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) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
759
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:58:29 -
[901] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:
Also, maybe rather than whining about bombers being a threat to your blob-ball-of-doom, you could start thinking
because blobbers cant field (more) bombers, right? |
5pitf1re
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 09:20:53 -
[902] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Awesome. As for the whiners that think bombing is a scrub thing. Try it. It is pretty clear you haven't bombed and don't know what your talking about. With bombers not decloaking each other its possible. It just isn't with with decloaking. At least not practically and no its not about skill. Its about how the server works and how the flying and warping mechanics work.
And awww how sad, you may need a AF or cepter or 2 to fly with your BS fleets.
Just look at the killboards. Bombers are no OP and have already a host of counters if you weren't so lazy as to use them. You have local for gods sake. You know they are there.
And bombers are getting the jump nerf as well.
Really show me some proof that bombers are OP. If they are lots of people would be bombing all day. But they are not. It is the odd successful bomb run out of often many failed ones.
(I will refrain from discussing the isboxer rubbish, seriously HTFU).
You must be playing another EVE than the rest of us. Bombers are OP, if you don't think so then you're just doing it wrong.
The obvious point was already mentioned and I'd like to mention it again, even the ISBoxer users stated that ISBoxer is proving to be a problem in PVP and yet you are not willing to act.
CCP Fozzie wrote:dephekt wrote:Quote:We can't weather such a sharp subscriber loss right now and we can't afford to dedicate time to actually fix things the way we should, so here are some token changes instead. FTFY If this is the message that you're getting from Phoebe, then I'm afraid I can't do anything to help you.
Obviously. |
Prince Kobol
2327
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 09:43:17 -
[903] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:dephekt wrote:Quote:We can't weather such a sharp subscriber loss right now and we can't afford to dedicate time to actually fix things the way we should, so here are some token changes instead. FTFY If this is the message that you're getting from Phoebe, then I'm afraid I can't do anything to help you.
The message we are getting is that you are terrified of those ISBoxer bombers being unsubbed... |
Prince Kobol
2327
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 09:45:42 -
[904] - Quote
Wettbewerb wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Awesome. As for the whiners that think bombing is a scrub thing. Try it. It is pretty clear you haven't bombed and don't know what your talking about. With bombers not decloaking each other its possible. It just isn't with with decloaking. At least not practically and no its not about skill. Its about how the server works and how the flying and warping mechanics work.
And awww how sad, you may need a AF or cepter or 2 to fly with your BS fleets.
Just look at the killboards. Bombers are no OP and have already a host of counters if you weren't so lazy as to use them. You have local for gods sake. You know they are there.
And bombers are getting the jump nerf as well.
Really show me some proof that bombers are OP. If they are lots of people would be bombing all day. But they are not. It is the odd successful bomb run out of often many failed ones.
(I will refrain from discussing the isboxer rubbish, seriously HTFU). As a member of the original group that made bombing what it is today, by routinely wiping out fleets before ccp changed the mechanics to make cloaked ships not decloak each other, I'm going to say you are wrong. It is very possible to bomb and wipe fleets out, it just takes more preparation and effort.
Bolded the important part. This is the part CCP does not like |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23358
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 09:59:17 -
[905] - Quote
about orbitF1, and ISBoxer: They are the same concept.
With ISBoxer, one player controls multiple local characters. With orbitF1, one player controls multiple remote characters. The major differences are the third party programs (ISBoxer vs comms), and whether each character is manned by the FC or individuals who have agreed to relinquishing control of their executive functions.
feel the rhythm, feel the rhyme, give it up, just orbitF1 and follow broadcasts.
easy mode. like it, love it, it works.
despite the "Forum Support Yes/No" part of the balancing algorithm, the tryhard playstyle is a very, very small minority. the reality is bombing works with and without ISBoxer, with and without cloak nuances.
my opinion? not that it matters, but the exploitability is in the AOE, worsened by bomb resists to their own damage type. while other methods of dealing damage are single-point single-target, AOE scales very well. they scale with a 99% efficiency, according to their resists.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 10:20:05 -
[906] - Quote
Once again madness and casual gaming won
Godspeed CCP Fozzie, one day people will understand you
**Official Poster:-á**http://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order)
|
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 10:41:33 -
[907] - Quote
dephekt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:dephekt wrote:Quote:We can't weather such a sharp subscriber loss right now and we can't afford to dedicate time to actually fix things the way we should, so here are some token changes instead. FTFY If this is the message that you're getting from Phoebe, then I'm afraid I can't do anything to help you. I like the jump drive changes and the fact sov is being reworked, but that's not here or there regarding the bomber and ISBoxer issue you guys are dodging and giving yourself breathing room on with these changes. If you don't see the problem with 1 user controlling 30 accounts simultaneously in PvP, then I'm afraid I can't do anything to help you.
Everyone can see that there is a problem with ISboxed bomber fleets and shield doctrines over at your null sov world. While you might be willing to sacrifice something you don't really care about because it happens to be outside your world, there are actually players that do care about bombers. Players that don't use lameass ISboxing software. Players that put a lot of time and effort in getting a successful bombrun organized.
You might not know or care but there is eve gameplay outside your null sov world. And what has happened here is that a lot of those people voiced their objection against sacrificing their gameplay in order to improve yours. And it appears that CCP actually seems to have an understanding and said: back to the drawing board. Because thats what you do if you realize your solution wasn't good enough. It doesn't mean the problem is gone or is never going to be solved.
I'm sorry throwing the gameplay of thousands of players down the drain in order to solve your problem a little faster didn't happen.
|
Shinah Myst
V0LTA Triumvirate.
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 10:41:44 -
[908] - Quote
Hey Fozzie, how about makeing bombers bubble immune? It's too hard to wipe BS fleets this days. |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 10:50:33 -
[909] - Quote
Shinah Myst wrote:Hey Fozzie, how about making bombers bubble immune? It's too hard to wipe BS fleets this days.
.oO(and thats the people calling us crybabies) |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 10:53:32 -
[910] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Capqu wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:
Didn't want to fly anything but Tengus, anyways.
bombers dont really change anything about 250mm rails and 350k tank being good and besides bombers decloaking each other doesn't change anything about what bombers are strong against vs what they are weak against. some of the other suggestions in this thread [like explosion velocity for bombs for example] would address that issue and it looks like fozzie is going to be looking into something that next patch but its too late to implement now edit: and yeah i think bombers still need a nerf, but i think whats more important than that is a change that makes them affect armor and shield targets equally I guess my statement requires some explanation. When bombers can decloak one another, it means setting up a bombing run was a tactical decision that took more than 3 minutes to do. "I am going to setup my bombers on this grid, so taking a fight here will be advantageous to me because I have a strategic asset in place". When bombers dont' decloak one another this task becomes rather trivial, letting someone make perches regardless of the system or the grid that the fight is taking place on. But that's not really all that bad by itself. The real zinger that people have been a bit grumpy over is that bombing is very important in the current meta, and the most efficient way of doing it is not with a ~specialized~ bomber FC but instead with one or two individuals controlling all the bombers. There is an inequality between effectiveness and difficulty. Bombers being **** easy affects the meta as a whole, because it means that any doctrine you make must be able to deal with bombers in some way beyond maneuverability. Any ship with a high signature must be able to survive the fight without perching - since perching can equal death very easily. Additionally a mid-slot module like the MicroJumpDrive becomes "core" on any ship, to deal with the threat of bombs. Shield tankers, who rely on midslots, get the short end on this one since they more or less need two of their tank slots for maneuverability. Since locking bombers quickly is a priority, many shield doctrines are further erased from contention since the supporting cast naturally has a higher signature and lower lock time (a bad combination for bombers). At least in terms of Battleships and BCs. Tengus are still largely untouched. When looking at armor doctrines, due to the risk of perching with bombers that can be setup anywhere, the most viable platforms are the ones with a decent projection envelope. If I just sit in once place with my HIC 1 alt bubbling, then I'm at no risky of dying horribly. Finesse ships also become more risky to fly unless you rely on motoring around the field and not perching. Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of bombers - the ability to wipe the floor with the ill-prepared through superior tactics and coordination is sexy to the max. However in practice they're quite effective in this role without any modicum of difficulty (or manpower). In their current state, Bombers simply excel in making combat stale.
not empty quoting. |
|
AOSA
Atreidun Order
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 10:58:28 -
[911] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Here are our latest updates to the plan.
