| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
170
   |
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Querns wrote:Alright, I gotta play the Devil's Advocate here -- a lot of people are saying that the decloaking changes are meaningless because ISBoxed bombers can set differing warp-to distances. There may be some merit to other arguments regarding ISBoxer bomber fleets, but this isn't one of them -- a bombing wing with a player behind every hull can do this too, with a little bit of coordination in the fleet channel.
e.g.:
FC > pick warp to targets please
joe > 30,000
steve > 15,000
perry > 40k
aloysius > 40k
perry > f*** off aloysius i picked 40k first
aloysius > no you go straight to hell
zach > pap link pls
This tactic is available to both ISBoxered bombers and groups of discrete individuals. It's only a little easier for ISBoxered bombers since you don't have to deal with that jerk Aloysius.
Alyosius alt appearing on the forums in 3...2...1...
He was also flying a Drake at the time
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Nys Cron wrote:
This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers.
For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such.
Indeed neuting out a capital should require fielding a bhaal or neut legions or whatever, being able to cap nuke them with bombers and hold em capped with 1-2 incidental neuts is just cheap and nasty. I can see the intended application against apex forces, etc. but the knock on effect is potentially quite tragic.
A base Archon has 65k cap and a 2.9k sig radius . Just that alone requires 7 bombers to cap out. At base cap assuming that the sig radius/explosion radius ratio for neut application is what I think it is. Even if it was doing full cap drain that's still 5 bombers unless I'm missing something that's not an inconsequential number of pilots to devote to the task...
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Obil Que wrote:Rroff wrote:Nys Cron wrote:
This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers.
For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such.
Indeed neuting out a capital should require fielding a bhaal or neut legions or whatever, being able to cap nuke them with bombers and hold em capped with 1-2 incidental neuts is just cheap and nasty. I can see the intended application against apex forces, etc. but the knock on effect is potentially quite tragic. A base Archon has 65k cap and a 2.9k sig radius . Just that alone requires 7 bombers to cap out. At base cap assuming that the sig radius/explosion radius ratio for neut application is what I think it is. Even if it was doing full cap drain that's still 5 bombers unless I'm missing something that's not an inconsequential number of pilots to devote to the task... 7 bombers is the size of a wave not to mention that archon is not at full cap it will be repping up its friends probably balancing around 35-45% cap when the bombs hit
Right. Thanks. I don't have EFT in front of me to see what the total cap might be on a typical carrier pilot but the tone of the criticism was making it seem like a less than full wave of bombers was going to decimate a cap fielded by a smaller group. If you're dropping a carrier on a group that can *also* send a wave of 7 bombers at you, maybe you made a bad decision to being with because if those pilots where in other ships, you'd probably be screwed too.
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
176
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:wheniaminspuce wrote:Here is a perfect opportunity for them to exercise that discretion instead of damaging their game and they are ignoring the issue entirely in favor of poorly designed band-aids and reintroducing bugs as features. Unfortunately I think CCP is pretty reliant on ISBoxer for subscriptions. Banning it would hurt their bottom line too much as the Replicators of the shard unsubscribe their dozens of alts. The game's addicted to it, and withdrawal will be a complete b****.
I call BS. How many ISboxers do you think are paying for their subscriptions in cash vs how many PLEX via ISK? My guess is that a huge percentage if not all are doing it via PLEX/ISK meaning that they money for those accounts is coming from other people buying the item, not from their own cash wallets. It would not hurt CCP in the least to lose them and perhaps help from the ripple effect it might have on other players enjoyment in the areas where ISB impacts... |
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
176
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Obil Que wrote:I call BS. How many ISboxers do you think are paying for their subscriptions in cash vs how many PLEX via ISK? Makes absolutely no difference. People who pay via ISK make the PLEX->ISK exchange more attractive, and so increase real-world sales. Either way, CCP gets their money. If you didn't have ISBoxers buying PLEX off the in-game market, the price would crash (drastically, as PLEX would no longer be seen as a safe investment) and fewer people would want to plunk down $20 for 400 million ISK.
People bought PLEX at 400
People buy PLEX at 800
So ISBoxer is single handedly responsible for the PLEX market price now? |
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 20:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Obil Que wrote:People bought PLEX at 400
People buy PLEX at 800 So it's established that you are clueless about basic economics. Unfortunately, this isn't the place for the course, and I don't see you offering to pay for a tutor.
You're the one claiming that touching ISB will crash the PLEX market
|
| |
|