EVE Search - The more I see people complain, the less I think Nos belong ingame

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The more I see people complain, the less I think Nos belong ingame

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ghosts Nevergone	Posted - 2007.02.16 05:09:00 - [1] ...lame rhyme >_< Anyway. I just don't see a point to it... seems like too good a module. It takes your enemy's cap AND adds it to your own. We already have modules that do one or the other... neuralizers to drain opponent's cap. Tranfers to get some extra from another ship. I could live with boosting both of those modules and maybe changing nos into some kind of high slot battery or nerualizer protection mod...
Blood Raine	Posted - 2007.02.16 05:45:00 - [2] Nos is just the whine of the month. Don't put too much stock in what everyone complains about on the forums. Its at least a 300% exxageration of the real problem, if there is one.
VJ Maverick Caldari Maverick Specialized Services	Posted - 2007.02.16 06:17:00 - [3] I see fewer and fewer NOS whines and more and more Cloak whines. Looks like we're about to get a new whipping boy.
Pinky Denmark	Posted - 2007.02.16 08:49:00 - [4] The problem with nos is that the more you have the better results you get in most situations...
Puupuu mUfFiN fAcToRy	Posted - 2007.02.16 09:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Pinky Denmark The problem with nos is that the more you have the better results you get in most situations... The problem with ship modules is that there's always something that's useful in PVP. This is unacceptable. I propose that CCP removes all ship modules from game, and reduces the amount of ships to one. This would bring absolute balance to the game. As a downside there may be less subjects to write about on the forums...
Lena Crews Minmatar Universal Sanitation Corporation	Posted - 2007.02.16 09:31:00 - [6] Nos's should be left alone. Energy Neutralizers should be improved (say to use half the cap they do now). A new module should be added (they anti-nos) that blocks energy transfer/neutralization. Right now a small nos steals 2.66 cap per second. A small neut cancels 6.66. A small "cap protector" would prevent the cancelation of 3 cap per unit installed per second. Follow the pattern with medium and large versions of the module. Ships would still be vulnerable to mass nos/neutralization, but you'd now have essentially a 1 for 1 block for nos's (like WCS's are a 1 for 1 block of warp disruptors) and a 2 for 1 block for neutralizers (like WCS's are a 2 for 1 block of warp scramblers).
Zeophyte	Posted - 2007.02.16 09:38:00 - [7] Look nos is a must in eve... u need it to fend off ceptors + drones the only problem with nos is ships with mass amounts of it on. Now 1-2 nos wont criple a tank but 3+ will and the 3+ is the problem thats the I WIN but because using nos requires 1day of training skills if that its seen as an easy option to the I WIN
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.16 09:40:00 - [8] Er.. nos does absolutely nothing to drones.
X99 Z990	Posted - 2007.02.16 09:47:00 - [9] All nos really needs is a counter measure. I think its fairly balanced, it uses as much powergrid as a gun its just a slower way of killing a ship i dont feel any more cheated dying to a nos ship than a gun ship. Would be nice to have a counter to it though.
Lena Crews Minmatar Universal Sanitation Corporation	Posted - 2007.02.16 09:50:00 - [10] Thinking on it a little further, perhaps the cap protector should be percentage based, just like shield/armor resistance modules. Essentially cap drain is just another form of damage, right? Well we have modules that give a 32% resistance to EMP or Kinetic damage... why not have modules that give percentage resistance to cap drain, with corresponding stacking penalties. You can never get to 100%, but you can add some level of protection... just like with any other form of attack.

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.16 09:55:00 - [11] I do not think a "cap protecter" is a right solution here due to the high recharge nature of cap. A 50% or even only 30% cap protection would make nos essentially useless since the whole point of nossing is to bring an enemy ship below that. Otherwise all you do is to bring it faster to it's max cap recharge rate where it has the best tank/weapon sustainability.
Emma Green Caldari Enterprise Estonia Cult of War	Posted - 2007.02.16 10:05:00 - [12] it would make capital ships to powerfull ---------------------------------------------- EVE-Files Don't run my drones will catch u anyway ..
Lena Crews Minmatar Universal Sanitation Corporation	Posted - 2007.02.16 10:12:00 - [13] Originally by: Aramendel I do not think a "cap protecter" is a right solution here due to the high recharge nature of cap. A 50% or even only 30% cap protection would make nos essentially useless since the whole point of nossing is to bring an enemy ship below that. Otherwise all you do is to bring it faster to it's max cap recharge rate where it has the best tank/weapon sustainability. Doesn't cap recharge at the same rate as shields? (I honestly don't know) If so, the argument against a cap protector giving a "resist" to nos is essentially the same as arguing that shields shouldn't get a resist to EMP. We already have other equivalents. Cap battery = shield extender Cap recharger = shield recharger Cap booster = shield booster Cap power relay = shield power relay so where's the equivalent of a shield resistance amplifier? It's a cap protector... and right now it doesn't exist. I really think that's why Nos's seem overpowered... the resistance mod hasn't been added yet.
Alyth Gallente Battle Tech	Posted - 2007.02.16 10:19:00 - [14] Originally by: X99 Z990 All nos really needs is a counter measure. I think its fairly balanced, it uses as much powergrid as a gun its just a slower way of killing a ship i dont feel any more cheated dying to a nos ship than a gun ship. Would be nice to have a counter to it though. Your average 800 capacitor booster charge gives between 53.3 and 66.6 cap per second dependent on the quality of the booster in use. That negates up to 6 Heavy Diminishing Nosferatu. Counter?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.16 10:23:00 - [15] Edited by: Aramendel on 16/02/2007 10:20:19 Ah, I misread your post, I was thinking you meant an immunity past a certain point, like can leech cap till target is a 50% and then nothing more. A resistance module which would make nosses less effective (still leech cap, but not as much) would be another thing, that might work. Although it wouldn't remove much if the nos I-win nature of bigger vs smaller ships but if anything increase that problem since bigger ships usually have more slots and therefore more free fitting space for an anti-nos module. Originally by: Alyth Your average 800 capacitor booster charge gives between 53.3 and 66.6 cap per second dependent on the quality of the booster in use. That negates up to 6 Heavy Diminishing Nosferatu. Counter? Time. Your cap booster will run out of charges eventually. Nos won't.
Alyth Gallente Battle Tech	Posted - 2007.02.16 10:34:00 - [16] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Alyth Your average 800 capacitor booster charge gives between 53.3 and 66.6 cap per second dependent on the quality of the booster in use. That negates up to 6 Heavy Diminishing Nosferatu. Counter? Time. Your cap booster will run out of charges eventually. Nos won't. So? You have negated their nos, you may have Nos of your own and extend your survival time well past that without the injector. Nos ships arent known for their shining levels of DPS. All you have to do is brute force the tank down and tank him long enough to do it.
Mathias Orsen D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.02.16 11:25:00 - [17] Originally by: Lena Crews Doesn't cap recharge at the same rate as shields? (I honestly don't know) If so, the argument against a cap protector giving a "resist" to nos is essentially the same as arguing that shields shouldn't get a resist to EMP. We already have other equivalents. Cap battery = shield extender Cap recharger = shield recharger Cap booster = shield booster Cap power relay = shield power relay so where's the equivalent of a shield resistance amplifier? It's a cap protector... and right now it doesn't exist. I really think that's why Nos's seem overpowered... the resistance mod hasn't been added yet. I agree 100% on this. Full equivalents for cap as it is shields. "Nos vs Cap", "weapon vs shield"... Nosf should get "damage modifiers", skills to increase these, and a Type of "damage Mod". Also add a tracking mod equivalent to the nosf, even though nosf don't use tracking the mod would give it more range. the Equivalents would be nice, but not really needed. Only Problem I see with Nos is that people have to use contermeasures (and there are plenty) to protect thier own cap. I have to use countermeasures to protect my armor against damage dealing weapons.... Don't see anyone complaining that weapons need to be nerfed. Lot's of people use 5+ mods to protect thier shield or armor, yet everyone complains that cap can not be protected fully by a single module. Try using Highs for damage, mids for capacitor tank, lows for armor tank. The Omni tank uses 2x resist modules and often a repper... that's 4x mods for the very basic armor protection. 1x Cap Injector fully protects your capacitor against anything other than a dedicated Nosf ship. Really now, If there was one module that worked better against nosf than a cap injector, wouldn't that almost be like having one single module that for armor that reduced all damage down to the point your armor repper could sustain it? -------------------------------------- ---"What's in your wallet?"--- "There are two kinds of respect, fear and admiration.... I'll take what I can get"
Torashuu Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.16 11:34:00 - [18] Edited by: Torashuu on 16/02/2007 11:31:56 Originally by: Alyth Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Alyth Your average 800 capacitor booster charge gives between 53.3 and 66.6 cap per second dependent on the quality of the booster in use. That negates up to 6 Heavy Diminishing Nosferatu. Counter? Time. Your cap booster will run out of charges eventually. Nos won't. So? You have negated their nos, you may have Nos of your own and extend your survival time well past that without the injector. Nos ships arent known for their shining levels of DPS. All you have to do is brute force the tank down and tank him long enough to do it. I'd say an entire passive setup is a better 'counter' then a capbooster, as with the latter you're basicly feeding the nosboat cap to run his tank. And both such setups would rely on breaking his tank while holding out long enough. The most effective passive ships(caldari missileboats) I know don't exactly tend to shine in DPS, or tackling gear though. So the best bet I can come up would be an AC mealstrom with a passive shieldtank or something. ie. the best counter to Nos is not having any cap, nor needing it.
Bal' Hed Caldari Brotherhood of Wolves Astral Wolves	Posted - 2007.02.16 11:42:00 - [19] they nerfed EW- they should nerf nos too. IMHO, they should either nerf ALL "I WIN" buttons, or put the old ones back. Originally by: MrTripps How about Forum Drones? After you get popped they automatically log onto the forums and write a post demanding a nerf to whatever popped you.
Xendie Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.02.16 11:47:00 - [20] Originally by: X99 Z990 All nos really needs is a counter measure. cap injector. however the capinjectors hold to little, cap boosters are still to big, fittings for cap injectors are still to high, reload on capinjectors could be faster. theres a multitude of balances that can be done without touching Nos itself. as i suggested you can boost the counterpart slightly to balance it up. Originally by: Dianabolic I've never cheated, I've never witnessed those I fly with, cheat and I guarentee you that if I DID witness such a thing I

smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.16 11:47:00 - [21] A nice tatic vs nos ships in an injector ship is to let yourself run out of cap, then only boost what you need, preferably right after his nos cycle. That way your enemy is deprived of his extra cap, which is frequently badly needed to run tank / mwd / whatever. I'm happy with nos but equally i'm not gonna whine if they get changed. The only thing i think i ever whined about was the ew=win button (fun though it was). TomB you still owe me something for pinching the idea :) With a bit of thought you will rarely lose to an equal-sized nos boat, however the problem comes when they can both nos you and outrun you in a bigger ship. Whereupon you are ****ed. sgb
X99 Z990	Posted - 2007.02.16 12:17:00 - [22] I fit cap injectors on just about every one of my ships! I fly amarr! Guess thats my counter!
Cphil Full Metal Mining Co. EntroPraetorian Aegis	Posted - 2007.02.16 12:43:00 - [23] Edited by: Cphil on 16/02/2007 12:40:32 I agree NOS may be to powerfull, but it is a VERRY inportant part of some fittings. A "change" is in order not a major nerf. edit spelling Reguards, Cphil Vice CEO Full Metal Mining Co. EntroPraetorian Aegis
Terianna Eri Amarr Trade Consortium	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:21:00 - [24] I happen to like the "Cap Resistance" idea.... Where you get a reduction in the amount of cap drained / destroyed by nos/neuts. The really nice thing about this is that the base resistance could be affected by the race or even the specific ship model. This means that "Cap Resistance" could be a good way to make amarr suck less, even without changing lasers, and it makes sense that the race that's supposed to be most cap-reliant would have the best inherent defenses against it. And then gallente ships get 2nd best cap resistance, minmatar 3rd, caldari 4th. And I guess you could have "Cap hardeners" too... But where would you put them? My low slots are already full of tanking gear, and 1-2 damage mods so i have more power than a wet paper bag. But I feel like a "cap hardener" would be better for a med slot anyway... which amarr is short on already. Ofc, given that they'd have the highest cap resist, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. This solution seems like it would take a lot of balancing, but it doesn't a) change the stats of nos, b) prevent nos from being used to drive off interceptors (which is really one of its most legitimate uses imho), and c) makes nos a less reliable way to run an mwd, because you can't be sure of how effective your nos will be, just like any other weapon or module you take into pvp (also might help balance the nanoships) Thoughts? __________________________________ Combat > Your Mega Pulse Laser II perfectly strikes Ridge Racer's weak point, wrecking for 599 points of massive damage
Borasao	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:22:00 - [25] Originally by: Pinky Denmark The problem with nos is that the more you have the better results you get in most situations... The problem with turrets/launchers/shield extenders/etc is that the more you have the better results you get in most situations?
Keijo Hobbit Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:55:00 - [26] I think this has been suggested before, but what about nos hardpoints? Totally separate from turret or launcher hardpoints. That way they can limit the amount of nossing power you can put on a ship. Most ships would have 0-1 nos hardpoints. Amarr ships would have 1-2, with specialized nos ships like the Curse/Pilgrim and Bhalgorn (or however you spell it) getting lots. Yes, this would be a nerfing of the nos domi and phoon, but is that bad? As it stands, I wouldn't risk my tier 2 Raven against either of those tier 1 battleships, and that is backwards. Anyway, props to whomever it was who thought of this before me, I just re-thougt of it and I can't think of the downside at the moment (though I'm sure someone will remind me soon).
Sokratesz Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:58:00 - [27] give me XL cap batteries for battleships and all will be fine... Suicide is bad, hmkay? (clickety clickety)
Lena Crews Minmatar Universal Sanitation Corporation	Posted - 2007.02.16 15:10:00 - [28] Of course a passive shield tank and projectile/missle weapons also works to counter a nos ship too. About the only worry is not having the cap to warp out.
Bardi MecAuldnis Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.16 15:22:00 - [29] I have no problem with nos in general, the problem comes from the abuse of nos. A simple thing to counter this is.... Dedicated slots!!! I know a lot of people don't like this, but, it is the same as limiting the number of turrets or launchers on any ship. If you have a designated number of "Utility" hardpoints, this prevents people from putting a full rack of nos on a ship that was not intended to be a nos boat. Ridiculous nanoships lose part of their overpoweredness. Dominix and Myrmidon lose their overpoweredness and downgrade to "awesome". Nos Rokhs and Abaddons disappear, but ships can still use nos to assist, not just render other ships completely useless. Dependent on how it is implemented, it may also change the nature of other ships. For example, if smartbombs become a utility item, then you also say goodbye to the bombships that the carebears hate so much. Also, if energy/shield/armor transfers are restricted to "utility" hardpoints, you bring the logistics ships back into the picture (at the very least in PvE), since you can no longer just have a battleship setup to supertank while buffing everyone else. That's my idear... --- Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!!


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.