Firstly and most significantly, the change to decloaking mechanics has been put on hold indefinitely. We are going to take some more time to work on the best way to have ships interact with cloakies and it's very possible that our eventual changes will be significantly different than what we talked about earlier. For now, cloaked ships will not decloak each other.
We're also going to be removing some of the earlier increase in signature radius and shifting it to a penalty on the bomb launcher itself. The T1 bomb launcher will add +10m signature radius and the T2 will add 12m.
We're increasing the capacity of the T2 bomb launcher to 300m3.
The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed.
Both the new bomb and new interdiction probe will be made available exclusively in the Syndicate LP store.
The new interdiction probe will be delayed slightly as we've run into some graphical issues with it that we'll need more time to properly fix.
We've sourced a lot of these changes from this thread, thanks to everyone who has been providing feedback.
Sounds great! These modification plus the original changes mentioned before should work well. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23372
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:07:25 -
[912] - Quote
make bombs require a target lock, somehow. like other weapons, like other cloakies.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
5pitf1re
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:15:10 -
[913] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:dephekt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:dephekt wrote:Quote:We can't weather such a sharp subscriber loss right now and we can't afford to dedicate time to actually fix things the way we should, so here are some token changes instead. FTFY If this is the message that you're getting from Phoebe, then I'm afraid I can't do anything to help you. I like the jump drive changes and the fact sov is being reworked, but that's not here or there regarding the bomber and ISBoxer issue you guys are dodging and giving yourself breathing room on with these changes. If you don't see the problem with 1 user controlling 30 accounts simultaneously in PvP, then I'm afraid I can't do anything to help you. Everyone can see that there is a problem with ISboxed bomber fleets and shield doctrines over at your null sov world. While you might be willing to sacrifice something you don't really care about because it happens to be outside your world, there are actually players that do care about bombers. Players that don't use lameass ISboxing software. Players that put a lot of time and effort in getting a successful bombrun organized. You might not know or care but there is eve gameplay outside your null sov world. And what has happened here is that a lot of those people voiced their objection against sacrificing their gameplay in order to improve yours. And it appears that CCP actually seems to have an understanding and said: back to the drawing board. Because thats what you do if you realize your solution wasn't good enough. It doesn't mean the problem is gone or is never going to be solved. I'm sorry throwing the gameplay of thousands of players down the drain in order to solve your problem a little faster didn't happen.
I suggest you reread what he wrote because nothing you just said makes any sense at all. |
Pandoralica
DEFCON. The Initiative.
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:18:10 -
[914] - Quote
Valentine Wiggin Wiggin wrote: Congrats on caving to a bunch of spoiled whiners and their easy win button.
You seem to have a lack of understanding of what you are talking about. He asked for feedback and good ideas in his first post and thats what he got, then he made a decision. Being registered with your alt (atleast i hope for you its an alt) and talking **** about stuff you prolly dont even know much about is a level whining most people won't reach in years.
*edit: with these changes it will be very hard to bomb from more than one direction effectively without losing a lot of bombers (thats if hostiles brought ships that are capable of doing so) there wont be any EASY wipe outs anymore but it might still be possible tho |
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:22:02 -
[915] - Quote
Guys, please stop being ridiculous.
Nearly all bomber pilots I know would accept a bomber nerf bc. we know that we're kind of OP atm. But the cloak change was not the right way. CCP makes the life of all players better by implementing quality of life changes and this change would have been completley contrary to the way CCP is going the last few months.
This change wouldn't even be a nerf, we would have been able to handle this changes and still bomb like before. Bombing would have been more annoying, yes but not less effective.
We all know that a bomb nerf is incoming and I am happy that CCP changed their mind and thinks about better solutions to handle this problem. |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
8397
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:22:54 -
[916] - Quote
Ok so, the decloak changes were good, it meant that cloaky pilots had to coordinate effectively to do their job, and felt the risk of things going wrong. Sadly ccp has listened to the pilots who couldnt coordinate a pissup in a brewery and yet again made the game easier for newer pilots to take on those who have spent large amounts of time in this game perfecting skills for pvp. Grats. |
Eddiie
Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:34:47 -
[917] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:How about you guys quit dancing around the elephant in the room and address ISBoxer already?
That's the crux behind about half of this thread.
^ |
Captain Creampie
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:37:43 -
[918] - Quote
thank god.
the decloaking thing was ********.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1324
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:53:27 -
[919] - Quote
Thank you Fozzie for listening regarding changes to the decloaking mechanic, there was the potential for considerable collateral damage to many other areas of the game other than the effects on bombers, It would have resulted in a great deal of work to mitigate and otherwise consider those unintended effects, so a smart move.
Once again, thank you, and as a side note, the direction you seem to be going in overall, where there are no off limits for IMPROVING the overall health and activity of the game, is encouraging. Nice to see that just because something has always been, is no longer a reason to keep bad and painfully awkward mechanics (skill queue length etc).
I know I gave you a hard time with the wormhole Hyperion changes, I still believe unfortunate choices were made, but I am getting the impression, that you have other plans in mind to bring some life and vitality back to wormholes, I do hope so, you have many challenges and much work ahead of you in so many ways, please, remember to look back after your changes with an open mind. Hopefully we will reach the desired goals, Devs and players together.
[u]_There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE _[/u]
|
August - Breeze
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:54:20 -
[920] - Quote
Wow! This (among other reasons) is why people are unsubscribing. Bombers needed that nerf and CCP knew it. Now we are back to only 25% of the ships in the game being able to be flown in fleets. Battleships will now stay irrelevant. CCP buffed bombers instead of their stated nerf! Just WOW is CCP bad at understanding what is going on in game.
One of the main reasons everyone fly's the Ishtar and Tengu in null and ignore almost every other ship in the game is that they are hard to bomb.
I am unsubscribing my second account because I have no faith in CCP. o7
|
|
Grave Digger Eriker
Grave Diggers Guild
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 12:07:12 -
[921] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Ban ISKBoxer tha'ts the problem not the bombers themselves. All this rubbish about buffing or nerfing bombers is not the problem.
Just use the EULA and ban all accounts that use ISBoxer.
Good luck to bombers bar they do a great job. The issue is 1 guy screwing entire fleets full of individuals! |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 12:07:31 -
[922] - Quote
Sof0s wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Here are our latest updates to the plan.
Firstly and most significantly, the change to decloaking mechanics has been put on hold indefinitely. We are going to take some more time to work on the best way to have ships interact with cloakies and it's very possible that our eventual changes will be significantly different than what we talked about earlier. For now, cloaked ships will not decloak each other.
We're also going to be removing some of the earlier increase in signature radius and shifting it to a penalty on the bomb launcher itself. The T1 bomb launcher will add +10m signature radius and the T2 will add 12m.
We're increasing the capacity of the T2 bomb launcher to 300m3.
The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed.
Both the new bomb and new interdiction probe will be made available exclusively in the Syndicate LP store.
The new interdiction probe will be delayed slightly as we've run into some graphical issues with it that we'll need more time to properly fix.
We've sourced a lot of these changes from this thread, thanks to everyone who has been providing feedback. The bold part is wrong why do you penalize the tech2 item more than the tech1, most bombers dont care about the reload time but will care about the signature penalty .
I'm guessing that it's to balance with the fact that after phoebe you will be able to carry 4 bombs instead of 3 in a T2 bomb launcher |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 12:08:14 -
[923] - Quote
August - Breeze wrote: I m unsubscribing my second account because I have no faith in CCP. o7
Good, stay away from us scrub demon. You werent ready for this game. I heard that the latest WoW patch is great.
**Official Poster:-á**http://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order)
|
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 12:10:56 -
[924] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCP
For the interim:
Fitting a bomb launcher disables the ability to cloak.
TYTIA
I think you failed to notice the word Stealth in the ship class name... |
DNSBLACK
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
703
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 12:14:24 -
[925] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCP
For the interim:
Fitting a bomb launcher disables the ability to cloak.
TYTIA I think you failed to notice the word Stealth in the ship class name...
Well then how about allowing BO BS warp cloaked. I think Manny and I would be ok with not allowing them to warp cloaked if A bomb launcher is fitted. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:00:06 -
[926] - Quote
Pritovsky Pootis wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We've sourced a lot of these changes from this thread, thanks to everyone who has been providing feedback.
Are you the same fozzie from the WH forums or someone else entirely? I don't quite believe what I'm seeing. If i'm reading this correctly, you actually read feedback and changed something that wasn't a good idea BEFORE it went live on the server? Wow. Well done- you actually cared what people had to say for once. Now can you please apply the same thinking to the WH forums and other changes you may bring about in future? Two-way communication is awesome and I'm sure everyone here is glad that we got a response this time at least!
It has happened before (Freighter/JF changes, Advanced industry skill changes and I'm sure many others more) and I'm sure it will happen again.
@CCP Fozzie and team, thank you for listening to the considerations made regarding the cloak changes and going back on it until finding a better solution.
imo, stealth bomber balancing doesn't need to go through cloak changes (although I would like to see a solution that would allow bringing the "decloak the enemy with your own cloaked ship" without affecting the quality of life of cloaked fleets).
Possible balancing ideas:
- Give an explosion velocity attribute to bombs
- Reduce the bomb explosion radius
- Reduce the cap of simultaneous bombs being launched
Possible ideas for countering bombs:
- Create defensive tools to reduce bomb effectiveness (deployables with limitations similar to the mobile cyno inhibitors would be an idea, these could also be limited to be only effective against specific bomb types (see bomb variety idea below) so that they wouldn't become too OP)
- A module to detect active bomb launchers (something that would detect active bomb launchers on grid by a method like dscan fixed to a narrow angle)
Possible ideas to make larger hulls/shield fleets more viable:
- Create mass destabilizing bombs (affecting mostly armor and having their effect dampened by the shield buffer) and Shield Disruption bombs (affecting mostly shields but having low effect on armor), thus forcing bomber fleets to choose if they want to be more effective against shield or armor.
- Give BS/BC hulls a warp acceleration/deceleration buff (not speed, just acceleration/deceleration as that is one of the main factors why people don't use those more and without the constant bridging after phoebe this factor will be even more relevant).
Summing it up, although the needed balance might have to be through some degree of nerfing, I think it would be much more interesting to all parties involved (lazy scrub blobbers excluded) to have stealth bombers, BS fleets and shield fleets in general balanced more via adding options and variety to the game rather than taking options out of the game via extreme usage of the nerf bat.
P.S. - I know this is supposed to be a discussion only around stealth bomber balancing and that I derailed a little bit on the subject as I felt that there's some degree of interconnection with other areas of game play. My apologies for that.
P.S.-¦ - Regarding the multiboxing controversy, all other factors aside, getting more accounts under the same customer ultimately makes it so that small group of customers have a bigger weight on revenue, thus increasing the risk revenue loss by losing a small group of customers (in a basic sense, don't put all eggs in one basket kind of theory). |
J'aghatai
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:01:12 -
[927] - Quote
Just an idea
Bomb speed = Bomber speed at launching moment. Flight time 20-25 seconds Bomb has to be 20 km away from the bomber to explode
If you want to bomb straight out of cloak even at max speed you need to be within ~10km making it really hard to get out of the safety range of 20km if there is a bubble.
for effective bombing with ab you need to be at ~30 km
possibility to bomb at 80km but with full speed mwd you will be likely dead before you can launch the bomb. That way you can still wipe out battleship fleets with a decent bomber fleet, but with the right setup they can decimate the bombers before they reach max speed.
might be crap - but bombers need fixing asap. They were op when they could decloack each other and now they are imho game breaking.
|
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:07:41 -
[928] - Quote
Layman thoughts on Bomber rebalance.
I had thought that part of bomber rebalance would be to address AFK camping + GÇÿOP Isboxing by a single playerGÇÖ that the following would be introducedGǪ
Prototype Cloaks would remain as is, acting like camouflage which only works if youGÇÖre stationary has suitable counters already in game.
Covert Cloaks would GÇÿinstallGÇÖ a specialized bay on the fitted ship and consume Heavy Water.
Rational for Covert Cloak changes specialized bay. EVE has been moving in the direction with specialized bays in Mining, Hauling and Carrier ships, so thereGÇÖs precedent. The specialized bay would be consumption, of Heavy Water for Covert Cloaks (Cyno = LO, Siege = Stront, Carrier/Blops = Isotopes, hence Covert Cloak = Heavy Water sticking to the ice belt theme).
Consumption rate would be minimal, allowing long deployments. To prevent 23/7 AFK camping it would consume a bay in 6 hours if you wanted to prevent GÇ£go to work cloakedGÇ¥ or 12 hours if EVE/CCP wanted to keep a day shift + night shift scenario possible.
By having consumption rate it adds to noticing in GÇÿLocalGÇÖ when a possible cloaky has arrived. Requires refueling by ideally a Covert Frigate capable of carrying enough Heavy Water for say a Squad of 10. Alternatives obviously would include Blockade Runner cyno fit or the new industrial frigate Prospect (even give it a GÇÿField RefinerGÇÖ skill). During refueling window it gives defenses a chance to scan out the resupply. There is also an alternative here to introduce a deployable (which could get counter camped).
On Bombers devastating Shield ships. Is Angular Velocity not an element in bomb damage? If it currently is not, but introduced, then speed tanked shield ships could cut both ways. Speeding into bombs increases damage, broadside would be standard, away would be mitigated. The argument that the Micro Jump Drive as unbearable Shield defense against bombers seems odd since Armor ships GÇÿloseGÇÖ a DPS mod usually to their tank mod, fair.
The element of Not de-cloaking cloaked ships by other cloaked ships in same Fleet should remain as it correlates with an FC being able to www his fleet which do so at the slowest ships warp speed to destination. We have at present the possibility to exempt from fleet warp now, so a covert fleet could also distinguish a GÇÿrefuelerGÇÖ not going to same desto as bombing squad.
AFAIK, one of the only things that doesnGÇÖt deplete through the use of capacitor or consumption that is used offensively is T1 Laser Ammo, even mining crystals take damage. With a Covert Cloak consumption/bay you separate ISBoxing mining from ISBoxing Bombing because even space rocks pop causing the miner to be at keyboard periodically just as the AFK ratter still has to time his anoms.
Again, laymanGÇÖs thoughts, Ty, Eo
|
Padre deSoya
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:11:04 -
[929] - Quote
1. reduce area of effect on bombs to 5km, buff dmg > gives kiting fleets at least a small possibility to runaway 2. bring back cloaky decloaking > makes rapid squad repositioning depending on pilot aka UseUrBrain 3. ban ISKboxer > coz it-¦s not only stealth bombers, what about pipebombing? |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:13:58 -
[930] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Here are our latest updates to the plan.
Firstly and most significantly, the change to decloaking mechanics has been put on hold indefinitely. We are going to take some more time to work on the best way to have ships interact with cloakies and it's very possible that our eventual changes will be significantly different than what we talked about earlier. For now, cloaked ships will not decloak each other.
We're also going to be removing some of the earlier increase in signature radius and shifting it to a penalty on the bomb launcher itself. The T1 bomb launcher will add +10m signature radius and the T2 will add 12m.
We're increasing the capacity of the T2 bomb launcher to 300m3.
The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed.
Both the new bomb and new interdiction probe will be made available exclusively in the Syndicate LP store.
The new interdiction probe will be delayed slightly as we've run into some graphical issues with it that we'll need more time to properly fix.
We've sourced a lot of these changes from this thread, thanks to everyone who has been providing feedback.
Thank you Fozzie! |
|
|
|
|
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 |