Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Hal Lubbert
Body Snatchers
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 04:52:00 -
[421] - Quote
Stealth Bombers are not liked by most pilots and here is why!
Like a SNIPER, it takes time and lots more time to become a decent SB pilot and more time to prepare a good bomb run...
Most exWOW players and new EVEKiddies do not have what it takes to fly a Stealth Bomber.
So what does CCP do? ..............drum roll!
CCP make it easier to kill Stealth Bombers !! CCP calls it a REBALANCE. I call it another way to satisfy the LAZY EVE PILOTS (interceptors, frigs and other lighter ships that most jump into so they don't lose ISK)
A Large Sig Radius - OMG! Weaker Agility - What were you thinking CCP? (Oh wait now they can be caught easier = ISK ISK LOSSES) Lower Warp Speed - Really ? 2KM - DeCloak Your Mate - the one who you encouraged to train SB so you can go deep into enemy space with. Slower BOMB SPEED ---- so kiddies have more time to get away !!
And you gave us more HP? really come on... the Sb is a small ship = less HP. More cargo = more ISK to lose!
But wait for $19.95 you also get to bomb Capital ships .... call us for your USE ONLY IN MED TO LARGE FLEET OPS BONUS rebalance now!!!! |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
272
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:14:00 -
[422] - Quote
Hal Lubbert wrote:Most exWOW players and new EVEKiddies do not have what it takes to fly a Stealth Bomber. You don't seem to either. |
progodlegend
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
178
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:24:00 -
[423] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: Those who argue that bombers are the counter to n+1 . . . really? The big groups are precluded from flying them and I wasn't told? Bombers are a way to make a fleet nervous and allows the little guy to punch above his weight, agreed. But do not try to tell me that the blobs cannot just as easily field the bombers
I've been bombed by a 100 man bomber fleet before. It sucks, we were low sig and armor tanked :(. |
progodlegend
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
178
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:26:00 -
[424] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: Note, I am not discussing ISBoxer, here.
That do a decent summation?
m
Let me elaborate on my previous post a bit: it's pretty goddam clear both from every page of this thread and the reddit thread that the overwhelming consensus of the player base is that isboxed bombers are the problem, doubly so because regular bombing fleets have been marginalized to near obscurity. This is, overwhelmingly, the position of the player base. On every forum, from Eve-O, to reddit, to failheap and on every news site, from TMC to EN24. Your job is to represent the community, not just to tell ccp what it wants to hear. Do your goddam job, or step aside for someone that will.
The CSM is doing our job, most of these changes were ideas that came directly from the CSM. In reinstatement of the "cloaked ships decloak each other" mechanic is a direct result from last year's winter summit conversation on fleet warfare balance.
Actually, half of these changes were listed in the minutes of last years winter summits I'm pretty sure. If not listed they were at least summarized or hinted at. |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:36:00 -
[425] - Quote
i remember the clarion call 4 video of RNK.
bomber bar corp and RnK and other pipe bomb corp are managin with skill and intelligence the technique "few vs many".
i think is a value for the EveOnline community small entity can manage the "few vs many" guerrilla techniques.
The jump fatigue (even for pipe bomb) and the destruction of SB make this a clear direction of gameplay.
But, before bomber bar corp vanish, i need to say that "making bomb run more complicated" is for challenging pilot a good trial but i will point the finger that medium 0.0 pilot have only to follow the primary and anchor. At moment we have to co-op with clocked invisible pilot, probing in combat between 600 ships and wreck and corpse that declaock us. Find a good spot and theorize without seen if can drag from our invisible tactical, call the warp then align a invisible wing then decloakc and bomb and warp out to another good spot found before. Doing this with 3 volley and avoid every volley decloack the others is really at a difficult level unthinkable for "classic 0.0 monkey". This is already awesome level of gameplay of eve online when the usual 0.0 blob have difficult in following a single primary and anchor once landed to fc.
I thinked a lot of Gokus but the +15 point of signature against 125mm turret is a headshot too. faster lock, faster alpha. Goku usually wipe with x-instinct and booster signature.... nowadays.. a few point of armor with a major dps incoming is brutal.
I really hope dev and ccp tried to do in a real 0.0 field a bomber wing with 2-3 volley: because i think if they doing is successful i think all this nerf will not to be made.
At least we can rethink about see other bomber in space or give us a t2 bomb with major damage and smaller area so we can think to manage smaller volley like 3-4 and using the bonus of rof (even if with nerf to align and warp speed we already land at tactical with t2 launcher almost reloaded!, no need more rof).
12 sec flight time not allow to bomb the safespot tactical when done fast probing and panic warpout ... a error of enemy fc and we cannot gain advantage :(
please don't go in blob f1 monkey direction this is a real loss of value for the community.
|
Kiela Cage
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:42:00 -
[426] - Quote
These changes make no sense. The one unique thing a stealth bomber has the ability to do is....
DROP A BOMB! (which is only allowed in null mind you)
So now CCP is making it harder for a bomber to do the one thing that its really designed for.... Its already easy enough for the frigates to get away from a bomb if the pilot is paying attention.
12 second flight time as if 10 seconds isn't bad enough it takes a decent frigate pilot less than 2 seconds to align and jump out.
Decreased agility? with no buff to cloaked speed doesn't make any sense why am i aligning slower if I'm not moving any faster?
CPU upgrade is cool but only +7? really?
Decloaking within 2k? bye bye bombing buddy =(
The decrease in warp speed might actually be a good thing giving a bomber more time to cloak while warping before he reaches his warp to location.
All in all it seems like a step back... leaning towards larger fleet actions(of course- warmonger CCP) which is really useful for us small time players in small time corps who have never seen a fleet fight in our lifes.
At the moment i think the bomber has enough draw backs it keeps a lot of players from taking the time to train one let alone training it to be effective. now with changes like these whats the point eh?
Heres to fun! --- Cage. |
rothmal
Vengance Inc.
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 06:52:00 -
[427] - Quote
Sbrodor wrote:i remember the clarion call 4 video of RNK.
bomber bar corp and RnK and other pipe bomb corp are managin with skill and intelligence the technique "few vs many".
first time someone has mentioned us in the same sentence as RNK if only you knew what poo flinging monkeys we are behind doors. Almost as good when i found out that CVA thought I was in charge of bombers bar when temp left eve. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1927
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 06:53:00 -
[428] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: That do a decent summation?
Kind of Mike... To me the most important question is; are all the nerfs + the cloak change necessary? I think if cloaks had never been changed from how they worked in 2013, all or most of the proposed nerfs would be replaced by buffs to stealth bombers. So surely this is overkill.
But perhaps i'm wrong and you can clear this up for me... If CCP are introducing a small bubble designed to drag and deloak stealth bomber warping in, why is it necessary to hurt all forms of cloaky combat with the proposed change to decloak mechanics?
Was the ability to target and shoot bombs ever discussed? This alone would solve the problem and create a new role in fleets and i just can't see how reverting back to a bad mechanic was prefered over something like this.
+1 |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1693
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:11:00 -
[429] - Quote
From the CSM8 winter minutes
Quote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now.
because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on.
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
806
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:21:00 -
[430] - 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 |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1928
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:26:00 -
[431] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m
Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. +1 |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:27:00 -
[432] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote: There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now.
because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m
"too easy" but at foolish harder level than a normal player do in a usual 00 blob. (align f1 f1 f1 f1 take passive wing warp f1 f1 f1 bcast f1 f1 f1 align take passive wing warp died)
CCP are destroyin one of the most difficult gameplay actually done in eveonline under logistical (viator cyno blackops for restock) under human coordination (everyone tell me distance from x or y because i'm fc of a ghost fleet and i cannot see you , your single voice tell me the picture of fleet position) and dps outcoming (volley 1 go, volley 2 align , volley 3 hold , volley 2 bomb, volley 1 warpout , vollety 3 align aganist f1 f1 f1 f1 f1. in every cta with 3 or 4 volley i have chronometer in hand) and dps mitigation incoming (align to celestial, warpout on yeallowbox do TD to dps and Paint the primary (for goku in example)).....
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:14:00 -
[433] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:The nerf to cloaking is SOLELY to counter the ISBoxing bomber squads. SOLELY this. And therefore, it's not getting reversed because of whining. The anti-capital bomb with an AOE of 1m. Dude. Fozzie. Mate. How are you supposed to hit anything with this? lets do a thought game. I am in a Hound with a Cap Void Bomb. I am burning in from 50km away aligned toward my target, who is in triage/siege, blah blah. My bomb has a range of 30,000 +/- 1m. my ship has a speed, for argument's sakes, of 300m/s. I must therefore launch my bomb EXACTLY 30,000m away ffrom my foe! From 30km away if you launch it 1/300th of a second late or early, you miss. OH BUT WAT IS DIS? The server tick is 1 second! So does it launch on the server tick, or does the server (plus/minus 8-200m/s lag for Interwebs) calculate it on the actual milllisecond you press the key? Given the reaction time of the human being is 1/30th of a second, and you have 200ms lag, you have precisely ZERO chance of landing a bomb within <1m of anything at 30km range. Hurr durr! OK, so given a capital is a big ship, are we now saying that the bomb lands inside the foe? Or what? TL;DR 1,000m AEO for bombs, minimum, to make them practical. Me using a capital void bomb.
You travelling at 300 m/s and game giving you auto-aim with "approach" pointing your ship straight towards the enemy allowing pin-point accuracy will give you a window of 9.7 seconds.
(Hint, signature radius of a triage archon is 2900 meters). |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:17:00 -
[434] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. But thanks for the link all the same.
Even if the bombs didn't deal any damage, they forced the fleet to move 100km and potentially be at a worse spot than before. You could, I don't know, launch bombs where the fleet is going to land so they have no way of getting away outside of warping instantly. You could also have a wing of heavy tackle stopping them at the other end of the MJD.
Yes, we're talking about fleet warfare here as bombing a 1v1 with 40 guys is not what these changes are intended to touch on. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:30:00 -
[435] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. But thanks for the link all the same. Even if the bombs didn't deal any damage, they forced the fleet to move 100km and potentially be at a worse spot than before. You could, I don't know, launch bombs where the fleet is going to land so they have no way of getting away outside of warping instantly. You could also have a wing of heavy tackle stopping them at the other end of the MJD. Yes, we're talking about fleet warfare here as bombing a 1v1 with 40 guys is not what these changes are intended to touch on.
I don't see a problem. I'm sure people would prefer the mild inconvenience of jumping 100km and then having to use a bounce to regroup, over being destroyed by a good bombing run.
If all the BSs and BCs in fleet hit their MJD they would scatter in all directions. If a bombing fleet is able to cover a 200km battle field, then they deserve any the kill they manage to get. +1 |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:35:00 -
[436] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. But thanks for the link all the same. Even if the bombs didn't deal any damage, they forced the fleet to move 100km and potentially be at a worse spot than before. You could, I don't know, launch bombs where the fleet is going to land so they have no way of getting away outside of warping instantly. You could also have a wing of heavy tackle stopping them at the other end of the MJD. Yes, we're talking about fleet warfare here as bombing a 1v1 with 40 guys is not what these changes are intended to touch on. I don't see a problem. I'm sure people would prefer the mild inconvenience of jumping 100km and then having to use a bounce to regroup, over being destroyed by a good bombing run. If all the BSs and BCs in fleet hit their MJD they would scatter in all directions. If a bombing fleet is able to cover a 200km battle field, then they deserve any the kill they manage to get.
I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap. |
MsArj
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:47:00 -
[437] - Quote
Destroying COVOPS is just plain sad, its the "game environment" i really enjoy and sadly form the looks of it, because bombers who are bombing is a threath they nerf the whole COVOPS idea to hell.
Do something about the bombs, even make bombers unflyable, give em a new "torp" role, do something else than nerfing the crap out of COVOPS in general.. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:54:00 -
[438] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote: I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap.
I still don't see your point. Is your issue with having to move? Is it the MJD that you have an issue with? +1 |
Zumbul Cvetkov
Your Loss Dead Terrorists
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:00:00 -
[439] - Quote
Good Lord...
Nerf SB cause CFC loses to them are too immense.. what is next? Buffing Megathrons and Celestis cause CFC flies them?
Nice work killing bombing runs. Instead of nerfing cloaking we get a BomberDrakenerf here.. Go on, make more ships useless.
Iam looking forward to quit anyway when Elite: Dangerous comes out... but its sad what can 1 person do to a game. I was thinking to coming back later to EVE.. but maybe there will be no Eve later anymore :(
To end my rant i will quote this:
"WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID IS ONE OF THE MOST INSANELY, IDIOTIC THINGS I HAVE EVER HEARD. AT NO POINT IN YOUR RAMBLING, INCOHERENT, RESPONSE, WERE YOU EVEN CLOSE TO ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED A RATIONAL THOUGHT. EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS NOW DUMBER FOR HAVING LISTENED TO IT. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL." |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
167
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:11:00 -
[440] - Quote
Making bombers less agile with bigger sig makes them pretty much crap for small gang torp ops.
It's really sad that a situation in null with bombers is driven by a single out-of-game factor, ISBotter, and instead of focusing on that factor, ship balance is altered in a way that has wide-reaching negative effects outside sov blobs. Ironically this change favours ISBotter bombing fleets even more over normal fleets.
ISBotter is a cancer slowly gnawing at this game, and this ill-thought nerf is the most obnoxius example of CCP favouring subscription money at any cost over a functional and balanced virtual world.
Surely attracting new real human subscribers is better for long term MMO health than buffing 3rd party solutions that encourage massive armies of alts.
And to ISDs, this thread is about ISBotting and nothing else, bombing was not an issue before ISBotting become so widespread. |
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:14:00 -
[441] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote: I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap.
I still don't see your point. Is your issue with having to move? Is it the MJD that you have an issue with? Do you deny that the MJD would allow you to escape the initial bombing run? or do you think that there should be no counter to a blob other than another blob?
I have no issue with any of those, Im not sure what you're trying to do here.
What I said is that if MJD fleets come back, bombers still have their usage in denying the tactical usage of MJD by forcing them to be used early. Just because we have both MJD's and bombers neither of them are still nullified as a tactical tool and this change to bombers only causes some inconvenience to bomber squads. |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:32:00 -
[442] - Quote
people but these ISBOX how many kill have done?
because we did 35k kill in our corp only and we doin often bomber bars. The isbox is a cancer doing thousand of kills every month or we are talking of 2-3 wing wipe a month? for what i know we never seen in south of new eden isboxer bomber wing, maybe in the north they running? they did so much damage to need to destroy entire corp\bomber wing?
i dont think the cure for a small problem is making 100-200-500 real people totally sad for destroy his gameplay...
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:32:00 -
[443] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote: I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap.
I still don't see your point. Is your issue with having to move? Is it the MJD that you have an issue with? Do you deny that the MJD would allow you to escape the initial bombing run? or do you think that there should be no counter to a blob other than another blob? I have no issue with any of those, Im not sure what you're trying to do here. What I said is that if MJD fleets come back, bombers still have their usage in denying the tactical usage of MJD by forcing them to be used early. Just because we have both MJD's and bombers neither of them are still nullified as a tactical tool and this change to bombers only causes some inconvenience to bomber squads.
So basically you don't have a valid point to make then. The problem isn't "bomber force me to run away and regroup " it's that it's too easy to set up a devastating bombing run that wipes out an entire fleet, and with that i agree.
I'll spell it out for you incase you missd my I want. I'm trying to get CCP to come up with a better way to address the prevalence of ISboxer bombing fleets that won't severely harm all forms of cloaky combat.
The fact is there are currently several counters to bombers (MJD is just one) and with the nerfs coming to bomber after this patch, those counters will be even more effective. If your FC is too lazy to implement these counters or "doesn't allow you to face in differing directions for a MJD escape", why should everyone else suffer?! (that's rhetorical) +1 |
Kion Oriki
LAWN Moons
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:46:00 -
[444] - Quote
CCP 'nerfs' the most over used and over powered ship in the game with small tweeks to drone tracking, and then does a backwards over zealous nerf to make a ship used in a small niche useless in most cases apart from with ISboxer.
GG CCP |
Archetype 66
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:07:00 -
[445] - Quote
Fozzie,
Is not it time to give a value to Defender Missile ? Anti-bomb Light Defender missile would be fun + Capital Anti-Bomb Defender missiles would be a fun obverse to those new AoE bombs.
Keep up the good work. |
Fonda Dicks
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:13:00 -
[446] - Quote
-1
Do you guys just do quick fire suggestions at a team meeting and pick the first ones. Really off putting for your players when it seems you don't put any thought into your changes. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
814
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:13:00 -
[447] - 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 |
mannyman
Catastrophic Operations The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:16:00 -
[448] - Quote
Can you also please have a 1h timer on the indefinetely cloak ?
CCP has restrictions towards bots, but why is the cloak indefinetely ? Its OK to camp, but not from DT to DT with window minimized and not even looking at the game screen.
1h recycle for cloak will sort this out. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
611
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:30:00 -
[449] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Thanks for not dealing with the real issue here which is ISBox bombing, but making real player coordinated bomber fleets more of a pain to coordinate.
This only emphasizes the need for automated, single player run bombing fleets. Expecting CCP to make reasonable decisions based on logic
mannyman wrote:Can you also please have a 1h timer on the indefinetely cloak ?
CCP has restrictions towards bots, but why is the cloak indefinetely ? Its OK to camp, but not from DT to DT with window minimized and not even looking at the game screen.
1h recycle for cloak will sort this out. Implying cloaky camping will even do anything when the black ops get nerfed. You won't be able to drop a thing most of the time because its either too far or because your timers are still up.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
153
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:33:00 -
[450] - Quote
Capqu wrote: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. 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 is over. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |