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) |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1820
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:14:10 -
[721] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: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?
Correct fix would be to BUFF the battleships..t hat are a pathetically weak class of ship.
Also bobms should have an explosion velocity like the missiles,
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
|
Beryl Invictus
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:17:14 -
[722] - 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
Seperate how exactly? You hung over still or what???? |
Crazy Candy
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:18:50 -
[723] - Quote
Thanks, CCP Fozzie. |
Sieonigh
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:27:10 -
[724] - 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
"but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread"
then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.
|
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 19:09:06 -
[725] - Quote
It is a separate issue. A single squad of bombers, mulitboxed or not, devastate shield ships no matter how fast they are moving, or any other metric. A single squad (or even any reasonable number) of bombers are next to useless against Sig tanked ships like ANIs.
The root cause of the bomber imbalance is the 100% dependence on Sig in the damage formula. This is driving all doctrine development.
The cloak change might make it harder to land a run for less experienced FC's, but when it does land it'll still be maelstroms oracles and ruptures dying, not megathrons and armor cruisers. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
463
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 19:30:15 -
[726] - Quote
Sieonigh 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 "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.
All of those legit bombing runs and bombers bar are not part of the discussion because you have linked two activities inseparably together? |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1945
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 20:53:13 -
[727] - Quote
oodell wrote:It is a separate issue. A single squad of bombers, mulitboxed or not, devastate shield ships no matter how fast they are moving, or any other metric. A single squad (or even any reasonable number) of bombers are next to useless against Sig tanked ships like ANIs.
The root cause of the bomber imbalance is the 100% dependence on Sig in the damage formula. This is driving all doctrine development.
The cloak change might make it harder to land a run for less experienced FC's, but when it does land it'll still be maelstroms oracles and ruptures dying, not megathrons and armor cruisers.
I never lived in null sec or been bombed that often so i would be grateful if you could explain the issue a little bit more. I understand the mechanics so no need to go into detail on that.
Do the current counters like bubbling your own fleet, using smart bombs or escaping with MJD not work or are FC just to lazy too use the counters?
+1
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 21:56:51 -
[728] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: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...
Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?...
MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is.
Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1547
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 22:07:14 -
[729] - Quote
Sieonigh 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 "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept. It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about.it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 22:28:45 -
[730] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: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... Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?... MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is. Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay.
Regarding your first point, firewalling ships stay between the aggressor and the main dps fleet, not in the middle of the fleet.
Regarding your second point, if there's multiple bomber squadrons in system and you want to evade them using an MJD then simply MJD out of the bubbles and then align to a ping (you use those in your fleets don't you?) and warp to the ping if you get a second bomb wave.
Your reply just shows your poor ability of developing tactics to counter your enemies other than DPS/logi blob as I mentioned before. Your brain must have some grey mass... use it!
|
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
188
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 04:33:59 -
[731] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Sieonigh 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 "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept. It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about.it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers.
Neither are cloaks restricted to bombers only, and still they are discussed in this thread.
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 07:28:39 -
[732] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: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... Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?... MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is. Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay. Regarding your first point, firewalling ships stay between the aggressor and the main dps fleet, not in the middle of the fleet. Regarding your second point, if there's multiple bomber squadrons in system and you want to evade them using an MJD then simply MJD out of the bubbles and then align to a ping (you use those in your fleets don't you?) and warp to the ping if you get a second bomb wave. Your reply just shows your poor ability of developing tactics to counter your enemies other than DPS/logi blob as I mentioned before. Your brain must have some grey mass... use it!
This just now tells me you have never FC'd anything. Good job talking about stuff you know nothing about. I'll tell you what bombers let to SLOWCATS its the only thing I've used though out delve and southern war after a while. Why? Bombs cant touch em. With these changes if bombs dont get curb-stomped all you will see is 100+ slowcats on every defensive op. Because nothing will be able to touch them in their own space period.
Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress.
oh and firewall will have to be with the fleet not behind because imagine you can get bombed from every direction not just from were the enemy fleet is. So why would your firewall stay between you and your enemy if they are not using missiles?.... Thanks for showing your deep understanding for eve online fleet doctrines and how to use em. carry on. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1186
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 07:51:18 -
[733] - 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.
The extended flight time of bombs in conjuction with the lower hitpoints allowing off-space smartbombs to more easily destroy bombs makes battleship doctrines more worthwhile, though it could take quite a bit of organization to not lose your entire fleets drones the moment any bomb appears coming toward your ships.
I'm of a mixed opinion in that I completely agree, as they are now, bombers are too effective against large fleets. However, for small gang, roaming stuff, they arent all that problematic. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1186
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 08:00:49 -
[734] - Quote
. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1548
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 08:11:54 -
[735] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Rowells wrote:Sieonigh 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 "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept. It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about. it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers. Neither are cloaks restricted to bombers only, and still they are discussed in this thread. Maybe i should clarify, ISboxer is not something that is essential to bombers use. A cloak is something a bomber needs to use, like bomb launchers. ISboxer discussion is a much more broad aspect than cloaks are. You take away the boxer comments and the discussion moves along as usual, take away discussion on the cloaks and a key aspect is missing. Remember we're discussing the balance of ships not the players.
We either turn this thread into an iSboxer thread and get no where or we debate the ships themselves and figure out changes from that. Otherwise we could just start talking about how unfair ISboxed miners are, or boxed nados, boxed logi, etc. |
Samsara Toldya
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
82
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 10:08:56 -
[736] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
The ISD CCL will sort out the ISBoxing comments made and hand them to those unnamed people involved with CCPs policy towards ISBoxer, because that is the job of ISD CCL. Compress feedback and deliver to the right guys.
Maybe this (and many many other) thread(s) would derail less if those persons we don't call by name but surely exists would open a discussion thread where people can discuss input broadcasting and stuff. Closing all threads about it saying "redundant... use the existing threads (which we already locked)" isn't a solution. A sticky topic in general discussion would REALLY help to keep other threads clean.
It would REALLY help your volunteer ISD CCL guys to focus the neverending discussion into one single thread.
On the topic: Increased hitpoints with increased signature and lowered align time... I do like this nerf to several FW missions. Maybe the MWD bonus should be bit stronger... 60% reduction for MWD sig penalty will still result in ~20% more signature compared to prePhoebe but the bonus hitpoints don't help with survivabilty in a way signature does. I'm totally not looking at those glascannon torpedo launcher at all
|
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
68
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 10:12:09 -
[737] - Quote
Looking good! |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1344
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 12:18:18 -
[738] - Quote
What about a special kind of torpedoes designed to attack supers?
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 12:19:43 -
[739] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote: Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress.
This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
The Ironfist wrote: oh and firewall will have to be with the fleet not behind because imagine you can get bombed from every direction not just from were the enemy fleet is. So why would your firewall stay between you and your enemy if they are not using missiles?.... Thanks for showing your deep understanding for eve online fleet doctrines and how to use em. carry on.
I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6463
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 13:20:44 -
[740] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress. This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game. Well, people do use ishtars and interceptors.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
37
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 13:59:02 -
[741] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well. isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
192
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 14:29:33 -
[742] - Quote
I wouldn't even mind it if the bombs were so weak you could only launch one or two at a time. To me it seems much more balanced if it would required a steady stream of bomb volleys to attack a large fleet instead of all in one go. I'm sure the hamsters would rejoice at not having to calculate so much AOE at the same time either. |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 14:32:50 -
[743] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
They are not an obstacle why would they all I'll do is just keep dropping slowcats and T3 fleets. You just wont have any diversity in the game in terms of fleet doctrines. Making entire ship class's obsolete is not really something I'd call balanced. Bombers used to decloak each other for ages and people still bomb'd adapt or die buddy.
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships.
Please just stop this hurts position ships against something you cant see coming just stop already.. its pretty obvious that you're a puppy who's never fc'd anything at this point. |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:25:28 -
[744] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well. isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing.
I've played the game for 2.5 years and have never had to deal with cloaky ships decloaking each other. I don't know if I'd say 2+ years of a mechanic in a game can be considered young. And if you think about it, over the course of human civilization, computers, antibiotics and even automated industry are all extremely young and we survived alright before those things came along; would you like to go back to a time before any of those things existed? Just because people got by with things the way they used to be, doesn't make it any better, and it doesn't mean that they should ever go back to the way it was before things changed. |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:33:07 -
[745] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:I wouldn't even mind it if the bombs were so weak you could only launch one or two at a time. To me it seems much more balanced if it would required a steady stream of bomb volleys to attack a large fleet instead of all in one go. I'm sure the hamsters would rejoice at not having to calculate so much AOE at the same time either.
I actually really like this idea. The "stealth" in "stealth bomber" indicates to me, that they're intended to be a strategic weapon. The idea of multiple waves of 2-3 bombers, dropping out of warp and decloaking from several different angles seems a lot more interesting and compelling gameplay to me than 8 bombers essentially carpet bombing a fleet. Sure, you could have all of your bombers warp in from the same spot in waves, but that's going to make defence easier because after the first wave, they'll know where you're coming from. If you come from different sides, they won't know where to expect you next. Also, it gives the defending fleet a little more opportunity to set up for subsequent waves, avoiding being completely wiped out by a single strike. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1831
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:36:38 -
[746] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well. isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing.
It seems You have not played the game for long.. ships did not decloak other cloacked ships for most part of eve history.. than for a SHORT period, I think about 3 years they decloacked... THEN they FIXED that, while admiting it was a mistake and now they are backtracking...
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:03:02 -
[747] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
They are not an obstacle why would they all I'll do is just keep dropping slowcats and T3 fleets. You just wont have any diversity in the game in terms of fleet doctrines. Making entire ship class's obsolete is not really something I'd call balanced. Bombers used to decloak each other for ages and people still bomb'd adapt or die buddy. Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships.
Please just stop this hurts position ships against something you cant see coming just stop already.. its pretty obvious that you're a puppy who's never fc'd anything at this point.
So, what is your suggestion then? All I keep seeing is tears and cries that you can't use anything besides slowcats (which will be interesting to see you deploying after phoebe) and T3s. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:15:49 -
[748] - Quote
This might be sidetracking a little bit but since the main subject is how bombers are so OP and kill everything below Titan class (exaggeration intended), why not provide more tools for the fleets to counter the bomber menace instead of just trying to kill the bomber concept?
Create deployable units similar to the cyno inhibitors but that the sole purpose is to prematurely detonate any bombs within x km from it (50k for instance) kind of a sentry laser detonator of sorts. This way, less moveable fleets can protect themselves from bombing (as long as the bomb detonator is still alive).
This would help fleets to protect exposed flanks from bombing and add another tactical layer to the bombing run, which would need to either have the bomb detonators eliminated or position themselves in a way that the bombs wouldn't get intercepted. |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:46:52 -
[749] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:This might be sidetracking a little bit but since the main subject is how bombers are so OP and kill everything below Titan class (exaggeration intended), why not provide more tools for the fleets to counter the bomber menace instead of just trying to kill the bomber concept?
Create deployable units similar to the cyno inhibitors but that the sole purpose is to prematurely detonate any bombs within x km from it (50k for instance) kind of a sentry laser detonator of sorts. This way, less moveable fleets can protect themselves from bombing (as long as the bomb detonator is still alive).
This would help fleets to protect exposed flanks from bombing and add another tactical layer to the bombing run, which would need to either have the bomb detonators eliminated or position themselves in a way that the bombs wouldn't get intercepted.
This is an interesting idea, but the problem that I see with it is that it then just becomes another mandatory part of any fleet doctrine. That's not a problem by itself, but on the surface, this looks extremely OP simply because it's an automated defence that completely negates bombers. I'm sure that there could be some restrictions and cooldowns associated with this type of unit that would make it viable though.
Personally, I like the idea of making this type of defence be an actual fleet role. Something for destroyers, or even cruisers to handle. There have been several suggestions in this thread and in other locations, that this could be a great way to make defender missiles viable again, if they affected bombs. That way, it's something where somebody has to actively do something, rather than simply deploying a module, and it could be something that fairly low SP pilots could do and add a significant contribution to the fleet. |
Flaming Forum Spammer
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 02:56:25 -
[750] - Quote
the ability to shoot a freaking bomb please. Dessies want some more range action. bombs shot down should still do some AoE damage, but like 20% -they are bombs after all.
Balance Cloakies
Have cloaking devices consume Liquid Ozone to truly cloak a ship, 1 unit per 20 minutes or something. If no ozone, cloak reduces speed/lockrange/scanres by 50%, reduces sig radius by 90% so it gives off screwy interference, and uses capacitor rapidly.
please -let covert ships not decloak within 5km of each other |
|
|
|
|
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 |