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) |
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:41:00 -
[31] - Quote
With the decloak-changes why should we bring real people if we can multibox bomber wings?
Right now they don't have an advantage over mutliboxed bombers and with the decloak-changes the chances for ****-ups are considerably higher with real people compared to multibox'd accounts. |
Ryu Chaos
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:47:00 -
[32] - Quote
Canenald wrote:This is really a big nerf not a rebalance. The boosts are totally made meaningless by nerfs. More bombs in cargo hold and faster reload mean nothing if you can't bomb efficiently.
Bombers have a nice role of a totally separate force that can't decide the main battle but still has a large impact on it, much like the real world aircrafts of the previous century and cavalry in the earlier history. Bomber superiority is a valuable advantage, much like real world air or cavalry superiority. As a result, players have developed anti-bombing roles for ships, such as seboed interceptors and instacanes, much like the anti-aircraft guns and pikemen of the real world.
As it is, the virtual skymarshals of EVE have an interesting strategic choice of putting warm bodies into either main doctrine ships or bombers. Nerfing the bombers themselves so much while giving mainline ships additional means of defending themselves will make this choice a no-brainer. It's like tanks that can shoot down aircrafts and regular medieval infantry that can stop charging horsemen with their shields.
Oh, and there's Ishtars. We all know they are OP. Their greatest disadvantage is that they work better with shield tank, which works worse with bombs. Efficient armor tank is the most compelling reason to choose another HAC. Well, not after you nerf bombs.
no its gotten to the point that you cannot field shield battleships at all, and most armor battleships either. Nerf is good and should happen. @RyuChaos_ |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
140
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:New Anti-Capital Void Bomb: This is the first toe dipped in the water for smaller AoE (and therefore more aiming required) dumb weapons, which we think have a lot of potential in the future. It's a void bomb with the following stats:
Armor HP: 600 Explosion Radius: 4000 Energy Neut Amount: 15,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
This thing is most useful against very large ships, and has to detonate right on top of a target to have any effect. We don't expect it to take the world by storm but it should be a very good option for harassing capitals, especially with small numbers of bombers.
This thing needs to have its stats revised.
First off, the explosion radius is way too large. With 4k explosion radius and only 15k base neut amount, that won't put a dent in an Archon's cap; it'd take literally a dozen bombers with these bombs to cap out a single Archon. It's a little better against supercaps, but still not stellar. Maybe that's the intention since you "don't expect it to take the world by storm", though, but I don't see a lot of point in introducing intentionally bad mechanics that no one will use.
Anyway, I guess it's a start. Bombs like this which require more aiming but have a higher reward for hits have the potential to be the first bombing related mechanic that humans are better for than multiboxing software, but have the issue of not really being the AoE weapons bombs are supposed to be.
I was hoping these changes would have something that actually thwarted ISBoxing and promoted actual humans playing the game, so I'm a little disappointed. Since apparently it's impossible to ban cheating in this game, how about adding a captcha to bomb launchers? Every time you launch a bomb, you have to type in a random 5-number launch code. |
wheniaminspece
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:48:00 -
[34] - Quote
as a bomber fc and an isboxer i have some opinions on these changes.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Cloaked Ships Decloaking Each Other: The change that allowed cloaked ships to pass through each other without decloaking 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 gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship. We know that some players are going to be unhappy with the way this makes their gameplay more challenging, but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after.
this is my biggest problem with these changes, and i think it's absolutely horrible. i'm still going to attempt to ISbox by warping to a bookmark at default ranges, then warping down to a target and bombing. what this TOTALLY removes is the ability to warp your fleet around, and the ability to position yourself before a bombing run while cloaked. i'm guessing this is aimed at isboxers specifically but it's a very flawed solution. if you want to stop people isboxing bombers, simply make it something that you aren't allowed to do. why are you so reluctant to ban ISBoxed bombers that all bombers have to pay for it. if anything this is MORE of a nerf to real players due to the added friction and complexity.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Bomb HP Reduction: We're decreasing bomb HP to 96 armor and 20 hull, and increasing the racial specific resistance on the bombs to 99.8%. This keeps the maximum number of bombs in a wave the same (except when damage bombs are mixed with void or lockbreaker bombs, but that was already a bad idea), but makes it easier to destroy bombs with smartbombs. Notably this puts the total bomb HP to a level where named or T2 medium smartbombs can destroy them, providing more options for cruiser and BC fleets to defend themselves.
mixing void bombs with damage bombs is completely viable since void bombs explode a few seconds earlier. i often mix in 4-5 void bombs (enough to cap out any subcap in the game) with a couple of damage bombs and it works great. not really sure why this change is necessary at all, i guess you want bombs to be like missiles where they are all destroyed by a single medium smartbomb? i suppose killing bombers while they bomb you and bubbling all around isn't enough of a defense against bombers.
CCP Fozzie wrote: New Anti-Capital Void Bomb: This is the first toe dipped in the water for smaller AoE (and therefore more aiming required) dumb weapons, which we think have a lot of potential in the future. It's a void bomb with the following stats:
Armor HP: 600 Explosion Radius: 4000 Energy Neut Amount: 15,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
This thing is most useful against very large ships, and has to detonate right on top of a target to have any effect. We don't expect it to take the world by storm but it should be a very good option for harassing capitals, especially with small numbers of bombers.
might be cool i guess, i'm a little skeptical about the 1 meter explosion range lol.
anything i didn't respond to i think is a decent idea. some of these changes are just horrible in my opinion. bombers deserve a lot more thought put into them than this. if you simply want people to stop using them then i think you might accomplish that goal successfully. |
Wild Things
The Suicide Kings Black Legion.
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
I do hope that this isn't the only change to DICs and HICs in this patch. Scripted HIC points need to prevent caps from taking gates, otherwise fighting on a gate in lowsec is going to get even more frustrating than it already is.
Good changes overall though. In this moment, I am euphoric. |
MuraSaki Siki
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
63
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
just asking the reason, would it be better to adjust the bomb launcher stat, instead of doubling the bomb deployment skill effect? |
Elmnt80
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
215
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:50:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:New 10km Dictor Bubbles: This is a new ammo choice for dictors that act just like the normal aoe bubbles except with a smaller range and +50% bubble lifetime. These are intended to be another option that fleets can use to pull in hostiles (especially bombers) at desired ranges and should be quite useful for bubbling your own fleet. We will investigate the option of adding an equivalent Hictor version at a later date, but the system that WDFGs use for their scripting doesn't easily lend itself to this sort of use so no promises.
Would it be possible to add these to the syndicate LP store as a faction version instead? It would actually give the syndicate LP store a desirable item, which it currently lacks and would inject life into an extremely dead region. |
muhadin
Origin. Black Legion.
181
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:50:00 -
[38] - Quote
As someone who runs alot of accounts at once, and has used isboxer. I don't even know why ccp allows isboxer to be used. The first major red flag should be that ISboxer is run on Inner Space which is used for botting in eve. The problems are not bombers, bombers were probably one of the most balanced things in eve. The problem is isboxer. Bombers already have counters to them, many bomber fleets have died, and there are too many nerfs to bombers all lumped together.
Also +1 on new dictor bubble. "Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love" |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
76
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:51:00 -
[39] - Quote
Does not look bad at all. The only niggling thing I have in my little brain is that with decreased mobility the bombers feel less Covert Operations. But that is probably something I can live with. |
Janeway84
Its a good day to die ORPHANS OF EVE
108
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:51:00 -
[40] - Quote
I love all the changes here except cloaky ships uncloacking each other, Its a nerf to WH Pvp Cant you just make sure bombers can get uncloaked when cloaked and leave other cloaky ships out of it? |
|
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
154
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:54:00 -
[41] - Quote
muhadin wrote:As someone who runs alot of accounts at once, and has used isboxer. I don't even know why ccp allows isboxer to be used. The first major red flag should be that ISboxer is run on Inner Space which is used for botting in eve. The problems are not bombers, bombers were probably one of the most balanced things in eve. The problem is isboxer. Bombers already have counters to them, many bomber fleets have died, and there are too many nerfs to bombers all lumped together.
Also +1 on new dictor bubble.
CCP tolerate ISboxer because it adds subscriptions to their game, no other reason. I would be completely for preventing its use in PvP as other major MMOs have, and restricting it to PvE, if not banning it altogether.
I wouldn't say bombers are the most balanced ship in the game because they're capable wiping entire fleets with very little effort as it stands, but the cloak changes will bring them to the other end of the scale - near useless in the hands of actual players. 8 people simply CANNOT coordinate as well as one person using software that clones their mouse clicks, no matter their individual skill or how good friends they are irl gay gamers for jesus |
KaRa DaVuT
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:56:00 -
[42] - Quote
no more "no effort" bombing.
ty fozzie |
colera deldios
252
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:56:00 -
[43] - Quote
Quote:Are you going to make ships that are Sieged/Triaged immune to these Bombs ? Because ... If this rolls in without Traige/Siege immunity than you have effectively destroyed the most crucial thing used to fight outnumbered.
I mean it's going to be stupid easy to hit caps that are moving at 200ms (unrealistic) with these bombs let alone an immobile capital ship I mean unless you are 100% blind you should have no problem hitting them and at 15,000 Neut you can say good bye to Triage and good bye to fighting outnumbered etc..
This is another bandage fix done wrong like constant stream of capital/super capital nerfs that end up changing nothing at all. I mean you are directly and indirectly hitting capital ships where they really are not the problem in EVE.
Take a step back and see when Capitals/Supers became a doctrine. It's when Goons and what remained of NC started fielding 1500+ strong Alpha fleets and the only counter to that was Capitals who could survive the initial volley.
From then on instead of remaping 0.0 and how we fight for sov rebuilding the system from ground up to allow skilled pilots with less players to fight a larger entity you went after capital ships on and on and on again.
Good ******* job. +0 for the effort.
However the rest of the changes are very good. |
Kalissis
123
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:56:00 -
[44] - Quote
I understand how you want to nerf bombing runs. But you are totally nerfing all other aspects of the bomber hull as well, with more sig radius and weaker agility it will kill also those bombers beeing used as torp support or black ops drop dps ships.
Very viable way was to sig tanking large (and medium) guns using ABs on bombers at least to some degree before getting killed. I can't calculate anything from here as I'm at work but please check if the addition to sig will break those aspects. |
romzzz
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:58:00 -
[45] - Quote
I'm sad to see the cloaking nerf. It will be hard to organize bombing fleets from now on. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:58:00 -
[46] - Quote
Sigh, ill first link this post and just copy paste it for reference.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5119858#post5119858
Yi Hyori wrote:Bumping for dev response to these changes whether intentional or not.
These changes seem to be a step backwards.
If these changes were not intentional, I would like to point out that there are other ways of nerfing bombers without affecting the entire line of covert ops cloak reliant classes of ships.
There have been a few suggestions already and I'll bring them here in one post to condense it.
Reduce bomb damage or at least allow better mitigation. Armor battleships are far superior to shield due to the massive penalty of shield extenders and without the ability to somehow mitigate this, shield fleets tend to get absolutely ripped apart by bombs.
- suggestion a new skill similar to what was introduced in I believe Rubicon with the armor honeycombing skill would be highly beneficial to shield ships. -introducing an explosion velocity to bomb damage would significantly reduce damage taken by smaller ships and would allow larger ships to still minimize some of the damage. - half the resists on the bombs. This would half the initial bomb waves so the first damage wave will be reduced and give fleets a chance to respond.
If these changes were not intentional and merely a bug, please ignore.
But please do not let this change hit tranquility. Its simply stupid.
Anyway, so the fact that the decloak change has been confirmed, please take a moment to remember what CCP said when they implemented that change. The patch note said something along the lines of, "oh hey yea its a bug and we're finally fixing. npnp bros." and covert ops rejoiced for their cloaked ships decloaking each other was fixed.
the main issue with these changes is that it really hurts the average players more than anyone else. I am an avid supporter of ISBoxer and I have no qualms with the program, however I do have issues with changes that are heavy handed sweeping changes that not only affect the targeted group, but massive collateral along with it.
I hate to have to compare Eve to this game, but World of Warcraft had to deal with multiboxers in arenas and battlegrounds. The public outcry ( read crybabies ) were so loud that blizzard had to do something. So they removed the ./follow command in battlegrounds and arenas. That was their bandaid solution.
This change, of rolling back the cloaking changes, feels like a bandaid fix to try and fix something that ccp views as "too easy".
Please take a look at this again and find a better solution. Reducing the effectiveness of bombs is a great step, but the decloak change is a huge step backwards.
One of the main concerns or issues that seems to come up is that if this "feature" and i use the term loosely, goes live, there needs to be a way to show fleet members that are cloaked. Either through the new bookmark overlay or soemthign that shows where they are to prevent accidental decloaking. Adding extra layers of complication does not equal great mechanics.
Again, I urge you all at CCP to take a look at these changes and reconsider the thoughts that went into these changes. Complicated mechanics does not make a good game. Simple yet interesting mechanics does a good game make. |
Nordalis Rmith
The 501st Legion Galactic Skyfleet Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
I do not like the ships de-cloaking each other change. I feel like this impacts many aspects of cloaking not related to bombers.
|
Arden Elenduil
Scary Devil Monastery
149
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:07:00 -
[48] - Quote
For the love of.... All of you people complaining about cloaked ships decloaking each other, stop whining. Back in the day, that was how cloaks worked, and we did bombing runs just fine, even outdamaging the supers at times.
So all your blathering on about how that is going to kill bombing runs is pure bullshit, it just takes a modicum of skill, which I suggest you acquire, instead of trying to get CCP to give you your easymode toys back. |
Prince Kobol
2304
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:09:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked Ships Decloaking Each Other:
The change that allowed cloaked ships to pass through each other without decloaking 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 gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship. We know that some players are going to be unhappy with the way this makes their gameplay more challenging, but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after.
Hahahaha
So you have nerfed bombing runs for real players and just made using ISBoxer even better.
Good Job !!!! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:09:00 -
[50] - Quote
Capqu wrote: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
QFT - forgot in my write up about the fact i lol'd at you inane ignorance of how voids work in conjunction with damage bombs in a single run Fozzie.
wow...
...just wow. |
|
Prince Kobol
2304
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:For the love of.... All of you people complaining about cloaked ships decloaking each other, stop whining. Back in the day, that was how cloaks worked, and we did bombing runs just fine, even outdamaging the supers at times.
So all your blathering on about how that is going to kill bombing runs is pure bullshit, it just takes a modicum of skill, which I suggest you acquire, instead of trying to get CCP to give you your easymode toys back.
I personally have no problem with this change its just that it makes using ISboxer even better when compared with using a bomber fleet consisting of real people. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please.
surely this 'should' be possible with the new sensor overlay right?
...right???? |
a dolp heater
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:14:00 -
[53] - Quote
Why not make bombers a separate ship for the sole purpose of bombing and stealth bombers be a weaker version for that but with torps
im thinking like banelings or infested terrans
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
387
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:15:00 -
[54] - Quote
Also not really sure what dropping bubble sizes does to help. |
Odithia
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:16:00 -
[55] - Quote
El Space Mariachi wrote:[ CCP tolerate ISboxer because it adds subscriptions to their game, no other reason. I would be completely for preventing its use in PvP as other major MMOs have, and restricting it to PvE, if not banning it altogether. How many people ragequit eve because of isboxer ? I suppose that's why other MMO ban it.
I like all those change except the proximity cloak nerf, curious to see how the anti capital and interdiction bomb will work. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
763
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:16:00 -
[56] - 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 |
Kalissis
124
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:23:00 -
[57] - Quote
After seeing some of the posts I must say:
+1 changes on decloak, we did manage it back in the day with it. +1 on some of the changes not beeing thought thru 100% +1 ban ISBoxer for PVP.
Ps. +1 give back cruise missiles to bombers. |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
92
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:24:00 -
[58] - Quote
Not so bad overall, but I was hoping for an emphasis on strategic/e-war roles.
Imho
- torpedo's should be removed completely from the hull (there is not a single word on torps in your post! whut?) - bomb damage should work similar to that of smartbombs, i.e NOT depend on signature radius and nerfed to somewhere around 2,5k-ish damage/bomb. In any case you should look into the effect that bombs have on the tanking meta in large scale conflicts. |
Ka'Narlist
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
234
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:28:00 -
[59] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Interesting changes, definitely a nerf for multiboxers (at last!) No its not. Multiboxers are the ones least affected by the uncloaking change
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1576
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:29:00 -
[60] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
In short... burn in hell... CCP
|
|
|
|
|
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 |