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) |
Catherine Laartii
Providence Guard Templis CALSF
320
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:43:00 -
[181] - Quote
Sokor Loro wrote:Yep +1
I eagerly await the tears on the cloaking nerf. People ran sucessful, coordinated bomb groups before that change and they will do the same after. It will be more difficult to set up, stay set up and execute, but tbh all of those things are so trivial now that it's almost ridiculous to complain about it being more difficult.
What concerns me is that these nerfs don't address the isboxer issue, and in fact probably makes it a lot stronger. While I don't think isboxer itself is cheating/unfair/whatever, in the context of bombers it provides a huge advantage. Sir please lower your cheekbones. They're scaring the children. |
Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:45:00 -
[182] - Quote
Well if You want to play with cloaky You better get isboxer - really ccp should buy isboxer and sell some bundle - I can almost see the comercials for it:
ONLY 100$ PER MONTH. YOU CAN OWN EVERYONE. NO RISK INVOLVED. WE HAVE NERFED NORMAL PLAYERS TO CREATE THIS DEAL JUST FOR YOU!
Doooo it. Doooo it.
Seriously. Noone will care to use bombers when only way to keep them somewhat effective will be to use isboxer. Normal players will not deal with that RANDOM AND LUCK BASED decloaks.
Going to sell my new shiny panther that will never be used after the patch. No You can't have it. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:45:00 -
[183] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:yes and you can give up 2 slots on a carrier you may not be able to cap trans or you may have weaker reps but it is do able and if you have a second carrier to refit off as situations change this is not unreasonable With only two reps there is not much reason to bring a carrier, T2 Logi will be better in every way. You also won't refit quick enough when the bombs are already flying. And you only get one chance. Finally, bringing two carriers is not even an option most of the time in wspace, especially for smaller entities and after it is made much harder to extract after the jump drive changes.
well you're not jumping out in a wh and i rarely even need three reps on my carrier two tends to work the best as most fits can't even reliably run that in triage (if your not running a triage carrier these bombs can be avoided) T2 logi are much easier to alpha so their is still a trade off and one triage cap rep is worth more then a t2 logi. |
Wandering Squirl
The Suicide Kings Black Legion.
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:46:00 -
[184] - Quote
Hello CCP,
Instead of the cloak changes that are seemingly not hitting close to the mark, how about giving fleets a fighting chance against bombs them selves by making defender missiles work against bombs.
This would resurrect a rarely used item (we know you love that) and give fleets a defense against massive waves of ISboxing bombers. Imagine destroyer screens on the premier of a large fleet ready to fire off the defenders at the first sign of bombs. So this does not provide 100% immunity but if used effectively can defend reasonably well against the use of isboxers and general bomber waves as well.
The cloak changes will not help against ISboxers FYI, as they will all just warp in from their respective perches and bomb on land, then warp out. This wont effect them in the slightest.
Thanks, S |
Imagonem
Black Bag Ops
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:46:00 -
[185] - Quote
I'am not a fan at all at bumping into fleetmates without seeing them again. Not being able to warpin a couple of us cloaked because we'll decloak as warp pushes us togheter.
If you want to add this... old mechanic of decloaking a cloaked enemy with your own cloaked ship.. lul what? It would occasinaly happen and both cloakers would be staring at eachother with friggin deer-in-trailer-headlights-eyes. Possibly someone might have used it as a tactic... but dont blow smoke: Such a tactic would have been utalized by a tiny minority of a minority of players; I suppose my old discorifter is also an old tactic by thoose standards.
If you want to add it, it must at the least be made possible to see your cloaked fleetbuddies, and even then warping cloaked and bumping into eachother... horrible.
As is mentioned: A change to cloaking as is today after the bugfix years back does not only change how bombers behave, but every ship that uses a cloak. Every tactic that uses cloaks.
Now that we are done with that.
You are overnerfing things. A big hammer instead of a few adjustments here and there. Better ideas: Instead of making a bomber turn like a slow whale make the fitted bomb launcher the culprit, not the hull and so on. Or how about a 10s effect upon firing the heavy bomb cursing your agility to hell for the duration ^^ And so on.
Dont overnerf. It never did you good in the past. Also. Hail ISBOXER our deliverer.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:46:00 -
[186] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:
Then use ISBoxer. Or get over it.
Right because why would i want to organize and play with others in an MMO |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1549
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:47:00 -
[187] - Quote
the decloaking changes will hurt isboxing players much less than players that organize bombing runs by hand. that's not cool Build your empire ! Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis Contact me for details :)
|
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
515
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:47:00 -
[188] - 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. Except bombers arent the only ones who use cloaks. Anyway, thanks for shitting on wormholers and making carebearing safer, again. W-Space Realtor |
Gob Lox
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:47:00 -
[189] - Quote
I fail to see how nerfing a entire group of ships will help curb the problem. Lets face it; the real problem is with ISBoxer. Please ban the software and not take it out on those who coordinate bombers properly |
Marius Noragol
Outer Void Applications Get Off My Lawn
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:47:00 -
[190] - Quote
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.
This. I think all other changes are fine if you give real pilots an easy way of achieving the same result as the (often mentioned) multiboxing software.
|
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3396
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:48:00 -
[191] - Quote
ulililillia wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:
Then use ISBoxer. Or get over it.
What a great way of thinking, you should work for CCP.
Why work for them? I volunteer my time for free.
If you don't like those options, you're free to suggest a third one he could use under the proposed changes. I mean, we could suggest that he stop flying bombers, but it sounds like he wants to fly bombers. So that leaves him two options: Use ISBoxer, or get over it and do it the old fashioned way. That's reality. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Corey Lean
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:49:00 -
[192] - Quote
ulililillia wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:
Then use ISBoxer. Or get over it.
What a great way of thinking, you should work for CCP. Maybe CCP can work out a deal with Lavishsoft where we can get an EVE client+isboxer bundled subscription |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
294
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:50:00 -
[193] - Quote
Altrue wrote:I'm worried about the 1m sphere of anti-capital bombs not showing on the tactical overlay, thus not helping the perfect aim required.
Its already hard enough with the tactical overlay, given the fact that it a client-side help while the actual launch alignment is server side.
Fozzie, this is a good point. is there a way to make a "falloff sphere" for these bombs so we can see where they will land better? like a 500m radius? |
elitatwo
Congregatio
350
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:51:00 -
[194] - Quote
Funny observations of the last weeks:
We say Ishtar op!
CCP comes: Nerf missiles!
We say bombs too strong!
CCP comes: Nerf cloaks!
Got me thinking, if we can determine the right pattern here we could ask for the right nerf or buff to occure. I am usually very observant and good at this but this pattern still eludes me.. signature |
Pritovsky Pootis
Eschelon Directive Universal Consortium
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:52:00 -
[195] - Quote
Great. Another wide sweeping change from fozzie that once again fails to take in the big picture. Just because some people use bombers via isbot in nullsec and someone cried that their fleets died doesn't mean you have to nerf every single cloaked ship in the game. Terrible idea to have cloaked ships decloak each-other (without even letting you SEE other fleet members). Like some have said this effectively kills ALL fleet warps of cloaked ships, even non bombers eg. T3s.
In WH space where cloaked ships are pretty much essential this feels like a big middle finger to us especially after the mass changes (and the ignored feedback). I can only hope, probably in vain, that this time you might actually change your mind. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2893
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:52:00 -
[196] - Quote
thankfully cloaked ships can see other cloaked ships in fleet so they can coordinate to not decloak each other. oh wait. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Herrin Asura
Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:53:00 -
[197] - Quote
Quote:Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
You guys are insane. Why do you buff ISBoxer and hit legit players with the nerf bat? Ah yes... because the multiboxing players pay more. got it, thank you.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:53:00 -
[198] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Funny observations of the last weeks:
We say Ishtar op!
CCP comes: Nerf missiles!
We say bombs too strong!
CCP comes: Nerf cloaks!
Got me thinking, if we can determine the right pattern here we could ask for the right nerf or buff to occure. I am usually very observant and good at this but this pattern still eludes me..
Don't give up find this pattern and save eve from CCP |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10082
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:56:00 -
[199] - Quote
Oh, and while we're at it, since the thread is about 50% on this topic anyway.
Ban ISBoxer. Or barring such decisive action, at least dredge up the fortitude to address it, make a statement regarding it's use. Knock off the tiptoeing around the issue, and address the elephant in the room once and for all.
Heck, if the truth of the matter is that you just can't tell whether someone is using it or not, just admit it. Many of us suspect such a thing anyway. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
145
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:58:00 -
[200] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and while we're at it, since the thread is about 50% on this topic anyway.
Ban ISBoxer. Or barring such decisive action, at least dredge up the fortitude to address it, make a statement regarding it's use. Knock off the tiptoeing around the issue, and address the elephant in the room once and for all.
Heck, if the truth of the matter is that you just can't tell whether someone is using it or not, just admit it. Many of us suspect such a thing anyway.
This if you don't know then at least let us know you don't know rather then just looking like you don't care |
|
Pandoralica
DEFCON. The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:59:00 -
[201] - Quote
- 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.
-makes sense
- Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
- this kills a lot of content, as bombers are not just good for bombing ive run different setups relying on the cloak in the past and i doubt this is the fix you are looking for ISbox-bombing and easy-bombing should be fixable with other changes
- Reduction in HP (with increase in resists) for the damage bombs, so that they can be destroyed by (named or higher) medium smartbombs.
- yes
- 17% reduction in bomb speed, with associated flight time increase. This means that you'll have 12 seconds to react to bombs instead of 10. Range stays the same.
- yes
- Doubling the effect of the Bomb Deployment skill, to 10% per level. This will allow people to bomb more often.
- dont know why, but ok
- A new anti-capital void bomb with a tiny range and a large explosion radius. You need to land it right on your target but if you hit a cap ship it will eat a ton of cap.
- normal voids do not work under heavy tidi (i tried it with 50bombers in B-R), so i guess capital-voids wont work the same and if you aim for caps you need to expect heavy tidi i guess :(
- New 10km radius interdiction probes. Intended to give fleets more options for bubbling themselves and pulling in opponents (including bombers) at undesired ranges.
- ok, you could also give HICs the option to adjust their range...
all in all nice ideas but the cloak thing really issnt cool! think about it
o/ |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3396
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:03:00 -
[202] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and while we're at it, since the thread is about 50% on this topic anyway.
Ban ISBoxer. Or barring such decisive action, at least dredge up the fortitude to address it, make a statement regarding it's use. Knock off the tiptoeing around the issue, and address the elephant in the room once and for all.
Heck, if the truth of the matter is that you just can't tell whether someone is using it or not, just admit it. Many of us suspect such a thing anyway.
Of course they don't know. And as soon as they find a way to know, it'll be circumvented by hiding the program's processes.
The truth of the matter is that they know banning multibox software WILL result in sub losses. No doubt. Unlike everyone who threatens to leave over this or that change, banning ISBoxer guarantees sub/PLEX sale losses, because people with massive ISBoxed fleets literally no longer have their playstyle available. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Alexis Nightwish
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:03:00 -
[203] - Quote
You had me at "Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km." ^^ Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
481
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:04:00 -
[204] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
Not wanting to add fuel to this but the reason why such threads like this are somewhat hijacked is due to Developer visibility. The current apparent open conversation thread about isboxing ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=354128&find=unread ) has ZERO... absolutely ZERO dev posts, only 4 csm posts where 2 of them were completely off topic, and the other 2 were shrugging off posts in no way open to any form of discussion on the topic.
Its Developer Visibility that counts in these forums, especially in areas that people believe is broken, that affect areas that they are concerned about.
A bunch of geeks talking about something they have no control over, in 1 thread of hundreds that are created every day in these forums accomplishes absolutely nothing.
As far as we would know, no devs have been directly contacted about Isboxing or its game breaking effect and thats the point! we're totally in the dark.
we post here because its connected, and that you're reading this thread. Open a dialogue about pressing concerns AND show you are reading and watching it, an you'll get less hijacking.
|
MsArj
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:05:00 -
[205] - Quote
hrmf, rebalance = nerf the crap out of em.
Small frigs thats suppose to be slow and sluggish. doesnt really fit into the whole covops idea.... |
August - Breeze
Lost Society Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:07:00 -
[206] - Quote
I love these changes! Many more ship types will be flown now and that is a good thing for EVE! There were just to many ships that could not be flown in fleets because bombers would way to easily destroy them all. More varied fleets compositions can now legitimately be fielded. Battleship fleets are now more viable.
Small gang roams and gate camps are also heading towards getting boring as everything was getting too "cloaky" and "nullified". I am 100% in favor of a cloaked ship decloaking each other. This is a step in the right direction.
I like every one of these changes because I think they will make the game MUCH more diverse and healthy. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
368
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:08:00 -
[207] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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...
J52 Phantom performed a similar role I believe, Korean war. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
806
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:09:00 -
[208] - 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.
This right here makes me think you guys don't play your own game. (Not the first time this has happened by a long shot btw)
Organization of characters in bombing runs is valuable and beyond tedious as is for a number of reasons...
1. More than 7 bombs and they blow themselves up.
2. Bringing in squads of 7 from different axis's so each squad doesn't get bubbled.
3. Lining up with a celestial so that you can warp out after a bomb run.
4. Being at the correct range so that the only non-targetted weapon in the game with a flight time lands at the right place.
5. Setting up all this quickly and most times in TiDi is a nightmare.
Again... stuff like this makes it painfully obvious you guys don't do this sh!t very often yourselves or you wouldn't have even brought this feature (old bug) up. Not today spaghetti. |
Vohann Bezrodnyi
Tactical Air Command Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:15:00 -
[209] - Quote
inability to bomb buble completely kills the idea of bomb squads. Decklok during fleetwarp the target and increase flight time bombs makes invulnerable enemy fleet. Very very big nerf. ((( |
Oxide Ammar
171
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:15:00 -
[210] - Quote
This is a sad day to Cov op and I was counting the days on when you will tackle black ops... pls don't touch black ops you seems you don't have the courage to ban ISBoxing and you took the easier route..GJ CCP. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing. |
|
|
|
|
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 |