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) |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 08:58:00 -
[631] - Quote
This doesn't solve any of the problems. It just makes bombers more annoying to use for everyone, and not much else.
I keep saying this: The biggest problems with bombs are due to their 100% tie to sig radius. Shield BS, battlecruisers, shield cruisers and MWD frigs all melt for this reason. The polar opposite of this is sig-tanked setups like ANI's which can tank an obscene (112) number of bombs with boosts and heat.
At the same time, I don't have much issue with a 50-man bomber fleet pulling off a well co-ordinated run against a megathron fleet today.
So here is what I would do:
*Add explosion velocity to bombs, like torps *Reduce explosion radius from 400 to say ~250 *Keep bomb HP like OP *Keep the slower align time like OP *Remove the cloak changes
With explosion velocity as a factor, more mobile ships have a better defense against bombs due to their higher speed, on top of being more difficult to hit in the first place due to ground zero being static after a fleetwarp is committed. Theoretically, shield ships are generally more mobile. Having MWD on might be a good option to mitigate bomb damage. Armor retains some of their advantage as sig is still a factor.
Obviously the damage formula would have to be carefully worked out, but that's the concept.
This will also reduce the number of target options a multiboxer can feasibly go after with a single squad, which is what the vast majority of them run. They could try to move to two squads, but this is much more difficult., expensive and logistically difficult. If you look at the kills multiboxers get, the vast majority of them are shield cruisers, destroyers and bc's, outside of single-target attacks.
The cloak changes are clunky and widely disliked. You say that bomb runs happened before and they will after this reversion, but that was before people adopted anti-bomber techniques like perimeter bubbles, pre-hic warpins and the like. Or even had the presence of mind to think bombers were on field. This change also severely hurts cloaky gate camps and blops drops. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
922
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 11:17:00 -
[632] - Quote
nemesis definitely needs some help .. aswell as all of them needing more PG so they can actually fit some tank ... nemesis is the slowest of the bunch which is unusual for gallente ships... consider reducing the cpu need of bulkheads so it can hull tank .. 40 cpu is very high .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Marcia en Welle
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:05:00 -
[633] - Quote
I am all for these changes to bombers. But changing the cloaking mechanic is regressive and adds no gameplay benefit alongside having lots of unintended side effects to many other areas of the game.
Yes, bombers used to decloak each other, but then we also used to warp to 15km at stargates, and probes had to be individually positioned each time. |
Oxide Ammar
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:16:00 -
[634] - Quote
Aside from the stupid nerf to cloaky ships, has anyone run the numbers if the 4 bombers will be able to run 3x tech II torp launchers + tech II bomb launcher with out sacrificing arm and leg of your fit ? because if not that means clearly Fozzie have zero knowledge about bombers. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing. |
TAckermassacker
New Republic The Initiative.
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:30:00 -
[635] - Quote
can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:37:00 -
[636] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Aside from the stupid nerf to cloaky ships, has anyone run the numbers if the 4 bombers will be able to run 3x tech II torp launchers + tech II bomb launcher with out sacrificing arm and leg of your fit ? because if not that means clearly Fozzie have zero knowledge about bombers.
They cannot do this now - nor should they be able to. The extra fitting room will be nice, but the extra signature radius will be a horrible addition. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:40:00 -
[637] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings.
I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
245
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:43:00 -
[638] - Quote
Just posting to further echo the sentiment of the decloak change being rubbish. It's going to impact all ships that fit cloaks. As others have said, bringing this back intentionally without having some way of seeing where your fleetmates are is really poor. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
922
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:20:00 -
[639] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline.
well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1935
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:30:00 -
[640] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall
Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :) +1 |
|
Herrin Asura
Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:43:00 -
[641] - Quote
Thats a thing of the past. After Phoebe we have the size of a Destroyer.... |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
922
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:20:00 -
[642] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :)
not really a nemesis is a good 40m bigger than an enyo Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
169
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:28:00 -
[643] - Quote
Calvyr Travonis wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:arming mechanism, no. That would be too hard on people whose vision might not be 100% or players who are drunk or just bad typists.
Defender missiles? I have tried multiple times to get them repurposed, drone killer, bomb killer, hell antilaser chaff cannon. So far I have had little (actually no) success.
m
Players being drunk or having poor typing skills though, really? So we're going to account for people who are suffering from a self inflicted impairment now? And poor typing, we're not talking about transcribing a dissertation on particle physics, we're talking about say a 6-12 character string. Even the worst "hunt and peck" typist can handle that.
Their is a man in my corp had a scaffolding fall on him not only does he play with two pencils taped to his hands but has trouble seeing or remembering the placement of keys |
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
794
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:29:00 -
[644] - Quote
I am a bit concerned with the Manticore and Nemesis having the same grid but one having more CPU.
The Manticore has long been the obvious choice over the nemesis since both had the same grid (not to say it's the go to bomber, just that there isn't much reason to pick the Nemesis instead), but the manticore has more CPU which means anything you can fit on the nemesis can be fit on the maticore, but the manticore is slightly more maneuverable (mainly due to mass, and though the difference isn't what I would call significant, I have seen it brought up) and has fitting room to spare, so anything Nemisis can do, manticore can do better.
Under these changes, the situation is reversed, Nemesis can fit anything Manticore can and then some, and now has better mobility (aside from speed). I really think they need some differentiation similar to the Hound and Purifier in that one has more CPU while the other has more grid, so they can have different fittings rather than one just being able to fit more stuff. it may not make the Nemesis more attractive as a ship, but does at least provide differentiation rather than having a ship be mostly redundant.
Also Nemesis needs to be changed to a Roden ship. ==== I would also add my support to saying making cloaked ships decloak each other once again is a bad change in general. it disrupts covert gangs too much, and I fail to see very many advantages to the metagame as a whole. if we could at least track the location (and thus, distance) of cloaked fleetmates, that would at least mitigate the disadvantages by letting us prevent accidental decloaks.
On a side note. While it is nice you are looking at bombs, I would hope you guys are also looking at Stealth bombers from the Torpedo platform standpoint. The bomb launchers are the primary point of these ships, but the fact they use battleship sized weaponry despite being a (much) smaller platform, is still and important aspect of their design, so their viability in that role needs to be preserved even with bomb changes. I am a bit concerned the sig radius changes meant to allow fleets to better defend themselves against bombing runs may harm the viability of Stealth bombers as torpedo platforms.
If you feel bombers on a bombing mission need to be easier to target and destroy, you should attach a sig radius penalty to the bomb launcher so ships using them are easier to take down, while ships fitted solely as torpedo platforms aren't harmed by the change (being in active combat that long is already hazardous enough on its own given the paltry defenses)
Also, a personal note: I think it would be neat to expand bombers to be able to carry all of the Battleship launcher types to enhance their diversity a bit. |
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
794
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:30:00 -
[645] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :) They used to be, but since they added models for missile launchers, the Bombers have gotten new models that are a fair bit larger than other frigates in order to fit torpedo launchers |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
169
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:40:00 -
[646] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Rain6637 wrote:
3. EVE won't and shouldn't snoop around your computer to look at everything that is running. for reasons.
But it does, and has for years, EULA section 7.: Quote:D. MONITORING
You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6. It looks at EVE not everything else on your computer.
do you know what hardware is because its not the game's software |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:24:00 -
[647] - Quote
CW Itovuo wrote:CAPITAL BOMB: Love the idea. Dislike the proposed method. "Aiming" things in EVE is especially difficult. Would prefer something along the lines of a very slow torpedo, the modern equivalent of laser guided bomb. Bomber pilot would have to lock & paint the target and stay on grid until impact.
I always get a kick out of people that think they know about about modern weapons tech and then try to apply it to eve.
There is this thing called a Target Painter that takes the place of the aircraft mounting guidance systems. Anyone can carry one, even infantry. Its how an aircraft can launch a cruise missile from 100km away or a 500lb bomb from 50,000 feet and still hit a 1-foot-square target like the air-shaft of a bunker complex even when its cloudy.
Eve target painters are of course used for a different purpose. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
TAckermassacker
New Republic The Initiative.
62
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:25:00 -
[648] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :) They used to be, but since they added models for missile launchers, the Bombers have gotten new models that are a fair bit larger than other frigates in order to fit torpedo launchers
really arguing the ship model to the stats? if you go for this a machariel must have got 3000m signature radius in the last pirate faction rebalance. So please gtfo with shipmodel to use of ship arguing.
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13692
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 16:32:00 -
[649] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:baltec1 wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Rain6637 wrote:
3. EVE won't and shouldn't snoop around your computer to look at everything that is running. for reasons.
But it does, and has for years, EULA section 7.: Quote:D. MONITORING
You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6. It looks at EVE not everything else on your computer. do you know what hardware is because its not the game's software
We had this the other year, CCP does not snoop on your computer like an Icelandic NSA. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13692
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 16:34:00 -
[650] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
A bomber does not do the job of an assault frigate. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
TAckermassacker
New Republic The Initiative.
63
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:01:00 -
[651] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
A bomber does not do the job of an assault frigate.
i was referring a worm in specific cause its a position independent kiting frigate with high dps. (that sounds like the job of a bomber to me) |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
590
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:17:00 -
[652] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
A bomber does not do the job of an assault frigate.
A worm isn't an assault frigate. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:04:00 -
[653] - Quote
So, I did a thing and added some theoretical damage stats to a bomb (expVel=100m/s, DRF=5.5) for the purposes of simulating percentage damage reduction to bombs for a typical baltec Megathron and a Rail Rokh. Relevant aspects of the fits are listed below the chart.
http://imgur.com/co68YeH
Obviously, a Mega or Rokh without an MWD is not going to go 1200m/s. But for the purposes of getting all the data into one chart, the data has to extend that far or google automatically stretches it to fit the chart. Google charts fail.
Each curve consists of 120 data points. The curves for "noMWD" apply identically to no prop mod or AB on, since the horizontal scale shows velocity and sigRad doesn't change for those conditions.
Relevant Stats: (all 5s and max links) Mega with 2x 1600mm T2 plates, 2x T1 trimarks, and 1x T1 EM pump.
- Mega w/o prop mod running: sigRad: 249m, max vel: 135m/s, align time: 9.4 sec.
- Mega w/MWD running: sigRad: 1493m, max vel: 1201m/s, align time: 14 sec.
- Mega w/AB running: sigRad: 249m, max vel: 423m/s, align time: 14 sec.
Rokh w 1x LSE II and 3x LCDFE I.
- Rokh w/o prop mod running: sigRad: 388m, max Vel: 111m/s, 11.4 sec.
- Rokh w/MWD running: sigRad: 2246m, max Vel: 986m/s, 16.8 sec.
- Rokh w/AB running: sigRad: 388, max Vel: 347m/s, align time: 16.8 sec.
The above chart tells us a lot. Please remember, the Rokh is also slower than the Mega. So a direct vertical comparison at each ship's top speed is not possible.
- The current linear reductions due to expRad/sigRad mean there is no way to mitigate bomb damage except with links and boosters (drugs).
- Armor tanks currently enjoy an insanely unbalanced advantage over shield tanks. The difference between the no-prop lines clearly shows this.
- The chart clearly shows that sigRad will still play a huge part in how much damage shield tanks take over armor tanks, even when velocity is figured into the equation.
- Enabling velocity reductions would reduce the amount of damage taken, but only once the effected ship reaches a sufficiently high velocity. In this case, no-prop mod battleships don't benefit much from a velocity reduction.
- Full speed align AB would give the Mega an apx 85% damage reduction. A Rokh would get apx 74% reduction. That being said, those are pretty big reductions. Bombs would become pretty meaningless to full-speed aligned ABing battleships.
- Using an MWD increases mobility at the expense of taking more damage from pretty much everything. Full speed MWD Mega would still receive a 79% reduction. A Rokh would get only a 43% reduction. In this case, the huge difference in sigRad makes a huge difference in damage.
Now for another graph that show a comparison using a Rokh that suffers no penalties to its sigRad from shield rigs or extenders. http://imgur.com/IOqXs5D
In this example, the Rokh would have only a 1965m sigRad with MWD on, 328m without. This brings the MWD reduction to 50% at 895m/s, and AB reduction to 77%. This compares a little bit better imo.
At this point, I feel its more of a balance point decision on exactly how much damage one feels is healthy for the environment. But some things MUST happen to bring bombs into balance: remove the shield sigRad penalties through either a straight removal of penalties, or give us skills to reduce the penalties to nothing, a combination of a reduction in the penalties and the skills to make them negligible, and consider velocity in the bomb damage equation.
Also, I'm providing the link to my spreadsheet so people can see for themselves that the math and theory are good, as well as play with the numbers for themselves. Interesting things happen when you play with the DRF. Please don't wreck the sheet. Google is bad with their permission levels. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13692
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:10:00 -
[654] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:baltec1 wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
A bomber does not do the job of an assault frigate. i was referring a worm in specific cause its a position independent kiting frigate with high dps. (that sounds like the job of a bomber to me)
bomber is a stealthy torpedo boat built for attacking shipping and large targets such as battleships.Worm is an anti interceptor.
Two very different jobs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
568
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:23:00 -
[655] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:At this point, I feel its more of a balance point decision on exactly how much damage one feels is healthy for the environment. But some things MUST happen to bring bombs into balance: remove the shield sigRad penalties through either a straight removal of penalties, or give us skills to reduce the penalties to nothing, a combination of a reduction in the penalties and the skills to make them negligible, and consider velocity in the bomb damage equation. Great post.
Adding skills to reduce signature radius is an interesting idea, but since that skill would impact such a wide range of game mechanics it would have to be balanced very carefully with all of them taken into consideration, not just with bombs in mind. Possible, but would requite mounds of effort.
Removing the penalty of signature radius to bomb damage would be wholly broken as it would allow bombers to ZOMGWTFBBQ frigate fleets with ease. This is what is referred to in my line of work as "A very bad idea."
Adding velocity to the bomb damage equation I think is the most viable solution. It would bring it in line with the missile damage equation, and help address the imbalance between bomb damage applied to shield and armor battleships. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:34:00 -
[656] - Quote
You could also co-ordinate with other subcap fleets to web anchors down prior to a bomb run.
It would also buff void bombs a little bit, as shutting off prop mods would be very useful for increase bomb damage yield.
Maybe even webbing bombs?
Damage formula needs some work I think, the difference between the rokh and the mega is still a bit big in my opinion (although armor can still have some small advantage)
One thing that would be really nice to keep is the ability for bombers to ruthlessly exploit mistakes. That's something I really like with bombers and cloaky ships in general. Explosion velocity in the damage formula works towards that. If you mess up your insertion to the field (ie. don't use defensive hics or perimeter bubbles) you will be vulnerable while not moving. Also getting dragged unexpectedly or similar would have bigger consequences.
The other thing is, I don't think armor ships should be buffed at all versus today, so adding velocity will be tricky to balance. That's why I suggested dropping the explosion radius down from 400 to 250 or something to level the playing field a bit. This would apply higher damage to sig-tanked armor fleets to compensate for the buff they get from velocity. It shouldn't make much difference for shield fleets. |
Redd Dredd
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 19:42:00 -
[657] - Quote
If you could somehow make it so that it takes less than 60 seconds to lock an SB by a pos scram or web, that would go a long ways towards bringing them back in line. Currently there are no POS defenses against a bomber gang as even the smallest POS guns cant track or hit them. If I am manning the guns on a POS, I should be able to kill one or two of them at a minimum. Right now it is a pretty broken mechanic. |
DUBLYUR
D A R K Homeworld DARK UNI0N
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 20:11:00 -
[658] - Quote
This is a very bad update by CCP Fozzie.
Sorry that CCP can not make the game.
Like falling online? :
http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
846
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 20:12:00 -
[659] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Soldarius wrote:At this point, I feel its more of a balance point decision on exactly how much damage one feels is healthy for the environment. But some things MUST happen to bring bombs into balance: remove the shield sigRad penalties through either a straight removal of penalties, or give us skills to reduce the penalties to nothing, a combination of a reduction in the penalties and the skills to make them negligible, and consider velocity in the bomb damage equation. Great post. Adding skills to reduce signature radius is an interesting idea, but since that skill would impact such a wide range of game mechanics it would have to be balanced very carefully with all of them taken into consideration, not just with bombs in mind. Possible, but would requite mounds of effort. Removing the penalty of signature radius to bomb damage would be wholly broken as it would allow bombers to ZOMGWTFBBQ frigate fleets with ease. This is what is referred to in my line of work as "A very bad idea." Adding velocity to the bomb damage equation I think is the most viable solution. It would bring it in line with the missile damage equation, and help address the imbalance between bomb damage applied to shield and armor battleships.
I apologize. My wording was clunky and difficult to understand, and this has already led to a misunderstandings. Let me elucidate (holy crap that word came right out out of my ass and I actually had the usage correct. I have shat a golden egg.) upon the matter.
I didn't want a skill to reduce sigRad. I want a skill to reduce the sigRad penalty of shield extenders. We already have a skill the reduces the penalty of shield rigs (Shield Rigging).
Shield Rigging: 10% reduction in the penalty of shield rigs per level. Up this to 20% per level. Let us completely remove the penalty.
Shield Focusing (Proposed new skill): 20% reduction in the signature radius penalty of shield extenders per level.
I did not suggest removing explosion radius / sigRad consideration from bombs. Only adding the velocity part so that it works exactly like missile damage.
The numbers I chose to play with (100 m/s and 400 meters) were just a base line that seemed appropriate for a generic battleship weapon. They can and should be tweaked until a balance is found. I've found tweaking DRF downward lessens the sudden drop in damage reductions.
Train both to 5 and voila, no more shield penalties. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 20:32:00 -
[660] - Quote
I would love for alphafleet and battlecruiser fleets to make a comeback, but it's not going to happen without some change to the damage formula. |
|
|
|
|
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 |