Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Manus Stuprare
Dominus Nihil EVE
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:42:00 -
[1]
This is an idea I've been toying with for a while, particularly with recent discussions about nos being overpowered. If it works out, this could be a way of addressing problems with two different modules at once.
1. Smartbombs
Generally speaking I think it's fair to say smartbombs in their current state aren't all that useful. Yes, there are a few niche situations where they come in handy, but on the whole it's unusual to see them as part of a general setup. The short range of even the BS-sized smartbombs greatly limits their usefulness.
2. Nosferatu
If anything nos suffers from the opposite problem - it's become the automatic choice for a spare utility slot, and setups using lots of nos are perhaps overpowered. Existing counters include more nos (if you can't beat em, join em) and cap boosters (difficult to fit on many ships esp. Amarr). Talk of an upcoming nerf is in the air..
I propose that the following effects be added to smartbombs:
If a ship which is being nossed activates a smartbomb, the nossing ship takes damage from that smartbomb regardless of range. Furthermore, the nos module(s) is(are) rendered inoperable for the length of one cycle.
From a (pseudo) scientific point of view this makes perfect sense - energy vampires suck up energy, smartbombs release energy, therefore this gets sucked up along with cap. Of course the tremendous jolt of energy overloads the nos modules themselves, and they need time to recover.
From a gameplay point of view this would have multiple effects:
1. Nos would no longer be a risk-free choice - as things stand, nos is really a win-win module; it harms your opponent while benefiting you. The only drawback it has is that it occupies a slot that might otherwise contain weaponry.
2. Smartbombs get a much-needed boost - finally EVE's forgotten weapon system gets its chance to shine!
3. Fights become more tactical - do you hit him with all your nos at once, or just one to test the water first? Maybe he's bluffing.. Do you use your cap to tank, or zap him with the smartbomb? Would you gain back in a nos-free cycle more cap than it cost to fire the smartbomb?
Obviously there are further details which need to be worked out. One reservation I have is that the nos/drone combo would be doubly affected if more people fitted smartbombs as a result of this change. There's bound to be other stuff I haven't thought of.
Comments?
|
Kalidann
Caldari NCN Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:46:00 -
[2]
you know, this is actually a pretty good idea, if the amount of damage recieved is based on the number of nos on the target, wait til that nosdomi has all of his sucking an pop him good...
|
Bardi MecAuldnis
Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:48:00 -
[3]
Nice, kind of like overloading the nossing ship. I like it. --- Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!! |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:56:00 -
[4]
Simple, elegant, effective. Brilliant idea ! _ MySkills | Module/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Scordite
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:03:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Manus Stuprare There's bound to be other stuff I haven't thought of.
Capital ships, especially the bigger ones, would become even harder to kill.
On a side note, it would probably need to be so that you'd need smartbomb of same or larger size than the nos affecting you to cause the nos to shut down for a cycle, otherwise you get ceptors with micro smartbombs shutting down battleships and so on.
Anyways, interesting idea, but with some issues needing work.
----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead. |
WredStorm
Gallente Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:18:00 -
[6]
I was under the impression that one of the key methods for (theoretically) taking down a Titan was to NOS the hell out of them so that they can't jump away while you pile on the damage? If that is the case, wouldn't such a use for smartbombs effectively remove the one potential method people would otherwise have for preventing the Titan (or motherships I think) from being able to cyno-jump away?
Wred
|
Captain Crimson
Caldari CoreTech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:23:00 -
[7]
If energy neuts aren't affected by this, I'm happy. Great idea!
Originally by: Tuxford I have already expressed my personal opinion on this and it was very positive (something about happy in the pants).
|
Kalidann
Caldari NCN Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:24:00 -
[8]
neuts shouldn't be effected by it, therefore, you can STILL neut the titan to prevent it from getting away, you just can't nos it without risk.
|
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:27:00 -
[9]
1) let it not effect neutralisers 2) let it only effect nos of equal or smaller size
and im up for it, 100%
Suicide is bad, hmkay? (clickety clickety) |
Zaqar
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:21:00 -
[10]
Its a really interesting idea, but but I can't see it being useful for empire wars. I'm picturing noobcorp alts being used to get people ganked by the cops.
There's also the issue of smartbombs refusing to function within 5km of the gate/station.
|
|
Karma Coma
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:48:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Scordite
Originally by: Manus Stuprare There's bound to be other stuff I haven't thought of.
Capital ships, especially the bigger ones, would become even harder to kill.
On a side note, it would probably need to be so that you'd need smartbomb of same or larger size than the nos affecting you to cause the nos to shut down for a cycle, otherwise you get ceptors with micro smartbombs shutting down battleships and so on.
Anyways, interesting idea, but with some issues needing work.
Agreed, something would have to be done about capital ships and also the size effects... maybe make them percentage based? so a micro smart bomb would only have 0.15 percent chance to overwhelm a heavy nos?
I actually really like this idea! I hope the devs read this post.
|
Nykolas
Amarr 7th Space Cavalry Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:55:00 -
[12]
This is really a nice idea and creative ! I hope Dev could check this and see if some tweeking could be done on Sisi and test something like this. Specially the concept of having a counter NOS without adding a new mod. P.S. Sry for typo, aint english Funny |
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:01:00 -
[13]
I like smartbombs, and I dislike Nosferatu...I really really like this idea ----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
madaluap
Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:12:00 -
[14]
I like this idea aswell, lets make smartbombs usefull. _________________________________________________ Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
Tisanta
Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:12:00 -
[15]
THIS IDEA!!! is the solution to all eves problems!!!!
* gives the man a hug* ---
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Oscar Clay
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:40:00 -
[16]
I had an idea a while back for a passive nos countermeasure module that would replace a certain percentage of drained energy with damage... electromagnetic, probably, or maybe thermal since that effects shield and armor tankers roughly equally.
The basic T1 module would have, say, a 30% rate of exchange. So if a vampire domi tries to nos you for 100 points of energy, he ends up getting 70 points of energy and 30 points of EM/Therm damage for his trouble. Nobody's going to blow up their own ship by mistake at that sort of damage level, but it does give you something to be cautious about if you fly a cookie cutter nos boat. For multiple antinos modules, apply an armor-hardener-type staking penalty.
Make it a Hislot module and you give people a new option for that spare utility slot. This would be an especially nice boon to small ships like assfrigs; instead of fitting a small nos that won't do diddly against a battleship, you've got the option to boobytrap your ship against his nosses for a substantial amount of damage.
|
Tisanta
Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Oscar Clay I had an idea a while back for a passive nos countermeasure module that would replace a certain percentage of drained energy with damage... electromagnetic, probably, or maybe thermal since that effects shield and armor tankers roughly equally.
The basic T1 module would have, say, a 30% rate of exchange. So if a vampire domi tries to nos you for 100 points of energy, he ends up getting 70 points of energy and 30 points of EM/Therm damage for his trouble. Nobody's going to blow up their own ship by mistake at that sort of damage level, but it does give you something to be cautious about if you fly a cookie cutter nos boat. For multiple antinos modules, apply an armor-hardener-type staking penalty.
Make it a Hislot module and you give people a new option for that spare utility slot. This would be an especially nice boon to small ships like assfrigs; instead of fitting a small nos that won't do diddly against a battleship, you've got the option to boobytrap your ship against his nosses for a substantial amount of damage.
did you say all that just for a hug?
* hugs the person* ---
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Aversin
Gallente JUDGE DREAD Inc. Forces of Freedom
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 20:01:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Aversin on 16/02/2007 20:00:55 I like this idea, it is made of god and win.
*edit
Perhaps to make this useful in empire when you activate a smartbomb if you are being targeted by a Nosferatu it has this effect instead of the normal area of effect, soft of focusing it into the ship(s).
Another option is to possibly make smartbombs have two modes or methods of activation, one which does the normal AOE effect, and one which has the Nosferatu effect.
Originally by: Razner Cerizo They will never quit. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
|
Christopher Dalran
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 20:03:00 -
[19]
Absolutly LOVE the idea, great job poster.
I agree with the energy neuts, they dont have a benefit to the ship using them and they only disrupt energy in the target ship (they do not suck any back) so they should not be affect by a smartbomb.
Manus I STRONGLY suggest that you copy your first post and make one in the features and ideas section. Also add in the part about not affecting energy neuts before you do that.
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Trade Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 20:15:00 -
[20]
EPIC WIN. And yeah, definitely shouldn't effect neutralizers. This may even make neuts more useful by making them a risk-free option.
In fact... Yeah, this is one of the best fixes I've seen NOS retains its usefulness for chasing off small ships, it makes an underused utility slot module more useful, and it makes nos less reliable.
I'd still hope for a general nos-nerf because I don't feel like fitting smartbombs to all of my ships, but this definitely makes sense. __________________________________ Combat > Your Mega Pulse Laser II perfectly strikes Ridge Racer's weak point, wrecking for 599 points of massive damage |
|
Jet Collins
Dynamic Endeavors
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 20:40:00 -
[21]
I thinks its a good idea Devs should consider. So this should move to the sugguestions forum.
Dynamic Endeavors is now Recuiting.!!
Contact me in game for deatails about the corp. Mostly a PvE corp, with Jump clones avaiale in Empire and 0.0. |
Tayvar Tal
Amarr Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 20:51:00 -
[22]
How about smartbombs cause a negative capacitor recharge rate relative to size of the unit and whether its named or tech 2. Then a squadron of interceptors could drain a big ship but one alone would be ineffective.
|
pigofparadise
Minmatar S-44 Tre Kroner
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 21:00:00 -
[23]
A smartbomb could do 'overloading damage' to emulate large nosses not being shut down by micros. This damage should not be translated into real damage, nor should it stay until the next cycle when overloading a nos (a large SB wont shut down a small nos forever). However a destroyer fitted with multiple SBs would be able to shut down larger noses.
All in all, this idea is made of win.
|
Almarez
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 21:13:00 -
[24]
What happens to a ship like the Curse or Pilgrim then?
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 21:23:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Almarez What happens to a ship like the Curse or Pilgrim then?
That will be main problem, give them immunity for this effect ?
Also as nos domi pilot, i like this idea, if u bring big smartbomb on ur bs, u will *****me and thats ok ^^ -------- New drone ui
|
Manus Stuprare
Dominus Nihil EVE
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 21:55:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Christopher Dalran Manus I STRONGLY suggest that you copy your first post and make one in the features and ideas section. Also add in the part about not affecting energy neuts before you do that.
Good idea, done.
Originally by: Almarez What happens to a ship like the Curse or Pilgrim then?
Yeah this is a concern, they're actually two of my favourite ships so I don't want to see them messed up.
Maybe a skilled Curse pilot could deal with it to some extent - e.g. applying one nos, waiting for smartbomb, applying the rest of the nos. Smartbombs use a lot of cap anyway, so you could perhaps still kill the enemy's cap without getting hit too many times, esp. with neuts. Of course multiple smartbombs would make things trickier.
Pilgrim would be harder hit though, not sure how to get around this..
|
Black Torment
Caldari Black Omega Security
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 22:15:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Black Torment on 16/02/2007 22:12:05 Am I the only one that sees this as a really bad idea?
All you're gonna do is make a smartbomb the new mandatory fit, rendering any nossing ships completely useless. Hell, you could even fit a micro smartbomb and save loads of power.
People having to fit nos to counter nos and other capacitor problems is better than everyone and their mother fitting a single smartbomb and laughing. Even if you talk of staggering nos its no different than fitting nos to counter nos. In fact its worse, since you spend energy to activate the smartbomb.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 22:33:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Sokratesz 1) let it not effect neutralisers 2) let it only effect nos of equal or smaller size
and im up for it, 100%
This would give a huge boost to smaller ships, especially such as curse and pilgrim. I'd say the other way around. Large weapons simply do not hurt small ships as much as big. Besides smaller ships needs to be closer and is therefor allready more affected by the SB being in place at all.
