These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

upcoming curse, bhaal, etc Nerf.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-03-26 18:29:47 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
ya, I'm not seeing any kind of need for this change. Maybe there was a reason that a module is not used. Because it's not needed.

If people were going around complaining about how these modules sucked or where not powerful enough, then there may be a reason to look at this.


The module isn't used because its a ***** to fit. In a lot of ways its superior to a cap recharger.

-Liang


still, I see no complaints of neuts being too powerful.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#42 - 2012-03-26 18:32:02 UTC
What? Do you even visit these forums?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Siphaanu
Human Remains Incorporated
#43 - 2012-03-26 18:55:44 UTC
I like that they are trying to revive dead modules, which cap batteries certainly are. I found a niche role for Large Cap Battery on my Curse a while ago, but that was the only use I ever found for it...

The bigger problem is they are trying to fix it with a chance effect. That is, in my opinion not a good idea. Seems they learned nothing from people reminding them how terrible ECM mechanic is.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#44 - 2012-03-26 19:10:58 UTC
Siphaanu wrote:
I like that they are trying to revive dead modules, which cap batteries certainly are. I found a niche role for Large Cap Battery on my Curse a while ago, but that was the only use I ever found for it...

The bigger problem is they are trying to fix it with a chance effect. That is, in my opinion not a good idea. Seems they learned nothing from people reminding them how terrible ECM mechanic is.


Yeah, not a fan of chance based mechanics. I'd rather see the +1000 cap be neut immune as the old suggestions did.

-Liang

Ed: And yes, I am aware of the loop holes there.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#45 - 2012-03-26 20:13:10 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Siphaanu wrote:
I like that they are trying to revive dead modules, which cap batteries certainly are. I found a niche role for Large Cap Battery on my Curse a while ago, but that was the only use I ever found for it...

The bigger problem is they are trying to fix it with a chance effect. That is, in my opinion not a good idea. Seems they learned nothing from people reminding them how terrible ECM mechanic is.


Yeah, not a fan of chance based mechanics. I'd rather see the +1000 cap be neut immune as the old suggestions did.

-Liang

Ed: And yes, I am aware of the loop holes there.


I really like this idea. Cap batteries would give extra, nuet immune cap. Tweak the numbers - especially fitting- and ship it.
Arte
Harden House Irregulars
#46 - 2012-03-26 20:37:40 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Yeah, not a fan of chance based mechanics. I'd rather see the +1000 cap be neut immune as the old suggestions did.

-Liang

Ed: And yes, I am aware of the loop holes there.


I really like this idea. Cap batteries would give extra, nuet immune cap. Tweak the numbers - especially fitting- and ship it.

I thought the problem with that idea was always "what about when the pilot drops below that 'protected-cap barrier' on his own, how would the neut work then?

I guess it just... wouldn't!

A ship can still cap out then, just not because of what another ship is doing to it.

Then, how would Nos work against cap batteries? Any Change?

I think the idea quoted from fanfest is awful for the record. Some of the Devs invited feedback at the Fanfest, I hope they pick up on the weight of opinion in this thread for what it's worth.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#47 - 2012-03-26 20:39:31 UTC
Arte wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Yeah, not a fan of chance based mechanics. I'd rather see the +1000 cap be neut immune as the old suggestions did.

-Liang

Ed: And yes, I am aware of the loop holes there.


I really like this idea. Cap batteries would give extra, nuet immune cap. Tweak the numbers - especially fitting- and ship it.

I thought the problem with that idea was always "what about when the pilot drops below that 'protected-cap barrier' on his own, how would the neut work then?

I guess it just... wouldn't!

A ship can still cap out then, just not because of what another ship is doing to it.

Then, how would Nos work against cap batteries? Any Change?

I think the idea quoted from fanfest is awful for the record. Some of the Devs invited feedback at the Fanfest, I hope they pick up on the weight of opinion in this thread for what it's worth.


The real problem is people that fit cap batteries and always stay above peak cap recharge. Blink

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Arte
Harden House Irregulars
#48 - 2012-03-26 20:49:34 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


The real problem is people that fit cap batteries and always stay above peak cap recharge. Blink

-Liang


Oh. That. Smile Maybe protect a limited % instead then?
UghMeh, I'm no game designer or mathmatician Smile
Kneebone
K-H Light Industries
#49 - 2012-03-26 21:46:51 UTC
The Neut Immune option seems the best for several reasons. Whats to stop someone from putting a small cap battery on a battleship that offers the same feedback chance as a large cap battery? You would give up a midslot yes, but the cost of a small cap battery is peanuts compared to a Large Cap Battery. The Large Cap Battery would give an amount of cap a BS can work with so long as it is Neut Immune.

CCP needs to learn that not every idea from brainstorming sessions should be made public. Brainstorming followed by a common sense review tends to work better.

Or perhaps it did go through the CCP common sense review...
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#50 - 2012-03-27 00:05:25 UTC
This thread IS CCP's "commonsense review". In case y'all missed it, their model for playtesting includes these steps in no particular order:
- hookers
- blow
- designing something
- loading it into the test server and faffing about with it
- beta testing on SiSi
- leaking the stats to the guy who pastes to Pastebin so it gets onto Eve-O and everyone gets their panties in a twist and every nubcake and his intellectually challenged forum alt can come and theorycraft it to death
- putting it out on a Devblog ahead of time so Raiden can Q.Q like pansies for months and everyone else can salivate over bulk titan killmails
- floating an idea on Eve-O forums and looking for people to theorycraft the idea and come up with alternative ideas or counter arguments
- hookers AND blow AND beer

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Katalci
Kismesis
#51 - 2012-03-27 00:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Katalci
Cap batteries will still be worthless if they do this properly and make it scale, so a supercarrier can't just fit 3 BS-sized cap batteries (assuming the effect is stacking penalized) and laugh at the fleet neuting it. If it doesn't scale, then this is one of the worst ideas ever.

Though there really isn't much of a need to alter cap batteries -- they work for what they do; I put them on my "shuttle" t1 frigates so they can make long warps in one go. There is no need to make every module useful for PvP.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2012-03-27 00:52:54 UTC
Katalci wrote:
Though there really isn't much of a need to alter cap batteries -- they work for what they do; I put them on my "shuttle" t1 frigates so they can make long warps in one go. There is no need to make every module useful for PvP.

Very rarely do I run into the problem of not having enough cap to make a full warp in a traveling frigate. Is your warp drive operation skill trained at all?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#53 - 2012-03-27 03:14:02 UTC
This idea sounds a bit derpy. I can't see myself wanting to make space in a fit for a battery on the off chance it will reflect a neut.

Dunno, would like to see some reports from Sisi on it.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#54 - 2012-03-27 03:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
What a terrible idea... if neuts are such a common problem on Cyclones and Hurricanes... then why not do something to Cyclones and Hurricanes? Oops. I better start wearing my flak and kevlar at all times now...

In reality, of course, it will potentially screw over other ships. Part of the classic defense for a ratting BS, apart from don't be a moron and go AFK, is supposed to be a large neut. Love to see what happens to an active tanked ratter when his large neut backfires because some interceptor or assault ship fits a cap battery.

If some change must go through, I like the idea of the cap battery creating a floor below which the ship cannot be neuted.

Not that it matters much. The only ship I've ever fit a cap battery on was a Sacrilege - and that one fits an oversized one pretty easily if you exercise a little creativity.

Edit - this is such a bizarre idea that the paranoid side of me thinks that someone influential owns the T2 Cap Battery BPOs.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Andrea Griffin
#55 - 2012-03-27 04:06:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Griffin
ACE McFACE wrote:
Limvala Adur wrote:
This isn't good because? Neuts, for their impact on a fight, have NO drawbacks what so ever. You simply have the ability to neut down a ship, without giving it any though.
I think you're forgetting they need cap to activate them. I would consider that a downside
Except that you spend less cap than is destroyed in the target. Neuts are a no-brainer for any ship with free high slots. It's barely a tactical decision at all. Reverse that and things could be much more interesting.

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2012-03-27 05:20:12 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Siphaanu wrote:
I like that they are trying to revive dead modules, which cap batteries certainly are. I found a niche role for Large Cap Battery on my Curse a while ago, but that was the only use I ever found for it...

The bigger problem is they are trying to fix it with a chance effect. That is, in my opinion not a good idea. Seems they learned nothing from people reminding them how terrible ECM mechanic is.


Yeah, not a fan of chance based mechanics. I'd rather see the +1000 cap be neut immune as the old suggestions did.

-Liang

Ed: And yes, I am aware of the loop holes there.

I too would rather see one of the few Amarr hulls viable for PvP made useless.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-03-27 05:29:15 UTC
There's no issues with how neuts work currently.
CCP, stop being silly mmk?

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Arekhon
Doomheim
#58 - 2012-03-27 05:41:02 UTC
Limvala Adur wrote:

And what happens to basically any ship in the game when a random curse warps at 30 or so and practically shuts down everything a ship can do? That fun for the non-curse players? What about active tanking? Why should people watch it on videos and enjoy it, but simply don't want to waste ISK on it, because Neuts are SO widespread?

You must agree on this. ALL PVP SHIPS with free highs fit Neuts/wish they can fit neuts.

That's saying something right there.



um, hello Falcon!!! Same thing, they warp in and everything gets shut down. How about instead make the penalty apply to all other ships accept those with neut bonuses
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2012-03-27 06:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mfume Apocal
Andrea Griffin wrote:
Except that you spend less cap than is destroyed in the target. Neuts are a no-brainer for any ship with free high slots. It's barely a tactical decision at all. Reverse that and things could be much more interesting.


The tactical decision comes from when and how you choose to employ the neuts. Even if they weren't easy to fit, they'd be a no-brainer for solo and small gangs.
Crellion
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#60 - 2012-03-27 06:27:30 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Arte wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Yeah, not a fan of chance based mechanics. I'd rather see the +1000 cap be neut immune as the old suggestions did.

-Liang

Ed: And yes, I am aware of the loop holes there.


I really like this idea. Cap batteries would give extra, nuet immune cap. Tweak the numbers - especially fitting- and ship it.

I thought the problem with that idea was always "what about when the pilot drops below that 'protected-cap barrier' on his own, how would the neut work then?

I guess it just... wouldn't!

A ship can still cap out then, just not because of what another ship is doing to it.

Then, how would Nos work against cap batteries? Any Change?

I think the idea quoted from fanfest is awful for the record. Some of the Devs invited feedback at the Fanfest, I hope they pick up on the weight of opinion in this thread for what it's worth.


The real problem is people that fit cap batteries and always stay above peak cap recharge. Blink

-Liang


I don't know what's scarrier about this, the pvp abuse with ovrsized batteries (not such a huge problem IMO if Large is the largest but haven' properly thought it through) or the option of everyone and their mum soloing lvl5s and high end plexes etc etc in active tanks...

Still there might be options here to revive both nos and battery... anyone can direct me to a thread about proposed nos changes? couldnt find it Oops