes that Raven would be invulnerable to nossing, but far from invlunerable to dying in any of the other ways we know to kill one. At this time, nosses ALWAYS help you. There is no counter that effectively makes your nos setup useless. Your opponent can fit so that he doesn't need much cap, but your nosses will still be giving you cap. You can fit so that you can always boost your own cap and use that, but the guy doing the nossing still gets your cap and only needs to hold out till your charges run out if your cap doesn't. There's simply no way in which nosses do not give an advantage. That's why they're seen this much. You basically go with nos, nber and cap-indepentent damage or ECM. That's your choices in a straight up fight. Add this battery, and that injector, and you can choose to be cap independent and do damage, but for example not MWD or scamble. OR you'll have worse tracking, or your shieldtank sucks. I see no issue with nosses not beingeffective under all circumstances. Guns aren't, ecm isn't, drones aren't and tanking isn't. It's all stone, papaer, scizzors, except for nosses that always give something for fitting them. It's not like you'd see half of Eve running around with cap batteries all of a sudden is it ? You go and count how many ships could fit one, or two even if that's what worries you, yet still function. That's why them being medslot is good. Also, why not better recharge then rechargers ? They are certainly a LOT harder to fit. And rechargers are simply too dominant as well. There should be circumstances where the battery is the better choice, possibly mostly determined by what ship you are using, and wether you can fit one. But, the recharge boost is dicussable ofc, don't want rechargers useless either, nor nosferatus and neutralisers. Also yes, small batteries on interceptors and frigs would maybe lead to overpowered situations seeing how fitting one would allow alot of frig sized ships to run all their weapons plus mwd constantly, safe from nosferatus. That wouldn't be good. So, increase fitting reuirements or decrease cap boost. A flat boost however is neccesary, you can't give a percentage boost because that means that cap poor ships (the ones that should be using this most of all), get the least boost. It would also mean that you'd have to make them size-constricted, like AB's and MWD's. I don't think that's good because currently there's an option always. You can fit a medium battery on a hac, but also a lareg one. You can fit a small on an inttrdictor, but also a medium one. Such options are good, they just need proper balancing. But essentailly they're the same as fitting oversized plates and extenders, they just work on cap instead of hitpoints. Old blog Originally by: Vriezuh Naz: John is a realist
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]

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.