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) |
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
1254
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 02:25:30 -
[691] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Thanks for not dealing with the real issue here which is ISBox bombing, but making real player coordinated bomber fleets more of a pain to coordinate.
This only emphasizes the need for automated, single player run bombing fleets.
CCP isn't going to do anything about ISBoxer. Makes their subs look better on paper because all the additional alts being used for ISBoxer. Better looking sub numbers means more money in CCPs pocket. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1868
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 03:13:26 -
[692] - Quote
Doyle Aldurad wrote:I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing' Lets compare bombers to destroyers: Similar HP? Yes. Similar sig radius? Yes. Similar powergrid? Yes. Similar velocity? Yes. Similar align time? Yes. Similar mass? Yes. Similar damage output? Yes. Similar warp speed? Finally yes.
Conclusion: Stealth Bombers are destroyers, not frigates.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
117
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 06:21:41 -
[693] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:it's like asking 7 blind men to mill around a room without walking within 2 meters of each other. I'm fine with cloaked ships decloaking each other, but it has to be done with fleet members able to see other cloaked fleet members, otherwise this change is dumb as hell (and I'm not going to take it any more).
This part with 7 blind guys... XD Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before, but now it's being returned as a new feature... In any case, sucks... but then again, I haven't logged in days, so we'll see what happens when phoebe hits..
[center] [The Incursion Guild](http://youtu.be/b2GK2e17xTs)[/center] [center] [QA Combat Analyzer](http://goo.gl/GH5zO6)[/center] [center] [Incursion Layout Builder](http://goo.gl/J94YI3)[/center]
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1868
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 08:36:43 -
[694] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups.
I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 09:22:39 -
[695] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Doyle Aldurad wrote:I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing' Lets compare bombers to destroyers: Similar HP? Yes. Similar sig radius? Yes. Similar powergrid? Yes. Similar velocity? Yes. Similar align time? Yes. Similar mass? Yes. Similar damage output? Yes. Similar warp speed? Finally yes. Conclusion: Stealth Bombers are destroyers, not frigates.
yet they are frigates.... dear god what's happening!!!
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 14:44:17 -
[696] - Quote
Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?
+1
|
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 15:23:40 -
[697] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups. I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.
And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden. Now you want them to take a further hit by losing another high slot? I don't think so, terrible idea. If the decloak change is going to go through, the ability to see cloak fleetmates should be inherent, not require a special module. Otherwise, it's just not functional. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 15:28:03 -
[698] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?
Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change.
Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23204
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 15:41:29 -
[699] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups. I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly. that's a decent one. seeing fleet mates cloaked, with the polygon overlay that was on Sisi for a bit. but not for a slot
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Vel'drinn
Sol Research and Development Aurora Foundation
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 16:37:23 -
[700] - Quote
I kind of like the concept of damage intensity based on position from the blast point. Aiming your bomb at the correct range requires extra skill and risk to pull off. By risk I'm talking about unplanned bomb runs where you get a warp in but don't necessarily have an ideal warp out point. This mechanic would strike a balance of aiming for optimal damage vs. optimal survival.
It would buff faster fleets too. Frigate and Cruiser fleets can zip around relatively quick making it much harder to pinpoint where they will be when bombs detonate. A skilled fleet could change their trajectory to mitigate a lot of damage that way. Battleships fleets, especially shield ships, are out of luck but that's the cost of having more tank and less maneuverability. If nothing else they can still microjump out of the blast. UNLESS they get void bombed first =)
AoE damage could also use explosive velocity to calculate damage instead of signature since this hurts shield ships so much more than armor. The faster you are the less likely you take damage. Current mechanics essentially say microwarp drive + bomb = death with a lot fewer bombs required to kill the target.
At any rate AoE damage scaling could be all that's needed to put the skill back into bombing without nerfing all cov ops doctrines into oblivion. I really hope the cloak change doesn't happen cause we might as well take the Stealth out of Stealth Bombers.
So all this means smaller ships survive longer and can be used again. Massed blobs of hard hitting battleships can still be countered by bombers. The smaller ships being able to survive bombs easier with those mechanics will EAT BOMBERS ALIVE with current stats on bombers. Smaller ships not dying so easily = bombers getting locked up and killed = bombs not detonating.
Think about it. Varied fleet comps become a thing again and all those fleet types have viable counters. |
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
169
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 17:38:02 -
[701] - Quote
I think that other cloaked ships in fleet should be visible to the player in their cloaked form and on overview. Only if they are in fleet. This would assist in knowing how close you are to a fleet member so as to avoid decloaking unintentionally.
This change is going to affect far more than just bombers. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
191
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 21:44:22 -
[702] - Quote
Whatever they do, I doubt CCP intends to make any significant changes to bomb damage code that could result in it being more complex than it already is. Those hamsters have a tough enough time as it is per tick, determining all the cause and effect of each AOE. |
Pritovsky Pootis
Eschelon Directive Universal Consortium
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 21:50:48 -
[703] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change? Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change. Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber.
As seen in the hyperion "feedback" threads, none of what we say actually matters- it gets pushed through anyway. They obviously know what they are changing is for the best and everyone who actually plays the game and can see how changes so poorly thought through like this one will negatively effect gameplay are wrong.
Though I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong this time. Your move, CCP. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1868
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 22:33:21 -
[704] - Quote
Calvyr Travonis wrote:And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden. How do you lose anything by not fitting a module that didn't previously exist in the game?
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Mharius Skjem
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 22:51:43 -
[705] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups. I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.
Just have it that cloaked ships in fleet show up in tactical view, as presumably your fleet is a fleet because it shares telemetry.
A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23209
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 23:51:04 -
[706] - Quote
as well as overview information such as speed, distance, etc
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 03:26:13 -
[707] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Calvyr Travonis wrote:And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden. How do you lose anything by not fitting a module that didn't previously exist in the game?
Let's see, a high slot module (where weapons go) that would need to be fit so that fleetmates can see each other. Your proposed module would then take up an additional high slot, taking away from already reduced damage output. That is, unless any ship that cloaks would automatically get an extra high slot to compensate. It's much easier to simply make the ability to see cloaked fleetmates inherent. Of course, the absolute best solution is just to not change the way cloaking mechanics work. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6461
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 04:19:26 -
[708] - Quote
Pritovsky Pootis wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change? Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change. Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber. As seen in the hyperion "feedback" threads, none of what we say actually matters- it gets pushed through anyway. They obviously know what they are changing is for the best and everyone who actually plays the game and can see how changes so poorly thought through like this one will negatively effect gameplay are wrong. Though I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong this time. Your move, CCP. I don't know, in the other changes they basically said they didn't know what would happen, so it's admitted.
Still happening, though.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 12:14:57 -
[709] - Quote
just ban isboxer, problem solved |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 13:18:55 -
[710] - Quote
get rid of isbotters per EULA and game policies, not ineffective bandaid "fixes". |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11764
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 13:40:58 -
[711] - Quote
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Herrin Asura
Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:02:17 -
[712] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie
Good to hear. I hope you'll come up with a better solution. There are many better suggestions in this thread already. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1945
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:20:32 -
[713] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: ... we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for. -Fozzie
Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
+1
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
35
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:48:37 -
[714] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2010
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:53:57 -
[715] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: ... we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for. -Fozzie
Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
true enough i would prefer cloaked ship not decloak eachother and instead introduce a tech II tier two desi that has a high slot unit that can ping enemy ships within a 30km radius and have them show up on the overview for 3 seconds but not able to target the ship...
this would make a cat and mouse game where said desi would have to approach and hopefully decloak the ship.
Mark Hadden wrote:they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.
yeah but wont that be fixed by firebombing the incoming bombs?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1343
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 16:39:56 -
[716] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie
That's a mistake. Isboxer currently allows bombers to do things that regular humans can't do: being perfectly syncronized in terms of timing and positionning. Two things that are heavily important for bombers.
Discussing bomber balance without taking into account isboxer is completely irrealistic, at best.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 17:12:04 -
[717] - Quote
Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie That's a mistake. Isboxer currently allows bombers to do things that regular humans can't do: being perfectly syncronized in terms of timing and positionning. Two things that are heavily important for bombers. Discussing bomber balance without taking into account isboxer is completely irrealistic, at best. can i still have 10 bombers online on differend pcs and use an usb mouse broadcasting system to click cloak - bomb - warp? yes multiboxed bombers are an issue... the software you are naming isn't. the ability to multibox =/= one software.
there are more ways to get this done, none using software (or specificly Isboxer) |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
35
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 17:29:52 -
[718] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:the software you are naming isn't. the ability to multibox =/= one software. its just the most popular one. however they are all covered by EULA 6-A, point 3. |
Nauclerus Serpens
Mad Bombers of TDA The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 17:47:45 -
[719] - Quote
I was playing around on SISI and saw how these cloaking changes effected ships. A reasonable (potentially) middle point on the change could be that ships do still decloak each other, but can warp as a squad or wing without decloaking. Otherwise the squad /wing warp is completely useless. 2 ships in squad warp (to a fix) decloak each other 30% of the time, and 3 ships decloak 100% of the time.
If the squad or wing is positioned from each other in excess of 2000m then they maintain the relative positions to each other through the warp and on landing. After that the new proposed changes can take effect.
The rest of the changes can be mitigated with skills, fitting, on grid boosting, etc. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:08:56 -
[720] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.
They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP.
Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers...
|
|
|
|
|
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 |