These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Kronos] Nosferatu RoF Buff

First post First post
Author
Vulfen
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2014-04-10 13:36:58 UTC
@ CCP Fozzie

Currently neuts can receive bonuses from both a ship's roles and rigs but the Nos does not get buffed by a rig.

I think there should be a new rig that increases nos amount or reduces the cycle time further.

You could just modify the existing Egress Port Maximizer rig to allow for a bonus to one of the above. thus allowing for pure cap warefare ships to field a variety of neut and nos.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#62 - 2014-04-10 14:53:31 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Ranger!

But you said that Nos would "become more popular on all cruiser class, and several BC's", which was predictably wrong. I mean, you didn't even notice how few utility slots modern cruisers have!

I said that the mechanic changes was a bad idea because it would have minimal effect on usage patterns and future changes would be required, particularly for heavy Nos... which was right. Especially for the heavy Nos bit, which is being ignored in this crude blanket change and will require another set of fixing in in the future... Roll

Actually, everything that I said would happen... including this tweak... has happened.

I'm seeing more fits being created, shared, and used than I have seen in a long time on cruiser size and down. Large NOS, predictably, not so much... since NOS is a not a weapons system designed to be effective vs smaller ships like Neuts specifically are.

NOS leverages having less cap than your opponent.
Neuts leverage having more cap than your opponent.

I'm sorry you don't like that design decision, but there it is.

I'm still going to say it is likely that there will be a (very) slight reduction in fitting costs at some point. And we will also see some BS hulls tweaked or introduced that can leverage large NOS in interesting ways.

We'll see if I"m correct again. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#63 - 2014-04-10 23:22:01 UTC
You're not serious are you, Ranger?

You predicted that Nos would "become more popular on all cruiser class, and several BC's". And now you're saying that "I'm seeing more fits being created, shared, and used than I have seen in a long time on cruiser size and down".

There's two problems here. Firstly, you've already conceded that the BC part of your prediction was wrong, so it's a little bit odd for you to be congratulating yourself for a successful prediction.

Secondly, perhaps you could explain where you're seeing these Mallers, Omens, Caracals, Moas and Vexors that are routinely dropping weapons for Nos, because they sound like... unorthodox... fits. At least fitting a Nos/neut makes some sense on a Vexor, Stabber or Rupture, but you did predict that all cruisers would be fitting Nos. Are you saying that your prediction of NOS Caracals has come true? Where could I find such a mysterious ship?
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#64 - 2014-04-12 17:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Harvey James wrote:
Markku Laaksonen wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
...enhancements to batteries?


You mean make them worth considering ever?


there too difficult to fit ... at least half there fitting requirements .. probably needs a 3rd off really..

large cap battery works well on a brawling dual rep Ishtar. (small blasters in the highs).

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#65 - 2014-04-17 16:00:38 UTC
I read the title as Nosferatu Hurf Blurf.

Are people really avoiding the nosferatus? Do people really consider them underpowered? I felt they were arguably a little overpowered.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Meiyang Lee
Game Instrument Applications
#66 - 2014-04-17 17:18:59 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Markku Laaksonen wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
...enhancements to batteries?


You mean make them worth considering ever?


there too difficult to fit ... at least half there fitting requirements .. probably needs a 3rd off really..

large cap battery works well on a brawling dual rep Ishtar. (small blasters in the highs).


Dual-rep Sacrilege with a large cap battery II, so much cap... Shocked
Plenty of room left for the launchers too.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#67 - 2014-04-18 01:03:38 UTC
Does the 'Strigoi', 'Vrykolas' and the other Nosferatu actually exist in-game?
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#68 - 2014-04-18 04:07:33 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
Does the 'Strigoi', 'Vrykolas' and the other Nosferatu actually exist in-game?

yes i have bpc's of them. but they arnt worth it to manufacture.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

TheButcherPete
Blackbase Incorporated
#69 - 2014-04-29 11:11:39 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Eh... It's a beneficial change I guess. But the fix you REALLY need to make is to correct the fitting issues.

Until the PG/CPU costs are reduced down to Neut level or lower, the module is still only going to see use on specific tackle ships. And as many have pointed out, the changes you are proposing only make it MORE likely they will be fitted on tackle boats as opposed to more widespread use. While you are at it, you could also take a look at making Cap Batteries NOT suck (again fitting issues).


This. This is why my Sentinel has zero NOS on it.

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]

Draco Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2014-05-08 06:20:40 UTC
So now this nos buff is slated to sometime after we get the new ashimmu and cruor... Ships you specifically wanted to promote nos use on by giving them "old" nos. You failed so hard on the blood raider line, good luck next time.
zahter
Shayol Ghul Forge
#71 - 2014-05-08 08:33:39 UTC
There is an odd situation on blood raider line, specifically cruor. We know changes will make its web and neut/nos out of sync. I believe the main idea of the change is allowing cruor to reach faster (cruor is always slower than others) target than netu/nos him. As it is explained many times in pirate ship thread, cruor will face opponents web when he get close enough and will not be able to reach his neut/nos range. This makes cruors main power ineffective.

We dont want to make one ship too powerfull over others. So CCP did not grant similar bonus for cruor web and neut/nos ( I still think it is a wrong decision). CCP can instead buff nos in a different manner. Make its overload bonus as range bonus so that it can reach web range. All the other ships will benefit from it if they use nos but we know it will be mostly used by blood raiders. So the change will not be specifically for cruor but it will solve one of big problems for the ship.
Draco Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2014-05-08 10:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Draco Knight
I agree and I have suggested 20% effectiveness and nos range per level.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#73 - 2014-05-08 11:09:16 UTC
zahter wrote:
There is an odd situation on blood raider line, specifically cruor. We know changes will make its web and neut/nos out of sync. I believe the main idea of the change is allowing cruor to reach faster (cruor is always slower than others) target than netu/nos him. As it is explained many times in pirate ship thread, cruor will face opponents web when he get close enough and will not be able to reach his neut/nos range. This makes cruors main power ineffective.

We dont want to make one ship too powerfull over others. So CCP did not grant similar bonus for cruor web and neut/nos ( I still think it is a wrong decision). CCP can instead buff nos in a different manner. Make its overload bonus as range bonus so that it can reach web range. All the other ships will benefit from it if they use nos but we know it will be mostly used by blood raiders. So the change will not be specifically for cruor but it will solve one of big problems for the ship.


If you did this, you'd need a specialised ship (proteus, arazu, etc) to kite the new bhaalgorn while keeping it warp disrupted

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#74 - 2014-05-09 18:49:52 UTC
Fozzie, please do not forget to pay attention to dead space and faction nos as well...
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#75 - 2014-05-10 22:00:33 UTC
While this is a nice change, it doesn't address their problems on small-class hulls and the general uselessness of utility high slots. Small nos/neuts need their range extended to match warp scramblers. This has been asked for for years; since you're finally looking at the modules, I say it's about time it gets done.
Grath Telkin
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#76 - 2014-05-10 22:00:58 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:


I'm seeing more fits being created, shared, and used than I have seen in a long time on cruiser size and down. Large NOS, predictably, not so much... since NOS is a not a weapons system designed to be effective vs smaller ships like Neuts specifically are.



Do you keep anything else up your butt where you pulled this non fact from?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Naomi Anthar
#77 - 2014-05-11 03:16:24 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
a bunch of useless stuff


I just wanted to tell you that you were never right, you try to ruin nos at all possible cost. You have completly no idea about balancing modules. Hence you will never be "right again" since you never were in first place.
Sir Dragon
Einherjar Yggdrasils
#78 - 2014-05-18 09:50:28 UTC
That or reduce the power grid cost.
T2 large goes at 2250
which is just messed up.
Pantera Home Videos:    http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/ck2ykdBrDRM/Pantera-Vulgar-Video-Full-Completo.html  ;  http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/xpma3u7OjfU/Pantera-Watch-It-Go-Full-Completo-CD1.html ;    http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/yyO9rAx8eoQ/Pantera-Watch-It-Go-Full-Completo-CD2.html .
Koujjo Dian
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2014-05-27 22:00:19 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
While this is a nice change, it doesn't address their problems on small-class hulls and the general uselessness of utility high slots. Small nos/neuts need their range extended to match warp scramblers. This has been asked for for years; since you're finally looking at the modules, I say it's about time it gets done.


Agreed. Any change made to small neuts/nos is pointless due to the fact you will never get in range of anything in order to use them. This makes frigate PVP 1 dimensional and stale. Webs are WAY more effective than neuts/nos and is why mid slots are way more valuable than utility high slots.
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
#80 - 2014-06-09 03:08:09 UTC
Markku Laaksonen wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
...enhancements to batteries?


You mean make them worth considering ever?


I agree there is only a few fits that have a cap battery in them at all that make sense and they are pretty much for cap stable POS repping ospreys or scythes. There might be a few more, but in almost all cases a cap injector is better by a vast amount that it is laughable to even consider using a battery.