Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Dr Jihad Alhariri
Dr Jihad's Brigade of Interstellar Mujahideen Corrosive.
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:01:00 -
[301] - Quote
If cloaked ships are going to start decloaking each other again, then give fleet members the ability to see other's cloaked ships. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:10:00 -
[302] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Jessica Danikov wrote:Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground. i feel siege and triage either need to negate or significantly reduce the effect of these bombs they will still be use full on caps out of such states as well as on suppers but it wont make triage useless outside of LS
On paper it should be feasible to protect them somewhat with smartbomb but in practise it gives an easy mode way to screw over a single triage carrier - which is really not a good idea IMO. |
Chessur
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
370
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:12:00 -
[303] - Quote
Really CCP? I don't understand these changes at all.
These changes are giving large fleets of 0.0 bomber a proper nerf. And while I can understand why this is needed, why did you have to go ahead and gut what little small gang / solo potential they had? I agree that the changes will make bomber gangs much harder to utalize in the 0,0 battlefield. I agree with this. However these changes are compoletely gutting bombers when they are using torps, and attacking targets in a solo / small gang environment. I don't understand why there are no buffs to bombers in this department. These changes are just blatant nerfs from across the board.
1. They need more than a slight CPU buff. not to mention that its 7 CPU.... Completely worthless. Fitting a bomber, with MWD and MSE is nigh impossible even with max fitting skills and genolutions. Just giving more CPU is not going to be fixing the problem. Some bombers like the manticore / hound are really looking for more power grid, and don't need this CPU Buff.
2. Bombers are slow as ****. A hound, with an MWD+ nanofiber is going 2.3K/s with a 6 second align time. Fozzie. Let me get this straight. The most 'agile' and 'highest speed' FRIGATE is slower and less agile than many cruisers. Of course, the manticore and nemesis are even worse. But your changes mass and agility are pushing them even further outside the window of probability for small bomber gangs to be engaging anything.
3. Sig radius changes. This is HUGE. Why on earth are you giving bombers an even larger sig? They already have paper tanks. These 'frigates' have **** speed and align time. Why make their already **** speed tank even worse, by throwing on a huge sig nerf? The paltry HP buff that you are giving them PALES IN COMPARISON to the effect the speed / align and sig changes will have on a 'frigate' which has no speed or sig tank to speak of.
4. TORPS ARE ****. A bomber with 2 Rigors, TP, max skills shooting faction trops, is lucky to apply even half of its damage to a slow boating cruiser. Again, why are torps / ship bonuses not changed? Or why cannot cruise missiles be used? Why are you only focusing on bombers using bombs inside of 0.0?
In conclusion I am EXTREMELY dissapointed in these changes. While I agree that bomber fleets in 0.0 using bombs needed changes and nerfs, I DO NOT AGREE that bombers on the whole needed these other changes. Why have you willingly disregarded bombers being used as a torpedo platform, applying DPS in a small gang / solo environment? Bombers in this respect are in a really ****** place at the current moment. These fixes (which seem hasty and poorly thought out to me) Do nothing but needlessly harm bombers in this role. Please reconsider your changes, so that bombers shooting torps and being flown in small gang / solo will not be as adversely effected.
My suggestions would be the following:
1. Give bombers enough fitting room to sport and MSE and MWD tank. Of course, a bomb launcher would not be able to be placed. But again, a bomber that is looking to use torps and work inside of a small gang / solo environment rarely if ever uses one.
2. Give them the speed / align time of other frigates. I am not saying that they have to be anywhere near AF or Inty level. Bombers already have **** EHP and no tank with which to speak of. At least allow them to have some semblance of a speed tank- that all other frigates share. Because currently a frigate going 2300ms with a nano and MWD is just a sitting duck to pretty much any weapon system in the game.
3. TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT TORPS. Stop being lazy and decide on what level of bonuses will need to be made to the torps themselves or the bomber skills. Currently applying even 50% of DPS to anything less than a BS is an extreme challenge, even when the bomber is build around application (through rigors, TPS, 2X BCS, implants). Or if torps are too much of an issue for you- perhaps there is a way to give bombers cruise missiles?
Hopefully with the above changes, bombers could have a more diverse use in the solo / small gang environment. And open up a fun and interesting 'cloaky attacker' that eve is currently lacking. |
Sans Nome
Martyr's Vengence
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:14:00 -
[304] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Let's talk Stealth Bombers! As we mentioned in the Travel Changes Dev Blog, we are doing rebalance passes on Bombers and Hictors in Phoebe. Our plan for bombers in Phoebe has several aspects, all aimed at keeping bombers effective while strengthening their counters and allowing skilled fleets to protect themselves.: [list] A stat rebalance on the bombers themselves. Short version is significantly more HP, weaker agility, larger sig radius, more cargo (so that they can all carry 3 bombs), smidge more CPU, lower warp speed. [...] However bombers remain a crucial part of the nullsec fleet fight ecosystem and we are committed to ensuring that they remain a powerful force on the battlefield.
I wonder what the effects of these changes on FW mission running will be, and what CCP has in mind for this side of the stealth bomber coin. |
Dean Wong
Black Serpent Technologies The Unthinkables
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:17:00 -
[305] - Quote
I hate to say this but all current proposal will only reinforce large coalition and penalise smaller alliance. Nerfing of long distance travel, proposal for nerfing JF and now cloaky decloaking each other at 2000m.
I've been in 401K and MOA. Both alliance fight against CFC and do a great job (401K dissolved, I know) through the use of bombers when facing overwhelming numbers.
Even CVA give us a few bloody noses through bomb runs.
Now with this ( I will consider as a ) nerf, how will it be possible for smaller alliance to fight against one of the giants in the game?
Bomber are one of the few tools left in this game that can tip the tide of a battle against overwhelming forces. It is also the lowest SP ship class for new bros to be useful in fleet in small alliance. If they do get nerf, I forsee EVE Online been all about large BS or T3 or HACs fleets sluging it out with each other as no one will be afraid of been hotdropped or bombed.
CCP always said about encouraging players to leave high-sec and live in low/null sec. With these changes to jump fatigue, death cloning and stealth bomber, I can envision the future of 0.0 corp recruitment. It will be like:
0.0 PVP corp looking for pilots. Must be able to fly interceptors, all T3s, at least 2 racial BS (megathron and Na-apocs) and Archons/Supers. If you cannot fly all of the above, please stay in highsec till you can before considering joining us cause you're useless.
On the other hand, it may open up low-sec as the next wild-west.
In anycase, I cannot see these changes shaking null sec up. Only time can tell |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
812
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:19:00 -
[306] - Quote
Not sure if this has been posted, have not had time to read the full thread. That said, could some of these penalties be tied to equipping (on or offline) a bomb launcher?
As someone who hunts Attack BCs in hi sec with a bomber, this is a nerf based on a mod I do not even equip or use. Why not put the warp speed penalty and mobility penalty as a drawback to the bomb launcher. Otherwise this seems like merging a ship in all uses based on one use of the ship. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
487
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:19:00 -
[307] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
these are the changes id like ameded / removed:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
- Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
- 17% reduction in bomb speed, with associated flight time increase. This means that you'll have 12 seconds to react to bombs instead of 10. Range stays the same.
cloaked ships decloaking each other is a terrible mechanic for soo many reasons that have been stated in this thread already.
bomb speed reduction alongside the above cloaking change completely removes the ability to use advanced tactics to hit fast moving Overpowered fleets like ishtars. and tbh an Eve with less ishtars is a better eve in all honesty. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
791
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:21:00 -
[308] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. This (obviously) affects all cloaky ships, not just bombers. It was considered by every player I know to the best thing to ever happen to the cloaking mechanic. Plz do not undo it. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
Sard Caid
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
107
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:24:00 -
[309] - Quote
Hey Fozzie,
With the cargo change in mind, and going beyond Bombers as torpedo platforms, can the size of torpedoes be reduced, perhaps to that of cruise missiles? Torpedo BS fit for PvP have a very hard time exploiting missile ammo diversity when 1,000 units of ammo takes 100m3 of the cargohold (torps are 0.1 m3/u).
Thanks,
SC |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
153
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:26:00 -
[310] - Quote
Glad about these changes, and with the upcoming reduction to structure HP and larger bay, making bombers a viable tool for small gangs to attack structures with torpedoes.
I also like the nerfing of Isboxers stealth fleets, bombers being the most obvious and easy to use while isboxing.
The only thing I would like you guys to consider is the following.
When doing a fleet warp, please keep the positions of all the members in the fleet relative to each others identical than what it was at the beginning of the warp, rather than making all of them warp randomly within a 2km bubble at the warp out point.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
352
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:31:00 -
[311] - Quote
Dr Jihad Alhariri wrote:If cloaked ships are going to start decloaking each other again, then give fleet members the ability to see other's cloaked ships.
Several things and please do consider that I never was part (but victim of..) a bomber fleet or any large fleet, since I like doing things on my own.
That said, I do however also like to fly with buddies I made and they like having me on comms and in their small (small as in less than six ships including me) gangs.
So while I cought up reading here this one thing came to my mind to circumvent decloaking each other:
You haz bomber fleet with your buddies, let's say you haz 50 folks in your fleet.
Now you divide your fleet into smaller wings of 7x7 + one in a Covert Ops frigate or else known as fleet commander.
Let's take a closer look at wing one. Wing one has member a, b, c, d, e and f and they are real people and they know each other.
Your fleet commander is in a position to tell 7 people were and what your targets are but he sits there and does his not-afk-cloaking thing of observing.
Now all of your seven wings with your seven sub-wing commanders, which we will call a1 - a7 from now on are in command of your cloaked bombers and your not-afk-cloaking fleet commander only oversees the targets fleet movement or non movement and tell a1- a7 what to target.
Back to a1.
A1 provides a warpin for wing one. b1 warps to a1 at 10. c1 warps tp b1 at 10 and so on. Since you are all cloaked NOBODY will see you.
A1 can now position his ship to the first target(s). As he is done positioning, he call wing one to approach him. b1 - f1 appraoch a1 and decloak each other and press 'launch dah bombs'.
a1 is so clever positioned that he is the first to warp away, b1 follows at 10, c1 follows b1 at 10 and so on.
Hell okay that's really complicated to write down. signature |
Alexis Nightwish
47
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:35:00 -
[312] - Quote
Saisin wrote:...When doing a fleet warp, please keep the positions of all the members in the fleet relative to each others identical than what it was at the beginning of the warp, rather than making all of them warp randomly within a 2km bubble at the warp out point. Excellent idea. It would benefit more than just bombers. Imagine if you could put your fleet into formation before warping, and everyone would (assuming no bubbles) land in the same formation? Brawlers could be at the front, with logi at the back for example? They wouldn't have to land as a blob? Very cool.
Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
149
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:39:00 -
[313] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Jessica Danikov wrote:Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground. i feel siege and triage either need to negate or significantly reduce the effect of these bombs they will still be use full on caps out of such states as well as on suppers but it wont make triage useless outside of LS On paper it should be feasible to protect them somewhat with smartbomb but in practise it gives an easy mode way to screw over a single triage carrier - which is really not a good idea IMO.
and that kinda sucks when you are a small WH corp and can only dedicate one carrier to a fight meaning you need triage most of the time but i think a reduction in capital void bomb effect for triage/siege and then improve that resistance at the T2 level should be balance-able |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
149
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:40:00 -
[314] - Quote
Saisin wrote:
When doing a fleet warp, please keep the positions of all the members in the fleet relative to each others identical than what it was at the beginning of the warp, rather than making all of them warp randomly within a 2km bubble at the warp out point.
this would be amazing and not just for bombers use the person who initiated the fleet warp as a reference for where the "center" is when landing |
Daegara Odenson
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:41:00 -
[315] - Quote
Consider balancing the torpedo launchers / charges rather than nerfing the cloaking mechanic. Currently almost everybody uses m4 launchers and faction torps - why are there no more interesting options? T2 torps only have a small niche in extreme range engagements but the current bonuses to T2 torps could more interestingly become rebalanced into launcher attributes. Providing meaningful differentiation within a missle launcher class forces people to make more interesting trade-offs in charge selection for bombers, instead of the de facto standard. Further this could tie in well with the upcoming module tiericide project and provide a meaningful distinction between launcher meta levels beyond simple fitting requirements!
Missile DPS application is a complex and contentious topic; the below suggestion provides a logical and easy to understand addition which provides an alternative to a more comprehensive missile rework but still providing both a powerful balancing tool as well as a new set of meaningful choices to the player.
Consider this:
New attribute: Missile mass Inversely impacts the speed/damage or range/damage balance by a set per tier, small, med, large etc. Smaller missiles should excel at hitting faster but with with lower damage and lower max range; but the comparably larger large missiles take appreciably longer to arrive (more mass therefore slower) and must make a range/speed/damage trade-off. That mass can either be dedicated to payload, speed or sacrificed for longer range.
Currently T2 missiles focus on a split between range, sig based damage application bonus and damage; by shifting this attribute to the launcher T2 missiles may then provide more meaningful choice to the player.
- Rapid - Fast moving, lower DPS - imagine more of the torpedo body is 75% fuel 25% payload (higher ROF?)
- Medial - Average speed (lower than current), average DPS ~ 50:50 range/speed (significantly lower stats than current)
- Destructive - Slow moving, higher DPS, greatly limited range
Combination of a scaling factor attribute such as missile mass in the launcher ensures that launcher types remain distinct but within a class a meaningful choice need be made as to the focus and play-style that is to be adopted. The potential for launcher class overlap is something to monitor but isn't of itself a bad thing. That way you will see everything from brawling high DPS hot drops to 100km torp broadsides from sniper bombers more frequently and would diversify rather than restrict gameplay choices!
The downside to re-adding proximity decloaking for cloaky ships
As it stands the changes provide meaningful game play to non-cloaky fleets but destroy an essential component of cloaky fleets - this need not be the case.
Everything seems fair except cloakies decloaking one-another. Consider this from a balance perspective, the role already requires extensive coordination and positional awareness to even be effective in combat, maintaining that means moving about and doing so in a group without inadvertently decloaking each other is nye-on impossible with even a single squad let alone a bomber wing. Decloaking out of position is death as it should be, the cloak is your 'tank' but this is not balancing, nor a nerf, this is legitimately class-breaking and seems incredibly short-sighted.
Eve is meant to be about risk vs reward. Trade offs. Tactical decisions. Cloakies decloaking each other removes the singular advantage they held making them significantly less useful in an engagement without adding anything meaningful to that play-style or the cloaking mechanic. Previously this behaviour was deemed a bug IIRC and returning to that behaviour rather than balancing or encouraging a more diverse means of play via constructive changes seems like a step backwards.
The role of the Cov Ops class of hulls is to facilitate surprise attacks, the decloaking change doesn't add risk to their use, it just renders them an near complete liability in anything but hot drops! Their effectiveness vs. battleship fleets needs balancing, few would argue with that, but this surely isn't the best way to do it. Rather than negatively impacting a much enjoyed play-style why not consider a more constructive change that deals with their imbalance without nerfing the enjoyment of using them into the ground?
Relative impact on legitimate vs isoboxed bombers
Comments about the validity of isoboxing aside, the changes as they stand are a nerf to human fleets which need to organise significantly more to prevent a friendly decloak whereas this limitation is quite easily side stepped by isoboxers. This then makes isoboxing bombers significantly more effective than human bombers and that is a worrying trend indeed. Other means of balancing bomber DPS as I have described would achieve the end goal without creating this situation and would seem to provide a much more elegant solution. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:41:00 -
[316] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
I would say, the cloak change is the main issue here and needs to stay as is it right now in TQ and not this suggested change as it "Headshots" cloaky group activities (not just bombers). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:45:00 -
[317] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:
I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
I would say, the cloak change is the main issue here and needs to stay as is it right now in TQ and not this suggested change as it "Headshots" cloaky group activities (not just bombers).
Not sure I'd go as far as to say headshotted - I did a lot of cloaky stuff with cloaking as it used to be and its not insurmountable to operate with far from it - but the older cloaking mechanics felt incomplete/work in progress and how it is currently just works, feels like a polished system, going back to the old mechanics feels to me like a huge step backwards. |
Mikeyeve
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:46:00 -
[318] - Quote
Poor Blops ships, going to make incursions into null so much harder.
if we have the old decloaking back can we have cruises too pls? |
Nys Cron
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
42
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:47:00 -
[319] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:and that kinda sucks when you are a small WH corp and can only dedicate one carrier to a fight meaning you need triage most of the time but i think a reduction in capital void bomb effect for triage/siege and then improve that resistance at the T2 level should be balance-able This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers.
For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
352
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:47:00 -
[320] - Quote
Ooops and really people, nerf Mining Drones!!!
Mining Drones are too strong and imbalance at least something! signature |
|
BuffFresh
I'm Fine and You The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:48:00 -
[321] - Quote
"Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km."
i like how the changes you keep making in the game, drive away new players patch after patch, maybe some 1 needs a hug or *cough* a chill pill as your not really making it easy for new players are ya buddy?! see ya down the job center mate ! |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:50:00 -
[322] - Quote
the so called "good elite old time" of bomber don't had the limit of 7 bombs , u can take position and fire with all firepower in one single wave... doing the "elite old time" + 7 bomb only + 12 sec bomb + more align time + smart bomb defense + anti bomber bubbler!!!
if it was elite in old time now is unthinkable.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:53:00 -
[323] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:and that kinda sucks when you are a small WH corp and can only dedicate one carrier to a fight meaning you need triage most of the time but i think a reduction in capital void bomb effect for triage/siege and then improve that resistance at the T2 level should be balance-able This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers. For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such.
indeed it took me walking away and being re-introduced to the problem to see it |
elitatwo
Congregatio
352
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:53:00 -
[324] - Quote
Mikeyeve wrote:Poor Blops ships, going to make incursions into null so much harder . if we have the old decloaking back can we have cruises too pls?
I did propose an overall change to all missiles and mentioning giving bombers back cruise missiles.
But after making a not so serious incognito rant about heavy missiles it was dismissed and I was accused of being drunk, high on exile or smoothsayer and not being the same old e2 that I am for about 8 years now and being ditched on the character bizzare (yes intentionally writing that wrong). signature |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:57:00 -
[325] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:Not sure if this has been posted, have not had time to read the full thread. That said, could some of these penalties be tied to equipping (on or offline) a bomb launcher?
As someone who hunts Attack BCs in hi sec with a bomber, this is a nerf based on a mod I do not even equip or use. Why not put the warp speed penalty and mobility penalty as a drawback to the bomb launcher. Otherwise this seems like merging a ship in all uses based on one use of the ship.
This is a good idea. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:01:00 -
[326] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:Lady Ayeipsia wrote:Not sure if this has been posted, have not had time to read the full thread. That said, could some of these penalties be tied to equipping (on or offline) a bomb launcher?
As someone who hunts Attack BCs in hi sec with a bomber, this is a nerf based on a mod I do not even equip or use. Why not put the warp speed penalty and mobility penalty as a drawback to the bomb launcher. Otherwise this seems like merging a ship in all uses based on one use of the ship. This is a good idea.
it would need to be tied to equipping not on lining it as i would be more then willing to pay the cap cost just before launching to online the launcher and it wouldn't be to hard to manage |
progodlegend
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
176
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:04:00 -
[327] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie.
And thus, the point of these changes is revealed.
Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work. |
NFain
Quantum Singularities WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
99
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:06:00 -
[328] - Quote
Void bomb 1m radius..
"Use the force Luke... use the force" |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1918
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:09:00 -
[329] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie. And thus, the point of these changes is revealed. Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work.
So stealth bomber without the stealth? Awesome! May as well turn these into kamikaze ships that explode on impact
If the "cloak ships decloak cloaked ships" mechanic is going ahead, there is no reason for all the other nerf. +1 |
Alexis Nightwish
47
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:10:00 -
[330] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie. And thus, the point of these changes is revealed. Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work. But what about the part where they land already decloaked because they get to close to each other while warping? Is that an intent as well? Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |