Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Posting to confirm we are reading here -

We completely acknowledge that this change probably isn't going to be some NOS revival that causes a huge cap-war shake up. Doing fitting changes, cycle time changes, etc might be good, but we want to do this rebalance in small steps. Count this as a good start, we are completely willing/expecting to revisit this after we see how things go.

Well yeah, this change is a small step. It's just not a step forward. It's more like sideways. NOS was predominantly used by frigs and some cruisers before this change. And afterwards it will still only be used by frigs and cruisers. And NOS will still be harder to fit than a Neut, while still being less useful. Your changes! They do nothing!

Yes, it's the ever popular "we can just iterate" defense. Iteration is all well and good. But it's not really an "answer" when your iterator varies between -1 and +0, and the period is measured in years.

NOS currently isn't being used predominatly on any class of vessel.

Cap is life, and any module that provides it is powerful... particularly when it's a high slot module for a utility slot.

I'm going to continue to not really use them, because too much fitting, and not enough drain amount to protect you from a same-size neutraliser or run any kind of active tank.

By "predominantly" he means the class of vessel that most commonly fits Nos, which is obviously frigates, rather than a class of ship whose fittings are dominated by Nos.

And the reason that Nos isn't as commonly used as we all believe it should be is, as TrouserDeagle says, " too much fitting, and not enough drain amount to protect you from a same-size neutraliser or run any kind of active tank". The problem has never been to do with when the Nos drains and everything to do with what happens when it does drain.

Which is another reason, apart from the ship-size imbalance, why this change is so stupid. It indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the problems with Nos.

seconded.



hardly, they have a different use. the purpose of neutralizers is to neutralize. the purpose of nosferatus is to try and keep your capacitor going.

this change to the mechanics of Nosferatus is completely pointless. the limitation for draining, being only to the percentage of the user's cap, does not need to be changed in any way.

Noses are NOT meant to drain your target's capacitor - they exist only to (at least try to) ensure that your capacitor stays alive to an extent.

Noses are NOT meant to counter neutralizers; that's what boosters are for.

Nosferatu modules make perfect sense as they are now. The only thing I can say is what I quoted in the beginning of this post: make the Nos as equally powergrid and CPU demanding as neutralizers. nothing more should be done with them. EVER.

T1 frigates and cruisers.

No, you're overlooking the offensive capabilities of old Nos. Old Nos was popular despite the high fittings and relatively low cap drain because it was effective as an offensive weapon, one that you could rely on to cap out your opponent. In this case, "reliability" of the kind that you champion was the reason that it was broken and overpowered. The main effect, and indeed purpose, of changing from always-on Nos to percentage Nos was to neuter that offensive capability, limiting neuts to the offensive role and leaving Nos as a defensive weapon. But without the offensive role, the relatively low drain amount and tricky fittings of percentage Nos rendered it suboptimal in this defensive role, lacking the drain amount to relaibly counter similar degrees of neuting.



My vision of Nos is a counter to neuting capable of maintaining low-drain active modules such as tackle and hardeners, and maybe prop mods, available to all ships sizes. As such, percentage Nos is the correct mechanic to achieve this, avoiding the problems of unreliability resulting from an additional level of complexity in the form of a consideration of relative ship size, as arises from absolute Nos, along with those related to imbalances between ship classes.

I'm not sure what your vision of Nos is. You talk about predictability, but include this extra level of complexity. You don't emphasise the defensive role, but yet talk about Nos seeing greater use on frigates - but I am unsure to what additional purpose, over the already-existing defensive role. Your vision of BS Nos seems to pretend that it doesn't exist, or that it should compete with neuts for an offensive role, maybe?

The problem is this is not a "rebalance" at all, it's simply making the modules worse on the ships they already suck on...


I think you need to bail on this bad idea and start over with the things you have suggested in the quoted post.

The issue is not cap%, it's cycle time and fitting req on medium and larges. Players have been telling you guys this for YEARS. I don't know why you guys have to do the fail dev things and just ignore what's been discussed in favor of a change that does NOTHING but make the issue worse.

You guys need some help.