These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Nosferatu mechanic change

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-06-19 16:13:41 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Because that makes it universally better than neuts and extremely powerful for small and large ships alike.

The eternal draining of the old NOS was just one part of the problem, even with your proposed change you'd essentially be getting all the power of a neut while usually gaining cap instead of losing it.

Change it so that Nos lowers the target's cap/sec and transfers it to your own. Make it a tool for cap stability rather than a tool for cap warfare.

Your proposal is definitely better than what we've got now, but I feel it would mostly benefit non-bonused hulls where they are looking for a source of cap and not a way to drain the enemy.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#22 - 2013-06-19 16:13:43 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Rise
Quote:
Minor side point to this, but if you go ahead with this, you may want to look at how it will affect PVE ships who use NOS against rats, and how you want it to affect them.


Yep the CSM brought this up and I'll make 100% sure that nothing changes for PVE'ers, but I'm already pretty sure that this change will have no effect on the behavior of NOS in PVE.

edit: this is actually inaccurate, I've posted an update later in the thread here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3597834#post3597834

@ccp_rise
HazeInADaze
Safari Hunt Club
#23 - 2013-06-19 16:19:42 UTC
Well that makes things much better. Amarr recons/EAfrig just got a nice boost to piloting difficulty.

I would like to see sansha or blood raiders get an always-on Nos bonus with a bonus to range and/or amount. Basically a nos that works like a neut. Powerful and interesting.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#24 - 2013-06-19 16:25:41 UTC
You need to increase the drain amount over time so it's equal or greater than a neutraliser. Currently a medium nos will counter a small neut, but still get wrecked by a medium neut. You can't run any kind of tank on it when it's so weak.

I'd be happy with you not doing anything to the mechanic, honestly.
Pseudo Ucksth
Camellia Void Cartographics
#25 - 2013-06-19 16:36:13 UTC
Cool. It's nice to see stuff that got nerfed to dust years ago being brought back up into the usable area from the nearly unusable/niche area.

The spirit of these changes gives me high hopes for the Eos
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#26 - 2013-06-19 16:38:02 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Hmm, I did not realize it worked that way. Shows how much I, as an industrialist, know about cap warfare.

I thought it worked by always transferring x cap from the target to you, unless the target had less than x in which case it transferred all available. You get nothing from a drained ship.

Whats wrong with it working like that?


Because that makes it universally better than neuts and extremely powerful for small and large ships alike.

The eternal draining of the old NOS was just one part of the problem, even with your proposed change you'd essentially be getting all the power of a neut while usually gaining cap instead of losing it.

But I thought a neut killed far more of the target's cap than a nos. That gives newts more power even with my change.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2013-06-19 16:41:37 UTC
It's so weak it's almost of no use.

The only useful thing a NOS can achieve is being able to hold scrambler+web when neuted.

That's it.

No one ever uses NOS for anything else. Oh, maybe they use it because it fills a highslot, yeah, that too.

Seriously, if you want to make NOS worth fitting, then other solutions are to be looked at.

Increased efficiency (gets you more cap/s)

Decreased fitting cost (specifically PWG)

Or a combination of the two.
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
#28 - 2013-06-19 16:42:03 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Gimme feedback o/


As someone who loves capacitor warfare, and the Curse in particular, you and the rest of the guys working on balance changes have just made my week.

THANK YOU.

Morwen Lagann

CEO, Tyrathlion Interstellar

Coordinator, Arataka Research Consortium

Owner, The Golden Masque
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2013-06-19 16:43:50 UTC
Will the effect of batteries change on this then or how will their leech modifier stack against this effect?
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#30 - 2013-06-19 16:57:44 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
It's so weak it's almost of no use.

The only useful thing a NOS can achieve is being able to hold scrambler+web when neuted.

That's it.

No one ever uses NOS for anything else. Oh, maybe they use it because it fills a highslot, yeah, that too.

Seriously, if you want to make NOS worth fitting, then other solutions are to be looked at.

Increased efficiency (gets you more cap/s)

Decreased fitting cost (specifically PWG)

Or a combination of the two.


Yeah the fitting is pretty crazy as well. If they're going to remain less of a module than a neut, it'd be cool if they used less fitting. Or they could bring neutraliser powergrid usage up to what it used to be.
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-06-19 17:00:10 UTC
Oh and if you need more feedback about energy warfare.

A complete overhaul of cap batteries is needed.

Which means, XL Cap batteries, fitting requirements inline with capboosters, capacitor efficiency inline with capboosters too.
Sigras
Conglomo
#32 - 2013-06-19 17:17:24 UTC
What if you made it a function instead of binary? IE it drains less and less cap the more I have over my opponents ship, so in excel the equation would look something like this:

MIN(1, TheirCap / MyCap) * BaseDrainAmount = AmountDrained

If you wanted to get really fancy, you could do a squared over squared equation to increase the penalty for having more cap than your opponents.

Thoughts?
Tu'yak Marowshay
Original Sinners
Pandemic Legion
#33 - 2013-06-19 17:25:13 UTC
Fitting requirments should be reduced - they do not do the same thing as neuts yet have almost the same fitting requirments. Other then that, this is a great idea and am glad ccp has people working on "old world" items making them better and more useful.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#34 - 2013-06-19 17:27:00 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
So they still require you to have less cap than your target correct?


Yes, but it would compare the actual amounts of cap instead of percentages of the ship's full pool.


interesting i wonder if we are going to see a change in wh meta from this.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#35 - 2013-06-19 17:27:50 UTC
Sigras wrote:
What if you made it a function instead of binary? IE it drains less and less cap the more I have over my opponents ship, so in excel the equation would look something like this:

MIN(1, TheirCap / MyCap) * BaseDrainAmount = AmountDrained

If you wanted to get really fancy, you could do a squared over squared equation to increase the penalty for having more cap than your opponents.

Thoughts?


i am going to pretend i konw what this means and support it.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#36 - 2013-06-19 17:30:51 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
Oh and if you need more feedback about energy warfare.

A complete overhaul of cap batteries is needed.

Which means, XL Cap batteries, fitting requirements inline with capboosters, capacitor efficiency inline with capboosters too.


cap bats should be an active mod. that not only increases your cap but also your recharge but lasts maybe 30 seconds and then has a one min countdown.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#37 - 2013-06-19 17:32:32 UTC
Morwen Lagann wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Gimme feedback o/


As someone who loves capacitor warfare, and the Curse in particular, you and the rest of the guys working on balance changes have just made my week.

THANK YOU.


makes the mwd really usefull on the curse eh?


i wonder if peole would use sheild power relays to reduce max cap amount to greatly increase the effectiveness of nos.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Dimirti
Be Nice Inc.
Prismatic Legion
#38 - 2013-06-19 17:39:25 UTC
It certainly makes NOS a viable option against larger ship types, but it doesn't address the fact that you would never want to fit a NOS if you're fighting something of the same ship class. If I'm in a Curse, ganking ratting T3s then I'm just as useless as before.
Haradgrim
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-06-19 17:39:28 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I have another balance announcement for our Odyssey 1.1 release to share: we are going to make NOS good again.

In ye old times, Nosferatu was fairly broken. It used to drain cap from your target regardless of how much cap your target had, and deposit it into your cap pool. This meant you could generate cap from thin air as long as you could target any ship. We had nano Dominixs permanently cap stable by draining some cap-dry frig and all kinds of other nonsense.

Unfortunately when this got addressed, it was nerfed into the ground by basing the success of the NOS activation off the relative PERCENTAGE of cap for each ship. NOS went from extremely overpowered to fairly useless. You can never depend on your opponent having a higher % cap than you, and especially not when you're using a ship that wants to win the cap war by neutralizing the enemy.

Our plan for this is fairly simple - we want to make successful NOS activation based on relative cap amount, not percentage.

This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 125 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 370, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.

The biggest effect here will most likely be that any time you're fighting up a class (frig vs cruiser, cruiser vs BS, etc) NOS will become a much more attractive choice. It also means that in fights with several ship sizes present, deciding on a target for your NOS should be more intuitive (target something big).

Gimme feedback o/

(PS - this would of course effect all sizes and all metas)


If this were combined with a fitting change to make them easier to tack on then they would probably enjoy some use and popularity but at present I can't think of that many situations where I would prefer them over a neut even with the change.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#40 - 2013-06-19 17:44:48 UTC
Haradgrim wrote:

If this were combined with a fitting change to make them easier to tack on then they would probably enjoy some use and popularity but at present I can't think of that many situations where I would prefer them over a neut even with the change.


could be usefull on a brutix.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.