Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zixxa
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 20:53:00 -
[91]
CCP! Just remove nosf from the game. After removing ECM it will be just consequent step ahead to stupid, plain and tedious world. --------------------------------- Hint 1: Train for Mega, not for Rokh Hint 2: Abaddon is uber fleet BS. R.I.P. <Torpedo Raven> R.I.P. <Eagle> R.I.P. <ECM> R.I.P. <Drake>
|
Dark Crux
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 21:33:00 -
[92]
Reading your post it seems to me like your primary concerns that this fix addresses are 1) BS killing frig cap too easily and 2) Nos being fire and forget.
1) The change you propose doesn't keep things fair for BS. It wouldn't be too hard to maintain your cap at somewhere between 50 and 100 on an inty through small cap booster charges and well timed MWD pulses. If the battle ship actually wants to kill your cap they need to fit a neut. OK, so I have to spend 600 cap to kill their cap which is sitting at under ~100. Sweet And I can only do this every 24 seconds. If I don't time the neut well (get lucky really as theres no way to know when) then they will probably only lose jam for a few seconds (not long enough to warp unless I'm aligned perfectly). Then recharge or a cap booster lets them jam me again. So I'm still jammed and wasted 600 cap I need for tanking them/their friends when the inevitably show up.
2) Yes its a noob module, F1-Fx and then forget about it except range concerns, but how are missiles any different? Missiles are F1-Fx then just ignore them too.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 21:33:00 -
[93]
Edited by: j0sephine on 19/01/2007 21:32:09
"The Nos Change - NOS deactivate if there is not enough cap in target ship for them to 'suck full load' - there is no energy transfer on any cycle that there not enough energy for full transfer - Activation cycle will have to 'wait out' till next cycle before reactivation can occur"
Reminds me of one of sily ideas i had when the nos thread bounced around last time or earlier ^^;
that one was similar in nature, although simpler -- it was to utilize the mechanics which are already present in the energy neutralizers, and to give certain cap cost to run the drainer. I.e:
* heavy nos: cost to activate 50 - energy emission skill bonus, amount drained 100 or whatever is left on target
etc. Basically it was to both slightly reduce the gain people get currently from the nos *and* to make them watch what actually happens in game, as the nos left to drain already empty capacitor would mean burning one's own cap with no benefit. So the pilot would have to decide themselves if they want to keep the nos running, or maybe rather turn them off, etc. (but without the auto-deactivation.. well as long as the ship using the modules still has enough cap itself to run them, i guess. Then they turn off like everything else)
A potential advantage for such approach would be perhaps, it still allows battleships to utilize heavy nos as defense vs small ships, but when facing a few of such small ships the bs could actually wind up blowing its own capacitor while trying to keep the small targets drained over extended period of time... which could be certain risk for the pilot o.O;
|
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 21:48:00 -
[94]
CCP should definantely Test this idea. It really looks greats on paper and in theory!
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 21:50:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Altai Saker 120 cap is still 0 cap for everything but a frigate...
I think the point is that it lets you have the option of staying out of nos range in a non frigate.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 21:56:00 -
[96]
"oh and to add to the weakness - a 'capacitor hardener' might be added too (trying to stay away from slippery slope here - but that is one of the other prevalent idea on the table, coupled with the sig radius) - so that all of our setup have yet another module that need to be crammed into them.
WEAK x 2."
Am not sure about this one, actually. I mean, you can look at the capacitor and its drain as the "5th damage type", pretty much.
The NOS are currently abundant because it's like all ships in EVE came with 0% EM resist on shield, armour and structure *and* no way to change it. If that was the case, take a guess what sort of setups and ships would be most common in EVE? ^^
So with this in mind, if there's something like 'capacitor hardeners' then it just means the setups can juggle between vulnerability to 5 damage types rather than 4... while at the same time the NOS becomes less of the i-win approach and as such perhaps less common -- after all if there's high likeliness a ship is resistant to cap drain (at the expense of less resistance to other damage types) ... then it may be more practical to take advantage of that and simply equip guns.
It's of course hard to tell the effect without some practical tests but i wouldn't just dismiss it outright. You may say of course that "this means another module that needs to be fitted" but then i can respond with a "so?" We already 'need' to protect ourselves from four damage types, if that's undesirable drawback then should the game be simplified to just one kind of damage? ^^;;
|
Borasao
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 21:58:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Borasao on 19/01/2007 21:56:10 I find it funny that the people who cry the most about NOS being a "required module" and then talk about "cap batteries protect against NOS" are arguing for/against one point. The instant CCP says that cap batteries protect against NOS, everyone will HAVE to have one of these on their ships. This is already the situation with injectors. Find some PvP setups that don't have one... you won't find many.
I'm sure people will say that "injectors are required because NOS is so prevalent". I don't think they are. Injectors are common because people "over fit" their ships. They put high-cap/high-damage guns AND want to tank well too. Even if NOS didn't exist, you'd still have to have the injector to do this. You think that if NOS were removed that people would remove injectors from their PvP setups? Don't make me laugh. It's all about the "pew pew" and if you can "pew pew" harder while tanking better by over-fitting your ship, people are going to do it.
So... one of the big issues that *I* personally have is "required" modules.... basically modules you can't leave the station without. Just like finding a PvP fitting without an injector is practically impossible today, make cap batteries protect against NOS and you'll have people trying to fit both and both will be practically required in order to PvP.
The same can be said about "capacitor hardeners". Put them in the game and try to find one PvP setup that will not have it listed. You won't. NO module in the game should be that way.
So basically, cap batteries that protect against NOS and cap hardeners are the same crap... required modules. You might was well just make those attributes of the ship, just like injectors should practically be a part of the ship as it is.
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 22:08:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Weirda
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Weirda
each class (small/medium/large) would retain the same range traits, so BS would still hit to distance they currently do.
Will they also have much shorter range but considerable faloff... slippery slope calling Weirda
nope - all ranges would be same as their high alpha couterpart... with no falloff involved anywhere.
<3 you Crell
Wouldn't it be good enough to make the small ones fire faster, so the small ones take care of frigs? There's no size-specific NOS bonus on any ships, so you could easily fit say 4 heavy NOS, 1 heavy Neut, 1 small NOS on a Dominix to kill both small and big ships?
ATTACK, and crash: You lose. RUN, and crash: Why WIN? |
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 22:13:00 -
[99]
Edited by: j0sephine on 19/01/2007 22:11:06
"The same can be said about "capacitor hardeners". Put them in the game and try to find one PvP setup that will not have it listed. You won't. NO module in the game should be that way."
Do you know how the 'good-fast-cheap triangle' concept works? It boils down to having to pick a sub-set of available options ("pick two") because you cannot have them all.
EVE currently has sort-of this triangle: damage-defense-sustainability ... *but* with the amount of available slots vs the amount of modules it's actually very possible to have all these three factors at once (and ships which come closest to it generally excel in combat, like Dominix)
In this sense having more 'obligatory' modules isn't actually a bad thing, because it forces one to choose their strenghts and drawbacks as they can no longer have it all. While this:
"You might was well just make those attributes of the ship, just like injectors should practically be a part of the ship as it is."
... is pretty much a request to have this necessity of choice removed, so one can go back to being able to fit all without need to decide what their weak point(s) would be.
|
Borasao
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 22:54:00 -
[100]
Quote: "You might was well just make those attributes of the ship, just like injectors should practically be a part of the ship as it is."
... is pretty much a request to have this necessity of choice removed, so one can go back to being able to fit all without need to decide what their weak point(s) would be.
Necessity of choice has already been removed for some modules (injectors in PvP). The only way to "fix" this is to either remove the necessity of choice or to make all things equally as useful so that you *must* choose among more choices than you have the ability to use (i.e. there are 16 different modules that you *must* have to be viable in PvP but you only have four slots so you must pick 4 of the 16) and that doesn't seem like it will happen any time soon. Any time one module becomes so powerful that it is no longer a choice, you've lost your "necessity of choice" game.
My comment was that injectors are so necessary right now that there is no choice of whether to include one or not in your PvP build and that's just wrong, IMO. Since every ship has them, you might as well just embrace the brokenness and make it a function of every single ship OR you should fix it and try to avoid similar situations (cap protection/hardener devices).
|
|
Majin82
Caldari g guild
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 23:09:00 -
[101]
/signed Good Work Weirda ------------------------------------- The difference between a Pirate and an Anti-Pirate is that an Anti-Pirate fights ships fitted with guns!
Passive Drake For The Win |
Loocoh
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 23:13:00 -
[102]
Ehmm, why not introduce some new NOS-modules:
Long range / weak NOS for BS to counter frigs/tacklers To balance that, very short range, strong NOS for frigs (would suck against other frigs due to long cycle / the short range) More modules to play with ftw
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 23:31:00 -
[103]
"The only way to "fix" this is to either remove the necessity of choice or to make all things equally as useful so that you *must* choose among more choices than you have the ability to use"
The former means everyone able to do everything with no drawback and no need for decisions about setup, and that's hardly a fix.
The latter *is* where the increase of amount of "must-have" modules leads, but keep in mind it's never possible to make everything perceived as 100% equal because of people's natural tendency to min-max the choices (and their preferences change over time as the 'best' setups become established, popular and eventually countered)
"My comment was that injectors are so necessary right now that there is no choice of whether to include one or not in your PvP build and that's just wrong, IMO."
Seeing how passive tanks and setups which don't utilize cap are currently gaining popularity as semi-counter to nos abundance (which in turn is a result of cap being the vulnerable point of about any ship) ... i think your comment is example of this kind of min-maxing tendency i mentioned. Things are considered a "necessity" only until it dawns on large enough group of people they actually aren't. And if this belief something is "necessary" makes people skip out on the other possible choices and leave certain areas of their ships vulnerable, then the better for those willing to think outside the box. But this does require broad enough selection of choices to begin with.
|
Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 23:48:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 19/01/2007 23:48:14 Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 19/01/2007 23:47:43 Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 19/01/2007 23:46:24 An overly convoluted "fix" tbh.
One really needs to ask, why can anyone use 8 nos with completely perfect stacking conditions on any ship with that many turrets?
I guess if I want to **** people off on SISI I will load up the "Rohk O Nos'Doom" with 8 nos in highs, typical shield tank in mids, and the usual suspects in lows. Tactically it's nothing original. at all. That setup is virtually unkillable unless you target jam it.
Yet, without addressing stacking issues for nosses, we encourage unorginal thought on nosses to flourish on TQ.
In short, nothing is really solved by just contriving something that makes life easier for someone in a frigate getting sucked dry. You have to attack the stackability of these modules and I would submit that you need to make it such that more than TWO nosses of any size returns a hugely limited amount of energy stolen or neutralized.
And really I couldn't care less about what it does to someone's curse. heh.
|
j0sephine
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 23:58:00 -
[105]
"I guess if I want to **** people off on SISI I will load up the "Rohk O Nos'Doom" with 8 nos in highs, typical shield tank in mids, and the usual suspects in lows. Tactically it's nothing original. at all. That setup is virtually unkillable unless you target jam it."
Since it has no way to do any sort of noticeable damage, it'll fall prey to first Raven it enounters -- good luck tanking torp salvos when your enemy doesn't supply you with the cap to keep your shield up.
'virtually unkillable' my behind...
|
SasRipper
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 00:45:00 -
[106]
Edited by: SasRipper on 20/01/2007 00:41:18 Sas agrees with weirda
however after a nos change is made I have a feeling there will be a lot of omg save domi treads.
|- Insert witty sig here -| Save Radar Scanner Man!
|
Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 01:36:00 -
[107]
Originally by: j0sephine "I guess if I want to **** people off on SISI I will load up the "Rohk O Nos'Doom" with 8 nos in highs, typical shield tank in mids, and the usual suspects in lows. Tactically it's nothing original. at all. That setup is virtually unkillable unless you target jam it."
Since it has no way to do any sort of noticeable damage, it'll fall prey to first Raven it enounters -- good luck tanking torp salvos when your enemy doesn't supply you with the cap to keep your shield up.
'virtually unkillable' my behind...
one bad side effect of not having any cap (Although admittedly the missiles keep coming) is that I can warp away at will in such a strange scenario.
The whole scenario though, and the purpose for it, is to show the problem with nosses. You didn't address that side of things. I should not be able to tank like that. It's uninteresting from a tactical standpoint. Why reward that kind of thing any more than rewarding old school scorps with 2mil sp pilots?
Why do low sp noobs get so much power as that which is conferred by no stacking penalty being in place regarding nos?
|
Serilla
The Syndicate Inc Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 02:13:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Yes the nos should be an iwin versus tacklers. They are in a FRIGATE, you are in a BATTLESHIP. Why should a frigate be able to completely immobilize a battleship indefinitely and call in friends to kill it at will?
The Bismark __________________
|
Zeno Kang
Amarr Royal Knights of Khanid Order of the Khanid Crown
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 03:51:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Serilla
Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Yes the nos should be an iwin versus tacklers. They are in a FRIGATE, you are in a BATTLESHIP. Why should a frigate be able to completely immobilize a battleship indefinitely and call in friends to kill it at will?
The Bismark
Very good point, Serilla.
-- Move every sig for great justice. |
Sakaki Karazawa
Ixion Defence Systems The Cyrene Initiative
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 04:13:00 -
[110]
No, nos is fine as is. Learn to play it long range or bring buddies. --- <Pallantre> 'should i join snigg or veto'? <Pallantre> and i thought.. thats like arguing whether you should join bloods or crips |
|
DiuxDium
Casting Shadows
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 04:13:00 -
[111]
Ever since Weirda killed my osprey whilst I taunted her\him I can't help but agree with his\her points . Also, the idea is very good to boot.
I'd like to see an outright removal of NOS personally, but that's got nothing to do with my use of blasters here and there.
|
Tyler Lowe
Minmatar DROW Org
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 04:22:00 -
[112]
I've thought about it a bit more Wierda, and read some of the additional thoughts you posted on Scrapheap. After considering carefully what you are trying to accomplish, I still think part of the solution to bringing some balance to Nosferatu lies in a revamp of the cap battery as Nos defense. Someone posted on this a short time ago, and I wish I could remember who that person was to credit the idea to them directly.
As far as your idea goes, I like it, but in addition, I'd like to see a choice opened between injector and battery.
The rough idea is:
Injector: able to support a tank longer than a battery, more susceptable to Nos.
Battery: greatly reduced capability to sustain a tank (in comparison to the injector), greatly reduces the effect of Nos.
I believe that Nos will be changed in some fashion, and I agree that tracking or resolution not only doesn't make sense, it's a bit cut and paste. I also prefer the KISS method over splitting Nos into different classes. IMO, the balance of Nosferatu is dependent on generating a proper counter, not neccesarily in generating further variations of the module. Batteries being pretty much useless now, they seem a good candidate for the job. J.A.F.O.
|
Pilgrippa
Caldari 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 05:52:00 -
[113]
Good post Wierda. I like the way nos works right now, and don't think it needs a big nerf. However, a couple of the tweaks you suggested are great:
1.) Make the module deactivate when there's no cap left. NOS is designed to drain cap, so it should only turn off if there is none left. Don't like the idea of having to have a certain amount before you can suck it.
2.) Maybe apply a stacking penalty to reduce the dominance of full nos setups, like the domi and nanophoon, or at least force these pilots to think more creatively about their setups.
3.) Battleships need this defense against tacklers. The nerf already comes from their slow lock time leaving inties time to retreat. If any nos defense module were to be made for frigs, it should also nerf their ability to tackle.
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 05:59:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Pilgrippa Good post Wierda. I like the way nos works right now, and don't think it needs a big nerf. However, a couple of the tweaks you suggested are great:
1.) Make the module deactivate when there's no cap left. NOS is designed to drain cap, so it should only turn off if there is none left. Don't like the idea of having to have a certain amount before you can suck it.
2.) Maybe apply a stacking penalty to reduce the dominance of full nos setups, like the domi and nanophoon, or at least force these pilots to think more creatively about their setups.
