These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Airto TLA
Acorn's Wonder Bars
#281 - 2013-06-24 21:22:04 UTC
[quote=Ranger 1
They are quite explicit in their intention to make NOS more effective at fighting larger vessels (and all that this implies) and leaving Neuts to be more often chosen for larger ships to deal with small fry... and have had this in mind during the ship balancing process.

In other words, exactly what I have been explaining.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that.[/quote]

I am not so sure that this is their intention. it seems more to me they realized they are very weak and are only used marginally in small ships, even there they suffer a disadvantage due to the relative cap issue. So they figured to al least make it a somewhat used module fix that issue.

It unfortunatly actually nerfs them slightly going down a class, but that does not matter since almost no one used them that way anyway.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#282 - 2013-06-24 21:28:20 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

They are quite explicit in their intention to make NOS more effective at fighting larger vessels (and all that this implies) and leaving Neuts to be more often chosen for larger ships to deal with small fry... and have had this in mind during the ship balancing process.

In other words, exactly what I have been explaining.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that.


Again respectfully, no that is not their stated intention. CCP Rise's intention is stated in the first line:

I have another balance announcement for our Odyssey 1.1 release to share: we are going to make NOS good again

and he goes on to explain one EFFECT of their change as being small ships NOS'ing large ships is easier. They do not mention anything about nerfing large ships NOS'ing small ships or if that is their intention.

My disagreement over the change is that it doesn't accomplish the "we are going to make NOS good again" goal, it only takes from BS's and gives to frigates, averaging out to be a zero "goodness" gain and thus not worth burning calories to make. They should concentrate on addressing the issues with why NOS's aren't used at all levels instead of targeting just frigates.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#283 - 2013-06-24 21:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Akimo Heth wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

They are quite explicit in their intention to make NOS more effective at fighting larger vessels (and all that this implies) and leaving Neuts to be more often chosen for larger ships to deal with small fry... and have had this in mind during the ship balancing process.

In other words, exactly what I have been explaining.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that.


Again respectfully, no that is not their stated intention. CCP Rise's intention is stated in the first line:

I have another balance announcement for our Odyssey 1.1 release to share: we are going to make NOS good again

and he goes on to explain one EFFECT of their change as being small ships NOS'ing large ships is easier. They do not mention anything about nerfing large ships NOS'ing small ships or if that is their intention.

My disagreement over the change is that it doesn't accomplish the "we are going to make NOS good again" goal, it only takes from BS's and gives to frigates, averaging out to be a zero "goodness" gain and thus not worth burning calories to make. They should concentrate on addressing the issues with why NOS's aren't used at all levels instead of targeting just frigates.

Your interpretation is interesting, but isn't really accurate when you look at their further explanations.

Again:
Quote:
I'm actually expecting NOS to function primarily as a tool for fighting up a class.


That would be as opposed to fighting down a class (or more).

I'm sorry, but you are putting your own spin on part of what was said, and ignoring the further explanations that disagree with your interpretation.

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
#284 - 2013-06-24 23:53:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Ranger 1 wrote:


They are quite explicit in their intention to make NOS more effective at fighting larger vessels (and all that this implies) and leaving Neuts to be more often chosen for larger ships to deal with small fry... and have had this in mind during the ship balancing process.

In other words, exactly what I have been explaining.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that.


Nor much more stupid. I have been trying to explain to you why shifting Nos to this end is so stupid, how it solves nothing and creates even greater problems, such as the utter obliteration of any point to heavy Nos and the overpowering of small nos, but you don't seem to bother reading anything. It seems that you're just getting a hard-on that CCP came up with a stupid idea that matched your stupid idea from last year.

So I'll ask again - why do you think heavy Nos needs to be nerfed? What about it do you think is currently overpowered?
Why do you want frigates to have self-fuelling neuts when Nossing large ships? Shouldn't they be using, you know, neuts for that?

I am amused that you think CCP is so infallible though. Check out the Industrial tiericide thread for an example of the infallibility of CCP's ideas. Blink
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
#285 - 2013-06-25 01:26:19 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


They are quite explicit in their intention to make NOS more effective at fighting larger vessels (and all that this implies) and leaving Neuts to be more often chosen for larger ships to deal with small fry... and have had this in mind during the ship balancing process.

In other words, exactly what I have been explaining.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that.


Nor much more stupid. I have been trying to explain to you why shifting Nos to this end is so stupid, how it solves nothing and creates even greater problems, such as the utter obliteration of any point to heavy Nos and the overpowering of small nos, but you don't seem to bother reading anything. It seems that you're just getting a hard-on that CCP came up with a stupid idea that matched your stupid idea from last year.

So I'll ask again - why do you think heavy Nos needs to be nerfed? What about it do you think is currently overpowered?
Why do you want frigates to have self-fuelling neuts when Nossing large ships? Shouldn't they be using, you know, neuts for that?

I am amused that you think CCP is so infallible though. Check out the Industrial tiericide thread for an example of the infallibility of CCP's ideas. Blink


The nos isn't used to fight down as it is and the only time I see Nos' on BS now is for PvE. So taking this change as is we have an increased use of Nos in frigs/cruisers w/o any decreases in use for BS. you want to make the Nos as useful as a neut in fighting down classes which isn't going to happen cause pre-nerf history shows how bad an idea that is.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#286 - 2013-06-25 01:35:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Akimo Heth
Travasty Space wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


They are quite explicit in their intention to make NOS more effective at fighting larger vessels (and all that this implies) and leaving Neuts to be more often chosen for larger ships to deal with small fry... and have had this in mind during the ship balancing process.

In other words, exactly what I have been explaining.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that.


Nor much more stupid. I have been trying to explain to you why shifting Nos to this end is so stupid, how it solves nothing and creates even greater problems, such as the utter obliteration of any point to heavy Nos and the overpowering of small nos, but you don't seem to bother reading anything. It seems that you're just getting a hard-on that CCP came up with a stupid idea that matched your stupid idea from last year.

So I'll ask again - why do you think heavy Nos needs to be nerfed? What about it do you think is currently overpowered?
Why do you want frigates to have self-fuelling neuts when Nossing large ships? Shouldn't they be using, you know, neuts for that?

I am amused that you think CCP is so infallible though. Check out the Industrial tiericide thread for an example of the infallibility of CCP's ideas. Blink


The nos isn't used to fight down as it is and the only time I see Nos' on BS now is for PvE. So taking this change as is we have an increased use of Nos in frigs/cruisers w/o any decreases in use for BS. you want to make the Nos as useful as a neut in fighting down classes which isn't going to happen cause pre-nerf history shows how bad an idea that is.


No you can just use a heavy neut in fighting down a class and drain 300% more cap, wonderful. Usually when something isn't used at all we don't nerf it, you buff it so it actually becomes useful so I find your logic there curious. What imaginary problem are we trying to solve preventing BS's from NOS'ing cruisers or frigates in a world where heavy neuts work against everything for 300% of the NOS drain?

Their primary use in PvE is to allow a frig or cruiser to get close and drain them while you dps down a BS since it's safer to burn down the BS's from outside NOS ranges, so yes this is still a significant nerf to BS PvE NOS-use.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#287 - 2013-06-25 02:37:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Akimo Heth wrote:
Travasty Space wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


They are quite explicit in their intention to make NOS more effective at fighting larger vessels (and all that this implies) and leaving Neuts to be more often chosen for larger ships to deal with small fry... and have had this in mind during the ship balancing process.

In other words, exactly what I have been explaining.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that.


Nor much more stupid. I have been trying to explain to you why shifting Nos to this end is so stupid, how it solves nothing and creates even greater problems, such as the utter obliteration of any point to heavy Nos and the overpowering of small nos, but you don't seem to bother reading anything. It seems that you're just getting a hard-on that CCP came up with a stupid idea that matched your stupid idea from last year.

So I'll ask again - why do you think heavy Nos needs to be nerfed? What about it do you think is currently overpowered?
Why do you want frigates to have self-fuelling neuts when Nossing large ships? Shouldn't they be using, you know, neuts for that?

I am amused that you think CCP is so infallible though. Check out the Industrial tiericide thread for an example of the infallibility of CCP's ideas. Blink


The nos isn't used to fight down as it is and the only time I see Nos' on BS now is for PvE. So taking this change as is we have an increased use of Nos in frigs/cruisers w/o any decreases in use for BS. you want to make the Nos as useful as a neut in fighting down classes which isn't going to happen cause pre-nerf history shows how bad an idea that is.


No you can just use a heavy neut in fighting down a class and drain 300% more cap, wonderful. Usually when something isn't used at all we don't nerf it, you buff it so it actually becomes useful so I find your logic there curious. What imaginary problem are we trying to solve preventing BS's from NOS'ing cruisers or frigates in a world where heavy neuts work against everything for 300% of the NOS drain?

Their primary use in PvE is to allow a frig or cruiser to get close and drain them while you dps down a BS since it's safer to burn down the BS's from outside NOS ranges, so yes this is still a significant nerf to BS PvE NOS-use.

Except, of course, that they said NOS use vs PVE would not change.

CCP Rise said:
Quote:
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.


They cleverly hide this information in the responses that the Dev's actually make, in response to questions and responses that the other posters in this thread actually wrote.

Perhaps you should reconsider putting words in other peoples mouths (as you did in your response to me) and then arguing against it, instead of actually reading what was written. Blink

When you can confine yourself to discussing what the Dev's and the other posters in this thread have ACTUALLY said we'll start taking your arguments a bit more seriously.

Until then, not so much. 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
#288 - 2013-06-25 03:13:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Akimo Heth
Ranger 1 wrote:

Except, of course, that they said NOS use vs PVE would not change.

CCP Rise said:
Quote:
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.


They cleverly hide this information in the responses that the Dev's actually make, in response to questions and responses that the other posters in this thread actually wrote.

Perhaps you should reconsider putting words in other peoples mouths (as you did in your response to me) and then arguing against it, instead of actually reading what was written. Blink

When you can confine yourself to discussing what the Dev's and the other posters in this thread have ACTUALLY said we'll start taking your arguments a bit more seriously.

Until then, not so much. Smile


Yes I read that and call me crazy but they've said that plenty of times and changes have a way of changing PvE anyway so I'll believe it when I see it.

Even if he's right and the PvE NOS system won't change, then we'll have 2 systems for NOS's, one that is based on % of cap (current PvE system that supposedly won't change) and an absolute cap system? So a PvE'er BS can NOS a frigate but a PvP'er won't? Somehow I don't think that's what CCP Rise means.
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#289 - 2013-06-25 03:14:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Joan Greywind
Akimo Heth wrote:
Joan Greywind wrote:
Samas Sarum wrote:
Kithian Hastos wrote:
As has been pointed out, I don't see how this really helps Nos on large ships vs. equal or smaller ships. Heavy Nos would basically only work against a capital ship now?

A previously mentioned idea of making Nos drain cap/sec is intriguing. Of course if it were just a flat amount this would probably create the reverse situation of Heavy Nos being over powered on smaller ships like frigates.

Percentage cap/sec?


Agreed, it is idiotic that a 42k isk Small NOS 1 can perma-drain all day on a BS or cruiser, but a 240 million deadspace heavy NOS can't drain a single GJ of cap from a frigate or cruiser. This might make a lick of sense if Neuts were the same way but they work on every ship of every size at any time, but NOS's don't for no reason based in reality. Then we're supposed to believe this change will increase overall usefulness of NOS's how?

Can someone name one circumstance where a BS would fit a NOS over a Neut? Even before this change they made some sense on frigates since the amount they drain was a significant portion of the frigates cap and the cycle time of 3 seconds made it a good defense against neuting, but the amount drained on a heavy NOS doesn't scale with the growth of the total cap of a BS and the 12 second cycle time makes it useless as a neut defense. This isn't including fitting costs, for less you can fit a heavy neut and ALWAYS drain 300% of the amount a NOS can SOME of the time (or none of the time with a BS versus anything smaller).


Yes because it is on of the 10 commandments that all modules should work on all the ships the same way. The difference in strength of a particular module over ship classes should be linear, because I deemed it so.

It is a very nice change, adds to the meta and to the gameplay, always a +. And although i don't like flying small ships, this will bring a little more balance to different ship classes which is also a +.

Now to the real question, are we going to see an increase in the drop rate of the deadspace nos'es, since we will probably have a significant increase in demand?


Can you name another module that gets worse as your ship gets larger, discouraging it's use? A NOS is in direct competition, usage wise, with Neuts. So when a Neut works obviously much better on a BS than a NOS then that is a problem, agreed? When you make a change that obviously encourages it's use on frigates and discourages it on BS for no reason whatsoever (I guess it adds to the meta whatever that means) all you do is add arbitrary complication and end up not achieving your original goal in the first place which was to increase NOS use.

I would think they would come up with a change that makes NOS's useful across all ship sizes and not make it so lopsided in favor in frigates on which they were already viable due to their low cycle times and cap drained scaling better with their total cap.


Capacitor batteries. They add a straight up capacitor amount and not a percentage. They are more useful for smaller ships than bigger ones. Sensor boosters on the other hand work the other way around. They are more useful for big ships than small ships, that is why you never see a frigate with a sensor booster. Another example is the is armor plates. They (relatively) give a stronger boost to smaller ships than big ships. Basically any module with absolute amounts and not percentage will give the smaller ships a relatively bigger advantage.

Anyways even if there wasn't any type of module that worked in a similar manner through different ship classes it is still a good change. Just saying it shouldn't because we never had anything like it before is a weak argument. As I said in a previous post it adds to the meta and brings balance where both are positive things. And a less than useful mod is finding a niche role, that will be used more. For proof just check the prices of noses after the change was announced.

I don't like to say things like this, especially on the internet, but I think this warrants it. You have been "lawyered" Big smile
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#290 - 2013-06-25 03:16:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Akimo Heth
Joan Greywind wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
Joan Greywind wrote:
Samas Sarum wrote:
Kithian Hastos wrote:
As has been pointed out, I don't see how this really helps Nos on large ships vs. equal or smaller ships. Heavy Nos would basically only work against a capital ship now?

A previously mentioned idea of making Nos drain cap/sec is intriguing. Of course if it were just a flat amount this would probably create the reverse situation of Heavy Nos being over powered on smaller ships like frigates.

Percentage cap/sec?


Agreed, it is idiotic that a 42k isk Small NOS 1 can perma-drain all day on a BS or cruiser, but a 240 million deadspace heavy NOS can't drain a single GJ of cap from a frigate or cruiser. This might make a lick of sense if Neuts were the same way but they work on every ship of every size at any time, but NOS's don't for no reason based in reality. Then we're supposed to believe this change will increase overall usefulness of NOS's how?

Can someone name one circumstance where a BS would fit a NOS over a Neut? Even before this change they made some sense on frigates since the amount they drain was a significant portion of the frigates cap and the cycle time of 3 seconds made it a good defense against neuting, but the amount drained on a heavy NOS doesn't scale with the growth of the total cap of a BS and the 12 second cycle time makes it useless as a neut defense. This isn't including fitting costs, for less you can fit a heavy neut and ALWAYS drain 300% of the amount a NOS can SOME of the time (or none of the time with a BS versus anything smaller).


Yes because it is on of the 10 commandments that all modules should work on all the ships the same way. The difference in strength of a particular module over ship classes should be linear, because I deemed it so.

It is a very nice change, adds to the meta and to the gameplay, always a +. And although i don't like flying small ships, this will bring a little more balance to different ship classes which is also a +.

Now to the real question, are we going to see an increase in the drop rate of the deadspace nos'es, since we will probably have a significant increase in demand?


Can you name another module that gets worse as your ship gets larger, discouraging it's use? A NOS is in direct competition, usage wise, with Neuts. So when a Neut works obviously much better on a BS than a NOS then that is a problem, agreed? When you make a change that obviously encourages it's use on frigates and discourages it on BS for no reason whatsoever (I guess it adds to the meta whatever that means) all you do is add arbitrary complication and end up not achieving your original goal in the first place which was to increase NOS use.

I would think they would come up with a change that makes NOS's useful across all ship sizes and not make it so lopsided in favor in frigates on which they were already viable due to their low cycle times and cap drained scaling better with their total cap.


Capacitor batteries. They add a straight up capacitor amount and not a percentage. They are more useful for smaller ships than bigger ones. Sensor boosters on the other hand work the other way around. They are more useful for big ships than small ships, that is why you never see a frigate with a sensor booster. Another example is the is armor plates. They (relatively) give a stronger boost to smaller ships than big ships. Basically any module with absolute amounts and not percentage will give the smaller ships a relatively bigger advantage.

Anyways even if there wasn't any type of module that worked in a similar manner through different ship classes it is still a good change. Just saying it shouldn't because we never had anything like it before is a weak argument. As I said in a previous post it adds to the meta and brings balance where both are positive things. And a less than useful mod is finding a niche role, that will be used more. For proof just check the prices of noses after the change was announced.

I don't like to say things like this, especially on the internet, but I think this warrants it. You have been "lawyered" Big smile


Cap batteries aren't very useful anywhere as people have said in this thread, even if they were they're better for small ships only because the cap they give are a higher % of the base cap of small ships, that's a scaling issue that can be tweaked. It's not like the mechanics of the batter change based on the ship size like the proposed NOS change.

I'd like you to expand on "sensor boosters are more useful for large ships than small ships and that is why frigates don't fit them" since they're a %-based module and scale equally well unlike the other modules you mentioned. Now the mechanics of frigates and BS's can make sensor boosters more necessary but that isn't the sensor boosters fault, it's scaling as well as it can.

Arbitrary rules saying frigates can NOS a BS but not the other way around for no reason whatsoever is anything but balance and interesting meta.
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#291 - 2013-06-25 03:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Joan Greywind
double post, please delete
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#292 - 2013-06-25 03:27:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Joan Greywind
Joan Greywind wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
Joan Greywind wrote:
[quote=Samas Sarum][quote=Kithian Hastos]As has been pointed out, I don't see how this really helps Nos on large ships vs. equal or smaller ships. Heavy Nos would basically only work against a capital ship now?


Yes because it is on of the 10 commandments that all modules should work on all the ships the same way. The difference in strength of a particular module over ship classes should be linear, because I deemed it so.


I would think they would come up with a change that makes NOS's useful across all ship sizes and not make it so lopsided in favor in frigates on which they were already viable due to their low cycle times and cap drained scaling better with their total cap.


Capacitor batteries. They add a straight up capacitor amount and not a percentage. They are more useful for smaller ships than bigger ones. Sensor boosters on the other hand work the other way around. They are more useful for big ships than small ships, that is why you never see a frigate with a sensor booster. Another example is the is armor plates. They (relatively) give a stronger boost to smaller ships than big ships. Basically any module with absolute amounts and not percentage will give the smaller ships a relatively bigger advantage.

Anyways even if there wasn't any type of module that worked in a similar manner through different ship classes it is still a good change. Just saying it shouldn't because we never had anything like it before is a weak argument. As I said in a previous post it adds to the meta and brings balance where both are positive things. And a less than useful mod is finding a niche role, that will be used more. For proof just check the prices of noses after the change was announced.

I don't like to say things like this, especially on the internet, but I think this warrants it. You have been "lawyered" Big smile

Arbitrary rules saying frigates can NOS a BS but not the other way around for no reason whatsoever is anything but balance and interesting meta.


It is not for no reason. Battleships have much more slots and much more cap than a frigate and can deal with neuts relatively easier. A frigate can't, a single neut on a battlecruiser will neut it out. It can be added to bs, but as we have seen before and as the OP explained that made for some very weird mechanics, you have to put certain limitations or you will have unbalanced situations.

Sensor boosters are better for bigger ships for the same reason the new noses will be good for smaller ones. It is not because of the percentages, but because of how sensor strength works. Relatively speaking frigates have a much easier time locking targets of different sizes, but battleship have a harder time. Getting capped out is a much easier proposition for the frigate than the battleship, making the use of noses relatively better for the smaller ships. The mechanics are different, but the results are the same, some modules give different degrees of benefit across different ships classes, and that is the whole point. This is just a response to your argument that all modules in EVE give the same relative results across all ship classes.

Cap batteries are not used much I agree, but the argument still holds, there exists modules in the game that give different benefits. They are also used in logis (not much), smaller ships that need cap (better than rechargers) and against neuts.

You still have modules like plates and extenders, tracking computers and enhancers etc...

Now you can have situations where a frigate with good piloting skill can keep a point longer on battleship with neuts, or maybe even have a bigger chance to kill that hurricane.
Saying "adding to gameplay mechanics and balance" is not arbitrary. Both of these things are good and if you can't see why then I am not going bother explaining. At the end of the day it is always a good change when a module gets more use, as evidenced by the market (as long as it isn't imbalanced, HAI rifters).
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#293 - 2013-06-25 03:43:27 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:

Man you asked to provide similar examples in EVE, and I did, and then you totally ignored it. It is not for no reason. Battleships have much more slots and much more cap than a frigate and can deal with neuts relatively easier. A frigate can't, a single neut on a battlecruiser will neut it out. It can be added to bs, but as we have seen before and as the OP explained that made for some very weird mechanics, you have to put certain limitations or you will have unbalanced situations.

And saying that adding to gameplay mechanics and balance is not arbitrary. Both of these things are good and if you can't see why then I am not going bother explaining. At the end of the day it is always a good change when a module gets more use, as evidenced by the market (as long as it isn't imbalanced, HAI rifters).


Edited to address your examples. I don't disagree with your goals of making modules more useful, this is just a clumsy way to do it and only makes them useful for frigates while nerfing them for large ships which they were already awful for. Are you saying there was not a single change they could have made to NOS's that would make them better at all levels? Not overpower or better than neuts but more viable than they are now?

They could have made this change while also addressing the concerns of BS NOS users, i.e. obnoxious fitting, 12s cycle times, but instead they made life more difficult for them and further discouraged their use. Sorry, but I don't think that is good design.
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#294 - 2013-06-25 04:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Joan Greywind
Akimo Heth wrote:
Joan Greywind wrote:

Man you asked to provide similar examples in EVE, and I did, and then you totally ignored it. It is not for no reason. Battleships have much more slots and much more cap than a frigate and can deal with neuts relatively easier. A frigate can't, a single neut on a battlecruiser will neut it out. It can be added to bs, but as we have seen before and as the OP explained that made for some very weird mechanics, you have to put certain limitations or you will have unbalanced situations.

And saying that adding to gameplay mechanics and balance is not arbitrary. Both of these things are good and if you can't see why then I am not going bother explaining. At the end of the day it is always a good change when a module gets more use, as evidenced by the market (as long as it isn't imbalanced, HAI rifters).


Edited to address your examples. I don't disagree with your goals of making modules more useful, this is just a clumsy way to do it and only makes them useful for frigates while nerfing them for large ships which they were already awful for. Are you saying there was not a single change they could have made to NOS's that would make them better at all levels? Not overpower or better than neuts but more viable than they are now?

They could have made this change while also addressing the concerns of BS NOS users, i.e. obnoxious fitting, 12s cycle times, but instead they made life more difficult for them and further discouraged their use. Sorry, but I don't think that is good design.



It seems I am also running into the same problem :P. I also added a few things after you edited. I see your point, but as I said, battleships don't have to rely on noses, and it is not such a big problem that nos use is not as effective (still usable). Battleships that rely on cap, have naturally bigger cap pools, higher recharge, can fit cap boosters (and have more chargers), can (arguably in PVP) fit more cap modules.

From a design perspective it is very difficult to balance noses out, as the OP explained, but with this change they did. They bridged the gap between neuting bc's and bs, against frigates and cruisers. (Not equal, just adding a fighting chance). Even problems that seem simple, don't have simple answers. If you have better solutions I would love to hear them.
El 1974
Green Visstick High
#295 - 2013-06-25 07:36:22 UTC
I think this discussion isn't going anywhere. I think there are two seperate issues:
1. the mechanic change
CCP wants NOS to be a weapon that's most usefull when fighting a ship larger than yourself. I think this is not a bad idea. Battleships will not benefit from this when fighting smaller ships, but they may benefit when fighting a Carrier. Working as intended.
2. a rebalance
People have noted that just changing the mechanics is not enough to make NOS good again. A rebalance is required and in this rebalance the Heavy NOS may need some more love than the small NOS.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#296 - 2013-06-25 07:56:47 UTC
El 1974 wrote:
I think this discussion isn't going anywhere. I think there are two seperate issues:
1. the mechanic change
CCP wants NOS to be a weapon that's most usefull when fighting a ship larger than yourself. I think this is not a bad idea. Battleships will not benefit from this when fighting smaller ships, but they may benefit when fighting a Carrier. Working as intended.
2. a rebalance
People have noted that just changing the mechanics is not enough to make NOS good again. A rebalance is required and in this rebalance the Heavy NOS may need some more love than the small NOS.


Pretty much. The idea as proposed is, as you say, a entire change to the purpose and role of Nos. I dislike it because A) it gives an offensive role to Nos that IMO has been proven to be a bad idea in the past and therefore should be restricted to neuts and B) it nerfs heavy Nos even further.

I think I've said all that needs to be said on this, so I await a comment from CCP. Or just silent implementation of this stupid mechanic. Lol
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#297 - 2013-06-25 08:18:16 UTC
El 1974 wrote:
I think this discussion isn't going anywhere. I think there are two seperate issues:
1. the mechanic change
CCP wants NOS to be a weapon that's most usefull when fighting a ship larger than yourself. I think this is not a bad idea. Battleships will not benefit from this when fighting smaller ships, but they may benefit when fighting a Carrier. Working as intended.
2. a rebalance
People have noted that just changing the mechanics is not enough to make NOS good again. A rebalance is required and in this rebalance the Heavy NOS may need some more love than the small NOS.


For point one:

The problem is that you don't fit nos if you expect to fight capitals in BS fleets, you fit neuts. Caps don't neut you down, you need to neut them down to overcome her active or RR tanks. The idea to fight capitals with nos is absurd and would only make sense in ships like the abaddon, domi or new geddon that abuse the mechanic and fill all her high slots with nos/neut combos, exactly the same hulls that are already very efficient in pure neut setups for the same job atm.

I agree with point two.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
El 1974
Green Visstick High
#298 - 2013-06-25 08:25:38 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
it gives an offensive role to Nos that IMO has been proven to be a bad idea in the past and therefore should be restricted to neuts

Yes, it will have a stronger offensive effect, but only when fighting an enemy that has a larger cap pool. With this restriction added, I don't think it's going to be a problem.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#299 - 2013-06-25 09:57:59 UTC
Its really great that you guys are discussing this so ferociously, will be interesting to see how it actually plays out =)

To the above points about PVE - I have investigated to make sure and I can say 100% that PVE will not be affected. The way NOS works in PVE is not the same as it works in PVP (gosh the PVE system needs work) and so it won't behave any differently.

@ccp_rise
To mare
Advanced Technology
#300 - 2013-06-25 10:04:35 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Its really great that you guys are discussing this so ferociously, will be interesting to see how it actually plays out =)

To the above points about PVE - I have investigated to make sure and I can say 100% that PVE will not be affected. The way NOS works in PVE is not the same as it works in PVP (gosh the PVE system needs work) and so it won't behave any differently.

who cares about pve anyway.
why you ppl keep pushing to the usage of small ships they are already very common, everyone use BC and lower its BS that are not used but you still keep boosting small mods over big ones