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) |
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:42:00 -
[451] - Quote
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? |
mannyman
Catastrophic Operations The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:45:00 -
[452] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote: 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.
True, but eve is supposed to be how to say it, feeling of exploration right ? When you go out there, and a dude logs in aft DT, sits at SS cloaked just to fuckup the owners day from DT to DT just because its the third alt on the second account since he doesnt use the main toon on that account for that amount of time is not exactly the feeling of unexplored space should be.
Its not like its unexplored anymore, but being able to DT-DT cloak minimized not active screen isnt the type of gameplay we want. Better to log off in that case. hence the 1h timer.
I dont complain about the cloaky camper, by all means, cloak and camp and scout. but that toon and player should atleast be an active one, not a minimized 23h one. |
NekoGeko
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:46:00 -
[453] - Quote
12sec bomb flight time means you can ultra-safely MJD your Battleship fleet away with no losses at all.
To think about it 1) Bombers will be useless against MJD Battleship fleets 2) Useless vs armor tanked cruisers fleets 3) Useless vs fleets with SmartBomb BattleShips that will protect vs bombs
There is just too much ways of dealing with SB.
But the most crucial nerf comes from 2km decloacking - which makes warping out to bombing positions very hard.
Complicated bombing + useless against some fleets = death of SB bombing wings. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
817
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:46:00 -
[454] - 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 |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
153
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:49:00 -
[455] - 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? The effects of probing on server load are probably fairly negligible, and this wouldn't really change that. At its simplest, it could be implemented with two new checks: 1) Check if the target is in range when probe scan is initiated (in addition to being in range when the scan finishes) 2) Check that the target is not in warp |
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:53:00 -
[456] - Quote
Yeah, the two server checks make sense. |
zar dada
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
28
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:57:00 -
[457] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...
Cloaked ships will once again de-cloak each other if they come within 2km. ...
Cloaked Ships De-cloaking Each Other: The change that allowed cloaked ships to pass through each other without de-cloaking was made back in 2012 to make bombing easier. With the last few years of evidence to look at, it becomes clear that organizing bombing runs has become a bit too easy. This change will add some more complexity to organizing multiple cloaked ships, as well as returning the old game-play of attempting to de-cloak other players with your own cloaked ship. We know that some players are going to be unhappy with the way this makes their game-play more challenging, but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after. ...
Wormholers, make sure when the 2nd scout getting eyes on the enemy POS doesn't warp to 0 anymore. Both of you will de-cloak and perhaps die to the POS. The same thing goes for warping to a wormhole from the same direction i.e. the entry wormhole. We'll have to stagger our warps so the guy in front can move out of the way without de-cloaking anyone else. I guess they did this before 2012, but I wasn't in wormholes then.
Also we can't fleet warp a cloaky fleet without de-cloaking each other
RIP stealth in wormholes
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
368
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:05:00 -
[458] - Quote
Querns wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Querns wrote:
All ships have a radius attribute. A bomb just has to hit inside this radius to hit the ship. This gives you a decent amount of leeway when dumb-firing a one meter radius bomb. E.g.: a naglfar has a radius of 1700 m. It'll still require a degree of finesse, but not nearly as much as you're thinking it will.
I still think it is too complicated. A bomb is supposed to be AoE, its its not AoE, might as well use a special torpedo with a long cooldown. Why introduce this needless complexity of having to aim a non-AoE weapon manually...? Actually, I think the point of this bomb is to also reclassify bombs not as AOE weapons specifically, but as dumb-fire weapons that require you to aim. The fact that most of these dumb-fire weapons also do AOE damage is not implicative of the role, in general. I'd like to see more non-AOE dumb-fire weapons, in general -- I think they reward skill in a way that a lot of things in Eve currently lack.
I'd still really like to see a siege ship that can fire multiple bombs at once, battleship class. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:05:00 -
[459] - Quote
zar dada wrote:RIP stealth in wormholes RIP cloaky fleets in general.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:11:00 -
[460] - Quote
mannyman wrote:Arya Regnar wrote: 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.
True, but eve is supposed to be how to say it, feeling of exploration right ? When you go out there, and a dude logs in aft DT, sits at SS cloaked just to fuckup the owners day from DT to DT just because its the third alt on the second account since he doesnt use the main toon on that account for that amount of time is not exactly the feeling of unexplored space should be. Its not like its unexplored anymore, but being able to DT-DT cloak minimized not active screen isnt the type of gameplay we want. Better to log off in that case. hence the 1h timer. I dont complain about the cloaky camper, by all means, cloak and camp and scout. but that toon and player should atleast be an active one, not a minimized 23h one.
if he's afk he can't hurt you if he's not then he's not afk cloaking |
|
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
307
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:13:00 -
[461] - Quote
Normally you dont play baseball in the winter, but you guys are swinging that nerf bat like its the MLB. Can we just solve the core issues here rather than putting another nerf on Deck? If you don't keep up to date on the upcoming changes, you may as well be living under a Rokh. I would even Venture to say that was a good pun on my part. Stay beautiful o7. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
555
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:18:00 -
[462] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:This is probably one of the first times in recent memory where I just could not see why a change was made to the game.
...
Seraph IX Basarab for CSM. Seriously. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
359
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:20:00 -
[463] - Quote
Archetype 66 wrote: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.
Edit : already proposed on thread.
The defender missile did have a value once upon a time before CCP Tuxford and CCP Xhagen were in the Band of Brother's ship rebalancing team and gave every missile a turret tracking attribute that does make any sense.
Anyhow, even back in the day when no missile have a turret tracking thingy on them and was a boolean hit or no hit thing they were not disbanding goonswarm, did not rule EVE and the big fleet fights were fought with...
Rail-Megathrons and Tachyon-Laser Apocs.
Wow, now that is a revelation of some magnitude, isn't it?
How could the powerblocks of the old not have taken that all-powerfull advantage for their own sake and only fly Ravens all day long?
Imagine that!
Missiles did have 100% or 0% application and were not used in large scale pvp.
Shocking, but the truth.
Now why is that?
Because you can (nope not could you still can but there is no reason to use them anyway) shoot them down with defender missiles, torpedos and citadel torpedos take two defender missiles to shoot down.
Or you can make them explode with smart-(I hate that word for an energy pulse weapon)bombs. Also very shocking relevation for some of you. signature |
elitatwo
Congregatio
359
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:29:00 -
[464] - Quote
NekoGeko wrote:12sec bomb flight time means you can ultra-safely MJD your Battleship fleet away with no losses at all.
To think about it 1) Bombers will be useless against MJD Battleship fleets 2) Useless vs armor tanked cruisers fleets 3) Useless vs fleets with SmartBomb BattleShips that will protect vs bombs
There is just too much ways of dealing with SB.
But the most crucial nerf comes from 2km decloacking - which makes warping out to bombing positions very hard.
Complicated bombing + useless against some fleets = death of SB bombing wings.
Sometimes I think that tactics like baiting are totally overrated.
So if baiting a battleship fleet with two bombers to microjump and knowing that they cannot do that again for two minutes and hiding the bulk of your cloaked fleet to get the new position and trap them there is too much, I can see that.
But let's not talk tactics.
Oh and mining drones are madness!! Nerf mining drones now!! signature |
Jezza McWaffle
Pandora Sphere Disavowed.
152
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:47:00 -
[465] - Quote
I think the anti capital void bomb needs to be seriously looked at and in its current form it will be broken beyond belief. I live in a Wormhole so most of my thinking regarding this change will be in the eye of a wormhole capital pilot. My main issue is the amount of cap that will be neut'd by them and the lack of defence options available without fielding smartbomb fleets.
A CCC rigged Archon has 81K GJ of capacitor before Mindflood, with mindflood it has 97K. If one bomb removes 15K cap then (81/15=5.4) 5 bombs will pretty much nail the capacitor of a an Archon, thats 6 bombs with mindflood. A T1 Semiconductor fit Moros has 99K GJ of cap, with mindflood thats 120K GJ Therefore it will take between 6 & 8 bombs to completely dry a Moros
In a C6 Red Giant with a bonus to 100% of bomb damage which also translates into 100% increase in cap neut'd then it only requires 3 bombs to nail an Archon and 4 bombs for a Moros. Thats ridiculous, given you can only field 3 capitals into an opposing wormhole and they aren't cheap at that. I don't see why only a handful of bombers which can easily be used on alts can have such a massive effect on what is a very 'high end' ship.
On a side note maybe you have found a reason to buff the Capacitor Battery? Making ships more resilient to these capital neut bombs might be a good idea.
Still though this will definitely cause alot of friction in Wormhole combat as far as capitals are concerned. C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/ |
Techno Model
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 12:11:00 -
[466] - Quote
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.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 12:18:00 -
[467] - Quote
EDIT |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13653
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:01:00 -
[468] - Quote
Zumbul Cvetkov wrote:Good Lord...
Nerf SB cause CFC loses to them are too immense.. what is next?
We use bomber fleets in near every fight, this impacts us too. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Seiko Hikitari
Promethean Society
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:07:00 -
[469] - Quote
Posting in agreement of ammzi / capqu / wheniaminspace / seraph IX I wish I could add something to the discussion but I feel like they've nailed it through and through already.
I would have been satisfied had you just fixed the nemesis cpu/agility and added bomb launch codes like was suggested on reddit and in this thread several times (delaying bomber rebalance to next release is fine). |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
555
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:20:00 -
[470] - Quote
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. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
|
AOSA
Atreidun Order
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:21:00 -
[471] - Quote
I am in favor of all of these changes, BUT I'd like to see a change to the overview and in space that permits fleet members to see the position of cloaked ships in space. From a game play stand point it would be nearly impossible with the cloak changes to cordinate a cloaked fleet with out at least seeing each others proximity on grid.
AOSA |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:24:00 -
[472] - Quote
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.
Fozzie is out to solidify the blue doughnut. Hmm, wonder why? |
Yankunytjatjara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
107
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:29:00 -
[473] - Quote
Would you consider reducing bomb volume with the reduction in bomb hp? My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
Dyexz
Comrades in Construction
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:31:00 -
[474] - Quote
Burneddi wrote:Where's the ISBoxer ban announcement Fozzie
Since ISBoxer is not violating anything in the EULA a ban of it will never happen, unless CCP changes the EULA |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:33:00 -
[475] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote: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.
Null tears run the game. Blue doughnut is here to stay. Plan accordingly. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:18:00 -
[476] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 4000 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.
So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
555
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:37:00 -
[477] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 4000 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.
So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u. Well, that would certainly make structure grinds and POS shoots rather...interesting.... CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:43:00 -
[478] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:[quote=PotatoOverdose] Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 4000 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.
Only problem i see with these is that they wouldn't be able to hit each other so you could launch as many as you had bombers so 15 or so bombers could 1 shot a carrier.
how ever i would love to see more of these types of bombs but that do support type damage (like the neut) at least until a counter other then smart bombs can be found.
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2357
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:48:00 -
[479] - 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
progodlegend wrote:
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.
Bros, you're missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, bombers are a problem. Or rather, perfectly synchronized, perfectly coordinated bombers are a problem. A little over a year ago I was in Curse during the thunderdome. I never saw a roaming PL fleet without an isboxed bombing fleet in tow. Most anyone in the CFC that's fought against pasta is probably quite familiar with Ammzi and Space. Many that fought against the cfc know Oodell.
Look at all of the major fleet fights which got bombed over the past year. How many of them didn't involve isboxer? Maybe one or two. How many involved isboxed bombers? Almost all of them.
The primary difficulty associated with bombers is organizational. Isboxer bypasses this difficulty. Re-balancing bombers, and ignoring isboxer, is the equivalent of doing this. And that's what most people on the first ten pages of this thread, on the reddit thread, on failheap, TMC, or EN24 are telling you. And you aren't representing that.
These changes hurt normal bomber groups (which are a dying breed quite frankly) far more than they effect isboxer. Ammzi and Space have explained that in detail in this thread and the reddit thread. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2357
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:56:00 -
[480] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 200 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.
So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u. Fixed it back. The point was a dumbfire missile. Honestly, if any moving subcap actually collides with a bomb, it deserves to take a shitload of damage. |
|
|
|
|
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 |