3.) Battleships need this defense against tacklers. The nerf already comes from their slow lock time leaving inties time to retreat. If any nos defense module were to be made for frigs, it should also nerf their ability to tackle.
In regaurds to number 3, so you either bring 5 tacklers, or 5 battlships to every one of your opponents so you can kill him before he has a chance to finish locking your tackler.....
|
DemonStar Supernova
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 06:54:00 -
[115]
Meh. Im still sticking with my idea of a NOS inverter. One nos inverter in a high slot can reverse the effect of a single nos. Of course, there would have to be a drawback. Perhaps the imense energy needed to run the module would equal the amount being counternossed from the attacking ship, meaining the attacking ship would lose capacitor at the rate of its running nos, where the ship under attack would receive no benefit other than being void from the nos drain. Meaining nos spamming ships (*yes, I fly a domi too, and its fun but pretty unbalanced*) would have to actually pay attention to current capacitor rate and use their head. Those that dont properly equip themselves should still find themselves imobilized by nos.
Of course ships with a nos bonus (curse, ashimu, etc), would have a NOS modulation trait that bypasses the effects of a countersystem.
This is the way EW is supposed to work too. Mediocre effectiveness on your standard ships, but heavily effective on EW specific ships. But of course, the current nerfs are counter to that theory. The current nerfs should be in place on non EW specific ships. I personally see the curse and the scorpion in the same arena, specalized ships that shouldnt be penalised for using the traits that were intended to them. but thats a completely diferent thread, no more derail.
|
Thor Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 08:09:00 -
[116]
My geddon has a hi slot that annoys me, if you nerf nos, either make it a launcher...or move it to mid.
~Thor Xian, Material Defender
"For all your Material Needs, Vertigo One."
Corp/Alliance Services |
MysticNZ
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 08:20:00 -
[117]
Any nos change is going to screw the balance alot. This is why I think CPP have not made a change at present. Alot of setups depend on it. -=====-
|
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 09:13:00 -
[118]
They could Cap Batteries something like...
+ xxxx cap amount
- 50% drain amount for enemy nosferatus
Basilisk Fitting Link |
Pilgrippa
Caldari 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 10:11:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: Pilgrippa Good post Wierda. I like the way nos works right now, and don't think it needs a big nerf. However, a couple of the tweaks you suggested are great:
1.) Make the module deactivate when there's no cap left. NOS is designed to drain cap, so it should only turn off if there is none left. Don't like the idea of having to have a certain amount before you can suck it.
2.) Maybe apply a stacking penalty to reduce the dominance of full nos setups, like the domi and nanophoon, or at least force these pilots to think more creatively about their setups.
3.) Battleships need this defense against tacklers. The nerf already comes from their slow lock time leaving inties time to retreat. If any nos defense module were to be made for frigs, it should also nerf their ability to tackle.
In regaurds to number 3, so you either bring 5 tacklers, or 5 battlships to every one of your opponents so you can kill him before he has a chance to finish locking your tackler.....
Not sure I understand the comment, but teamwork has always been encouraged in Eve. I just think it's silly for a single little frig to be able to hold down a battleship indefinitely. Currently, the best defense against that is nos. Light drones and webs are easy to avoid.
|
Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari Gallente Federal Bank Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 10:15:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Skraeling Shortbus on 20/01/2007 10:12:28 Figure i would chime in here. With regards to the whole "my bs should not be held down by a single frigate thing" that is rather weak. An example that springs to mind is really tanks and infantry. Tanks being battleships, infantry being the frigs/ceptors/small hulled ships. Tanks without infantry support are dead just plain dead, they are big and slow and have poor visibility. Add in support for them and waalaa they become much stronger. Small ships need to have a much better point in this game compared to bs's. One heavy nos renders ANY small ship just useless which i find pathetic... why use a small ship anymore when you will just end up nos'd dry? Battleships still have a role they are really the dps kings of this game (for the most part) and are extremely versatile (snipers to speed tanks to just heavy armored or shielded beasts).
Anyway what im ranting about is... give small ships (infantry) a point in this tank (battleship) infested world.
I brought a lot of this up from my experiences in ww2ol so it may or may not be completely relevant, but heavy nos just bugs me senseless.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |