These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#201 - 2013-06-21 17:55:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
I approve of this change :) Some thoughts on something I read on page 1...

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.



Ideally it would work just like Vincent suggested. Perhaps you could balance Neuts and V-NOSs (a "vincent style nosferatu") by adding a penalty for when you suck the cap out of a target with less cap than you. That way it would work kinda like this:

Target has more cap than you --> V-NOS drains target cap at 1/3 the rate of a neut, but drained energy goes into your own capacitor.

Target has less cap than you --> V-NOS still drains target cap at 1/3 the rate of a neut, but you have to pay the same activation cost as you would for a neut instead of having energy transferred into your capacitor.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#202 - 2013-06-21 19:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Akimo Heth
Altrue wrote:
It sounds like a very good change ! Is it enough ? I don't use NOSes enough to tell, but it is definitely the right direction ! And it adds this tiny bit of gameplay that's so tasteful. Big smile

In my opinion, lessening the fitting requirements should also be a priority. Not to the point were nos become as seen as warp disruptors in pvp, but enough to prevent people from sacrifying tank when they want to fit a neut.

Also, now that larger classes can't dominate small classes with NOSes, why not increasing a bit the amount of cap stealed ? In this case, I would also recommend to nerf by the same bit the bonus on NOS (only) for cap warfare ships like the pilgrim. To keep them in line with their current balance.


You mean how larger classes dominate small classes with Neuts? So we're fine with that but somehow a NOS draining a frigate from a BS is illegal?

A large ship not being able to suck a single cap point from a smaller ship is completely arbitrary and makes ZERO sense whatsoever when a large NOS costs millions and a small cheap one costs 10k and can perma-drain a BS. There isn't any surprise at all that BS's currently ,and will even more do so after this change, choose to fit large Neuts for less fitting than a NOS.

Any change from CCP shouldn't make them more popular on platforms they're already viable on and make them less popular on platforms they're hardly used on now. There's been plenty of good ideas already:

1) Change cycle time to 3 seconds across the board (12 seconds makes no sense and is a hindrance to BS's using NOS's). One of the best uses for NOS's is a defense to neuting and a 12 second cycle runs opposite of this.

2) Instead of having convoluted and arbitrary rules regarding cap amount relative to one another just to work, just make NOS's drain as long as the target has cap to drain, simple easy DONE.

3) PG and fittings are obnoxious no matter how you look at it, getting worse as you get to large NOS level. A large NOS taking more PG and CPU than a large neut makes no sense given the neut drains 300% of the amount of the NOS.
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2013-06-21 19:29:52 UTC
Tacklers would love this I suppose... they are tackling larger ships anyway.

We need a new class of frigate: it uses NOS to power its medium guns while it tackles larger ships.

I can has blogging skills!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#204 - 2013-06-21 19:54:19 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Altrue wrote:
It sounds like a very good change ! Is it enough ? I don't use NOSes enough to tell, but it is definitely the right direction ! And it adds this tiny bit of gameplay that's so tasteful. Big smile

In my opinion, lessening the fitting requirements should also be a priority. Not to the point were nos become as seen as warp disruptors in pvp, but enough to prevent people from sacrifying tank when they want to fit a neut.

Also, now that larger classes can't dominate small classes with NOSes, why not increasing a bit the amount of cap stealed ? In this case, I would also recommend to nerf by the same bit the bonus on NOS (only) for cap warfare ships like the pilgrim. To keep them in line with their current balance.


You mean how larger classes dominate small classes with Neuts? So we're fine with that but somehow a NOS draining a frigate from a BS is illegal?

A large ship not being able to suck a single cap point from a smaller ship is completely arbitrary and makes ZERO sense whatsoever when a large NOS costs millions and a small cheap one costs 10k and can perma-drain a BS. There isn't any surprise at all that BS's currently ,and will even more do so after this change, choose to fit large Neuts for less fitting than a NOS.

Any change from CCP shouldn't make them more popular on platforms they're already viable on and make them less popular on platforms they're hardly used on now. There's been plenty of good ideas already:

1) Change cycle time to 3 seconds across the board (12 seconds makes no sense and is a hindrance to BS's using NOS's). One of the best uses for NOS's is a defense to neuting and a 12 second cycle runs opposite of this.

2) Instead of having convoluted and arbitrary rules regarding cap amount relative to one another just to work, just make NOS's drain as long as the target has cap to drain, simple easy DONE.

3) PG and fittings are obnoxious no matter how you look at it, getting worse as you get to large NOS level. A large NOS taking more PG and CPU than a large neut makes no sense given the neut drains 300% of the amount of the NOS.

A Neuts job is to cap out smaller vessels.
A NOS's job is to sustain a smaller vessel when engaging a larger vessel.
Two different jobs, so yes, we are fine with that.

1) No issues with this, but keep in mind that the amount of drain will be reduced accordingly.

2) This puts it too close to Neut territory in regards to role, and this is a balancing point to keep them from being over powered.

3) While I have no issues with balancing the fitting requirements between the two (although they would need to be very, very careful with this) keep in mind that as modules go a NOS will now usually be the more beneficial module of the two if used vs the correct targets.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#205 - 2013-06-21 19:59:10 UTC
What's stopping NOS from just draining the cap your opponent has and then stopping when your opponent goes below something like 1%? Or you can keep it running but it literally takes whatever they have and gives it to you, so if they only have 2 cap you only gain 2 cap?

Coding constraints I assume?

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Keldor Eternia
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2013-06-21 20:01:07 UTC
Glad they hired you, Kil2. You have some creative yet elegant solutions to problems. This turning the NOS into a reliable means to attack larger ships is a huge boon, especially to 'heavy tackle' frigates which could normally be shrugged off by a neut from a larger ship.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#207 - 2013-06-21 20:16:34 UTC
On a related note my take on this a year ago.

Again, many thanks. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#208 - 2013-06-21 20:26:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Akimo Heth
Ranger 1 wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
Altrue wrote:
It sounds like a very good change ! Is it enough ? I don't use NOSes enough to tell, but it is definitely the right direction ! And it adds this tiny bit of gameplay that's so tasteful. Big smile

In my opinion, lessening the fitting requirements should also be a priority. Not to the point were nos become as seen as warp disruptors in pvp, but enough to prevent people from sacrifying tank when they want to fit a neut.

Also, now that larger classes can't dominate small classes with NOSes, why not increasing a bit the amount of cap stealed ? In this case, I would also recommend to nerf by the same bit the bonus on NOS (only) for cap warfare ships like the pilgrim. To keep them in line with their current balance.


You mean how larger classes dominate small classes with Neuts? So we're fine with that but somehow a NOS draining a frigate from a BS is illegal?

A large ship not being able to suck a single cap point from a smaller ship is completely arbitrary and makes ZERO sense whatsoever when a large NOS costs millions and a small cheap one costs 10k and can perma-drain a BS. There isn't any surprise at all that BS's currently ,and will even more do so after this change, choose to fit large Neuts for less fitting than a NOS.

Any change from CCP shouldn't make them more popular on platforms they're already viable on and make them less popular on platforms they're hardly used on now. There's been plenty of good ideas already:

1) Change cycle time to 3 seconds across the board (12 seconds makes no sense and is a hindrance to BS's using NOS's). One of the best uses for NOS's is a defense to neuting and a 12 second cycle runs opposite of this.

2) Instead of having convoluted and arbitrary rules regarding cap amount relative to one another just to work, just make NOS's drain as long as the target has cap to drain, simple easy DONE.

3) PG and fittings are obnoxious no matter how you look at it, getting worse as you get to large NOS level. A large NOS taking more PG and CPU than a large neut makes no sense given the neut drains 300% of the amount of the NOS.

A Neuts job is to cap out smaller vessels.
A NOS's job is to sustain a smaller vessel when engaging a larger vessel.
Two different jobs, so yes, we are fine with that.

1) No issues with this, but keep in mind that the amount of drain will be reduced accordingly.

2) This puts it too close to Neut territory in regards to role, and this is a balancing point to keep them from being over powered.

3) While I have no issues with balancing the fitting requirements between the two (although they would need to be very, very careful with this) keep in mind that as modules go a NOS will now usually be the more beneficial module of the two if used vs the correct targets.


Re: #2, there's already a balance point, NOS's drain a THIRD of a Neut's draw and Neut's work all the time against any vessel. That's how NOS's should be, if there's cap to drain then drain it, no dumb and arbitrary rules saying a BS can't NOS a frigate for a single GJ of cap for no reason based in reality.

The point of the fix is to increase the popularity of NOS's overall, can we all agree on that? Yet their 'fix' nerfs them on the platform they're least popular on and buffs them on the platform they're already most popular on. What logical wrong turn have I taken in equating this to a bad change and in need of an update badly.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#209 - 2013-06-21 20:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Akimo Heth wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
Altrue wrote:
It sounds like a very good change ! Is it enough ? I don't use NOSes enough to tell, but it is definitely the right direction ! And it adds this tiny bit of gameplay that's so tasteful. Big smile

In my opinion, lessening the fitting requirements should also be a priority. Not to the point were nos become as seen as warp disruptors in pvp, but enough to prevent people from sacrifying tank when they want to fit a neut.

Also, now that larger classes can't dominate small classes with NOSes, why not increasing a bit the amount of cap stealed ? In this case, I would also recommend to nerf by the same bit the bonus on NOS (only) for cap warfare ships like the pilgrim. To keep them in line with their current balance.


You mean how larger classes dominate small classes with Neuts? So we're fine with that but somehow a NOS draining a frigate from a BS is illegal?

A large ship not being able to suck a single cap point from a smaller ship is completely arbitrary and makes ZERO sense whatsoever when a large NOS costs millions and a small cheap one costs 10k and can perma-drain a BS. There isn't any surprise at all that BS's currently ,and will even more do so after this change, choose to fit large Neuts for less fitting than a NOS.

Any change from CCP shouldn't make them more popular on platforms they're already viable on and make them less popular on platforms they're hardly used on now. There's been plenty of good ideas already:

1) Change cycle time to 3 seconds across the board (12 seconds makes no sense and is a hindrance to BS's using NOS's). One of the best uses for NOS's is a defense to neuting and a 12 second cycle runs opposite of this.

2) Instead of having convoluted and arbitrary rules regarding cap amount relative to one another just to work, just make NOS's drain as long as the target has cap to drain, simple easy DONE.

3) PG and fittings are obnoxious no matter how you look at it, getting worse as you get to large NOS level. A large NOS taking more PG and CPU than a large neut makes no sense given the neut drains 300% of the amount of the NOS.

A Neuts job is to cap out smaller vessels.
A NOS's job is to sustain a smaller vessel when engaging a larger vessel.
Two different jobs, so yes, we are fine with that.

1) No issues with this, but keep in mind that the amount of drain will be reduced accordingly.

2) This puts it too close to Neut territory in regards to role, and this is a balancing point to keep them from being over powered.

3) While I have no issues with balancing the fitting requirements between the two (although they would need to be very, very careful with this) keep in mind that as modules go a NOS will now usually be the more beneficial module of the two if used vs the correct targets.


Re: #2, there's already a balance point, NOS's drain a THIRD of a Neut's draw and Neut's work all the time against any vessel. That's how NOS's should be, if there's cap to drain then drain it, no dumb and arbitrary rules saying a BS can't NOS a frigate for a single GJ of cap for no reason based in reality.

The point of the fix is to increase the popularity of NOS's overall, can we all agree on that? Yet their 'fix' nerfs them on the platform they're least popular on and buffs them on the platform they're already most popular on. What logical wrong turn have I taken in equating this to a bad change and in need of an update badly.

With respect, yes, the Neut drains more. However that is MORE than offset by the fact that the NOS delivers that cap to it's user. This would make it quite a bit more powerful than a Neut if it had no limitations. Experience has proven this point without question, you need only look at the fittings that were most popular before the NOS nerf.

Also, draining your opponent dry is not it's role, that is the value that a Neut brings to the table. The NOS ability to harm your opponents cap is of secondary concern, not it's focus or chief benefit. To put it another way, the additional cap stream to help keep ALL of your modules running vs. ALL of the opponents you are facing is far more valuable than the slow depletion of cap in a single target.

It used to be that NOS was a no brainer module to fit in small to medium ships, and very likely your module of choice for BS as well (although Neuts were a contender at the BS level due to their ability to "cap bully" smaller ships).

Then they were over nerfed and literally nobody used them, even on ships that were bonused for them because Neuts were a better choice.

After this change they will assume very close to their old role, but with limitations that require you to make an intelligent choice between NOS and Neut (which is a good thing). Small and medium sized vessels will most often favor the NOS, BS will often leverage the sheer power of the Neuts vs the smaller fry... and there will be many exceptions back and forth between the two depending on individual fits.

That's a very good spot to be in, especially if they consider making a few tweaks in the NOS's favor as far as fittings go.

I'm not trying to be preachy, I'm just trying to explain why this isn't a black and white thing in an understandable manner.

Edit: There is one other thing to consider in the NOS vs Neut debate. A NOS really has no downside (except for slightly higher fitting requirements). It requires no cap to operate like a Neut does, and if you can't drain your opponent for part of (or even all of) the fight it does you no harm. A Neut on the other hand, if left running, will continue to put a significant drain on your cap even if your target is capped out.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#210 - 2013-06-21 21:43:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Akimo Heth
Ranger 1 wrote:
After this change they will assume very close to their old role, but with limitations that require you to make an intelligent choice between NOS and Neut (which is a good thing).


Respectfully, after this statement and most of your other ones, I'm going to stop replying to you as there's no point.

NOS's used to return full amount of cap even when the target was drained and that's why they were OP, no other reason, saying this latest change brings us any closer to that is insane to me. Yes, NOS's are obviously better on frigates now, but that gets us nowhere since they were already popular on frigates. This change obviously nerfs them on BS's which is where they're least used and where CCP's change should be targeted. This is mine, and many other people's, major beef with this change.

...and please "run ALL your modules"? These types of statements are where you lose people, the very best heavy NOS can't even keep 2 Tach 2 turrets firing let alone all of them. Yes a NOS does have a downside, it takes up a high slot and an obnoxious amount of fitting so lets make it useful for BS's and not just frigates please.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#211 - 2013-06-21 22:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Akimo Heth wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
After this change they will assume very close to their old role, but with limitations that require you to make an intelligent choice between NOS and Neut (which is a good thing).


Respectfully, after this statement and most of your other ones, I'm going to stop replying to you as there's no point.

NOS's used to return full amount of cap even when the target was drained and that's why they were OP, no other reason, saying this latest change brings us any closer to that is insane to me. Yes, NOS's are obviously better on frigates now, but that gets us nowhere since they were already popular on frigates. This change obviously nerfs them on BS's which is where they're least used and where CCP's change should be targeted. This is mine, and many other people's, major beef with this change.

...and please "run ALL your modules"? These types of statements are where you lose people, the very best heavy NOS can't even keep 2 Tach 2 turrets firing let alone all of them. Yes a NOS does have a downside, it takes up a high slot and an obnoxious amount of fitting so lets make it useful for BS's and not just frigates please.

NOS are rarely used now, even on frigates. Neuts are, with few exceptions, preferred.

Continued drain after all cap was gone was a major issue yes, but they also overlapped too much with the role that Neuts were supposed to fill.

I never said that a single NOS would "run all modules", however it can signficantly increase your effective cap recharge rate... which does indeed HELP run your modules that affect your defenses against all of your opponents (not just the one you are targeting)... from a high utility slot. No other high slot module can do this.

I haven't even touched on the synergy between NOS and MWD, which is completely lacking (quite the opposite actually) between Neut and MWD. A MWD being perhaps the single most helpful module to get/stay within range to use either cap attack.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Zanza Mechonis
What is tax
#212 - 2013-06-21 23:03:34 UTC
brb making capstable triple shield booster merlin fits with cap flux coils and NOSes :3

"On the internet you can be anything you want... It's strange that many people choose to be stupid."
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#213 - 2013-06-22 00:05:05 UTC
Thread abandoned, apparently, so I'm guessing there won't be improved fittings or drain amount.
Naomi Anthar
#214 - 2013-06-22 00:54:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Anthar
I already said i won't another buff for Losematar go through ? Oh thats why i'm here.

THIS CHANGE CANNOT GO THROUGH.

In worst case keep nos as it is. Still better than this change.

I will keep posting , keep giving more agruments, keep giving more data why this change sucks until CCP will see how bad this is.

Edit : Btw stop talking with Ranger 1 - he is troll or dunno. He never put any real argument in this thread, nor he ever countered one of mine or others unhappy with this change. He lacks arguments. He operates with some mystic situations.

To Ranger 1:
Listen to me dude for very last time , first of all it's not personal. I'm here to defend my ingame bussines in pvp. I got my reasons that i posted before why i don't want those changes and why they are very bad and inconsistent among ships from diffrent races/classes.

I really couldn't care much how useful it will be in frig vs battleship situation. I'm not blob fan. You may be surprised but frigs are used for more than just being tackle for great capital fleets. Those ship can fight thier own fights. AND MOST OF THE TIME (capitalizing letters so you know why i'm against this change) frigates engage other frigates - in 1/1 engagemnts too.
This change really sucks for this. It clearly favors some ships while putting at disadvantage others for no real reason.

You may ignore impact on frig vs frig fights of this change , dessie vs dessie and so on. But THERE IS UNDENIABLE BAD IMPACT. You may not acknowledge this , you may deny EvE Universe reality, you can use dirty magic to somehow manipulate EvE community that indeed this is good balance pass, but i won't buy it. I see why it's bad - not only me, there are few others that are unhappy with this change.

And i do understand that you cannot please everyone, but for all what is sacred this change is all but nerf to NOS usefulness in many situations except when fighting bigger ships. What is worse this change is absolutely tragic in effect for NOS usefulness in bigger ships. And why is that - those ships also can mount NOS and should be able to somehow benefit from this module not only when there is goddamn titan to suck.

Ranger 1 talks about "intelligent " choices to be made. The most clever would be to never let this happen.
Maximus Terona
Best Kept Frozen.
#215 - 2013-06-22 02:03:10 UTC
Sounds perfect <3
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc.
#216 - 2013-06-22 02:12:07 UTC
Ruin my solo/escort scorpion (lost a high, no dual neuts), ruin probing, stupid-proof exploration, drop a high slot from my hostile space mammoth, remove the turrets from tp bonused ships, and now cripple my blatant misuse of nos (cap for my mission tempest).

No useful info about patches ("we're mucking with this system" doesn't count).

Good game CCP, keeping vets around because they've got too much invested while luring new people with shinies. Did you hire apple's marketing team?

Anyone got a cure for a bad case of the bittervet, or shall I get some crash and go blow up noobs in l2 mission hubs?
Tasha Saisima
Doomheim
#217 - 2013-06-22 02:27:02 UTC
have NOS work just like neuts but only at about 50% strength

no terms and conditions, no small print, no multiple factors
Zircon Dasher
#218 - 2013-06-22 03:05:12 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:

Btw stop talking with Ranger 1 - he is troll or dunno. He never put any real argument in this thread, nor he ever countered one of mine or others unhappy with this change. He lacks arguments. He operates with some mystic situations.

To Ranger 1:


Lol

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#219 - 2013-06-22 05:16:18 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Naomi Anthar wrote:

Btw stop talking with Ranger 1 - he is troll or dunno. He never put any real argument in this thread, nor he ever countered one of mine or others unhappy with this change. He lacks arguments. He operates with some mystic situations.

To Ranger 1:


Lol

I know right? Smile
Someone doesn't like losing arguments. Big smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#220 - 2013-06-22 05:59:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Naomi Anthar wrote:
I already said i won't another buff for Losematar go through ? Oh thats why i'm here.

THIS CHANGE CANNOT GO THROUGH.

In worst case keep nos as it is. Still better than this change.

I will keep posting , keep giving more agruments, keep giving more data why this change sucks until CCP will see how bad this is.

Edit : Btw stop talking with Ranger 1 - he is troll or dunno. He never put any real argument in this thread, nor he ever countered one of mine or others unhappy with this change. He lacks arguments. He operates with some mystic situations.

To Ranger 1:
Listen to me dude for very last time , first of all it's not personal. I'm here to defend my ingame bussines in pvp. I got my reasons that i posted before why i don't want those changes and why they are very bad and inconsistent among ships from diffrent races/classes.

I really couldn't care much how useful it will be in frig vs battleship situation. I'm not blob fan. You may be surprised but frigs are used for more than just being tackle for great capital fleets. Those ship can fight thier own fights. AND MOST OF THE TIME (capitalizing letters so you know why i'm against this change) frigates engage other frigates - in 1/1 engagemnts too.
This change really sucks for this. It clearly favors some ships while putting at disadvantage others for no real reason.

You may ignore impact on frig vs frig fights of this change , dessie vs dessie and so on. But THERE IS UNDENIABLE BAD IMPACT. You may not acknowledge this , you may deny EvE Universe reality, you can use dirty magic to somehow manipulate EvE community that indeed this is good balance pass, but i won't buy it. I see why it's bad - not only me, there are few others that are unhappy with this change.

And i do understand that you cannot please everyone, but for all what is sacred this change is all but nerf to NOS usefulness in many situations except when fighting bigger ships. What is worse this change is absolutely tragic in effect for NOS usefulness in bigger ships. And why is that - those ships also can mount NOS and should be able to somehow benefit from this module not only when there is goddamn titan to suck.

Ranger 1 talks about "intelligent " choices to be made. The most clever would be to never let this happen.

I'm defending my business too in a way. While I make my ISK selling just about all of the Amarr T2 ships available, I specialize in Pilgrim production. I would be somewhat reluctant to endorse anything that would cause that ship to decrease in popularity (or any ships in the Amarr lineup for that matter).

However I freely support this change as it will have quite the opposite effect, for the reasons (and history lesson) that I and many others have explained to you.

I had written a long post detailing an inordinately long history pertinent to this discussion, and being rather dickish in comparing it to yours. But I've deleted that part as I really don't enjoy epeen waving even when someone attempts to speak down to me. Making you look stupid, especially when you are sincere in your opinion, doesn't get us anywhere.

I'll simply leave it with this.

I (and others) have voiced the opinion that this is a very sensible step to take to put NOS back on equal footing with Neuts in terms of viability again, and have detailed the reasons why. I wouldn't be disappointed in the least if "some" of your proposals made it in as well. I'm content to wait for people that know how to engage successfully in capacitor warfare to give this a try on the test server, but in the meantime I will be keeping an eye on this thread as well.

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