| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1516
   |
Posted - 2014.10.16 21:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm not sure how much I like the cloak changes. The other changes seem to be effective in their own way. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1517
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Techno Model wrote:Stay the course Fozzie, do not let these lightweights from a single alliance sway you with their tear laden posts. Stay strong CCP and buff those bombers into awesomeness.
I'm guessing you don't fly bombers in Empire? The nerf to mobility seriously impacts their ability to fly with roaming frigate gangs without gimping said gang's most important asset: mobility. If I can get a battleship to roam with frigates you can get a bomber to do it.
Now the question is, how is your new (assuming you got it) Moros going to keep up? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1541
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:baltec1 wrote:
bomber is a stealthy torpedo boat built for attacking shipping and large targets such as battleships.Worm is an anti interceptor.
Two very different jobs.
proves you havent used one of these in a long time.
The bomber? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1547
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 22:07:14 -
[4] - Quote
Sieonigh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again
-Fozzie "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.
It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about.it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1548
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 08:11:54 -
[5] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Rowells wrote:Sieonigh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again
-Fozzie "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept. It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about. it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers. Neither are cloaks restricted to bombers only, and still they are discussed in this thread. Maybe i should clarify, ISboxer is not something that is essential to bombers use. A cloak is something a bomber needs to use, like bomb launchers. ISboxer discussion is a much more broad aspect than cloaks are. You take away the boxer comments and the discussion moves along as usual, take away discussion on the cloaks and a key aspect is missing. Remember we're discussing the balance of ships not the players.
We either turn this thread into an iSboxer thread and get no where or we debate the ships themselves and figure out changes from that. Otherwise we could just start talking about how unfair ISboxed miners are, or boxed nados, boxed logi, etc. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1560
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 16:17:39 -
[6] - Quote
lol at the rorq loot
E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that.
E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1568
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 22:14:53 -
[7] - Quote
Instead of decloaking other cloaked ships, would it be easier to make the bomb launcher launch after 1-2 seconds? Gives time to destroy the bomber during the launch. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1568
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 22:16:45 -
[8] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Rowells wrote:lol at the rorq loot E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that. E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example. sure isbotter fleets just do whatever group of real players can do, the problem is that isbotter replaces said group of players with 1 guy automating 30 clients - this shouldnt be allowed.
Well, with that logic, so should any type of multi boxing. One player should be able to do the job of more than a single pilot. No cyno alts, no logi alts, etc. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1568
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:17:20 -
[9] - Quote
Oh my how the tears have turned |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1574
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:39:02 -
[10] - Quote
punch monke 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. Why would they not decloak eachother? Been in fleets where literally 100bombers decloak and bomb in intervals. They are op and you got rid of the one change to address it. I meean you get in a fleet cloak, the squad commander warps them around, all they do is hit decloak, bomb, and warp off. Regroup and do it again. Doesn't take much effort, can do it afk. If they are sitting on top of eachother then there is no reason they should decloak eachother. The reason why there are there are no fleet fights in anything bigger than a crusiers
If your fleet gets hit with every wave of bombers, your fleet deserves every single explosion at least twice over. I don't care what your situation is. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1574
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:57:54 -
[11] - Quote
Semaj Valencia wrote:dont make it to where they cant use the jump drive for 3 days, that is just plain stupidy on your part CCP
I could also say its pretty dumb to let it get that high, but thats a bit off topic. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1574
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 18:33:31 -
[12] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:I'm quite mad that an alliance such Pasta can still isboxers without any risk.
huh? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1575
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 03:48:25 -
[13] - Quote
has anyone peeked at the stats for fitting the new blighted torpedo launcher to a bomber? I sadly do not posess the skills |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1575
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 05:20:53 -
[14] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:yeah it's like, 20% more damage, something something fitting, zero resists, nothing unexpected.
well thats dissapointing |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
1833
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 23:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:After the last mineral rebalance on asteroids, there's currently a issue where the current amounts of mexallon being refined from ores is currently too low, the primary source of mexallon used to be reprocessed rat loot drops, and with the nerf to the amount of minerals from reprocessing them, as well as the nerf to the amount of mods etc that drop, this has caused the availability of mexallon to decrease resulting in a corrisponding price increase market wise.
Can you please relook at the amount of mexallon you get from refining ores and consider upping the amount from refining ores, possibly with spod being the highest refining amount?
You are in the wrong threw methinks |
| |
|