Originally by: Weirda

---

that all Weirda have to say.

---

Originally by: Blood Agent

---

The curse can already beat just about any ship 1v1, removing its ability to wtf pwn anythings cap with neuts is fine by me.

---

Originally by: FraXy

---

The idea someone had with the Battery to add cap with a different color which can`t be Nossed away, but can be Neutralized could also be considered making Neutralizer more useful and pilots considering which of the two will benefit the most during X enemies in Y location.

---

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg

---

Remind me to laugh at the first person that loses an Interceptor after these changes.

---

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg

---

Remind me to laugh at the first person that loses an Interceptor after these changes.

---

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg

---

Remind me to laugh at the first person that loses an Interceptor after these changes.

---

It's a very good point. However there will still be adaptations available to BS pilots, like fitting Neuts or Medium NOS. Sure, those won't be nearly as effective as Heavys vs. other Battleships, but that's where the interesting choices and teamwork come in.

---

Originally by: Vicious Phoenix

---

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg

---

Remind me to laugh at the first person that loses an Interceptor after these changes.

---

It's a very good point. However there will still be adaptations available to BS pilots, like fitting Neuts or Medium NOS. Sure, those won't be nearly as effective as Heavys vs. other Battleships, but that's where the interesting choices and teamwork come in.

---

Show me medium nos that have the same range as warp disruptors. Thats what I thought.

---

Originally by: Vicious Phoenix

---

Show me medium nos that have the same range as warp disruptors. Thats what I thought.

---

Originally by: Audri Fisher

---

Originally by: Vicious Phoenix

---

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg

---

Remind me to laugh at the first person that loses an Interceptor after these changes.

---

It's a very good point. However there will still be adaptations available to BS pilots, like fitting Neuts or Medium NOS. Sure, those won't be nearly as effective as Heavys vs. other Battleships, but that's where the interesting choices and teamwork come in.

---

Show me medium nos that have the same range as warp disruptors. Thats what I thought.

---

that's the point. 2 heavy nos + a webber should not be an I win button against tacklers.

---

Originally by: Tiuwaz

---

for caldari perception weapons that hit up to 100km are short range weapons

---

Originally by: Vicious Phoenix

---

Your proposed changes take away the only defense a battleship has against interceptors. I would NOT like to sit in my BS in a belt for as long as he decides to keep me there, scrammed by an inty just waiting for his friends to show up and kill me. Battleships are exactly that, battleships. It should not be possible for a lone interceptor (a frigate) to hold them in place like that.

---

Originally by: Audri Fisher

---

that's the point. 2 heavy nos + a webber should not be an I win button against tacklers.

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

indeed. the I win button vs tacklers is a swarm of T2 warriors.
thos things are scary and can practically nullify any tackler in a few moments.
edit: and I agree with weirda.
weirda for pres/PM/king/queen/emperor/empress/god/whatever!

---

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?

---

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?

---

Originally by: Vicious Phoenix

---

I guess you haven't encountered any of those 10km/s crows that seem to be all over TQ after the patch. The warriors don't get anywhere close.

---

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg

---

Remind me to laugh at the first person that loses an Interceptor after these changes.

---

It's a very good point. However there will still be adaptations available to BS pilots, like fitting Neuts or Medium NOS. Sure, those won't be nearly as effective as Heavys vs. other Battleships, but that's where the interesting choices and teamwork come in.

---

Originally by: Shandling

---

Edited by: Shandling on 19/01/2007 02:32:02
Great idea. Would make people think before just tossing NOS on.

This could open a door for mods too.. how about passive lows that decrease the amount of energy drained in trade for a faster 'firing time' on the NOS? Something like...

-15% NOS Cycle Time
-15% Cap Drained per Cycle

That would keep the energy per second drained the same and allow the player to keep the target's cap lower... while taking up a low slot.

---

Originally by: Altai Saker

---

I'm sorry if I misunderstood but what I got out of that post, was that basically you'd be left with about 100~ cap on your ship?

So in a geddon I could maybe do 3 more shots ?

---

Originally by: Kldraina

---

Edited by: Kldraina on 19/01/2007 02:27:23
I actually really like this idea. It makes large nos less effective against small ships than small nos is, as the small ships just need to keep their cap below 100 to be immune to large nos. I like this idea a lot...

---

Originally by: Da Death

---

Originally by: Kldraina

---

Edited by: Kldraina on 19/01/2007 02:27:23
I actually really like this idea. It makes large nos less effective against small ships than small nos is, as the small ships just need to keep their cap below 100 to be immune to large nos. I like this idea a lot...

---

Simple solution: fit medium and small nos and even smallest ships get sucked empty =)

DD

---

Originally by: skepsiss

---

Edited by: skepsiss on 19/01/2007 07:07:17
how about we ask ccp to make only 1 type of ship for each race, with no bonus, and only 1 gun in the game, with default ammo built in, think that could make you people stop whining for a change ? I mean you're like : zomfg, I spent countless bils on my Evilz0r setup and that motherf* amarr curse just sucked me dry so I lost my setup *whiiiine cryyyy zomg omfg*. So instead of asking myself why am I such a dumb arse, I should go on the forums and whine a bit, doesnt matter that my whining will ruin the play of an entire race that only has 2 ships working ( yeah, curse and pilgrim), but I will be *ev1l* again, and I will pawn. Hmm, and while I am here I could whine a bit about nanos and istabs aswell, wtf, they are overpowered, why can't I go 3.5km/s with my evil domi ab but they can ?! *omfg zomg cry*

Q F T and go play.

---

Originally by: Axitikus

---

Originally by: Da Death

---

Originally by: Kldraina

---

Edited by: Kldraina on 19/01/2007 02:27:23
I actually really like this idea. It makes large nos less effective against small ships than small nos is, as the small ships just need to keep their cap below 100 to be immune to large nos. I like this idea a lot...

---

Simple solution: fit medium and small nos and even smallest ships get sucked empty =)

DD

---

Which makes the ship less effective against larger ships, not a bad thing.

---

Originally by: Nyxus

---

I am very very leery of most nos posts becuase if the curse loses nos it will turn into the suck. Especially since TD's are relatively underpowered to all EW except for Painters. Matari and Amarr 4tw.

But I like it. The Curse stays good, nos domi's not so "afk, tell me when baddies are dead".

The Curse change needs to make sure that it doesn't reduce the total nos amount it has now. Maybe even boost it again. Would also like to see the pilgrim get a range bonus over an amount.

I dont want to derail the thread but right now TD's are the best EW if you only have slot left, SD's need multiple slots to really shine, TP's stink, and ECM now needs low slot mods fitted and ship bonuses too.

Weirda rules, Caldari drools!

Nyxus

---

Originally by: Da Death

---

Originally by: Axitikus

---

Originally by: Da Death

---

Originally by: Kldraina

---

Edited by: Kldraina on 19/01/2007 02:27:23
I actually really like this idea. It makes large nos less effective against small ships than small nos is, as the small ships just need to keep their cap below 100 to be immune to large nos. I like this idea a lot...

---

Simple solution: fit medium and small nos and even smallest ships get sucked empty =)

DD

---

Which makes the ship less effective against larger ships, not a bad thing.

---

you mean it makes it effective against EVERY ship, just add one neutralizer if you really need.

---

Originally by: Cmdr Sy

---

So here is the state of Amarr tech. Nos, plate, EANM and a tracking disruptor - pick two out of four and counter all setups.

---

Originally by: Vicious Phoenix

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

indeed. the I win button vs tacklers is a swarm of T2 warriors.
thos things are scary and can practically nullify any tackler in a few moments.
edit: and I agree with weirda.
weirda for pres/PM/king/queen/emperor/empress/god/whatever!

---

I guess you haven't encountered any of those 10km/s crows that seem to be all over TQ after the patch. The warriors don't get anywhere close.

---

Originally by: Tiuwaz

---

for caldari perception weapons that hit up to 100km are short range weapons

---

Originally by: Da Death

---

Originally by: Kldraina

---

Edited by: Kldraina on 19/01/2007 02:27:23
I actually really like this idea. It makes large nos less effective against small ships than small nos is, as the small ships just need to keep their cap below 100 to be immune to large nos. I like this idea a lot...

---

Simple solution: fit medium and small nos and even smallest ships get sucked empty =)

DD

---

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg

---

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg

---

Remind me to laugh at the first person that loses an Interceptor after these changes.

---

It's a very good point. However there will still be adaptations available to BS pilots, like fitting Neuts or Medium NOS. Sure, those won't be nearly as effective as Heavys vs. other Battleships, but that's where the interesting choices and teamwork come in.

---

No, the problem is those are useless versus intys as well. You do turn off one cycle, and on a rosy day in you're-really-lucky-land he might drop his disruptor too. However, 24 seconds is enough to regen cap for another MWD cycle (some skills required - the base regen of the inty needs to be higher than 1.4 cap/s [note : this is not peak regen, but base]).

So the only alternative to actually kill an Interceptor is to spend about 800 cap with 0 return per inty, and 2 highslots. And just as it is now, if the pilot isn't bad and has some semblance of preparation he'll live 9/10 times.

Heavy Nosferatus offensive effectiveness and versatility should stay, possibly at the cost of some income and a slight but non-dramatic malus for over-nossing, like say losing whatever cap was unavailable to be siphoned instead of gaining it. It's a rather minor detail as is, as inter-class balance right now is somewhat reasonable and heavy nos only dominate equal classes in extremely artificial scenarios. Call me totally crazy, but someones ego on the testserver taking a hit because 1v1s are gimmickfests does not make a great reason to drastically change interclass balance.

---

Originally by: Trev Kachanov

---

Why not just add tracking to nos? ...

---

Originally by: Frools

---

nice, only problem i can see is with neuts on a curse/pilgrim
as it is the bonus means they kill an awful lot of cap and dont use that much in comparison
with a 'nos rof' bonus they'd be killing the same ratio of cap on you and your target, making them far less useful

---

Originally by: Kldraina

---

but dislike the fact that it makes cap batteries less useful.

---

Originally by: Arte

---

Originally by: Kldraina

---

but dislike the fact that it makes cap batteries less useful.

---

What if they used Wierda's idea in conjunction with the idea to make cap battery Capacitor values "protected capacitor" untouchable by nos

With that, there would be the development of setups that are "nos-resistant" (not immune) that use cap batteries to run their systems, even though they run into the likes of nos/nano-domi and nos/nano-phoon setups.

The only issue arising from that would be that Minmatar and Caldari ships would benefit to a greater extent as they can already do a great deal without cap, and amarr particularly but also gallente wouldn't benefit as much (but wouldn't lose out).

---

Quote:

---

READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.

---

Originally by: Kunming

---

NOS:
- EVE should start considering NOS as a weapon instead of a utility module, it does dmg your capacitor.

---

Quote:

---

- Has 3 different sizes and even the largest one has no drawback vs smaller targets, it is a weapon which means it should have to worry about tracking and signature radius.

---

Quote:

---

- Eliminates cap on the target and creates cap on ur capacitor (aka the "dual benefit"), unlike neutz where you have to use cap to eliminate it, NOS is a WIN-WIN module everytime.

---

Quote:

---

- NOS, Neutz have no counter, just like missiles/drones, no wonder we see them in all the overpowered setups.

---

Quote:

---

Suggestions:
- Add tracking and signature radius to NOS, with heavy NOS having just the same effect as a small one on a frig.

---

Quote:

---

- Change the NOS not to suck cap but to reduce cap recharge on target ship by % and increase recharge on yours, this will make cap boosters the effective way of countering NOS, Neutz will still eliminate cap in exchange of your own cap.

---

Originally by: NeoFusion

---

Why not simply make NOS gradually take cap from the target over the cycle time? That way another ship has a small chance to escape but it still poses a problem if they hang around the target.

Example:
Heavy Nosferatu I = 12 second activation, 100 cap = 8.4 cap drain per second.

This way a NOS'd ship will have a chance to escape, but they'll still get punished if they stay and continue to attack the NOS'er. They won't just completely have their whole capacitor removed immediately and be left sit there like a dead fish in the water.

This way the NOS'er still gets the same amount of cap in total, and the NOS'd still gets some sort of a chance to run away.

---

Originally by: Smagd

---

All right, so how does THAT change the WIN/WIN problem? It actually makes it worse: Once the enemy is out of CAP, its CAP WILL stay dead (given maybe a single Neut) and yours will still get a recharge bonus?

Come on, you can do a little better than that if even I can, and Weirda certain bests the both of us.

---

Quote:

---

READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.

---

Originally by: Weirda

---

@"THIS IS TOO MUCH - BS WILL SUCK"
no it not, you keep thinking of something sitting at just under 100 cap forever (inty), while neglecting to realize that the reactivation that hit inty w/110 cap will knock it down to 10.

---

Originally by: Altai Saker

---

120 cap is still 0 cap for everything but a frigate...

---

Originally by: Weirda

---

STOP LIMITING SHIP SETUPS FFS
- when you remove absolute dominance of win buttons... you actually place less restriction
- this is the best way

---

Originally by: Weirda

---

Edited by: Weirda on 19/01/2007 18:44:02

Originally by: Altai Saker

---

120 cap is still 0 cap for everything but a frigate...

---

true - and this is very important point. hopefully this will open up way for DEV to tweak them with this new philosophy (the deactivation one). the 'alpha cap strike' can be raised on larger modules (with their ROF slower so same CPS). basically different element to tweak the balance (between the classes) better.

@Earnest and those that agree with Earnest
Weirda have GREAT respect for Earnest (and agree w/him too, as that have always been Weirda biggest fear about nerfing capwarfare - the relative invulnerability status of small fast ship vs bs) and he have very good point in this thread. it have even made Weirda consider some expansion to the KISS philosophy (though it still simple). this mostly to address the idea of frigs setting up their capacitor so that it is 'always under' the nos amount:

Think of the current NOS as Artillery... they have a big alpha and slow ROF (which can be tweaked even more - i.e. bigger alpha on larger ones then now and slower ROF). but that make it easier for Frigs to stay under the cap limit you say... well:

Add another Class of NOS
Add the 'autocannon' version... lower 'alpha' but much faster ROF. these would be set up to drain cap at a slower rate (cap over time) but they would be fast firing for small amounts. These would be best to fit for VS small target cap warfare, but much less efficient in knocking out larger ship CAP (it would take longer, and without the large alphas you wouldn't jump them from 50% down to below their peak recharge in one go).

each class (small/medium/large) would retain the same range traits, so BS would still hit to distance they currently do.

With these you would fit to the type of warfare that you expect to be doing.

thank you Earnest for inspiring the new idea!

---

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

---

Originally by: Altai Saker

---

120 cap is still 0 cap for everything but a frigate...

---

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

---

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.

---

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...

---

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?

---

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

---

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.

---

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.....

---

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

---

Originally by: Pilgrippa

---

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.

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

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;

---

Originally by: Davey Oaks

---

This would be very helpful for frigates as it would allow frigates to be able to stil activate armor repers or shield boosters but have to be careful while doing it, as currently a battleship with one or two heavy nos's on will imobilise an assualt frigate in one or two cycles depending on what your cap was liek to start with.

/signed

---

Originally by: Elitus

---

Edited by: Elitus on 30/01/2007 08:01:15

Originally by: Davey Oaks

---

This would be very helpful for frigates as it would allow frigates to be able to stil activate armor repers or shield boosters but have to be careful while doing it, as currently a battleship with one or two heavy nos's on will imobilise an assualt frigate in one or two cycles depending on what your cap was liek to start with.

/signed

---

The point of putting 1-2 nos on a battle ship, so you can kill assault frigs ceptors and cruisers it is a battleship after all. its the abuse of nos that neefs nerfing.. i dont know if an idea like this has been said but i would like to see.

A stacking penalty of 25% to reduce the effectiveness each time you add more then one so it would go as follows
1 heavy nos = 100
2 heavy nos = 75 each
3 heavy nos = 56.25 each

MAXED OUT SKILL

1 heavy nos = 100
2 heavy nos = 90 each
3 heavy nos = 81 each

The extra skill added (or old) would reduce the stacking penalty by 3% a lvl at maxed out skill it would only be 10% penalty.
the penalty can be avoided by fitting med and small nos at the loss of range, imo this would destroy alot of nano nos setups because of lack of cap coming in with 3+ L nos or having to get within 12km or less to use the mix of large and med nos to get more cap over range

I personaly think this is a sweet idea for hitting two birds with one stone

(the stacking penalty would not apply to ships that are ment to nos such as the curse)

---

Originally by: Audri Fisher

---

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

---

good one.

---

Originally by: Almarez

---

Originally by: Audri Fisher

---

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

---

good one.

---

Sorry,
Audri where does the quote in your sig come from. Sounds military but I can't figure it out.

---

Originally by: Weirda

---

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

---

Originally by: Zixxa

---

CCP! Just remove nosf from the game. After removing ECM it will be just consequent step ahead to stupid, plain and tedious world.

---

Originally by: Tyler Lowe

---

Edited by: Tyler Lowe on 19/01/2007 04:35:07
I think my problem with them is they have no true counter aside from fitting your own Nos.
...
Do you feel that some form of hardening should be an option against Nos?

---

Originally by: Dwindlehop

---

Nos has no effective counter except more nos.

---

Originally by: Weirda

---

Weirda think of Nos quite a bit lately, and role they have in battle. many pilot are happy with their current state, others feel that they do not fit the 'mold' of the last couple year of rebalancing and are due for 'major nerf', while other still remain ambivalent.

of the category - Weirda fall most probably into the last... or somewhere in between.

Weirda not feel they 'fine' as they are... a skilless extension of you ship with little penalty other then fitting. they are definatley far too sexy of alternate to fitting secondary weapon system for which ship have been designed to carry. there is also large desparity between ship which can function with 1/2 to full rack of nos, vs those that cannot. the DEV have stated that they 'looking' into them (since about last year this time) and we have still seen nothing.

Weirda here to rehash an old idea and help the DEV along. Weirda will keep it simple, stupid (such is the Matari way).

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

What it solves:
- F1-Fx 'fire and forget' activation of all nos on target (skilless play)
- 'bigger is better' (pretty much only for nos at this point)
- target being 'completely dead in the water awaiting their slow doom' (Weirda thing that we should all admit that this is frustrating, boring, and bad gameplay)

How?
- target have 100 cap... nos try to take 150... target still keep 100 cap. module can run and target can continue to fight, having to think and work even harder to stay within small amount of cap they still have
- attacker will have to manage Nos cycle (like it or not - this is better gameplay)
- attacker can still get 'lucky shot' and hit for 150 when target have 151, and thus completely cripple them still

But... but Signature Radius!!!?!!!one
- Weirda will be very happy if another system is not operating against sig radius
- the target is the Capacitor of the enemy ship... not the ship size/electronic signature
- 'transfer activation' (or sucking) take the full amount to activate, otherwise those big behemouth NOS do not have enough power to complete the extraction/transfer.
- again, Weirda would rather see this then some % based system... if they use 'cap radius' (for example): target capacitor size vs. drainer 'suck radius'... it just keep the Nos as they are: skilless, fire and forget 'weapon' system that require no management or intelligence to use.

STOP LIMITING SHIP SETUPS FFS
- when you remove absolute dominance of win buttons... you actually place less restriction
- this is the best way

but what of the curse... it bonus will hurt it
- rather then increase sucking amount, the bonus should increase the rate of fire
- meta item get same treatment, rather then longer range and more sucking, they get longer range - and faster ROF

that all Weirda have to say. am hoping that this will be good discussion and not flame fest. please think before you post, and avoid bad argument logic (ad hominem, slippery slope, straw man, etc). if you have nothing intelligent to say, take it to general discussion please.

---

Originally by: Axitikus

---

How about instead of actually "sucking" cap Nos will increase your recharge rate and reduce theirs. If they dont use any cap, they dont lose it, but you still gain some.

Also, put a stacking penalty on nos, similar to damps. The first nos would give you X amount of cap recharge, the 2nd fitted would give you about half of that, the 3rd half of the value the 2nd is giving you, etc. (havent't figured out about mixing sizes but cut me a break, I just came up with this)

---