These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun
REUNI0N
Against ALL Authorities
#321 - 2013-06-25 18:37:27 UTC
A NOS is only beneficial if you are either a) under Neut pressure or b) your fit is not Cap Stable. It is a defensive module. In both of these situations, the %-mechanic is not a problem, as your cap level will be lower than the enemies, and if it isn't, you can wear down your cap.

It is up to you to ensure that before the fight your cap level is lower than the enemies in combat - there are numerous ways to do so (local reps, warp commands, waiting for the enemy neut to lower your cap, etc.). And if you can't, then that means your fit is cap stable and your NOS is useless atm. Don't claim a problem where there isn't one.
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#322 - 2013-06-25 18:49:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Funky Lazers
The change is kinda useless.
Neut is still better because it always works, requires less CPU and you can use it on any target.

Whatever.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#323 - 2013-06-25 19:00:42 UTC
Funky Lazers wrote:
The change is kinda useless.
Neut is still better because it always works, requires less CPU and you can use it on any target.

Except a Neut drains cap from you too whether it is successful or not, where a NOS harms your enemies cap but more importantly provides cap to you... at no cap expenditure... in a high slot.

Neut is better as an offensive module (although a double edged sword), Nos is better as a defensive module (but in a more restricted manner for obvious reasons).

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.
#324 - 2013-06-25 19:05:37 UTC
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun wrote:
A NOS is only beneficial if you are either a) under Neut pressure or b) your fit is not Cap Stable. It is a defensive module. In both of these situations, the %-mechanic is not a problem, as your cap level will be lower than the enemies, and if it isn't, you can wear down your cap.

It is up to you to ensure that before the fight your cap level is lower than the enemies in combat - there are numerous ways to do so (local reps, warp commands, waiting for the enemy neut to lower your cap, etc.). And if you can't, then that means your fit is cap stable and your NOS is useless atm. Don't claim a problem where there isn't one.

Except that your opponent is likely not cap stable either.

Under the % system that means that your target can easily slip to a lower % than you (and yet in reality may still have a large amount of cap left to work with).

Under the new system a larger target will find it much more difficult to operate at a lower raw level of cap than you have.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#325 - 2013-06-25 19:31:58 UTC
Funky Lazers wrote:
The change is kinda useless.
Neut is still better because it always works, requires less CPU and you can use it on any target.


well i am going to start using one on my thorax/britix again.

for close range mwd/blaster/active tank ships this will be very usefull to get me threw the cap booster re-load.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#326 - 2013-06-25 19:47:05 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
The change is kinda useless.
Neut is still better because it always works, requires less CPU and you can use it on any target.


well i am going to start using one on my thorax/britix again.

for close range mwd/blaster/active tank ships this will be very usefull to get me threw the cap booster re-load.

Both of those are nearly ideal candidates.
I too have several ships (most notably my long neglected Pilgrims) that will be seeing starlight again.

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
#327 - 2013-06-25 21:11:06 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
The change is kinda useless.
Neut is still better because it always works, requires less CPU and you can use it on any target.


well i am going to start using one on my thorax/britix again.

for close range mwd/blaster/active tank ships this will be very usefull to get me threw the cap booster re-load.

Both of those are nearly ideal candidates.
I too have several ships (most notably my long neglected Pilgrims) that will be seeing starlight again.


What makes Thorax ideal? It doesn't have any high's to give if I'm not mistaken.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#328 - 2013-06-25 21:58:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Ranger 1 wrote:
Well, fitting a NOS on your Harbringer will actually work pretty well vs BS and most other BC's (due to your high cap burn rate)... it gets problematic on cruisers and more so on frigates.


Well this is strange. You've criticised current Nos for "not being reliable", and yet here you proclaim just how unreliable future Nos will be. Indeed, it's obvious that Nos on a Harbinger will be more unreliable than current Nos, which works quite well and quite reliably because of "your high cap burn rate".
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
#329 - 2013-06-25 22:16:06 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Well, fitting a NOS on your Harbringer will actually work pretty well vs BS and most other BC's (due to your high cap burn rate)... it gets problematic on cruisers and more so on frigates.


Well this is strange. You've criticised current Nos for "not being reliable", and yet here you proclaim just how unreliable future Nos will be. Indeed, it's obvious that Nos on a Harbinger will be more unreliable than current Nos, which works quite well and quite reliably because of "your high cap burn rate".


Old unreliable most of the times.
New reliable going up a classes or on cap-intensive fits.
New Unreliable going down classes.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#330 - 2013-06-25 22:40:32 UTC
in some circumstances it might be good to have a nos, imagine flying an amarr ship vs a minmatar one, you know that the minmatar ship is always going to full up on cap whereas you will cap out just for switching the cabin lights on...

I think we're going the wrong way about cap warfare, using neuts to remove cap from an enemy ship is useful but I think the neut should have a percentage chance of damaging the enemy's capacitor so that it doesn't hold as much cap as it would normally until it's repaired. This could be really crippling for a ship in the field, especially if it's ability to recharge is also degraded.

Likewise logistics ships that project cap should also have a bonus to vampires afterall if they can project cap to any targeted ship then logically they should be able to operate the same system in reverse and drain cap. This would shake up fleet warfare a bit not to mention small gangs or high sec corporate wars where RR alts appear on the field and rep the enemy from 75+ km, as well as cap chaining each other. As a counter to this I would like to put my own Vampire Logis on the field to relentlessly drain their logis, rep us and shut down the capacitors of any enemy combat ships.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#331 - 2013-06-25 23:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Travasty Space wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Well, fitting a NOS on your Harbringer will actually work pretty well vs BS and most other BC's (due to your high cap burn rate)... it gets problematic on cruisers and more so on frigates.


Well this is strange. You've criticised current Nos for "not being reliable", and yet here you proclaim just how unreliable future Nos will be. Indeed, it's obvious that Nos on a Harbinger will be more unreliable than current Nos, which works quite well and quite reliably because of "your high cap burn rate".


Old unreliable most of the times.
New reliable going up a classes or on cap-intensive fits.
New Unreliable going down classes.


Hence making larger classes of Nos almost entirely useless. Wow, what a boost to Nos this'll be.

Current Nos is reliable all the time, because, as you say, it's used on cap-intensive fits or under neuting. No matter what the size of your opponents, when your cap gets to a low % whether by cap drain from mods or by hostile neuting, it'll kick in and start defending your cap. You don't need to worry about the size of the target ship - it's predictable and reliable and hence easy to use.

Future Nos, by adding an additional level of complexity in the form of ship size, self-evidently becomes less reliable in practice. You now have to hope that the right size of ship turns up. Since people fit Nos to defend their cap from hostile neuting, this extra degree of uncertainty is unwelcome.

I mean, seriously, of all the claims made for absolute cap-level Nos, this "reliability" argument is the most stupid. Although, to be fair, you can rely on future heavy Nos to be absolutely reliably useless. Lol
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#332 - 2013-06-26 01:18:11 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
The change is kinda useless.
Neut is still better because it always works, requires less CPU and you can use it on any target.


well i am going to start using one on my thorax/britix again.

for close range mwd/blaster/active tank ships this will be very usefull to get me threw the cap booster re-load.

Both of those are nearly ideal candidates.
I too have several ships (most notably my long neglected Pilgrims) that will be seeing starlight again.


What makes Thorax ideal? It doesn't have any high's to give if I'm not mistaken.


back in the day i would always have a nos on the ship even if it meant i had one less gun.

look at it this way you remove one gun. but gain the ability to nos someone when you are being nueted so this allows you to use your remaining weapons... and at the end of the day the ability to continue to shoot trumps the extra turret.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Mathias Orsen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#333 - 2013-06-26 02:14:26 UTC
Sadly, It was just a few weeks ago that I busted my old talisman clone to make room for other implants.

While the change sounds good for ships such as HACs vs Battleships and making it even easier for cruiser gangs to take out ratting carriers, it's Screaming major unbalance as this change makes it absolutely useless on a BS. A cruiser can freely nosf cap out of a BS with two nosf then use that cap to activate a neutralizer. With a BS having no means to retaliate, this would actually be worse than nosf was originally.... This time only going one way.

This would make ships like the Ashimmu and Curse the ultimate solo BS killers. Talisman implants would mean a BS would be drained in little time. If the BS used neuts, it would only be detrimental and Nosf would never touch a Cruiser because they operate on much lower cap levels.

I can not approve of this change in any way. When fit on smaller class ships, it's far deadlier than the original nosf. If this change was put into the game at it's current idea, I'd certainly invest my isk in ishtars. Return of the Nosf ishtar along with drone damage mods and it really would be foolish to spend isk on a BS for PVP.

As much as I wish nosf was what it use to be, this just sounds like a quick idea that popped up while passing a "J".
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#334 - 2013-06-26 03:07:40 UTC
Mathias Orsen wrote:
Sadly, It was just a few weeks ago that I busted my old talisman clone to make room for other implants.

While the change sounds good for ships such as HACs vs Battleships and making it even easier for cruiser gangs to take out ratting carriers, it's Screaming major unbalance as this change makes it absolutely useless on a BS. A cruiser can freely nosf cap out of a BS with two nosf then use that cap to activate a neutralizer. With a BS having no means to retaliate, this would actually be worse than nosf was originally.... This time only going one way.

This would make ships like the Ashimmu and Curse the ultimate solo BS killers. Talisman implants would mean a BS would be drained in little time. If the BS used neuts, it would only be detrimental and Nosf would never touch a Cruiser because they operate on much lower cap levels.

I can not approve of this change in any way. When fit on smaller class ships, it's far deadlier than the original nosf. If this change was put into the game at it's current idea, I'd certainly invest my isk in ishtars. Return of the Nosf ishtar along with drone damage mods and it really would be foolish to spend isk on a BS for PVP.

As much as I wish nosf was what it use to be, this just sounds like a quick idea that popped up while passing a "J".


Working as intended, BS's are already used too much in PvP.....oh wait.
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#335 - 2013-06-26 03:17:30 UTC
To all the people that are saying the cycle time should be 3 secs, you have to remember that a heavy nuet has a cycle time of 24 secs. The module should be helping you with your capacitor and a give you a little wiggle room when you are getting neuted, it is not supposed to solve the problem of getting "capped out" all together.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#336 - 2013-06-26 04:08:42 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:
To all the people that are saying the cycle time should be 3 secs, you have to remember that a heavy nuet has a cycle time of 24 secs. The module should be helping you with your capacitor and a give you a little wiggle room when you are getting neuted, it is not supposed to solve the problem of getting "capped out" all together.


That doesn't help when it's more than one neut, and it's not to "solve the problem" of getting capped out it's to sustain a minimum level of cap to keep some modules running in between getting capped out. If the last neut pulse is 1 second after your NOS pulse now you're twiddling your thumbs for 11 seconds with no tackle or dps or tank or prop running.
Beckett Firesnake
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#337 - 2013-06-26 07:29:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Beckett Firesnake
I would prefer if the NOS had a shorter duration than the neutralizers. (2s for smalls, 4s for meds, 8s for larges).
That would change a lot of things....

EDIT : This is wrong. NOS duration are already half of the Neutralizers.
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
#338 - 2013-06-26 07:36:39 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Travasty Space wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Well, fitting a NOS on your Harbringer will actually work pretty well vs BS and most other BC's (due to your high cap burn rate)... it gets problematic on cruisers and more so on frigates.


Well this is strange. You've criticised current Nos for "not being reliable", and yet here you proclaim just how unreliable future Nos will be. Indeed, it's obvious that Nos on a Harbinger will be more unreliable than current Nos, which works quite well and quite reliably because of "your high cap burn rate".


Old unreliable most of the times.
New reliable going up a classes or on cap-intensive fits.
New Unreliable going down classes.


Hence making larger classes of Nos almost entirely useless. Wow, what a boost to Nos this'll be.

Current Nos is reliable all the time, because, as you say, it's used on cap-intensive fits or under neuting. No matter what the size of your opponents, when your cap gets to a low % whether by cap drain from mods or by hostile neuting, it'll kick in and start defending your cap. You don't need to worry about the size of the target ship - it's predictable and reliable and hence easy to use.

Future Nos, by adding an additional level of complexity in the form of ship size, self-evidently becomes less reliable in practice. You now have to hope that the right size of ship turns up. Since people fit Nos to defend their cap from hostile neuting, this extra degree of uncertainty is unwelcome.

I mean, seriously, of all the claims made for absolute cap-level Nos, this "reliability" argument is the most stupid. Although, to be fair, you can rely on future heavy Nos to be absolutely reliably useless. Lol


Future Nos is going to be equally reliable in these listed cases(and if a Vengeance of Sentinel neuts your BS out Trolololol). And you don't have to worry about size ship after either as the question you'll be asking yourself after is the same as before - "Which ship has the most cap in their pool?" It is no easier or harder then before.

Same point as above, doesn't add any complexity to the system, doesn't negatively affect the reliability in equal class engagements. And again if your reaching zero cap through neuting(as thats what you claim to be the reason to use a Nos) it will still work against an frigs.

These isn't a case that has been brought up where the new system doesn't at the very least work equally well after as before and a number of cases where it will work better.
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
#339 - 2013-06-26 07:37:12 UTC
Beckett Firesnake wrote:
Quote:
Hey fozzie given they cannot totally neut a ship, wouldn't it be good to maybe up the amount of total cap they currently drain? they cannot dry a ship so why not double the amount of cap they get per cycle? would make them a very interesting way to get capacitor on cap hungry ships.

and maybe just maybe increase their range a lil small bit?

Currently it feels like the amount of capacitor they drain even if they work at 100% its a bit too low, a heavy nosferatu drains currently 120 points each 12 seconds, while a single shoot from an apocalypse drains 260 cap each 6 seconds, so by the time the nosferatu lands even a single drain cycle, the apoc will have drained 520 cap, this assuming max skills with pulses without any heat sink, once you add 2 or 3 heatsinks, the amount drained goes to near 800 units, thus rendering the amount of vampired cap, meaningless.


I would prefer if the NOS had a shorter duration than the neutralizers. (2s for smalls, 4s for meds, 8s for larges).
That would change a lot of things....


They currently are shortly, half the cycle time.
Beckett Firesnake
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#340 - 2013-06-26 07:51:11 UTC
Travasty Space wrote:
Beckett Firesnake wrote:

I would prefer if the NOS had a shorter duration than the neutralizers. (2s for smalls, 4s for meds, 8s for larges).
That would change a lot of things....


They currently are shortly, half the cycle time.


Oh yes! I forgot that :-)

So everythings ok!

NOS are not there to dry out hostiles capacitors, they are there to keep yours alive.

Neutralizers are there to dry out hostile capacitors.

Perharps NOS are not enough good at their work though...

I don't know.