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) |
Marlin Spikes
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 14:50:00 -
[601] - Quote
Just getting up to speed with these proposed changes. So let me make sure I understand this. Fail null sec blob fleets have managed to convince CCP to nerf the best blob counter in the game. Wow! Meta-gaming at its best.
Travel fatigue, bombing nerf, higher sig, less agility, uncloaking cloaked fleet members who are not visible, slower warp speeds. Heck, why stop there? How about adding to the list a feature that upon activating your cloak, a cyno-like beacon lights up in local that allows us to better see each other and enemy blob fleets can warp on top of the cloaked bomber(s).
I guess it's time for me to throw a tarp over my hound and let it rust away in my hangar.
Thanks CCP for breaking my favorite ship. |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
414
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 16:53:00 -
[602] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote: I multibox, i love it and have no issue with it at all. but bombers beeing multiboxed are overpowered because of the way the bombers work, any other ship has a counter when multiboxed.
I've had a change of heart, I think ISBoxer is entirely tangential to this conversation given the simple premise that anything someone can do with ISBoxer, a fleet of human players can achieve with a little practice and good coordination. The ISBoxer advantage of having all your ships slaved to single commands can cut both ways- humans will find it a lot easier to scatter randomly and be hard to catch, while an ISBoxer tends to end up with all their eggs in one basket more often than not. You can find plenty of situations where the advantages of one or the other can be highlighted or downplayed, but ultimately the possibility space is functionally identical and that's one of the reasons it continues to be permitted.
Making bombers decloak each other can be adapted to by both types of players (has been in the past!), the real questions a) is this providing interesting gameplay? b) is this affecting game balance?
The answers are no and no. Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships just makes life nightmarish, while at the same time, bombs are doing the same damage over the same area, so the overall effect of successful bomb runs is the same, regardless of how they are achieved. An extra 2 seconds reaction time is hardly consequential, given that the only useful reactions to a bomb run are to warp off or overheat your hardener. It's very difficult to predict where a bomb will land and ships that have the velocity to outrun a bomb usually have to use an MWD to do so, putting them at very high risk.
That adds another thing I believe should be added: a bomb detonation location and a countdown on the UI, complete with line towards the incoming bomb if you hover over it in the tactical view. Bombs are incredibly predictable so the advanced systems of the future should be available to extrapolate their velocity and time to impact. With such UI elements, targets of such a run have a better chance of reacting to incoming bombs in a sensible manner. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1702
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 17:27:00 -
[603] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Mike, is it clear to you what most people don't like about these change?
Do you agree that changing the cloak mechanic to combat bombers with have a negative effect on all forms of cloaky combat?
There really isn't much more to say at this point.
Yes and yes.
I have spoke with a few WH folks outside of this and they are telling me the same. This is a change flying under one label (stealth bombers) that is going to hit a lot of ships and areas of space. I am going to be asking ccp if this is intended or a side effect.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1874
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 17:32:00 -
[604] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote:http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1410/IBombers.png
This. Nice graphic, the only issue I have with it is when do they cloak? If (btw has this little gem been confirmed?) they can be decloaked in warp if they are in the same warp bubble would they all have to space out ahead of time or would they cycle in? m
Yeh, I setup my ISBoxer bombers on sisi and warped around and bombed with no issues. Don't even get decloaked mid-warp, only when I land to do the bomb run :)
Setup time is nil. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1703
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 17:47:00 -
[605] - Quote
Calvyr Travonis wrote:
A rework of defender missiles to target bombs. To me this is the best option because it not only gives fleets a new defense mechanism, but it also makes an obsolete and irrelevant weapon system viable again. I've also seen suggestions, further to the defender missile rework, of adding a new hull, could be either destroyer or cruiser class, T1 or T2, which specializes in the use of defender missiles, creating new options for fleet doctrines, with added roles. Adding an arming code mechanic to bombs. This solution is targeted more to discouraging ISBoxer, admittedly, but I still think it's a great suggestion, that would add a new dynamic to bombing. A code would flash on the screen after the bomb was launched and would have to be entered correctly before the flight time elapsed in order to arm the bomb and have it detonate. My suggestion is that the bomber would have to be on grid and decloak to enter the code, which would give fleets a little more opportunity to eliminate some of the bombers to prevent further runs. [/list]
arming mechanism, no. That would be too hard on people whose vision might not be 100% or players who are drunk or just bad typists.
Defender missiles? I have tried multiple times to get them repurposed, drone killer, bomb killer, hell antilaser chaff cannon. So far I have had little (actually no) success.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
181
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:03:00 -
[606] - Quote
Please dont do the "cloaky ships will decloak each other again" part.
PPPPLLLLEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE!!!
I have no idea why you think it is a good idea. I just know that from my point of view it will be a massive pain in some dark areas of the body.
If this is about ISBoxers, like many state here, then just change your EULA and hunt them down. Problem solved...
Please don't bring back the pain of the guessing where your cloaked buddies are, pretty pretty please.
Cheers Gal |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:14:00 -
[607] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Bombers are very much an issue now given that they have invalidated a large number of options in fleet setups and tactics. CCP changed cloaking to what we have today, it has caused issues, CCP are reverting it again. Now, players got along just fine before and they will get along just fine again. The only type of fleet this will heavily impact will be bomber fleets in large fleet fights. The bombers themselves will be a bit more sturdy and a good deal better at small gang/solo roaming after these changes.
"Goon Swarm Federation" - stopped reading there. Lobbyist blabla. |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:15:00 -
[608] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:arming mechanism, no. That would be too hard on people whose vision might not be 100% or players who are drunk or just bad typists.
Defender missiles? I have tried multiple times to get them repurposed, drone killer, bomb killer, hell antilaser chaff cannon. So far I have had little (actually no) success.
m
Vision problems, I'll give you as a person doesn't have too much control over that and sometimes even corrective lenses aren't enough. Unless of course the alert providing the arming code was large enough to compensate for people with poor vision. Something maybe in a 24px or even 32px font size. If they can't see that, I don't know how they're playing the game at all.
Players being drunk or having poor typing skills though, really? So we're going to account for people who are suffering from a self inflicted impairment now? And poor typing, we're not talking about transcribing a dissertation on particle physics, we're talking about say a 6-12 character string. Even the worst "hunt and peck" typist can handle that. |
K'rysteena Mocking'Jay
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:19:00 -
[609] - Quote
Dearest CCP Fozzie
* Cloaked ships now de-cloak again * I guess the original statement that this was a bug was wrong and that it was a feature? Can I just say that if you spend more time going back and forth on items that in the long run are truly minutia in the realm of things that should be fixed, you will NEVER get EVE to where it could be.
Oh, and make up your freaking mind, your like a bunch of teenaged girls trying to decide something... |
K'rysteena Mocking'Jay
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:25:00 -
[610] - Quote
*** THE NEW EVE VISION STATEMENT ***
Welcome to EVE, a space simulation, please be mindful of others. If you group together in anything large than 20 people we will nerf you. If you do anything in game with forethought and excellence, we will nerf your activity into the ground so that everyone is on an even playing field.
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR YOUR EXCELLENCE IF IT MAKES OTHERS FEEL INFERIOR IF YOU CAN DO IT BETTER! WE CAN CHANGE THE RULES SO YOU CANT! Marxism will rule the day. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13691
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:27:00 -
[611] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:baltec1 wrote: Bombers are very much an issue now given that they have invalidated a large number of options in fleet setups and tactics. CCP changed cloaking to what we have today, it has caused issues, CCP are reverting it again. Now, players got along just fine before and they will get along just fine again. The only type of fleet this will heavily impact will be bomber fleets in large fleet fights. The bombers themselves will be a bit more sturdy and a good deal better at small gang/solo roaming after these changes.
"Goon Swarm Federation" - stopped reading there. Lobbyist blabla.
We make heavy use of bombers in near every fight but hey, I guess you were also against the tech nerf too because its all a grroons plot. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
53
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:31:00 -
[612] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Continuing from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5123470#post5123470Lastly, for the vocal minority of a mob that is currently attempting to blame everything and their mother on this topic, multiboxing is not cheating. ISBoxer is not cheating. Get over it. Because a player enjoys a different style of gameplay that you do not agree with ,
uhm...... Mining is a playstyle Manufacturing is a playstyle Bounty Hunting is a play style Ganking is a playstyle Being the best Frg tackler is a playstyle the list can go on and on.....
