Features & Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
36 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Nosferatu mechanic change

First post First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2013-06-19 15:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
I have another balance announcement for our Odyssey 1.1 release to share: we are going to make NOS good again.

In ye old times, Nosferatu was fairly broken. It used to drain cap from your target regardless of how much cap your target had, and deposit it into your cap pool. This meant you could generate cap from thin air as long as you could target any ship. We had nano Dominixs permanently cap stable by draining some cap-dry frig and all kinds of other nonsense.

Unfortunately when this got addressed, it was nerfed into the ground by basing the success of the NOS activation off the relative PERCENTAGE of cap for each ship. NOS went from extremely overpowered to fairly useless. You can never depend on your opponent having a higher % cap than you, and especially not when you're using a ship that wants to win the cap war by neutralizing the enemy.

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).

Gimme feedback o/

(PS - this would of course effect all sizes and all metas)

@ccp_rise

#2 - 2013-06-19 15:45:15 UTC
So they still require you to have less cap than your target correct?
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-06-19 15:47:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
now you just need too make them fittable on said ships like frigates and cruisers as most of the time they cost twice as much to fit than the guns or launchers... its not so much of an issue on battleships because of the fitting requirements of guns and launchers are much closer.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

C C P Alliance
#4 - 2013-06-19 15:48:56 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
So they still require you to have less cap than your target correct?


Yes, but it would compare the actual amounts of cap instead of percentages of the ship's full pool.

Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

No Holes Barred
#5 - 2013-06-19 15:49:58 UTC
I agree that a fitting change is also needed. Why do they use the same PG/grid as Neuts?

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

#6 - 2013-06-19 15:52:05 UTC
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?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

#7 - 2013-06-19 15:53:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
So they still require you to have less cap than your target correct?


Yes, but it would compare the actual amounts of cap instead of percentages of the ship's full pool.

I see nasty frigate fleets coming from thisLol
This also makes capacitor flux coils extremely powerful on a Dragoon.
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-06-19 15:55:18 UTC
I always thought the percentage system was dumb, especially on inter-class fights. Glad it's getting addressed. Makes them a lot more viable, without making neuts obsolete.
C C P Alliance
#9 - 2013-06-19 15:55:32 UTC
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.

Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

The Camel Empire
#10 - 2013-06-19 15:59:08 UTC
Sounds nice!
Two step wrote:
I agree that a fitting change is also needed. Why do they use the same PG/grid as Neuts?

Yeah, i have wundered that myself.
At least give us a good reason why :)

German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com

#11 - 2013-06-19 15:59:29 UTC
Excellent change
Fidelas Constans
#12 - 2013-06-19 15:59:47 UTC
Finally we can make a proper use of those damn "utility" slots on most minnie hulls.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.

#13 - 2013-06-19 16:01:05 UTC
If you're talking about numbers replacing percentages, would it be possible to use some different examples than 50 and 100 ?
#14 - 2013-06-19 16:05:42 UTC
This is way more sane than the %cap mechanic. It might actually be worth making vamp fit tackle again!

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

Gate Camp Theory
#15 - 2013-06-19 16:06:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
I like how this gives capacitor flux coils a stealth buff.

You could use them to make sure ships the same size as you would always be nos'able, while increasing your cap recharge as well.

Good for shield boats that may have extra low slots.

(i still would like it though that if a frigate attacked you and you had a NOS instead of a neut on your BS that you wouldn't be completely buggered)

TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

My ship fits

Pandemic Legion
#16 - 2013-06-19 16:06:35 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I have another balance announcement for our Odyssey 1.1 release to share: we are going to make NOS good again.

This means if you turn on your NOS, and you have 50 cap in your cap pool, and your opponent has 100, the NOS works regardless of relative % cap.



Doesn't this make nos totally pointless in a ship with a large base cap pool as odds are you'll always have more than your opponent in a ship with a smaller pool?
C C P Alliance
#17 - 2013-06-19 16:06:38 UTC
Mackie Avelli wrote:
If you're talking about numbers replacing percentages, would it be possible to use some different examples than 50 and 100 ?


Sure, why not. Updated OP with some other numbers.

@ccp_rise

C C P Alliance
#18 - 2013-06-19 16:09:25 UTC
Quote:
Doesn't this make nos totally pointless in a ship with a large base cap pool as odds are you'll always have more than your opponent in a ship with a smaller pool?


Not really. Your situation mostly depends on the assumption that you're fighting a ship in the same class which also has a smaller base cap pool. Not only is this not always going to be the case, but I'm actually expecting NOS to function primarily as a tool for fighting up a class. Using it against ships the same size as you will still be difficult and will probably only be a good choice in specific situations (like maybe if you're flying a ship that uses quite a bit of cap and doesn't inject).

Fozzie has also designed the cap pool for some of the cruisers with this change in mind, and there should be very few instances of a ship having a larger than average cap pool for its class while also having room to fit NOS.

@ccp_rise

Surely You're Joking
#19 - 2013-06-19 16:09:39 UTC
Minor side point to this, but if you go ahead with this, you may want to look at how it will affect PVE ships who use NOS against rats, and how you want it to affect them. I would imagine that currently, Rats always have 100% cap, but don't have an actual cap amount. Going forward, that would likely mean NOS wouldn't work at all against rats.

.

Guardians of the Morrigan
#20 - 2013-06-19 16:10:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ager Agemo
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.



Hey fozzie given they cannot totally neut a ship, wouldn't it be good to maybe up the amount of total cap they currently drain? they cannot dry a ship so why not double the amount of cap they get per cycle? would make them a very interesting way to get capacitor on cap hungry ships.

and maybe just maybe increase their range a lil small bit?

Currently it feels like the amount of capacitor they drain even if they work at 100% its a bit too low, a heavy nosferatu drains currently 120 points each 12 seconds, while a single shoot from an apocalypse drains 260 cap each 6 seconds, so by the time the nosferatu lands even a single drain cycle, the apoc will have drained 520 cap, this assuming max skills with pulses without any heat sink, once you add 2 or 3 heatsinks, the amount drained goes to near 800 units, thus rendering the amount of vampired cap, meaningless.
36 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump