These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Kronos] Nosferatu RoF Buff

First post First post
Author
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#41 - 2014-04-02 03:02:57 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
With improvements to NOS, are we going to see enhancements to batteries?

I would rather see significant ease of their fittings. I believe the effects currently are balanced relative to the other cap mods. They normally give less cap than a cap recharger, but have the NOS/Neut protection also. The issue with Batteries is that their fitting cost is huge. Massive PG cost & more CPU
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#42 - 2014-04-02 07:39:11 UTC
This isn't enough btw, they need either a fitting buff or a bigger rof buff than this

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#43 - 2014-04-02 09:00:41 UTC
Eh... It's a beneficial change I guess. But the fix you REALLY need to make is to correct the fitting issues.

Until the PG/CPU costs are reduced down to Neut level or lower, the module is still only going to see use on specific tackle ships. And as many have pointed out, the changes you are proposing only make it MORE likely they will be fitted on tackle boats as opposed to more widespread use. While you are at it, you could also take a look at making Cap Batteries NOT suck (again fitting issues).
Calexis Atredies
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#44 - 2014-04-02 11:57:08 UTC
I knew this change was coming. This combined with the upcoming changes to the pirate faction line of cruisers is going to make the Ashimu a monster, about time.

Have already been stockpiling A-type med nos, thank you CCP.
Johann Rascali
Jupiter Roughriders
No Forks Given
#45 - 2014-04-02 17:43:58 UTC
Another vote for changing their fitting requirements. They feel like they still have huge requirements that tried to balance them back when they worked like neuts that gave energy back. They don't any more, so they shouldn't be so agonizing to fit.

Blanking signatures doesn't seem to work, so this is here.

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#46 - 2014-04-03 09:59:37 UTC
Johann Rascali wrote:
Another vote for changing their fitting requirements. They feel like they still have huge requirements that tried to balance them back when they worked like neuts that gave energy back. They don't any more, so they shouldn't be so agonizing to fit.


it's pretty funny when a single nos uses up more fitting than all of my guns combined.
King Fu Hostile
Descendant Command
#47 - 2014-04-03 11:07:01 UTC
Thanks for removing the utility highs from both Gallente HACs

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#48 - 2014-04-04 21:47:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Quote:
I told you that last summer's Nos mechanic change would fail and something like this would be necessary. Blink


I'm not sure what your point is, as they freely acknowledged that tweaks along this line might be necessary. Blink

They simply wanted to get some hard metrics to work with first before taking any next steps.

Also, your definition of "fail" is a bit odd... as the changes are overall working as intended. They are simply tweaking the ROF on the module, not changing the mechanic.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#49 - 2014-04-04 22:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Ranger!

But you said that Nos would "become more popular on all cruiser class, and several BC's", which was predictably wrong. I mean, you didn't even notice how few utility slots modern cruisers have!

I said that the mechanic changes was a bad idea because it would have minimal effect on usage patterns and future changes would be required, particularly for heavy Nos... which was right. Especially for the heavy Nos bit, which is being ignored in this crude blanket change and will require another set of fixing in in the future... Roll
Renge Ukyo
Doomheim
#50 - 2014-04-05 03:28:16 UTC
I'm not as devout and EFT warrior as some but it seems to me the cycle time is only half the battle. The fitting requirements make even an electron blaster fit atron difficult to fly with a nos on unless your ACR a rig somewhere. At this point in my career with perfect fitting skills it seems kinda strange when I need to rig something like that, or throw a chip in my head to turn on a nos. The cost/benefit ratio is kind of skewed there for me.

The module I'd like to see fixed are cap batteries. I'd like to see greater resistance to nueting and nossing on them, less in the way of fitting requirement, and perhaps a reasonable cap pool boost. Seems like fixing an active module like the nos is putting the cart before the horse. What's needed is a capacitor with greater resistance to nueting, and enough size to get things done. Perhaps as a new low slot module, or just fixing the existing mid slot. But it needs more attention than the Nos at the moment.

- Renge
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#51 - 2014-04-05 16:54:12 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Thanks for removing the utility highs from both Gallente HACs



Utility highs are worth less than any other slot..

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Flyinghotpocket
Doomheim
#52 - 2014-04-05 19:32:34 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Thanks for removing the utility highs from both Gallente HACs


your welcome for the extra mid on the deimos for cap injection.

anybody else remember the 3 mid diemost?

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2014-04-05 23:50:32 UTC
Awesome changes! Thanks!
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
#54 - 2014-04-06 10:12:01 UTC
As some already said, they need to be a bit more 'fitting'-friendly to be considered, and the nos drainage scale up with each size.
Talcuris
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2014-04-06 15:43:47 UTC
Since you are revisiting the topic of energy leeching, could the currently fairly useless Semiconductor Memory rigs maybe get the same treatment the battery modules got with their reflect bonus?
The game mechanics look to be in place already, don't know if there are any programming reasons this wouldn't be a Little Thing(ᵀᴹ) ?
I honestly don't know _anyone_ who uses this kind of rigs as they are completely outclassed by the Capacitor Controls, with a nice little pvp only bonus there would be a serious choice between more efficient cap recharge and defense.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#56 - 2014-04-06 18:11:51 UTC
Talcuris wrote:
Since you are revisiting the topic of energy leeching, could the currently fairly useless Semiconductor Memory rigs maybe get the same treatment the battery modules got with their reflect bonus?
The game mechanics look to be in place already, don't know if there are any programming reasons this wouldn't be a Little Thing(ᵀᴹ) ?
I honestly don't know _anyone_ who uses this kind of rigs as they are completely outclassed by the Capacitor Controls, with a nice little pvp only bonus there would be a serious choice between more efficient cap recharge and defense.


I use them, and I'm far from alone.
Talcuris
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2014-04-06 22:17:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Talcuris
Gypsio III wrote:
I use them, and I'm far from alone.


Oh? What for? The only use I've ever seen was for a burst smartbomb BS.
The advantage for high burst cap use is usually so tiny that I've never really heard anyone advocating SCM's over CCC rigs.

edit: on second thought, don't want to derail the thread and comparing jita volume shows almost 1/10th as many SCM rigs sold as CCC so looks like they are useful for something I didn't think of.
Still wouldn't say no to a buff for them, and getting a reflect bonus would open up a lot of choices without going off the wall overpowered, especially for ship sizes where batteries aren't really the med slot item of choice.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#58 - 2014-04-07 10:39:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
They're used for WH dreads, particularly Naglfars and shield Moroses. Increasing your total cap amount increases the EHP gained from conversion of cap to shield via your booster.

Now, that's somewhat niche, sure, and it doesn't translate very well into k-space because of the need for cap recharge for jumping, while the value of local tank is also less than it is in WHs. But it's still a distinct use. More pertinently, giving SMCs a neut reflect bonus would be a pretty hefty, and entirely undeserved, boost to these shield dreads because neuting them is the most EHP-effective way to take one down - their efficiency of conversion of cap to shield is so great that a typical subcap is normally much better off eliminating cap, rather than letting it convert that cap into shield and removing shield by shooting it.

So, it's undeserved boost to the ships that use SMCs, while not giving much of a motivation for ones that don't use them to switch to them. "Make the good ships better while leaving the broken ones unfixed" is a classic trap that can be seen repeatedly in Eve balancing history.

For example, it's exactly what happened to Nos last summer, when small Nos, which was already pretty useful, was boosted while useless heavy Nos got nerfed. And now CCP is doing the same thing again by a blanket change to Nos ROF, which again boosts the small Nos that is arguably fine already, while not helping in the slightest the heavy Nos that actually needs serious help. It would be funny if it wasn't so predictable.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#59 - 2014-04-08 02:57:29 UTC
When are t2 neuts and nos getting a buff to range and/or amount?
Flyinghotpocket
Doomheim
#60 - 2014-04-08 20:13:08 UTC
so meta 4 nos and neut still better than t2. gotcha.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro