Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
731
|
Posted - 2016.12.06 15:19:27 -
[151] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Now please tell me where in game it tells you that your facing is a purely visual construct and the server represents you purely by a velocity. Players should not have to have in depth knowledge of the physics engine behind the game to know what effect something will have. Devil's advocate - you think a great many players invest enough time to train into a stealth bomber, join a group to make use of a mass bombing run...but haven't played enough to know that movement mitigates damage and that's generally a good idea to be moving in combat? Or that nobody in the bombing group will make mention that movement is necessary for a bomb run?
I say Devil's Advocate because I'm not against the change in any way shape or form, but the reasoning seems a bit silly. And yes, the fix is already being done so it's not like dev resources can be repurposed elsewhere at this stage, but this seems like an incredibly niche situation and that maybe some time would have been better spent elsewhere.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3367
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 02:05:23 -
[152] - Quote
Professor Humbert wrote:Trying to find more fleet roles for the null-sec alphas, perhaps? What's next? Defender missiles shooting down bubbles, eh?
to be fair this is an idea the community has bean bringing up for years in regards to defenders working against bombs
BLOPS Hauler
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
21816
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 12:48:21 -
[153] - Quote
Capqu wrote:these changes would have been good 2 years ago
Probably it was on the timeline and they came to that feature just now.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò =ƒÜÇ
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ Osprey
|
Gizzie Haslack
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 12:58:33 -
[154] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Professor Humbert wrote:Trying to find more fleet roles for the null-sec alphas, perhaps? What's next? Defender missiles shooting down bubbles, eh? to be fair this is an idea the community has bean bringing up for years in regards to defenders working against bombs
Considering how BB melted down an entire fleet on Sunday Night I can see why they say it, but...
Bombers can't be insured. They are expensive to run. Unlike a Caracal or BLAH. If you want to take away our blappage then you have to give us something back.
I'm not opposed to Patriot Missile systems, but Bombing is chuffing expensive ( including the ammo too. 6m a shot etc ).
If Cov & Black Ops got limited cover on our Insurance ( 20m max payout for a Nemesis ), instead of pretty-much none ( 5m max ), then I would be a LOT happier. Game Balance is Game Balance. It costs about 35m to fit a bomber, and that's with just Torpedoes in it. And we're only covered for about 5m...
Or there is no point in flying Cov Ops. Basically.
There is a business argument that Cov & Black Ops are 'high risk high reward', but if you Take Away Our Guns (tm) then where is the adjustment for the lower reward ( as in, more of us will be shot down )?
I know winning gets you the Cargo, but what if the Cargo is naff? Cargo is luck. It's not very reliable on it's own.
Take away some of our power and you'll have to compensate us for the higher casualty rate we'll suffer, or there is no point in flying these expensive uninsurable Ships. Even though they are important to the game. Important?
Sisters of Eve have normalised Cov Ops tech now ( we need the Black Holes etc ), so surely the Insurance Firms will have to keep up with this change from 'plausable deniability' to 'normal exploration' if the Cov Ops role is still important for stuff. Especially with our risks going up to do it with these new Defender Missiles coming in to play.
We are just exploring; & Low, Null, & WH space can be rough. Why are we the only ones in Frigates who can't get cover? |
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
3005
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 15:47:28 -
[155] - Quote
Gizzie Haslack wrote:
We are just exploring; & Low, Null, & WH space can be rough. Why are we the only ones in Frigates who can't get cover?
Because you decided to fly TII maybe? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18475
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 19:59:28 -
[156] - Quote
Why the change to stationary bombs? I always saw it as a valid tactic to drop one of these if you found yourself tackled. A suicide bomb if you will. |
Gizzie Haslack
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 21:26:36 -
[157] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Gizzie Haslack wrote:
We are just exploring; & Low, Null, & WH space can be rough. Why are we the only ones in Frigates who can't get cover?
Because you decided to fly TII maybe?
There were perks to flying T2, that are now being reduced. To the point where there is no point? Be careful on that one.
|
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
14
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 22:00:13 -
[158] - Quote
Defender Missiles looks to me basically how to rework one not used thing to another rare used thing.
Bomb launch change is very strange IMHO. Wouldn't it be better to guarantee bomb always fly 3km/s from ship front even for ship at 0 speed? I understand it is easier to put simple condition in the code than to switch bomb parameters evaluation from movement vector to ship orientation vector. |
Cade Windstalker
624
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 22:33:57 -
[159] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Why the change to stationary bombs? I always saw it as a valid tactic to drop one of these if you found yourself tackled. A suicide bomb if you will.
I would assume because the behavior is unintuitive and is mostly unexpected and detrimental to the majority of players that experience it. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3760
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 23:24:16 -
[160] - Quote
Croc Evil wrote:Defender Missiles looks to me basically how to rework one not used thing to another rare used thing.
Bomb launch change is very strange IMHO. Wouldn't it be better to guarantee bomb always fly 3km/s from ship front even for ship at 0 speed? I understand it is easier to put simple condition in the code than to switch bomb parameters evaluation from movement vector to ship orientation vector. There is no such thing in the code as ship orientation vectors. There is only movement. Ship Orientation is a purely client side graphics render based on the movement vector, and changing the codebase to have an actual ship orientation would be a huge project. |
|
Cade Windstalker
624
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 23:57:51 -
[161] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Croc Evil wrote:Defender Missiles looks to me basically how to rework one not used thing to another rare used thing.
Bomb launch change is very strange IMHO. Wouldn't it be better to guarantee bomb always fly 3km/s from ship front even for ship at 0 speed? I understand it is easier to put simple condition in the code than to switch bomb parameters evaluation from movement vector to ship orientation vector. There is no such thing in the code as ship orientation vectors. There is only movement. Ship Orientation is a purely client side graphics render based on the movement vector, and changing the codebase to have an actual ship orientation would be a huge project.
This, that's why ships tend to act weirdly for certain functions at 0m/s, and why align time is calculated from a standing start and is the same regardless of initial 'orientation' unless the ship is already moving. |
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations Phoenix Naval Systems
174
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 03:38:23 -
[162] - Quote
The removal of the 0ms bomb drop will be missed. Could we see some kind of specialty bomb to replace it.
My gut tells me that these defender missiles will over all not do as well as we hope, while also killing off the use of bombs more so than it has by other meta factors. Of which having read some of the other posts in this thread others can explain better.
With that in mind I think CCP should start looking at other non stealth ships to let us fit bomb launchers too. Or removing or lessening bomb wave limits so that we have more options to getting around the need for just more bombing alts to get good runs.
Not sure if its a good idea, but I would get great personal joy if all battleships could fit bomb launchers as a utility. |
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
1266
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 03:48:02 -
[163] - Quote
Given what's been said about the random bomb selection and the behavior of the missiles after a bomb has been destroyed, I don't see this as a hard counter to bombs. I see it as adding some amount of mitigation. I don't think that in practice it will be all that bad for bombers. Throw in the additional incentive for new players to get involved meaningfully and have to learn to coordinate, and it's probably a net positive.
The thing that I don't like about it is giving the bonus to command destroyers. We have enough reasons to fly destroyers right now. I'd prefer to see keep the ability to fit them to t1 destroyers (for Alphas) and add the ability for assault frigates to fit them, and put the bonus there.
But maybe that's just because I love my AFs.
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony Mordus Angels
903
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 04:10:24 -
[164] - Quote
A cunning masterplan. Talk CCP into putting defenders on Assault Frigs; plea for additional PG/CPU to be able to fit these modules, even though we never intend to use them; and eventually end up with assault frigs finally allowing some room for creativity. Brilliant! \o/ |
Cade Windstalker
624
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 04:15:32 -
[165] - Quote
I don't think AFs are the right hull for this sort of thing. It doesn't fit their other roles and bonuses for one.
I do agree that this won't kill bomb use though. It's mitigation and there will be ways around it, whether that's with clever bomb deployment timings or just throwing more bombs at the problem. Right now though Bombs are far too useful and powerful for anyone to seriously consider abandoning them, and similarly this will probably push large fleet FCs to form squads of Command Destroyers for a mix of range control and bomb defense.
Worst cases for this change are either they have to tone it down a little, or it doesn't have a significant impact on fleet comps and things stay more or less as they are. |
Gizzie Haslack
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 08:58:30 -
[166] - Quote
Glathull wrote:Given what's been said about the random bomb selection and the behavior of the missiles after a bomb has been destroyed, I don't see this as a hard counter to bombs. I see it as adding some amount of mitigation. I don't think that in practice it will be all that bad for bombers. Throw in the additional incentive for new players to get involved meaningfully and have to learn to coordinate, and it's probably a net positive.
The thing that I don't like about it is giving the bonus to command destroyers. We have enough reasons to fly destroyers right now. I'd prefer to see keep the ability to fit them to t1 destroyers (for Alphas) and add the ability for assault frigates to fit them, and put the bonus there.
But maybe that's just because I love my AFs.
AF's eh? Not a bad idea.
But with Bomb Prices so high I am still wary about making it pointless to use Cov-Ops. If Defender Missiles are too good ( unrealistically good compared to Patriot Missile systems ) then a lot of people won't be able to afford to fly Bombers/ T2.
Which isn't great, let's be honest. They're just frigates after all.
Why train when there is no point? And then you lose ship choice, which means losing part of the fun of this game.
I've revised my view to thus:
Defender Missiles for AF's and Dessies. 50% accuracy or summat.
Insurance for T2 ships adapting to the new Sisters of EVE " we need the wormholes " by paying out 15-20m for a 35m Bomber ( instead of the current 5m tops ). Do you need those Wormholes or not?
That would keep game balance. Blapping uninsurable ships more ( what Defenders are about, let's be honest ) would certainly damage the Sisters of EVE initiative, as hunting Cloakies would become more of an option.
I may fly with BB, but the first thing I looked into was how to kill them. I won't say it here, but ISK warfare is a problem for BB if the enemy do certain things. And Defenders are about ISK warfare.
If there is no loot/ less loot, and the ships cost a fortune, then who is going to bother? Serious question. Fun is fun, but if it is too hard to get the ISK then fun will suffer. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 11:35:04 -
[167] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I don't think AFs are the right hull for this sort of thing. It doesn't fit their other roles and bonuses for one.
I do agree that this won't kill bomb use though. It's mitigation and there will be ways around it, whether that's with clever bomb deployment timings or just throwing more bombs at the problem. Right now though Bombs are far too useful and powerful for anyone to seriously consider abandoning them, and similarly this will probably push large fleet FCs to form squads of Command Destroyers for a mix of range control and bomb defense.
Worst cases for this change are either they have to tone it down a little, or it doesn't have a significant impact on fleet comps and things stay more or less as they are.
Oh god not you again :)
People did abandon bombing except a few FCs. Right now a successful bombrun happens every once in a month maybe even two months, compared to what we had 1 or 2 years ago that is a really low rate of occurance. Stats speak for themselves. Do you seriously think that is powerful or in its right place in meta? Have you ever tried to bomb a fleet, or are you aware of the multiple nerfs that has been done on bombing the last year? You like organization and coordination. Do yo know how much of these is needed to land a successful run, and even then every single type of fleet can avoid dying with a simple warp off? |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:24:01 -
[168] - Quote
Looks like CCP heard the majority feedback and at least postponed this change from December 13th release.
Thanks CCP for hearing us out and not rushing this change. |
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
3007
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 17:50:27 -
[169] - Quote
Gizzie Haslack wrote:
But with Bomb Prices so high I am still wary about making it pointless to use Cov-Ops. If Defender Missiles are too good ( unrealistically good compared to Patriot Missile systems ) then a lot of people won't be able to afford to fly Bombers/ T2.
Missiles in EVE always hit. There is no missing with missiles. Who care if it's better than patriot? The game does not have to follow any real life concern. It only does so when it fitting game play wise and balance wise. |
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
514
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 19:03:09 -
[170] - Quote
Quote: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.
Is there a technical reason for the change to have a minimum bomb velocity? Because otherwise you are killing a valid PVP tactics that was very inventive and difficult to pull off. You can see a few videos of it being done here (Doomcats):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VK36gWs_1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcaL8T-T2XM
I would be very disappointed to see this removed from game without some kind of justification. |
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria The Volition Cult
181
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 19:06:00 -
[171] - Quote
i support again the no need of that.
in same way give us t2 bomb heavly skill intensive or a bomber cruiser or something making bomber not daily nerfed. |
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
1267
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 21:28:27 -
[172] - Quote
Olmeca Gold wrote:Looks like CCP heard the majority feedback and at least postponed this change from December 13th release.
Thanks CCP for hearing us out and not rushing this change.
Where did you see that?
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
|
Sarah Umbra
Bishop.
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 22:53:27 -
[173] - Quote
If this change goes through in the near future, I would like to know if defender missiles on current NPC will changed with this.
Will NPC currently fitted with defender missiles be or not be able to hit incoming missiles if this change is confirmed? |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 11:57:56 -
[174] - Quote
Glathull wrote:Olmeca Gold wrote:Looks like CCP heard the majority feedback and at least postponed this change from December 13th release.
Thanks CCP for hearing us out and not rushing this change. Where did you see that?
I just didn't see the defender missile changes talked about in here in Dec 13 release notes (except the 0 velocity bombing change) |
Rthulhu Voynich
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 15:36:48 -
[175] - Quote
Patchnotes-Update:
"Changed the behavior of Defender Missiles, you can find out more here." |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6293
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 16:57:51 -
[176] - Quote
Olmeca Gold wrote:Looks like CCP heard the majority feedback and at least postponed this change from December 13th release.
Thanks CCP for hearing us out and not rushing this change.
Quote: Changed the behavior of Defender Missiles, you can find out more here.
nope.
Bear in mind, people arguing against something are almost always louder than people who like it. So 'majority feedback' is a harder thing to quantify than 'how many people posted'.
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 19:02:35 -
[177] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: Bear in mind, people arguing against something are almost always louder than people who like it. So 'majority feedback' is a harder thing to quantify than 'how many people posted'.
This is one factor but it's not that simple. There are other factors. A CSM of all people should be aware of this.
People tend to argue (even in feedback forums) taking their only own playstyle into account rather than the general goodness of the game, so if some playstyle is played less, it is gonna be defended less. We both can agree people who bomb are less than people who get bombed. This has been a way bigger factor in general in feedback forums than the "negative feedback expressed more" factor, and also is a great factor in this topic which would otherwise have been filled with negative feedback even to a way greater degree.
I think in this case the feedback, both in here and on reddit, immensely is against the change, especially considering the fact that many null FCs or capsuleers (who usually are the targets of bombing activity) also have the same stance. This can be seen if the discussions are closely analyzed.
If CCP goes along with it either they know something we don't (entirely possible), or they prioritize empowering alphas over bombing meta balance (debatable but bad choice imho for everyone including alphas), or there is not much point to these feedback forums because they don't pay attention.
You guys make us (every FC seeking content with a 20+ man bomber fleet at his/her disposal) wanna conduct bombing runs less and less each small change. Using these bombers to hotdrop on people seem way more rewarding and fun. And people with objectives (destroy citadel, enemy fleet etc) will just prefer taking other ships out. Just so you know where you keep pushing people. As a bombing FC this is the first time ever I come to this forums and make a significant case. Maybe this can show at least I'm not the type of dude who screams at forums whenever his playstyle is nerfed. |
Chenguang Hucel-Ge
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 22:28:59 -
[178] - Quote
I'm not into PvP that much, but hey, defenders sound way too OP. Still, If you insist on adding one, please do it, but not without a tool to counter this one.
Behold, duds.
We have Bomb Launcher and then we add another launcher, let's call it "Bar I". Same fitting requirements of Bomb Launcher, roughly on par everything else. The difference is charge used. It's a dud, let's call it "Misericorde I". Cheaper than carbon, does no damage at all. The trick though, these are launched 3 per cycle, allowing for mild space saturation, thus providing some damage loss mitigation at cost of extra man on the field. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3383
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 13:40:41 -
[179] - Quote
Chenguang Hucel-Ge wrote:I'm not into PvP that much, but hey, defenders sound way too OP. Still, If you insist on adding one, please do it, but not without a tool to counter this one.
Behold, duds.
We have Bomb Launcher and then we add another launcher, let's call it "Bar I". Same fitting requirements of Bomb Launcher, roughly on par everything else. The difference is charge used. It's a dud, let's call it "Misericorde I". Cheaper than carbon, does no damage at all. The trick though, these are launched 3 per cycle, allowing for mild space saturation, thus providing some damage loss mitigation at cost of extra man on the field.
nope the counter is bluff runs/more bombs per run 7 is no longer the holy number
BLOPS Hauler
|
Gizzie Haslack
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 13:48:09 -
[180] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Chenguang Hucel-Ge wrote:I'm not into PvP that much, but hey, defenders sound way too OP. Still, If you insist on adding one, please do it, but not without a tool to counter this one.
Behold, duds.
We have Bomb Launcher and then we add another launcher, let's call it "Bar I". Same fitting requirements of Bomb Launcher, roughly on par everything else. The difference is charge used. It's a dud, let's call it "Misericorde I". Cheaper than carbon, does no damage at all. The trick though, these are launched 3 per cycle, allowing for mild space saturation, thus providing some damage loss mitigation at cost of extra man on the field. nope the counter is bluff runs/more bombs per run 7 is no longer the holy number
Launching duds for the real bombs to hide amongst is a reasonable strategy. If the defenders chase a dud then that is handy stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |