These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#521 - 2013-07-21 04:14:50 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:

No evidence? The "drain until dry" is what was .. neuts were non-existent and NOS-Domi's rained supreme.


No, what they used to be was draining even when the enemy had no cap, no one has proposed that. Like I said before, if draining as long as the enemy has cap is too OP then tweak the amount drained, the fitting, the range, cycle time, ....something! Anything is better than adding an arbitrary mechanic that makes no sense and is anything but how you would expect a draining module to work if you were seeing it the first time as a new player.

You are still advocating Nos to behave like Neuts just without the nasty downside of neuts, namely needing to run them in the first place .. we are all sad that Nos are so overshadowed by neuts as to be database fillers, but flipping that does not actually do much of anything except perhaps force people to swap their neut stockpiles with Nos ditto.

Here is another spin on Rise's original concept: Base it on "pressure differential".
- Increase potential Nos amount fourfold.
- With Defenders cap much larger than Attackers the Nos acts as an open faucet, up to the potential maximum aperture (straight linear type of thing, 4+x cap yields 4x drain).
- With remaining cap equal then you get as now ... for that one cycle anyway.
- With Att. having more than Def. then you get squat .. maybe even add a drain for good measure Twisted

Makes it easy to explain to newbs which I understand is important Blink
Makes neuting a buzzing frig in larger vessels useless until actual anti-frig measures are brought into play (ie. drones, buddies in smaller support, multi webs).
Gives the smaller hulls the option to start a fight at fight with almost full cap even after repping approach damage and/while burning into range.
Forces the issue of bringing support!




I'm not advocating flipping the NOS/Neut situation, neut's drain 3x as much. There's a dozen different levers CCP can push and pull to balance them both (including the drain mechanic you describe) without adding nonsensical cap comparison mechanics that relegate NOS's to frigate's only and even then only in tackler support while being neuted. That's a pretty tiny niche for a single module when they're even worse to fit in medium and heavy sizes compared to neuts due to this change.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#522 - 2013-07-21 22:45:12 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
ok, you youre making them work slightly better but still functionally useless.

Here's a real fix for you: just make them suck cap as long as your target has cap. once theyre dry, nos no longer gives you any cap.

This is what has been proposed the entire thread. Even though it is a simple, logical design, apparently CCP thinks it will make them OP compared to neuts but provides zero evidence to back that up. They throw their hands up at it pretending like there's no parameter they could tweak to bring them in line if they did and instead attach this arbitrary cap comparison mechanic and call it a day.

you can balance it pretty easily by how much the drain.
neuts should drain lots, give you no cap
nos should drain less, give you some cap as long as enemy has it.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#523 - 2013-07-22 16:06:27 UTC
While this move is in a good direction, it makes more sense to follow the cop regen mechanic of decreasing gains with higher levels.

When shields recharge, they regenerate more shields as the shields go down to 33% (if I understand it right). Shields at 99% regenerate rather slowly.

The NOS should follow a similar mechanic. The NOS ship would receive a percentage of the cap neutralized from the target ship based on his own cap levels. If the NOS takes 400 cap from the target and the NOS ship has 33% cap left, then 66% of the 400 cap is added to the NOS ship. If the NOS ship has 66% cap left, then only 33% is transferred. While the NOS ship is low cap, it can rely on getting cap until the target is capped out at which point 0 cap is neutralized and 66% of 0 target cap is 0 cap transferred/added to the NOS ship.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#524 - 2013-07-22 17:13:04 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
While this move is in a good direction, it makes more sense to follow the cop regen mechanic of decreasing gains with higher levels.

When shields recharge, they regenerate more shields as the shields go down to 33% (if I understand it right). Shields at 99% regenerate rather slowly.

The NOS should follow a similar mechanic. The NOS ship would receive a percentage of the cap neutralized from the target ship based on his own cap levels. If the NOS takes 400 cap from the target and the NOS ship has 33% cap left, then 66% of the 400 cap is added to the NOS ship. If the NOS ship has 66% cap left, then only 33% is transferred. While the NOS ship is low cap, it can rely on getting cap until the target is capped out at which point 0 cap is neutralized and 66% of 0 target cap is 0 cap transferred/added to the NOS ship.


This idea, that NOS takes a % of the cap remaining from the target with it being higher the more cap it has, is one of the many suggestions that make more sense than the current and proposed cap comparison mechanic. The module gives zero indication that its working, so a simpler mechanic that is balanced around always draining some amount of cap while the module is enabled (and the target actually has cap) makes a lot more sense than a pilot wondering if the module is working or not and potentially needlessly staying in NOS range for no benefit.
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#525 - 2013-07-22 17:14:37 UTC
Why not just vary the max drain amount instead of making it a percent chance?

I can has blogging skills!
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#526 - 2013-07-22 20:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Akimo Heth wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
While this move is in a good direction, it makes more sense to follow the cop regen mechanic of decreasing gains with higher levels.

When shields recharge, they regenerate more shields as the shields go down to 33% (if I understand it right). Shields at 99% regenerate rather slowly.

The NOS should follow a similar mechanic. The NOS ship would receive a percentage of the cap neutralized from the target ship based on his own cap levels. If the NOS takes 400 cap from the target and the NOS ship has 33% cap left, then 66% of the 400 cap is added to the NOS ship. If the NOS ship has 66% cap left, then only 33% is transferred. While the NOS ship is low cap, it can rely on getting cap until the target is capped out at which point 0 cap is neutralized and 66% of 0 target cap is 0 cap transferred/added to the NOS ship.


This idea, that NOS takes a % of the cap remaining from the target with it being higher the more cap it has, is one of the many suggestions that make more sense than the current and proposed cap comparison mechanic. The module gives zero indication that its working, so a simpler mechanic that is balanced around always draining some amount of cap while the module is enabled (and the target actually has cap) makes a lot more sense than a pilot wondering if the module is working or not and potentially needlessly staying in NOS range for no benefit.

My idea was NOT that the cap transfer be proportional to the % of target's cap remaining, but instead that it be inversely proportional to the NOS ship's cap times the amount of cap neuted from the target, but always reduce the target's cap by a fixed amount according to the module used.

Example:
If the target has at least 50 cap, see below. The amount transferred is a function of the cap taken and the NOS ship's cap.
NOS Ship cap at 99% -> 50 cap taken from target, 16 cap transferred to NOS ship (33%)
NOS Ship cap at 66% -> 50 cap taken from target, 16 cap transferred to NOS ship (33%)
NOS Ship cap at 50% -> 50 cap taken from target, 25 cap transferred to NOS ship (50%)
NOS Ship cap at 33% -> 50 cap taken from target, 32 cap transferred to NOS ship (66%)
NOS Ship cap at 10% -> 50 cap taken from target, 32 cap transferred to NOS ship (66%)

If target only has 10 cap then,
NOS Ship cap at 99% -> last 10 cap taken from target, 3 cap transferred to NOS ship (33%)
Target can send cap to another ship with an energy transfer module to protect the cap from a NOS.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#527 - 2013-07-22 23:22:58 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
While this move is in a good direction, it makes more sense to follow the cop regen mechanic of decreasing gains with higher levels.

When shields recharge, they regenerate more shields as the shields go down to 33% (if I understand it right). Shields at 99% regenerate rather slowly.

The NOS should follow a similar mechanic. The NOS ship would receive a percentage of the cap neutralized from the target ship based on his own cap levels. If the NOS takes 400 cap from the target and the NOS ship has 33% cap left, then 66% of the 400 cap is added to the NOS ship. If the NOS ship has 66% cap left, then only 33% is transferred. While the NOS ship is low cap, it can rely on getting cap until the target is capped out at which point 0 cap is neutralized and 66% of 0 target cap is 0 cap transferred/added to the NOS ship.


This idea, that NOS takes a % of the cap remaining from the target with it being higher the more cap it has, is one of the many suggestions that make more sense than the current and proposed cap comparison mechanic. The module gives zero indication that its working, so a simpler mechanic that is balanced around always draining some amount of cap while the module is enabled (and the target actually has cap) makes a lot more sense than a pilot wondering if the module is working or not and potentially needlessly staying in NOS range for no benefit.

My idea was NOT that the cap transfer be proportional to the % of target's cap remaining, but instead that it be inversely proportional to the NOS ship's cap times the amount of cap neuted from the target, but always reduce the target's cap by a fixed amount according to the module used.

Example:
If the target has at least 50 cap, see below. The amount transferred is a function of the cap taken and the NOS ship's cap.
99% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 16 cap transferred to NOS ship (33%)
66% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 16 cap transferred to NOS ship (33%)
50% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 25 cap transferred to NOS ship (50%)
33% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 32 cap transferred to NOS ship (66%)
10% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 32 cap transferred to NOS ship (66%)


My mistake, now I understand it. Either way add it to the pile of good ideas that are miles ahead of the currently proposed mechanic.
Randy Wray
Warcrows
Sedition.
#528 - 2013-07-23 10:26:46 UTC
Personally i would like a combination of the current and the proposed ssystem so if a ship has a bigger cap pool it will drain like it used to with some indication on wether its working or not. I put noses on cyclones for example and it would be stupid if i cant drain a neuting cane cause i have thebigger cap.

Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec

twitch.tv/randywray
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#529 - 2013-07-23 13:41:32 UTC
Drain/transfer amount = Base drain amount * % of target capacitor

Target at 100% cap, nos is 100% effective

Target is at 10% cap, nos is 10% effective.


I like this previously proposed mechanic... its soo much better than what they currently propose
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#530 - 2013-07-23 14:40:31 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
Drain/transfer amount = Base drain amount * % of target capacitor

Target at 100% cap, nos is 100% effective

Target is at 10% cap, nos is 10% effective.


I like this previously proposed mechanic... its soo much better than what they currently propose


Is the goal of the NOS to bring the targets cap to low but not empty? What good is that? "My NOS is slowly bringing my target's cap to low. Yay! All his modules still work and I get a little cap, too. Yay, I win."

How about we all start thinking of the NOS as a way to both drain the cap and gain some cap? Like a mini neut plus high slot cap booster. If it works effectively with a neut in an intuitive way, then we have a good mechanic:

I propose:
NOS Drain amount = 1/3 NEUT drain amount, limited by Target capacitor --- Affect on target is constant, reliable, intuitive and less than a neut
NOS transfer amount = 2/3 / (1 + Your capacitor) * NOS drain amount --- Affect on yourself follows cap and shield regen mechanics

Both effects are easy to understand and to see working.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#531 - 2013-07-24 04:14:51 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
[quote=Verity Sovereign]Drain/transfer amount = Base drain amount * % of target capacitor



I propose:
NOS Drain amount = 1/3 NEUT drain amount, limited by Target capacitor --- Affect on target is constant, reliable, intuitive and less than a neut
NOS transfer amount = 2/3 / (1 + Your capacitor) * NOS drain amount --- Affect on yourself follows cap and shield regen mechanics

Both effects are easy to understand and to see working.



BAH !


Enough with the squared root of the derivative times ship radius over infinity -1 bovine excrement Thank You Very Much.


Neut = instant cap death.

NOS = cap death of a thousand cuts.


Ships always generate cap. Nos should simply acquire part of the targets natural regeneration and transfer it to aggressor. By using a percentage rather than a fixed amount, NOS's will scale to allow smaller tackle ships effective defense against larger Neuting opponents, while not over powering a ship of similar class.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#532 - 2013-07-24 16:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
CW Itovuo wrote:

BAH !

Enough with the squared root of the derivative times ship radius over infinity -1 bovine excrement Thank You Very Much.

Ships always generate cap. Nos should simply acquire part of the targets natural regeneration and transfer it to aggressor. By using a percentage rather than a fixed amount, NOS's will scale to allow smaller tackle ships effective defense against larger Neuting opponents, while not over powering a ship of similar class.

My equations had not roots or derivatives, so I take exception to that comment.

New Idea!:

Your proposal of acquiring a percentage of the target ship's cap regen is interesting though. It would be interesting if the NOS took a percentage of the target ship's cap increase, whether by cap regen, by cap transfer, or by NOS.

Heavy NOS = target cap increase / 8 / (# of NOS)

If the target cap increases by 80 GJ/s, then the NOS steals 10 GJ/s. This would work especially well against ships that generate a lot of cap and against logistics ships which cap bounce. Also the equation and mechanics are much simpler.

Note: Currently a Heavy NOS takes 10 GJ/s IF the target cap percentage is greater than the NOS cap percentage. Most target capacitors would generate less than 80 GJ/s, so the new proposed mechanic for the Heavy NOS may steal much less than 10 GJ/s. From a typical dual cap bounce logi chain, though, 1/8 of 160 GJ/s can actually steal up to 20 GJ/s. This could quickly become a serious threat to logistics if the NOS were stacked onto the same target unless the amount stolen were divided equally among the NOS.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#533 - 2013-07-24 17:49:05 UTC
The proposed change is incredibly underwhelming.

I'm astonished to learn that a NOS effectively does nothing if the enemy's cap is lower than yours. This doesn't make any sense, nor is it balanced given how little a NOS actually drains.

The people in this thread have posted ideas far superior to this proposed change, particularly when a cruiser NOSing a frigate literally accomplishes nothing. Makes no sense.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#534 - 2013-07-24 17:53:01 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
While this move is in a good direction, it makes more sense to follow the cop regen mechanic of decreasing gains with higher levels.

When shields recharge, they regenerate more shields as the shields go down to 33% (if I understand it right). Shields at 99% regenerate rather slowly.

The NOS should follow a similar mechanic. The NOS ship would receive a percentage of the cap neutralized from the target ship based on his own cap levels. If the NOS takes 400 cap from the target and the NOS ship has 33% cap left, then 66% of the 400 cap is added to the NOS ship. If the NOS ship has 66% cap left, then only 33% is transferred. While the NOS ship is low cap, it can rely on getting cap until the target is capped out at which point 0 cap is neutralized and 66% of 0 target cap is 0 cap transferred/added to the NOS ship.


This idea, that NOS takes a % of the cap remaining from the target with it being higher the more cap it has, is one of the many suggestions that make more sense than the current and proposed cap comparison mechanic. The module gives zero indication that its working, so a simpler mechanic that is balanced around always draining some amount of cap while the module is enabled (and the target actually has cap) makes a lot more sense than a pilot wondering if the module is working or not and potentially needlessly staying in NOS range for no benefit.

My idea was NOT that the cap transfer be proportional to the % of target's cap remaining, but instead that it be inversely proportional to the NOS ship's cap times the amount of cap neuted from the target, but always reduce the target's cap by a fixed amount according to the module used.

Example:
If the target has at least 50 cap, see below. The amount transferred is a function of the cap taken and the NOS ship's cap.
99% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 16 cap transferred to NOS ship (33%)
66% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 16 cap transferred to NOS ship (33%)
50% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 25 cap transferred to NOS ship (50%)
33% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 32 cap transferred to NOS ship (66%)
10% NOS Ship cap - 50 cap taken from target, 32 cap transferred to NOS ship (66%)


My mistake, now I understand it. Either way add it to the pile of good ideas that are miles ahead of the currently proposed mechanic.


Quoted for mo'fuckin' truth.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#535 - 2013-07-24 18:16:26 UTC
Its a little worrying you CCP folks haven't mentioned how this impacts Cap Batteries. Would be good if cap batteries offered a 'protected' reservoir of undrainable cap the same value they add.

It does seem Large NOS will have absolutely no use except for having maybe 1 or two on neuting BS dedicated to anti-Capital Ships, because they will still be completely useless fighting sub-BS size ships.

Fitting requirements of CPU on NOS should probably be put in line with Neuts, as this is also quite a determining factor for using Neut over a NOS.

I actually support reverting the old system of NOS draining fully to 0 cap, but changing the cap gained by the NOS aggressor to 'what is actually left upto the drain amount in the victims cap reservoir'.

That mechanic made sense and the choice was NOS or Neut because the NOS drain worked to keep a cap vulnerable ship disabled and Neut was the big umph doing most of the actual cap reservoir damage.
What was actually needed was better 'cap proofing', using things like cap batteries, or other anti NOS modules and such, rather than just nerfing NOS to oblivion.

These changes appear a step back in the right direction, but a more comprehensive solution is needed.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#536 - 2013-07-25 00:38:49 UTC
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Its a little worrying you CCP folks haven't mentioned how this impacts Cap Batteries. Would be good if cap batteries offered a 'protected' reservoir of undrainable cap the same value they add.

It does seem Large NOS will have absolutely no use except for having maybe 1 or two on neuting BS dedicated to anti-Capital Ships, because they will still be completely useless fighting sub-BS size ships.

Fitting requirements of CPU on NOS should probably be put in line with Neuts, as this is also quite a determining factor for using Neut over a NOS.

I actually support reverting the old system of NOS draining fully to 0 cap, but changing the cap gained by the NOS aggressor to 'what is actually left upto the drain amount in the victims cap reservoir'.

That mechanic made sense and the choice was NOS or Neut because the NOS drain worked to keep a cap vulnerable ship disabled and Neut was the big umph doing most of the actual cap reservoir damage.
What was actually needed was better 'cap proofing', using things like cap batteries, or other anti NOS modules and such, rather than just nerfing NOS to oblivion.

These changes appear a step back in the right direction, but a more comprehensive solution is needed.


That anti-Capital BS would fit Heavy Neuts in every single situation. I'm truly curious as to what CCP sees as a scenario where a heavy NOS doesn't lose out to a heavy Neut hands down.
jein Kalin
Rus-Feniks
#537 - 2013-07-25 08:32:42 UTC
А не проще переделать вампиров и нейтрализаторов так что бы их можно было использовать только на определенных кораблях ??? есть же бонусники вот пусть они ими только и могут пользоваться .
Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#538 - 2013-07-26 01:53:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Christopher Multsanti
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.


I'm really confused. (which isn't hard for me)

If this change goes ahead I probably still wont use them simply because if I activate a module I want to know it;s actually doing something. I don't really see why the target ship needs to have more cap than you.

To balance them with Neuts can't we just make them drain a lot less cap than neuts so you can't really use them to drain someones cap to 0. That would mean that nos would give you extra cap to keep you stable but not be overpowered enough to nuke someones cap in seconds like neuts.

If nos do stay this way, (target ship needing more cap) then can we implement some sort of indicator to tell me i'm getting cap or is there one already? Haven't used nos for a while.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#539 - 2013-07-26 16:31:22 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Its a little worrying you CCP folks haven't mentioned how this impacts Cap Batteries. Would be good if cap batteries offered a 'protected' reservoir of undrainable cap the same value they add.

It does seem Large NOS will have absolutely no use except for having maybe 1 or two on neuting BS dedicated to anti-Capital Ships, because they will still be completely useless fighting sub-BS size ships.

Fitting requirements of CPU on NOS should probably be put in line with Neuts, as this is also quite a determining factor for using Neut over a NOS.

I actually support reverting the old system of NOS draining fully to 0 cap, but changing the cap gained by the NOS aggressor to 'what is actually left upto the drain amount in the victims cap reservoir'.

That mechanic made sense and the choice was NOS or Neut because the NOS drain worked to keep a cap vulnerable ship disabled and Neut was the big umph doing most of the actual cap reservoir damage.
What was actually needed was better 'cap proofing', using things like cap batteries, or other anti NOS modules and such, rather than just nerfing NOS to oblivion.

These changes appear a step back in the right direction, but a more comprehensive solution is needed.


That anti-Capital BS would fit Heavy Neuts in every single situation. I'm truly curious as to what CCP sees as a scenario where a heavy NOS doesn't lose out to a heavy Neut hands down.

Any situation where you are in a heavy cap use fitting (weapons, tank, or both) vs same size or larger... perhaps even more so if you will be under Neut pressure yourself. Caps aside, many BS vs BS scenarios come to mind.

But you have to know how to fit for it properly, it can't "usually" be an after thought like Neuts often can.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#540 - 2013-07-26 18:42:50 UTC
When I think of Nos, I think of a module that will drain the cap of a targeted ship by an amount proportional to it's size and transfer that to my ship's capacitor. Therefore it stands to reason that if the targeted ship's cap is empty, my nos cannot drain or xfer any cap. If that ship has cap, it should drain and xfer what it can up to a set amount.

If Nos did this on the same scale as neuts, no one would ever use neuts. So any nos changes need to preserve this difference in performance. I don't see why they have different fitting requirements. Large nos should be capable of xfering a large amount of cap. Mediums a medium amt, and so forth. I believe that a large nos should still be able to cap out a small ship. But in order to preserve the role difference between nos and neuts, the amount drained should be smaller than neuts, thus requiring longer to do so. Ships with neut/nos amount bonuses would still enjoy better performance from their bonused modules.

Lets look at the current situation. A large neut drains a large amount of cap very quickly. A large nos does not. A large neut does not xfer cap. Large nos does. A large ship will not benefit greatly from nossing a small ship. But any ship would benefit from nossing something its own size and larger because the target has a larger potential cap pool. Nos by function is better used against same-sized or larger ships. Versus smaller ships, neuts are still better because they get the job done faster. No silly cap comparisons or artificial limitations need to be made.

When restoring nos, the only thing that needs changing is to ensure that they don't xfer more energy than the target ship possesses, which is the only fix that should have been applied originally.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY