EVE Search - NOS fix

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

NOS fix

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
FactorzGT Vendetta Underground	Posted - 2007.06.02 20:02:00 - [1] so there has been some talk that the effects of large NOS to small ships needs to fixed ... here is a simple and fair idea - similar to missiles - Make the Energy Drained proportionate to the Ship Size a large nos I drains 100cap ... well assign that to a 400m signature resolution the proportion of the ship sig radius to the nos resolution is what gets drained a raven @ 460m sig radius will get a full 100 cap loss a drake @ 285m sig radius will get 71.25 cap loss a caracal @ 145m sig radius will get 36.25 cap loss a flycatcher @ 90m sig radius will get 22.50 cap loss a hawk @ 39m sig radius will get 00.0975 cap loss Then for named nos and tech II nos make it's signature resolution smaller ... so Heavy Diminishing and Heavy Nos II it should be 360m sig resolution - these mods still maintain there advantage with range and nos ammount ... but also gain effectiveness on smaller ships Minmatar pilots will be happy because 2 of their battleships are smaller than this proposed Sig Resolution (the smallest battleships are the Typhoon, Tempest, Armageddon at 320m,340m,370m respectively)
Valandril Caldari Leela's Lamas	Posted - 2007.06.02 20:06:00 - [2] And back to time where interceptor can solo battleship... heh --- I swear to god, ccp choose changes in game via lottery system.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.06.02 20:09:00 - [3] Don't use a linear relationship. Use a modified X^4 - this gives you, for a large nos, 100 drain on BS, 75-80 on Cruisers, 45-50 on frigs and 30-35 on inties. //Maya
FactorzGT Vendetta Underground	Posted - 2007.06.02 20:16:00 - [4] i'm not full against X^4 ... however this is a flawed scale when we look at missile explosion velocity in relation to target velocity ... a crow going 5400m/s gets hit by an EM light missile exploding @ 2250m/s and suffers only 5.4dmg w. 0% resist ... there is clearly a flaw in that scale
MotherMoon	Posted - 2007.06.02 21:18:00 - [5] that's because speed is a missles only real weakness they are slow I mean they are FAST but compared to a laser so more dmg but they have to catch up to the ship and then it has to explode I personally think kin missles should be slowed down and ignore speed for exp to be in line with RP reasoning. that they just tear into your ship and release metal everywhere.
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.03 00:37:00 - [6] No that's ******** about missiles and turreted weapons will just never hit an interceptor a lot of the time due to tracking (it is possible to take no damage, as opposed to some). And again, it doesn't deal with the issue that apart from nos there's just no way to stop a single interceptor from going after a BS and keeping it perma-locked down (oh, except of course, if it's a droneboat in which case there'll be no problem there hmm). A single interceptor should not be invulnerable when challenging a battleship, and if it's acting as a tackler then the issue is that it's DPS should not be so far behind that it can't use it's warp disrupter. And oh, interesting point - Heat will fix this argument anyway what with the rather significant but time limited bonus' to warp disrupter range.
Neener	Posted - 2007.06.03 02:26:00 - [7] Edited by: Neener on 03/06/2007 02:25:31 Originally by: FactorzGT so there has been some talk that the effects of large NOS to small ships needs to fixed ... Theres already enough penalties for large ships (targeting speeds, tracking for guns, explosion velocity and radius for missiles, etc).
vinnymcg Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.06.03 03:11:00 - [8] Originally by: FactorzGT so there has been some talk that the effects of large NOS to small ships needs to fixed ... here is a simple and fair idea - similar to missiles - Make the Energy Drained proportionate to the Ship Size a large nos I drains 100cap ... well assign that to a 400m signature resolution the proportion of the ship sig radius to the nos resolution is what gets drained a raven @ 460m sig radius will get a full 100 cap loss a drake @ 285m sig radius will get 71.25 cap loss a caracal @ 145m sig radius will get 36.25 cap loss a flycatcher @ 90m sig radius will get 22.50 cap loss a hawk @ 39m sig radius will get 00.0975 cap loss Then for named nos and tech II nos make it's signature resolution smaller ... so Heavy Diminishing and Heavy Nos II it should be 360m sig resolution - these mods still maintain there advantage with range and nos amount ... but also gain effectiveness on smaller ships Minmatar pilots will be happy because 2 of their battleships are smaller than this proposed Sig Resolution (the smallest battleships are the Typhoon, Tempest, Armageddon at 320m,340m,370m respectively) Hey mate sorry to burst your bubble but this has been in game for ages and there is a reason for this! It is fair! small ships are hard to hit by missiles and turrets so people in big ships need some defence against them and there defence is NOS. TBH mate you really put a very large hole in your argument by saying Originally by: FactorzGT Minmatar pilots will be happy because 2 of their battleships are smaller than this proposed Sig Resolution People who try and change game mechanics for there own personal gain never succeed (or those who try to change it to better there race) I have been hit and killed by NOS ships and it does get on my nerves but I don't go and try to get rid of all nos ships i make my self better able to defend myself against these kind of attacks, which is something I suggest you do. Or would you prefer CCP to change the game so that you are unbeatable and all 100K of us have to try and kill you? I suppose you next move would be too get rid of DD's because there is no easy counter. Remotely Delete Jump clones tread COMPSOC
FactorzGT Vendetta Underground	Posted - 2007.06.03 05:42:00 - [9] Edited by: FactorzGT on 03/06/2007 05:43:41 Originally by: vinnymcg Hey mate sorry to burst your bubble but this has been in game for ages and there is a reason for this! It is fair! small ships are hard to hit by missiles and turrets so people in big ships need some defence against them and there defence is NOS. TBH mate you really put a very large hole in your argument by saying Originally by: FactorzGT Minmatar pilots will be happy because 2 of their battleships are smaller than this proposed Sig Resolution People who try and change game mechanics for there own personal gain never succeed (or those who try to change it to better there race) I have been hit and killed by NOS ships and it does get on my nerves but I don't go and try to get rid of all nos ships i make my self better able to defend myself against these kind of attacks, which is something I suggest you do. Or would you prefer CCP to change the game so that you are unbeatable and all 100K of us have to try and kill you? I suppose you next move would be too get rid of DD's because there is no easy counter. the point of the idea was simply to introduce the concept of assigning a signature resolution to NOS as a means to help maintain balance in the size pro's and con's and i don't know if you noticed but i'm a caldari pilot ... the point i made about minmatar pilots having an advantage in Nos defense by the sig radius is that's supposed to be the whole concept of their race ... everything is made with old radio antenna parts but what they lack in high tech, they make up for in layman ingenuity
FactorzGT Vendetta Underground	Posted - 2007.06.06 03:45:00 - [10] Additional thought i had for this: Balance the modules approximately (not exactly) so if a cruiser using a Medium Nos I on a battleship, it will drain about the same as a Heavy Nos I on a Cruiser Medium Nos I drains 30cap ... so a Heavy Nos being used on a cruiser should drain 27-33cap depending on the cruiser's sig radius
Chainsaw Plankton	Posted - 2007.06.06 11:43:00 - [11] lose me thinks the problem is a) not really any better mod to fit then a nos, sure you have a turret/launcher spot free but all your bonuses are to launchers/turrets. why not put something in there that will let you rep an extra cycle. or smart bombs, which take cap and require the target to be close oh yea and will get you concorded. and remote reps/transfers, once you are primary you go down may be useful in small gangs. b) fighting a nos ship just isnt any fun. woo there goes my cap and now im at 50% shields..... 25%...... into armor..... 60%... 10%.... woo hull this should go quicker. c) everyone seems to fight at a 25km range or less? a sniper set up should stay out of nos range easy (well assuming some gang support) or get an arazu and dampen and scram them down to under a 25km range.
Whoa Bundy Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.07 11:57:00 - [12] Originally by: FactorzGT a hawk @ 39m sig radius will get 00.0975 cap loss Typo? A hawk would lose 9.75 cap. Slightly more than the 8 cap small nos would take. Battleships would still drain a smaller ship better, but atleast the smaller ship would have a fighting chance rather than being at an intant loss. /signed ____________________ The joys of zero point zero! --= -------=
Maya Rkell Third Grade Ergonomics	Posted - 2007.06.07 12:55:00 - [13] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 07/06/2007 12:55:10 Originally by: James Duar And again, it doesn't deal with the issue that apart from nos there's just no way to stop a single interceptor from going after a BS and keeping it perma-locked down (oh, except of course, if it's a droneboat in which case there'll be no problem there hmm). Every single BS can carry 5 light drones, easily. Only two interceptors can do anything significant about light drones orbiting them, and one has 2 mids. PS, thanks for illustrating why heat is a terrible, terrible idea vinnymcg, it's plain unbalanced that nos are a no-brainer (as in, you'd be stupid not to use them) for secondary weapons on close range battleships. //Maya
Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.07 14:15:00 - [14] Originally by: Maya Rkell Don't use a linear relationship. Use a modified X^4 - this gives you, for a large nos, 100 drain on BS, 75-80 on Cruisers, 45-50 on frigs and 30-35 on inties. I like your calculation idea. Making it so the large nos only drain cap as fast as a small nos on a frig is crap. Having a more exepensive nos (bigger one) should give you an advantage (I only fly small ships, but I don't want to be nos invulnerable). Actually for E5xx nosf, small=3.07/s, med=5.83/s, large=9.58 -> med is 1.9x small, large is 3.12x small). We must keep countering diffucult when nossed by a bigger ship. With your signature calculation, we would get : -On a frigate (you said about 45-50 of 100 stolen) 1 large is 1.5x small (this is already too small) -On an inty (you said about 30-35 of 100 stolen) 1 large is 1x small (really easy for the inty!) More reduction than 50% is invulnerability for inties. Another change that could be made, not touching to the signature stuff and the amounts stolen is changing the cycle time of nosf (but keep the same cap/s stolen). Example : 2 sec cycle time for all nosf -E5 : 9.2cap, 3 sec -> 6.2cap, 2 sec -E50 : 35cap, 6 sec -> 11.67cap, 2 sec -E500 : 115cap, 12 sec -> 19.17cap, 2 sec What does it change? Actually, when a BS applies nosf to an inty, it steals 115 every 12s, the cap in an inty is around 360 with skills, 1 nosf gets 1/3 of the cap, 2 nosf on an inty that made a mwd approach (2/3 cap remaining) takes it down to 0. At 0, the cap recharges very slowly and you can't hope to do anything. If the cycle time is 2s, let's take again ou 2 large nosf (seemed the I win button against inties), the inty comes at 66% cap to the BS and is lowked and nosfed (same as before). It steals around 38 cap to the inty, not taking it to 0 (only 2 secs elapsed here), but to 55%, then the capacitor is still recharging. what it does not counting the recharge rate : cycle 2 : 44% cycle 3 : 33% cycle 4 : 22% cycle 5 : 11% cycle 6 : 0% (here 12secs and dry as before, but we didn't count recharge rate) The capacitor has best recharge rate between 25% and 45%, so, on a properly fitted inty it would recharge something like 8 cap/s, not enough to counter the nosf, but getting the capacitor lifespan around 5 seconds more (in 10 secs, it would recharge around 2 cycles of nosf and a half cycle more during the time saved maybe). Such a little change helps small ships against nosf, the big ones relying on nosf for tank are not nerfed, it gets you exactly as much cap, and you will drain your ennemy in more time, but also get more cap from him. I think the cycle time reduction could make everyone happy! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
FactorzGT Vendetta Underground	Posted - 2007.06.18 03:15:00 - [15] well the patch notes for Rev II say there is a nos change ... anyone been on the test server to see what it is???
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.18 03:20:00 - [16] Originally by: vinnymcg Hey mate sorry to burst your bubble but this has been in game for ages and there is a reason for this! It is fair! small ships are hard to hit by missiles and turrets so people in big ships need some defence against them and there defence is NOS. A large ships defence should be energy neutralizers, not nos. Being able to completely destroy another ship with absolutely no cost, in fact a boost to your own cap, is plain unbalanced. Nos should be something that slightly tilts the odds in your favour, if you want to kill someone's cap use neuts.
Ruato Gallente Gurgleblaster Industries	Posted - 2007.06.18 04:09:00 - [17] Only fix nos needs is to add standard stacking penalty to make ships with highs full of NOS less effective. NOS should be viable option and smaller ships becoming immune to heavy NOS is not right way to go (theres more than enough penalties already using big(ger) ships) --- *Get rid of those bleeping secure containers. bleep!*

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

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