1 player running so many accounts that for all intent purposes acts together as a single MOTHER OF GOD account........is not a playstyle. In the spirit of things....ISboxer is cheating....because it literally breaks the game on so many levels because it either stagnates a singular area of play for others, or it is way to easy and simple to destroy a target that the same sized fleet of individuals or mulit-boxed accounts simply can not do with the the same results.
Mulit-box = a multi monitor way playing accounts -or- alt-tabbing between them ISboxer does neither....so yes its cheating. 1 player, 40 accounts = 1 player and 39 bots. |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:50:00 -
[613] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Heinrich Rotwang wrote:baltec1 wrote: Bombers are very much an issue now given that they have invalidated a large number of options in fleet setups and tactics. CCP changed cloaking to what we have today, it has caused issues, CCP are reverting it again. Now, players got along just fine before and they will get along just fine again. The only type of fleet this will heavily impact will be bomber fleets in large fleet fights. The bombers themselves will be a bit more sturdy and a good deal better at small gang/solo roaming after these changes.
"Goon Swarm Federation" - stopped reading there. Lobbyist blabla. We make heavy use of bombers in near every fight but hey, I guess you were also against the tech nerf too because its all a grroons plot.
Couldn't care less about tech. Thing is, you just got something nuked I care about. You win. I lose. And now you show up in the typical goon style we all got used to in order to add insult to injury and see if you can farm some more tears by explaining how the people affected by that change are just too stupid to see that taking the small signature away, bombers decloaking each other and nerfed bombs are actually an improvement of bombers. No, I don't think I feel like letting myself get trolled on top of losing the only compelling aspect of eve that kept me playing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13691
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:59:00 -
[614] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:
Couldn't care less about tech. Thing is, you just got something nuked I care about. You win. I lose.
Didn't even see this one coming.
Heinrich Rotwang wrote: And now you show up in the typical goon style we all got used to in order to add insult to injury and see if you can farm some more tears by explaining how the people affected by that change are just too stupid to see that taking the small signature away, bombers decloaking each other and nerfed bombs are actually an improvement of bombers. No, I don't think I feel like letting myself get trolled on top of losing the only compelling aspect of eve that kept me playing.
I'm willing to bet you have not tested the revamped bomber. More tank and more fitting room a nice to have as is the larger cargo, sig being bumped up isnt the end of the world and you just have to laugh when people say they cant keep up with frigate gangs anymore. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
447
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 19:01:00 -
[615] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:baltec1 wrote:Heinrich Rotwang wrote:baltec1 wrote: Bombers are very much an issue now given that they have invalidated a large number of options in fleet setups and tactics. CCP changed cloaking to what we have today, it has caused issues, CCP are reverting it again. Now, players got along just fine before and they will get along just fine again. The only type of fleet this will heavily impact will be bomber fleets in large fleet fights. The bombers themselves will be a bit more sturdy and a good deal better at small gang/solo roaming after these changes.
"Goon Swarm Federation" - stopped reading there. Lobbyist blabla. We make heavy use of bombers in near every fight but hey, I guess you were also against the tech nerf too because its all a grroons plot. Couldn't care less about tech. Thing is, you just got something nuked I care about. You win. I lose. And now you show up in the typical goon style we all got used to in order to add insult to injury and see if you can farm some more tears by explaining how the people affected by that change are just too stupid to see that taking the small signature away, bombers decloaking each other and nerfed bombs are actually an improvement of bombers. No, I don't think I feel like letting myself get trolled on top of losing the only compelling aspect of eve that kept me playing.
Changing a mechanic everyone uses only harms one side? |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
612
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 19:23:00 -
[616] - Quote
It's painfully obvious that devs don't play this game.
These changes make it so isboxed bombers are the only way to bomb.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
168
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 20:14:00 -
[617] - Quote
so with these changes + the jump bridge ones why would i want to take SBs on a blops roam now they are sluggish and are gong to be popped to easy and taking them means my bridge gains 2x more fatigue then if i was roaming with just black ops (opening a bridge gives fatigue and them jumping to bridge them again adds more on top) so if i need to go more then 1 jump out it's now costing me more time and isk(for fuel) to bring a ship that will no longer preform well in a standard fight |
JamesT KirkJr
A New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 20:24:00 -
[618] - Quote
Look, the problem here is not with bombers or even really with bombs, it's with the bomb run model. Huge explosion radius + dumb bomb model + guaranteed explosion distance = mass SB runs to annihilate a 30km section of space-time using the same tactic (singular) over and over.
Try one (or a mix) of these ideas to move away from that static model and into something more varied and more balanced:
- Speed up the bomb instead of slowing it down, get rid of the default explosion range and introduce locking to set the explosion distance before launching. Locking keeps the SB around longer before firing, making lock times and signature radius the controlling factors for their vulnerability. This is a well understood mechanic in which both SB pilots and their targets can make choices for the best fits. Locking also warns the target so they can take defensive action. (* This isn't a "bigger missile" idea. The bomb should always go off at the target distance, so the SB can warp as usual, and even if the direct target escapes, the enemy's coordination and communication should be essential to avoiding collateral damage on nearby ships.)
- Speed up the bomb, BUT make the pilot hit the launcher again to detonate it at whatever range they want (again, no more default explosion range). They would have to hold on through the bomb's flight, but they get to pick the uncloak and fire range to maximize their chances of survival given that requirement. And ofc if they DIE FIRST, the bomb don't go boom.
- Give us a choice of detonation ranges on the bomb launcher's options, so we can mix up tactics that way. Easiest to code, most of the advantages of the other methods, but no warning for the enemy, so worst option imo.
- Go whole hog the other route - make bombs do less damage but have a shorter reload time. This means SBs can make more runs more quickly, but they also have to in order to do the same damage. This means they're exposed to enemy fire more, so attrition can take toll over the course of a fight. Also, the reduced damage encourages SBs to coordinate their runs on targets with the fleet - they would be softening up targets before the fleet primaries them, and also being the "tankbreakers" that let the fleet finish tough targets.
So yeah, there's lots of minimum-footprint changes you can make that add variety to the gameplay. Please note that in all of these cases, nothing requires you to screw with cloak mechanics or the uniqueness of the ship designs (they're looking more and more the same every rework). Also the countermeasures of anti-frigate ships, bubbles and long scrams can be used in opposition to all of the tactics employable in these models. Opposing forces all the way, for the best gameplay.
Now as to ISboxing, the only suggestion I have is not to try to twist game mechanics into Moebius configurations to counter third party software, and get yourself some anti-cheat software instead. The right tool for the job, and all that. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
828
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 20:39:00 -
[619] - Quote
Fozzie, I watched your [excellent] presentation on user feedback and I feel like this post is a prime example of exactly what you are looking for: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5126202#post5126202
I also want you to know it's never personal when I or anyone else flames your bad decisions, it's usually just venting frustration. I know you're busy with Vegas but when you get back if you could take a peek I'd appreciate it.
T-thanks Please respond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23167
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 21:14:00 -
[620] - Quote
funny story, I thought cloaks always affected each other, and this was until a few months ago. I love me some cloaky. falcons and buzzards. I've always flown them as if they would decloak within 2500m of each other.
-by accident, this doesn't affect my play habits. just saying this as a cloaky lover.
-bombers have maybe been OP. don't become fixated on ISBoxer.
-ISBoxer uses something called Kernel code, that is a deeper level of code than what EVE uses. ISBoxer also hides itself. this means a few things:
1. EVE has no way to "ban ISBoxer."
2. EVE won't be programmed on a Kernel level, and you don't want it to.
3. EVE won't and shouldn't snoop around your computer to look at everything that is running. for reasons.
Humor me for a second, and try your very hardest to pretend what I've said in this post is true. because it is. My question to ban ISBoxer peeps is... can you go into more detail about how exactly you propose ISBoxer should be banned? President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur | Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined | |
|
Binadas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 23:36:00 -
[621] - Quote
I know this concern has been raised above, but I feel it important enough to echo this sentiment.
The change causing cloaked ships to decloak within 2000m of eachother represents a nerf to all cloaky combat. Please CCP, I am a little concerned that for the sake of convenience, you will throw the baby out with the bathwater. Stealth bombers aren't the only ship with a covert cloak, and this change will ensure that other forms of cloaky combat become a bit of a pain in the ass, and less viable.
As far as I understand, your intention is to rebalance bombers. Unless it is also your opinion that all other forms of cloaky combat are overpowered and need rebalancing, please don't arbitrarily harm them as a side-effect of your efforts with stealth bombers. This kind of collateral damage is irresponsible and harms the game.
With the exception of bombers in large fleet warfare (only one specific aspect of this game), all cloaky ships already pay a fair price for their ability to become invisible. Compared to non-cloaky, but otherwise equivalent ships, they all have markedly less DPS or HP. Overall I appreciate your intentions and direction with this change, I just feel your methods are a bludgeon rather than a well targeted improvement to the game
Please if there are any possible ways of implementing this change for only stealth bombers and not other ships, could you put the effort into it? This playstyle means a lot to many players in this game. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
229
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 00:43:00 -
[622] - Quote
It has become painfully obvious that CCP has not put actual effort into this game anymore. If they had, they would have known about dual-sebo blapcanes, Omens, and other support-fit cruisers and battlecruisers that were dedicated anti-bomber fit to protect large battleship heavy fleets. During the Halloween war, there were numerous bombing waves that were whittled down to insignificant numbers by dedicated support cruisers.
Stop caving into the null blocs who are too thick-headed to see the value in support ships. You had a golden opportunity with the new dessies to make them dedicated anti-bomber or anti-cloaky hunters, but I guess not. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13691
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 00:53:00 -
[623] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:It has become painfully obvious that CCP has not put actual effort into this game anymore. If they had, they would have known about dual-sebo blapcanes, Omens, and other support-fit cruisers and battlecruisers that were dedicated anti-bomber fit to protect large battleship heavy fleets. During the Halloween war, there were numerous bombing waves that were whittled down to insignificant numbers by dedicated support cruisers.
Stop caving into the null blocs who are too thick-headed to see the value in support ships. You had a golden opportunity with the new dessies to make them dedicated anti-bomber or anti-cloaky hunters, but I guess not.
We are the people who came up with the instacane and also the biggest uses of bombing runs. Where are you people getting this null conspiracy junk from? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
229
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 01:07:00 -
[624] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:It has become painfully obvious that CCP has not put actual effort into this game anymore. If they had, they would have known about dual-sebo blapcanes, Omens, and other support-fit cruisers and battlecruisers that were dedicated anti-bomber fit to protect large battleship heavy fleets. During the Halloween war, there were numerous bombing waves that were whittled down to insignificant numbers by dedicated support cruisers.
Stop caving into the null blocs who are too thick-headed to see the value in support ships. You had a golden opportunity with the new dessies to make them dedicated anti-bomber or anti-cloaky hunters, but I guess not. We are the people who came up with the instacane and also the biggest users of bombing runs. Where are you people getting this null conspiracy junk from?
I didn't mention any one null bloc specifically. I salute the work you and your alliance have done in anti-bomber support, because it really is fun to know there are dedicated hulls in that 500man+ blob who's sole job is to stop you, but some of these changes are needless. |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 01:13:00 -
[625] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Heinrich Rotwang]
I'm willing to bet you have not tested the revamped bomber. More tank and more fitting room a nice to have as is the larger cargo, sig being bumped up isnt the end of the world and you just have to laugh when people say they cant keep up with frigate gangs anymore.
Sigres _is_ the end of bombers because it was the one atttribute that made them work in asymmetric encounters for smaller groups outside the big null blocks. A HP increase is not making them survive against anything. You get locked - you're dead. HP increase or not. You gonna get zerged as per usual with every other ship as a non-member of the blue donat. Or what do you think you gonna tank with that HP? And the decloak change ... "Uh once upon a time we worked around that one" - by that time, bombers were **** and they will now go back to being **** in order to fix a problem thats not even directly related. Oh yeah, you can easily set up different align points, pings and warpouts for each bomber in a NPSI fleet of randoms and newbies. Thats totally going to work from now on. You better keep a batch of BLOPS ready because I can see a mild increase in losses while bridging. Hit and runs on jump bridges? Good luck with the POS guns with that sigradius. No, it's not going to work. It's over. Careless wiped like the language channels (which was another thing that made me come back). Victim to CCPs habit of stomping over the smaller flowers that grow in the niche. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1159
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 01:14:00 -
[626] - Quote
Oddsodz wrote:Quote:Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. So this one step BACKWARDS is all about curbing muti-boxing software users. But in doing so you are funking up the play styles of countless players all across the game just to curb a (for now) small set of multi-boxing software users. Please CCP (not just you Fozzie) Get your head out of the sand and ban the use of multi-box software. All you are doing with this change is addressing the symptoms and not the cause.The cause is multi-box software. Not only has it made bombing for them that use it easy. It is also helping to out competing players in the mining community and the Incursion community. Sure right now it's only a small bunch of players using multi-box software. But every time you miss an opportunity to ban it. All you are saying to the rest of the player base is "HTFU AND GET MORE ACCOUNTS AND YOUR POORS"When a new player enters the game. The 1st thing he should do right now is learn how to install and use multi-box software. Because with out it, He will never be competitive in the PVP game. Why? Because he will not have the ISK to fly all the ships he is going to need to fly at the same time when competing with other players that are using multi-box software. When one players is cornering the ICE market in hisec because he can use 40 (yes this is true) mining ships at the same time, You know something has to be done. TL;DR This change is wrong. Fix the real issue, not the symptoms. Also, I got Post 69, I like that (little things)
Some people just can't resist any opportunity to cry for multiboxing software to be banned. This entire post belongs in another thread. Seriously? You're discussing mining, ice, and new player experience? GTFO. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13692
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 01:41:00 -
[627] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Heinrich Rotwang]
I'm willing to bet you have not tested the revamped bomber. More tank and more fitting room a nice to have as is the larger cargo, sig being bumped up isnt the end of the world and you just have to laugh when people say they cant keep up with frigate gangs anymore. Sigres _is_ the end of bombers because it was the one atttribute that made them work in asymmetric encounters for smaller groups outside the big null blocks. A HP increase is not making them survive against anything. You get locked - you're dead. HP increase or not. You gonna get zerged as per usual with every other ship as a non-member of the blue donat. Or what do you think you gonna tank with that HP? And the decloak change ... "Uh once upon a time we worked around that one" - by that time, bombers were **** and they will now go back to being **** in order to fix a problem thats not even directly related. Oh yeah, you can easily set up different align points, pings and warpouts for each bomber in a NPSI fleet of randoms and newbies. Thats totally going to work from now on. You better keep a batch of BLOPS ready because I can see a mild increase in losses while bridging. Hit and runs on jump bridges? Good luck with the POS guns with that sigradius. No, it's not going to work. It's over. Careless wiped like the language channels (which was another thing that made me come back). Victim to CCPs habit of stomping over the smaller flowers that grow in the niche.
If only there was some sort of device to lower turret tracking...
As for the POS, battleships warp in and out before a POS targets them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
43
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 05:38:00 -
[628] - Quote
Sounds like change for the sake of change...rather than change to correct a defect.
BOMBER CHANGES: proposed changes are typical CCP shell game. Increasing the local tank would normally provide increased combat survivability, but by increasing the base hull signature you've effectively negated that bonus. Post patch, every stealth bomber that undocks will essentially be Target Painted from the get-go.
..............Current Sig ......................Current Sig + TP 30% .............................Phoebe proposed change
Hound.... 34...44...48 Purifier... 37...48...50 Nemesis.. 37...48...52 Manticore 39..51...51
It just gets uglier when you throw on a medium shield extender or resist rigs. Or having your new "moar bettah" sig target painted post patch. Manticore would go from 56 (new 51 base +5 sig from F-S9 Regolith Extender) to painted 72, 76 w/ heat.
CLOAK: Kindly step away from the programming desk. Things should stay as they are. Dozens of posts above detailing the who/what/where/why. Organizing BLOPs is like herding cats, no need to make them wear bells.
BOMB RELOAD: Reduced time sounds good, not sure how useful. Once & Done seems to be the norm.
ISBOXER: No experience with it. I'd be angry to find that these SB changes are a result of 3rd party software. If so, please consider other alternative fixes, like limiting the number of clients per IP address.
CAPITAL BOMB: Love the idea. Dislike the proposed method. "Aiming" things in EVE is especially difficult. Would prefer something along the lines of a very slow torpedo, the modern equivalent of laser guided bomb. Bomber pilot would have to lock & paint the target and stay on grid until impact. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
448
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 07:07:00 -
[629] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:
3. EVE won't and shouldn't snoop around your computer to look at everything that is running. for reasons.
But it does, and has for years, EULA section 7.:
Quote:D. MONITORING
You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13692
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 08:32:00 -
[630] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rain6637 wrote:
3. EVE won't and shouldn't snoop around your computer to look at everything that is running. for reasons.
But it does, and has for years, EULA section 7.: Quote:D. MONITORING
You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6.
It looks at EVE not everything else on your computer. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
|
|
|
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 |