EVE Search - Revising Cap recharge

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Revising Cap recharge

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pociomundo Gallente World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.05.15 13:38:00 - [1] Give Nos a stacking penalty like: 1-100% 2-75% 3-50% 4-25% 5-10% (Calculated by number of nos the pilot has on one target, no stacking reset for different sizes of nos) (Curse / Pilgrim pilots would be exempt from this) If you put all 4 nosses on the same target, the only way to keep 4 at 100% would be to hit 4 targets, so a nos boat can still pull a decent amount of cap but he'll need lots of targets in range to do it, which is easier to combat (keep people away), also with his nos spread around he can't wtfpoon 1 targets cap rendering their tank unable to function.
Pociomundo Gallente World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.05.15 15:31:00 - [2] That's all a bit complicated for no reason. A stacking penalty is more simple and it would pretty much fix the problem. You can't have a perfect system, but it would give a decent amount of balance for nos users and nos victims.
Pociomundo Gallente World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.05.16 02:42:00 - [3] Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban Originally by: Pociomundo Edited by: Pociomundo on 15/05/2007 15:35:49 That's all a bit complicated for no reason. Complicated systems are harder and take more time to introduce and they are open to causing many more bugs, there is no reason for such a complex system. A stacking penalty is more simple and it would pretty much fix the problem. You can't have a perfect system, but it would give a decent amount of balance for nos users and nos victims. You do realise that in my system 10 people putting 1 nos on 1 target would have all the nos working at 100% right? So that fits in more with your concern on "realistic" The stacking penalty removes the wtfpwn of 1 person in a nos setup that also has weapons etc. So you can still assemble a bunch of people and drain cap ships cap well, you should need lots of people to do that anyway not 5 Nos Domi's loling around ooh carrier pow (unrealistic but meh). Neuts, I'm not sure if they need balancing, I think they are ok and you wouldn't see any drastic shift to these if a nos stacking penalty was introduced as neuts require your own cap still so they already have plenty of a penalty. Cool. For all your guns, we'll add stacking penalties. Obviously, "You do realise that in my system 10 people putting 1 gun on 1 target would have all the guns working at 100% right? So that fits in more with your concern on "realistic"" Oh, tell me what your system is please, sounds like an easy way to get into PvP, where the opponents only use one type of a module each against me. Yes it's complicated, but for goodness sake it's no more complicated than 'oh noes, I've run out of charges for my railgun, better reload'. More complicated maybe for the average Mr. Blobby McSpamtastic, who just mashes keys and leaves them on. "Oh noes, I have to press my Nos a number of times" along with "Oh noes, I have to make sure I have charges" (of whatever variety, the idea of using the injector empties was just that - and idea). Gone a bit mad and embaressed yourself haven't you really. This is a thread about nos and the issues with it, we are playing EVE online btw, talking about the nosferatu module, got that? Not about guns. You seem to be losing it skippy. But congrats on being a joke.
Pociomundo Gallente World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.05.16 04:22:00 - [4] No because there isn't a problem with damage like there is with nos, its completly different. Yes they are weapons but they are affecting different things in combat. There is a problem with the power of nos, especially on ships that can run full cap draining setups yet also have enough of a weapons system to eat through a tank. Why are you bringing guns into this? Do you actually pvp and understand the nos issue or are you just posting your misunderstandings for the sake of it?
Pociomundo Gallente World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.05.16 18:32:00 - [5] Edited by: Pociomundo on 16/05/2007 18:29:52 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Pociomundo Why are you bringing guns into this? Do you actually pvp and understand the nos issue or are you just posting your misunderstandings for the sake of it? Do you actually PVP or are you misunderstanding that with a stack nerf supercapitals will be IMPOSSIBLE to kill? Liang And you clearly didn't read my posts did you as I said Neuts wouldn't be affected. I assume you know Neuts are the way to handle capitals, not Nos. The only other way is to have Nos / Neut hardpoints and CCP decides how much you are allowed in your setups.
Pociomundo Gallente World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.05.16 21:48:00 - [6] Having nos work on sig radius or tracking rules is too complicated as a solution to this. What we'll prolly see is a limited amount of points that can mount the modules, or a general nerf in the amount of cap taken. Though there was once a rumour that Nos wouldnt be able to take you past 30% cap, that would have worked, wonder what happened there.

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