|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 10:02:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Ovno ConSyquence Am I the only person who thinks the nos change buffs the amarr?
Take an apoc for example...
Fit 2 x lar IIs and 6 x mega pulse IIs and you'll find your cap sits around zero after a couple of cycles (might need a mwd in there to really gimp your cap)
Once in this capless state you can use your 2 heavy nos to your hearts content
Then add a cap injector probably to make sure you can still fight if theres no cap available for you to nos (probably with 400's instead of 800's so your cap doesn't go too high)
And there we go a nice short ranged nos gank and tank ship...
Or have I got it wrong somehow?
Nope, completelly agree with you. These nos changes are a huge boost to Amarr laser ships.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 10:10:00 -
[2]
Originally by: ChapterMaster
Originally by: LvxOccvlta Edited by: LvxOccvlta on 31/07/2007 10:04:58 If this NOS nerf comes about, we might see a resurgence of 100-man Frigate Gangs. Battleships will become limp like putty against a group of tacklers.
And it will have to be 100 non-amarr frigates as well, because under the next round of restrictions, all Amarr ships will self destruct 10 mins after leaving the station.
Can I have your stuff then?
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 10:36:00 -
[3]
Originally by: IPyric Re-think the Khanid ships too, if Amarr pilots wanted caldari ships they would train caldari ;/
Learn to play the game and stop complaining!
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 10:48:00 -
[4]
Originally by: IPyric
!! Duel REP and Talisman implants in a curse LOL no wonder these changes dont affect you.. you dont even know how to fit a curse.
Translation : "OMG you don't fit your ship like every other ftm bandwagon jumper, how dare you use your brain and come up with a diferent fit?!?"
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 11:46:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Azuse Not how i woud have put it but that's pretty much what i ment (looks like it wnet over your head tho ).
If a pilrgims cap recharged twice as fast as the bs cap, nothing would happen, if the bs nossed the pilgrim, then the pilgrims cap would fall but bear in mind that its recharge rate is still lower than that of the bs, so despite its nos bonus, it isn't sucking squat. Enter neuts stage left. Now the little pilgrim turns a neut on, bs cap drops but unless it drops below 35% (peak recharge) all your doing is increasing the difference in both ships recharge rates, meaning that not only is your own cap dropping and your nos not nosing but the bs is nossing even more from you.
N.B "Uh... cap recharge time alone is pretty meaningless here." - if cap recharge time is the basis for the amount of cap transfered, how can it be meaningless?
Lastly, this is only for the pilgrim, which with carefull neuting could break the bs cap, but for other hacs there is just no point in carrying nos, other than countering (which it wont really do) a bs nos.
Cap recharge time is not the basis for amount of cap transfered, you must have misunderstood the changes. The base for the amount of cap transfered is current cap percentage, cap recharge rate has nothing to do with it.
You don't even need to defend against a BS nos if you are cap stable, unless the BS drains its own cap to 0 to be able to drain your cap with nos alone.
After the changes the nos will become a tool to help stabilize your own cap (even at the expense of the cap of your enemy). Cap warfare (totally draining your opponents cap), will be transfered to energy neuts where it should belong.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 13:39:00 -
[6]
Originally by: anillation This will really kill a lot of gallente setups. My myrm, brutix, domi, thorax all use 1-2 nos to keep the blasters going. Most of those ships I use a dual rep and no plate so cap is crucial. With this change in nos I wouldn't be able to keep my cap going to run the rep. Gallente suck cap wise as is, even with nos I still carry a few cap charges just in case. Also that would really hurt the EOS since you basically wait for your opponents cap to run before yours does. I think this will seriously damp a lot of gallente ship setups. Thats like saying lets nerf blasters so if they can only get the targets ship armor down to what your ships amor is at. The other thing I could see this seriously affecting amarr ships like the armageddon. They must have nos to run the guns and still use cap charges so they can run heavy hitting guns. I know if this nerf happens I will need to train for minmatar so I can have a nice setup for pvp.
Damn some of you guys really must be stupid beyond belief!
Warning: sorry about the caps THIS IS A BOOST TO SHIPS THAT ARE NOT CAP STABLE WITHOUT HELP!
If you need a nos in your current setup to keep your modules going, then this change won't affect you very much. Infact it will help you because your enemies won't be able to nos you dry UNLESS they spend more cap than you!
Warning: sorry about the caps again THIS CHANGE IS ONLY A NERF TO THOSE SHIPS WHO RELIED ON NOS TO KILL THE ENEMIES CAP!
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 13:54:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Brominder CCP, ARE YOU INSANE? The community asks for a minor Amarr buff and you in effect NERF half the ships!
Curse and Pilgrim are completely screwed by this change. Solo kills are out the window with the nos changes. These ships need either immunity from the nos change or some other significant bonus.
Secondly, the khanid changes are stupid. Missiles? Missiles?!? The problem with Amarr ships was damage per second, and you want to fix this by making them all missile boats? There's a race for that, it's called Caldari, AND THEY SUCK AT DPS TOO. I have an idea, let's kill the Damnation by killing it's grid, yeah, that'll be a hoot. Oh, and let's force all the Amarr pilots to train three months of missile skills to use half their ships again.
This is the WORST fix I've ever seen from CCP. It doesn't resolve any of the problems with existing Amarr ships and ruins the Curse/Pilgrim, the only ships that worked under current rules. If you believe these changes "fix" Amarr, you are an idiot.
Please turn on your brain before posting again. Thank you.
P.S.- Can I have your stuff?
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 14:13:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Voltaeis Gemini Agree with the overwhelming majority of posters this NOS nerf is quite possible the most ill considered peice of mal administration i have seen in MMO.. The "fix" lacks vison, creativity and any sensability. Even this topic with 9 pages of responses is hidden away in a thread called information portal where only a few players will find it.. Many threads now exist on this topic and the overwhelmingly opinion expressed by majority of posters is the NOS nerf is extreme to say the least.
The implications for Gallentae and Amarr players are massive.. the curse and pilgrim are next to useless now.. the cap intensive Gallentae blaster vessels will melt in both PVP and PVE..
NOS even under the existing framework is not a win button, it limitations are many the range is short, a nos fitting has a large impact on DPS and is easily avoided by fast vessels, ranged combatants and cap boosters. There have been many player whining in the past petitioning for a nerf and it would appear that rather than displaying a backbone and standing firm on the current frame work u have caved.
TBH i am absoloutly flabbergasted with the response of CCP to the NOS issue.. Not sure i can bring myself to say more given all these replies and no ccp response to any concerns appears to be falling on deaf ears.. Its not too late too change your mind..
Wasthere ever a worse idea?
Another very interesting post on why the ppl fighting against the nos nerf don't even engage their brain before spewing this kin of garbage on the forums.
See the wholle thread for the reasons why you are wrong on everything that you wrote...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 14:16:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Corvin Demeter To follow up my previous post...
1. Why were the implications of Nos/Neut not fully thought through before they went live?
2. Why have the Amarr been left hanging out to dry for so long?
3. Why have Gallente/Minmatar ships been allowed to assume the ascendancy in PvP for so long.
4. Why are Caldari ships so slow and ugly.
Balancing team...we want answers...please.
I'll answer these for them:
1. What implications are your really talking about? This question makes no sence.
2. This nos nerf is a boost to amarr pulse laser ships so stfu.
3. What type of PVP are you talking about? 1v1 PVP, yes, Gallente are kings there, small scale and fleet PVP... not so much so your point is not valid.
4. Because they are supposed to be like that.
Now do you have any more absurd questions?
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 14:32:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Voltaeis Gemini
Originally by: PhantomVyper
Originally by: Voltaeis Gemini Agree with the overwhelming majority of posters this NOS nerf is quite possible the most ill considered peice of mal administration i have seen in MMO.. The "fix" lacks vison, creativity and any sensability. Even this topic with 9 pages of responses is hidden away in a thread called information portal where only a few players will find it.. Many threads now exist on this topic and the overwhelmingly opinion expressed by majority of posters is the NOS nerf is extreme to say the least.
The implications for Gallentae and Amarr players are massive.. the curse and pilgrim are next to useless now.. the cap intensive Gallentae blaster vessels will melt in both PVP and PVE..
NOS even under the existing framework is not a win button, it limitations are many the range is short, a nos fitting has a large impact on DPS and is easily avoided by fast vessels, ranged combatants and cap boosters. There have been many player whining in the past petitioning for a nerf and it would appear that rather than displaying a backbone and standing firm on the current frame work u have caved.
TBH i am absoloutly flabbergasted with the response of CCP to the NOS issue.. Not sure i can bring myself to say more given all these replies and no ccp response to any concerns appears to be falling on deaf ears.. Its not too late too change your mind..
Wasthere ever a worse idea?
Another very interesting post on why the ppl fighting against the nos nerf don't even engage their brain before spewing this kin of garbage on the forums.
See the wholle thread for the reasons why you are wrong on everything that you wrote...
I have read it and your point is?? Simply put i am responding to the invitation to submit my thoughts.. so pull your head in flame merchant and disengage your brain for a bit.. looks like its been running online cause u make no point whatsoever with garbage replies like the trash u used to comment on my feedback to the creators of this abomination.
Are they? So care to elaborate on how exactly this is a nerf to Amarr laser ships instead of a buff?
Or on how your pathetic whining isn't based on any actual evidence, beeing on TQ or Sisi?
Let me elaborate using a few of your "pearls" as an example:
- "The implications for Gallentae and Amarr players are massive.. ": Yes they are, this is a pretty good boost for their weapon using ships. Nos will still be able to be used as a suplement to your cap when you are using more cap than your enemy, wich laser and blaster boats usually do. Appart from this, these changes effectivelly PREVENT you from beeing nossed dry by your opponent.
- "NOS even under the existing framework is not a win button, it limitations are many the range is short, ": Really?! And what limitations are those? Before these changes it effectivelly killed your opponents active tank and gank whille giving you the means to increase yours... Where exactly do you see a limitation here? And limited range?!?! A BS sized nos has a 25km+ range, thats alot more than the short range BS weapons have!
Every other word in your post isn't even worth mentioning or discussing so again I renew my advice to put your brain in the ON position before posting, or at least to actually know what you're talking about before making a fool of yourself...
|
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 14:50:00 -
[11]
Originally by: John Quicksilver WTS curse + Pilgrim :(
Evemail me and I'll buy them of you, or just contract them to me: 100 mill for both.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 15:29:00 -
[12]
Originally by: egal069
(that's my reply) now anyone know what's up with sisi, they redoing the patchs now or something, i thought it was supposed to be
This may be a stupid proposal but: you did remember to install a fresh client for Sisi didn't you?
I'm at work so I have no way to check if it actually working right now or not.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 15:42:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Almarez So what is to keep the non-cap dependent ships (i.e. Minmitar) from fitting a neut or two and bringing the Amarr ship down and the Amarr ship can not NOS because the Minmitar ship has a lower cap and the Amarr ship still dies because the Minmitar ship can get cap all the way down and still shoot and now the Amarr cap is down and the cap runs out completely because lasers suck up the rest.
So how exactly does a non-cap dependant ship using only neuts have a lower cap percentage than an Amarr ship that is beeing neuted and using cap for its lasers as well?!??!
In that kind of situation the nos on the Amarr ship would help it keep its cap long enough for its weapons to finish of the Minnie ship (hoppefully).
But since this is all baselless speculation, neither of us will ever trully know...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 15:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Almarez
Originally by: Mr Breakfast
Originally by: Haradgrim I still don't see how people are thinking this is that huge of a nerf to Nos, any ship that used it before to sustain cap is still going to be able to Nos the other ship to zero, you just won't be able to outpace it (which you should be using neuts for anyhow.
Anyone? Am I missing somehting?
If your cap is going up from NOS and the target's cap is going down, you would reach a point of equilibrium where the two caps are equal and NOS stops working. At that point you can shut off NOS and kill them while their guns/tank drain the rest of their cap.
This doesn't apply in close fights where both players are using NOS and their cap is neck-and-neck. I'm not sure how that kind of battle would work out, but we'll see after the patch is released.
Also doesn' apply to Amarr ships fighting non-cap depedent ships as the Amarr ship will now lose every time.
O'RLY?!? Give me a specific ship with a specific non-cap dependant fit to corroborate your assumptions and we can take it from there...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 16:25:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Almarez
Abaddon/Apocalyse/Armageddon vs. Tempest/Typhoon/possibly Raven
I remember asking for a "specific" fit. Just throwing out ship names doesn't prove anything.
