| 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) |
Capqu
Love Squad
Pasta Syndicate
773
   |
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:05:00 -
[121] - Quote
appreciate the actual reply fozzlord, regardless of how i feel on the subject
do you not think the multiplication of input specifically with regards to something as precise as bombing is a bit of an issue?
without the preciseness of isboxer, combined with the amount of human error it eliminates, i don't think there is a way of making bombing viable without it while making bombing balanced with it. unless you specifically target isboxer with some kind of detonation codes or other un-mulitpliable input i can't see bombing ever being balanced both with and without the existance of isboxer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:05:00 -
[122] - Quote
In hindsight, adding my rant about ISboxer haters was probably not the smartest thing to add to my rather long rant about bombing issues. I just found that most of the people who complain about ISboxer link the two together.
Aside from that, yes fozzie, we did come into this thread expecting something entirely different... like the actual problems with bombers being addressed, not a slap on fix ... that doesn't actually fix anything.
and to put it bluntly, what is the point of increasing the time to set up bombing runs, but at the same time decreasing bomb rate of fire? That just seems, to me, something thats just thrown in for good measure. because why not?
Reducing align time for bombers, understandable, adding cargo space, real cool. more ehp for more sig radius. ?? O.o getting targeted in the first place in a bomber is bad and a small increase in ehp for a sig radius bloom is counter intuitive, but if this is to make bombers easier to catch, so be it.
but again, not addressing the main issue which is bomb damage.
Again, I really think you guys should take a look at these changes. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
913
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:06:00 -
[123] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:Why not have Defender missiles as a hard counter against bombs?
like a lot of people were suggesting.
1. makes an obsolete weapon platform useful
2. gives people new roles to play in fleets
3. gives FC's more choices
defenders as a midslot e-war style role..
- anti drone warheads
- e-war effects warheads
- anti bombs warheads
etc...
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Prince Kobol
2305
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:08:00 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.
Yes but all your doing is giving those people using ISBoxer an even bigger advantage. I mean its like you are purposely changing game mechanics in order to make more people use ISBoxer.
CCP Fozzie wrote:We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.
I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.
If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.
How about a thread were CCP Devs actually talk about what their thought on ISBoxer are instead of continuing to ignore it exists. |
Paralein
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:09:00 -
[125] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Longdrinks wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Did you just make light interdictors useless by creating interdiction stealth bombers?
It's an honest question, because this is a very significant change.
A frig with interdiction bubbling abilities is very powerful, plus being able to covop cloak.
This is a concern, but I don't know if this is op or not. you should probably read that part again lolololololololololololololol I have they bubble themselves, but a throwaway cloaky, or a permacloak bomber on a wormhole, or gate. We use sabre's in this way. The new dictor bubble is for Interdictors, not for Stealth Bombers. It's in this post because it is designed as a tool for countering bombers in some circumstances.
Nice. Instead of addressing the dozens of posts talking about ISBoxer, let's respond to the one person in the entire thread who misunderstood the bit about the new bubble.
Come on, mention the elephant in the room. Its name is ISBoxer.
Is mining/missioning with ISBoxer a problem? No, because it's not mechanically superior to manual mining/missioning. A bunch of ISBoxed miners or missioners will not mine more ore or finish missions faster than the same ships piloted by humans.
When bombing, on the other hand, the main difficulty is organizing your attack. The players can't see each other, but they still have to be at the same place, align in the same direction and launch their bombs at the same time. This requires some effort.
With ISBoxer, all this "at the same ..." disappears. Essentially, you warp in one ship. You navigate and aim with one ship. You launch one bomb. No coordination required at all, ISBoxer handles the whole rest of your bombing wing for you.
With this change, you're adding an additional layer of difficulty to lining up bombing runs: Not decloaking each other. Unfortunately, this only affects players. ISBoxer users will have to do some configuring, then they can continue as normal. No additional effort required at all, since ISBoxer will keep the ships spread out for you. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:10:00 -
[126] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:
If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.
How about a thread were CCP Devs actually talk about what their thought on ISBoxer are instead of continuing to ignore it exists.[/quote]
There are multiple threads about their stance on isboxer and its been stated over and over that its fine. It really isn't the dev's responsibility that the player base wishes to bury their heads in the ground and ignore the decision given by the devs over and over.
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria
Yulai Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:11:00 -
[127] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.
We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.
I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.
If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.
at moment the cormorant rail, the wise use of bubble is already a counter.
but in the antibomber wing u r giving a full weaponry to wipe us in too easy way. Smartbomb, 12 sec detonation, anti bomber bubblers, mass declaock, long time align is a headshot.
is a headshot not a rebalance for real man community, i dont care about isbox or other pirats program but i'm thinking how is possible to comunicate and do something.
At least give the chance of cloacked ship in same fleet to see eachother.
Is unthinkable even at "lore of new eden" level a squad cloacked dont see the members at few km each other! and cannot do nothing to avoid decloacking!!! sci-fi level like star wars or star treck ships aren acceptable are so dumb
|
Burneddi
Love Squad
Pasta Syndicate
141
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:12:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.
You really can't deny though that bombing is the #1 thing as far as ISBoxing in PvP goes. Practically ignoring the issue completely when rebalancing bombers is just goddamn weird. |
Kleb Zellock
Control-Space
DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:13:00 -
[129] - Quote
Looks like another threadnaught is needed to squash a poor idea.
The de-cloak does nothing to hurt the isboxer and makes it harder for the human player who can make human error. This does not in any way help new players learn to do something besides mashing F1 and contemplating how much money they are spending to sit in TiDi, because it will be a very steep learning curve to learn to bomb. Bomber FC's are going to be reluctant to take anyone along that has a likelihood to welp the the whole fleet because they don't understand the mechanics. 'Sorry new guy, go die in your rifter like a good little meat shield.'
If it was so great when it was a bug then it wouldn't have changed, would it?
That being said: the only other thing might be to give a little more range on that new bomb. 1m is going to make it near impossible to use. Since the theme of Phoebe seems to be Death to All Supers you should give it a chance to actually hit something. Maybe 100m-250m. |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
92
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:13:00 -
[130] - Quote
Hey Fozzie, first of thanks for commenting on feedback! I'd like to learn your take on bombers as a torpedo-plattform.
I believe this particular role should be either completely removed or at least significantly nerfed. There is already a strong meta of so called siege fleets - bombers running around/ bridged by black ops shooting structures at minimal risk and the ability to blue-ball each and every counter - which is only going to be even more popular once the changes for jump drives hit.
The dps role should be reserved for cloaky ships that are bigger and more expensive such as t3 vessels and black ops. 700 dps on a 40m ship that can hardly be catched is kinda silly :> |
Kalissis
124
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:14:00 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.
We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.
I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.
If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.
Bombing runs should be nerfed, that is understandable. But please rethink the sig radius change, it makes them useless in all the other applications that bombers are used for. You can't compete against cruisers and below anyway anymore with bombers why make this even worse? Nerf bombing it's fine, but please give them some more fighting abilities. |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
901
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:18:00 -
[132] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW9H1b7zXUY
. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2889
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:19:00 -
[133] - Quote
since the anti-cap void bomb has no AOE there is no reason to not allow them in low, right?
eve style bounties (done)
dust boarding parties
imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
KaRa DaVuT
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:21:00 -
[134] - Quote
wheniaminspece wrote:as a bomber fc who turned to isboxer because it was a lot easier to do it myself, 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. oh here's another thought, did you know that cloaked ships can be decloaked by warping through things? or when things warp through them? because i can't WAIT to be decloaked by a cloaked ship warping through me, it's gonna be great. .
You need to put some real EFFORT to fly them efficiently now. Like it shoud be at start.
So please,crying for cannot ISBOX anymore is, well juvenile and childish at best...
I am sorry if this ends your "l33t" bombing squadron of autistic enthusiasm
You can still continue ganking freighters in empire with 8762 ISBOX catalysts and continue acting "l33t". |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria
Yulai Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:21:00 -
[135] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:since the anti-cap void bomb has no AOE there is no reason to not allow them in low, right?
with no aoe and multiple decloack i think is almost impossible for a wing to center target. OFC a real man wing with vets and noob inside.
|
|
ISD LackOfFaith
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1756
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:23:00 -
[136] - Quote
Thread locked for cleanup.
ISD LackOfFaith
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Eve Mail or anything other than the forums. |
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
3394
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:54:00 -
[137] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote: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 !!!!
What would be a good job is if you went ahead and did that whole leaving the game thing you promised to do.
"i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
wheniaminspice
Love Squad
Pasta Syndicate
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:58:00 -
[138] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.
We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.
I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.
If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.
ISBoxer is not a separate discussion here. Bombing is the strongest application of ISBoxer in PvP, so these two issues are undeniably linked. I could go over the many ways in which ISBoxer is superior to leading a fleet of real people, but it should be very obvious that there are a lot of things that are simply not possible without it.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=24414904 - around this time, our coalition had 4 active ISBoxers. We forced the CFC to retire it's rupture doctrine because they kept getting owned by bombs; we bombed multiple harpy fleets, it was disgustingly strong.
Realistically, not much of this would have been possible when using our own pilots. I could get into specifics regarding the difficulties of organising a large bomber fleet, the friction involved, the ease of ruining a bomber fleet but again i suspect it's all pretty obvious to anyone who understands the mechanics.
Anyway here's my point: ban ISBoxing bombers, make a few minor changes to the mechanics, see what happens. Don't nerf bombers into the ground, making them more trouble than they're worth. Cloaked ships de-cloaking each other is a horrible and obtuse mechanic, and a band-aid for a problem that you are reluctant to fix for what i can only assume are concerns about people unsubbing their accounts. I for one use these accounts for plenty of things, and i won't unsub them i PROMISE.
The collateral damage from this change in particular will be terrible, much like the NPC AI changes killing solo pvp. |
dj ore
Repercussus
RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:58:00 -
[139] - Quote
leave it to ccp to shake things up without any regard. why don't you fix afk 24/7 claokers that hurrasse for isk or real life cash to stop camping have cloaking devices use ozone. but no cloaked ship can decloak each others. so what cap fleet will the bombers bombs. you have nerfered the cap too they wont be fighting much any more. why don't you gusy make new shisp types more missions more anoms in 00 then mess things up. may be its time to find a different game to play. some of spent years maxing out bombers and caps and you just made them un usable as wing warp thank ccp whay are you treating us if we were blink ?
|
Capqu
Love Squad
Pasta Syndicate
777
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:59:00 -
[140] - Quote
dj ore wrote:leave it to ccp to shake things up without any regard. why don't you fix afk 24/7 claokers that hurrasse for isk or real life cash to stop camping have cloaking devices use ozone. but no cloaked ship can decloak each others. so what cap fleet will the bombers bombs. you have nerfered the cap too they wont be fighting much any more. why don't you gusy make new shisp types more missions more anoms in 00 then mess things up. may be its time to find a different game to play. some of spent years maxing out bombers and caps and you just made them un usable as wing warp thank ccp whay are you treating us if we were blink ?
afk players can't do anything and this isn't the thread for that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Queen ofPassion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:59:00 -
[141] - Quote
It's a nerf for Wormhole-Space.
I don't mind the changes to bombers, but once again CCP changed a game-mechanic not considering W-Space and W-Space-palyers.
As long as you cant "see" your cloaked fleet members, it's making an old awful bug a new feature.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:01:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
- A stat rebalance on the bombers themselves. Short version is significantly more HP, weaker agility, larger sig radius, more cargo (so that they can all carry 3 bombs), smidge more CPU, lower warp speed.
EVE lore supports pilots knowing the location of cloaked fleet members, due to the Warp To Member command. With the Phoebe change of showing bookmarks in space, what do you think about also showing cloaked fleetmembers in space? This would allow human pilots to coordinate their stealthy activities better than just voice coms would allow. And not just for bombing runs, but also activities like coordinating warping to a cloaked friendly sneaking up on a target. |
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH
Mordus Angels
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:02:00 -
[143] - Quote
wow..... this is a HUGE nerf to bombers..
decloaking nerf will KILL small gang (10-20 people)usage of these ships.... and we rely on them to outwit numerical advantages of our enemies...its hard enough trying to bomb in a fleet of players with DC's and people not warping cloaked.... let alone decloaking each other...
it basically nerfs covops power projection ..and the ability to even use them ..as you have to be near the BLOPS bridge...to bridge....this adds a whole other dimention of PITA of using these ships...which are already a PITA with the current rule set
it will make using covops VERY difficult, in enemy space....and gives BLOBS the upper hand yet again
if you want to stop ISOBOXERS... stop ISOBOXERS |
Teleil Zoomers
Usque Ad Mortem
TCC.
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:05:00 -
[144] - Quote
This makes me sad. i use bombers in everyday wormhole play.
if you would nerf them so much then can i at least has my sp back plz? |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
803
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:07:00 -
[145] - Quote
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
^
Terrible decision. I can't even fathom why you'd want to do this.
Not today spaghetti. |
Willaev
KINGS OF EDEN
Sev3rance
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:07:00 -
[146] - Quote
Nerf all cloaking instead of addressing the real issue. Because :CCP: |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:08:00 -
[147] - Quote
Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie. |
Dominous Nolen
The Unthinkables
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:08:00 -
[148] - Quote
Queen ofPassion wrote:
As long as you cant "see" your cloaked fleet members, it's making an old awful bug a new feature.
I'm in complete agreement with you here. Unless we can actually see fleet members this makes bombing runs complete chaos for human players.. As previous stated, botting players won't have a problem with this.
This is EVE, Not Hello Kitty: Island Adventure |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
595
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:10:00 -
[149] - Quote
1. Capital Void Bombs
A. For wormhole PvP, 4000 explosion radius is too much. Most capitals are 3000m long. As it stands you need about 10 hits to neut out an archon, which is more then 1 bombing run. And you cant target paint them. And you cant hit capitals while they are not triaged and moving. Seems you dont wish the bomb to be used in wormholes?
B. AoE 1 meter - most triaged capitals still drift a few meters per second for a minute, and can be bumped slightly all the time. Its not really nice to have to wait and wait for the capital to stop drifting. maybe AoE range of 500m is more appropriate, or make this thing not a bomb but some kind of super-torpedo that has no AoE but does not miss either. Actually super-neut torpedoes would be more interesting then capital void bombs :)
But anyways, I can allready see that as soon as these bombs come out, enemy fleet will bump their own archon a bit.
2. Decloaking
This is a massive nerf to all cloaked ships. I am not talking about bombers, I am talking about recons and T3s we use in wormholes. I would be fine with it if I could see cloaked fleet members nearby, but otherwise, no.
I would ask that you hold off on this nerf until you implement ability for fleet members to see each other cloaked first. |
ulililillia
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
91
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:14:00 -
[150] - Quote
They think this is a huge nerf to iskboxer, but it's not, it's a big nerf to legit player bombing, while just being a minor inconvenience for iskboxers. This once again makes using iskboxer seem a lot better than having a bunch of real people show up and bomb with you.
CCP please, why |
| |
|
| 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 |