These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Acidictadpole
Perkone
Caldari State
#41 - 2013-06-19 17:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Acidictadpole
CCP Fozzie wrote:


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.



You can still balance it by amount though, or a number of other things:


  • Amount gained is not the same as amount drained.
  • Amount drained is lower than neutralizers
  • Fitting Nos will provide minor penalties to your cap (max cap, recharge rate)


While I am glad the change is moving away from %, the problem which you stated you wanted to avoid (relying on the state of your opponents cap) is still present for same-class fights. This change only affects fights which are on multiple classes, but the effect is going to be relatively static across the change when the fights are still within the same class.

I still believe that nos should be able to suck a target dry of cap. It just needs to be balanced to not be as good as neuts because you're getting the cap it sucks (or, potentially, a fraction of it) back, and the module doesn't have an activation cost.
sten mattson
Red Sky Morning
Local Is Primary
#42 - 2013-06-19 17:52:44 UTC
the problem of NOSs being able to drain a target is that the mod is with no penalties whatsoever. you can just run it all day long , and sometimes itll even give you more cap!

i approve this change. However i would like to point out that the NOS/cap transfer system is using this point system , whereas the neuts use actual amount neutralised.

could we get exact values on NOS/cap transfers too please?

IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#43 - 2013-06-19 18:04:43 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Currently NPC's for NOS targeting is good to OK... I hope that doesn't change else my Incursion Bhaal with double 39km range NOS will no longer be CAP stable Oops

Do NPC's cap change/deleplete like pilots? It seems different especially since you can't NEUT NPC's effectively
An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#44 - 2013-06-19 18:10:47 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
It's so weak it's almost of no use.

The only useful thing a NOS can achieve is being able to hold scrambler+web when neuted.

That's it.

No one ever uses NOS for anything else. .


Not true I know a few PvE Incursion runners that use NOS on thier Amarr ships ( me ) for CAP stability using them on Sansha rats... the Revenant is nice to draw on because it NEVER fell under your percentage
An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#45 - 2013-06-19 18:13:25 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Currently NPC's for NOS targeting is good to OK... I hope that doesn't change else my Incursion Bhaal with double 39km range NOS will no longer be CAP stable Oops

Do NPC's cap change/deleplete like pilots? It seems different especially since you can't NEUT NPC's effectively


NPCs work differently AFAIK.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#46 - 2013-06-19 18:14:21 UTC
I don't care what you do with NOS as long as you keep it from draining ships empty. We had that at one point and it was terrible. Removing that ability from NOSs was a great improvement to the game overall. A defensive module against oversized neuting sounds like a solid role for it. If you're going to adjust them, adjust them with that goal in mind instead of making it another neut-light.
Mole Guy
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2013-06-19 18:31:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
Zircon Dasher wrote:
This is way more sane than the %cap mechanic. It might actually be worth making vamp fit tackle again!

altho i think the change is kewl, it isnt more realistic.

when you hook 2 batteries, capacitors with different charges or any combo of power holding devices together, they will come to a balance.
1 10 volt battery hooked to a cap with 5 volts will stabilize at 7.5 volts each if the cap is big enough to hold the electrons the battery has. they will balance out. somewhere.

if you kill power on the cap, itll drain it from the battery down to another balance point.

a neut sends your cap "out of phase" to another ship and "shorts out" an amount of cap.
a nos is like hooking jumper cables from one vehicle to another.
if the charged car is not running, the dead car could drain the good battery to a point where neither car can start.

altho the way it was sucked, its more realistic.
now, its more like a leech or lamprey. it sucks a certain amount of blood until the host is dry (or atleast less that the lamprey).

imagine how the sentinnel and the curse is going to perform. a nos and 2 neuts....suck it out, then turn it back on someone...=)
Sigras
Conglomo
#48 - 2013-06-19 18:38:46 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Sigras wrote:
What if you made it a function instead of binary? IE it drains less and less cap the more I have over my opponents ship, so in excel the equation would look something like this:

MIN(1, TheirCap / MyCap) * BaseDrainAmount = AmountDrained

If you wanted to get really fancy, you could do a squared over squared equation to increase the penalty for having more cap than your opponents.

Thoughts?


i am going to pretend i konw what this means and support it.

well for example, with the proposed change, if youre in a battleship with 7000 cap and you want to NOS a cruiser with 2000 cap, you need to be at < 2000 cap for your NOS to work at all right?

with my proposal, if you had 7000 cap and you were NOSing a ship with 2000 cap, your NOS would work but only at 28.5%, so instead of draining 120 cap every cycle, it would drain 34.28

this would mean you get something every cycle, and for those pilots who are really good at math, they can run some numbers and actually use this information to figure out how much cap their ship has.
iskflakes
#49 - 2013-06-19 18:50:12 UTC
Doesn't seem like a very big change. Still not going to use them.

-

Chaulker
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2013-06-19 18:56:43 UTC
How about filling the gap between neut and nos with an AOE (smart-bomb-like) cap drain weapon?

Cheers...
SlaughterhouseDb
3MR Incorporated
#51 - 2013-06-19 19:00:28 UTC
Sigras wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Sigras wrote:
What if you made it a function instead of binary? IE it drains less and less cap the more I have over my opponents ship, so in excel the equation would look something like this:

MIN(1, TheirCap / MyCap) * BaseDrainAmount = AmountDrained

If you wanted to get really fancy, you could do a squared over squared equation to increase the penalty for having more cap than your opponents.

Thoughts?


i am going to pretend i konw what this means and support it.

well for example, with the proposed change, if youre in a battleship with 7000 cap and you want to NOS a cruiser with 2000 cap, you need to be at < 2000 cap for your NOS to work at all right?

with my proposal, if you had 7000 cap and you were NOSing a ship with 2000 cap, your NOS would work but only at 28.5%, so instead of draining 120 cap every cycle, it would drain 34.28

this would mean you get something every cycle, and for those pilots who are really good at math, they can run some numbers and actually use this information to figure out how much cap their ship has.


I agree with Mibiatch. I derped a similar idea before going back and re-reading this one and I was suggesting the same thing, so I support it. My only difference was a MIN based on module size, meta, and skill.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#52 - 2013-06-19 19:03:15 UTC
Missing the point, CCP. Nos have extreme fitting requirements for something that only works some of the time, and is a frickin cap module. Either it needs to be an offensive module (ie work all the time, even if amounts need to be adjusted), or it needs to be really easy to fit.
Mainiac IV
Against All Authorititties
Clever Use of Neutral Toons
#53 - 2013-06-19 19:06:52 UTC
This sounds amazing, please do it. man Amarr is getting all kinds of buffs today, first our t1 hauler is going to haul the most now and now a buff to nos!? awwww yeeaah Amarr ftw.
Shaitan Souleater
Brave Industries
Brave Collective
#54 - 2013-06-19 19:07:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Shaitan Souleater
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.



This can be dealt with by scaling the max transfer of the NOS and adjusting the cycle time.

I.E. a small NOS can drain 25-50 cap max per cycle. It can only drain an amount that is equal or less than the amount needed to fill your cap, or drain the targets remaining cap, or the max the module can actually transfer, whichever amount is lower. It determines the amount based on that order of checks.

each size of NOS trains an amount appropriate to the ship size it is designed to fit. Additionally, you can limit the number you can fit, similar to how warfare links work. i.e. an abaddon can use 1, but an armageddon/Blagorn can use more.
Corine Noas
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2013-06-19 19:07:36 UTC
Will change absolutely nothing.

Nos are yet used mostly against an upper class ship and only as a counter to neuts, e.g. drami vs vaga - nos is required to keep vaga scrambled (staying in closerange => keeping maximum transversal) despite being neut'ed, or curse against a battleship - although curse cap warfare mod range is far beyond bs neut range, t2 warp disruptor is not, so even of you cant take the hositle down you can at least use the nos for an emergency mwd cycle and gtfo.
Rarely used on active tank bs, but I personally prefer neut because it gives huge advantage against all lower class ships, especially ability to disable tacklers.
And, like I've wriiten above, the buff in question wont change much in terms of nos usage.

I have no idea why you guys decided that 2006/2007 nos were imbalanced, used to fly nos domi/eos a lot and it was totally fine high slot compensation for drone boats and overall good utility mod.
And nos is by no means a fleet or even a mid sized gang mod, it is pure solo/small.
Bring back the old nos mechanic, make it 100 maximum cap/cycle (down from 125) for heavies, other sizes respectively, and disallow cap transfer when target cap is at zero (I was pretty sure it always worked that way, lol) + if target has lower amount of cap than you nos maximum trasfer, the nos trasfers the amount which you target has. So nos will be used in slow fights (solo/small) to win the long term cap warfare, and neuts will still be used a lot for fast capacitor disable in both small and large gangs.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#56 - 2013-06-19 19:10:55 UTC
Sigras wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Sigras wrote:
What if you made it a function instead of binary? IE it drains less and less cap the more I have over my opponents ship, so in excel the equation would look something like this:

MIN(1, TheirCap / MyCap) * BaseDrainAmount = AmountDrained

If you wanted to get really fancy, you could do a squared over squared equation to increase the penalty for having more cap than your opponents.

Thoughts?


i am going to pretend i konw what this means and support it.

well for example, with the proposed change, if youre in a battleship with 7000 cap and you want to NOS a cruiser with 2000 cap, you need to be at < 2000 cap for your NOS to work at all right?

with my proposal, if you had 7000 cap and you were NOSing a ship with 2000 cap, your NOS would work but only at 28.5%, so instead of draining 120 cap every cycle, it would drain 34.28

this would mean you get something every cycle, and for those pilots who are really good at math, they can run some numbers and actually use this information to figure out how much cap their ship has.


i like that... i would go even further and add sig radius/vrs sig resolution as a way to balance... that way a large nos can never do max suckage against a frig... but a frig allways has the potential to suck max from a bs...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Thaman Arnuad
The Caldarian Templars
#57 - 2013-06-19 19:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Thaman Arnuad
Mole Guy wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
This is way more sane than the %cap mechanic. It might actually be worth making vamp fit tackle again!

altho i think the change is kewl, it isnt more realistic.

when you hook 2 batteries, capacitors with different charges or any combo of power holding devices together, they will come to a balance.
1 10 volt battery hooked to a cap with 5 volts will stabilize at 7.5 volts each if the cap is big enough to hold the electrons the battery has. they will balance out. somewhere.

if you kill power on the cap, itll drain it from the battery down to another balance point.

a neut sends you cap "out of phase" to another ship and "shorts out" an amount of cap.
a nos is like hooking jumper cables from one vehicle to another.
if the charged car is not running, the dead car could drain the good battery to a point where neither car can start.

altho the way it was sucked, its more realistic.
now, its more like a leech or lamprey. it sucks a certain amount of blood until the host is dry (or atleast less that the lamprey).

imagine how the sentinnel and the curse is going to perform. a nos and 2 neuts....suck it out, then turn it back on someone...=)



I have seen a few people making suggestions like this and I would support a Nos mechanic that works based on the flow of energy in each ship capacitor. I have always thought that Blood Raider ships should be fit with NOS and webs and be completely unstable in cap. The only way the ship is able to run is because once it tackles a target the NOS pull cap and stabilize the ship so all the mods can run.

An issue that I see is where a fleet could use a NOS tackler that would then feed cap to the fleet... but maybe that isn't a bad idea, sure makes for interesting small fleet mechanic.

((change in cap of target) - (change of cap in my ship)) / (sum transfer amount of nos attempting to effect target can transfer) = maximum amount i can steal

Other thoughts:
• Could be bi-directional
• This should eliminate frigate blobbing as mentioned before
• NOS transfer, activation, and fit

EDIT: changed sum of amount nos fitted can transfer to sum transfer amount of nos attempting to effect target can transfer
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#58 - 2013-06-19 19:21:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
any chance that you guys take a look at medium and large neuts? Small are already quite usable even without the proposed change. Medium and large have IMO a bit too long cycle times to be used under neut pressure.

edit: sorry i wanted to say nos

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#59 - 2013-06-19 19:21:23 UTC
Good start, and fixes a fundamental problem with nos mechanics, but more tweaking is required to make them actual viable options.

Small Energy Neutralizer II: 10 CPU, 9 PG, -7.5 cap/s on self, -9 cap/s on target
Small Nosferatu II: 15 CPU, 10 PG, +3.2 cap/s on self, -3.2 cap/s on target

A nos takes far more fittings than a neut does, while having a much smaller effect. It also does not do its intended job very well:

In an equal-sized fight: (e.g. neut Rifter vs nos Punisher) The neuting ship is aware that the neut will kill its own cap, and is set up to not require a lot of cap. This means that it will run the neut regardless of the presence of a nos, until it is dry. Because of the mechanics of the nos only working if the target has more cap than the user of the nos, the end result will be a cap-dry Rifter applying damage and managing to hold up a point, and a cap-crippled Punisher struggling to keep its guns on, and cursing at the useless nos it has equipped.

In a different sized fight: (e.g. nos Rifter vs neut Rupture) With a T2 neut, the Rupture neuts 15 cap/s while using 12.5 cap/s of its own to power it. The Rifter's nos would flip those numbers around. However, when the Rupture has 1300 cap to burn through, it does not really care if it loses another 3 cap per second. The Rifter, however, would still be losing more cap than it can regenerate even with all other modules off. This makes the Rifter have some ability to keep its modules on, but it can do nothing to prevent having them forcibly turned off every 12 seconds.

Moreover, this mechanic change does not change how that fight goes at all. The above description is exactly how that fight goes right now. This is because the the Rifter always has both less absolute cap (since it's a frigate) and less % cap. After a single neut cycle from the Rupture, the Rifter finds itself at 42.5% cap facing a Rupture at 88.5% cap -- a situation in which the old nos and this new changed nos behave identically.

Lastly, this absolutely does not address the situation of it being useless to use medium and heavy noses, as they use vastly more fittings than neuts (gimping the fit), while not giving any real advantage in most fights. The only ships that I believe are positively impacted by this proposed change are the Cruor and Sentinel, which will be able to troll around with a neut/nos combination, sapping everything dry even if their own cap is dry.

The idea is a good start, but a serious change to either the nos amount, fitting costs, mechanics or any combination is needed. My suggestions are:

  • Reduce nos fittings to below those of neut fittings. A very situational mod with questionable usefulness shouldn't be one of the hardest things to fit.
  • Change the cap lost / gained amounts of the nos to give more cap but not drain more. Effectively, make the cap lost and cap gained values non-equal, but keep the "must have less cap" requirement. This would result in a more effective "defensive" usage of the nos.
  • Change the mechanic to not require less cap, but instead just serve as a "cap equalizer" module. If you have less absolute cap than your target, then you steal some of theirs. If you have more cap, they steal some of yours. This can be coupled with an increase in the neut strength to be an effective way to fight ships of larger classes, providing a permanent "weak neut" effect while giving cap stability. It also requires intelligent use in equal-class fights, since activating it can have a punishing effect if you had more cap than the target.
  • Nerf neuts so they are in line with the strength of the nos (probably not required and a bad solution).


Thanks for looking into it and taking feedback.

tl;dr: Right direction, but makes very little progress towards making noses useful. Larger / more fundamental changes are necessary.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
#60 - 2013-06-19 19:33:09 UTC
Okay, so nos are being made to hit up a weight by this change.

Same size nos'ing would be limited by how far down your cap already is. Nos'ing down class is just out and nos'ing up class a breeze.

BUT, what is it meant to achieve other than being size limited?

A neut is designed to drain power, destabilize the opponent and force them to choose between attempting to stay more stable (turning off some modules) or hope they can pop you first and leave everything on until dry.

A nosferatu should destabilize MORE cap but only take a portion of that cap. It can afford to take more because it's limited to being unable to dry your opponent without you yourself being flat out, but shouldn't give the whole amount so it doesn't become an infinite cap booster.

After all, hitting up a weight is no good if you can't actually hit.