But just so you don't acuse me of trolling, I believe that a Raven with a complete passive shield tank would have a hard time fitting heavy neuts and decent missiles to really be a threat to a Geddon / Abaddon.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 17:01:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Commander Spectre Edited by: Commander Spectre on 31/07/2007 16:56:54 Edited by: Commander Spectre on 31/07/2007 16:55:18 Well I think this change sucks. The only difference is I'm not a CCP puppet that is afraid to say so. This was obviously done to further boost Amarr ships while leaving the rest of the races behind. Of course it doesn't affect minmtar much which is another requirement of a patch. The NOS domi is now going to be a thing of the past making it a totally usless ship. It doesn't have the firepower to take on any of the other tier 1 BS so it is just a plain drone boat. Might get some use outta it by sticking some miner IIs and mining drones on it.
So if you make a new character make sure you train up Amarr or Minmtar. CCP is out to ruin the other races with thier "Patches". Another stupid idea from CCP. What is the deal anyways? Do you only listen to Amarr whiners before you make a patch?
Ok, let me reply to your post by saying:
"Oh noes, the nos-domi now actually requires some thought and isn't an I-Win boat vs almost everyother ship out there!"
Again:
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 17:14:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Duhmad IbnRa The one thing i dont like about the khanid changes is that it leaves all amarr pilots, who specialized in lasers, with 1 AF that can't properly tackle on its own.
This was the vengance niche so far, since the retribution cant do it with just one med slot. So if the vengance is changed so drastically the retribution needs at least one more med slot, preferrably by sacrificing one low slot.
In general i dont like missile ships since they are not very useful in PVP (why isnt that fixed? there are multiple proposals on that..!). Another thing is that few people fly amarr because amarr ships are very predictable, especially in this case. seriously, would you fly a sacrilege, if a caracal pilot can kill you, while you dont stand a chance to hit him, because he has a longer range and more med slots to dampen you? if you really wanna boost khanid ships, give em a bonus on missiles in general, not just close range, because thats a nerf in (a bad) disguise, and people dont like that...
WHAT?!?!
"In general i dont like missile ships since they are not very useful in PVP" - Do you know ANYTHING about this game?!?! The reason "missile ships" aren't regarded as very usefull in PVP is because they where all Caldari, i.e. shield tankers, and so had to sacrifice their tank to tackle, use speed mods, EW, etc.
Guess what the Khanid ships are? Armour tankers, so this isn't an issue anymore.
And a Sacriledge can't kill a Caracal because the Caracal has more mids and a bigger range?!?! WTF are you smoking! I can kill non-AM Caracals in my Punisher! With 2 midslots and a range of 2km on my guns!
Please, please, please, for the guys arguing against these changes, at least find some arguments that aren't actually absurd and some people qho actually know anything about PVP in this game!
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.31 17:21:00 -
[18]
Originally by: JCache
Originally by: Hellspawn01 You can stop posting here. Its useless. The changes are already coming if we like it or not. Talking about it wont change anything.
Devs, you suck.
You're probably right, but at least we should let them know how ****ty they are. They will definitely lose some customers because of this crap. Let's see if they can adapt or will die...
Can I have your stuff?
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 11:23:00 -
[19]
Originally by: TheDevilsLawyer Edited by: TheDevilsLawyer on 01/08/2007 09:54:56
Originally by: PhantomVyper THIS IS A BOOST TO SHIPS THAT ARE NOT CAP STABLE WITHOUT HELP!
If you need a nos in your current setup to keep your modules going, then this change won't affect you very much. Infact it will help you because your enemies won't be able to nos you dry UNLESS they spend more cap than you!
Sorry, you and everyone else who is saying this is wrong.
I will assume a "NOT CAP STABLE" ship goes up against a ship that does not depend on boosters or nos.
Firstly, your ship is more cap-reliant than theirs. If you nos them down to your level they care far less than you that they are at a low cap. If the enemy is smart and realizes your setup depends on nos, they will purposely run themselves to low cap, your setup won't be able to nos the cap you need, and you will die. You're giving the enemy player control of a situation you previously had control over. If you nos them down to zero, then you are dead, not them, as your setup is cap-reliant. Additionally, you fail to take into account neutralizers. The best PvPers already use neuts as an alternative to or in combination with nos, if fitting neuts becomes common your cap-relaint setup will suffer FAR more than others.
This change will make cap-reliant setups (pulse dual rep and the like) obselete. They won't be able to obtain the cap they need using nos because nos are unreliable and the enemy players know this. Sure, they don't have to face being nosed to death, rather, they commit nos-suicide or get neuted to death instead.
And again I ask, show me a cap independent setup that relies on neuts.
Cap unstable setups (dual reps and such), have never relied on nos alone to keep going, you'll always need a cap injector and always have. This change is a boost to that kind of setups, if they die to neuts or not is irrelevant, the fact that they did die whennever they found a nos (wich everyone was using in their PVP ships), and now they won't IS a boost.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 11:31:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Roninwolfie
Originally by: Titus Lewis Alright, I'm starting to come around on the Khanid changes. At first, I was a little on the bandwagon of the people that were so upset about all the gunnery skills going to waste and having to train missiles. I think the thing they don't understand is that it's relatively easy to train missiles, and compared to the gunnery skills needed to make lasers semi-effective its a breeze. Also, as long as this isn't the only plan to fix Ammar, we are okay. Lasers still need to be looked at, (cap? actual ship bonuses?) and beams still need to be able to be fit on our ships. Ammar still needs to be made more useful, but I'm starting to see this as at least a step in the right direction. And the NOS thing? Yeah, long overdue.
hey im with u man , im going to train caldari an get me into a drake lol , nos/passive tanked drake ftw!!!
Damn these whiners are a riot!
|
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 11:38:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Bad Liz Lol its not a setup that needs tweaking. When you make a ship based around 1 weapon, and then change the whole concept behind it without changing the ship then you're in big trouble. And I agree with the previous poster, CCP needs to learn how to change things in the game without nerfing as their only tool (obvious lack of imagination). NOS always had a clear tradeoff, you sacrifice a hardpoint for it. It would have been far more of a tradeoff if CCP made ships with all turret or launcher possible hardpoints. As usual there is little logic in the CCP decision and obviously far less input from the community. But we all know it was best for drone based ships...like the Pilgrim or the Curse. I spend everyday killing people in these ships and can't wait for the next raven to finally kill me thanks to this nerf...I mean balancing.
Next time try and use tactics instead of the fotm ship. try it out on Sisi, the Curse is still more than capable of killing BSs...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 11:42:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Roninwolfie
Originally by: PhantomVyper
Originally by: Roninwolfie
Originally by: Titus Lewis Alright, I'm starting to come around on the Khanid changes. At first, I was a little on the bandwagon of the people that were so upset about all the gunnery skills going to waste and having to train missiles. I think the thing they don't understand is that it's relatively easy to train missiles, and compared to the gunnery skills needed to make lasers semi-effective its a breeze. Also, as long as this isn't the only plan to fix Ammar, we are okay. Lasers still need to be looked at, (cap? actual ship bonuses?) and beams still need to be able to be fit on our ships. Ammar still needs to be made more useful, but I'm starting to see this as at least a step in the right direction. And the NOS thing? Yeah, long overdue.
hey im with u man , im going to train caldari an get me into a drake lol , nos/passive tanked drake ftw!!!
Damn these whiners are a riot!
hey whiners whineing about whiners are even more of a riot lolololol , but hey im going caldari an going to nos/passive tank a drake lol hey a scorp be even better :O
You cannot make a setup like that work on a Drake you moron, less of all in a Scorp! Do you even know anything about this game?!
And I'm not whining about anything, for me CCP has done a great job with this patch, all they need to do is add a neut bonus and a few more PG to the faction ships that only have a nos bonus.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 11:56:00 -
[23]
Originally by: IPyric PhantomVyper stop forum spaming i dont think anyone really cares what you have to say, its quite clear your a tool :P
I'm not forum spamming I'm replying to knee jerk posts that don't have a shred of evidence in them.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 12:04:00 -
[24]
Originally by: TheDevilsLawyer
The fact is nos were used to break tanks. Now they can't be used to do this. People will look for the next best thing to break tanks and that is the neutralizer. It will be used, and it is just as effective at this purpose than nos. I'm not saying neuting ferox (genius! ), I'm saying a heavy neut, maybe two, will be used along with a cap booster. The end result is the problem isn't fixed at all. This nerf won't change anything except make nos useless in combat. There are better nerfs out there that balance nos better and can be used on neuts as well should that be necessary. The signature radius one comes to mind, or the stacking penalty, or the slots for nos/neuts similar to turret/launcher slots, among many others.
Finnally a well thought out post, thank you.
I agree with you on most of the things you said. The advantage to this is that whille a setup as you suggest will probably be made (the obvious ship for it is a Dominix for example), and also be fairly effective, you can't just slap a heavy neut on any setup and expect for it to work the same way as the nos did...
For starters a neut requires more PG than nos and it also needs to use a fair bit of your own cap to function, so that cap booster will have to support the neuts and any active tank you may have (I really doubt a passive tank / neut setup is possible to achieve).
So, well will this lead us? The neut alternative will not be used nearly as extensivelly as the nos currently are, wich means that cap dependant setups are more viable to use since they won't have a readilly available counter that everyone uses, so its a boost to those kind of setups, more notably to laser ships and to a lesser extent (since they are less cap hungry), to blaster setups as well.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 13:08:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Bad Liz
Thanks for the advice Viper, I've already been there and know what I'm talking about - its far from anything like what those ships used to work like. Any other jems you have while forum trolling or is that it? Hate people who's existence is based off making asinine comments to other people's posts.
Are the Curse / Pilgrim worse than they where before? Yes they are, no one is saying otherwise.
Are you actually saying that you can't find a Curse / Pilgrim setup that can perform in a similar faction as it did before the patch?
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 13:41:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Slade Bolgard One of the ironies, that someone commented on way back in the threat, is I primarily use my Pilgrim to kill Asia farmers in zero sec. Works pretty well for taking out PvE fitted Ravens.
I guess as long as the changes balance it out for everyone - Amarr loses, while Asia farmers win. I guess the noobs who cried for a nerf win too, because the price of ISK will probably go down too.
Yay.
Strange then that I can't seem to find a single solo kill of yours involving a Pilgrim...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 13:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Slade Bolgard
Not that strange - I usually run with a 2-4 man crew when I'm on farmer duty. I'm pleased you spent the time looking, though. Grab me some coffee while you're at it.
Not a problem, I'm bored at work so don't really have anything better to do atm.
So for some positive input, how exactly does this change affects your gang running ship then? Because most ppl complaining about the Curse / Pilgrim are doing so in regard to their solo abilities.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 13:55:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Hammar Wolf
The CPU killboard is new. But keep trolling you might find our forums and keep posting there in case this thread dies. Check my pilgrim kills while you're out there - I also post here as Bad Liz and I'd love to meed someone here who kills more per day in a Pilgrim than I do.
I'm not trolling I'm trying to get you guys to post some reasonable coments on how this changes really are that bad for the Curse / Pilgrim.
So I extend the question I just made to the alliance mate to you: how does this change affects your gang going Pilgrim?
You also mentioned as Bad Liz that you had tested the changes on Sisi. How badly did it wen't? What ships where you able to kill before that you can't kill now? What wen't wrong in those fights? What kind of weaknesses did you find in your setup that you think can't be overcome with a diferent setup?
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 14:27:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Hammar Wolf
Well there are several problems. For one the pilgrim can only take on caldari ships if its well tanked and has armor plating to last, with a full tackling fitting such as all scrams or webs or a combo of damps and scrams it is heavily cap dependent. Now currently a Pilgrim vs Raven fight reaches a key point when the raven is sapped for cap but the pilgrim has plenty to go and can outlast the hitpoints on the raven. With the new setup to kill his cap you have to have none yourself, shortly thereafter your mods will turn off and you may well die as the raven can last much longer on its HP than the pilgrim. 2 nos + 1 neut are simply insufficient to fully power the pilgrim for one and its a deadly setup because once the opponent runs out of cap your neut may keep going and drain you to the last ounce you have before you manage to turn it off. Also you are now totally vulnerable to someone throwing a neut onto you, especially at the wrong moment which means fairly instant death.
Was jamming a scorp yesterday while draining him and the fight went pretty well since his nos couldn't really counter mine when he could use it. If I didn't have plenty reserve cap whenever it hit I would have lost all power and this is precisely what will happen with this patch - once you hit low 1 heavy neut will decimate you instantly.
You make some interesting points, and most ppl are saying that the Pilgrim is hit alot harder than the Curse, mainly because of its shorter range and bigger dependence on actually having to tank some damage.
All in all you are probably right. the Pilgrim as it is is finished as a an all-purpose EW platform. The 2 damps + burst ecm can't really be sustainable when used with one or two neuts simply because you'd need to cram a cap booster in there and you can't really remove anything from your mids without cripling you...
On the other hand, it still is a very good TD platform since you can use just 2 TDs without any problem and use the other mid-slot to fit in a cap booster.
Is this so wrong? That is up to CCP to decide I guess.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 15:09:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Slade Bolgard
The only problem I have with that is this: If you just look at it as a TD platform, then it's essentially just an arbitrator that can cloak, and its Tech II bonus goes out the window.
It doesn't really go out the window because you can use the cap booster to help sustain the neut. A fully skilled Pilgrim drains around 30 energy/s with neuts, its is a really strong bonus.
But the easier way for CCP to keep the Pilgrim up without changing the nos nerf (wich I ultimatelly think its really good), would be to give it a bonus to allow it to use nos even when the target is bellow your cap, this bonus would probably have to replace the drone bonus (dropping its sub-par DPS even lower), or the TD bonus (making amarr the "energy EW" race).
This is off course assuming that CCP thinks that the Curse / Pilgrim are fine the way they are right now wich none of us really knows...
|
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 17:11:00 -
[31]
Another perfect example of someone just whinning without any freaking clue of what he is talking about.
Lets take the time to break his post appart shall we?!
Originally by: Asterixm "The other 90% is whine"
Amarr is the only race who is unable to npc everywhere because of laser damages
---> nothing done for it.
It seems like the missile change on some ships is something done for it, now you can choose wich type of damage to do whille ratting...
Originally by: Asterixm
Switching laser for missiles on half of t2 amarr ship
---> What about changing raven missile slot for laser slot ? yeahh i think the raven is overpowered for npcing, do it and you will see what "whining" means because nothing whine more than a carebear army. This is totaly same things than switching laser for milles.
So you say a missile shis is overpowered for PVE, you complain that Amarr in its current form is bad in PVE, but when Amarr gets missile ships you complain about it?!?!?
Originally by: Asterixm
Powergrid issue, still so few powergrid on amarr ship, harder difficulties to fit if we change nos for neutra ....
---> Nothing done for it.
Read the hundreds of posts done on this subject, Amarr is probably the race that gets the most benefit from the new nos. Why on earth would you wan't to put a neut instead of a nos in our already cap hungry laser ships?!?!?
Originally by: Asterixm
Before this patch was able to fly all amarr ship fully t2 fitted, now i can only fly half of them and i'm not talking about curse/pillgrim nerf.
But caldari would be happy they just won new ships.
Some reasons to be angry, isn't it ?
Caldary will have to train armor tankin skills and amarr ships to fly the new ships. You'll find that training the missile skills to use them takes alot less time...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 11:17:00 -
[32]
Originally by: RtoZ I haven't read this thread, so my apologies if I repeat anything. I stated in this thread a possible workaround to the NOS nerf: Passive tanking and NOS
The basic idea is that with the new NOS mechanics it is actually beneficial for a ship to get rid of its capacitance so that it can completely drain an enemy with NOS. With a passive shield tank and FoF missiles it is possible to maintain offensive even without cap, so this might be something to consider. While neutralizers require cap to be used, this system is, imo, better, because it can be used even under heavy assault from energy drain, while still maintaining a degree of defense. Add in one module dedicated to draining cap (a shield booster is ideal, as it will give you more hitpoints while active while quickly draining your cap so your onboard NOS is more effective) and you have a very nasty ship according to the new game mechanics. A passive raven imo is ideal for this setup.
Please post a setup for a ship like that. I'm betting you can't find one that is even remotelly effective.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 11:49:00 -
[33]
Originally by: RtoZ Edited by: RtoZ on 02/08/2007 11:28:07 Ship: Stock Raven. Rigs: Shield recharge. Lows: Shield recharge. Mids: 1 x-large sb II, 1 large shield extender, 2 resistance amps, 2 shield rechargers. Highs: 5 or 6 cruise or torps, 2 or 3 heavy NOS II. Ammo: Faction FoF cruise or torps. I have access to all of these in a cost effective manner with a mission runner character, and there are thousands of us in eve.
Alternatly you can swap in the amps for a web and a scramler if you feel confortable with default resistances. All depends on what you're fighting and how much support you have I guess. As for effectiveness... Well, EVE is a game of tactical superiority, and so much of the pvp is based on cowardness that in this logic effectiveness is a bit of a moot point. Judge the setup 1v1 I guess.
Point is I think this would be an effective ship, and more importantly, it would be a COMMON ship. So my fear is the "NOS Nerf" is mearly a caldari boost. Anyways, I don't usually log onto Singularity, so feel free to test variations of the above setup. If they don't work they don't work I guess. But I have a feeling they will.
I'm at work atm so I can only judge that setup on a theoretical pov.
First the obvious flaws: that setup is slow, you have a huge signature, you have no way of pinning you opponent in place and you have pathetic DPS and a sub-par tank.
In a maxed skill char you can tank 269 DPS (or 514 with the shield booster active wich even with the 3 heavy nos doesn't last long) and you do an amazing 244 DPS. I'm fairly sure I could kill a raven like that with my crappy Amarr BC, let alone a BS.
In the of chance that you do find someone who doesn't just laugh at you and kill you, whats keeping them from simply warping away?!?
Its a good setup for killing cruisers and frig sized ships... probably.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 13:25:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Persephone Heaven I dont fly Amarr so I cant comment with any authority on the Khanid changes but seems stupid to tie a ship to a specific weapon.
DonÆt bother with the NOS Nerf, just take NOS out of the game because they wont be worth jack s**t if this change is implemented. Seems like it was devised by a 2 year old for all the thought thatÆs gone into it.
You can't coment with any authority on anything aparently because you don't seem to have a clue on how things work in the game...
Nos is far from useless its just been turned form an IWin button into a defensive module, me and all the Amarr pilots who have a clue will continue to use it on our pulse laser ships whenever possible.
Originally by: Persephone Heaven
Agreed, instant cap death to small ships is a problem but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. How about finding a solution to this problem without completely destroying the NOS. I'm a NOS Domi pilot and at the moment when I fight another BS itÆs a gamble whether his Damage dealing will out do my repping and NOSing. If this change goes ahead I will never be able to break a tank and win against a damage dealer.
That means you are a really crappy NOSDomi pilot because I've never found one who had trouble against almost all the BSs in game, apart from top-of-the-line multi-billion worth BSs that some ppl fly that is!
Originally by: Persephone Heaven
HereÆs my view about NOS and how they should work:-
- Agreed, instant cap death to small ships is a problem
- NOS is a high slot weapon and should be dangerous. ItÆs an alternative to a turret or a missile bay. By fitting a NOS you are choosing to attack cap instead of shield/Armour/Hull. You cant kill someone with a NOS!!!! So sacrificing a turret for a NOS should return a benefit to the pilot and it should be pilot choice about how many to fit without a stack nerf deciding the limit to fit.
You can kill someone with a nos, every kill you got on that NOSDomi of yours was because of the nos, the drones where just the final nail in the coffin.
Fit a neut instead of a nos and you'll achieve a similar effect, only change is that ubber tank AFK-PVP of yours is now a thing of the past - EVE rejoices!
Originally by: Persephone Heaven
- It should aways be possible to break a ships Cap with many NOS be it on one ship or many if that how you choose to play. Otherwise whatÆs next, a stacking penalty for blasters to reduce the amount damage they do just in case you fit too many?
You can still break a ships tank with energy destabilizers, adapt and move on.
Originally by: Persephone Heaven
- NOS should continue to be as effective against the same size of ship eg BS vs BS and effectiveness should reduce against smaller ships eg BS vs Inty
There always existed and offensive cap warfare module, it is called a "energy destabilizer" or a "neut" for short.
Originally by: Persephone Heaven
- Interceptors can fly faster than any drone or missile and faster than any gun can track. At the moment the only thing that stops everyone from flying inites instead of BS is the fear that a larger ship might have a NOS fitted. How the hell is a BS pilot meant to defend himself against a wolf pack of frigs now or even a single interceptor? You would be crazy to fly a BS after this Nerf.
Fit a neut if you're so scared of smaller ships, it has the same range of the nos and it will zap their cap even faster.
Also, BS where never menat to be solo0wnmobiles, use your own support to kill them.
Originally by: Persephone Heaven
- NOS are also used to feed other things on the NOS boat and are part of the Cap regen calculation. If you cant predict at all how much cap you will get from the NOS again it is useless
If you need the nos ONLY to help support your own cap, then this change will hardly affect you, the only thing uselless here is your post.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 13:36:00 -
[35]
Originally by: John McCreedy On Khanid Mk. II, I have some concerns over how this affects Caldari ships, specialically the Hawk and Cerebrus which have traditionally been close range ships. To explain my concerns in detail, let's first look at the roles played by the two Assualt Frigates and the two HACs available to the Caldari.
Both these of ship are split into two roles. The Hawk and the Cerebrus are designed for close range combat using Missiles. Neither of these ships has a particulary great tank and rely in getting in under a turret ships optimal where the damage recieved is less. This also provides flexibility in ranges for the Caldari. By limiting the ability of a Hawk or Cerebrus to using Heavy missiles you're reopening the age old argument of Missiles at long range are useless due to your target's ability to warp away before the msisiles reach it. That means any Caldari Assualt Frigate or HAC pilot that's going to fly at range will be using a Harpy or Eagle and thus have their skills pointed towards Rails and not Missiles or any Hawk or Cerb pilot is going to be considerably disadvantaged at combat against a Khanid ship because the Vengence and Sacrilege have better tanks so can survive the travel distance to get in range of what will also be their superior weapons.
Whilst I'm not against giving Khanid ships missile/armour tanking capabilities, but as things stand right now, the Caldari have a very flexible arsenal in their Tech 2 ships, i.e., with the exception of the Recons, one Sniper and one Missile boat. By forcing the Caldari Missisle boats to go long range, I foresee many Hawk and Cerb pilots moving to the Vengence and Sacrilege which will better take advantage of their skill sets whilst being able to take advantage of those ships superior tanks. One possible way to avoid this would be to remove the Sacrilege's drone bay whilst giving the Hawk and the Cerb a modest drone bay therefore giving it the ability to field either EW drones or introduce Warp Scrambling drones so at least it makes the concept of a med to long range missiles based Frigate/Cruiser a viable option.
The Cerberus is a close range ship??!?!?!?
I don't understand much about Caldari boats but I always thought that "10% to missile velocity", "10% to missile flight time" meant that maybe they are expected to use the missiles from a longer range?!
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 13:41:00 -
[36]
Originally by: zeho
KHANID 2.2 WTH! Lack of direction with khanid ship? Missile boats? WRONG!
And what about all the skillpoints trained? I sure hope you bring in a redistribution system of some kind. It amazes me that this crazy half-baked idea was taken seriously. Ok, please do spend some dev dollars on khanid ship.. but changing the entire nature of them is nothing short of butchery.
Khanid ships have always been about mixed Caldari / Amarr tecnology, what would you prefer, laser shield tankers?!
Originally by: zeho
1. Knahid ships should be versatile. 2. THINK ABOUT IT - you're not introducing some new ships.. you tampering with ships that have taken MILLIONS of skillpoints to pilot effectivly. By making these drastic changes your pulling the rug out from under a great many players.
I love this argument, really I do, there where so many players using them that they have always been the most underpriced ships on the market (you could get Vengeances and Maledictions for 3 mill), the Sacriledge had the nickname "suckriledge" and was considered the worst HAC around, among other pearls.
Now CCP gives them a precise role and all of a sudden, millions of players where using this ships without anyone knowing!
Originally by: zeho
I'm a returning player too - all the aditional content (late content) was enough to make me reactivate my account. These Khanid changes are enough to make me close it again. *sigh*
Can I have your stuff?
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 14:26:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Long Fang
Originally by: Long Fang
Originally by: Long Fang
Originally by: Itburnz why not instead of nerfing nos dont you have them , have there own slot like the missile and turrent slots that way ships not nos neut specialized can only fit 1 or 2 nos. this way you dont need to change the effect of nos and fix the problem of people fitting a full rack of nos on ships like the domi.
/signed
I liked itburnz idea that much that i'm going to mention it again
That sugestion doesn't change anything, bigger ships would still kill frigate's cap in 1 or 2 cycles with no drawback making wholle classes of ships completelly uselless (Inty's and AF's).
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 15:03:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Hammar Wolf
Fager you are one of a very few people that think there is anything fine about HAMs, even the DEVs have admitted they may need work and frankly I don't think most of us care what caldarians think of the new Amarr ships... The pilgrim is totally and completely dead period please stop commenting otherwise you clearly have never flown the ship (thanks for reminding us it has a cyno function and a cloaking device so according to you that makes it still viable)
Lows: Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Small Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II
Meds: Balmer Series Targeting Inhibitor I Balmer Series Targeting Inhibitor I Faint Warp Prohibitor I Y-S8 Hydrocarbon I Afterburners Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I
Highs: Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
Rigs: Auxiliary Nano Pump I Auxiliary Nano Pump I
There you go, a pretty effective Pilgrim setup against turret ships. Can tank 276 DPS and if CCP is right about increasing its PG then you'll be able to replace that SAR II with another MAR II for even more tank.
Can permarun everything except the AB whille the Cap 800 last.
Its neuts alone drain 60en/s.
I agreed with you that Pilgrim is nerfed with this patch, but it still is a pretty effective platform for its MAIN EW armament: cap warfare with TDs.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 15:44:00 -
[39]
Originally by: William DeMeo
Neutdomi's are not possible and it's obvious you haven't flown one. How will you set it up? Cargo expanders and dual cap injectors or what? It'll suck cuz neuts take away like 5% less cap from you then from your enemy and at the same time nerfs a slot you can have dps in. Fly nosboats before you tell people how easy it'll be to refit them with energy neuts. Might be a slim chance the curse can be "somewhat" effective with 1 neut, but fact remains it's an insanely stupid and heavy nerf to an entire class of ships and a fighting style and CCP should get their act together and stop listening to whiny carebears that can't fight for ****.
- Will
You mean that now you have to actually manage your cap usage to keep the neuts and tank working in a NeutDomi, instead of "activate nos, activate tank, put drones on target, go grab lunch"?
Seems like a positive fix to me...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 16:26:00 -
[40]
Originally by: John McCreedy
Insofar as Missiles have a flight time so their damage is reduced at long range and your target will invarably warp out before the missiles arrive. It's the age old problem - as a long range weapon, Missiles just fall a long way behind turrets therefore if you want to use a long range Caldari HAC, you're going to use an Eagle, not a Cerberus.
Make sense?
Its the same thing with long range turret ships, yes the damage is instant but unless you insta-pop them, chances are they will warp away before you get the chance to shoot again.
Also Caldari have always sufered from a lack of solo-PVP ability, but seems to me that a Cerb can be quite effective as a med-long range ship if used with a dedicated tackler.
That beeing said, I've seen some nano-damp Cerb who where pretty good in small gang warfare.
|
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 16:28:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Crym Synistar
Anyhoo I spent the last few years training Caldari for nothing...ravens blow arse I much prefer lvl 4's in a Drake. Oh and now my gallente NOS Dom and Amarr recon alt have nothing promising in their future. Guess i'll have to go for Dread...oh wait you nerfed them too...well guess it's time to sit around in a carrier looking stoopid. OMG wait I have an Exhumer...quick get to work nerfing those! while yer at it Nerf POS's and make them easier to run so I can have a bat cave that my uber drake and Dom chasis can lay around collecting space dust.
Crym Nerfhater
So what you are admiting to is that you train specific chars to use the fotm ship and then get mad when those ships get nerfed?!?
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 16:49:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Kegstand Mcfarland And on top of all this the %'age of cap is pretty lame. MY BS cant NOS a Frig lower then 50% if im at 50% cap...yet A. It costs me more to run everything I have. B. My cap at 50% is still thousands more then the frigs. C. I dont ever expect a Mack truck to hit my Yugo less hard just because its unfair that im smaller then it is.
If your Frig got popped by my BS due to you being dumb enough to stay close and not either come with a tac force or at least a friend who can damp then you deserve to die. I am not gonna ask Dev's to nerf Titans AE just cause my frig cant handle the pulse....why should you folks expect a NOS Dom to drain any less just because yer small. They say LARGE Nosferatu for a reason.
Well this is very easy to reverse: If your BS got popped by my frig because you where dumb enough to not fit a tank that can witstand a single frigs DPS and not either come with a tac force or at least a friend who can kill frigs then you deserve to die...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 11:41:00 -
[43]
Originally by: William DeMeo
Yeah but the thing is though if they do that they'd need to take a serious look at interceptors since basically nothing but nos can defeat it, but if the nos has gotta get nerfed I'd rather see this happen or just make nos increase sig radius. This nos nerf is a serious overkill and not necessary in any way, shape or form. I really hope CCP read some of these posts. Got some good suggestions that'd be alot more fair then just completely screwing up nos.
Really? Nothing than nos can defeat an interceptor? Sensor dampers, neut, there are several anti-inty ships out there. That the nos was a catch-all solution to a number of threats AND increased your own cap at the same time was one of the reasons it was unbalanced.
As for the sig radius sugestion, it wasn't used probably because the moment a smaller ship used a MWD for anything it would be sucked dry.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 13:36:00 -
[44]
Originally by: William DeMeo
Originally by: PhantomVyper
Originally by: William DeMeo
Yeah but the thing is though if they do that they'd need to take a serious look at interceptors since basically nothing but nos can defeat it, but if the nos has gotta get nerfed I'd rather see this happen or just make nos increase sig radius. This nos nerf is a serious overkill and not necessary in any way, shape or form. I really hope CCP read some of these posts. Got some good suggestions that'd be alot more fair then just completely screwing up nos.
Really? Nothing than nos can defeat an interceptor? Sensor dampers, neut, there are several anti-inty ships out there. That the nos was a catch-all solution to a number of threats AND increased your own cap at the same time was one of the reasons it was unbalanced.
As for the sig radius sugestion, it wasn't used probably because the moment a smaller ship used a MWD for anything it would be sucked dry.
Damps don't kill inty's, neuts count as nos in this case.
Really, you are trully an expert in this game, I bow to your superior logic and knowledge! /sarcasm
1: Interceptors have crappy lock ranges, one skilled or two normal damps will force the interceptor to flee or close into web range. Do you know what happens to a webbed interceptor?!?
2: No a neut is nothing like a nos because not only a neut is harder to fit but takes away your cap at the same time as it takes away theirs, has pretty much the same counters as the nos currently has and will also be countered by the new nos version. So its not an automatic module for that last high slot...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 13:58:00 -
[45]
Originally by: William DeMeo Hey, dumbass. An inty pilot with an IQ of 2 will never allow themselves to get into web range since, YES, they do die to webs. But they also do 5km/s. So all you can do with damps is make inty's run away, not kill it. So I said, damps do not kill inty's, do they now?
Also, neuts do exactly the same thing as nos but less well. So in this particular case, I will count them as nos's as they are indeed effective for inty killing (though they suck for everything else)
Thanks for not thinking yourself and reading my post. bai.
Damn you really are a ****** aren't you? What good is an inty that can't lock you let alone tackle?!?!
Who cares if you killed him or not, you're big bad BS is now safe to go wherever you wan't. And you didn't said anything about killing the inty in your original post, you said that only a nos could "defeat" it. An interceptor who can't fullfil its role is defeated, doesn't mater if its dead or not.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:15:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Voltaeis Gemini
This is the worst example ever... the game is rock paper siccors not rock rock rock.. how would your nos boat have handleld a sniper rokh at 200 km?
He would have warped away...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:37:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Amaldor Themodius OH and in relation to what prompted this post -- THE NOS NERF IN THIS FORMAT IS THE SINGLE WORST GAME INNOVATION OF 2007 (TO DATE)---
Care to give any reason why this nos nerf is bad?
Because I haven't seen a single reason written here on why this Nos change is such a bad thing.
We have seen people post some very usefull thoughts on why certain ships who are supposed to use Nos are now nerfed, and CCP has replied that they will look into, but other than that, not a single coerent post about it...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 15:13:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Amaldor Themodius
Originally by: torN Deception stuff
Here is one fellow who makes some good points and valid criticisms of the NOS nerf in its current form.. i think his idea is much better than the CCP nerf..
No it is not. Like alot of people said, the sig radius proposal doesn't solve the problem that an entire class of ships is completelly rendered uselless (Interceptors), by a module that in todays environment is overused because it possesses much more advantages than drawbacks. As soon as the Interceptor (or any frigate for that matter), used its MWD it see itself completelly without cap. So that sugestion wouldn't solve what CCP perceives as one of the issues with the current Nos.
The neut will not replace the nos in most setups, therefore interceptors (and assault frigates), will be allowed to perform their role. Not only this but active tanks / energy using weapons will become more powerfull because not only will the nos continue to work for them, they won't be affected by it.
If there are so many posts on why this change is so bad, again without getting into the specific nos ships that CCP said they would be getting into, then it won't be so hard for you to find one.
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 16:02:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Borasao Edited by: Borasao on 03/08/2007 16:00:26
Originally by: Hellspawn01
Care to explain whats so good about the change?
a) Interceptor pilots could function against NOS. To kill an interceptor, you have to fit NEUT which you'll have to use at a cost (no longer free to be immune from intercteptors) b) Killing someone's cap completely would no longer be "free". You have to use your own cap to completely kill a target's cap. c) It nerfs the FOTM setups like DomiNOS. To achieve the same thing fit NEUTs but it will make the overall ship weaker (no longer able to fit super strong tank in addition to killing target's cap) d) FOTM Curse setups would not be as good. You actually have to think and work a little to remain strong with that ship. No more F1-F5, launch drones, /afk, sammich, return to loot wreck... if you see a Curse when you're in a BS, it may actually be either really dangerous because the pilot is good or piloted by a FOTM pilot and you can kill him. Even FOTM pilots will still be deadly to almost anything smaller than a BS. It also brings its soloability more in line with other recon ships. FOTM pilots will obviously be hit hardest by the NOS nerf (and will whine the loudest). e) Cap unstable setups (Megathrons use these a lot and almost all Amarr BS setups) would have some defense against NOS since their cap is always pretty low. Those setups will still benefit from fitting a NOS but if you want to kill the cap of someone in that setup, you have to fit a NEUT. f) "Cap warfare" actually has meaning... you have to fight it like a battle instead of F1-Fx, /afk g) NOS is still viable defensively (and for free other than fittings) to help maintain your cap but is no longer an offensive weapon. NEUT is the offensive weapon (as it always had been).
How about those to start with?
/win!
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 16:08:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Argen Tano
Care to explain why you missed the part, where someone suggested it should be based on base sig, and not modified sig, such as when the MWD is active?
Ok, how about that change wouldn't make anything for the fact that even against ships its own size its incredibly overpowered when compared to other modules of its category (neuts are considerably harder to fit and kill your own cap whille nos helps it), and completelly ruins setups that are perfectly viable without the after-patch nos (Amarr pulse ships mostly)?
Good enough?
|
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 16:52:00 -
[51]
Originally by: zero2espect every day i'm going to post the same thing.
the only way to fix the problem is to create NOS SLOTS. make the USELESS Utility Slots on Amarr useful.
there is a difference in this thread b/n amarr need for nos and the overpowered gallente argument.
i am sick an tired of pilots stating how useful this will be for amarr....how does it benefit our laser and repping requirements to fit a neut and bring the targets cap down AFTER ours.
again..having 5 ships NOS another and have NONE OF THEM leach any cap out of the target is plain stupid.
end.
I don't care how many times you'll post it it doesn't make it true.
Why would you wan't to put a neut in an Amarr laser ship?! That doesn't make any sense... Yes Amarr is the race that is boosted the most from this change. Why? Because thanks to our heavy energy requirements to keep our guns and tanks running the Nos will continue to be just as effective in helping us with our cap problems, whille we will be safe from the overabundance of Nos that are in the game currently! How is this so dificult to understand?
And the nos slots proposal doesn't solve the problem that a single nos ruins an Interceptor pilot's day without having any real drawback to its user.
Finnally fit neuts to those 5 ships and the target will be out of energy in no time, or better yet, fit some guns in them and watch that target ship die...
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 17:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: zero2espect
the quote above is like 99% of the posts in this forum, it represents the gallente perspective of an amarr problem. YOU FIT NOS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO. we have to fit nos because WE HAVE TO AND CAN'T FIT ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT SLOT.
example. zealot. 5 highs. 4 turrets. 1 "utility slot". 3 med slots. so we try to fit. 4 medium lasers. HIGH CAP USAGE. armour repper or 2. HIGH CAP USAGE. under these new changes. we have to run our cap LOWER than a caldari or minmatar ship that we are engageing to utilise a "UTILITY SLOT" that has a nos fitted - meaning we cant fire the lasers or rep. that doesn't make sense.
Ok, just focusing on this part of your post here.
You must have really misunderstood the nos changes.
If you fire your lasers and run your reps your cap will go down, it will go down faster than a gallente or caldari or minmatar because their weapons use less cap than ours.
So if your cap is lower that theirs, you can use the nos, just like you have been using it so far to steal their energy.
|
|
|
|