open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked NOS fix in 3 steps.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2006.12.03 20:55:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Max Hardcase on 03/12/2006 21:01:21
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 03/12/2006 21:00:27
1) Apply a heavy nerfbat to the direct cap point drain abilities of the nosferatus
Small nos : 6 cap / 3 seconds
Medium nos: 20 cap / 6 seconds
Heavy nos : 50 cap / 12 seconds

2) Add a cap recharge time increasing effect on the target
Small nos +7.5% cap recharge time
Medium nos +10% cap recharge time
Heavy nos +12.5% cap recharge time

3) Said cap recharge times are inefficiently transferred to your ship. ( its an energy vampire after all )
Small nos +5% cap recharge time bonus
Medium nos +7.5% cap recharge time bonus
Heavy nos +10% cap recharge time bonus

Alternatively remove the direct cap point drain ability completely and add bigger % effects to step 2 and 3.
This would need some readjustment of the fitting requirements of nosferatus though.

/editted for bonus %'s

Malthros Zenobia
Posted - 2006.12.03 21:01:00 - [2]
 

I have a better idea:

1. Increase cap amount given by cap batteries.
2. Make Cap battery immune to NOS.
3. ???
4. Screw you uber nodsomi of wtfpwnage.

Agent2 Holtze
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2006.12.03 21:05:00 - [3]
 

who the hell fits cap batteries in a normal pvp setup ?

but i think your ideas are bad, the way i understand it it will actually give some ships a better cap situation.

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2006.12.03 21:08:00 - [4]
 

Dev's usually don't like new code for stuff.
Like the code for differentiating between the 2 types of cap.

Hmmm I do like the idea though, just not sure if the devs would like the extra code work.
Your idea could work like this :
Cap batteries each are a seperate capacitor that replenish at your normal rate.
When you activate the module you transfer the amount it has to your normal capacitor.
Kinda like a twist to cap boosters.



Shi Mun
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2006.12.03 21:08:00 - [5]
 

Why not just make NOS percentage based? they drain a fixed percentage of wotever is left in the opponents capacitors, that way the percentage values can be adjusted so that NOS arent overpowered but not completely ineffective either.

Dixon
Caldari
Hells Donkeys
Posted - 2006.12.03 21:12:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Agent2 Holtze
who the hell can fit cap batteries in a normal pvp setup ?

Fixed... large cap battery I requires 100cpu, good luck squeezing that one in.

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2006.12.03 21:13:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Agent2 Holtze
who the hell fits cap batteries in a normal pvp setup ?

but i think your ideas are bad, the way i understand it it will actually give some ships a better cap situation.

Which ideas are that mine or the 2nd posters ?

Keep in mind that %'s to cap recharge are stacking nerfed.
Not much extra benefit in fitting Cap relays or Cap rechargers + Nos for instance.


Buzzmong
Aliastra
Posted - 2006.12.03 21:43:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Buzzmong on 03/12/2006 23:49:52
Edit: Changes to reflect other views.

**Skip this bit, just leaving old view rather than deleting**

How about: Remove NOS altogether as in its current state it's ridiculus due to how it has a massive effect on the entirety of pvp and setups, and use neuts instead, which have the similar effect of being able to shut down a target, but have the massive drawback of eating your own cap as well.
Which means that active tanking will be viable alongside using cap draining weapons (eg, lasers), and take combat away from being a cap war (I'm not saying that it should be dumbed down do damage vs tank, but cap shouldnt be the be all and end all tbh). You wont be fearing cookiecutter nos ships either unless running really specilised setups.

**Start here**

If not, NOS needs to be percentage based, the bigger it is, the more percentage it can take, therefore making a large Nos not the frigate/cruiser killer that it is, yet still maintaining it's effectiveness against targets the same size (and idea which has been pelted around the forum soo many times), while also meaning frigs get a bigger bonus for attacking larger ships (although, saying that, a frig even with a small % nos might be taking more cap than it can actually hold if it were attacking bs's or cap ships). On that, neuts would also be percentage based to bring them inline and to make them fair.

At least, they be my idea's on them.

Constantine Arcanum
Bad Company DBD
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2006.12.03 21:55:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Constantine Arcanum on 03/12/2006 21:54:58
Originally by: Buzzmong
How about: Remove NOS altogether


How about: no

EDIT: but the second part of your post makes more sense Smile

yunger
Big Guns Inc.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2006.12.03 22:00:00 - [10]
 

best idea i heard so far is to limit ships to one NOS
(like AB and MWD)
canīt be much work on the code to limit it.

Will still leave the large ships with a deffens against smal ships.

will make them a good module for close range but wonīt force everyone to chose betwen going all out NOS themself or passiv.

Buzzmong
Aliastra
Posted - 2006.12.03 22:19:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Constantine Arcanum
Edited by: Constantine Arcanum on 03/12/2006 21:54:58
Originally by: Buzzmong
How about: Remove NOS altogether


How about: no

EDIT: but the second part of your post makes more sense Smile


Yeah, thought it might be tad extreme to remove nos altogether, so carried on jotting the thoughts down, hence the second part :)

Although, I still think neuts should be used over nos to maintain a balance, as nos just doenst have enough drawbacks.

And, the "limit to 1 per ship" idea isnt bad, but that would completely nerf speciality ships like the ashimmu and bhaalgorn (which would still benefit if nos/neut where % based), and it would make it a staple in all setups tbh, as you either fit one, or dont fit one, they'd be no variation, and it would still pack a massive wallop too.

Amarria Lightwielder
Amarr
N.A.G.A Corporation
Posted - 2006.12.03 22:26:00 - [12]
 

I like my curse :)
that said I condone the idea of making large nos less effective vs smaller ships.
Something that might work is a signature radius formula, so the nos "hits" smaller targets less. So a heavy nos would perhaps have 10% effectivness on a ceptor but 100% on a battleship, basicly what that other guy said :p

younggunz
Amarr
Atomic Zeppelins
JIHADASQUAD
Posted - 2006.12.03 22:44:00 - [13]
 

I agree with the % base, thats about as fair as you can get.

But at the same time, NOS only goes what, 20k on a normal BS ?? GET OUT OF RANGE

Imperil
United Warriors
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
Posted - 2006.12.03 22:47:00 - [14]
 

Best solution is to fix Cap Batteries and make the Batteries undrainable. Else we could change Nosferatu cycle time, and instead of having it as a DOT module we could make it as a ALPHA module. 400 cap every 1 minute or so, so after the cap is taken, you got like 1 minute to regen your cap, so setups with high cap recharges are good, while others are not. :P

Marsha11
Save our Souls
Posted - 2006.12.03 22:55:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Max Hardcase
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 03/12/2006 21:01:21
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 03/12/2006 21:00:27
1) Apply a heavy nerfbat to the direct cap point drain abilities of the nosferatus
Small nos : 6 cap / 3 seconds
Medium nos: 20 cap / 6 seconds
Heavy nos : 50 cap / 12 seconds

2) Add a cap recharge time increasing effect on the target
Small nos +7.5% cap recharge time
Medium nos +10% cap recharge time
Heavy nos +12.5% cap recharge time

3) Said cap recharge times are inefficiently transferred to your ship. ( its an energy vampire after all )
Small nos +5% cap recharge time bonus
Medium nos +7.5% cap recharge time bonus
Heavy nos +10% cap recharge time bonus

Alternatively remove the direct cap point drain ability completely and add bigger % effects to step 2 and 3.
This would need some readjustment of the fitting requirements of nosferatus though.

/editted for bonus %'s


Dont fix what isn't broken...

NOS is fine, its like WCS's, instead of whining you should join the club...

End Cool

LeviUK
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.12.03 23:23:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Buzzmong
How about: Remove NOS altogether as in its current state it's ridiculus due to how it has a massive effect on the entirety of pvp and setups, and use neuts instead.. <snip>

Silly idea tbh, you do that, and you hand a huge advantage to ships that need cap to fire/tank against those that don't/passive tank.. you'd have Neut-equipped minnie/missile ships up against amarr/rail/blaster ships that simply can't fight back.

Buzzmong
Aliastra
Posted - 2006.12.03 23:48:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: LeviUK
Originally by: Buzzmong
How about: Remove NOS altogether as in its current state it's ridiculus due to how it has a massive effect on the entirety of pvp and setups, and use neuts instead.. <snip>

Silly idea tbh, you do that, and you hand a huge advantage to ships that need cap to fire/tank against those that don't/passive tank.. you'd have Neut-equipped minnie/missile ships up against amarr/rail/blaster ships that simply can't fight back.



Yeah, carry on and read the 2nd part, and you'll see the other idea I mentioned. And, also check my 2nd post on this thread, I already agree with everyone that nos removal would be too harsh.

Azerrad InExile
Posted - 2006.12.04 00:23:00 - [18]
 

1) Add activation cost
2) Split range into optimal and falloff
3) Add signature resolution.

Fixed.

Katamarino
Naughty Crocodiles
Posted - 2006.12.04 00:39:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Agent2 Holtze
who the hell fits cap batteries in a normal pvp setup ?

but i think your ideas are bad, the way i understand it it will actually give some ships a better cap situation.


Equally, who the hell used to fit Damage Controls to ANY setup? If modules change, people adapt, I would have thought that this was obvious!

Katamarino
Naughty Crocodiles
Posted - 2006.12.04 00:40:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Azerrad InExile
1) Add activation cost
2) Split range into optimal and falloff
3) Add signature resolution.

Fixed.


Congratulations. You now have yet another flavour of gun. How exciting.

younggunz
Amarr
Atomic Zeppelins
JIHADASQUAD
Posted - 2006.12.04 00:40:00 - [21]
 

i agree with Marsha11, join the club.

Best way to counter NOS is with more $$$ NOS(diminishing =P)

NOS is fine.

Samurai1
Posted - 2006.12.04 00:43:00 - [22]
 

Nos dont need a fix its fine the way it is leave it alone!

Azerrad InExile
Posted - 2006.12.04 01:05:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Katamarino
Congratulations. You now have yet another flavour of gun. How exciting.


Guns remove HP... nos doesn't. How exactly would it be "another flavour of gun"?

El Alamein
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2006.12.04 01:07:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Samurai1
Nos dont need a fix its fine the way it is leave it alone!

^^

Zubakis
The Carebear Stare
Hydroponic Zone
Posted - 2006.12.04 01:16:00 - [25]
 

NOS was maybe fine before Kali, but now with the hp boost
you can slap a heavy tank on a ship and you have enough
TIME to drain the whole cap out of your opponent.

C'mon people we want to see Guns & Missiles and big
explosions, not this NOS suckers.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2006.12.04 01:20:00 - [26]
 

Just reduce nos by 50% drain amount across the board, add in a 5% role bonus per level of HAC skill for the pilgrim/curse for drain amount so that it's back to 100% at L5. Fixed.

DiuxDium
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2006.12.04 01:43:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: DiuxDium on 04/12/2006 01:43:38
Originally by: Zubakis
NOS was maybe fine before Kali, but now with the hp boost
you can slap a heavy tank on a ship and you have enough
TIME to drain the whole cap out of your opponent.

C'mon people we want to see Guns & Missiles and big
explosions, not this NOS suckers.






Cappa


They exist for a reason beyond making amy's playable. Laughing

JabJabVVV
Burger Nip
Posted - 2006.12.04 04:00:00 - [28]
 

I'll have to go with the 'NOS is more or less fine' camp.

The one change I think they could make is to make its effectiveness sig radius dependant to a degree, it's an old idea I know but I think it's a good one.

Making NOS dependant on the percentage cap remaining would be way to easy to counter: Just let your cap fall until the (for example NOS domi) is only sucking a fairly small amount then just use a cap injector to keep your cap at a level that allows your ship to function but prevents much cap being stolen from you.

Malthros Zenobia
Posted - 2006.12.04 04:11:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Agent2 Holtze
who the hell fits cap batteries in a normal pvp setup ?

but i think your ideas are bad, the way i understand it it will actually give some ships a better cap situation.


Nobody fits cap batteries [b[ever[/b], because they suck in every way.

Making them worth the fitting nightmare by upping the cap they give, as well as making them immune to nos, would be good.

Yes, a cap battery might give a ship a better cap situation, but it's not like a cap battery is an easy fit like a cap recharger or CPR is. The trade off is you're using up alot of fitting to have that better gain, and nos defense.

Malthros Zenobia
Posted - 2006.12.04 04:13:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Shi Mun
Why not just make NOS percentage based? they drain a fixed percentage of wotever is left in the opponents capacitors, that way the percentage values can be adjusted so that NOS arent overpowered but not completely ineffective either.


Imagine if a small nos Drained, say 2% of someone's cap.

Now imagine them running that against a Battleship or capital ship.Wink

% based nos would be horrible. You'd either be horribly overkilling their cap, or you'd be doing nothing at all.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only