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) |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
KaRa DaVuT wrote:no more "no effort" bombing.
ty fozzie
<3 u bro, u know that but in this aspect, you're dead wrong Kara. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
763
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:32:00 -
[62] - Quote
no effort bombing is still around m8
u just need 8 accounts and a program that they won't comment on
absolutely rediculous
riot please save us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
123
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:33:00 -
[63] - Quote
Good job CCP Fozzie.
I grew up in a world where bombers were decloaking each others. Just get good whiners.
Now it's time to work on a golden armor and fedoras for the New Eden Store. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1401
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:43:00 -
[64] - Quote
Decloaking again is a good thing. Thumbs up. TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Paralein
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:43:00 -
[65] - Quote
Two questions:
- Setting up manual bombing runs already requires some work, so a LOT of people use ISBoxer to remove some of the hassle. The decloaking change will make human-controlled bombing runs considerably more difficult to set up, while ISBoxer bombing probably won't be affected all that much. Is this intended? Does it play any role in your thoughts about bomber balancing?
- Are there any plans to change the MASSIVE difference in bomb effectiveness against shield- and armortanked targets?
If someone asked me what I'd change about bombers, I'd probably say ISBoxer and the effectiveness of bombs vs shieldtanked targets, it really baffles me how CCP apparently intends to make ISBoxer bombing even stronger. |
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:44:00 -
[66] - Quote
All the changes here are great, but the cloak reset to the old bugged way is aweful. This will have a negative affect on other ships than bombers, notably exploring gangs, let alone having flown in a few bomber fleets as part of the npsi community this will make it high impossible to organise pilots to do.
CCP you've solved the issues with more defensive options for fleets to use, they really aught to be considering pilots bring a smartbomb on two or three of their ships for bomber defence, if a fleet brings a bubble (and the new one is great) and bubble the moment a bomber fleet appears you can wipe out the majority of bombers in the bubble.
The cloaking change effectively ruins flying as a group, as you will go back to decloaking each other mid warp, and neigh impossible to land a fleet cloaked for a bombing run.
Does the cloaking mechanic revert only affect bombers? |
Techno Model
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:47:00 -
[67] - Quote
:Slowly goes around collecting the tears of PASTA and other risk averse multiboxers:
Impressive response to a problem that has been plaguing EVE for far too long. Now we can finally end the easy mode bombing runs and make it a skill based effort.
Would like to see a staged reduction in bomb damage as well, the current excessive value is stifling proper PVP in favour of multiboxing no riskers. |
ulililillia
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:50:00 -
[68] - Quote
Techno Model wrote::Slowly goes around collecting the tears of PASTA and other risk averse multiboxers:
Impressive response to a problem that has been plaguing EVE for far too long. Now we can finally end the easy mode bombing runs and make it a skill based effort.
Would like to see a staged reduction in bomb damage as well, the current excessive value is stifling proper PVP in favour of multiboxing no riskers. Im sorry, this is a nerf to regular bombing, not iskboxer |
Oddsodz
C.Q.B Bohica Empire
103
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:50:00 -
[69] - Quote
Quote:Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
So this one step BACKWARDS is all about curbing muti-boxing software users. But in doing so you are funking up the play styles of countless players all across the game just to curb a (for now) small set of multi-boxing software users.
Please CCP (not just you Fozzie) Get your head out of the sand and ban the use of multi-box software. All you are doing with this change is addressing the symptoms and not the cause.
The cause is multi-box software. Not only has it made bombing for them that use it easy. It is also helping to out competing players in the mining community and the Incursion community.
Sure right now it's only a small bunch of players using multi-box software. But every time miss an opportunity to ban it. All you are saying to the rest of the player base is "HTFU AND GET MORE ACCOUNTS YOUR POORS"
When a new player enters the game. The 1st thing he should do right now is learn how to install and use multi-box software. Because with out it, He will never be competitive in the PVP game. Why? Because he will not have the ISK to fly all the ships he is going to need to fly at the same time when competing with other players that are using multi-box software.
When one players is cornering the ICE market in hisec because he can use 40 (yes this is true) mining ships at the same time, You know something has to be done.
TL;DR
This change is wrong. Fix the real issue, not the symptoms. |
Vhaine Vhindiscar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:54:00 -
[70] - Quote
Number one, nobody gives a flip about bomb deployment. It's a buff without an audience. You don't USE the ships that way. It takes way to long to setup in order to use the bombs and actually survive.
Two, decloaking other ships is bad. It's not a bomber nerf, it's a nerf to every cloaking ship in the game. Black ops need a nerf, right? Bomb trucks need a nerf to, way to op with all that ammo and no guns. It was annoying before you fixed it, and it'll be annoying after you fix it. More no fun allowed 'fixes' from ccp. STOP....while there's any fun actually left in this game.
Nobody asked for this and it won't fix your little isboxer problem. Those guy won't be affected. So if I want to fly a bomber in fleet fights, I need ISboxer now? Is that what it's really about? Cause that's what where you are placing the incentive. |
|
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1850
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:56:00 -
[71] - Quote
Vhaine Vhindiscar wrote: Nobody asked for this and it won't fix your little isboxer problem. Those guy won't be affected. So if I want to fly a bomber in fleet fights, I need ISboxer now? Is that what it's really about? Cause that's what where you are placing the incentive.
Yes, I am sorry. You can join PASTA and learn the ways of ISBoxing bombers which with these changes are obviously encouraged by CCP.
|
Elisk Skyforge
Night Raven Task Force Night Raven Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:58:00 -
[72] - Quote
"This change will add some more complexity to organizing multiple cloaked ships, as well as returning the old gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship."
How about having ships in same fleet/wing not decloak eachother if the above is your reason for this change? |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:59:00 -
[73] - Quote
Oddsodz wrote:Quote:Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. So this one step BACKWARDS is all about curbing muti-boxing software users. But in doing so you are funking up the play styles of countless players all across the game just to curb a (for now) small set of multi-boxing software users. Please CCP (not just you Fozzie) Get your head out of the sand and ban the use of multi-box software. All you are doing with this change is addressing the symptoms and not the cause.The cause is multi-box software. Not only has it made bombing for them that use it easy. It is also helping to out competing players in the mining community and the Incursion community. Sure right now it's only a small bunch of players using multi-box software. But every time miss an opportunity to ban it. All you are saying to the rest of the player base is "HTFU AND GET MORE ACCOUNTS YOUR POORS"When a new player enters the game. The 1st thing he should do right now is learn how to install and use multi-box software. Because with out it, He will never be competitive in the PVP game. Why? Because he will not have the ISK to fly all the ships he is going to need to fly at the same time when competing with other players that are using multi-box software. When one players is cornering the ICE market in hisec because he can use 40 (yes this is true) mining ships at the same time, You know something has to be done. TL;DR This change is wrong. Fix the real issue, not the symptoms.
QFT - though id like to ammend it to not just software but hardware command multiplication too, and an inclusion of such things to be dealt with using the 'report bot' button.
you guys say u always have logs for stuff. well you will most definitely have logs showing the exact time you recieve clients requests for a server to do stuff, even if that server runs on a 1hz cycle. it should be clear as black and white if a bunch of clients are responding with the same requests at near exact ms times. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
387
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:01:00 -
[74] - Quote
Capqu wrote:afkalt wrote:Also not really sure what dropping bubble sizes does to help. nothing i'll repost what i posted on reddit [aka the premier feedback site for eveonline]: the 10km bubble is completely garbage for anti bomber, in fact it just makes you more of a target since youre in a goddamn bubble that you can be bombed safely from way outside of only the lowest of the low fcs thought hic 1 bubbles up on their own fleet discouraged bombing at all, decent bombing fcs were always able to make warpins regardless
It's been pointed out that maybe this is an ADDITIONAL charge as opposed to a replacement.
In which case...fine. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1156
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:02:00 -
[75] - Quote
Really looks like CCP took a look at the jump changes thread, saw 'hey, lots of players are embracing a huge nerf, lets see what else we can slip by' and decided to toss this turd in the pile.
Really poorly thought out changes that are going far overboard on making bombing more difficult, while putting already strong bombers ahead of the rest. Why did the hound get such a big speed buff for example? And was it really necessary to throw on the sig radius, align time, warp speed, AND decloaking eachother all in one run? A bumper that gets pointed with 6k ehp and a bomber that gets pointed with 4k ehp are both just as dead, the hp makes no difference, but the sig radius makes you that much more likely to die. The align time makes you that much more likely to die. The warp speed change makes it harder to outrun ships like dictors chasing you, and harder to get into position fast enough to bomb properly.
What ever happened to 'lighter buffs and nerfs since with patches closer together, we can amend them sooner?'.
New jump changes: Great for eve New hictor changes: Nice for small gangs, and dealing with gatehugging capitals New relic/data changes: verymuch needed buff to exploration Bookmarks showing up in space: About time!
Mutli-faceted nerfbat assault on stealth bombers: Disappointing. Just disappointing. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
918
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:03:00 -
[76] - Quote
Elmnt80 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:New 10km Dictor Bubbles: This is a new ammo choice for dictors that act just like the normal aoe bubbles except with a smaller range and +50% bubble lifetime. These are intended to be another option that fleets can use to pull in hostiles (especially bombers) at desired ranges and should be quite useful for bubbling your own fleet. We will investigate the option of adding an equivalent Hictor version at a later date, but the system that WDFGs use for their scripting doesn't easily lend itself to this sort of use so no promises. Would it be possible to add these to the syndicate LP store as a faction version instead? It would actually give the syndicate LP store a desirable item, which it currently lacks and would help spur content in an area of space currently lacking. It also would not be out of place given the nature of the syndicate LP as it is currently. This is a good idea. Syndicate's LP store offerings are very sad, and adding faction interdiction probes goes with their flavor, as the current unique offerings from Syndicate LP are (useless) faction mobile drag bubbles. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:04:00 -
[77] - Quote
Elisk Skyforge wrote:"This change will add some more complexity to organizing multiple cloaked ships, as well as returning the old gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship."
How about having ships in same fleet/wing not decloak eachother if the above is your reason for this change?
I would take this idea over the proposed one any day. Why not use an uncloaked ship to decloak the bomber? This is still a valid and widely used tactic. As a bomber I have to stay still until time to drop the bombs, if a ship gets too close I'm forced to warp off, dropping the overall DPS of our bombing run, which is a good and valid tactic. |
Needmore Longcat
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
208
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:08:00 -
[78] - Quote
"hi, we're going to take the one force multiplication that smaller alliances have and destroy it to help the smaller alliances" --ccp 2014
THANKS. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:12:00 -
[79] - Quote
Lets take a look at bombers and the recent issue that the player base has had with them and the cause of the vocal minority screaming their little **** off about ISBoxer being cheating etc etc.
Like the issue with Apex forces and Sov re-balances ( which I'm still not 100% convinced will solve stagnation, but I do believe CCP is on the right track with it ) the issue with bombers have many issues that have caused them to spring up to be the massive force multiplier that they are now.
Bomb damage. Lets take a look at this mechanic. Bomb damage is X amount of a certain damage type based on the bomb and the amount of damage that a bomb can do ( X ) can only be affected by the ship's hull. This only applies to maximum damage of a bomb. The damage is applied SOLELY by the target's signature radius.
This causes issues regarding balance of bomb damage application to doctrine ships. Armor is obviously the best choice when defending against bomb damage due to their low signature radius. Thus armor ships will mitigate the maximum amount of damage possible for their size, even if they are sitting absolutely still. Shield ships however, gain their tank at the cost of signature radius. This means that as a shield ship gains more tank, it sets itself up to take even more damage from a bomb.
The inherent benefit of shield as opposed to armor is the built in drawbacks of each type of tank. Armor has no penalty to sig radius so its sig radius remain relatively unchanged, but maximum velocity is reduced. Thus the ship will travel slower and be susceptible to increased damage. Shield ships do not have a penalty to velocity but inversely have their penalty as increased shield radius. This means that shield ships will be able to move faster and are ideal for skirmish, but ships will be able to target it faster and apply damage slightly better due to its larger signature bloom.
Bombs damage are ONLY affected by the signature radius thus this means that bomb damage is extremely imbalanced towards shield. Changing bomb damage to take ship velocity into account, similar to how missiles work, would do well in balancing bomb damage between fleets and not pigeon holing fleets into armor doctrines due to this large weakness. Also introducing a skill that reduces the sig radius penalty of onlining shield extenders similar to the armor plate skill Armor Honeycombing would also benefit shield doctrine ships and help balance the skew towards armor.
Bombing mechanics. Bombs currently have an extremely high resistance to their own damage type. This means that when bombs are launched, the bombs needs to be the same type or they will destroy each other and negate the bombing run. Current mechanics allow a maximum of eight bombs to be launched before the resists fail and the bombs start to destroy each other. This mechanic is a great way to prevent a cluster of 100 bombers dropping bombs and giving the finger as they warp out.
for simplicity sake we're going to go with base damage number of 8000. This is for a perfectly skilled bomber using the correct bomb type of their hull. At 8000 damage per bomb and at a rate of 8 bombs per wave, youre looking at 64000 points of potential damage per bombing run.
Now lets take a look at the average EHP of typical doctrine ships. First lets take a look at the baltec. Roughly 150k. It would take 3 bombing runs to destroy this fleet. Each bombing run of 64k damage at 10seconds per run allowing a margin of error and thus adding another bombing run, 4 bombing runs for a total of 256k Points of damage in ... lets say 45 seconds, allowing around 5 seconds of error.
This amount of damage applied to an area wipes out an entire fleet and is extremely difficult, nay near impossible for slow moving ships to counter. This is one of the reasons you do not see battlecruisers doctrines anymore. The smaller tank yet larger sig accompanied by lower velocity all adds to a death trap asking to be bombed when taking these types of fleets out.
My suggestion to fix this issue is to only do half of what you are currently thinking of implementing. Half the resists or the hp on the bombs to reduce the maximum number of bombs per run down to 4. 5 maybe at most. The reduced alpha and the increased time needed to run a complete set of bombing runs to get to the amount of damage needed to clear a fleet will allow FCs and pilots to react accordingly. Adding 2 seconds but leaving the damage unchanged does not change the current issues that exist with bombers.
I am quickly running out of characters for this post so I will touch up on 2 last things.
Decloaking cloaked ships with cloaked ships. This was a bug that was fixed, not a feature granted to us by CCP to make bombing easier. Please do not lie to us. The change was implemented because it was a bug and it required fixing. Changing this to make it seem like a feature is... for lack of a better word, stupid. Creating a mechanic that is simply harder for the sake of simply making it harder does not make a good game. When you do that, you are merely punishing the regular players.
The heart of the bomber problem is their ability to apply large amounts of damage quickly in rapid succession and the inability of ships to mitigate the damage from these bombs.
I was hoping to make only a single post, but it seems that the last bit is going to have to be made with a 2nd post. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1803
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:12:00 -
[80] - Quote
My main problem with the changes is the effect on OTHER cloaky ships. Even warpign 2 recons together will ensure they will ALWAYS land uncloaked, even if you warp them to different distances from target, just because they decloak in mid space.
COuld at least somethign be made so that the decloackign only happens when you LAND on grid? So that if you warp 1 guy at 10 and other at 20 to target theydo not decloak in warp? "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:13:00 -
[81] - Quote
Allow me to quote myself on this issue from when you were still stealth-testing this:
Quote:So, bombs are op, better nerf cloaks?
Not sold; how about we get a rework of what actually makes bombers so dominant on today's battlefield instead of this half assed change that will only serve to make life difficult for everybody that wishes to use a cloak with a few fleetmates?
ISBoxed bombers will be hit the least by this as, once input, the warp-in ranges work perfectly every time, while human fleets are prone to pilot error.
Main point bolded for your convenience. |
Shade Millith
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
144
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:13:00 -
[82] - Quote
Oddsodz wrote:This change is wrong. Fix the real issue, not the symptoms.
The issue is bombs in general, not just ISBoxing ones. They're far, FAR to easy to accomplish these days, with so little people, for the massive effect they have.
Bombing runs in general needed a nerf. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1803
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:14:00 -
[83] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Lets take a look at bombers and the recent issue that the player base has had with them and the cause of the vocal minority screaming their little **** off about ISBoxer being cheating etc etc.
Make bombs have an explosion velocity and voil+í.. cruisers and BC movign with an AB will take little damage. THAT at least would add a new possibility.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
CarbonFury
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:16:00 -
[84] - Quote
Hey Fozzie - I have a few questions about the motives of these changes:
1. What emergent gameplay will result from trying to nerf bombers or make them harder to pilot?
2. How do you think these changes will affect ISBoxer bombers?
3. How do you think these changes will affect 1person per char bombers and their FCs?
Bombers are a result of people recognizing that the only way to beat the blob is by using better tactics to do so: coordinated bombing runs from different directions, on grid warp-ins/pings, timing, etc. The reason people die to bombs is because they are bad. There is really no other excuse. Every single time I have been in a fleet and it died to bombs was because there was some simple mistake made by myself or the FC: warp to gate with bubble on it and enough hostiles in system to represent a bombing threat, sitting on a grid NOT INSIDE A BUBBLE, warping to a ping during a fight without having bubbles up when you land (warping to a hic with a bubble up). Every time I have killed people it has been because they made the same mistakes listed above. Last night HERO warped to the same ping off their station 5 times, I bombed them on the 4th and missed, but got them on the 5th. Like wtf. On the flip side, every time I have lost a squad of bombers it was because the opposing side did what they needed to to kill the bombers. It's not hard, it just requires effort and a litttttle bit of coordination.
Bombers are an essential way to even the playing field when people bring N+1 dudes and don't use basic defensive tactics. To make it even worse, now when they do bring their N+1 dudes and tidi is at 10% they're going to have an extra 2s of non-tidi time before bombs go off? In Tidi it's already enough time for any uncoordinated fleet to react to the bomb run - but now the bombers will get decloaked by eachother when they land on their bomb position giving extra time for the hostiles to react, +2s of non-tidi time (like 20s of real world time??)... lololol.
I like the dictor change as it requires someone to do something to counter the bombers. I would look to more changes like this and the bomb HP nerf so it gives people options to counter them rather than just making them so bad that no one brings them except the dedicated ISBoxers. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1803
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:19:00 -
[85] - Quote
ALso the declaok changes will be a nerf to peopel using Black ops not as just a portal generator but somethign to sneak into targets.
the patience but rewardign game of approachign a target with 2-3 blackops slowly and then gank him will be gone. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
242
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:20:00 -
[86] - Quote
I'm not a fan of the return the cloaky ships decloaking each other. This is going to be a real pain for other ship classes. Especially annoying for something like Recons. |
Ziraili Onzo
Yggdrasil Woodchoppers
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:21:00 -
[87] - Quote
As a cloaky bastard for life, i love my bombers. But I also understand that the ships needs some rebalance. However as so many have already pointed out, this don't really fix the thing thats the biggest problem with bombers, ISBoxing. Single individuals have become very famous for having their own alt-squad of bombers making near to perfect runs every time. Bombing shouldn't be that easy, and it also shouldn't be a solo-operation (unless your using 1x bomber and nuking that mwding frig). The cloaking changes is a huge nerf, but we bombed in the past, and we will continue to bomb in the future. Not gonna cry about not implementing them, but a reason for why that change was good back in 2012, was cause it removed what could only be described as dumb luck from setting up bombing runs.
All pilots should have a infinite loop of "collect information>make choice>execute".. without any way of collecting information as to when/if your getting decloaked, all you can do is pray. We need a way to collect that information, at least from those trying to achieve the same bombrun as yourself. Maybe by showing them on your overview still, something as simple as that (but disable "keep at distance"-option so its not too easy.. manual pilot is your friend). Whatever way ends up being available, there have to be some way of collecting information, the mantra of EVE is to make conscious choices. Without any way of knowing, setting up a bombrun is pure luck, a coin-flip at best. Would even think it was lower chance than that of being successful. With the reduction of agility, the diff. between individual pilot navigation-skills will make it more likely people end up within range to decloak each other once you start aligning to make the run.
THEN comes the act of execution, something that in itself can swing both ways for success or fail, but at least that part of the game is more balanced now with the new 10km bubbles, those i like. Gonna separate the men from the boys in the bombers-game :P
And lets just say that trying to counter some of the nerfs with buffs seems a bit out of touch with the game.. CPU increase, sure.. But HP buff? On a bomber?? HP isnt your tank, never been, never will be. If your getting locked up and shot, your already dead no matter your EHP. The cloak is your tank, dont insult us by saying you find it fair to nerf bombers but give us some HP in return. I dont need more tank, i need information to make decisions on the fly that has a effect on the outcome. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:22:00 -
[88] - Quote
Continuing from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5123470#post5123470
Lastly, for the vocal minority of a mob that is currently attempting to blame everything and their mother on this topic, multiboxing is not cheating. ISBoxer is not cheating. Get over it. Because a player enjoys a different style of gameplay that you do not agree with , does not make the said player a cheater. The definition of a cheater is defined by the masters of the game. This can be changed by appealing to said masters. And this appeal was made. ISBoxing was a bannable offense in its infancy, but this ruling was changed , not because the corporate heads came together and decided that ISboxer generates more revenue, but because ISboxer's functionality is no different than a hardware set up that mirrors keys across physical computers. The difference is that it does it via software instead of hardware.
People have their own play styles that they enjoy to each their own as long as it does not break CCP's rules they should all be welcomed in this sandbox that we play.
People complaining about ISboxer pvp is equivalent to players informing all hisec players that they are no longer allowed to run missions because those players are a detriment to the economy. After all, they do not add content to the game and even CCP is quoted saying that hisec mission runners tend to quit after a while anyway. Mining in hisec is now banned. Mining should only be done in nullsec, since mining has no risk involved in highsec.
These are all opinions and arguments about ISBoxer sound as ridiculous to me as these 2 silly examples I have given above. I have come across players who do not agree with ISBoxer and that it takes away from the emergence of the game, but then I turn around and ask them how many accounts they have, and how that is any different from an ISBoxing multiboxer.
They are all different styles of play and they all have their place in New Eden. Everyone is welcome to have an opinion, but please don't try and force those opinions on others and try and make it law.
In closing,
Please address the actual reasons why bombing has become to prevalent and fix those rather than attempting to bandaid fix something that does not address the main issues.
sig radius penalties, bomb damage only relying on sig radius, bomb "alpha" being too high with 8 bombs per wave, and lastly to the players that share this great world of New Eden with myself and many others, please stop trying to define what is cheating in this game based solely on your own narrow view
|
Black Ambulance
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:22:00 -
[89] - Quote
NERF bombers = solution for terrible server hiccups ?
I just remember when nulli died to cfc bombers because they was unable to jump through the gate, as server fu*ked up.
So this is like a solution how to fix the server issues.
|
Wacktopia
Noir. Suddenly Spaceships.
710
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:23:00 -
[90] - Quote
Quote:Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
Really?! Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together - -áFleet-Up.com |
|
|
|
|
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 |