These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#161 - 2013-06-21 08:16:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Muad 'dib wrote:
People that think that a nos should be running their intire active tank while boning the targets cap are living in a fantasy world.


Sure. But as pointed out, different ships classes use cap for different things. Frigate tacklers often fit small Nos because it gives them the cap to keep tackle running. But BS have different priorities and fits, and the cap received from Nos must go towards some combination of guns, hardeners and tackle. Even a 50% increase in cap Nossed by heavy Nos won't let these ships run an active tank, barring niche fits with a full rack of heavy Nos and multiple targets to Nos. CCP's proposed change does not address the problems of heavy Nos in the slightest; indeed, it's an unquestionable and entirely unjustified nerf to heavy Nos.

I spent a long time dualboxing around in low-class WHs with a Proteus as a tackler, to which I fitted a small or medium Nos to maintain cap and to help run a small faction repper, which provided a respectable active tank when meeting Drakes spamming kinetic missiles on to the Proteus's sky-high kinetic resist. It was never an offensive mod, it was purely defensive, and that was fine. So I think I've got a fairly good idea about the use of Nos in practice and I've never though that the mechanic was anything other than fine.

The problems of Nos are entirely related to imbalance between classes and fitting requirements. This change doesn't address the fitting problems and flat out worsens the imbalance between size classes. This is the worst diagnosis of the problems of a module/ship group that I seen since the AB bonus for AFs.
Perihelion Olenard
#162 - 2013-06-21 11:15:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Muad 'dib wrote:
People that think that a nos should be running their intire active tank while boning the targets cap are living in a fantasy world.

Its just a leach that tickles available cap FROM then to YOU the effect is not meant to be anything like a neut for the target. Think of it more like providing your cap recharge while stealing theirs, a bit of a boost at an inconvenience to the target, not a direct assault on their cap.

Right, running a tank off a sketchy mechanic is bad. My navy Vexor has a completely passive armor tank, a couple blasters, tracking disruptor, web, and warp disruptor. It's not a whole lot of cap use and can easily be supported by a couple small nosferatus when fighting the same class and larger. It just serves as decent little boost and is not something to rely on. If I'm fighting a smaller class ship it's not like I'll die without the nosferatu. The navy Vexor has a huge advantage over frigates and destroyers already.
Django Askulf
Black Rebel Death Squad
#163 - 2013-06-21 11:46:55 UTC
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:
generally speaking this certainly won't make battleships any more enticing.


Kinda what I was thinking, and a little lame, IMHO.


To mare
Advanced Technology
#164 - 2013-06-21 13:01:40 UTC
just make them dry cap all the time like they used to be, if the enemy ship have lees cap than the amount the module should leec just make them leech just whats left and no more than that, the amount of energy stolen is already ridiculous compared to a neut anyway.

as many have already say this fix dont adress the problem because ppl already use small nos for frigs its medium and especially large now that need love and with this change they gonna be even more useless, who will use a large nos?
Lidia Caderu
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#165 - 2013-06-21 13:02:15 UTC
Quote:
Our plan for this is fairly simple - we want to make successful NOS activation based on relative cap amount, not percentage.


Dont really think its good idea. Because ships of the same class with smaller cap amount will automatically have advantage over ships with larger cap amount. It will totally break already not perfact active tanking.

It would be ok if ships of same class would have same cap amount but different recahrge time. For eample Myrmidon, Brutix and Cane would all have 2500 cap (as Cane has now) but different recharge time, (brutix is shortest for example).

Because even now ships with larger cap amount if they being neuted or vamped they very fast loose their advantage over ships with smaller cap amount and cap recharge rate is the same(!) -> no advantage. And these changes will make this impact even bigger.

So I think equall cap amount is answer.
Troezar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#166 - 2013-06-21 13:16:11 UTC
Looks like this needs thorough testing before any changes go live. I imagine whatever happens someone will be unhappyBig smile
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#167 - 2013-06-21 13:22:34 UTC
Caldari 5 wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Our plan for this is fairly simple - we want to make successful NOS activation based on relative cap amount, not percentage.

This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 125 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 370, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.

The biggest effect here will most likely be that any time you're fighting up a class (frig vs cruiser, cruiser vs BS, etc) NOS will become a much more attractive choice. It also means that in fights with several ship sizes present, deciding on a target for your NOS should be more intuitive (target something big).


Ranger 1 wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
For being a module that is "useless" and "never used" these changes sure have shoved a corn cobb in some folks pipes.

This is mostly because it was good at one stage, however they nerfed it so bad that it was useless, and now they are saying that it is getting a fix/buff and they are actually nerfing it again(or at least in relation to Amarrian Ships)

Quite the opposite actually.

Before the nerf Neuts were rarely used, even though they drained more cap. This was because although Neuts drained more, NOS not only drained your enemy but it was also a large help to every module you use that consumes cap.

It was vastly more useful than Neuts in most situations, which also explains why the fittings are as they are.

I'm not opposed to the fittings being evened out between the two systems, but even if they aren't NOS will once again become a very powerful tool in many situations. You will have a reason to make a choice between NOS and Neuts, as they will have different advantages in different situations.

And again, as Amarr are the most cap hungry race... as well as the most vulnerable to Neuting, Nos will once again become a valuable tool for them to use. Remember, it doesn't matter one whit how much cap you have respective to your opponent before the fight starts... what matters is how quickly your cap depletes in relation to your opponent. Gallante, with their cap hungry active repair bonuses and energy consuming weapons will benefit as well.


I think maybe we are reading this differently.
I'm reading "cap pool" as being the total amount of cap possible to have in a given fitting. Thus Amarr typically having the largest cap pool will never be able to NOS a ship in the same class as they have a larger cap pool to start with. Where as the Minimatar typically having the smallest cap within a class will pretty much always be able to use a NOS.


I see where you went wrong on that, but no, they are talking about relative cap on hand... not just the theoretical maximum.

So the Amarr ship may start out with more cap, but within a few seconds would burn it's cap below the level of the Minmatar ship and it's NOS starts being effective.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Naomi Anthar
#168 - 2013-06-21 13:26:08 UTC
Too tired to make another post about how bad this change is. Just here to say it again:

This is terrible idea that will punish ships with large cap pool and benfefit those with small. Also it will be useless for bigger ships most of the time. All in all it's nerf to NOS.
Leskit
Pure Victory
#169 - 2013-06-21 13:27:53 UTC
For a module that has less effect than a neut of equal size on an enemy ship, why does it have more fitting requirements? This feels suspiciously like another passive aggressive nerf to amarr (intentional or otherwise).
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#170 - 2013-06-21 13:45:01 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:
Too tired to make another post about how bad this change is. Just here to say it again:

This is terrible idea that will punish ships with large cap pool and benfefit those with small. Also it will be useless for bigger ships most of the time. All in all it's nerf to NOS.

Currently NOS are next to useless, as it doesn't matter if you have less raw cap than your target... if your percentage is lower the NOS is ineffective.

This means that currently a frigate with a fraction of the cap on hand that a battleship has often cannot use it's NOS, because it's percentage of cap left is higher than the battleship.

This is a huge boost for NOS use on small and medium sized ships, and has no negative effect on BS compared to now... in fact it is a boost to them if engaging caps.

Again, if the BS wants to leverage it's large cap supply vs. smaller vessels it will use a Neut, and that's fine. NOS can become overpowered very quickly (as we have already seen). The goal is to provided balanced choices, advantages and disadvantages... not another overpowered module.

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.
#171 - 2013-06-21 13:48:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Leskit wrote:
For a module that has less effect than a neut of equal size on an enemy ship, why does it have more fitting requirements? This feels suspiciously like another passive aggressive nerf to amarr (intentional or otherwise).

It has a lesser (but still significant) effect on them, but it is coupled with a very positive effect on you. This can become very powerful very quickly.

This change is a boost to any heavy cap burning ship, especially small and medium classes.

It will be interesting to see these modules used on Armageddons now, and of course Bhaalgorns... and Pilgrims might actually be able to survive again.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Lidia Caderu
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#172 - 2013-06-21 13:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Lidia Caderu
What if to make NOS to drain % of CURRENT cap AND fixed amount of cap. For example all sizes of NOS drain 5% + amount of cap that depends on NOS size.

Drain to 0 is possible.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#173 - 2013-06-21 13:58:58 UTC
Leskit wrote:
For a module that has less effect than a neut of equal size on an enemy ship, why does it have more fitting requirements? This feels suspiciously like another passive aggressive nerf to amarr (intentional or otherwise).


It drains about a third as much and only if the arbitrary rules set up by CCP allow you to. I'm going to repost these stats, they're blatantly imbalanced and illustrate why they're only popular with frigates and useless for BS's (and with this change only more so):


Small Corpus A-type NOS - 10 GJ over 3s cycle = 3.33 GJ/s
Frigate total cap (Executioner in this case) - 360 GJ

Large Corpus X-type NOS - 120 GJ over 12s cycle = 10 GJ/s
Battleship total cap (Armageddon in this case) - 6641 GJ


So 15-20 times the cap size and it only drains 3x as much as a small..... and it only works some of the time.... and only on other BS's.... and takes more fitting than a neut that drains 3x as much and works all the time on any ship class???? Sign me up!
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#174 - 2013-06-21 14:03:14 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Leskit wrote:
For a module that has less effect than a neut of equal size on an enemy ship, why does it have more fitting requirements? This feels suspiciously like another passive aggressive nerf to amarr (intentional or otherwise).

It has a lesser (but still significant) effect on them, but it is coupled with a very positive effect on you. This can become very powerful very quickly.

This change is a boost to any heavy cap burning ship, especially small and medium classes.

It will be interesting to see these modules used on Armageddons now, and of course Bhaalgorns... and Pilgrims might actually be able to survive again.


Please stop using qualitative words like "lesser" and "very positive". A neut drains THREE TIMES as much, that isn't just "lesser". The very best and expensive large NOS only gives 10 GJ/s to a BS when it does work, this is not "very positive" when your cap size is 5500 to 6600 GJ. For reference a tach 2 turret takes 6.08 GJ/s to keep firing, so the very best NOS can't even keep 2 turrets running if you're under neuting. Just fit a large neut and save the headache (and fitting).
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#175 - 2013-06-21 14:09:52 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Leskit wrote:
For a module that has less effect than a neut of equal size on an enemy ship, why does it have more fitting requirements? This feels suspiciously like another passive aggressive nerf to amarr (intentional or otherwise).


It drains about a third as much and only if the arbitrary rules set up by CCP allow you to. I'm going to repost these stats, they're blatantly imbalanced and illustrate why they're only popular with frigates and useless for BS's (and with this change only more so):


Small Corpus A-type NOS - 10 GJ over 3s cycle = 3.33 GJ/s
Frigate total cap (Executioner in this case) - 360 GJ

Large Corpus X-type NOS - 120 GJ over 12s cycle = 10 GJ/s
Battleship total cap (Armageddon in this case) - 6641 GJ


So 15-20 times the cap size and it only drains 3x as much as a small..... and it only works some of the time.... and only on other BS's.... and takes more fitting than a neut that drains 3x as much and works all the time on any ship class???? Sign me up!

I don't think anyone will object if fittings and amount drained are tweaked (although I seriously doubt that if they did so it would be by much).

BS can afford to be cap bullies, and Nuets will OFTEN be the better choice for them. However for a BS that uses heavy cap use modules a NOS will be a very viable alternative... not only against other BS but against all caps and quite often against BC's and cruisers (although at that point again the Neut is more suited to anti smaller vessel work, as intended).

Keep in mind, cap stability is fairly useless in PVP. What is critical is to have just enough cap to kill the other guy. A NOS is a high slot module that supplies cap to you, and harms your opponents cap supply. It is an extremely powerful device if used on a ship fitted to leverage this.

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.
#176 - 2013-06-21 14:11:52 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Leskit wrote:
For a module that has less effect than a neut of equal size on an enemy ship, why does it have more fitting requirements? This feels suspiciously like another passive aggressive nerf to amarr (intentional or otherwise).

It has a lesser (but still significant) effect on them, but it is coupled with a very positive effect on you. This can become very powerful very quickly.

This change is a boost to any heavy cap burning ship, especially small and medium classes.

It will be interesting to see these modules used on Armageddons now, and of course Bhaalgorns... and Pilgrims might actually be able to survive again.


Please stop using qualitative words like "lesser" and "very positive". A neut drains THREE TIMES as much, that isn't just "lesser". The very best and expensive large NOS only gives 10 GJ/s to a BS when it does work, this is not "very positive" when your cap size is 5500 to 6600 GJ. For reference a tach 2 turret takes 6.08 GJ/s to keep firing, so the very best NOS can't even keep 2 turrets running if you're under neuting. Just fit a large neut and save the headache (and fitting).

There are many fits where a Neut is not to your benefit, but a relatively minor increase in your available cap makes the fit highly effective.

I'm sorry you can't see that.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Zircon Dasher
#177 - 2013-06-21 14:15:44 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
It drains about a third as much and only if the arbitrary rules set up by CCP allow you to. I'm going to repost these stats, they're blatantly imbalanced and illustrate why they're only popular with frigates and useless for BS's (and with this change only more so):


Small Corpus A-type NOS - 10 GJ over 3s cycle = 3.33 GJ/s
Frigate total cap (Executioner in this case) - 360 GJ

Large Corpus X-type NOS - 120 GJ over 12s cycle = 10 GJ/s
Battleship total cap (Armageddon in this case) - 6641 GJ


So 15-20 times the cap size and it only drains 3x as much as a small..... and it only works some of the time.... and only on other BS's.... and takes more fitting than a neut that drains 3x as much and works all the time on any ship class???? Sign me up!


Unless my quick and dirty math is incorrect the NOS on your Armageddon increases the base peak cap recharge by about 40% assuming you have perfect cap skills (which you should if you are serious about Amarr).

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Naomi Anthar
#178 - 2013-06-21 15:42:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Anthar
Oh cmon Ranger 1 ... be smart and good guy, stop defending this terrible balance pass on Nosferatu. Mark of wise people is not to be smart 24/7, but also to admit when you are in mistake.

Like here, people put many examples you just have no idea how to counter - like NOS being total **** on battleships (i think not only on battleships tbh).
It's **** on high base cap ships.

Ok honestly there is enough proff that this change is bad. Really i don't want to point every single , anyone can read about those in this topic already.

Ranger 1 you said NOS is next to useless , i agree ... and i don't want it to be COMPLETLY useless for many ships and somehow too good on ships THAT DO not deserve buffs (pointing at slashers and other minmatar low base cap trash).

Nerfing already bad module is no way to go. Who will mount it if it will become even worse than it is now ? Tell me ? Sure some ships will like it. But module will be bad for so many ships that could/or already do use it NOW.

This change is like nerf to punisher but buff to rifter(example). If that is how balance works then i'm deeply disappointed.

When balancing module devs need to keep in mind how it will affect every single ship . Because mods are supposed to be mounted on ships. Devs need to see if its good or bad for certain ships.

I know some of you may stock modules in station , theorycraft or fight in EFT - but i want modules to be good for every race and every ship people fly actually. In this case balance pass doesn't give a **** about it's impact on certain ships. Just ok so now it's base cap not % ...

For Devs ... You know why it is % ? I can tell you why. So the module is as useful for slasher as it is for executioner etc.
The module whatever you want to think about it - is somehow balanced in its usefulness for ships from diffrent races and sizes.
What you are doing or hopefully just suggesting is breaking this. Don't do this look at counterarguments. You got many of those in this topic.

DON'T do this.

edit : I did correct some stuff. I know it's still pain to read as I don't care much about how i write (tho i should), but what i try to say ;).
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#179 - 2013-06-21 15:45:42 UTC
It sounds like a very good change ! Is it enough ? I don't use NOSes enough to tell, but it is definitely the right direction ! And it adds this tiny bit of gameplay that's so tasteful. Big smile

In my opinion, lessening the fitting requirements should also be a priority. Not to the point were nos become as seen as warp disruptors in pvp, but enough to prevent people from sacrifying tank when they want to fit a neut.

Also, now that larger classes can't dominate small classes with NOSes, why not increasing a bit the amount of cap stealed ? In this case, I would also recommend to nerf by the same bit the bonus on NOS (only) for cap warfare ships like the pilgrim. To keep them in line with their current balance.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Zircon Dasher
#180 - 2013-06-21 15:53:00 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:
This change is like nerf to punisher but buff to rifter(example).


Even if it were a 'nerf' to the punisher against a rifter it is still a buff to the punisher verses a cruiser/BC/BS since bleeder fits actually become possible again.

SO is it a nerf or a buff to the punisher?

Its very confusing for people who can only see the world as black or white.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.