Scenario 1. AF vs BS. Sokratesz: BS is using Large SB's, AF obviously small nos. the AF will need to be within(correct me if im wrong) around 6km's range, with a good nos. To be sure not being out of range, that is basicly 5km, wich just happens to be the range of a SB. The BS fires of one or two of their SB's, the AF will take double damage from them _and_ loose its tank due to the NOS being inactive. With my suggestion, he will still take SB damage, but just once and still have cap. Unless the BS yields both SB's and Noses, wich ofc will cripple the rest of his setup, but also will be penalized by the AF's SB if he has one, even if just slightly.
BS vs BS. Both uses Large everything, nothing is changed. Both takes damage from eachothers NOS and SB.
BS vs curse. Dilemma. BS would 1. Damage the curse for all Nosses it uses. 2. Eliminate the curse greatest offensive power with a single highslot(nothing to a domi really, a med SB is enough!) 3. Out nos the last of the curse possible tank and cap for speed.
All SBs will affect Nos, micro SB's will shut down the opponents nos for the duration of a same sized nos. The cycle times are much longer on a large nos then a small. A small smartbomb will shut down a large nos less then half a cycle. Not stacking the offline duration, but the damage. Note that the cap should always be drained, or the NOS would be rendered useless basicly. Also, I'd suggest upping the duration of SB's a tad, and increasing its damage. Alternativly, make it chance based. A Large SB does have a chance to remove a med nos for what would be 2 cycles, and deal massive damage to it, but usually wont. Also, the SB should deal damage to the NOS for the entire cycle. If a small SB manages to detonate three times within a 12s nos cycle, the nosser will take damage three times.
This would ask BS's to fit either Large SB's to effectivly counter other BS's or meds to effectivly remove medium noses. Large SB's will however still make use against close range frigs/nossing wolfpacks - with their normal function. Cruisers will be able to handle BS's somewhat well, removing a large portion of their nos and dealing good damage while doing so, but still not be immune to NOS.
|
Mortuus
Minmatar Just-fun Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 23:01:00 -
[29]
Eh, I'm for just removing Nos, and giving ships that have a nos bonus a bonus to the cap use of neuts.
ex-Occassus Republica <3 |
Franconis
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 23:20:00 -
[30]
I'm all for a passive nos defense module, but a 30% damage return is laughable. Notice that NOS drains a very small amount of cap in relation to large turret damage. Getting hit with a SB while using NOS should be like getting hit with one or two large turrets, or possibly a torpedo. I suggest that damage returned from NOS suckiing on a ship using SBs should be about 200-300% of the amount of NOS drained, if not more.
That said, I think that this is the best solution to nosferatus and smartbombs that I've heard yet.
|
|
Dragonrazor
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 01:06:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Dragonrazor on 17/02/2007 01:04:11 I hate to say it, but I like the idea of removing nos entirely more myself...
OR, Nos effects should be reduced a lot more.
Consider:
If I nos you for 30 cap with a medium t1 nos, thats actually a difference of 60 cap between you and me after the cycle... You lose 30, I gain 30, thats a total of 60 cap difference in favor of the nosser... Another way of looking at it, is I gain aprox 5 cap per second recharge bonus, while you suffer a 5 cap per second drain.
If you look, Noses have a shorter activation time than neuts, for tech level 1, the nos has exactly half the cycle time... This means in the same time you fire a neut once, the nos fires twice... Meaning an effective 120 Cap difference... at no cost to the nos user. Thats only 30 less than the neut...
Now lets look at neutralizers... These IMHO are the real broken part of the situation.
The neutralizers cost the attacker, and the defender the SAME amount of cap in the cycle... Nobody gains anything from the exchange... (IMHO these are fairly useless by themselves as is... but with nos's being in the game Neuts really are pointless).
In the same time as it would take to fire two medium nos's cycles... I can fire a medium neut one time... While I kill your cap by 30 more points in the same time, I gain nothing for this... as I lose just as much cap as you do...
Sure, some one in a gang could fit a neut setup as thier primary offense... but uhm... yeah... not likely.
As a fix I would up the neutralizers effectiveness by lowering or all but removing the cap activation cost to run the module... Then remove the nos, OR severely drop the nos's suck capability...
IMHO, the effect should be like this:
The neutralizer should be the more efficient module, beccause it has an activation cost, it should be the better module. IT has a pro, and a con. you can't run the neut forever and a tank, or your guns unless they use no cap to begin with... Even if you lower the cap cost per cycle by quite a bit...
The nos should be the least efficient module because it has no drawbacks...
Why IMHO is it ok for the neutralizer to replace the nos as the cap drain/neut module?
Simple, the neutralizer, if it was more efficient, would still drain the attackers cap (even if less), and thus it would make it more balanced because the attacker couldn't keep it up forever... This will encourage people to limit neutralizers to something thier own cap can manage...
It also doesn't require huge alterations to anything except a few numbers for a couple of modules... (IE you can leave nosses in if you nerf them a tad).
those ships with nos bonuses, could be special cases where thier bonus allows them to use the nos on a par with how it's used now...
So I say, slightly nerf noses, and Buff neutralizers...
Example buff for neut: Medium Neut TI: Cycle 12 seconds. Cap neut: 150 Activation cost: 100
Example nerf for nos: Medium nos TI: Cycle time 6 seconds. Cap drain 20.
Those examples are just that... not intended final numbers... Anyway what do you all think? ********************************************* "Stars Die... Empires fall... We are dust..." ********************************************* |
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 01:23:00 -
[32]
Did u include energy emission skill into your calculation ? -------- New drone ui
|
Dragonrazor
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 01:38:00 -
[33]
No I didn't think about skills, I was just looking at base costs... But even with emissions skills right now, it's not worth it to use neuts... or else people might be doing it... But if they were, we wouldn't have people whining about nos, they would be whining about neuts...
The key is to nerf nosses a bit, and buff neuts a bit so that player preference is for the module that costs something to activate, and the nosses become the specialized piece of equipment... Meant especialy for those ships that have the bonuses for them. the same way drones are treated, and missiles, and shields, and armor, and so on.
A word on big vs small:
One thing that annoys me is that in EVE, ship class should have value at all sizes.
Before noses got to be flavor of the month, Battleships had to have backup, or drones, or other variable countermeasures to successfuly deal with a good frigate/group of smaller ships.
Now, the easiest way is just fit a nos or 6...
Now I know all about timing your frigates nos cycles to retain enough power to stay alive, but this isn't a real solution, it's a bandaid fix... Similar to when the Caldari could fit cruise missiles on frigates, the only real counter was to either use the same ships/fighting style, or to have ALL the luck and not get webbed down and manage to not get shot at till your target was almost dead. Taranis Vs Crow comes to mind as a strange balance... Taranis could indeed win against a crow with cruise missiles, but it came down to split second timing, and more than a little luck. Losing to crows didn't bother me, what bothered me was how futile it was for any other ship other than the crow... to fight a crow... That is imbalance IMHO by definition.
So if we use the Neutralizer suggestion I just made above, and then tweak both nos (if they stay in the game, which I am sure they would), and Neutralizers to have optimal, falloff, tracking and sig resolution or some combination of those factors, we could quite easily balance these modules to smaller ships as well...
Smaller ships should also benefit from this by way of greater effect when using these modules on larger ships.
for example, a small nos currently gets 8 cap per 3 seconds (TI base). A large ship will not be likely to notice this drain even with a full high slot setup of small nosses...
While using a neut on a small frig is suicide ATM(40 cap neutralized, 40 cap activation, 6 second cycle... Not many other small modules have such silly costs to operate... Remember thats a cost of 6.6+ cap per second to the frig using the neut, I don't know many frigs that can support such a drain for more than a few seconds... And since they gain nothing for this in return, it's a LOSE LOSE situation.
So I propose: When nossing or neuting a larger class ship, you gain some bonus to nossing and neuting... Not a very giant one... just sauce for the goose... When a frig uses these modules on a cuirser, Instead of sucking 8 cap per cycle for nos... make it suck 10... Instead of costing 40 cap to run the neut, make it cost 26, and neutralize 50...
It's not enough to make a HUGE difference, but goes at least part way to making it so small ships arn't smoked, but still not an I win button.
Big ships should still drain and neutralize more vs the smaller ships, but it should be something a smaller ship can hope to deal with... Right now. 2-3 BS nos or, BS nos cycles, is all it takes, or one BS neut to completely power down a frigate...
thats my 2 ISK. ********************************************* "Stars Die... Empires fall... We are dust..." ********************************************* |
NoNah
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 09:40:00 -
[34]
Yes, quite true, one BS nos is enough to handicap a frigate. And a large blaster will seriously hurt the frigate, this is unfair. Small blasters should do as much relative damage to the BS as the large does to the frig.
Seriously though, frigs are small and cheap. BS's are not, in comparisson. You can spend a 100 frigs on a single BS, and still be the victor if everything dies. With that being said, pilots are the largest resource of a ship.
As for your claims of neuts being equal - Linkage .
One important part of it however, is the fact that NOS requires no cap to be used, neuts does. It would probably be more balanced if there was a 1.5:1 relation. Nosing a foe, would steal 1 and cost 1.25 or remove 1.5 and cost 1. Before skills, obviously.(And yes, this would require some rebalancing of nosships). Or possibly have it steal a percentage of the cap. If a large NOS steals 5% of the opponents available cap for a cost of say 150? The NOS will still criple your opponent, and aid yourself, though you wont be able to make a lockdown, purely with NOS. Accompanied by some neuts(wich still has a static number), this would however be an easy task.
If your opponent are Neuting you, you cant use your NOS as you wont have the 120 cap needed. You can use boosters to get your cap back up, and indeed steal some, but if the opponent is under 2400 cap(Half) you will both loose cap of it. This would generally do frigates immune to large nos. This would still render BS's somewhat resistant to small NOS(Except for hundreds of them). This would buff neuts, you wont be able to defend yourself from frigates, by fitting NOS, neuts will do what nos did - but slightly damage the BS aswell. With proper balancing, NOS will still be an aid when battling equally sized ships. Might be easier to balance if the NOS is a tad stronger, and the SB idea is implented aswell. 12% per nos, with stacking penalty. Damage returned if SB is activated during duration of the NOS.
|
Wild Rho
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 10:47:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Wild Rho on 17/02/2007 10:43:20 OP: Very nice idea. Not much else I can say.
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it.
|
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 11:13:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Raem Civrie on 17/02/2007 11:10:38 I like it.
Dunno how the ideal implementation would be, but I always did see smartbombs as inherent "counter" weapons. Used to be that you could use them to counter missiles, but those days are gone.
Smartbombs need some love, and it should come in the form of increased utility, like proposed here, rather than some sort of damage or range bonus. ----
All you do is bark. You never meow. |
Elvarien
Caldari Legion of Corpses Federation Of united Corps
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 12:06:00 -
[37]
This is a great solution to solve 2 problems I dig this ****. /signed
>--- Its great being caldari aint it. |
Mitchman
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 12:26:00 -
[38]
Great idea, but remember that smartbombs can't be used in empire so maybe a new module "energy burst" or something is needed.
New video: All Aboard The Pain Train
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 12:53:00 -
[39]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 17/02/2007 12:52:20 Great idea!
Neuts to nail the super capitals instead! Still a slight buff to super capitals though.
Perhaps neuts could be more effective against super capitals to compensate, or something...
Originally by: Mitchman Great idea, but remember that smartbombs can't be used in empire so maybe a new module "energy burst" or something is needed.
He makes a good point.
edit: Take note Tuxford!
|
Phish1
Liberty Forces Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 13:31:00 -
[40]
dont fight in an empire war and use smartbombs then!
|
|
Cleric JohnPreston
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 14:49:00 -
[41]
this idea would make drones usless as they would get popped.. cos everyone would be carrying smartbombs then..
|
Katamarino
Blazing Angels Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 14:56:00 -
[42]
It would take AGES to pop a decently skilled up set of drones with a single moderately sized smartbomb...
|
Assassa
Minmatar Fuels Of Armageddon
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 15:15:00 -
[43]
As much as i like the idea and your thinking i think Smart Bombs are under ratted. True, they not used a lot because they at most of the time useless. But thats where they get good: I met once a typhoon that 2 of us were tackling, while support was coming. He detonated a large SB. 1 of us inta popped, the other trust me didn't stay around too long. That did totally saved his ship. Why because we assume no one fits SB, sometime, just in rare occasions we are proven wrong, and it hurts.
Still, i like your idea. But amount of damages shouldn't be "too" high since then no one would use NOS and everyone would use SB
|
Inspiration
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 18:18:00 -
[44]
Very interesting Idea, certainly viable as resulting balancing issues can be resolved without changing all that much!
I am all for it!
|
Cavy Dan
Gallente Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 19:09:00 -
[45]
It will be called: The Stuprare-maneuver.
"Guy just went Stuprare on me!" ----------------------------------------------- My Band's new Demo: Linkage to Site |
Thor Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 20:05:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Almarez What happens to a ship like the Curse or Pilgrim then?
Risk? _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender
Got Corp? |
Inspiration
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 20:22:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Thor Xian
Originally by: Almarez What happens to a ship like the Curse or Pilgrim then?
Risk?
Being specialised NOS ships, they can simply not be affected in the way normal ships are. Meaning no feedback damage, or very much reduced based on skill!
|
Benco97
Gallente Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 20:42:00 -
[48]
Nice, I like it. Make it so CCP.
"MY GOD KEEP THIS AWAY FROM BENCO97!!!!!" - Constantine Arcanum |
Thor Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 20:43:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Inspiration
Originally by: Thor Xian
Originally by: Almarez What happens to a ship like the Curse or Pilgrim then?
Risk?
Being specialised NOS ships, they can simply not be affected in the way normal ships are. Meaning no feedback damage, or very much reduced based on skill!
That's like saying Specialized Drone ships should be immune to having their drones smartbombed. Or specialized gunships immune to tracking disruptors...or specialized speed ships immune to webbers. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender
Got Corp? |
Phish1
Liberty Forces Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 20:50:00 -
[50]
real good use for my smartbomb + nano phoon at last =D
|
|
Inspiration
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 20:52:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Inspiration on 17/02/2007 20:49:57
Originally by: Thor Xian
Originally by: Inspiration
Originally by: Thor Xian
Originally by: Almarez What happens to a ship like the Curse or Pilgrim then?
Risk?
Being specialised NOS ships, they can simply not be affected in the way normal ships are. Meaning no feedback damage, or very much reduced based on skill!
That's like saying Specialized Drone ships should be immune to having their drones smartbombed. Or specialized gunships immune to tracking disruptors...or specialized speed ships immune to webbers.
I see what you mean, but you take my statement it to the extreme. I see feedback surge as a secondary effect that can be compensated for by specialised ships.
The regular smartbomb damage still applies ofcourse. And a dominix ain't that specialised, it got other weapon bonuses too! Not to mention the option for sentry drones to attack ships from range.
So your argument I doesn't realy apply to the extend you are strethcing it!
|
Doomed Predator
The Phoenix Rising Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 21:04:00 -
[52]
Must say,a briliant idea,and logical too.CCP give this guy a billion isk
|
Thor Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 22:44:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Inspiration Edited by: Inspiration on 17/02/2007 20:49:57
Originally by: Thor Xian
Originally by: Inspiration
Originally by: Thor Xian
Originally by: Almarez What happens to a ship like the Curse or Pilgrim then?
Risk?
Being specialised NOS ships, they can simply not be affected in the way normal ships are. Meaning no feedback damage, or very much reduced based on skill!
That's like saying Specialized Drone ships should be immune to having their drones smartbombed. Or specialized gunships immune to tracking disruptors...or specialized speed ships immune to webbers.
I see what you mean, but you take my statement it to the extreme. I see feedback surge as a secondary effect that can be compensated for by specialised ships.
The regular smartbomb damage still applies ofcourse. And a dominix ain't that specialised, it got other weapon bonuses too! Not to mention the option for sentry drones to attack ships from range.
So your argument I doesn't realy apply to the extend you are strethcing it!
True, I'm just stemming off the idea that nos ships should be immune to the drawbacks before it gets deep rooted. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender
Got Corp? |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 23:12:00 -
[54]
Smartbombs from Ascendancy please.(people who have played will know the joy these bring to the shooter).
|
Mr Peanut
STK Scientific INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 23:48:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Sokratesz 1) let it not effect neutralisers 2) let it only effect nos of equal or smaller size
and im up for it, 100%
UBER QFT. Smartbombs + carriers and motherships = pwnage. Uber nos is commonly used to kill these ships effectively. Thus, you are going to make carriers and motherships very, very hard to kill.
|
Qe'Rasha
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 02:06:00 -
[56]
i like this. but i dont like that it will effect the curse and the pilgrim. |
Halafian
The Graduates
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 02:49:00 -
[57]
Could use a tweak or two, but outstanding idea.
Someone else complained that this would kill nos and become a new standard fit. It might at first, but as nos's recede and then smartbombs recede (why fit them with fewer nos's...?), nos's would re-emerge, and then smartbombs, etc. Eventually, a steady-state frequency would emerge, where the probabilities of fit would even out. That actually would be desirable, as opposed to now, where it's just all nos all the time.
Could also amplify the smartbomb skill set, and make it more of an Amarr property, finally give them a ship bonus worth having.
|
Mortuus
Minmatar Just-fun Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 02:57:00 -
[58]
Other idea is just add a mod that tanks against nos, just cuts effectiveness.
I like this idea though, only problem is it doesn't stop Nos BS from WTFPWNing anything smaller without a fight.
ex-Occassus Republica <3 |
Brutaan Wa
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 06:37:00 -
[59]
I really draw interest from this idea because it creates a clever and otherwise hidden reversal for nosses, which means, like most specialist systems in Eve, you have to put effort into knowing the time to use them and the time to not.
|
Thor Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 09:24:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Mr Peanut
Originally by: Sokratesz 1) let it not effect neutralisers 2) let it only effect nos of equal or smaller size
and im up for it, 100%
UBER QFT. Smartbombs + carriers and motherships = pwnage. Uber nos is commonly used to kill these ships effectively. Thus, you are going to make carriers and motherships very, very hard to kill.
If people used Neuts, they might kill more Motherships. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender
Got Corp? |
|
Tenaka Kahn
Minmatar Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 09:33:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Tenaka Kahn on 18/02/2007 09:30:04 It is a far interesting idea and I'd like to try it on test server. The only arguments I can possibly think of is that Nos is high on fitting req's but ultimately as far as game is concerened, bringing a non-used module to counteract a overly used module is a good thing. Only other problem would be, what happens to the guys who only use 1 nos? I mean, fair enough Nos domi's and other pure nos boats are a pain, but the people who throw them on to sustain things such as a point or to keep the ole hardners active and then gonna be penalized for doing so. :/
[drunken spelling edited]
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 11:13:00 -
[62]
If you are using a small nos to keep a point on... smart bombs explodign around you would be ahell of a problem even without this change. So no change there.
By far one of the best solutions proposed.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
Manus Stuprare
Dominus Nihil EVE
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 15:24:00 -
[63]
Bit of a summary and some suggestions.
So far two main issues have been raised:
1. Capital ships would become harder to take down, since nos is one of the most potent ways of disabling them.
Having no experience dealing with capital ships, I'm really not qualified to comment on that issue - but I'm going to anyway :) I think it's likely people will simply adapt and use neutralizers instead of nos. Perhaps the cap requirements for neuts could be dropped a bit to balance things out.
2. Ships with a nos bonus (Pilgrim, Curse, Blood Raider ships) will be greatly nerfed if they can't rely on nos.
'New improved smartbombs' would have two effects - damage to the ship, and disabling nos modules. I believe the key to solving the problem is simply to relate both of these to nos drain amount:
- The proportion of damage taken from a smartbomb depends on the cap drain per second of the nos module.
So a ship using a best named/tech II large nos (drain per second = 10) would take 100% damage. A ship using a bog standard, tech 1 small nos (drain per second = 2.67) would take 26.7% damage. No ship should ever take more than 100% damage, even if it uses multiple nos.
To put this in perspective, a large tech II smartbomb does 350 damage every 10 seconds. 35 dps should not seriously trouble most battleships :)
- Whether or not a nos module is disabled depends on damage vs cap drain per second of that nos module.
I don't have all the figures here as this would need testing to find the right balance. The important part is this: a nos module with drain per second > 10 should not be disabled by a single large smartbomb.
With Recon skill at level 5, any named medium nos on Pilgrim or Curse has a drain per second > 10.
A ship with more than one large smartbomb could still disable them - but that would be a ship specifically set up to counter nos ships. Paper, scissors, stone :)
Comments?
|
Minnow maught
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 18:25:00 -
[64]
The idea is great and i wish that the following wasn't a real concern but:
Area of effect weapons put more load on the server than normal targeted weapons - making them more popular = they get used more = more lag.
Its a pity because the suggestion makes so much sense on all levels.
|
Lithalnas
Amarr Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 19:05:00 -
[65]
/vote for sticky ------------- Midshipman Lithalnas - Logistics Division - Hadean Drive Yards
|
WilliamPD
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 19:09:00 -
[66]
Actualy this sounds like a pretty good idea.
|
Tabithia
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 21:28:00 -
[67]
love it.
Btw, concerning the curse and the pilgrim. Give em a bonus that makes it so that neuts have less drawback for them. Problem solved.
|
Caios
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 21:32:00 -
[68]
And drone users are just ******, I take it? Even if it does take a smarty a while to take down a drone, when everyone uses them, or maybe start fitting multiples, combined with the fact that one burst is chipping away at an entire flight at a time, doesn't make for a pretty picture.
And so now drone ships are supposed to carry smartbombs that nuke their own drones just to keep up with the competition?
If the problem is nos, fix nos. If smartbombs are underused, make them better at their original purpose. Start bringing other modules into it and you're fixing the sink by tearing out the wall. The idea of a module to counter nos is interesting. It just shouldn't be tacked onto smartbombs.
|
alfabit soup
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 21:42:00 -
[69]
I think that this is a great idea, despite all of the tiny issues other people have pointed out. People will adapt and use neuts to kill cap ships. I really like the idea of smartbombs being more useful and nos getting toned down a bit.
|
Kulmid
Bringers of Misfortune
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 22:03:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Kulmid on 19/02/2007 22:01:28 /signed
I think is one of the best ideas we have seen for countering nos yet
Also vote for a sticky
|
|
fire 59
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 22:05:00 -
[71]
Really nice idea, would prob need fine tuning but total thumb's up from me
Win or lose, it's the fight's that matter |
Wu Ming
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 22:57:00 -
[72]
awesome idea, big thumbs up
|
DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 17:29:00 -
[73]
Simple, elegant, effective. Brilliant idea !
----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery |
Larkonis Trassler
g guild
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 12:50:00 -
[74]
This is an excellent idea and solves a lot of problems without upseting game dynamics too drastically. ------------ Crow Squad... An Audio and Visual Joygasm by Larkonis Trassler |
Static Shift
Neogen Industries Serenity Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 17:49:00 -
[75]
I'll tip my hat to this - Good idea Manus.
Makes scientific sense, and isn't that hard to implement with the way they currently have the game setup. Now the question is: Will the gods that be consider it?
|
Lickity Split
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 18:09:00 -
[76]
I like this idea alot, though it should effect nosf specific ships like the curse, pilgrim, blaagorn, and so on.
|
Neo Providence
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 19:54:00 -
[77]
plz forgive me for saying this, but... I hate that idea. as a typhoon pilot, i rely on nos for my tank alot. And YOur sciencce is right, with the smartbomb releasing energy, and nos sucks it up. but think about what this would mean, this mean that the nos would become useless, and the smartbomb would no longer be a short ranged weapon. This also would mean that in order for a pilot to overcome nos, you only have to equipped a small smartbomb, regartless of what type of ship u r in(ex: battleship frigate).This is a bad idea, and teh smart bomb is already a great weapon at destroying drones, and tacklers. What they should do instead of making smartbomb the conter to nos is to just make a specific ship with smartbomb bonus. this way, it won't be such a forgotten weapon.
|
Neo Providence
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 19:59:00 -
[78]
oooo, and one more thing. Would the smartbomb idea your talking about affects only the ship getting nos. would the smartbomb work for your teammate as well? I mean to counter a nosing ship who is nosing your ally. I mean if it does, then it would be a bad thing as well as a good thing if your in a gang or a large fleet. u know, getting damage so u get free of nosing. well, enought rambling for me. bye
|
Galen Silas
Gallente Mean Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:00:00 -
[79]
Good idea, but Smartbombs do have a use. There excellent ways to pop pods and there great for an anti-drone weapon.
Nos is overpowered though, and i do fly a nossing myrmidon. Also this idea would really hurt ships like the Bhaalgorn, Pilgrim, Curse, Ashimmu.... you know the rest of those nos ships. There also needs to be moore skills and implants out that benefit smartbombs, and maybe certain ships bonus's changed to benefit them. I would love to have a bonus to smartbombs on the some of my gallente ships.
|
kill0rbunny
Caldari Chimera Intelligence Agency
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:24:00 -
[80]
Nice idea.
But what about empire wars where you get concordokkend when something apart from the enemy is damaged. -
I got a portrait now, wheeeee! \o/
|
|
Ichabod Crane
LFC Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:16:00 -
[81]
Originally by: kill0rbunny Nice idea.
But what about empire wars where you get concordokkend when something apart from the enemy is damaged.
Setting off a smartbomb while nossed == no area of effect damage. Since the principle of this is that the nos absorbs the smartbomb discharge it would stand to reason. -
|
Chi Prime
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:07:00 -
[82]
Nice simple solution, I like it! -
Ares, Raptor and Malediction needs fixing |
Manus Stuprare
Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:31:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Ichabod Crane
Originally by: kill0rbunny Nice idea.
But what about empire wars where you get concordokkend when something apart from the enemy is damaged.
Setting off a smartbomb while nossed == no area of effect damage. Since the principle of this is that the nos absorbs the smartbomb discharge it would stand to reason.
Yeah I like this idea too, it would also ease some of the worries about drones getting killed off too easily.
-------------- Poisoning the Chalice: Smartbombs as a Counter to Nos. |
Amelia Reign
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 19:58:00 -
[84]
Excellent idea! Where do i sign?
|
Sorja
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 20:02:00 -
[85]
Nice idea! ____________________ A gentleman is someone who can play the bagpipe, but who does not. |
Audeamus
Fatal's Marauders Fatal Persuasion
|
Posted - 2007.02.23 12:16:00 -
[86]
Great idea.
/signed
|
aquontium
Gallente Fourth Circle
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 08:40:00 -
[87]
i like the idea, but lets not nerf drones *even more*
|
Mudkest
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 09:12:00 -
[88]
great idear, really hope this makes it in game! -Though I fly through the Valley of Death... I shall fear no evil. For I am at 80,000 feet and climbing. ~At the entrance to the old SR-71 operating base Kadena, Okinawa |
Mudkest
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 09:14:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Tenaka Kahn Edited by: Tenaka Kahn on 18/02/2007 09:30:04 It is a far interesting idea and I'd like to try it on test server. The only arguments I can possibly think of is that Nos is high on fitting req's but ultimately as far as game is concerened, bringing a non-used module to counteract a overly used module is a good thing. Only other problem would be, what happens to the guys who only use 1 nos? I mean, fair enough Nos domi's and other pure nos boats are a pain, but the people who throw them on to sustain things such as a point or to keep the ole hardners active and then gonna be penalized for doing so. :/
[drunken spelling edited]
maybe make it 1 nos 25% chance of shutting down, 2 nos 50% of both shutting doen, 3 with 75% or something? -Though I fly through the Valley of Death... I shall fear no evil. For I am at 80,000 feet and climbing. ~At the entrance to the old SR-71 operating base Kadena, Okinawa |
Roger Shevchenko
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 11:52:00 -
[90]
You can have ships using only beams, only rails or only missiles. Show me ONE ship that only uses only drones? Domi? Vexor? Not even thouse ship are capable of fighting with drones only.
If what you sugest was ever to happen, smart bomb fitting would become a knee jerk reaction.
Not only do you destroy drones of a drone ship potentialy reducing DPS in the long run, you disable the weapon systems that allowes thouse ships stay alive long enough for drones to work.
Having no tank AND still under 500 DPS is ballance? WTF is wrong with you?
|
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 17:42:00 -
[91]
I think this would go well with my idea to make the cap given by cap batteries, immune to NOS.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Illyria Ambri
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 18:20:00 -
[92]
Rather then putting the NOS down for a cycle.. either make the smartbomb force the NOS offline (thus requiring the cap to put it back online) or a cumulative effect so many small frigates or interceptors can take down a battleship if they are all smartbombing at once.
Question being.. if you are getting NOS'd by 2 targets.. is the smartbomb omni directional for whichever NOSer you are targeting?
Will the smartbomb overload effect work if you are next to a NOS ship thats activly draining another.. if you smartbomb will that work against the NOS?
Basicly will smartbombs be dumb weapons in they effect ALL active NOS in their AOE or only NOS's that you are getting targeted by?
------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Happiness is a warm railgun, Love is a stocked missle launcher. Sexual extacy is watching that NME Battleship go boom.
"Will i |
Taerenius
Caldari Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 18:42:00 -
[93]
This is the first truly good idea I've read since people started talking about the NOS problem and counters. I love it, as you're not completely negating the use of NOS as many people still wont want to use smartbombs, and you're giving smartbombs enough added utility to boost their effectiveness to a level that people will truly want them on their ship, because they'll still retain their former use as well.
I didn't read any of the replies to the OP but the idea is definitely something CCP should look into.
|
John Quicksilver
Caldari The Caldari Confederation
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 18:50:00 -
[94]
This would effectivly make the curse and pilgrims useless (read: dead).
It's a good idea in theory but this issue would need to be adressed first. ___________________________
Jack O'Neill - so what now? Bra'tac - Now, we die. Jack O'Neill - Well thats a bad plan.
|
Vily
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 19:18:00 -
[95]
BY FAR the best idea ever relating to NOS in (years?)
by NOS sucking up the smartbomb's you allow it to be used in empire. (CAREFULLY!)
only issue is smartbombing on top of gates. THAT NEEDS to be resolved. -
|
Ihar Enda
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 19:38:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Ihar Enda on 01/03/2007 19:35:48
/signed
Curse and pilgrim would require a new (additional) bonus, like 10-15% per level to feedback damage resistance or something.
|
Mudkest
|
Posted - 2007.03.04 09:06:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri Rather then putting the NOS down for a cycle.. either make the smartbomb force the NOS offline (thus requiring the cap to put it back online) or a cumulative effect so many small frigates or interceptors can take down a battleship if they are all smartbombing at once.
Question being.. if you are getting NOS'd by 2 targets.. is the smartbomb omni directional for whichever NOSer you are targeting?
Will the smartbomb overload effect work if you are next to a NOS ship thats activly draining another.. if you smartbomb will that work against the NOS?
Basicly will smartbombs be dumb weapons in they effect ALL active NOS in their AOE or only NOS's that you are getting targeted by?
guess it'll only work on nos that are active on you(so you can kill a bs by fitting 100 friggies with sb and fly near a nossing bs, well maybe if you fly close enough to damage the bs with sb, but then the friggies will probably kill each other before the bs is dead)
and yes, those shiney copper-plated recon ships would need some form of protection for it(maybe cause it's designed for nos it has a bunch of electronics guarding the nos, if the incomming energy exceeds the expected energy, SB feedback, the excess energy is routed to a whole bunch of lights in the hull making it glow up everytime it sucks SB energy)
-Duct tape might hold the univurse together, but it's coffee that makes it tick |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.04 13:34:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Ihar Enda Edited by: Ihar Enda on 01/03/2007 19:35:48
/signed
Curse and pilgrim would require a new (additional) bonus, like 10-15% per level to feedback damage resistance or something.
The problem is not exactly this really. It's more that the only dps from these ships are their drones. And med & light drones die really *really* fast to smartbombs and these ships do not have the dronebay to be able to launche multiple waves.
You would have to give smartbombs an explosion velocity to limit their damage against low sig targets, otherwise such a change would kick nos-droneships form being too strong right into being too weak.
|
Uuve Savisaalo
Umbra Congregatio
|
Posted - 2007.03.04 17:50:00 -
[99]
this needs to be sent to tuxford posthaste. one of the best, most imaginative ideas this forum has seen in dealing with one of the game's most controversial issues.
first off, let us begin by saying that nosferatu and neutralisers add a lot of variety to the game and shouldn't be outright 'nerfed' - what is missing are interesting counters to them that wouldn't render them useless whilst providing a fairly good deterrant and making a nos user think twice.
smartbomb should deal remote damage to any ship(s) using nosferatu on its user if the smartbomb's cycle is active at the time nos hit, dealing damage based upon smartbomb type and nosferatu type/x number used. Number of smartbombs used does not matter, since only the last active counts. Perfect counter to 'nosboats' without nerfing the module, and adding some more utility value to the smartbomb in general.
hear hear.
|
Tabithia
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 08:31:00 -
[100]
by the way, not everybody is going to fit a smartbomb if this change would be brought in. Maybe at first, but then the nos usering would go down, followed by the smartbomb using. Eventually it would all straighten out.
Kinda like tha market ;)
|
|
Duun Suhuy
Incognito Inc
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 18:04:00 -
[101]
Hmm... If the NOS could suck up the SB damage it could also prompt the usage of a NOS taker ship that flies with small ships. A super tanked Domi with 2 ishkur support, tackle a SmartBomb 'o Poc. The Domi tanks the SBs while the smaller ships + drones take the ship out. Highly specialized case, but would still be awesome to see in action. ----- Duun Suhuy Incognito Inc |
Zachary Taylor
Caldari Neon Zephyr
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 19:17:00 -
[102]
Another idea if we follow the OP's logic, the damage gets applied to hull, not armor or shield. Think about it...the NOS beam in effect is the path the SB's damage follows. The NOS is tied directly to the guts of the ship using it.
Hull tanking anyone?
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 19:21:00 -
[103]
Edited by: n0thing on 07/03/2007 19:20:29 To the op, one of greatest ideas imo. No need for all that nos-tracking stuff, while smartbomb can first of all have a scientific explanation that actually makes sense(how can an energy vampire have tracking?), and it brings up a non-used module, so with one change theres 2 goals that are being accomplished. Just need to make sure that damage doesnt go further then the range and only nossing ship gets hit while anything near it is not, like your own drones or his drones.
edit: Highly not agree about hull, that would create a huge i-win setup by fitting say 5 faction smartbombs, make sure target is nossing and inside web range(15km web even?), then hit its hull with 5 smartbombs, about few secs and ship is gone. would perform even worse then any kind of nano-setup currently in existence, more of that will auto-kill anything smaller then BS, means any BC/Cruiser/Frig that would use nos just to get his own cap going will get insta-popped by smartbomb BS with 2000+ hull impact. --- tnx. |
Zachary Taylor
Caldari Neon Zephyr
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 19:59:00 -
[104]
Not if you think about it. Even if you have a mega-BS-SBonly-wtfpwn sporting 8 large SB's, you cannot trip them all at precisely the same exact instant, the first one is the only one that damages the NOS'ing ship, after that call it fried/overloaded circuits, safeties built into the NOS, etc...the link is shutdown temporarily. Therefore the other 7 SB's have normal effect rather then the anti-NOS damage path effect. Now if the NOS'ing ship had three NOS's applied, yes it will take 3 sets of damage from that first SB effect, but again the other 7 do standard SB effects.
The system could also take into account - if desired - a sort of divisor system. A med NOS VS LG SB takes half damage, a small NOS Vs a Lg SB takes quarter damage. Or 80%/50% respectively - whatever is balanced. In a way it makes sense, despite the killer power of the LG SB, the small path/circuitry just cannot shunt that much energy and therefore takes less damage. And we could factor in an active DC module giving hull some resists.
It's just an idea and yes would need some balancing but in a way it makes sense considering how the damage is being done and to what specific piece of gear.
|
Zirth
Caldari The Black Fleet Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 20:34:00 -
[105]
So I fit one smartbomb on my ship instead of the nos most people use instead in their free hi-slots (think 6 high slots, 5 turret slots.) so that when someone fires 6 nos at me in a nos-boat I simply fire it, hurting him at whatever range I'm at, and deactivating all his nos at the same time for an entire cycle, with a duration equal to the cycle of my smartbomb, thus permanently rendering his entire high-slot fitting useless, while continuing hurting him at whatever range?
Sweet.
|
Kamiz
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 21:40:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Kamiz on 07/03/2007 21:39:33 very good idea, I hope CCP reads this
and about the pilgrim and curse, just make them immune to this
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 22:27:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Kamiz Edited by: Kamiz on 07/03/2007 21:39:33 very good idea, I hope CCP reads this
and about the pilgrim and curse, just make them immune to this
why? then make immune Dominix as well, bonuses never should immune ships from counters to them. EW ships also can be brought down by other ECCM, they are not immune to ECCM of other ships. --- tnx. |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 22:40:00 -
[108]
Edited by: J''Mkarr Soban on 07/03/2007 22:44:54 1) If nossed, share the damage between the nosses.
2) Always have a chance to knock a nos out for a cycle, 100% chance for one nos, 50% chance on each for two nosses, 33.3% chance on each for three nosses, etc.
2a) Modify this to include the difference in size between SBs and Nosses.
SB v. Nos Micro v. Small, 50% Micro v. Medium, 25% Micro v. Heavy, 12.5%
Small v. Small, 100% Small v. Medium, 50% Small v. Heavy, 25%
Medium v. Small, 200% Medium v. Medium, 100% Medium v. Heavy, 50%
Large v. Small, 400% Large v. Medium, 200% Large v. Heavy, 100%
4) If being nossed, the SB is automatically sucked up by the nosses. All nosses currently on that ship.
So 1 Large SB against 3 Small Nosses gives 250 / 3 = 83.3 damage via each nos, with a 33.3% * 400% = 133.2% chance against each to knock it out for a cycle.
Or 1 Medium SB against 2 Medium Nosses gives 100 / 2 = 50 damage via each nos, with a 50% * 100% = 50% chance against each to knock it out for a cycle.
Or 1 Small SB against 1 Heavy Nos gives 50 / 1 = 50 damage via each nos, with a 100% * 25% = 25% chance against each to knock it out for a cycle.
Keeps it fairly balanced, useful, simple, and realistic. So you can till have swarms of ceptors with small nosses on a BS. And a BS can nos a ceptor but that ceptor still has a chance (no matter how small) of knocking it back.
More importantly, the Curse can still easily be used, because if it's got 5 medium nos against 1 large sb, it still only takes one lot of the sb damage (you can't magic energy out of nowhere to cause damage :-D). If you have 2 Curses with 5 each, then that's 10 Medium nosses on a large sb, which has only a very small chance to knock any one of them out. Perhaps change a bonus so it takes 5% less damage per level of the SB damage? -J --------------------------------- "He who 'hah hahs' last, 'hah hahs' best." - Nelson
Balanced != Nerfed |
Merin Ryskin
FinFleet Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 23:00:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 07/03/2007 22:58:51
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Kamiz Edited by: Kamiz on 07/03/2007 21:39:33 very good idea, I hope CCP reads this
and about the pilgrim and curse, just make them immune to this
why? then make immune Dominix as well, bonuses never should immune ships from counters to them. EW ships also can be brought down by other ECCM, they are not immune to ECCM of other ships.
An ECM ship doesn't automatically take damage if it fails a jam cycle, the opponent still has to take advantage of the vulnerability and do it the hard way.
And this is a horrible idea. Not only is it a serious nerf to the Pilgrim/Curse/Faction ships which are designed to be pure nos-boats, but it just makes nos powerful but randomly suicidal. Nos is still plenty effective, except when you run into the random smartbomb-armed opponent. And then you're randomly screwed and helpless to do anything about it. Worst of all, it's a win-win scenario for the smartbomb ship. If you use your nos, you take the harsh penalty and damage. If you don't use your nos, you still take normal damage and have wasted high slots.
And even if you change the dedicated nos ships to get a bonus immunity, you're STILL nerfing them. All those ships already have a full set of bonuses, so you'd have to remove one of the existing bonuses. So now my Pilgrim is nos-ing the same as it is now, except I've lost the TD bonus (for example).
|
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 23:08:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 07/03/2007 22:58:51
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Kamiz Edited by: Kamiz on 07/03/2007 21:39:33 very good idea, I hope CCP reads this
and about the pilgrim and curse, just make them immune to this
why? then make immune Dominix as well, bonuses never should immune ships from counters to them. EW ships also can be brought down by other ECCM, they are not immune to ECCM of other ships.
An ECM ship doesn't automatically take damage if it fails a jam cycle, the opponent still has to take advantage of the vulnerability and do it the hard way.
And this is a horrible idea. Not only is it a serious nerf to the Pilgrim/Curse/Faction ships which are designed to be pure nos-boats, but it just makes nos powerful but randomly suicidal. Nos is still plenty effective, except when you run into the random smartbomb-armed opponent. And then you're randomly screwed and helpless to do anything about it. Worst of all, it's a win-win scenario for the smartbomb ship. If you use your nos, you take the harsh penalty and damage. If you don't use your nos, you still take normal damage and have wasted high slots.
And even if you change the dedicated nos ships to get a bonus immunity, you're STILL nerfing them. All those ships already have a full set of bonuses, so you'd have to remove one of the existing bonuses. So now my Pilgrim is nos-ing the same as it is now, except I've lost the TD bonus (for example).
So my refinement doesn't work?
(I'm actually asking...) -J --------------------------------- "He who 'hah hahs' last, 'hah hahs' best." - Nelson
Balanced != Nerfed |
|
jamesw
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 23:18:00 -
[111]
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban Edited by: J''Mkarr Soban on 07/03/2007 22:44:54 1) If nossed, share the damage between the nosses.
2) Always have a chance to knock a nos out for a cycle, 100% chance for one nos, 50% chance on each for two nosses, 33.3% chance on each for three nosses, etc.
2a) Modify this to include the difference in size between SBs and Nosses.
SB v. Nos Micro v. Small, 50% Micro v. Medium, 25% Micro v. Heavy, 12.5%
Small v. Small, 100% Small v. Medium, 50% Small v. Heavy, 25%
Medium v. Small, 200% Medium v. Medium, 100% Medium v. Heavy, 50%
Large v. Small, 400% Large v. Medium, 200% Large v. Heavy, 100%
4) If being nossed, the SB is automatically sucked up by the nosses. All nosses currently on that ship.
So 1 Large SB against 3 Small Nosses gives 250 / 3 = 83.3 damage via each nos, with a 33.3% * 400% = 133.2% chance against each to knock it out for a cycle.
Or 1 Medium SB against 2 Medium Nosses gives 100 / 2 = 50 damage via each nos, with a 50% * 100% = 50% chance against each to knock it out for a cycle.
Or 1 Small SB against 1 Heavy Nos gives 50 / 1 = 50 damage via each nos, with a 100% * 25% = 25% chance against each to knock it out for a cycle.
Keeps it fairly balanced, useful, simple, and realistic. So you can till have swarms of ceptors with small nosses on a BS. And a BS can nos a ceptor but that ceptor still has a chance (no matter how small) of knocking it back.
More importantly, the Curse can still easily be used, because if it's got 5 medium nos against 1 large sb, it still only takes one lot of the sb damage (you can't magic energy out of nowhere to cause damage :-D). If you have 2 Curses with 5 each, then that's 10 Medium nosses on a large sb, which has only a very small chance to knock any one of them out. Perhaps change a bonus so it takes 5% less damage per level of the SB damage?
With all due respect that looks way too complicated. Also its chance based (and don't we all love chance based ECM!).
Damage should increase proportionally with the number of nos you have active when the smartbomb is fired (4 nos = 4 times the damage). Adding a signature resolution to nos, and basing the damage dealt off signature resolution vs smartbomb damage would be a nice way to prevent ships like the Curse being crippled by this.
A formula something like "Damage = 50% * Nos Sig Resolution/100 * Smartbomb Damage" keeps it simple. The smaller the nos, the less damage leaks through. 50% is there just as a way to modify the overall ratio between smartbomb direct damage and smartbomb -> nos damage. --
Latest Vid: Domination! |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 23:30:00 -
[112]
Originally by: jamesw With all due respect that looks way too complicated. Also its chance based (and don't we all love chance based ECM!).
Damage should increase proportionally with the number of nos you have active when the smartbomb is fired (4 nos = 4 times the damage). Adding a signature resolution to nos, and basing the damage dealt off signature resolution vs smartbomb damage would be a nice way to prevent ships like the Curse being crippled by this.
A formula something like "Damage = 50% * Nos Sig Resolution/100 * Smartbomb Damage" keeps it simple. The smaller the nos, the less damage leaks through. 50% is there just as a way to modify the overall ratio between smartbomb direct damage and smartbomb -> nos damage.
I know this is sci-fi, but you know, conservation of energy and all that? If the smartbomb uses 1 load of cap for ever nos stuck to it to give every nos the same (full) damage, then sure, go for it. Otherwise, you've got a finite amount of energy being given off by the smartbomb, which needs to be shared. -J --------------------------------- "He who 'hah hahs' last, 'hah hahs' best." - Nelson
Balanced != Nerfed |
jamesw
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 23:57:00 -
[113]
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban
Originally by: jamesw With all due respect that looks way too complicated. Also its chance based (and don't we all love chance based ECM!).
Damage should increase proportionally with the number of nos you have active when the smartbomb is fired (4 nos = 4 times the damage). Adding a signature resolution to nos, and basing the damage dealt off signature resolution vs smartbomb damage would be a nice way to prevent ships like the Curse being crippled by this.
A formula something like "Damage = 50% * Nos Sig Resolution/100 * Smartbomb Damage" keeps it simple. The smaller the nos, the less damage leaks through. 50% is there just as a way to modify the overall ratio between smartbomb direct damage and smartbomb -> nos damage.
I know this is sci-fi, but you know, conservation of energy and all that? If the smartbomb uses 1 load of cap for ever nos stuck to it to give every nos the same (full) damage, then sure, go for it. Otherwise, you've got a finite amount of energy being given off by the smartbomb, which needs to be shared.
Indeed but imo energy released != damage dealt necessarily. 300 thermal damage to the outside of the ship could be a lot more damaging if there are 4 nos giving it a nice little pathway straight into the ship....
thats the way I see it anyway. --
Latest Vid: Domination! |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.03.08 00:03:00 -
[114]
Originally by: jamesw
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban
Originally by: jamesw With all due respect that looks way too complicated. Also its chance based (and don't we all love chance based ECM!).
Damage should increase proportionally with the number of nos you have active when the smartbomb is fired (4 nos = 4 times the damage). Adding a signature resolution to nos, and basing the damage dealt off signature resolution vs smartbomb damage would be a nice way to prevent ships like the Curse being crippled by this.
A formula something like "Damage = 50% * Nos Sig Resolution/100 * Smartbomb Damage" keeps it simple. The smaller the nos, the less damage leaks through. 50% is there just as a way to modify the overall ratio between smartbomb direct damage and smartbomb -> nos damage.
I know this is sci-fi, but you know, conservation of energy and all that? If the smartbomb uses 1 load of cap for ever nos stuck to it to give every nos the same (full) damage, then sure, go for it. Otherwise, you've got a finite amount of energy being given off by the smartbomb, which needs to be shared.
Indeed but imo energy released != damage dealt necessarily. 300 thermal damage to the outside of the ship could be a lot more damaging if there are 4 nos giving it a nice little pathway straight into the ship....
thats the way I see it anyway.
So a Curse with 5 nosses on it takes 5x the damage?
It doesn't really make any sense to do it that way. The damage has to be caused by something, that something being energy. If you've got a latex glove and pour a cup of water in it, you don't get a cup-full of water in each finger, do you? You can't create energy/matter/damage/squid/ketchup/root beer/chocolate/anything from nothing (though it would be fun). -J --------------------------------- "He who 'hah hahs' last, 'hah hahs' best." - Nelson
Balanced != Nerfed |
jamesw
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2007.03.08 00:22:00 -
[115]
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban
Originally by: jamesw
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban
Originally by: jamesw With all due respect that looks way too complicated. Also its chance based (and don't we all love chance based ECM!).
Damage should increase proportionally with the number of nos you have active when the smartbomb is fired (4 nos = 4 times the damage). Adding a signature resolution to nos, and basing the damage dealt off signature resolution vs smartbomb damage would be a nice way to prevent ships like the Curse being crippled by this.
A formula something like "Damage = 50% * Nos Sig Resolution/100 * Smartbomb Damage" keeps it simple. The smaller the nos, the less damage leaks through. 50% is there just as a way to modify the overall ratio between smartbomb direct damage and smartbomb -> nos damage.
I know this is sci-fi, but you know, conservation of energy and all that? If the smartbomb uses 1 load of cap for ever nos stuck to it to give every nos the same (full) damage, then sure, go for it. Otherwise, you've got a finite amount of energy being given off by the smartbomb, which needs to be shared.
Indeed but imo energy released != damage dealt necessarily. 300 thermal damage to the outside of the ship could be a lot more damaging if there are 4 nos giving it a nice little pathway straight into the ship....
thats the way I see it anyway.
So a Curse with 5 nosses on it takes 5x the damage?
It doesn't really make any sense to do it that way. The damage has to be caused by something, that something being energy. If you've got a latex glove and pour a cup of water in it, you don't get a cup-full of water in each finger, do you? You can't create energy/matter/damage/squid/ketchup/root beer/chocolate/anything from nothing (though it would be fun).
I don't visualise this in quite the same way as you, I think. let me explain.
You have a Wall in front of you, with 1 gap in it. There is an explosion on the other side of that wall. Some debris/damage comes through the gap. Now, we add some more nos. You have a wall in front of you, but the gap is 5x bigger. Explosion goes off - how much debris/damage comes through this time?
Wall = shields/armor/whatever. Gap = Nos. Explosion = smartbomb. --
Latest Vid: Domination! |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.03.08 00:35:00 -
[116]
Edited by: J''Mkarr Soban on 08/03/2007 00:31:58
Originally by: jamesw I don't visualise this in quite the same way as you, I think. let me explain.
You have a Wall in front of you, with 1 gap in it. There is an explosion on the other side of that wall. Some debris/damage comes through the gap. Now, we add some more nos. You have a wall in front of you, but the gap is 5x bigger. Explosion goes off - how much debris/damage comes through this time?
Wall = shields/armor/whatever. Gap = Nos. Explosion = smartbomb.
Hmmm...small hole = small amount of the explosion getting through.
Big hole = large amount of the explosion getting through.
Still the same explosion...
Plus, with nos it's not a bigger hole, it's 5 holes of the same size, as the 5 nosses can be on different ships. -J --------------------------------- "He who 'hah hahs' last, 'hah hahs' best." - Nelson
Balanced != Nerfed |
pastafarianist
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 08:39:00 -
[117]
Has this gotten some well-deserved CCP attention yet?
|
smallgreenblur
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 09:39:00 -
[118]
This is an excellent idea that I have only just noticed, hope it's getting the attention it deserves!
sgb
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 14:09:00 -
[119]
I missed it, noting it down now in our ever growing list of nosferatu "fixes", which may or may not occur. If it seems like I'm being intentionally vague then you're right. _______________ |
|
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 14:23:00 -
[120]
woohooo tuxford is here
show the love peeps..have we got the roseleaves ready?
I feel like a templar, an Amarr fighter drone, used by carriers. |
|
smallgreenblur
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 15:12:00 -
[121]
*scatters generic red fluttery things*
sgb
|
beor oranes
Caldari Furious Angels
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 15:27:00 -
[122]
After reading this thread (glad it got some CCP attention) I think using smartbombs to counter Nos is a good idea but people where suggesting using current smartbombs to do it, why can't they introduce a specific smartbomb to do it? Like having different missle types. We already have EM missles to attack ships with EM weakness's (my poor ships) why can't we have smartbombs designed to attack Nos's?
Not saying it should be an 'I-win' against Nos it would mean that if you a shield tank and relied on your cap to keep it up then it would be a viable thing to put in the last high slot to possibly counter Nos's. Having a type specific as well would mean that it wouldn't be a dual purpose weapon to attack drones as well, so a Nos/drone boat would only have one of it's attacking options possibly disabled not both in one go.
Of course how it would work would need to be figured out, but if you were a BS being Nos'ed by a frigate using a small Nos and you had a Large Smartbomb (not damage dealing just the type specific one) then you would have more chance of disrupting the Nos than if you had a Small Smartbomb agains a Large Nos. This effect would be an AoE one and would disrupt a friendly Nos as well. So in a close battle it would have to be used wisely as it would weaken friends as well as foes, plus if you were sporting 4 Nos and 4 Smartbombs then if you were Nos'ing and dropped a Smartbomb it would affect yourself as well.
The way in which it is figured out should be skill based and not lottery based, so the higher skill you have in say Smartbombs the more effective it will be, on the other side you could have a skill that would give a bonus to your Nos (both would need pre-requisite skills that would help, Electronics for example) so making it more effective. Doing it this way would mean that pilots who wanted to fly Nos boats would be able to make them effective and those who wanted to be able to counter this would have to invest time and ISK to do so.
The fine details would need to be sorted out but I think in theory this extention of Manus Stuprare's original idea would work.
Thank you Manus Stuprare for an excellant suggestion to solve to problems at once.
Top quality idea.
------------------------------------------------ Either pick a dry year when fighting wars or civilize the moronic races and have no wars at all! |
Mudkest
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 16:59:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Tuxford I missed it, noting it down now in our ever growing list of nosferatu "fixes", which may or may not occur. If it seems like I'm being intentionally vague then you're right.
not any more vague then normaly 8)
and in response to that large post above this(and the nos-specific smartbombs), focused smartbombs! smartbomb that, instead of releasing its energy in an explosion around you, releases the energy trough the nos that the targeted ship that have nos active on you :o if ship has no nos active on you then nothing happens, sounds fun!
-Duct tape might hold the univurse together, but it's coffee that makes it tick |
Sailon
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 17:08:00 -
[124]
amarr recons should be immune to this or this will nerf the last good ships what amarr have.
|
Jack Icegaard
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 20:10:00 -
[125]
What is the battleships best (only) defense against frigates. Probably NOS and drones. Hm, let me see, the smartbomb is already a good anti drones weapon, so lets also make it a anti NOS weapon. A anti NOS+drones weapon all in one, Yay!
That's brilliant!
Coz battleship suckers should be nothing but really fat target drones for l33t ceptor gangs, double-Yay!
|
Soren
PAK
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 20:28:00 -
[126]
Also, add a module or skill that prevents/lessens the damage from the nos / neut "overloading." ☠-->-->--
|
Manus Stuprare
Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 20:43:00 -
[127]
*waves to Tux, nice to see ya here*
Originally by: Jack Icegaard What is the battleships best (only) defense against frigates. Probably NOS and drones. Hm, let me see, the smartbomb is already a good anti drones weapon, so lets also make it a anti NOS weapon. A anti NOS+drones weapon all in one, Yay!
That's brilliant!
Coz battleship suckers should be nothing but really fat target drones for l33t ceptor gangs, double-Yay!
Tbh I don't think heavy nos vs frigs would be much affected by these changes. Even taking my idea in its simplest form (without any of the refinements suggested elsewhere in this thread), the nos would only be disabled half the time, so would still be at least half as effective as before. I think frigs would still run out of cap pretty fast.
As for the drones, are frig-sized smartbombs really that serious a threat to them? Small tech 2 smartbomb has a dps of 7..
-------------- Poisoning the Chalice: Smartbombs as a Counter to Nos. |
Jack Icegaard
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 21:56:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Manus Stuprare *waves to Tux, nice to see ya here*
Originally by: Jack Icegaard What is the battleships best (only) defense against frigates. Probably NOS and drones. Hm, let me see, the smartbomb is already a good anti drones weapon, so lets also make it a anti NOS weapon. A anti NOS+drones weapon all in one, Yay!
That's brilliant!
Coz battleship suckers should be nothing but really fat target drones for l33t ceptor gangs, double-Yay!
Tbh I don't think heavy nos vs frigs would be much affected by these changes. Even taking my idea in its simplest form (without any of the refinements suggested elsewhere in this thread), the nos would only be disabled half the time, so would still be at least half as effective as before. I think frigs would still run out of cap pretty fast.
As for the drones, are frig-sized smartbombs really that serious a threat to them? Small tech 2 smartbomb has a dps of 7..
Sry for my sarcasm. Your idea was presented in a civil may, backed up by some good arguments.
I imagine you could fit a Rifter with four smartbombs, mwd, cap-booster and scrambler. Such a frig would not have to cost more than a million and the only drones that are fast enough to catch it would be light drones. Four smartbombs (small/micro) would kill light drones pretty fast
Balance in a complex game like this is a very delicate matter. NOS is very much about balance between large and small ship imo. Any suggestion that addresses NOS should take this into consideration.
Someone who brings a battleship into a combatzone puts a lot more at risk than a frigate pilot. There is also a huge investment in SP compared to a frig pilot. As new chars now starts with ~800k SP one can have a rather capable Rifter pilot in less than a month.
I don't like the idea that a few disposable frigates flown by alts with hardly any SP investments will be a viable option to make a sitting duck out of a 200 million battleship that someone put years of training into. It does not seem balanced to me.
Maybe your idea can be implemented without ruining the balance between large and small ships, giving us a generally better game.
|
Manus Stuprare
Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 22:34:00 -
[129]
Yeah, I can't deny there'd be balance issues to iron out, and simpler fixes have been suggested for nos (which probably have a better chance of happening, realistically). I still think it could be made workable with some fiddling around.
From a conceptual point of view it appeals to me more than a simple nerf though. For a start, you're giving players the means to counter nos themselves, rather than a blanket change over which only the devs would have control. The other thing I like is that there's a nice dynamic going on - yeah, smartbombs would be a counter for nos.. but nos would also be a counter for smartbombs since they use so much cap. *If balanced right* it could be pretty cool, the balancing is the hard bit of course.
-------------- Poisoning the Chalice: Smartbombs as a Counter to Nos. |
Icome4u
IronPig Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 00:42:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Icome4u on 14/03/2007 00:45:26 /Signed
Oh and people whining about capital ships, well good if it makes them harder to kill. They are CAPITAL ships after all.
Oh and what balance between small and large ships lol? Large smartbomb and your T1 or T2 frig goes pop. Heavy NOS and your T1 or T2 frig is out of cap... no balance to speak of.
|
|
Jack Icegaard
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 02:37:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 14/03/2007 02:38:03 yes, lollacopters, what balance?
Frigates have some very nice traits. Speed, agility, targeting system, price etc
A frigate can lock another frigate faster than a battleship can lock the same frigate. For some reason, frigates have a more advanced targeting system than battleships. That is one aspect of the balance between large and small ships.
A frigate locks a battleship immediately while a frigate will have several seconds to decline a fight with a battleship before it gets locked. If you want to catch something that does not want to fight, use a frigate.
The frigate is great if you want the initiative in a fight and you can also train for them fast. The most expensive T1 frigate cost what? 400K? The most expensive T1 battleship cost closer to 200M, almost 500 times more.
This is what i mean with the balance between large and small ships. If you take the time to train for, and are willing to put the large investment that a battleship is into harms way, you should have some options to fend off someone in a 300k Rifter. Nos is a very effective option today.
Maybe too effective, but I'm not convinced.
|
Mad Medicine
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 02:43:00 -
[132]
great idea... sadly, poor amarr and their recon ships
|
JdJinator
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 14:32:00 -
[133]
@Tuxford: I'd place this idea on the top of that list of yours, but that's just me. :)
*sig in construction* |
Bligga Dow
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 18:55:00 -
[134]
I'm getting to this thread a little late, but suffice to say I like it.
and as to "what about this ship and that ship". No ship is ftw all the time.
eve = giant nerf system if u haven't learned that by now, you are in the wrong game. this is just one more way to throw a loop into someone's day, and for that reason I believe it fits into eve great.
manus, ty for your idea
|
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:43:00 -
[135]
I like the idea, but there I have some addition:
add a special anti-nos highslot "smartbomb". it has no "normal" damage
it overcharges each nos, currently active at the ship using the module and suck them 5 times as much. at same time each ship useing a nos on the ship with the active anti-nos bomb would get as much direct structure damage as their NOS value.
so basically a diminishing heavy nos would suck 600cap but would also mean 600 structure damage.
this would a) dont kill drones and b) dont screw people with a normal nos usage.
if you have 1-2 nos running you'll have enough time to stop nos before you get yourself poped.
at the same time time a real nos boat would get as shafted as a ECm boat encountering an ECCMed enemy. 3600cap for nosdomi but also pop after 2/4(dc) cycles.
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:52:00 -
[136]
Im not sure if thats same thread as was here about week before, but if its not I would say here a swell, that op`s suggestion is one of best imo. Should be really looked at, great idea. ---
|
Caffeine Junkie
Caldari The Ministry Of Funny Walks
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 23:13:00 -
[137]
/signed ___________________
|
Tiddlywink
|
Posted - 2007.03.20 23:25:00 -
[138]
Nooooooo!!!! TUX DON'T DO IT!!!
It's a really bad idea. One high slot mod on a ship cancels out all nosses pointed its way? There are already plenty of legit counters to nos (another nos, cap boosters, Jamming/Dampening, passive tanking, staying out of nos range, choosing not to engage if you have none of these).
I'm all for boosting SBs, but there are a lot better ways to do it, maybe boost the radius or lower the cap use or something, but turning it into an anti-nos + anti-drone + anti-missle machine that there will be no reason no to equip if these changes go through.
If you must, at least make it so 1 smart bomb god device only disables/staggers 1 nos.
I can't believe my eyes
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar RONA Deepspace
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 06:23:00 -
[139]
Love this idea, only thing i would say is that if you fit BOTH SB and Nos, and activate both at the same time, you get f-ing owned. Activating a Nos next to a SB should be a nasty damage result for whomever does it. That way you have to THINK in order to do all this, much more strategy involved.
EH? Good addition to the good idea?
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar RONA Deepspace
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 15:17:00 -
[140]
Oh and I am totally against nerfing NOS directly. This idea for smartbombs can be done without touching NOS.
|
|
Layla Ashley
Amarr Children of Avalon Avateas Blessed
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 15:19:00 -
[141]
how about using energy transfers to counter nos?
|
Damian Vilsalant
Herrscher der Zeit Jagdgeschwader Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 15:38:00 -
[142]
Wowza! What a good idea! The fact that there is no real counter to NOS except more NOS is a bit of pain.. and even with a Cap Booster you only buy yourself some time before you're dry.
I'd really like to see CCP implementing this or a similar change to smart bombs and NOS.
Cheers Damian _________________ HDZJG - Damian Vilsalant - FALL |
Ohdows
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 15:31:00 -
[143]
you can also use a nos to counter a SB killing your drones, as it will make the SB focused on you, leaving your drones untouched. Or you can take the hit to save a friends pod. there is many ways to use the nos to your advantage against a SB as well.
this sounds like a nice idea, and a quite balanced one as well |
Nakumi Shakah
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 16:37:00 -
[144]
Exellent! /signed! this is the best solution to the nos problem I have seen! only problem i see atm is that it would render the nosdomi useless both nos and drone-wize, witch isn't such a bad thing tbh! i really want to see this happen! grats with an exellent idea in an exellent post. |
Naranja krekiss
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 19:04:00 -
[145]
ok.. I've read through practically this ENTIRE topic.. and noticed how many of you seemed to have failed to even read past the original post
lets get a few things straight: the NOS is an energy draining weapon.. the SB releases energy (in the form of damage).... therefore, all that energy (damage) that is spent from the SB is devoured, if you will, by the NOS.. no AOE, no CONCORD on u'r ass, and u'r drones are still droning on as they do...
the simple explanation being that the extra energy being blasted into and through the NOS would likely overheat the module, therefore causing damage to it and such could cause a malfunction, delaying the time till the nos fires/drains once again or at all (effectively switching the module off and requiring it to be manually started again)
second: if your friend is being NOSed and you fire a SB.... wtf is that gonna do other than fire a SB.. you are NOT the target.. your cap energy isn't being sucked/drained away so why should your SB make a difference (although it would be good in a way, it would mean everyone would spam SB's near any NOSed ship, same as NOS is spamed now)
third: if 2 ships are suckin the life outta you and you drop a SB.. BOTH "blood-sucking leeches" will take damage.. though it will be slightly less dmg to each. since the SB only has so much energy released it should be divided 50/50 (or 33/33/33 etc depending on how many ships) with an extra 5% dmg on top, to each ship.
i dunno... at least thats the way i see it.. seems like too many people came on here and left logic at the door
I'll admit that I've no experience with either modules, nor do i have much with larger ships.. BUT the theory just seems right in what Manus is sayin...
there was also mentioned in this thread, tho everyone again failed to notice *cough*slack-c%nts*cough*, where it was mentioned that NOS should get a slight nerf and neuts should be buffed to level the playing field.. this also at least keeps things in the same stadium too (both affect cap, rather than a physical weapon vs cap weapon)
other than that i forgot what i was gonna say.......
um... yes... hope you people can make sense of all my gibberish.
and manus.. if you can, edit your initial post where possible to add in more detail as you see fit.. that way there wont be these really "smart" people baggin your idea when they've only read the first 3 paragraphs lol
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 19:41:00 -
[146]
Sure. I'd be for this. Anything to weaken the all powerful default choice for any and every PvP ship, the NOS.
There should never be an always best choice, and currently, that is not the case. The NOS is always best.
|
Chaimera
Grumpy Old Farts Gruntfuttocks
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 20:05:00 -
[147]
Originally by: beor oranes After reading this thread (glad it got some CCP attention) I think using smartbombs to counter Nos is a good idea but people where suggesting using current smartbombs to do it, why can't they introduce a specific smartbomb to do it? Like having different missle types. We already have EM missles to attack ships with EM weakness's (my poor ships) why can't we have smartbombs designed to attack Nos's?
Not saying it should be an 'I-win' against Nos it would mean that if you a shield tank and relied on your cap to keep it up then it would be a viable thing to put in the last high slot to possibly counter Nos's. Having a type specific as well would mean that it wouldn't be a dual purpose weapon to attack drones as well, so a Nos/drone boat would only have one of it's attacking options possibly disabled not both in one go.
Of course how it would work would need to be figured out, but if you were a BS being Nos'ed by a frigate using a small Nos and you had a Large Smartbomb (not damage dealing just the type specific one) then you would have more chance of disrupting the Nos than if you had a Small Smartbomb agains a Large Nos. This effect would be an AoE one and would disrupt a friendly Nos as well. So in a close battle it would have to be used wisely as it would weaken friends as well as foes, plus if you were sporting 4 Nos and 4 Smartbombs then if you were Nos'ing and dropped a Smartbomb it would affect yourself as well.
The way in which it is figured out should be skill based and not lottery based, so the higher skill you have in say Smartbombs the more effective it will be, on the other side you could have a skill that would give a bonus to your Nos (both would need pre-requisite skills that would help, Electronics for example) so making it more effective. Doing it this way would mean that pilots who wanted to fly Nos boats would be able to make them effective and those who wanted to be able to counter this would have to invest time and ISK to do so.
The fine details would need to be sorted out but I think in theory this extention of Manus Stuprare's original idea would work.
Thank you Manus Stuprare for an excellant suggestion to solve to problems at once.
Top quality idea.
There would be no need for a NEW type as an EM smartbomb would deal EM damage to the ships draining the cap, a Thermal smartbomb would deal thermal, etc.
Beware of the killer grumpies! |
Chronojam
Gallente Mom's Friendly Robots
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 07:17:00 -
[148]
Sounds like a beautiful idea and something to make neuts vs nos more of a tactical decision
|
Mike Atropos
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 08:48:00 -
[149]
*reads thread*
*hugs OP*
/SIGNED
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 1 Shot 1 Kill
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 10:23:00 -
[150]
Bump. Needs more flowers, love and rosewater. sig down temporarily
Originally by: welsh wizard You might not be able to kill anything but you can sure as hell ignore it and go about your business
|
|
DethApostle
Amarr Cruoris Seraphim
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 12:06:00 -
[151]
I really really like this idea. And thats coming from a Curse pilot! Dunno how you could tweak this so you didn't cripple the Amarr Recons but i'm sure there is a way...
/signed.
|
djenghis jan
Amarr Debiloff's Vanguard
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 12:16:00 -
[152]
Nice idea. Also a nice visual effect would be cool
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 12:21:00 -
[153]
I really like this idea. I hope this in implemented. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Sailon
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 12:39:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Sailon on 14/05/2007 12:38:02 i only accept this idea if amarr recons come immune to this.
|
maarud
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 13:24:00 -
[155]
I'm bumping this thread for good measure.
Maarud.
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member |
Earthan
Gallente The Absolutely Amazing Fire Eaters Breidablik
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 13:34:00 -
[156]
Im quite a vampire fiend in my setups :), but i do think it sounds great, very nice idea. -
Killing Eve bullies all over the galaxy hunting stories |
Morreia
The Celestial Element
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 13:42:00 -
[157]
Signed if they make curses and pilgrim vunerable to it to some extent... after all, all the other things all the recons use have counters that can be used even when the EW module is mounted on a recon.
|
Inflicted
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 15:15:00 -
[158]
Actually, with the new Heat addition coming out soon, smartbombs could cause the active NOS modules to overheat. Although I am not uptodate on the knowledge of heat, it seems like a good way to counter NOS. Also, maybe have the smartbomb affect everyone nosing you. Just and idea.
|
Daiv Streck
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 15:16:00 -
[159]
This sounds suspiciously like "silver bullet" syndrome. Plus, it turns an offense into a defense as well, and isn't that the problem with NOS in the first place?
Great idea, well thought out, but I think it'll turn an I-Win button into an I-Win/I-Lose button depending on whether your opponent has a smartbomb or not. It is the Scrambler/WCS situation all over again, and we all know how messy that got.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 15:33:00 -
[160]
The prolbem I have with it is that it is a double counter. Most nos-ships are also droneships. Smartbons with that change would counter both at once. If SBs counter nos they should be less effective vs drones, otherwise it's just moving the I-win from one side to the other.
|
|
Aston Gulliver
Gallente Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 18:00:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Scordite
Originally by: Manus Stuprare There's bound to be other stuff I haven't thought of.
Capital ships, especially the bigger ones, would become even harder to kill.
On a side note, it would probably need to be so that you'd need smartbomb of same or larger size than the nos affecting you to cause the nos to shut down for a cycle, otherwise you get ceptors with micro smartbombs shutting down battleships and so on.
Anyways, interesting idea, but with some issues needing work.
Neuralizers are used to take down caps, not Nos.
|
Earthan
Gallente The Absolutely Amazing Fire Eaters Breidablik
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 18:00:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Aramendel The prolbem I have with it is that it is a double counter. Most nos-ships are also droneships. Smartbons with that change would counter both at once. If SBs counter nos they should be less effective vs drones, otherwise it's just moving the I-win from one side to the other.
good point i think -
Killing Eve bullies all over the galaxy hunting stories |
Mythologist
Twisted Attitude Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 18:18:00 -
[163]
I think this will be a very good idea. But as said you've got to make sure you don't turn it around and smartbombs will be overpowered against, for instance, drone ships like the dominix. In my opinion, the solution would be to add another smartbomb, or energy pulse, that only hurts ships with cap, so drones can not be damaged by it.
For instance, normal smartbombs work the way they do now. The 'energy pulse' will deal the same damage to 'normal' ships, but doesn't hurt drones and does extra damage vs NOS ships. The reason for this is ofcourse the overload of energy etc etc(english gets to difficult for me now ) Just an idea. |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 18:22:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Naranja krekiss Edited by: Naranja krekiss on 27/03/2007 19:13:07 ok.. I've read through practically this ENTIRE topic.. and noticed how many of you seemed to have failed to even read past the original post
lets get a few things straight: the NOS is an energy draining weapon.. the SB releases energy (in the form of damage).... therefore, all that energy (damage) that is spent from the SB is devoured, if you will, by the NOS.. no AOE, no CONCORD on u'r ass, and u'r drones are still droning on as they do...
the simple explanation being that the extra energy being blasted into and through the NOS would likely overheat the module, therefore causing damage to it and such could cause a malfunction, delaying the time till the nos fires/drains once again or at all (effectively switching the module off and requiring it to be manually started again)
second: if your friend is being NOSed and you fire a SB.... wtf is that gonna do other than fire a SB.. you are NOT the target.. your cap energy isn't being sucked/drained away so why should your SB make a difference (although it would be good in a way, it would mean everyone would spam SB's near any NOSed ship, same as NOS is spamed now)
third: if 2 ships are suckin the life outta you and you drop a SB.. BOTH "blood-sucking leeches" will take damage.. though it will be slightly less dmg to each. since the SB only has so much energy released it should be divided 50/50 (or 33/33/33 etc depending on how many ships) with an extra 5% dmg on top, to each ship.
i dunno... at least thats the way i see it.. seems like too many people came on here and left logic at the door
I'll admit that I've no experience with either modules, nor do i have much with larger ships.. BUT the theory just seems right in what Manus is sayin...
there was also mentioned in this thread, tho everyone again failed to notice *cough*slack-asshats*cough*, where it was mentioned that NOS should get a slight nerf and neuts should be buffed to level the playing field.. this also at least keeps things in the same stadium too (both affect cap, rather than a physical weapon vs cap weapon)
other than that i forgot what i was gonna say.......
um... yes... hope you people can make sense of all my gibberish.
and manus.. if you can, edit your initial post where possible to add in more detail as you see fit.. that way there wont be these really "smart" people baggin your idea when they've only read the first 3 paragraphs lol
So...you didn't read my post? Hypocrite ;-)
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 19:09:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 05/06/2007 19:08:15
Originally by: Aramendel The problem I have with it is that it is a double counter. Most nos-ships are also droneships. Smartbons with that change would counter both at once. If SBs counter nos they should be less effective vs drones, otherwise it's just moving the I-win from one side to the other.
I agree. I think that CCP already has an interesting solution in the DB, though. A powerful anti-nos module which is useless against non-nos users is the missing item that would complete the 'rock, paper, scissors' cycle.
If fitting one of those in a high slot meant that all nos used against you changed direction, boosting your cap and draining the cap of the nos user(s), I think we'd be fairly clost to a balanced situation ------ Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant tanking |
Shi Mun
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 20:39:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Naranja krekiss Edited by: Naranja krekiss on 27/03/2007 19:13:07 ok.. I've read through practically this ENTIRE topic.. and noticed how many of you seemed to have failed to even read past the original post
lets get a few things straight: the NOS is an energy draining weapon.. the SB releases energy (in the form of damage).... therefore, all that energy (damage) that is spent from the SB is devoured, if you will, by the NOS.. no AOE, no CONCORD on u'r ass, and u'r drones are still droning on as they do...
the simple explanation being that the extra energy being blasted into and through the NOS would likely overheat the module, therefore causing damage to it and such could cause a malfunction, delaying the time till the nos fires/drains once again or at all (effectively switching the module off and requiring it to be manually started again)
second: if your friend is being NOSed and you fire a SB.... wtf is that gonna do other than fire a SB.. you are NOT the target.. your cap energy isn't being sucked/drained away so why should your SB make a difference (although it would be good in a way, it would mean everyone would spam SB's near any NOSed ship, same as NOS is spamed now)
third: if 2 ships are suckin the life outta you and you drop a SB.. BOTH "blood-sucking leeches" will take damage.. though it will be slightly less dmg to each. since the SB only has so much energy released it should be divided 50/50 (or 33/33/33 etc depending on how many ships) with an extra 5% dmg on top, to each ship.
i dunno... at least thats the way i see it.. seems like too many people came on here and left logic at the door
I'll admit that I've no experience with either modules, nor do i have much with larger ships.. BUT the theory just seems right in what Manus is sayin...
there was also mentioned in this thread, tho everyone again failed to notice *cough*slack-asshats*cough*, where it was mentioned that NOS should get a slight nerf and neuts should be buffed to level the playing field.. this also at least keeps things in the same stadium too (both affect cap, rather than a physical weapon vs cap weapon)
other than that i forgot what i was gonna say.......
um... yes... hope you people can make sense of all my gibberish.
and manus.. if you can, edit your initial post where possible to add in more detail as you see fit.. that way there wont be these really "smart" people baggin your idea when they've only read the first 3 paragraphs lol
Im just using that post as a summary, but yeh i agree with this idea, sounds like a perfect fix if u ask me. --------------------------- HAHA! your jammers suck now! Oh wait whats happening to my scorpion... |
Morreia
The Celestial Element
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 11:43:00 -
[167]
The thing with it countering NOS and drones though. I would have thought if everyone fits a smart bomb to use against NOS for a bit then yes alot of drones will get popped but also it will decrease the number of people using lots of NOS.
This would then means people would fit less in the way of smart bombs and it would probably eventually reach a balance.
I fit smart bombs on alot of my ships anyway so for me this will just be a nice extra bit on the side tbh.
|
Weeka
Amarr Krieger des Lichts
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 18:26:00 -
[168]
With the introduction of "heating" modules and damaging them this idea begs to be renewed.
Let Smartbombs deal overheating damage to NOS.
|
Liang Nuren
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 18:46:00 -
[169]
I don't know - I'm still not a fan of this idea, unless the nos completely countered the smart bomb as well.
The double whammy of damaging the nos ship *AND* blowing his drones up seems excessive. Also, the Curse+Pilgrim would have to have insane nos module hitpoints.
Liang
Originally by: "QproQ"
When people say "Put 'stabs on your 'cane", they mean GYROSTABS"
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 18:56:00 -
[170]
wheres tux when you need him?
sup /b/ |
|
Kulmid
Nubs. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 19:14:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Sokratesz wheres tux when you need him?
about 2 pages back
~~~~~ Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you do something and the time you tell a woman what you did. Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's no greater honor than winning.
|
Liang Nuren
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 19:19:00 -
[172]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford I missed it, noting it down now in our ever growing list of nosferatu "fixes", which may or may not occur. If it seems like I'm being intentionally vague then you're right.
Here.
Liang
Originally by: "QproQ"
When people say "Put 'stabs on your 'cane", they mean GYROSTABS"
|
Xorlev
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 19:23:00 -
[173]
I pilot a NOS Domi, and I'd definitely be down for this. Since I'm taking their energy, if they fit smartbombs they can disrupt my NOS and drones, giving them a fighting chance. I like this idea.
As for the Capship issue...caps aren't supposed to be easy to kill, but if people used Neuts, I imagine it'd a lot easier to take one down if you bring along cap-transfer logistics and lots of heavy neuts (600 energy neuted a cycle? Oh yeah.)
|
Vorketh Mordanil
Amarr Brotherhood of Acquisitions
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 19:58:00 -
[174]
I like where this is going... I would just add (if it hasn't been already...) that I agree for the most part that smaller smartbombs shouldn't be as effective against larger Nos, but not nullified... the heat system already exists! This is the perfect way to use it so that those complaining they don't have Thermodynamics still need to see the new circles!
Basically, you do simple math - For each grade of smartbomb below that of a Nos, you do smaller heat to that module:
Hypothetical situation:
1 Large Nos against a cruiser using a Medium smartbomb: 1 pulse of smartbomb = 67% heat damage needed to disable the module... a large smartbomb would have done 100% of the needed heat, and a small one would do 34%, micros doing 25%. There's no need to cause damage to the ship itself - just the module (unless of course, the ship is within damage range).
1 Medium Nos against the following: L Smarbomb = 100%, M SB = 100%, S SB = 67%, Micro SB = 50%
This makes it POSSIBLE for ships to overheat Nos modules to excess even with a class difference, but given the activation time of SB's, they would likely be out of cap before they can fire a second round unless they have boosters. What this does allow is using multiple smartbombs to your advantage.
This is a great idea! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Caios
Caldari Unified Refining Federation Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 20:39:00 -
[175]
it's aaaaalllliiiivee!
anyway.
overall concept of a module to counter nos, good idea
using smartbombs to do this, horrible idea.
immediatley precludes drone ships and ships in empire from taking advantage of this feature, not to mention ships in gangs.
i'd say make it associated with heat, perhaps give certain cap modules such as boosters, rechargers or cprs the ability to overheat and in turn damage a nos'ing ship.
|
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 22:09:00 -
[176]
The idea is to damage the ship via the route provided by the nos, not the nos module itself, btw.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |