Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
638
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 11:24:09 -
[1] - Quote
Hi Space Friends,
Coming with the December release, we're going to be releasing a feature we talked about at EVE Vegas 2016.
Defender Missile Skill The skill, Defender Missiles, will no longer require Missile Launcher Operation. All alpha characters will be able to train this to Level 1. The skill will provide a 10% per level bonus to Defender Missile velocity. No other skills will effect Defender Missiles.
Defender Missiles Defender Missiles will no longer shoot down missiles aimed at you. Instead they will launch at a random bomb (non-structure) within its flight range. A single defender missile will kill any bomb. These defender missiles can only be loaded into a new defender launcher (described below) The Defender Missile I has a base range of 30km (45km at max skills), and a flight time of 3 seconds. During the December patch downtime, all existing defender missiles (and their blueprints) will become the new Defender Missile I
Defender Launchers The Defender Launcher I can only load Defender Missiles. It may only be fit to Destroyer class vessels (Destroyers, Interdictors, Command Destroyers and Tactical Destroyers). Once activated, it will scan local space for any bombs,and if it finds one within range, launch a defender missile to intercept it. If it doesn't find any bombs within range, it will still cycle. The Defender Launcher I has a 120 second reactivation timer. It doesn't require a launcher hardpoint, and has low fitting requirements (10 cpu, 2 powergrid), but uses some capacitor (50gj) to activate.
Command Destroyers Command Destroyers receive at 50% role bonus to decreasing the reactivation timer on Defender Launchers.
Bomb Changes Bombs now have a Minimum Velocity of 1m/s that you must be traveling at before you can launch. This is to fix some issues that can happen when your velocity is 0, causing the bomb not to move and just explode on you.
You can checkout these changes (and more) on Sisi soon. We appreciate any feedback you have!
Cheers, CCP Larrikin and Team Phenomenon
Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin
|
|
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
638
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 11:24:18 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved
Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin
|
|
Capqu
Half Empty
1204
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 12:07:40 -
[3] - Quote
waste of goddamn time
fozzie sov was enough of a nerf to bombing already, this is totally unnecessary
noone is bombing currently in eve because you reliably cannot predict where the fight will be and bombing requires some setup time
these changes would have been good 2 years ago
now adays test and friends are literally flying around in the most bombable doctrines in history but noone can be bothered bombing them because its impossible to predict where engagements will happen and super dds are just better bombs anyway
in adition 0 velocity bombs was some of the hardest **** to pull off and almost never saw any use so removing it for no reason i dont even understand, you just dont want people to be able to innovate?
thanks for the final nail o7 bongers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Porucznik Borewicz
calamitous-intent Feign Disorder
68
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 12:11:19 -
[4] - Quote
Capqu wrote:waste of goddamn time God bless. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
724
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 12:26:33 -
[5] - Quote
My god you guys seem to have some serious love for destroyers lately.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
James Zimmer
D3RP Clan Elemental Tide
51
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 12:38:55 -
[6] - Quote
A few thoughts:
1. Bombs are generally launched in waves, and defenders will now randomly go after bombs. One bomb wave, and you may destroy every bomb, the next wave, only a single bomb (at least that's how I understand the mechanics as you describe them). That lack of consistency would be frustrating, especially in a game that is significantly less random than other MMOs.
2. Bombers have already gone through several waves of nerfs. IMO. they don't need this nerf.
3. Destroyers are the meta right now, they don't need the help.
4. Command destroyers are already unique and strong. Adding a third fleet assistance role to command destroyers on top of jumping and command bursts would make them too good IMO, though I do appreciate the effort to reward people who bring combined fleets. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate
1764
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 12:39:42 -
[7] - Quote
So in order to guard your fleet effectively, you really need to put these almost directly on top of your existing fleet (which to need them would be something slow and heavy, say battlecruisers or battleships)... But they're destroyers... so realistically one or two bombs gets through and they're going to explode due to the low EHP of destroyers, especially when sig-bloomed by MWD.
They'll probably get annihilated by a small wing of RLML caracals anyway prior to bombs launching, but I'd say a passive bonus resistance to bomb damage wouldn't go amiss when fitting to destroyers. |
Dantelion Shinoni
The Black Squad
29
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 14:00:58 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: Command Destroyers Command Destroyers receive at 50% role bonus to decreasing the reactivation timer on Defender Launchers.
Please do not surcharge Command Destroyers with stuffs they don't need... We are having fun with them and they have a great and defined role in the meta right now.
I don't want to wake up and see them getting nerfed because *they did too much*.
Create a new class of Destroyers, Utility Destroyers or whatever, if you really want a Defender Missile bonus for Destroyers, no need to muddle Command Destroyers to do so. |
Starrakatt
Celtic Anarchy Complaints Department
613
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 14:33:41 -
[9] - Quote
Dantelion Shinoni wrote:Create a new class of Destroyers, Utility Destroyers or whatever, if you really want a Defender Missile bonus for Destroyers, no need to muddle Command Destroyers to do so. We don't need more Destroyers, or in fact small ships love, we need CCP to fix T3c, BLOPS and Battleships.
I think CCP is trying to get Alpha clones involved in fleet as Dessie's pilot with a use, thus the Defender Missiles change (fine enough) and the use of combined fleets (ok).
However, as already stated, Dessies will just be alphaed off the field before Bombers commit. Looks to me like another indirect atempt to fix Battleship's vulnerabilities while trying to not actually touch Battleships.
IMHO, Defenders would have seen such a better use as a battleship module.
Sneaky bastard.
Complaints Department is recruiting!
We got wardecced, ohnoes!
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Tactical-Retreat
2104
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 15:19:25 -
[10] - Quote
I like the fact that it motivates people to bring more destroyers to the field, but since this fits on T3Ds, we'll just see brick tanked T3Ds that aren't killable easily. It removes the whole strategic choice of targeting the smaller ships to unleash the bomb run and that's a shame.
Apart fom that, I don't like how it nerfs bombers again. Bombs have already been nerfed already, and lining up a good bombing run can be a PITA, not to mention that one guy that has a disconnect (something that happens quite often to some) will screw up the entire run.
These missiles shouldn't do enough damage to oneshot a bomb. Why not have bombs take two hits to explode for instance? Or maybe introduce a new type of bombs with a 20km diameter area but that can take one defender hit without dying.
And all of this doesn't address the fact that armor tanking is insanely more resistant to bombs than shield tanking. Nerfing bomb damage on both tanks doesn't solve this issue at all.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
|
White Tree
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
936
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 15:27:32 -
[11] - Quote
lol
Former member of CSM6.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
367
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 15:50:03 -
[12] - Quote
Solid nerf to lame solo bombers doing lame bombings of rookie ship cyno's for lol's in hostile space. Not writing for sympathy, just sayin'. Solo bombers can have enough trouble with nearby interdictors, (oops - cloaky, didn't see you there!) and interceptors following to celestial warp-away points.
If this is meant primarily as a new option for fleet defense & damage reduction from waves of bombers, Altrue's suggestion of two hits to destroy a bomb seems worth considering.
Also new bomb types with different stats, deployment requirements, or effects: throw bombers a bone while you are nerfing one aspect, it's a good distraction. |
mrjknyazev
MamenkinbI CbInki Space Marines.
8
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 16:02:06 -
[13] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:My god you guys seem to have some serious love for destroyers lately.
It's not like we have some kind of a ship class that serves no purpose right now other than doing anomic agent and team missions. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3135
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 16:22:16 -
[14] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:So in order to guard your fleet effectively, you really need to put these almost directly on top of your existing fleet (which to need them would be something slow and heavy, say battlecruisers or battleships)... But they're destroyers... so realistically one or two bombs gets through and they're going to explode due to the low EHP of destroyers, especially when sig-bloomed by MWD.
They'll probably get annihilated by a small wing of RLML caracals anyway prior to bombs launching, but I'd say a passive bonus resistance to bomb damage wouldn't go amiss when fitting to destroyers. A command Dessie could sit 70-130km off the fleet, see bombs, jump in and fire the missiles. Or the other way around if the bombs are the biggest danger.
With the range they offer, there's lots of flexibility in where you need to be. |
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
640
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 16:23:33 -
[15] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:So in order to guard your fleet effectively, you really need to put these almost directly on top of your existing fleet (which to need them would be something slow and heavy, say battlecruisers or battleships)... But they're destroyers... so realistically one or two bombs gets through and they're going to explode due to the low EHP of destroyers, especially when sig-bloomed by MWD.
They'll probably get annihilated by a small wing of RLML caracals anyway prior to bombs launching, but I'd say a passive bonus resistance to bomb damage wouldn't go amiss when fitting to destroyers.
This is by design. We want to ensure there is plenty of counter-gameplay to destroyers screening a fleet from bombs with defenders.
Altrue wrote:These missiles shouldn't do enough damage to oneshot a bomb. Why not have bombs take two hits to explode for instance? Given the random nature of the defender-to-bomb targeting, this would make defender missiles mostly useless, unless used en-mass.
Altrue wrote:Or maybe introduce a new type of bombs with a 20km diameter area but that can take one defender hit without dying. Thats a cool idea. Part of the effect of this change is that we have additional design room with bombs, such as hardier bombs, or new types of Ewar bombs. To clarify, we're not promising these things, just suggesting at some of the design space this change enables.
Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin
|
|
Dantelion Shinoni
The Black Squad
29
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 16:32:17 -
[16] - Quote
Starrakatt wrote: We don't need more Destroyers, or in fact small ships love, we need CCP to fix T3c, BLOPS and Battleships.
One does not prevent the other, what do you have against Small ships? Are you a sizeist??
Starrakatt wrote: I think CCP is trying to get Alpha clones involved in fleet as Dessie's pilot with a use, thus the Defender Missiles change (fine enough) and the use of combined fleets (ok).
However, as already stated, Dessies will just be alphaed off the field before Bombers commit. Looks to me like another indirect atempt to fix Battleship's vulnerabilities while trying to not actually touch Battleships.
Clear as day, and as you said yourself, this is not a bad thing. Giving more things Alphas can do in fleets is an obvious good thing.
And as the comment right after you shows, it won't be that simple to get rid of Defender destroyers, once again it all depends on the players fitting and using the thing.
BCs, Battleships provide affordable firepower, you can't also give them utility otherwise all the ships underneath them become that much useless, the move to have MJDFG on Destroyers was genius and more moves like this can only be a good thing.
Also, new ships are always fun, screw balance.
Starrakatt wrote: IMHO, Defenders would have seen such a better use as a battleship module.
Sizeist! |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3135
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 16:33:25 -
[17] - Quote
So, in regards to how it selects a bomb, is it truly random or does it pick the closest one? |
VCBee 2fast2furious
Aliastra Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 16:37:55 -
[18] - Quote
Just to confirm, do Defender Missiles 2.0 distinguish between friendly and non-friendly bombs? |
Hoshi
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
57
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 16:54:40 -
[19] - Quote
VCBee 2fast2furious wrote:Just to confirm, do Defender Missiles 2.0 distinguish between friendly and non-friendly bombs? There is a difference? A bomb will do damage to whatever is in range when it explodes no matter who launched it. Just don't activate the module if friendlies are bombing close by.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
|
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
640
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 18:28:42 -
[20] - Quote
VCBee 2fast2furious wrote:Just to confirm, do Defender Missiles 2.0 distinguish between friendly and non-friendly bombs? They do not, they target a random bomb within intercept range. It does not consider friendly or non-friendly bombs.
Rowells wrote:So, in regards to how it selects a bomb, is it truly random or does it pick the closest one? Its truly random.
Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin
|
|
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate
1764
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 21:08:51 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:So in order to guard your fleet effectively, you really need to put these almost directly on top of your existing fleet (which to need them would be something slow and heavy, say battlecruisers or battleships)... But they're destroyers... so realistically one or two bombs gets through and they're going to explode due to the low EHP of destroyers, especially when sig-bloomed by MWD.
They'll probably get annihilated by a small wing of RLML caracals anyway prior to bombs launching, but I'd say a passive bonus resistance to bomb damage wouldn't go amiss when fitting to destroyers. This is by design. We want to ensure there is plenty of counter-gameplay to destroyers screening a fleet from bombs with defenders.
If this is a design decision, I would suggest that it's a poor one...
There obviously needs to be counterplay, but by introducing the need to pray to RNGesus you've turned a potentially solid idea into something that is utterly wasteful.
My statistics are a little rusty... but as soon as the first missile is launched, every other ship has a 1 in 8 chance of being completely wasted, the second has a 2 in 8 chance of being wasted, the third has a 3 in 8 chance of being wasted, and so on. By the time you've got 4 missiles in the air you're just as likely to completely waste your shot as you are to help your fleet.
This is birthday paradox central.
Someone will have to check my maths as I'm pretty tired, but 1/8 * 2/8 * 3/8 * 4/8 * 5/8 * 6/8 * 7/8 * 8/8 means that if you counter 8 bombers with 8 support destroyers, your chance of destroying every incoming bomb is practically non-existent (0.2%) giving a 99% chance that a bomb is going to explode on top of your anti-bomber ship and likely destroy it.
That's from ONE wave... and in any major fight you're going to have 4 or 5 waves minimum to wreck the EHP of most doctrines.
With those kind of numbers, and the number of people required to effectively guard against multiple bombs in multiple waves, with such massively diminishing benefits, I see no circumstance where it would not be preferable to field those same people in sebo'd arty / rail destroyers, sit further away outside defensive bubbles, and try to blap the bombers before their bombs detonate. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3135
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 21:21:45 -
[22] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:So in order to guard your fleet effectively, you really need to put these almost directly on top of your existing fleet (which to need them would be something slow and heavy, say battlecruisers or battleships)... But they're destroyers... so realistically one or two bombs gets through and they're going to explode due to the low EHP of destroyers, especially when sig-bloomed by MWD.
They'll probably get annihilated by a small wing of RLML caracals anyway prior to bombs launching, but I'd say a passive bonus resistance to bomb damage wouldn't go amiss when fitting to destroyers. This is by design. We want to ensure there is plenty of counter-gameplay to destroyers screening a fleet from bombs with defenders. If this is a design decision, I would suggest that it's a poor one... There obviously needs to be counterplay, but by introducing the need to pray to RNGesus you've turned a potentially solid idea into something that is utterly wasteful. My statistics are a little rusty... but as soon as the first missile is launched, every other ship has a 1 in 8 chance of being completely wasted, the second has a 2 in 8 chance of being wasted, the third has a 3 in 8 chance of being wasted, and so on. By the time you've got 4 missiles in the air you're just as likely to completely waste your shot as you are to help your fleet. This is birthday paradox central. Someone will have to check my maths as I'm pretty tired, but 1/8 * 2/8 * 3/8 * 4/8 * 5/8 * 6/8 * 7/8 * 8/8 means that if you counter 8 bombers with 8 support destroyers, your chance of destroying every incoming bomb is practically non-existent (0.2%) giving a 99% chance that a bomb is going to explode on top of your anti-bomber ship and likely destroy it. That's from ONE wave... and in any major fight you're going to have 4 or 5 waves minimum to wreck the EHP of most doctrines. With those kind of numbers, and the number of people required to effectively guard against multiple bombs in multiple waves, with such massively diminishing benefits, I see no circumstance where it would not be preferable to field those same people in sebo'd arty / rail destroyers, sit further away outside defensive bubbles, and try to blap the bombers before their bombs detonate. You could do both? It doesn't appear to be meant a solid counter to a whole wave. You diminish their effectiveness, which matches the mechanics of almost every other counter-effect in game.
Even if we assume that on average you'll knock out 4/8 bombs, that mean they need to do twice as many runs, giving you double the opportunities to destroy the bombers. With its small fittings and easy skills, it's an easy addition to any destroyers on your fleet.
Other options to increase effectiveness also exist. If the denfender missiles are staggered over the course of 10 seconds, you can really improve the number of destroyed bombs by waiting until the number of bombs has dropped. |
Zappity
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
3072
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 21:47:26 -
[23] - Quote
I'd love to see new bomb types. Tracking Disruption or Missile Disruption AoE effects would be interesting.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate
1764
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 23:27:30 -
[24] - Quote
Rowells wrote:You could do both? It doesn't appear to be meant a solid counter to a whole wave. You diminish their effectiveness, which matches the mechanics of almost every other counter-effect in game.
Bombs, like all weapons, scale in a liner fashion, they don't have diminishing returns like say, a stasis webifier would.
My point was that your first wave of ships would fire off their missiles, attempting to destroy as many as possible... the chance of destroying all 8 in a wave would be incredibly low, meaning they're more often than not going to end up with the bombs going off in their faces and taking out the rest of the not-overly-tanky destroyers...
Then the next wave hits. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
433
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 00:26:06 -
[25] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Rowells wrote:You could do both? It doesn't appear to be meant a solid counter to a whole wave. You diminish their effectiveness, which matches the mechanics of almost every other counter-effect in game. Bombs, like all weapons, scale in a liner fashion, they don't have diminishing returns like say, a stasis webifier would. My point was that your first wave of ships would fire off their missiles, attempting to destroy as many as possible... the chance of destroying all 8 in a wave would be incredibly low, meaning they're more often than not going to end up with the bombs going off in their faces and taking out the rest of the not-overly-tanky destroyers... Then the next wave hits. Then you stagger the launch of the defenders. You should have enough time to get three distinct Defender waves off.
At the start, you can afford to gamble two/three Defenders as the chance of two picking the same bomb is 1/n for n-bombs. There's a ~65% chance of three Defenders picking different targets out of an eight-bomb wave.
Second round: Assuming the optimistic scenario of 5/8 bombs remaining, a second wave of three Defenders gives you a 48% chance of picking three of the remaining bombs.
That's a 31% chance of reducing bomber DPS by three quarters.
And you have about five seconds left to deal with those last two bombs.
TLDR. Don't blow your load as soon as you see bombs. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1499
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 02:33:36 -
[26] - Quote
Yea-y-ish more stuff for blobb-online. Who even needs to learn to fly when you can just bring even morerer pilots.
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Nomistrav
Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative
360
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 03:51:31 -
[27] - Quote
VCBee 2fast2furious wrote:Just to confirm, do Defender Missiles 2.0 distinguish between friendly and non-friendly bombs?
At <15km, there's no such thing as a friendly bomb :P
Third Place Winner
Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
|
Nomistrav
Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative
360
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 04:03:04 -
[28] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:Rowells wrote:You could do both? It doesn't appear to be meant a solid counter to a whole wave. You diminish their effectiveness, which matches the mechanics of almost every other counter-effect in game. Bombs, like all weapons, scale in a liner fashion, they don't have diminishing returns like say, a stasis webifier would. My point was that your first wave of ships would fire off their missiles, attempting to destroy as many as possible... the chance of destroying all 8 in a wave would be incredibly low, meaning they're more often than not going to end up with the bombs going off in their faces and taking out the rest of the not-overly-tanky destroyers... Then the next wave hits. Then you stagger the launch of the defenders. You should have enough time to get three distinct Defender waves off. At the start, you can afford to gamble two/three Defenders as the chance of two picking the same bomb is 1/n for n-bombs. There's a ~65% chance of three Defenders picking different targets out of an eight-bomb wave. Second round: Assuming the optimistic scenario of 5/8 bombs remaining, a second wave of three Defenders gives you a 48% chance of picking three of the remaining bombs. That's a 31% chance of reducing bomber DPS by three quarters. And you have about five seconds left to deal with those last two bombs. TLDR. Don't blow your load as soon as you see bombs.
Honestly, could just have one or two guys in Coraxs/Talwars play the role of Point Defense. Talwar gets a reduction to MWD sig penalty, so already he's going to fair better. Not to mention the missile velocity bonus (though I dunno if that'll affect defender missiles) would help out a bit. Slap them full of defender missiles and you have one or two guys who defend the fleet while the rest focus on their jobs. Bombing runs are situational anyway, so I don't really see a lot of fleet doctrines including one bay loaded with Defender Missiles on all ships for something that may or may not happen.
Besides, carry a Mobile Depot for refitting purposes and those guys can just switch out anyway.
Zappity wrote:I'd love to see new bomb types. Tracking Disruption or Missile Disruption AoE effects would be interesting.
Sort of like a Chaff Grenade. I like it.
Third Place Winner
Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
431
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 07:06:24 -
[29] - Quote
Glad to see defender missiles getting some love. YAY, more reasons for destroyers to be used.
Not sure if this is the kind of healthy love they need, however. Not sure why the mechanics would prevent this from becoming a proper PDS to shoot down non-friendly missiles, but I suppose it was easier to code it to shoot down slow moving bombs than fast moving missiles.
I see a potential problem with this system however: if multiple bombs are launched and you have multiple destroyers armed with defender missiles: are they smart enough to not shoot the same target? If 3 defender missiles fire at 5 bombs, will 2 bombs survive or 4?
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
|
Capqu
Half Empty
1208
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 08:13:00 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: Its truly random.
truly random is a concept, not an obtainable operation
what you mean to say it is sufficiently complex such that you cannot predict the outcome with available measurements and observations
this is not a serious post, more some attempted humour being injected into my life which my doctor (medical variety) says i sorely require
-capqu m.d. (mathematics variety)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |