|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
747
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
are you even going to mention isboxer in your thread about isboxing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
747
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
whatever about you thinking bombers need a nerf, i'm fine either way with that
but why aren't you addressing the fact that an isboxed bomber is far more effective than the equivalent players. in fact you are furthering the gap with the cloaking change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
751
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
god damn i can do a better job in 10 seconds watch
- bombs now require an activation code before being armed, random 4 digit alphanumeric number that must be entered after launch but before detonation
- bombs now have an explosion velocity akin to missiles, their damage against moving targets will be significantly reduced and signature radius is less of a factor
- combat probing time doubled
- interceptors are no longer interdiction nullified
(i threw in that last one for free) do u even play this game anymore fozzie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:(except when damage bombs are mixed with void or lockbreaker bombs, but that was already a bad idea)
this made me lol out loud in irl
you are hilariously uneducated when it comes to bombing
those bombs were designed to be used together, thats why voids launched at the same time as damage bombs detonate first and aren't destroyed by the damage bombs, and deal less damage to a damage bomb than a same type damage bomb would. in fact you could do slightly larger waves of bombs by launching voids -> damage and having the voids cap out targets before the damage arrived https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
763
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
763
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:32:00 -
[6] - 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 |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
772
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Longdrinks wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Did you just make light interdictors useless by creating interdiction stealth bombers?
It's an honest question, because this is a very significant change.
A frig with interdiction bubbling abilities is very powerful, plus being able to covop cloak.
This is a concern, but I don't know if this is op or not. you should probably read that part again lolololololololololololololol I have they bubble themselves, but a throwaway cloaky, or a permacloak bomber on a wormhole, or gate. We use sabre's in this way. The new dictor bubble is for Interdictors, not for Stealth Bombers. It's in this post because it is designed as a tool for countering bombers in some circumstances.
cmon fozzie ur better than this, don't just answer the low hanging fruit for once in your life and actually respond to the people with criticism and maybe address their concerns or something
i know you want to reply to this with some snarky bullshit but maybe just this once could u reply with how you expect this to impact isboxer instead that would be great https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
773
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
appreciate the actual reply fozzlord, regardless of how i feel on the subject
do you not think the multiplication of input specifically with regards to something as precise as bombing is a bit of an issue?
without the preciseness of isboxer, combined with the amount of human error it eliminates, i don't think there is a way of making bombing viable without it while making bombing balanced with it. unless you specifically target isboxer with some kind of detonation codes or other un-mulitpliable input i can't see bombing ever being balanced both with and without the existance of isboxer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
777
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
dj ore wrote:leave it to ccp to shake things up without any regard. why don't you fix afk 24/7 claokers that hurrasse for isk or real life cash to stop camping have cloaking devices use ozone. but no cloaked ship can decloak each others. so what cap fleet will the bombers bombs. you have nerfered the cap too they wont be fighting much any more. why don't you gusy make new shisp types more missions more anoms in 00 then mess things up. may be its time to find a different game to play. some of spent years maxing out bombers and caps and you just made them un usable as wing warp thank ccp whay are you treating us if we were blink ?
afk players can't do anything and this isn't the thread for that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
787
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:[
sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack
Yes, I am following this and collecting feedback
Yes, I have ties with Bombers Bar and Spectre fleet
Yes, I think it is a bit much though I doubt it will 'kill the lifestyle' because players are too damn stubborn to die that easily
I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
when the OP of the balance thread contains blatant misinformation as justification you know the actual knowledge in the area is going to be sparse. please consider who is saying what before you take their opinions on board.
imo a nerf to bombing was needed, but isboxed bombing is the real problem. since ccp will not consider balancing in such a way to make isbombing harder in relation to normal bombing, balance dictates that the only viable form of bombing is going to be isboxed post patch. as csm i feel like its your duty to help ccp realise that this is unacceptable seen as balancing towards increased revenue by a lot of players which is imo disgusting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
|
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
806
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:21:00 -
[11] - Quote
so the guy who decided his fleet shouldn't fit any explosive hardener and subsequently lost an entire fleet to explosive bombs on a gate basically pushed for and enabled this change is gloating that people should htfu in this thread meanwhile people with thousands of kills with bombs alone and well known boming fcs are telling you this is a stupid change
no-one is disagreeing that bombers needed a nerf, but this obtuse, archaic mechanic is not the way to go about it though and anyone with any kind of experience actually flying the ships is trying to tell you that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
814
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
I realise posting so much criticism in this thread without offering constructive feedback on what I think the issues are / proposed solutions is pretty hypocritical so I'm going to attempt to remedy that with this (hopefully) constructive feedback post. So here goes, these are what I feel like the main unaddressed issues are with bombing atm, in order of importance.
============================
ISSUE: Bombers warping fleet-doctrine meta. Far too strong against destroyer/frigate sized hulls and shield doctrines which leads to a prevailance of low sig, huge tank armor doctrines and the complete disappearance of any frigate/destroyer doctrine that cannot tank 2+ waves of bombs.
EXPLANATION: Bombs are one of the few weapons that only look at one aspect of a ships mitigation through evasion: signature. Most other weapons that can be mitigated by evasion are mitigated by both signature and speed. Armor doctrines only penalize speed, shield doctrines only penalize signature, thus armor becomes the only viable choice in a meta where bombs are used at any reasonable level. Similarly most frigate/destroyer doctrines main defense is speed, which is completely negated by bombs.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Make bombs care about both aspects of evasive mitigation. Add an explosion velocity to bombs, akin to missiles, so that shield and armor can both mitigate effectively and so that small ships relying on speed don't get obliterated. After this change mitigation for every moving ship would increase, but for shield doctrines far more than armor, and smaller class doctrines more than large. Also consider adding armor honeycombing for shield signature.
============================
ISSUE: Bombers are able to near-immediately bomb a fleet landing on grid by, making it very hard to fly doctrines that rely on light tank and sniping to stay on field.
EXPLANATION: Combat probing fleets landing on a grid and warping your bombing squad over to them is too easy. A bombing bomber can even comfortably fit an expanded launcher, meaning you don't even have to work in order to have easy access to combat probes. [common bombing fc fit for reference: https://zkillboard.com/kill/40443783/ cynos offline]
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Make bombers unable to fit expanded launchers without large sacrifices (perhaps a cpu reduction + a torp cpu usage role bonus?). Make bombers warp much slower (1.5 AU/s). Make combat probing harder. Perhaps remove the ability to warp your fleet to a result, and require the prober to warp there first. Perhaps make it so the warp to range is not reliable. Perhaps increase the time it takes to combat probe. Don't know how to achieve this without affecting other areas of the game too much, but I think combat probing is too strong in most areas anyway.
============================
ISSUE: Syncronized bombing by one person with multiple clients, ignoring fleet formup time/effort.
EXPLANATION: Bomb wave comes out at the same time (much less reaction time for targets, in a normal wave the bombs will always be slightly staggered even with a countdown). "FC" can always know where the entire bombing squad is at all times without any communication required, greatly reducing the time between runs.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION: I don't have a viable solution to this, assuming no direct counter-synchronisation options are used [i.e. arming code on each bomb]. Banning ISBoxer from being used in conjunction with bomb runs is something most players would accept, but I understand why CCP do not wish to pursue that avenue. All I can say to this is for CCP to please reconsider their stance.
============================
ISSUE: Some bombers more valuable than others.
EXPLANATION: PG on Manticore / Nemesis absurdly low compared to Purifier, Nemesis also lacks CPU for no real upside. Slot layout on Hound/Purifier much better for bombing. Damage bonus means combined with the way bombs work means you only really want one type of bomber in a fleet, restrictive for new players.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Bump Manticore / Nemesis PG to 40. Purifier down to 42. Change bomb damage bonus on hull from racial to universal damage so people aren't punished for not having the right bomber - still restrictive enough due to limited cargo space plus being unable to reload cloaked. Consider moving purifier to 5/2/4 and Nemesis to 5/3/3.
============================
I really don't want to see non-isboxed bombers become obsolete but I that is how the changes in Pheobe are currently poised. Instead of attempting to make bombers harder to use and more finicky while remaining disproportionately effective versus shield/armor/frigate doctrines, my solutions would diminish their impact on the meta allowing new doctrines to evolve, while allowing their relevance versus current doctrines to remain in a slightly weaker state. Bombers certainly don't need the HP tweaks. The align time nerfs I agree with, the bomb flight time nerfs are fine too - however these two nerfs don't affect what bombers are good against and what they warp the meta towards, all they do is affect bombers power level. While bomber power level is an issue, it is not the main problem with bombers and I hope I have proven that with this post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
817
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Burneddi wrote:How about making combat probes unable to get results on targets that are in a warp tunnel? Also make it so that the target has to be in range of the probes for the entire duration of the scan to get a result, instead of just being in range for the instant the scan ends. Would at least give people in slow-warping ships a little more time to breathe before someone combat probes them and warps on top of them. Can you imagine the additional server load?
its a good idea tbh, and it wouldnt require much more server load. a little over 2x as much as currently - a scan at the start, then a scan at the end, and any results that have moved by 100km~ or more aren't warpable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
821
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:12:00 -
[14] - Quote
the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
how is that not absolute insanity to anyone else that these suggestions came "directly from the CSM" when the only exposure that the csm has to bombers with cloaks is getting put into the dumpster by them
of course those people are going to have skewed opinions. of course you can say the same about the people who actively use bombs, and thats why you should listen to both sides. you definitely should not listen exclusively to the side proposing bombers de-cloaking each other again when that side is well known for flying bombers without cloaks, regardless of their position as CSM delegates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
823
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Capqu wrote:the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
couple of corrections 1) do you assume that all csm fly only on their mains? 2) Ali is female 3) When time and duties allow, I fly and keep in touch with the Bombers Bar. When this dev blog went out the first thing I did was go in channel with them and talk about the changes . . . with people it directly effected. I do NOT talk from a position of inexperience, I talk to the people who ARE experienced and try to represent them. m
1) yes. i feel like its reasonable for the most part to expect your main to reflect your play-style somewhat 2) not relevant 3) i appreciate that you did that, but after the devblog has come out is often too late, which i pretty much am resigned into believing this time around too. i am aware that is not your fault and not in your control. as for speaking from a position of inexperience, maybe you don't, but you are not the only csm and its not unheard of for people to push their own agendas at a detriment to the greater good.
basically im depressed and disappointed as hell because this isn't the first time ccp has ignored minority player base when they destroy some niche of the game. first they came for the rat ai changes, mission flipping etc. etc.
i don't want my corp to completely give up bombing as real people in a fleet. we rarely do it now because we have isboxers to do it instead and it just feels like wasting 8 peoples time doing something less effective than 1 person. even those people who do the isboxing and regularly slam dunk fleets with them are complaining. it's not fun, it's not balanced. i thought this rebalance would change that, perhaps naively but i honestly didnt think ccp cared so much about their bottom line over everything else.
i don't know why i'm even in this thread tbh its not like anything i say matters but then again nothing we do on this earth truely matters might as well try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
823
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Capqu wrote: 3) i appreciate that you did that, but after the devblog has come out is often too late, which i pretty much am resigned into believing this time around too. i am aware that is not your fault and not in your control. as for speaking from a position of inexperience, maybe you don't, but you are not the only csm and its not unheard of for people to push their own agendas at a detriment to the greater good.
basically im depressed and disappointed as heck because this isn't the first time ccp has ignored minority player base when they destroy some niche of the game. first they came for the rat ai changes, mission flipping etc. etc.
Well, the NDA kind of forbids me from asking folks ahead of dev blogs. Sometimes I try to find a way around it but most times I try to be fast on the response and see how well I can shift the position from the original. That is why you see me asking for input and top two things you would like chenged. Sorry to hear about the depression but weren't you normal bomber folk depressed if all the bombing in your corp was being handed to the isbox guy? or did I misread that? m
nah i understand about the nda, i'm not blaming you. main priority for change would be ANYTHING that makes bombs apply damage equally to shield/armor doctrines instead of a soley a power-level nerf, and secondary priority would be something to discourage isboxer
yea we hate it, that's life it's like knowing you're on a team with 7 of your bestest pals, but if you ditch all of them and just play by yourself instead you'll amount to more than you could ever achieve together. a couple of those pals i used to bomb with / fc bombers with decided to go down that route, and i can't blame them for it. the power of friendship doesn't work in video games, only anime. when you have 3/4 squads of isboxed bombers, there really isnt any point in adding more human bombers - the combination of diminishing returns and massively increased effort takes away any illusion of enjoyment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
828
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 20:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
Fozzie, I watched your [excellent] presentation on user feedback and I feel like this post is a prime example of exactly what you are looking for: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5126202#post5126202
I also want you to know it's never personal when I or anyone else flames your bad decisions, it's usually just venting frustration. I know you're busy with Vegas but when you get back if you could take a peek I'd appreciate it.
T-thanks Please respond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
837
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 20:50:19 -
[18] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ib4JucJYKo&t=260
no mention of the cloak change in the video?
eagerly awaiting your next post fozzie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
837
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:44:33 -
[19] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:
Didn't want to fly anything but Tengus, anyways.
bombers dont really change anything about 250mm rails and 350k tank being good
and besides bombers decloaking each other doesn't change anything about what bombers are strong against vs what they are weak against. some of the other suggestions in this thread [like explosion velocity for bombs for example] would address that issue and it looks like fozzie is going to be looking into something that next patch but its too late to implement now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
837
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:47:47 -
[20] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCPFozzie wow way to cave man way to cave. How about do this for now then make the interaction changes. We were so looking forward to fly something other than sig tankers. But this kills it. You have ruined my day and made me sad
what makes you think sig tanking ships would become less common when bombers aren't changed at all in regards to what they are strong vs and instead just have an obtuse mechanic added to them in order to make them "harder"
i much prefer that this change is reverted so that a future change addressing the viability of shield ships takes its place
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
837
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:52:25 -
[21] - Quote
Herrin Asura wrote:JoveBishop wrote:What a lame move. ******* crybabies win. Not really. Crybabies where the reason CCP came up with that ridiculous changes in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
839
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:20:30 -
[22] - Quote
Querns wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Here are our latest updates to the plan.
Firstly and most significantly, the change to decloaking mechanics has been put on hold indefinitely. We are going to take some more time to work on the best way to have ships interact with cloakies and it's very possible that our eventual changes will be significantly different than what we talked about earlier. For now, cloaked ships will not decloak each other.
We're also going to be removing some of the earlier increase in signature radius and shifting it to a penalty on the bomb launcher itself. The T1 bomb launcher will add +10m signature radius and the T2 will add 12m.
We're increasing the capacity of the T2 bomb launcher to 300m3.
The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed.
Both the new bomb and new interdiction probe will be made available exclusively in the Syndicate LP store.
The new interdiction probe will be delayed slightly as we've run into some graphical issues with it that we'll need more time to properly fix.
We've sourced a lot of these changes from this thread, thanks to everyone who has been providing feedback. I'm not really sure how to proceed giving feedback here. Could I ask a simple question, instead? Does CCP see the vast gulf between the viability of shield-tanked fleet doctrines and armor-tanked fleet doctrines, a gulf which is overwhelmingly due to the damage application of bombs, as a problem?The ISBoxer and cloaking nonsense are irrelevant to this question, and I'm not looking for any justification for the answer one way or the other. A Yes or No answer will suffice. I promise not to assign arbitrary, unfounded, bespoke justification to your response. I would just like to know.
i sure hope they do querns, but i hope you agree the decloak change wouldn't affect how bombers apply to either shield or armour and thus was not the needed change
a change bombers desperately need is their damage equalized vs shield/armor. before that happens any power level nerfs or other changes are pretty meaningless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
840
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:20:49 -
[23] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Capqu wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:
Didn't want to fly anything but Tengus, anyways.
bombers dont really change anything about 250mm rails and 350k tank being good and besides bombers decloaking each other doesn't change anything about what bombers are strong against vs what they are weak against. some of the other suggestions in this thread [like explosion velocity for bombs for example] would address that issue and it looks like fozzie is going to be looking into something that next patch but its too late to implement now edit: and yeah i think bombers still need a nerf, but i think whats more important than that is a change that makes them affect armor and shield targets equally I guess my statement requires some explanation. When bombers can decloak one another, it means setting up a bombing run was a tactical decision that took more than 3 minutes to do. "I am going to setup my bombers on this grid, so taking a fight here will be advantageous to me because I have a strategic asset in place". When bombers dont' decloak one another this task becomes rather trivial, letting someone make perches regardless of the system or the grid that the fight is taking place on. But that's not really all that bad by itself. The real zinger that people have been a bit grumpy over is that bombing is very important in the current meta, and the most efficient way of doing it is not with a ~specialized~ bomber FC but instead with one or two individuals controlling all the bombers. There is an inequality between effectiveness and difficulty. Bombers being **** easy affects the meta as a whole, because it means that any doctrine you make must be able to deal with bombers in some way beyond maneuverability. Any ship with a high signature must be able to survive the fight without perching - since perching can equal death very easily. Additionally a mid-slot module like the MicroJumpDrive becomes "core" on any ship, to deal with the threat of bombs. Shield tankers, who rely on midslots, get the short end on this one since they more or less need two of their tank slots for maneuverability. Since locking bombers quickly is a priority, many shield doctrines are further erased from contention since the supporting cast naturally has a higher signature and lower lock time (a bad combination for bombers). At least in terms of Battleships and BCs. Tengus are still largely untouched. When looking at armor doctrines, due to the risk of perching with bombers that can be setup anywhere, the most viable platforms are the ones with a decent projection envelope. If I just sit in once place with my HIC 1 alt bubbling, then I'm at no risky of dying horribly. Finesse ships also become more risky to fly unless you rely on motoring around the field and not perching. Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of bombers - the ability to wipe the floor with the ill-prepared through superior tactics and coordination is sexy to the max. However in practice they're quite effective in this role without any modicum of difficulty (or manpower). In their current state, Bombers simply excel in making combat stale.
sure you said a whole lot of stuff i agree with, like shield being way easier to bomb than armour and that being really bad for the meta etc
however a global "nerf" (if you can even call it that, all it really does is increase complexity) is not going to change any of those things. all it would have done is make the already super-effective isboxed runs slightly less efficient/quick and completely removed pilot based bombing while retaining the vast superiority of armour vs shield.
the only way that armour would still not retain the huge advantages over shield with this nerf would have been if bombing was so complex that it was completely irrelevant when considering combat. that evidently isn't the case and we've tested isboxing on pheobe with the decloak changes - it's still trivially easy. the decloak nerf literally does nothing to help your shield BC fleet eat a wave of bombs and survive, and is a redicilous change to ask for if what you really want is armor/shield parity
if you want to cry about bombers in general i'll probably agree with you, but don't try to mask it with m-muh shield bs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
840
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:02:11 -
[24] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: Adding complexity for the sake of it adjusts the effectiveness-easiness scale, which is really the only thing plaguing them at the moment.
okay, effectiveness vs armor/shields isn't an issue at all you're right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
840
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:11:31 -
[25] - Quote
Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels.
wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead
everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
840
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:25:12 -
[26] - Quote
Vesperi Kobra wrote:Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing In classic bombing you have 1 person per ship and they can warp at distance and burn to where they need to be. When you control 40 it is hard to do them all that way but hitting fleet warp it **** easy.
no. in one person per ship bombing you have to communicate distances and vectors for every pilot and update on the fly with players joining/leaving the fleet
with one person 8 ships bombing you use pre set distances per client and bomb as normal, was tested and it was very easy to do on sisi
the above combined with the knowledge of the position of your entire cloaked fleet without the need to communicate, perfectly synchronised bomb waves & warpouts and the ability to have a full wave of bombers on demand was going to be the death of non-isboxed bombers. many of us would prefer the opposite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
|
|
|