EVE Search - Why do we need Nosferatus at all?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Why do we need Nosferatus at all?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:38:00 - [1] We have a module that attacks a ships capacitor directly: the neutralizer. There is a skill to increase the efficiency of the neutralizer, and all current bonuses that apply to Nos apply to Neuts as well. I think that if you are able to attack a ships capacitor directly, you should at least have to endure some cost of your own, since you're bypassing their armor, speed, sig radius, resists and everything else. With Nos not only do you do all of that, but you also increase your own cap, so fitting a Nos has zero drawback. Don't we already have a perfectly useful anti-cap weapon with the Neut? What do we need Nos for? Because I said so...
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated Free Trade Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:43:00 - [2] You take the cap of the enemy and put it back into your tank,whereas the neut takes it from both. __________________________________________ Yes it is great being amarr. I am minmatar,fly amarr,use gellente drones and am in caldari space.
Melanie Tenkai Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:46:00 - [3] I support the OP, and I add this: The skill needed to use neutralizer if trained to lvl5 would make the neutralizer work as an actual nos, so no cap draw back for you, but only at lvl5. At lvl1 it work like an actual neutralizer
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:54:00 - [4] I support the OP. Remove NOS, and maybe decrease fitting req of neutralizers slightly. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:22:00 - [5] Edited by: Haniblecter Teg on 05/06/2007 16:21:54 Originally by: Sokratesz I support the OP. Remove NOS, and maybe decrease fitting req of neutralizers slightly. I agree. Increase the amount drained a bit, cause you're really borking your fit if you throw a neut on. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever
Destiny Calling Amarr Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:30:00 - [6] Edited by: Destiny Calling on 05/06/2007 16:29:20 I disagree. but its been a long day, and I can't really add anything more, other more energetic people have already added before me. I like Nos how it is edit - been a really long day, can't spell thats right I need a new sig
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:46:00 - [7] Originally by: goodby4u You take the cap of the enemy and put it back into your tank,whereas the neut takes it from both. WTS: Reading Comprehension Skillbook. Re-read my post. Because I said so...
Zixxa	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:47:00 - [8] Murder nubi again! I recalled that he had explained how uber is Rokh. --------------------------------- Hint 1: Train for Mega, not for Rokh Hint 2: Abaddon is uber fleet BS. R.I.P. <Torpedo Raven> R.I.P. <Eagle> R.I.P. <ECM> R.I.P. <Drake>
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:51:00 - [9] Originally by: Zixxa Murder nubi again! I recalled that he had explained how uber is Rokh. CCP still lets you post on the forums? Because I said so...
Tsukiko Ishida Amarr Emanation Of Malevolent Outcries	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:57:00 - [10] Edited by: Tsukiko Ishida on 05/06/2007 16:59:39 Originally by: murder one We have a module that attacks a ships capacitor directly: the neutralizer. There is a skill to increase the efficiency of the neutralizer, and all current bonuses that apply to Nos apply to Neuts as well. I think that if you are able to attack a ships capacitor directly, you should at least have to endure some cost of your own, since you're bypassing their armor, speed, sig radius, resists and everything else. With Nos not only do you do all of that, but you also increase your own cap, so fitting a Nos has zero drawback. Don't we already have a perfectly useful anti-cap weapon with the Neut? What do we need Nos for? You need for Amarr since they have no mid slots. It acts as there cap booster. The only issue with nos is that you can fit a whole rack of them on some ships. This is ware the issue lies. The only thing that CCP needs to do, is put a stacking Nerf on nos.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.06.05 17:09:00 - [11] Just make nos require a utility slot. Than give ships 1 or 2 slots depending on size. Amarr ships get 2-3 utility slots since they use more cap, have the PG for nos and a lot of amarr vessels have a highslot left after fitting a rack of guns. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.05 17:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Tsukiko Ishida Edited by: Tsukiko Ishida on 05/06/2007 16:59:39 Originally by: murder one We have a module that attacks a ships capacitor directly: the neutralizer. There is a skill to increase the efficiency of the neutralizer, and all current bonuses that apply to Nos apply to Neuts as well. I think that if you are able to attack a ships capacitor directly, you should at least have to endure some cost of your own, since you're bypassing their armor, speed, sig radius, resists and everything else. With Nos not only do you do all of that, but you also increase your own cap, so fitting a Nos has zero drawback. Don't we already have a perfectly useful anti-cap weapon with the Neut? What do we need Nos for? You need for Amarr since they have no mid slots. It acts as there cap booster. The only issue with nos is that you can fit a whole rack of them on some ships. This is ware the issue lies. The only thing that CCP needs to do, is put a stacking Nerf on nos. What about a stacking nerf, plus implementing 'utility slots' in the highs, there by limiting the number of nos to the utility slots, and make two of the highs utility slots for every BS, three for BCs and four for cruisers and frigs? Similar to how we have turret/missile slots currently. Because I said so...
justcheckingthemarket	Posted - 2007.06.05 17:29:00 - [13] Originally by: murder one What about a stacking nerf, plus implementing 'utility slots' in the highs, there by limiting the number of nos to the utility slots, and make two of the highs utility slots for every BS, three for BCs and four for cruisers and frigs? Similar to how we have turret/missile slots currently. although i disagree with your nerf nos whine (come on, isn't it getting boring) i really like the utility slot idea!! limiting the fitting of nos to those utility slots would solve all existing issues concerning nos imho!!
Xeen DuWang Hell's Horsemen Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.05 17:40:00 - [14] Nos is limited by its powergrid use, Heavies take what 2k PG. Cmon they dont suck that much cap really, not near what a neut can take. (yes I know neuts take from both ships) Use a fing injector and get over it. Hell's Horsemen Phalanx Alliance
Captain Crimson Galactic Production Dynamics	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:02:00 - [15] Originally by: Xeen DuWang Nos is limited by its powergrid use, Heavies take what 2k PG. Cmon they dont suck that much cap really, not near what a neut can take. (yes I know neuts take from both ships) Use a fing injector and get over it. Properly cycled nos make an injector reduntant. Learn to learn... Anyhoo, I agree: neut should be the only cap warfare. Originally by: Tuxford I have already expressed my personal opinion on this and it was very positive (something about happy in the pants).
Earthan Gallente The Absolutely Amazing Fire Eaters Breidablik	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:04:00 - [16] Edited by: Earthan on 05/06/2007 18:03:18 Because variety is good and interesting? you know we coudl all fly same ships and fight with same guns ,elminiate all other options, no missiles no drones etc, would be perfectly balanced - Killing Eve bullies all over the galaxy hunting stories
Trishan Minmatar Green Men Incorporated The Threshold	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:18:00 - [17] Originally by: Xeen DuWang Nos is limited by its powergrid use, Heavies take what 2k PG. Cmon they dont suck that much cap really, not near what a neut can take. (yes I know neuts take from both ships) Use a fing injector and get over it. It would be fun to see what happened if injectors suddenly were moved to a low slot.
Taerenius Caldari	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:43:00 - [18] Originally by: Trishan Originally by: Xeen DuWang Nos is limited by its powergrid use, Heavies take what 2k PG. Cmon they dont suck that much cap really, not near what a neut can take. (yes I know neuts take from both ships) Use a fing injector and get over it. It would be fun to see what happened if injectors suddenly were moved to a low slot. Caldari would suddenly have a whole bunch of new options available to them? :)
K'reemy G'udness Delicious	Posted - 2007.06.05 19:41:00 - [19] /Signed Sincerely, K'reemy ---
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.06.05 19:43:00 - [20] Because CCP hates the Amarr.
Dyavn Ryyre Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.06.05 19:48:00 - [21] Make Neuts use 25% less cap on your side. Make Nos drain 25% less cap. ________________________________________________ Originally by: "Alumion" Welcome to EVE, where many wars are started over forum posts.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:11:00 - [22] Nos is fine, I've given plenty of reasons in other threads, learn to play, NOOBS. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
l3lind Man	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:13:00 - [23] yeah nos removed = win
Tuea	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:30:00 - [24] I disagree with removing it from the game, there's nothing wrong with the idea of NOS & it adds that bit more variety which can only be a good thing. What's needed imo is a nerf for using large NOS vs small target etc & a nerf of it's abilities, maybe a 30 - 40% reduction in it's drain amount.
Zixxa	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:43:00 - [25] Originally by: murder one Originally by: Zixxa Murder nubi again! I recalled that he had explained how uber is Rokh. CCP still lets you post on the forums? Sure. Why are you still lying? --------------------------------- Hint 1: Train for Mega, not for Rokh Hint 2: Abaddon is uber fleet BS. R.I.P. <Torpedo Raven> R.I.P. <Eagle> R.I.P. <ECM> R.I.P. <Drake>
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:48:00 - [26] Originally by: Zixxa Originally by: murder one Originally by: Zixxa Murder nubi again! I recalled that he had explained how uber is Rokh. CCP still lets you post on the forums? Sure. Why are you still lying? Stop trolling, Zixxa. Im also surprised to still see you here. You're probably one of the most trollish posters ive seen in these forums. --- Originally by: CCP Wrangler You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
General Apocalypse Amarr Dark-Rising Fallen Souls	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:49:00 - [27] Edited by: General Apocalypse on 05/06/2007 20:48:41 TBH a full rack of neuts on a BS is sustainable only if you have not tanks , whit nos you can tank like a beast and still hurt the supercap. And nos exists to be fited on the megas , geddon last free high slot Also this is new and intresting Thank You SkyFlyer
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated Free Trade Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.05 21:49:00 - [28] Originally by: murder one Originally by: goodby4u You take the cap of the enemy and put it back into your tank,whereas the neut takes it from both. WTS: Reading Comprehension Skillbook. Re-read my post. I was tired!I didnt sleep for a while and stuff..... __________________________________________ Yes it is great being amarr. I am minmatar,fly amarr,use gellente drones and am in caldari space.
Dragonrazor Amarr	Posted - 2007.06.06 04:21:00 - [29] Edited by: Dragonrazor on 06/06/2007 04:21:28 NOS is an awful excuse of a game feature. The only drawback that exists is one that penalizes those who would hope to use them to counter them... A domi loses little by fitting more nos than the other guy on paper... His drones afteral are the damage dealers... but every non drone ship in the game requires it's high slots for weaponry in order to out damage a drone ship effectively AND break it's tank and sustain it's own. Whats more, while I agree cap drain/neutralizing should remain as a viable way to counter smaller ships... It is a bit too effective. 1 nos activation can ruin a smaller ships whole day in some cases... Thats bad form if you ask me... because it cost the bigger ship nothing to activate the module, or fit it except less guns. I have always agreed with the OP's point of view that nos should either be removed, or have serious penalties to the ship using it. I propose some new ideas that I haven't heard before: Neutralizers remain unchanged, or perhaps have their effects buffed more for training the skill in them. Nos should incur a % decrease in cap recharge rate on a vessel that has it fit whether it's in use or not. Ships that require or are intended to use nos should have a new additional bonus to reduce this % effect (like the thorax has for MWD). This % drawback should increase (stack) for every Nos fitted. The ideal situation is one where nos activation and effects in combat equals or slightly improves the cap recharge rate of a ship without one, but only while in use. That is... If my ship takes 100 seconds normally to recharge without nos, and my nos penalty increases my recharge time to say... 120 seconds... Activating the nos and having it pull cap will bring it back down or near 100 seconds again (in theory, assuming steady cap supply of the target etc). Thus the only time it can be effective is when it is in use... Or alternatively, brings the cap recharge rate to say... 95 seconds when in use... 5 seconds faster than normal... IT would STILL be an effective offensive weapon because the enemy ship is still being cap drained... But unlike Neuts, cost nothing to activate. As an additional nerf, nos's (not nuets so much) should have sig tracking issues like turrets, and effect smaller ships less than larger ones... Using a mid size nos on a BS on the other hand should have the opposite effect, a slightly (say 10% or so) increase in cap sucked. All in all: Neutralizers should be a BS cap weapon of choice, with nosses only being really useful when fit on some ships (domi for example). Noses would be more effective for smaller ships than larger ones as they can be used on (read "Against") larger ships to greater effect. Especially since most frigates and many cruisers fight within Nos ranges. As a compromise nosses range could be changed and include optimal and falloff ranges... 10KM optimal, 20KM falloff base... Whatcha all think? ******************************************* "Stars Die... Empires fall... We are dust..." *******************************************
Sailon	Posted - 2007.06.06 07:22:00 - [30] Originally by: l3lind Man yeah nos removed = win yea i think you mean amarr=whine

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.