Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Baynex
Amarr Lasciate Ogne Speranza
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 10:54:00 -
[1201]
WARNING LOGIC PRESENT BELOW THIS LINE! --------------------------------------------- Nos is a weapon, make it use a hardpoint! ñ~Baynex |
Gawain Hill
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 10:58:00 -
[1202]
ok people stop saying nos is fine
it's really not hell i even had a lil play with it with a corp mate same ship different fittings i decided to go with a high damage dual injected lotsa guns kinda thing to start with.... i ran out of cap charges while being nosed and slowly died
then i went with 7 nos and 1 mega pulse against 5 nos and 3 pulse i'll tell you what 7 nos wins out right with cap and tank to spare along with a cargo hold full of cap boosters
nos shouldn't be the way to kill anything it's slow dull no fun and i even went afk for a while to come back to an almost dead corp mate asking me to stop shooting as he couldn't do anything about it (yea i scrammed him as i was bored)
now it did take a while to suck him dry with nos but if you want to kill cap use neuts it's what they are ment for
as for nos-domi sure they are evil but a nos-baddon with a couple of large smart bombs 6 heavy nos and 2 smart bombs wins out right since you can't be out tanked or out nosed and his drones go pretty quickly too (though i've never tried it because it's no fun to fly)
|
torN Deception
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 11:16:00 -
[1203]
Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:22:40 Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:21:12 Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:20:39 A while back when CCP first mentioned it was thinking about nerfing NOS down the road(not so far down the road it turned out), you mentioned one possible nerf as making NOS sig radius penalized. This seems to me both a far fairer solution, but a more elegant one as well.
I think it's fair to say that 90% of the whining about NOS is due to heavy NOS. That's because nosferatu are the only offensive highslot module that are completely unaffected by the target's qualities. Sig radius, velocity, tracking, none of it matters. Unlike missiles or turrets, it's just as effective against a tiny interceptor doing 5km/s in orbit, and a huge battleship doing 10m/s. That becomes the biggest problem when the disparity between the target's ship class and the module size of the NOS is largest, which means heavy NOS.
That means that a heavy nosferatu is 100% effective against anything from a frigate up to a dreadnought. Since you're draining the same amount of cap per module activation in fact, that makes heavy nos far more effective against smaller ships than it is against larger ones, comparatively. You can blow away the cap of anything BC sized or smaller pretty quickly, and with it MWD and repping capability, if not weapon use as well.
So instead of overreacting and turning one of the most prominent modules in EVE all but useless, why not take the obvious solution that has been raised again and again in the "nerf NOS" threads and simply make nosferatu dependent on sig radius? A heavy diminishing nos will drain the full amount from a target with a sig radius of 400 or larger, but against a target the size of a thorax, or even more so a crow, it will drain far less capacitor while its activation cost for the battleship remains the same regardless.
The proposed solution changes none of this. Instead of fitting a large NOS on every battleship, players will stick on a heavy neut instead. It's still not sig penalized, which means it's still as effective as absolutely destroying the cap of any smaller ships that try to engage. Smart PvPers will still fit cap boosters because it'll let them field more durable tanks.
The reason NOS are so ubiquitous in that last empty slot on pretty much all battleships is because they're effective against everything. It means that ratting ships can very effectively deal with things like interceptor tacklers, or even hostile HACs, because a battleship-sized NOS will nuke their cap.
Make nos sig radius penalized and all of a sudden it is like other offensive modules only completely effective against ships the same class or larger. It no longer becomes the no-brainer choice to fill the final slot on a battleship but a module that has to be weighed against the other options.
To quote the devblog, NOS are "too powerful since there is no compromise involved." IT goes on to bring up the example of a battleship using its NOS against a frigate. The sig radius solution solves that exact issue.
Even if CCP doesn't think this is the right way to go, I'd at least like to know why. After all, they were considering as a solution a while back. Why did they think it was insufficient to fix NOS? |
William DeMeo
Gallente Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 11:32:00 -
[1204]
Originally by: torN Deception Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:22:40 Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:21:12 Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:20:39 A while back when CCP first mentioned it was thinking about nerfing NOS down the road(not so far down the road it turned out), you mentioned one possible nerf as making NOS sig radius penalized. This seems to me both a far fairer solution, but a more elegant one as well.
I think it's fair to say that 90% of the whining about NOS is due to heavy NOS. That's because nosferatu are the only offensive highslot module that are completely unaffected by the target's qualities. Sig radius, velocity, tracking, none of it matters. Unlike missiles or turrets, it's just as effective against a tiny interceptor doing 5km/s in orbit, and a huge battleship doing 10m/s. That becomes the biggest problem when the disparity between the target's ship class and the module size of the NOS is largest, which means heavy NOS.
That means that a heavy nosferatu is 100% effective against anything from a frigate up to a dreadnought. Since you're draining the same amount of cap per module activation in fact, that makes heavy nos far more effective against smaller ships than it is against larger ones, comparatively. You can blow away the cap of anything BC sized or smaller pretty quickly, and with it MWD and repping capability, if not weapon use as well.
So instead of overreacting and turning one of the most prominent modules in EVE all but useless, why not take the obvious solution that has been raised again and again in the "nerf NOS" threads and simply make nosferatu dependent on sig radius? A heavy diminishing nos will drain the full amount from a target with a sig radius of 400 or larger, but against a target the size of a thorax, or even more so a crow, it will drain far less capacitor while its activation cost for the battleship remains the same regardless.
The proposed solution changes none of this. Instead of fitting a large NOS on every battleship, players will stick on a heavy neut instead. It's still not sig penalized, which means it's still as effective as absolutely destroying the cap of any smaller ships that try to engage. Smart PvPers will still fit cap boosters because it'll let them field more durable tanks.
The reason NOS are so ubiquitous in that last empty slot on pretty much all battleships is because they're effective against everything. It means that ratting ships can very effectively deal with things like interceptor tacklers, or even hostile HACs, because a battleship-sized NOS will nuke their cap.
Make nos sig radius penalized and all of a sudden it is like other offensive modules only completely effective against ships the same class or larger. It no longer becomes the no-brainer choice to fill the final slot on a battleship but a module that has to be weighed against the other options.
To quote the devblog, NOS are "too powerful since there is no compromise involved." IT goes on to bring up the example of a battleship using its NOS against a frigate. The sig radius solution solves that exact issue.
Even if CCP doesn't think this is the right way to go, I'd at least like to know why. After all, they were considering as a solution a while back. Why did they think it was insufficient to fix NOS?
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. Yarr |
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 11:41:00 -
[1205]
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.
|
torN Deception
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 11:44:00 -
[1206]
Originally by: Gawain Hill ok people stop saying nos is fine
it's really not hell i even had a lil play with it with a corp mate same ship different fittings i decided to go with a high damage dual injected lotsa guns kinda thing to start with.... i ran out of cap charges while being nosed and slowly died
then i went with 7 nos and 1 mega pulse against 5 nos and 3 pulse i'll tell you what 7 nos wins out right with cap and tank to spare along with a cargo hold full of cap boosters fly)
What ships and what fittings? You're in the worst case scenario since you're doing this with amarr: he's going to tank your damage types very well and you've going to be the most vulnerable of any race to NOS. A raven or maelstrom, even a blasterthron, would have blown him away. Even then, unless you were in the worst case of the worst scenarios and were in abaddons, two heavy cap boosters should be enough to sustain your guns.
Besides, if your opponent had fit guns instead and two heavy injectors of his own, he could have run a dual-rep setup with guns blazing and blown you away even faster. |
Phaedruss
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 11:59:00 -
[1207]
Originally by: Gawain Hill ok people stop saying nos is fine
it's really not hell i even had a lil play with it with a corp mate same ship different fittings i decided to go with a high damage dual injected lotsa guns kinda thing to start with.... i ran out of cap charges while being nosed and slowly died
then i went with 7 nos and 1 mega pulse against 5 nos and 3 pulse i'll tell you what 7 nos wins out right with cap and tank to spare along with a cargo hold full of cap boosters
nos shouldn't be the way to kill anything it's slow dull no fun and i even went afk for a while to come back to an almost dead corp mate asking me to stop shooting as he couldn't do anything about it (yea i scrammed him as i was bored)
now it did take a while to suck him dry with nos but if you want to kill cap use neuts it's what they are ment for
as for nos-domi sure they are evil but a nos-baddon with a couple of large smart bombs 6 heavy nos and 2 smart bombs wins out right since you can't be out tanked or out nosed and his drones go pretty quickly too (though i've never tried it because it's no fun to fly)
and who would have won that fight if one of you had fitted more guns and less NOS and engaged from outside 25km?
|
William DeMeo
Gallente Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 12:10:00 -
[1208]
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. Yarr |
William DeMeo
Gallente Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 12:13:00 -
[1209]
Originally by: Natsuki
Originally by: CoLe Blackblood After NOS I think missiles need looking into. Right now they fly too far and hit for too much damage, effectively destroying all targets within a given time.
what are you smoking? ever seen heavy precision missiles hit a vaga for 0.0 damage? cause they do 99% of the time.
I think he was being ironic Yarr |
torN Deception
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 12:29:00 -
[1210]
Originally by: William DeMeo
Damps don't kill inty's, neuts count as nos in this case.
A single unbonused t2 RSD is going to bring a LRT V crow to a lock range of about 15 km, and an orbit inside that if it doesn't want to worry about losing lock. Two RSDs brings it inside web range, and it's bye-bye crow. It's even worse for other interceptors with shorter base targeting ranges.
Damps themselves may not kill intys, but it forces them to either choose between losing the tackle or putting their ships in far greater danger. |
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 12:36:00 -
[1211]
Zealot Ohmpf +Powergrid Armageddon Ohmpf +Cpu ________________ Kali 3.0 Patchnotes: Amarr Oompf!
-Armageddon: +1 Missile Slot -Maller: Autocannon RoF Bonus -Apocalypse: 5% Mining Bonus -Zealot: +10% more golden hull |
Vrikshaka
Insult to Injury
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 12:45:00 -
[1212]
Sorry if this suggestion has already been made:
Add skills for cap drain mods.
To me it defies all logic that there should be no skill at all to influence nos/neuts. They are weapons and all other weapons have corresponding skills that improve their performance. As it is, a noob with Energy Emission Systems III can use a heavy nos just as effectively as someone who has been specialising exclusively in the nos/drones tactic for years. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm fine with the way in which nos is being nerfed, but I think it needs further balancing. Skills for cap drain mods would solve this elegantly - while at the same time acknowledging the nos/drones tactic and giving new means to those who choose to spend their skill training time on it.
My suggestion would be to keep the nerf as it is, but introduce skills which would reduce it's effect:
-one skill which allows nos to transfer more than the cap charge of the aggressing ship, by some % per skill level. Not so much that nos could totally drain the target's cap, but maybe to at least 50% of the aggressor's cap charge level (with skill lvl V).
-one skill that would lower the cap use of neuts.
Make them high level skills so that people can't train them without sacrificing something else, maybe with for instance Signal Suppression as a model. Sensor Dampeners aren't all that uber for people that don't have any skills for them, but very powerful for those who train Signal Suppression IV/V and Sensor Linking V - which takes a good amount of time away from other skill training. Let it be the same way with nos.
As an example, the Curse right now (after nerf) is just a little too tough to fly. Sure, one can use injectors and more neuts, but it's just too easy to get totally drained oneself and very quickly become a total sitting duck. With skills, those that specialise in flying it could tip that balance somewhat, without it ever having to again become as all-powerful as before the nerf.
Again: nos/neuts are weapons, and all other weapons are dependant on skills. That there should be no skills for cap drain mods just doesn't make any sense.
|
Julius Romanus
Free Space Development Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 12:45:00 -
[1213]
Originally by: Perry Zealot Ohmpf + 90Powergrid Armageddon Ohmpf +30Cpu
|
Angelus Fade
Amarr The Black Ops
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 13:12:00 -
[1214]
If I read this topic I think CCP will lose a massive ammount of players due to this nerf... ------- Angelus Fade ------- I once was a badass fighter for the Amarr Empire, but they screwed me over and de-fanged me, so currently I am just a fluffy puppy space miner.... until the time |
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 13:20:00 -
[1215]
Lets see who will leave EvE:
-Gallente easy mode nos/drone pilots -Amarr Recon Alts with curses on their skillplan -Amarr turret-only khanid lovers with too much ego
Can i have their stuff? Now lets see who will stay:
-Amarr loyalists who sticked with amarr hoping for balance -New players who picked amarr -Skilled Pilots who know other tricks then orbit/damp -Me
________________ Kali 3.0 Patchnotes: Amarr Oompf!
-Armageddon: +1 Missile Slot -Maller: Autocannon RoF Bonus -Apocalypse: 5% Mining Bonus -Zealot: +10% more golden hull |
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 13:36:00 -
[1216]
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...
|
William DeMeo
Gallente Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 13:49:00 -
[1217]
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. Yarr |
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 13:58:00 -
[1218]
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.
|
Viashivan
Amarr FM Corp Insomnia.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:01:00 -
[1219]
Edited by: Viashivan on 03/08/2007 14:01:46 I'm fine with the NOS nerf. The module simply united too many advantages for next to no drawback.
Still I think that for ships that have a bonus for using nos (namely bloodraider and amarr recons) another solutions should be found. The argument simply nos other hostiles around und use neuts on the primary target is not a fair argument. Because that intentionally limits the ships usage to a small number of situations.
Furthermore after this change ships with nos bonuses are not consistent to the nos module anymore. What is the point of having a bonus for cap drainage, when you simply reach the point faster where no cap is drained?
Via
|
Hellspawn01
Amarr Falcon Advanced Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:01:00 -
[1220]
Just strange that a nos takes mostly more than 1 cycle to kill an inty¦s cap while a neut kills it instantly and then call nos overpowered.
Large named nos eats 120cap/12s at 25km range Large named neut eats 600cap/24s at 25,2km range while draining less than 500cap (depends on skill, down to 375cap if I¦m correct)
So a L named neut kills 5x (!) times more cap than a nos and it isnt overpowered??? 3 of those damage active tanked ships in 2-3 cycles very hard so you need 5 L named nos to counter 1 L named neut and on top of that at 30% cap of your target, he can neut you but you cant nos him. Where is the logic behind this crap?
Ship lovers click here |
|
Gawain Hill
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:04:00 -
[1221]
Originally by: Phaedruss
Originally by: Gawain Hill ok people stop saying nos is fine
it's really not hell i even had a lil play with it with a corp mate same ship different fittings i decided to go with a high damage dual injected lotsa guns kinda thing to start with.... i ran out of cap charges while being nosed and slowly died
then i went with 7 nos and 1 mega pulse against 5 nos and 3 pulse i'll tell you what 7 nos wins out right with cap and tank to spare along with a cargo hold full of cap boosters
nos shouldn't be the way to kill anything it's slow dull no fun and i even went afk for a while to come back to an almost dead corp mate asking me to stop shooting as he couldn't do anything about it (yea i scrammed him as i was bored)
now it did take a while to suck him dry with nos but if you want to kill cap use neuts it's what they are ment for
as for nos-domi sure they are evil but a nos-baddon with a couple of large smart bombs 6 heavy nos and 2 smart bombs wins out right since you can't be out tanked or out nosed and his drones go pretty quickly too (though i've never tried it because it's no fun to fly)
and who would have won that fight if one of you had fitted more guns and less NOS and engaged from outside 25km?
the guy who dosent warp off...
|
Borasao
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:04:00 -
[1222]
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.
Exactly... so a damped interceptor pilot (or any way you can make it run away) can't scramble you and hold you down while his buddies arrive. You warp off to safety. That is a 'win' for you. You don't have to blow a ship up to win... just neutralize it and/or drive it off is plenty sufficient much of the time (when solo particularly).
|
Hellspawn01
Amarr Falcon Advanced Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:10:00 -
[1223]
Originally by: William DeMeo Fact remains it's almost impossible to kill an inty without nos.
Drones, jammers, small guns, missiles work too I¦ve heard.
Ship lovers click here |
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:15:00 -
[1224]
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...
|
Amaldor Themodius
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:31:00 -
[1225]
Would be nice if CCP developed a quarterly player census by evemail inviting players to vote on these core rules modifications.. The forum trolls have far too much sway in this game and exert heavy influence. A reasonably small number of players (by comparison to total player base) post similar / identical threads and spin there ideas from mole hills into mountains that dont appear to align with the broader player community..
The current forum system is so rotten it borders on corrupt and steps should be taken to prevent it from worsenin. Already the large mega allainces have developed strategies to encourage members to lobby the forums / ccp to undertake their interests as game development(Goons & BOB being the most obvious). What is needed imho is transparency and a quarterly census would achieve that by providing a snap shot of the quantitative values recieved once the voting player had cast their vote. Alliances would still group think and use collaboration but at least their influence would not extend beyond the single vote of each eve player.
Light me up flamers / forum trolls im sure u have a comment or twenty to pass on why you disagree with introducing fairness and transparency to the game.. 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)---
|
PhantomVyper
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:37:00 -
[1226]
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...
|
Amaldor Themodius
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 14:59:00 -
[1227]
Originally by: PhantomVyper
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...
there are 43 pages before this one with numerous criticisms im not going to reiterate that which has already been discussed, likewise there are some strong veiws in the ships and modules forum same topic.. or was it that u didnt consider them coherent?
|
Hammar Wolf
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 15:01:00 -
[1228]
Originally by: PhantomVyper
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...
Vyper come on man get over yourself. There are pages and pages of posts about why its bad, terrible, wont work out, etc. and many with good reasoning. Sorry that all the thousands of posts have not been sufficiently coherent for you. And please stop wearing kneepads for the devs.
|
Amaldor Themodius
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 15:03:00 -
[1229]
Originally by: torN Deception Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:22:40 Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:21:12 Edited by: torN Deception on 03/08/2007 11:20:39 A while back when CCP first mentioned it was thinking about nerfing NOS down the road(not so far down the road it turned out), you mentioned one possible nerf as making NOS sig radius penalized. This seems to me both a far fairer solution, but a more elegant one as well.
I think it's fair to say that 90% of the whining about NOS is due to heavy NOS. That's because nosferatu are the only offensive highslot module that are completely unaffected by the target's qualities. Sig radius, velocity, tracking, none of it matters. Unlike missiles or turrets, it's just as effective against a tiny interceptor doing 5km/s in orbit, and a huge battleship doing 10m/s. That becomes the biggest problem when the disparity between the target's ship class and the module size of the NOS is largest, which means heavy NOS.
That means that a heavy nosferatu is 100% effective against anything from a frigate up to a dreadnought. Since you're draining the same amount of cap per module activation in fact, that makes heavy nos far more effective against smaller ships than it is against larger ones, comparatively. You can blow away the cap of anything BC sized or smaller pretty quickly, and with it MWD and repping capability, if not weapon use as well.
So instead of overreacting and turning one of the most prominent modules in EVE all but useless, why not take the obvious solution that has been raised again and again in the "nerf NOS" threads and simply make nosferatu dependent on sig radius? A heavy diminishing nos will drain the full amount from a target with a sig radius of 400 or larger, but against a target the size of a thorax, or even more so a crow, it will drain far less capacitor while its activation cost for the battleship remains the same regardless.
The proposed solution changes none of this. Instead of fitting a large NOS on every battleship, players will stick on a heavy neut instead. It's still not sig penalized, which means it's still as effective as absolutely destroying the cap of any smaller ships that try to engage. Smart PvPers will still fit cap boosters because it'll let them field more durable tanks.
The reason NOS are so ubiquitous in that last empty slot on pretty much all battleships is because they're effective against everything. It means that ratting ships can very effectively deal with things like interceptor tacklers, or even hostile HACs, because a battleship-sized NOS will nuke their cap.
Make nos sig radius penalized and all of a sudden it is like other offensive modules only completely effective against ships the same class or larger. It no longer becomes the no-brainer choice to fill the final slot on a battleship but a module that has to be weighed against the other options.
To quote the devblog, NOS are "too powerful since there is no compromise involved." IT goes on to bring up the example of a battleship using its NOS against a frigate. The sig radius solution solves that exact issue.
Even if CCP doesn't think this is the right way to go, I'd at least like to know why. After all, they were considering as a solution a while back. Why did they think it was insufficient to fix NOS?
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..
|
Borasao
|
Posted - 2007.08.03 15:05:00 -
[1230]
Edited by: Borasao on 03/08/2007 15:12:48 Edited by: Borasao on 03/08/2007 15:06:48
Originally by: Baynex WARNING LOGIC PRESENT BELOW THIS LINE! --------------------------------------------- Nos is a weapon, make it use a hardpoint!
Make it a turret? Dominix still fits a rack of them. Make it a launcher? We get even more whining than this nerf. Make it a new type of weapon hardpoint? We have no idea how much of a code change and database change this will introduce and doesn't even address some of the core concerns (one of which is making interceptor pilots' life hard) because the NOS mechanism itself is unchanged.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |