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) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11688
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Let's talk Stealth Bombers! As we mentioned in the Travel Changes Dev Blog, we are doing rebalance passes on Bombers and Hictors in Phoebe.
Our plan for bombers in Phoebe has several aspects, all aimed at keeping bombers effective while strengthening their counters and allowing skilled fleets to protect themselves.:
- 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.
- Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
- Reduction in HP (with increase in resists) for the damage bombs, so that they can be destroyed by (named or higher) medium smartbombs.
- 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.
- Doubling the effect of the Bomb Deployment skill, to 10% per level. This will allow people to bomb more often.
- 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.
- New 10km radius interdiction probes. Intended to give fleets more options for bubbling themselves and pulling in opponents (including bombers) at undesired ranges.
Stats:
Purifier: Fittings: 45 PWG, 305(+7) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 350(+138) / 600(+213) / 450(+63) Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 355(+42.5) / 266.25(+16.25) / 1.33(+0.0833) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 300(+38) / 4.4(+0.053) / 1,495,000(+99000) / 9.12s(+0.71) Warp Speed: 4.5(-1) Sensor strength: 19(+2) Signature radius: 50(+13) Cargo Capacity: 260
Manticore: Fittings: 38 PWG, 330(+2) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 625(+309) / 350(+62) / 400(+62) Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 315(+46.25) / 236.25(+21.25) / 1.33(+0.0833) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 280(+24) / 4.5(+0.622) / 1,470,000(+4000) / 9.17s(+1.29) Warp Speed: 4.5(-1) Sensor strength: 21(+1) Signature radius: 51(+12) Cargo Capacity: 265(+80)
Nemesis: Fittings: 38 PWG, 315(+8) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 400(+125) / 475(+159) / 650(+228) Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 355(+61.25) / 266.25(+31.25) / 1.33(+0.0833) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 275(+11) / 4.6(+0.057) / 1,410,000(-11000) / 8.99s(+0.04) Warp Speed: 4.5(-1) Sensor strength: 20(+2) Signature radius: 52(+15) Cargo Capacity: 270(+55)
Hound: Fittings: 40 PWG, 310(+7) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 550(+304) / 425(+87) / 350(+69) Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 285(+35) / 213.75(+13.75) / 1.33(+0.0833) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 310(+26) / 4.4(+0.326) / 1,455,000(+85000) / 8.88s(+1.14) Warp Speed: 4.5(-1) Sensor strength: 18(+1) Signature radius: 48(+14) Cargo Capacity: 255(+60)
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.
Bomb HP Reduction: We're decreasing bomb HP to 96 armor and 20 hull, and increasing the racial specific resistance on the bombs to 99.8%. This keeps the maximum number of bombs in a wave the same (except when damage bombs are mixed with void or lockbreaker bombs, but that was already a bad idea), but makes it easier to destroy bombs with smartbombs. Notably this puts the total bomb HP to a level where named or T2 medium smartbombs can destroy them, providing more options for cruiser and BC fleets to defend themselves.
Bomb Speed and Flight Time: Pretty simple, this reduces the velocity of damage bombs from 3000m/s to 2500m/s, and increases the flight time to 12s. They'll still travel 30km, but they'll take 12s instead of 10s to do it. This provides more time for a fleet to react to a bombing, and puts the correct emphasis on effective strategic use of bombs combined with other ships rather than bombers acting alone.
Doubling the strength of the Bomb Deployment Skill: This allows you to get your reactivation delay on T2 bomb launchers down as low as 67.5s, adding more value to the Bomb Deployment skill and reducing downtime a bit.
New Anti-Capital Void Bomb: This is the first toe dipped in the water for smaller AoE (and therefore more aiming required) dumb weapons, which we think have a lot of potential in the future. It's a void bomb with the following stats:
Armor HP: 600 Explosion Radius: 4000 Energy Neut Amount: 15,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
This thing is most useful against very large ships, and has to detonate right on top of a target to have any effect. We don't expect it to take the world by storm but it should be a very good option for harassing capitals, especially with small numbers of bombers.
New 10km Dictor Bubbles: This is a new ammo choice for dictors that act just like the normal aoe bubbles except with a smaller range and +50% bubble lifetime. These are intended to be another option that fleets can use to pull in hostiles (especially bombers) at desired ranges and should be quite useful for bubbling your own fleet. We will investigate the option of adding an equivalent Hictor version at a later date, but the system that WDFGs use for their scripting doesn't easily lend itself to this sort of use so no promises.
Overall we expect these changes to make operating bomber fleets a bit tougher, and provide a few new tools that fleets can use to protect themselves. However bombers remain a crucial part ... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
182
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Saw CPU buff, left happy. Travelling at the speed of love. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1322
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Interesting changes, definitely a nerf for multiboxers (at last!) even if they are not the only ones penalized. The anti-capital bomb seem a bit too weak in my opinion though, and I'm not a fan of the reduced warp speed, but the rest sounds nice, challenging and fair for everyone.
GOOD JOB. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
John Selth
Constantine. Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Back to the theorycrafting table for Bombers Bar then... there goes my weekend |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
hmmm.... |
Chiimera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. |
Shinah Myst
V0LTA Triumvirate.
30
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:New 10km Dictor Bubbles: This is a new ammo choice for dictors that act just like the normal aoe bubbles except with a smaller range and +50% bubble lifetime. These are intended to be another option that fleets can use to pull in hostiles (especially bombers) at desired ranges and should be quite useful for bubbling your own fleet. We will investigate the option of adding an equivalent Hictor version at a later date, but the system that WDFGs use for their scripting doesn't easily lend itself to this sort of use so no promises. How about giving back more ISLs to interdictors? Or at least reducing reload times? |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
747
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
are you even going to mention isboxer in your thread about isboxing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
138
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
Where's the ISBoxer ban announcement Fozzie |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Thanks for not dealing with the real issue here which is ISBox bombing, but making real player coordinated bomber fleets more of a pain to coordinate.
This only emphasizes the need for automated, single player run bombing fleets. |
|
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
747
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
whatever about you thinking bombers need a nerf, i'm fine either way with that
but why aren't you addressing the fact that an isboxed bomber is far more effective than the equivalent players. in fact you are furthering the gap with the cloaking change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Zoneras
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
I might've been ok with the decloak change if ISboxers couldn't be set to automatically warp at safe ranges to one another. Humans make mistakes, machines have an unfair advantage. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
869
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
they can still be aligned or in warp at all times and therefore immune to pvp, right? because that's bad. |
Doyle Aldurad
Imperial Shipwrights
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing' |
Zmikund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
i expect this new anti-capital bomb is ment to be counter for supers and titans so can we get something like immunity or at least effect reduction for triaged carriers and sieged dreads? |
Stephan Schneider
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
well rip bombing then |
ulililillia
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
collateral damage from iskboxer literally ruining legit bombing |
Canenald
Rubella Solaris Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
This is really a big nerf not a rebalance. The boosts are totally made meaningless by nerfs. More bombs in cargo hold and faster reload mean nothing if you can't bomb efficiently.
Bombers have a nice role of a totally separate force that can't decide the main battle but still has a large impact on it, much like the real world aircrafts of the previous century and cavalry in the earlier history. Bomber superiority is a valuable advantage, much like real world air or cavalry superiority. As a result, players have developed anti-bombing roles for ships, such as seboed interceptors and instacanes, much like the anti-aircraft guns and pikemen of the real world.
As it is, the virtual skymarshals of EVE have an interesting strategic choice of putting warm bodies into either main doctrine ships or bombers. Nerfing the bombers themselves so much while giving mainline ships additional means of defending themselves will make this choice a no-brainer. It's like tanks that can shoot down aircrafts and regular medieval infantry that can stop charging horsemen with their shields.
Oh, and there's Ishtars. We all know they are OP. Their greatest disadvantage is that they work better with shield tank, which works worse with bombs. Efficient armor tank is the most compelling reason to choose another HAC. Well, not after you nerf bombs. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2100
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:29:00 -
[19] - Quote
I like the new bomb! ....and the only warning was the last line of the patch notes, which said. "Oh yeah, we also shuffled Moon Goo around!" Show your support, move Moon Goo with Power Projection changes!-á |
Canenald
Rubella Solaris Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
Doyle Aldurad wrote:I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing'
Bombers already align slower than some light cruisers. A big issue with bombing bombers is getting out aligned after you've bombed. With additional nerf it will be ridiculous. What use is the faster bomb launcher reload and large cargo hold if you won't live to launch all 5 bombs?
Well, at least I'll be able to get more loot on hotdrops :D inb4 a bomb bay on bombers. |
|
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
751
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:32:00 -
[21] - Quote
god damn i can do a better job in 10 seconds watch
- bombs now require an activation code before being armed, random 4 digit alphanumeric number that must be entered after launch but before detonation
- bombs now have an explosion velocity akin to missiles, their damage against moving targets will be significantly reduced and signature radius is less of a factor
- combat probing time doubled
- interceptors are no longer interdiction nullified
(i threw in that last one for free) do u even play this game anymore fozzie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
As if Goku and siege fleets weren't strong enough already (especially with the EHP reduction of structures in Phoebe). |
Sokor Loro
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:36:00 -
[23] - Quote
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. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
869
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:37:00 -
[24] - Quote
and what's with the stat differences? nemesis is supposed to armour tank on 38 grid, and it aligns slower than hound? |
Gheyna
Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion
114
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
Good thing giving bombers more cargo, can fit more missile for my siege fleet now. Even better with the reduction of ehp from sov structures. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
996
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:37:00 -
[26] - Quote
Doyle Aldurad wrote:I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing' I would say a frigate carrying torpedo launchers and massive bomb bays might not be as agile as a normal frigate. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:38:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:(except when damage bombs are mixed with void or lockbreaker bombs, but that was already a bad idea)
this made me lol out loud in irl
you are hilariously uneducated when it comes to bombing
those bombs were designed to be used together, thats why voids launched at the same time as damage bombs detonate first and aren't destroyed by the damage bombs, and deal less damage to a damage bomb than a same type damage bomb would. in fact you could do slightly larger waves of bombs by launching voids -> damage and having the voids cap out targets before the damage arrived https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:39:00 -
[28] - 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. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please. |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
154
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
The other changes are pretty neat, agility nerf is good and standardisation of fitting and cargo is nice (although Nemesis and Manticore will always be garbage at bombing) although the HP increase is a little puzzling as I don't really think they needed any more. They're all negligible compared to the huge change that is the cloak mechanic change though. Either way, I don't see myself or any other members of my alliance other than our ISboxing CHEATERS bombing anything for the forseeable future. I'm sure baltec fleets the world over are rejoicing.
Can't say I'm too bothered overall, bombers were clearly far overstepping their role as a force multiplier and becoming an I-win button in a lot of situations. I feel that fiddling with decloak mechanics is the wrong way to go about changes though and would just make them useless. I would advocate instead for a reworking of signature radius mechanics so that bombs don't spell instant death for anything shield tanked or below a cruiser, but are still competitive.
I like the anti-capital void bomb though, although it's yet another nail in the coffin for solo roaming in an active tanked battleship as if getting swarmed by 600 frigates wasn't enough already. Now one bomb will completely kill a Marauder's capacitor and leave it dead in the water.
Altrue wrote:Interesting changes, definitely a nerf for multiboxers (at last!) even if they are not the only ones penalized. The anti-capital bomb seem a bit too weak in my opinion though, and I'm not a fan of the reduced warp speed, but the rest sounds nice, challenging and fair for everyone. GOOD JOB.
You can configure ISboxed bomber squads to not decloak each other (with a little difficulty) under the new changes. You cannot do the same for 8 people working together in any reasonable amount of time as they now cannot take squad warps, have no way of telling where they are relative to other cloaked fleet members other than hoping and praying that they're ALL smart enough to follow orders, didn't warp through each other and got the ranges right. It's a lot of factors to go wrong when one person accidentally doesn't warp at the right range. The cloak change is a nerf to both ways of bombing, but it hurts non-ISboxers a lot more and will make bombing incredibly difficult in practical terms without third party software. gay gamers for jesus |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
130
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:39:00 -
[30] - Quote
Nice job ruining bombers! Good thing I don't use them!
Also good job nerfing every single cloaking ship in the game, I'm sure blops gangs are going to love this.
In the history of bad ideas, this is right up there with "hey ya'll, watch this!"
To the ISboxer whiners already trolling this thread, hahahahahahahahaha! Haters gonna hate, Trolls gonna troll. |
|
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:41:00 -
[31] - Quote
With the decloak-changes why should we bring real people if we can multibox bomber wings?
Right now they don't have an advantage over mutliboxed bombers and with the decloak-changes the chances for ****-ups are considerably higher with real people compared to multibox'd accounts. |
Ryu Chaos
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:47:00 -
[32] - Quote
Canenald wrote:This is really a big nerf not a rebalance. The boosts are totally made meaningless by nerfs. More bombs in cargo hold and faster reload mean nothing if you can't bomb efficiently.
Bombers have a nice role of a totally separate force that can't decide the main battle but still has a large impact on it, much like the real world aircrafts of the previous century and cavalry in the earlier history. Bomber superiority is a valuable advantage, much like real world air or cavalry superiority. As a result, players have developed anti-bombing roles for ships, such as seboed interceptors and instacanes, much like the anti-aircraft guns and pikemen of the real world.
As it is, the virtual skymarshals of EVE have an interesting strategic choice of putting warm bodies into either main doctrine ships or bombers. Nerfing the bombers themselves so much while giving mainline ships additional means of defending themselves will make this choice a no-brainer. It's like tanks that can shoot down aircrafts and regular medieval infantry that can stop charging horsemen with their shields.
Oh, and there's Ishtars. We all know they are OP. Their greatest disadvantage is that they work better with shield tank, which works worse with bombs. Efficient armor tank is the most compelling reason to choose another HAC. Well, not after you nerf bombs.
no its gotten to the point that you cannot field shield battleships at all, and most armor battleships either. Nerf is good and should happen. @RyuChaos_ |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
140
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:New Anti-Capital Void Bomb: This is the first toe dipped in the water for smaller AoE (and therefore more aiming required) dumb weapons, which we think have a lot of potential in the future. It's a void bomb with the following stats:
Armor HP: 600 Explosion Radius: 4000 Energy Neut Amount: 15,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
This thing is most useful against very large ships, and has to detonate right on top of a target to have any effect. We don't expect it to take the world by storm but it should be a very good option for harassing capitals, especially with small numbers of bombers.
This thing needs to have its stats revised.
First off, the explosion radius is way too large. With 4k explosion radius and only 15k base neut amount, that won't put a dent in an Archon's cap; it'd take literally a dozen bombers with these bombs to cap out a single Archon. It's a little better against supercaps, but still not stellar. Maybe that's the intention since you "don't expect it to take the world by storm", though, but I don't see a lot of point in introducing intentionally bad mechanics that no one will use.
Anyway, I guess it's a start. Bombs like this which require more aiming but have a higher reward for hits have the potential to be the first bombing related mechanic that humans are better for than multiboxing software, but have the issue of not really being the AoE weapons bombs are supposed to be.
I was hoping these changes would have something that actually thwarted ISBoxing and promoted actual humans playing the game, so I'm a little disappointed. Since apparently it's impossible to ban cheating in this game, how about adding a captcha to bomb launchers? Every time you launch a bomb, you have to type in a random 5-number launch code. |
wheniaminspece
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:48:00 -
[34] - Quote
as a bomber fc and an isboxer i have some opinions on these changes.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Cloaked Ships Decloaking Each Other: The change that allowed cloaked ships to pass through each other without decloaking was made back in 2012 to make bombing easier. With the last few years of evidence to look at, it becomes clear that organizing bombing runs has become a bit too easy. This change will add some more complexity to organizing multiple cloaked ships, as well as returning the old gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship. We know that some players are going to be unhappy with the way this makes their gameplay more challenging, but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after.
this is my biggest problem with these changes, and i think it's absolutely horrible. i'm still going to attempt to ISbox by warping to a bookmark at default ranges, then warping down to a target and bombing. what this TOTALLY removes is the ability to warp your fleet around, and the ability to position yourself before a bombing run while cloaked. i'm guessing this is aimed at isboxers specifically but it's a very flawed solution. if you want to stop people isboxing bombers, simply make it something that you aren't allowed to do. why are you so reluctant to ban ISBoxed bombers that all bombers have to pay for it. if anything this is MORE of a nerf to real players due to the added friction and complexity.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Bomb HP Reduction: We're decreasing bomb HP to 96 armor and 20 hull, and increasing the racial specific resistance on the bombs to 99.8%. This keeps the maximum number of bombs in a wave the same (except when damage bombs are mixed with void or lockbreaker bombs, but that was already a bad idea), but makes it easier to destroy bombs with smartbombs. Notably this puts the total bomb HP to a level where named or T2 medium smartbombs can destroy them, providing more options for cruiser and BC fleets to defend themselves.
mixing void bombs with damage bombs is completely viable since void bombs explode a few seconds earlier. i often mix in 4-5 void bombs (enough to cap out any subcap in the game) with a couple of damage bombs and it works great. not really sure why this change is necessary at all, i guess you want bombs to be like missiles where they are all destroyed by a single medium smartbomb? i suppose killing bombers while they bomb you and bubbling all around isn't enough of a defense against bombers.
CCP Fozzie wrote: New Anti-Capital Void Bomb: This is the first toe dipped in the water for smaller AoE (and therefore more aiming required) dumb weapons, which we think have a lot of potential in the future. It's a void bomb with the following stats:
Armor HP: 600 Explosion Radius: 4000 Energy Neut Amount: 15,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
This thing is most useful against very large ships, and has to detonate right on top of a target to have any effect. We don't expect it to take the world by storm but it should be a very good option for harassing capitals, especially with small numbers of bombers.
might be cool i guess, i'm a little skeptical about the 1 meter explosion range lol.
anything i didn't respond to i think is a decent idea. some of these changes are just horrible in my opinion. bombers deserve a lot more thought put into them than this. if you simply want people to stop using them then i think you might accomplish that goal successfully. |
Wild Things
The Suicide Kings Black Legion.
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
I do hope that this isn't the only change to DICs and HICs in this patch. Scripted HIC points need to prevent caps from taking gates, otherwise fighting on a gate in lowsec is going to get even more frustrating than it already is.
Good changes overall though. In this moment, I am euphoric. |
MuraSaki Siki
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
63
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
just asking the reason, would it be better to adjust the bomb launcher stat, instead of doubling the bomb deployment skill effect? |
Elmnt80
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
215
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:50:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:New 10km Dictor Bubbles: This is a new ammo choice for dictors that act just like the normal aoe bubbles except with a smaller range and +50% bubble lifetime. These are intended to be another option that fleets can use to pull in hostiles (especially bombers) at desired ranges and should be quite useful for bubbling your own fleet. We will investigate the option of adding an equivalent Hictor version at a later date, but the system that WDFGs use for their scripting doesn't easily lend itself to this sort of use so no promises.
Would it be possible to add these to the syndicate LP store as a faction version instead? It would actually give the syndicate LP store a desirable item, which it currently lacks and would inject life into an extremely dead region. |
muhadin
Origin. Black Legion.
181
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:50:00 -
[38] - Quote
As someone who runs alot of accounts at once, and has used isboxer. I don't even know why ccp allows isboxer to be used. The first major red flag should be that ISboxer is run on Inner Space which is used for botting in eve. The problems are not bombers, bombers were probably one of the most balanced things in eve. The problem is isboxer. Bombers already have counters to them, many bomber fleets have died, and there are too many nerfs to bombers all lumped together.
Also +1 on new dictor bubble. "Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love" |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
76
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:51:00 -
[39] - Quote
Does not look bad at all. The only niggling thing I have in my little brain is that with decreased mobility the bombers feel less Covert Operations. But that is probably something I can live with. |
Janeway84
Its a good day to die ORPHANS OF EVE
108
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:51:00 -
[40] - Quote
I love all the changes here except cloaky ships uncloacking each other, Its a nerf to WH Pvp Cant you just make sure bombers can get uncloaked when cloaked and leave other cloaky ships out of it? |
|
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
154
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:54:00 -
[41] - Quote
muhadin wrote:As someone who runs alot of accounts at once, and has used isboxer. I don't even know why ccp allows isboxer to be used. The first major red flag should be that ISboxer is run on Inner Space which is used for botting in eve. The problems are not bombers, bombers were probably one of the most balanced things in eve. The problem is isboxer. Bombers already have counters to them, many bomber fleets have died, and there are too many nerfs to bombers all lumped together.
Also +1 on new dictor bubble.
CCP tolerate ISboxer because it adds subscriptions to their game, no other reason. I would be completely for preventing its use in PvP as other major MMOs have, and restricting it to PvE, if not banning it altogether.
I wouldn't say bombers are the most balanced ship in the game because they're capable wiping entire fleets with very little effort as it stands, but the cloak changes will bring them to the other end of the scale - near useless in the hands of actual players. 8 people simply CANNOT coordinate as well as one person using software that clones their mouse clicks, no matter their individual skill or how good friends they are irl gay gamers for jesus |
KaRa DaVuT
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:56:00 -
[42] - Quote
no more "no effort" bombing.
ty fozzie |
colera deldios
252
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:56:00 -
[43] - Quote
Quote:Are you going to make ships that are Sieged/Triaged immune to these Bombs ? Because ... If this rolls in without Traige/Siege immunity than you have effectively destroyed the most crucial thing used to fight outnumbered.
I mean it's going to be stupid easy to hit caps that are moving at 200ms (unrealistic) with these bombs let alone an immobile capital ship I mean unless you are 100% blind you should have no problem hitting them and at 15,000 Neut you can say good bye to Triage and good bye to fighting outnumbered etc..
This is another bandage fix done wrong like constant stream of capital/super capital nerfs that end up changing nothing at all. I mean you are directly and indirectly hitting capital ships where they really are not the problem in EVE.
Take a step back and see when Capitals/Supers became a doctrine. It's when Goons and what remained of NC started fielding 1500+ strong Alpha fleets and the only counter to that was Capitals who could survive the initial volley.
From then on instead of remaping 0.0 and how we fight for sov rebuilding the system from ground up to allow skilled pilots with less players to fight a larger entity you went after capital ships on and on and on again.
Good ******* job. +0 for the effort.
However the rest of the changes are very good. |
Kalissis
123
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:56:00 -
[44] - Quote
I understand how you want to nerf bombing runs. But you are totally nerfing all other aspects of the bomber hull as well, with more sig radius and weaker agility it will kill also those bombers beeing used as torp support or black ops drop dps ships.
Very viable way was to sig tanking large (and medium) guns using ABs on bombers at least to some degree before getting killed. I can't calculate anything from here as I'm at work but please check if the addition to sig will break those aspects. |
romzzz
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:58:00 -
[45] - Quote
I'm sad to see the cloaking nerf. It will be hard to organize bombing fleets from now on. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:58:00 -
[46] - Quote
Sigh, ill first link this post and just copy paste it for reference.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5119858#post5119858
Yi Hyori wrote:Bumping for dev response to these changes whether intentional or not.
These changes seem to be a step backwards.
If these changes were not intentional, I would like to point out that there are other ways of nerfing bombers without affecting the entire line of covert ops cloak reliant classes of ships.
There have been a few suggestions already and I'll bring them here in one post to condense it.
Reduce bomb damage or at least allow better mitigation. Armor battleships are far superior to shield due to the massive penalty of shield extenders and without the ability to somehow mitigate this, shield fleets tend to get absolutely ripped apart by bombs.
- suggestion a new skill similar to what was introduced in I believe Rubicon with the armor honeycombing skill would be highly beneficial to shield ships. -introducing an explosion velocity to bomb damage would significantly reduce damage taken by smaller ships and would allow larger ships to still minimize some of the damage. - half the resists on the bombs. This would half the initial bomb waves so the first damage wave will be reduced and give fleets a chance to respond.
If these changes were not intentional and merely a bug, please ignore.
But please do not let this change hit tranquility. Its simply stupid.
Anyway, so the fact that the decloak change has been confirmed, please take a moment to remember what CCP said when they implemented that change. The patch note said something along the lines of, "oh hey yea its a bug and we're finally fixing. npnp bros." and covert ops rejoiced for their cloaked ships decloaking each other was fixed.
the main issue with these changes is that it really hurts the average players more than anyone else. I am an avid supporter of ISBoxer and I have no qualms with the program, however I do have issues with changes that are heavy handed sweeping changes that not only affect the targeted group, but massive collateral along with it.
I hate to have to compare Eve to this game, but World of Warcraft had to deal with multiboxers in arenas and battlegrounds. The public outcry ( read crybabies ) were so loud that blizzard had to do something. So they removed the ./follow command in battlegrounds and arenas. That was their bandaid solution.
This change, of rolling back the cloaking changes, feels like a bandaid fix to try and fix something that ccp views as "too easy".
Please take a look at this again and find a better solution. Reducing the effectiveness of bombs is a great step, but the decloak change is a huge step backwards.
One of the main concerns or issues that seems to come up is that if this "feature" and i use the term loosely, goes live, there needs to be a way to show fleet members that are cloaked. Either through the new bookmark overlay or soemthign that shows where they are to prevent accidental decloaking. Adding extra layers of complication does not equal great mechanics.
Again, I urge you all at CCP to take a look at these changes and reconsider the thoughts that went into these changes. Complicated mechanics does not make a good game. Simple yet interesting mechanics does a good game make. |
Nordalis Rmith
The 501st Legion Galactic Skyfleet Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
I do not like the ships de-cloaking each other change. I feel like this impacts many aspects of cloaking not related to bombers.
|
Arden Elenduil
Scary Devil Monastery
149
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:07:00 -
[48] - Quote
For the love of.... All of you people complaining about cloaked ships decloaking each other, stop whining. Back in the day, that was how cloaks worked, and we did bombing runs just fine, even outdamaging the supers at times.
So all your blathering on about how that is going to kill bombing runs is pure bullshit, it just takes a modicum of skill, which I suggest you acquire, instead of trying to get CCP to give you your easymode toys back. |
Prince Kobol
2304
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:09:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked Ships Decloaking Each Other:
The change that allowed cloaked ships to pass through each other without decloaking was made back in 2012 to make bombing easier. With the last few years of evidence to look at, it becomes clear that organizing bombing runs has become a bit too easy. This change will add some more complexity to organizing multiple cloaked ships, as well as returning the old gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship. We know that some players are going to be unhappy with the way this makes their gameplay more challenging, but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after.
Hahahaha
So you have nerfed bombing runs for real players and just made using ISBoxer even better.
Good Job !!!! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:09:00 -
[50] - Quote
Capqu wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:(except when damage bombs are mixed with void or lockbreaker bombs, but that was already a bad idea) this made me lol out loud in irl you are hilariously uneducated when it comes to bombing those bombs were designed to be used together, thats why voids launched at the same time as damage bombs detonate first and aren't destroyed by the damage bombs, and deal less damage to a damage bomb than a same type damage bomb would. in fact you could do slightly larger waves of bombs by launching voids -> damage and having the voids cap out targets before the damage arrived
QFT - forgot in my write up about the fact i lol'd at you inane ignorance of how voids work in conjunction with damage bombs in a single run Fozzie.
wow...
...just wow. |
|
Prince Kobol
2304
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:For the love of.... All of you people complaining about cloaked ships decloaking each other, stop whining. Back in the day, that was how cloaks worked, and we did bombing runs just fine, even outdamaging the supers at times.
So all your blathering on about how that is going to kill bombing runs is pure bullshit, it just takes a modicum of skill, which I suggest you acquire, instead of trying to get CCP to give you your easymode toys back.
I personally have no problem with this change its just that it makes using ISboxer even better when compared with using a bomber fleet consisting of real people. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please.
surely this 'should' be possible with the new sensor overlay right?
...right???? |
a dolp heater
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:14:00 -
[53] - Quote
Why not make bombers a separate ship for the sole purpose of bombing and stealth bombers be a weaker version for that but with torps
im thinking like banelings or infested terrans
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
387
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:15:00 -
[54] - Quote
Also not really sure what dropping bubble sizes does to help. |
Odithia
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:16:00 -
[55] - Quote
El Space Mariachi wrote:[ CCP tolerate ISboxer because it adds subscriptions to their game, no other reason. I would be completely for preventing its use in PvP as other major MMOs have, and restricting it to PvE, if not banning it altogether. How many people ragequit eve because of isboxer ? I suppose that's why other MMO ban it.
I like all those change except the proximity cloak nerf, curious to see how the anti capital and interdiction bomb will work. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
763
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:16:00 -
[56] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Also not really sure what dropping bubble sizes does to help.
nothing
i'll repost what i posted on reddit [aka the premier feedback site for eveonline]:
the 10km bubble is completely garbage for anti bomber, in fact it just makes you more of a target since youre in a goddamn bubble that you can be bombed safely from way outside of only the lowest of the low fcs thought hic 1 bubbles up on their own fleet discouraged bombing at all, decent bombing fcs were always able to make warpins regardless https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Kalissis
124
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:23:00 -
[57] - Quote
After seeing some of the posts I must say:
+1 changes on decloak, we did manage it back in the day with it. +1 on some of the changes not beeing thought thru 100% +1 ban ISBoxer for PVP.
Ps. +1 give back cruise missiles to bombers. |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
92
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:24:00 -
[58] - Quote
Not so bad overall, but I was hoping for an emphasis on strategic/e-war roles.
Imho
- torpedo's should be removed completely from the hull (there is not a single word on torps in your post! whut?) - bomb damage should work similar to that of smartbombs, i.e NOT depend on signature radius and nerfed to somewhere around 2,5k-ish damage/bomb. In any case you should look into the effect that bombs have on the tanking meta in large scale conflicts. |
Ka'Narlist
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
234
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:28:00 -
[59] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Interesting changes, definitely a nerf for multiboxers (at last!) No its not. Multiboxers are the ones least affected by the uncloaking change
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1576
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:29:00 -
[60] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
In short... burn in hell... CCP
|
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
KaRa DaVuT wrote:no more "no effort" bombing.
ty fozzie
<3 u bro, u know that but in this aspect, you're dead wrong Kara. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
763
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:32:00 -
[62] - Quote
no effort bombing is still around m8
u just need 8 accounts and a program that they won't comment on
absolutely rediculous
riot please save us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
123
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:33:00 -
[63] - Quote
Good job CCP Fozzie.
I grew up in a world where bombers were decloaking each others. Just get good whiners.
Now it's time to work on a golden armor and fedoras for the New Eden Store. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1401
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:43:00 -
[64] - Quote
Decloaking again is a good thing. Thumbs up. TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Paralein
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:43:00 -
[65] - Quote
Two questions:
- Setting up manual bombing runs already requires some work, so a LOT of people use ISBoxer to remove some of the hassle. The decloaking change will make human-controlled bombing runs considerably more difficult to set up, while ISBoxer bombing probably won't be affected all that much. Is this intended? Does it play any role in your thoughts about bomber balancing?
- Are there any plans to change the MASSIVE difference in bomb effectiveness against shield- and armortanked targets?
If someone asked me what I'd change about bombers, I'd probably say ISBoxer and the effectiveness of bombs vs shieldtanked targets, it really baffles me how CCP apparently intends to make ISBoxer bombing even stronger. |
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:44:00 -
[66] - Quote
All the changes here are great, but the cloak reset to the old bugged way is aweful. This will have a negative affect on other ships than bombers, notably exploring gangs, let alone having flown in a few bomber fleets as part of the npsi community this will make it high impossible to organise pilots to do.
CCP you've solved the issues with more defensive options for fleets to use, they really aught to be considering pilots bring a smartbomb on two or three of their ships for bomber defence, if a fleet brings a bubble (and the new one is great) and bubble the moment a bomber fleet appears you can wipe out the majority of bombers in the bubble.
The cloaking change effectively ruins flying as a group, as you will go back to decloaking each other mid warp, and neigh impossible to land a fleet cloaked for a bombing run.
Does the cloaking mechanic revert only affect bombers? |
Techno Model
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:47:00 -
[67] - Quote
:Slowly goes around collecting the tears of PASTA and other risk averse multiboxers:
Impressive response to a problem that has been plaguing EVE for far too long. Now we can finally end the easy mode bombing runs and make it a skill based effort.
Would like to see a staged reduction in bomb damage as well, the current excessive value is stifling proper PVP in favour of multiboxing no riskers. |
ulililillia
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:50:00 -
[68] - Quote
Techno Model wrote::Slowly goes around collecting the tears of PASTA and other risk averse multiboxers:
Impressive response to a problem that has been plaguing EVE for far too long. Now we can finally end the easy mode bombing runs and make it a skill based effort.
Would like to see a staged reduction in bomb damage as well, the current excessive value is stifling proper PVP in favour of multiboxing no riskers. Im sorry, this is a nerf to regular bombing, not iskboxer |
Oddsodz
C.Q.B Bohica Empire
103
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:50:00 -
[69] - Quote
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 miss an opportunity to ban it. All you are saying to the rest of the player base is "HTFU AND GET MORE ACCOUNTS 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. |
Vhaine Vhindiscar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:54:00 -
[70] - Quote
Number one, nobody gives a flip about bomb deployment. It's a buff without an audience. You don't USE the ships that way. It takes way to long to setup in order to use the bombs and actually survive.
Two, decloaking other ships is bad. It's not a bomber nerf, it's a nerf to every cloaking ship in the game. Black ops need a nerf, right? Bomb trucks need a nerf to, way to op with all that ammo and no guns. It was annoying before you fixed it, and it'll be annoying after you fix it. More no fun allowed 'fixes' from ccp. STOP....while there's any fun actually left in this game.
Nobody asked for this and it won't fix your little isboxer problem. Those guy won't be affected. So if I want to fly a bomber in fleet fights, I need ISboxer now? Is that what it's really about? Cause that's what where you are placing the incentive. |
|
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1850
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:56:00 -
[71] - Quote
Vhaine Vhindiscar wrote: Nobody asked for this and it won't fix your little isboxer problem. Those guy won't be affected. So if I want to fly a bomber in fleet fights, I need ISboxer now? Is that what it's really about? Cause that's what where you are placing the incentive.
Yes, I am sorry. You can join PASTA and learn the ways of ISBoxing bombers which with these changes are obviously encouraged by CCP.
|
Elisk Skyforge
Night Raven Task Force Night Raven Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:58:00 -
[72] - Quote
"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."
How about having ships in same fleet/wing not decloak eachother if the above is your reason for this change? |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:59:00 -
[73] - 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 miss an opportunity to ban it. All you are saying to the rest of the player base is "HTFU AND GET MORE ACCOUNTS 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.
QFT - though id like to ammend it to not just software but hardware command multiplication too, and an inclusion of such things to be dealt with using the 'report bot' button.
you guys say u always have logs for stuff. well you will most definitely have logs showing the exact time you recieve clients requests for a server to do stuff, even if that server runs on a 1hz cycle. it should be clear as black and white if a bunch of clients are responding with the same requests at near exact ms times. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
387
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:01:00 -
[74] - Quote
Capqu wrote:afkalt wrote:Also not really sure what dropping bubble sizes does to help. nothing i'll repost what i posted on reddit [aka the premier feedback site for eveonline]: the 10km bubble is completely garbage for anti bomber, in fact it just makes you more of a target since youre in a goddamn bubble that you can be bombed safely from way outside of only the lowest of the low fcs thought hic 1 bubbles up on their own fleet discouraged bombing at all, decent bombing fcs were always able to make warpins regardless
It's been pointed out that maybe this is an ADDITIONAL charge as opposed to a replacement.
In which case...fine. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1156
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:02:00 -
[75] - Quote
Really looks like CCP took a look at the jump changes thread, saw 'hey, lots of players are embracing a huge nerf, lets see what else we can slip by' and decided to toss this turd in the pile.
Really poorly thought out changes that are going far overboard on making bombing more difficult, while putting already strong bombers ahead of the rest. Why did the hound get such a big speed buff for example? And was it really necessary to throw on the sig radius, align time, warp speed, AND decloaking eachother all in one run? A bumper that gets pointed with 6k ehp and a bomber that gets pointed with 4k ehp are both just as dead, the hp makes no difference, but the sig radius makes you that much more likely to die. The align time makes you that much more likely to die. The warp speed change makes it harder to outrun ships like dictors chasing you, and harder to get into position fast enough to bomb properly.
What ever happened to 'lighter buffs and nerfs since with patches closer together, we can amend them sooner?'.
New jump changes: Great for eve New hictor changes: Nice for small gangs, and dealing with gatehugging capitals New relic/data changes: verymuch needed buff to exploration Bookmarks showing up in space: About time!
Mutli-faceted nerfbat assault on stealth bombers: Disappointing. Just disappointing. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
918
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:03:00 -
[76] - Quote
Elmnt80 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:New 10km Dictor Bubbles: This is a new ammo choice for dictors that act just like the normal aoe bubbles except with a smaller range and +50% bubble lifetime. These are intended to be another option that fleets can use to pull in hostiles (especially bombers) at desired ranges and should be quite useful for bubbling your own fleet. We will investigate the option of adding an equivalent Hictor version at a later date, but the system that WDFGs use for their scripting doesn't easily lend itself to this sort of use so no promises. Would it be possible to add these to the syndicate LP store as a faction version instead? It would actually give the syndicate LP store a desirable item, which it currently lacks and would help spur content in an area of space currently lacking. It also would not be out of place given the nature of the syndicate LP as it is currently. This is a good idea. Syndicate's LP store offerings are very sad, and adding faction interdiction probes goes with their flavor, as the current unique offerings from Syndicate LP are (useless) faction mobile drag bubbles. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:04:00 -
[77] - Quote
Elisk Skyforge wrote:"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."
How about having ships in same fleet/wing not decloak eachother if the above is your reason for this change?
I would take this idea over the proposed one any day. Why not use an uncloaked ship to decloak the bomber? This is still a valid and widely used tactic. As a bomber I have to stay still until time to drop the bombs, if a ship gets too close I'm forced to warp off, dropping the overall DPS of our bombing run, which is a good and valid tactic. |
Needmore Longcat
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
208
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:08:00 -
[78] - Quote
"hi, we're going to take the one force multiplication that smaller alliances have and destroy it to help the smaller alliances" --ccp 2014
THANKS. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:12:00 -
[79] - Quote
Lets take a look at bombers and the recent issue that the player base has had with them and the cause of the vocal minority screaming their little **** off about ISBoxer being cheating etc etc.
Like the issue with Apex forces and Sov re-balances ( which I'm still not 100% convinced will solve stagnation, but I do believe CCP is on the right track with it ) the issue with bombers have many issues that have caused them to spring up to be the massive force multiplier that they are now.
Bomb damage. Lets take a look at this mechanic. Bomb damage is X amount of a certain damage type based on the bomb and the amount of damage that a bomb can do ( X ) can only be affected by the ship's hull. This only applies to maximum damage of a bomb. The damage is applied SOLELY by the target's signature radius.
This causes issues regarding balance of bomb damage application to doctrine ships. Armor is obviously the best choice when defending against bomb damage due to their low signature radius. Thus armor ships will mitigate the maximum amount of damage possible for their size, even if they are sitting absolutely still. Shield ships however, gain their tank at the cost of signature radius. This means that as a shield ship gains more tank, it sets itself up to take even more damage from a bomb.
The inherent benefit of shield as opposed to armor is the built in drawbacks of each type of tank. Armor has no penalty to sig radius so its sig radius remain relatively unchanged, but maximum velocity is reduced. Thus the ship will travel slower and be susceptible to increased damage. Shield ships do not have a penalty to velocity but inversely have their penalty as increased shield radius. This means that shield ships will be able to move faster and are ideal for skirmish, but ships will be able to target it faster and apply damage slightly better due to its larger signature bloom.
Bombs damage are ONLY affected by the signature radius thus this means that bomb damage is extremely imbalanced towards shield. Changing bomb damage to take ship velocity into account, similar to how missiles work, would do well in balancing bomb damage between fleets and not pigeon holing fleets into armor doctrines due to this large weakness. Also introducing a skill that reduces the sig radius penalty of onlining shield extenders similar to the armor plate skill Armor Honeycombing would also benefit shield doctrine ships and help balance the skew towards armor.
Bombing mechanics. Bombs currently have an extremely high resistance to their own damage type. This means that when bombs are launched, the bombs needs to be the same type or they will destroy each other and negate the bombing run. Current mechanics allow a maximum of eight bombs to be launched before the resists fail and the bombs start to destroy each other. This mechanic is a great way to prevent a cluster of 100 bombers dropping bombs and giving the finger as they warp out.
for simplicity sake we're going to go with base damage number of 8000. This is for a perfectly skilled bomber using the correct bomb type of their hull. At 8000 damage per bomb and at a rate of 8 bombs per wave, youre looking at 64000 points of potential damage per bombing run.
Now lets take a look at the average EHP of typical doctrine ships. First lets take a look at the baltec. Roughly 150k. It would take 3 bombing runs to destroy this fleet. Each bombing run of 64k damage at 10seconds per run allowing a margin of error and thus adding another bombing run, 4 bombing runs for a total of 256k Points of damage in ... lets say 45 seconds, allowing around 5 seconds of error.
This amount of damage applied to an area wipes out an entire fleet and is extremely difficult, nay near impossible for slow moving ships to counter. This is one of the reasons you do not see battlecruisers doctrines anymore. The smaller tank yet larger sig accompanied by lower velocity all adds to a death trap asking to be bombed when taking these types of fleets out.
My suggestion to fix this issue is to only do half of what you are currently thinking of implementing. Half the resists or the hp on the bombs to reduce the maximum number of bombs per run down to 4. 5 maybe at most. The reduced alpha and the increased time needed to run a complete set of bombing runs to get to the amount of damage needed to clear a fleet will allow FCs and pilots to react accordingly. Adding 2 seconds but leaving the damage unchanged does not change the current issues that exist with bombers.
I am quickly running out of characters for this post so I will touch up on 2 last things.
Decloaking cloaked ships with cloaked ships. This was a bug that was fixed, not a feature granted to us by CCP to make bombing easier. Please do not lie to us. The change was implemented because it was a bug and it required fixing. Changing this to make it seem like a feature is... for lack of a better word, stupid. Creating a mechanic that is simply harder for the sake of simply making it harder does not make a good game. When you do that, you are merely punishing the regular players.
The heart of the bomber problem is their ability to apply large amounts of damage quickly in rapid succession and the inability of ships to mitigate the damage from these bombs.
I was hoping to make only a single post, but it seems that the last bit is going to have to be made with a 2nd post. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1803
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:12:00 -
[80] - Quote
My main problem with the changes is the effect on OTHER cloaky ships. Even warpign 2 recons together will ensure they will ALWAYS land uncloaked, even if you warp them to different distances from target, just because they decloak in mid space.
COuld at least somethign be made so that the decloackign only happens when you LAND on grid? So that if you warp 1 guy at 10 and other at 20 to target theydo not decloak in warp? "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:13:00 -
[81] - Quote
Allow me to quote myself on this issue from when you were still stealth-testing this:
Quote:So, bombs are op, better nerf cloaks?
Not sold; how about we get a rework of what actually makes bombers so dominant on today's battlefield instead of this half assed change that will only serve to make life difficult for everybody that wishes to use a cloak with a few fleetmates?
ISBoxed bombers will be hit the least by this as, once input, the warp-in ranges work perfectly every time, while human fleets are prone to pilot error.
Main point bolded for your convenience. |
Shade Millith
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
144
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:13:00 -
[82] - Quote
Oddsodz wrote:This change is wrong. Fix the real issue, not the symptoms.
The issue is bombs in general, not just ISBoxing ones. They're far, FAR to easy to accomplish these days, with so little people, for the massive effect they have.
Bombing runs in general needed a nerf. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1803
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:14:00 -
[83] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Lets take a look at bombers and the recent issue that the player base has had with them and the cause of the vocal minority screaming their little **** off about ISBoxer being cheating etc etc.
Make bombs have an explosion velocity and voil+í.. cruisers and BC movign with an AB will take little damage. THAT at least would add a new possibility.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
CarbonFury
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:16:00 -
[84] - Quote
Hey Fozzie - I have a few questions about the motives of these changes:
1. What emergent gameplay will result from trying to nerf bombers or make them harder to pilot?
2. How do you think these changes will affect ISBoxer bombers?
3. How do you think these changes will affect 1person per char bombers and their FCs?
Bombers are a result of people recognizing that the only way to beat the blob is by using better tactics to do so: coordinated bombing runs from different directions, on grid warp-ins/pings, timing, etc. The reason people die to bombs is because they are bad. There is really no other excuse. Every single time I have been in a fleet and it died to bombs was because there was some simple mistake made by myself or the FC: warp to gate with bubble on it and enough hostiles in system to represent a bombing threat, sitting on a grid NOT INSIDE A BUBBLE, warping to a ping during a fight without having bubbles up when you land (warping to a hic with a bubble up). Every time I have killed people it has been because they made the same mistakes listed above. Last night HERO warped to the same ping off their station 5 times, I bombed them on the 4th and missed, but got them on the 5th. Like wtf. On the flip side, every time I have lost a squad of bombers it was because the opposing side did what they needed to to kill the bombers. It's not hard, it just requires effort and a litttttle bit of coordination.
Bombers are an essential way to even the playing field when people bring N+1 dudes and don't use basic defensive tactics. To make it even worse, now when they do bring their N+1 dudes and tidi is at 10% they're going to have an extra 2s of non-tidi time before bombs go off? In Tidi it's already enough time for any uncoordinated fleet to react to the bomb run - but now the bombers will get decloaked by eachother when they land on their bomb position giving extra time for the hostiles to react, +2s of non-tidi time (like 20s of real world time??)... lololol.
I like the dictor change as it requires someone to do something to counter the bombers. I would look to more changes like this and the bomb HP nerf so it gives people options to counter them rather than just making them so bad that no one brings them except the dedicated ISBoxers. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1803
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:19:00 -
[85] - Quote
ALso the declaok changes will be a nerf to peopel using Black ops not as just a portal generator but somethign to sneak into targets.
the patience but rewardign game of approachign a target with 2-3 blackops slowly and then gank him will be gone. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
242
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:20:00 -
[86] - Quote
I'm not a fan of the return the cloaky ships decloaking each other. This is going to be a real pain for other ship classes. Especially annoying for something like Recons. |
Ziraili Onzo
Yggdrasil Woodchoppers
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:21:00 -
[87] - Quote
As a cloaky bastard for life, i love my bombers. But I also understand that the ships needs some rebalance. However as so many have already pointed out, this don't really fix the thing thats the biggest problem with bombers, ISBoxing. Single individuals have become very famous for having their own alt-squad of bombers making near to perfect runs every time. Bombing shouldn't be that easy, and it also shouldn't be a solo-operation (unless your using 1x bomber and nuking that mwding frig). The cloaking changes is a huge nerf, but we bombed in the past, and we will continue to bomb in the future. Not gonna cry about not implementing them, but a reason for why that change was good back in 2012, was cause it removed what could only be described as dumb luck from setting up bombing runs.
All pilots should have a infinite loop of "collect information>make choice>execute".. without any way of collecting information as to when/if your getting decloaked, all you can do is pray. We need a way to collect that information, at least from those trying to achieve the same bombrun as yourself. Maybe by showing them on your overview still, something as simple as that (but disable "keep at distance"-option so its not too easy.. manual pilot is your friend). Whatever way ends up being available, there have to be some way of collecting information, the mantra of EVE is to make conscious choices. Without any way of knowing, setting up a bombrun is pure luck, a coin-flip at best. Would even think it was lower chance than that of being successful. With the reduction of agility, the diff. between individual pilot navigation-skills will make it more likely people end up within range to decloak each other once you start aligning to make the run.
THEN comes the act of execution, something that in itself can swing both ways for success or fail, but at least that part of the game is more balanced now with the new 10km bubbles, those i like. Gonna separate the men from the boys in the bombers-game :P
And lets just say that trying to counter some of the nerfs with buffs seems a bit out of touch with the game.. CPU increase, sure.. But HP buff? On a bomber?? HP isnt your tank, never been, never will be. If your getting locked up and shot, your already dead no matter your EHP. The cloak is your tank, dont insult us by saying you find it fair to nerf bombers but give us some HP in return. I dont need more tank, i need information to make decisions on the fly that has a effect on the outcome. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:22:00 -
[88] - Quote
Continuing from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5123470#post5123470
Lastly, 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 , does not make the said player a cheater. The definition of a cheater is defined by the masters of the game. This can be changed by appealing to said masters. And this appeal was made. ISBoxing was a bannable offense in its infancy, but this ruling was changed , not because the corporate heads came together and decided that ISboxer generates more revenue, but because ISboxer's functionality is no different than a hardware set up that mirrors keys across physical computers. The difference is that it does it via software instead of hardware.
People have their own play styles that they enjoy to each their own as long as it does not break CCP's rules they should all be welcomed in this sandbox that we play.
People complaining about ISboxer pvp is equivalent to players informing all hisec players that they are no longer allowed to run missions because those players are a detriment to the economy. After all, they do not add content to the game and even CCP is quoted saying that hisec mission runners tend to quit after a while anyway. Mining in hisec is now banned. Mining should only be done in nullsec, since mining has no risk involved in highsec.
These are all opinions and arguments about ISBoxer sound as ridiculous to me as these 2 silly examples I have given above. I have come across players who do not agree with ISBoxer and that it takes away from the emergence of the game, but then I turn around and ask them how many accounts they have, and how that is any different from an ISBoxing multiboxer.
They are all different styles of play and they all have their place in New Eden. Everyone is welcome to have an opinion, but please don't try and force those opinions on others and try and make it law.
In closing,
Please address the actual reasons why bombing has become to prevalent and fix those rather than attempting to bandaid fix something that does not address the main issues.
sig radius penalties, bomb damage only relying on sig radius, bomb "alpha" being too high with 8 bombs per wave, and lastly to the players that share this great world of New Eden with myself and many others, please stop trying to define what is cheating in this game based solely on your own narrow view
|
Black Ambulance
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:22:00 -
[89] - Quote
NERF bombers = solution for terrible server hiccups ?
I just remember when nulli died to cfc bombers because they was unable to jump through the gate, as server fu*ked up.
So this is like a solution how to fix the server issues.
|
Wacktopia
Noir. Suddenly Spaceships.
710
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:23:00 -
[90] - Quote
Quote:Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
Really?! Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together - -áFleet-Up.com |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1803
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:25:00 -
[91] - Quote
My third point, from other thread seems CCP think the problem of battleships beign weak is caused by SBomber power.
No it is NOT.
Battleships are weak because you guys removed HALF their mobility and did not give anythign back (except to the gallente battleships that we know are the current flavor race).
Battleshisp wil beused even less after the jump changes. BEcause right now they are mostly used by groups that can IGNORE their lack of mobility by usage of several titans to move them around.
Without that as a way to avoid their reduced mobility, they are NOT WORTH as combat vessels other than cannon fooders.
The battleships used nowadays are basically the mega (because frankly making gallente OP is the new thing sicne this balance team took over). But ven those are only in massive fleets htat need a ship with lots of EHP andlow cost to replace.
Battleships are NOT used because of them being more powerful than anything. MAke them WORTH using in smaller engagements.. make it worth to MOVE battleships trough gates instead of a T3 or Pirate cruiser. That is what will help battleships .. not nerfing SBers. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
John Selth
Constantine. Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:26:00 -
[92] - Quote
Black Ambulance wrote:NERF bombers = solution for terrible server hiccups ?
I just remember when nulli died to cfc bombers because they was unable to jump through the gate, as server fu*ked up.
So this is like a solution how to fix the server issues.
Like this? |
Hanazava Karyna
The Foundation Of Mammon
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:28:00 -
[93] - Quote
Inb4 this will be the same just like with Language Channel Removal http://i.imgur.com/t2hBK2k.png CCP will keep silent about ISBoxers because it's taboo that keeps playerbase full of alts plexing.
As always: hurt everyone but the issue is still not fixed. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
772
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:29:00 -
[94] - Quote
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. Yaay!!!! |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:30:00 -
[95] - Quote
i'm leading one corp based on our bomber bar and i have experience over 10k kills with bomber bar. we italian and i'm not heavy skillled in english, sorry for my english.
first of all, i dont see really nothing in re-balance side but the direction is nefing completly a doctrine, a gameplay style, a community and people enjoyin in a unique gameplay style.
One single aspect of these change are enough to make bombing bar extremly difficult, all togheder made this almost unthinkable for human communities made of real people with veterans and newbie.
*the 12 second align destroy the chance of wiping the best-bang-for-buck cormorant rail fleets. most of the nado, naga, bct3 and othere usual kiters can take simply a fleet warp even not aligned.
*smartbomb use will be deployed in some doctrine fit and , except making a mess in battle result at the end of the day, will simply wipe the entire volley. In 0.0 i will espect a medium smartbomb (1 slot) in almos every doctrine fit and will be simply impossible attacking powerblock in subcapital deploy.
*the mass decloacking effect will make very slower , togheder with nerf of align and warp, at the point to allowing only very few (if possible) runs in a night. nullifing the launcher bomb lvl 5 bonus.
the only option in action at moment looks the goku but killing completly the steath side of the ship, nothing more of stealth just a in field wing. Goku doctrine used the signature to tank but the boost of +20% make the dps incoming unsusteinable. The locking time in traditional bomber bar with greater signature and lower agility will reise follish level the risk of being wipe. I will remember a bomber wing is over 400m for every squad of 10 real man and really at moment istalocked and istashotted. instead of , like sandbox manifesto, helping people finding new way to think a solution or approach for a fight this nerf kill many of the new tecnique i had seen in last month like voiding cruiser, double or triple point ista bomb or simply the classic 1 wave every 6 seconds..... do u want only these people join main fleet and bye bye to creativity, fantasy and think-different approach to battle?
the +10% rof even for a whole corp trained to 5 is in real unapplicable because is unthinkable stay in field for over 1 min of enemy dps with a faster locking and faster alphaing of these bomber. The signature was the focus on our tank and the plate mixed with lower agility will kill us more than everything else. A side of that the smartbomb will complete the job.
the capital bomb is quite smart to create a link between capital and subcapitals.
i think all these nerf togheder will headshot not only casual bomber team but even experienced community playing eve and trying to do many tecnique since months and months. |
Longdrinks
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
129
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:30:00 -
[96] - Quote
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 |
5pitf1re
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:31:00 -
[97] - Quote
wheniaminspece wrote: 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.
Imagine all the unsubs if ISBoxer would be forbidden. All the highsec ISBoxer mining alt fleets to fund subs would go extinct. |
Anthar Thebess
771
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:32:00 -
[98] - Quote
In case of those anty capital bombs. You need to hit the "box" or any where at the ship model?
New Gate Connections in EVE! Support idea for new gates that will make some more places to thrive. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
772
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:33:00 -
[99] - Quote
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 perks bomber on a wormhole, or gate. We use sabre's in this way. Yaay!!!! |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11703
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:35:00 -
[100] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
918
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:36:00 -
[101] - Quote
I'm a little disappointed with the changes, in general. Not because of ISBoxer -- while I would agree that it does offer a significant power increase for bombers, it affects way more than bombing and probably deserves its own thread -- it's because the damage formula was, essentially, unchanged. As it stands, decloaking change aside, bombs still have an outsized advantage against shield ships. I think a lot of people were expecting these changes to tweak the damage formula so that signature was not the be-all, end-all bomb damage mitigation stat. Was this considered in your (internal or CSM) discussions on the topic, and if so, why did you decide not to change things in this regard? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
per
Terpene Conglomerate
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:42:00 -
[102] - Quote
let us use this new (non dps) bomb in lowsec |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:42:00 -
[103] - 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.
CCP Fozzie, do you know very well, i suppose, the great impact of bubble for bomber bar. Taking position, warpin and warpout is mainly disrupted by the wise use of probes and i agree with this improvment.
But in other side i think headshotting us with the align time, 12 sec bomb, smartbomb vulnerability, mass-decloack is a too heavy nerf. The name itself of the class ship is to nerf: nothing more steath for the mass decloack and no more bomber for the vulnerability to istalock and long align...
I agree we may need a rebalance but allow the intelligence of the hostile to disrupt us. The new interdiction probe is a good idea and will defend actively a hostile fleet but, i repeat, reconsider the whole nerf to avoid headshotting entire corps.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
913
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:45:00 -
[104] - Quote
interesting changes .. the extra HP would go better with more pg .. plated/extender fits.. cpu is still too short here .. torp launchers use so much of the stuff .... try fitting T2 launchers that agility does seem a little crazy for a frig .. have you considered adding mass too bombs? it would allow no bomb versions too behave normally ... like high sec POS versions or low sec uses..
1 metre AOE .. what are the odds that a capital can't move faster in 12 seconds before impact?? nedds too be more like 100metres at least.. 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 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1914
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:46:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
I was hoping this was a bug on sissy because it's a really dumb decision.
If you make it so you can see fleet member when cloaked i can get behind the change but it not, this is a step back. +1 |
Maennas Vaer
Twisted Insanity. The Kadeshi
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:47:00 -
[106] - Quote
As the new interdiction probes are for all intents and purposes, a specialized bubble, will they be T2 ammo and can we get T2 Interdiction Sphere Launchers that maybe hold 4 bubbles or reload after 45 secs instead now please? |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
772
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:47:00 -
[107] - 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.
cmon fozzie ur better than this, don't just answer the low hanging fruit for once in your life and actually respond to the people with criticism and maybe address their concerns or something
i know you want to reply to this with some snarky bullshit but maybe just this once could u reply with how you expect this to impact isboxer instead that would be great https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Odithia
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:48:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
If upper management allow you to comment on this. What's your take on how proposed changes will affect isboxed bomber fleets ? |
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
36
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:50:00 -
[109] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. I was hoping this was a bug on sissy because it's a really dumb decision. If you make it so you can see fleet member when cloaked i can get behind the change but it not, this is a step back.
This. It's a major pain in the arse, maneouvering without seeing what will decloak you. Either let us see our fleet members while they are cloaked, or remove this horrible idea from the patch. Right now it just decreases quality of life for everyone and makes covert ops a matter of LUCK rather than skill.
|
Varun Arthie
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:51:00 -
[110] - Quote
Fozzie as a Bomber pilot I have mixed opinions on these changes so far - I will need to research this a bit more to understand them fully.
I do like the idea of the new capital void bomb. However I do have to ask you this: The bomb will have next to zero AOE, requiring prescison runs. If bombs are going to be made vulnerable to smartbombs, then how do expect them to land on capital ship, considering most capital pilots tend to have smartbombs active and with a radious of upto 10km, I think they'll be largely unused. I personally think a small AOE of this bomb would work, even if was only 1km.
I also would like to ask if you have any plans for the lockbreaker bomb? This bomb is rarely used as it doesn't debuff affected targets. Are there any suggesttions to improve the viability of its use?
|
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1576
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:51:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after.
If it was sooooooo good why change it in first place. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
772
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:51:00 -
[112] - Quote
Maennas Vaer wrote:As the new interdiction probes are for all intents and purposes, a specialized bubble, will they be T2 ammo and can we get T2 Interdiction Sphere Launchers that maybe hold 4 bubbles or reload after 45 secs instead now please?
Thanks for the clarity. I couldn't wrap my head around why interdiction probes would be in a stealth bomber thread. Yaay!!!! |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
271
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:55:00 -
[113] - Quote
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 Baddest poster ever |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
478
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:56:00 -
[114] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:
Lastly, 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 , does not make the said player a cheater. The definition of a cheater is defined by the masters of the game. This can be changed by appealing to said masters. And this appeal was made.
ISBoxing was a bannable offense in its infancy, but this ruling was changed , not because the corporate heads came together and decided that ISboxer generates more revenue, but because ISboxer's functionality is no different than a hardware set up that mirrors keys across physical computers. The difference is that it does it via software instead of hardware.
etc...
i thought id separate and italic the part of your nice rant that both is completely nonsensical and also the linchpin of your argument. so what your saying is if i made a hardware version of an auto-aim bot, then by extension all auto-aim bots in fps's should now not be considered cheating?
seriously go take a flying leap of a bridge.
cheating is cheating is cheating, whether its software, hardware or you've paid surgeons to attach a cybernetic arm to allow u to hit a button 5000 times a second for hours on end. Its an pay to win advantage that cannot be directly controlled by the games developers.
You have some serious issues with logic, or you're enjoying abusing isboxer, or both. Either way you're bad and you should feel bad. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
77
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:57:00 -
[115] - Quote
yaay bombing runs will actually take time to setup once again and not be something that can be done in 30 seconds |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11708
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:01:00 -
[116] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1328
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:02:00 -
[117] - Quote
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. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
545
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:03:00 -
[118] - Quote
My question regarding the new anti-capital void bomb (which, incidentally, I think is a really cool idea): with a 1 meter area of effect, does the bomb have to land within 1 meter of the ships physical model, or it's collision radius? I know that on some caps, especially titans and the Naglfar, this will make a difference.
Thanks! CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
410
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:04:00 -
[119] - Quote
ISBoxers can adjust to this easily by configuring their default ranges. Given that non-multiboxed bombers have absolutely no way of seeing where each other are, it's like asking 7 blind men to mill around a room without walking within 2 meters of each other. I'm fine with cloaked ships decloaking each other, but it has to be done with fleet members able to see other cloaked fleet members, otherwise this change is dumb as hell (and I'm not going to take it any more)!
The comments about armour being too strong compared to shields being very weak to bombs is spot on- bombs need an explosion velocity element. Alternatively, they should have a damage drop off based on range (honestly, the fact I can take no damage rather than being popped by being 1m further away also is dumb as hell and stretches credulity). Having damage drop off means that shield ships have a better chance of mitigating damage by moving, armor ships endure better, but all ships benefit from trying to fly away from the detonation point (and working out where the detonation point is matters more). It also rewards bombing precision- concentrated bombs may guarantee kills on a few targets and punish very tight blobs, distributed bomb patterns may kill more if done right but are more risky, and spreading out to defend against bombs is more of a smooth continuum of mitigation rather than trying to beat a static figure. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1855
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 14:04:00 -
[120] - 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. 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.
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.
Thanks, that is really disappointing perspective by CCP. But at least it's a reply. |
|
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 |
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1381
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:14:00 -
[151] - Quote
Cloaked ships decloaking each other is a pain in the ass and it made for (and will again make for) *terrible* game play... If you could see where your fleets ships were that would be acceptable, but you can't, so no. |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Die..Brut
32
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:16:00 -
[152] - Quote
Analysis: This nerf favors the CFC and weakens N3. - The CFC is Subcapital heavy. - Bombers with Anti-Cap-Void Bomb can operate rather freely without need of tight formation like for bomb runs. - The Anti-Cap-Void Bomb is not good for a force that uses capitals, so N3. - The faster reload for the bomb launcher is not to much helpful, since it takes longer to put the bombers into position.
The signature increase is bad for Solo-Bombers hunting ratters.
We will see again either magic hand bomberwings or the rare, specialised groups.
Question to the Devs. Have you tried yourself these changes in organizing 50x Bombers with the developers? Or is it again ccp-theorycraft? |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
166
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:17:00 -
[153] - Quote
CCP,
are you aware that there are other ships that use cloaks besides ISBotted bombers?
You need to ban it, and not buff it with these changes.
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:17:00 -
[154] - Quote
allowing to bomber to see each other in fleet is lore-oriented and may help real people to co-op. i still think deployin some smartbomb on dominix will make them invulnerable to bomb but at least we have some small chance aganist others.
i will remmeber the old shoold bomber bar NOT had the limit of 6 bomb per run because bomb dont apply damage each others so at moment we are at the edge of collapse. the "old" decloack + new limit to 6 bomb + smartbomb + 12 sec flight time + antibomber bubblers + more sign + more align time allow only the use of gokus. i can accept to redirect to goku style but it is absolutily different gameplay (target pew pew, bcast rep) and in some way is the "usual" gameplay killing the different-way to play of steath bomber.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:18:00 -
[155] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote: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.
I think it is because the bombs were intended to be used on suppers more than caps but that's just what i got from it.
and yes this does feel like they couldn't work out or be bothered with a way to enforce a ban on isboxer so they tried to nerf it. all they did was make it so isboxer is almost required to pull off bombing runs even if they made it so you could see other fleet members organizing a human bombing run is going to be almost un doable.
as for how this affects WH space CCP rarely even considers it, the few changes we got seemed to be things a few devs were working on in their spare time |
Benito Arias
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
59
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:18:00 -
[156] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Anyway, so the fact that the decloak change has been confirmed, please take a moment to remember what CCP said when they implemented that change. The patch note said something along the lines of, "oh hey yea its a bug and we're finally fixing. npnp bros." and covert ops rejoiced for their cloaked ships decloaking each other was fixed. Yup. Quoting patch notes for Crucible:
Quote:Patch Notes for Crucible 2011-11-29 00:00 Patch notes for EVE Online: Crucible
-snip- Fixes -snip-
Modules
-snip- Cloaked ships will no longer decloak other cloaked ships. -snip- So. Why do we have a global module change hiding under SB-only title? Was it a bug back then? It it was, are you reintroducing it, or has it stopped being a bug? It it wasn't, well... Commit, mkay? :) |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3395
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:20:00 -
[157] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie.
You mean a bad fleet of bombers that didn't bother to plan their run even a couple of minutes ahead of time and have a warp-through point set up, alleviating most if not all align time?
Epic fail from bad bomber wings. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Anthar Thebess
772
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:20:00 -
[158] - Quote
After some thoughts - this will heavily impact dreads. While in siege they are just big sitting ducks. Two of them will be hit the most : - moros - revelation
NO CAP: - unable to jump out - unable to fire.
Can we get some boost to those dreads, especially revelation? Can we make all dreadnoughts similar? No cap usage for capital guns?
New Gate Connections in EVE! Support idea for new gates that will make some more places to thrive. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3395
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:21:00 -
[159] - Quote
Benito Arias wrote: It it wasn't, well... Commit, mkay? :)
Fozzie just did. He committed to reverting a previous change.
You should commit to learning to operate in the new environment. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Nys Cron
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:23:00 -
[160] - Quote
Cloakies decloaking other cloakies: This means that only mutliboxers will be able to coordinate bombing correctly, you are buffing mutliboxers which are seen as a problem by many and nerfing fleets of mutliple people. Maybe this is intentional.
Capital void bombs: You are introducing a mechanic that has no viable counter, there is no way for a triaged Carrier or sieged Dread to do anything against this. Normal neuts can be dealt with by applying EWAR or damage to them but this has no counter. I don't think this is fun gameplay and such mechanics should be in the game. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:23:00 -
[161] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:After some thoughts - this will heavily impact dreads. While in siege they are just big sitting ducks. Two of them will be hit the most : - moros - revelation
NO CAP: - unable to jump out - unable to fire.
Can we get some boost to those dreads, especially revelation? Can we make all dreadnoughts similar? No cap usage for capital guns?
no to making dreads similar difference is what makes this game if you want capless guns use a dread that supports that |
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:24:00 -
[162] - Quote
Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote:
Question to the Devs. Have you tried yourself these changes in organizing 50x Bombers with the developers? Or is it again ccp-theorycraft?
EXACTLY!!!
have any of the devs ACTUALLY tried to get a few waves of bombing runs off in TIDI, with the battlefield littered with stuff, and 24+ pilots possibly DCing, and or running into crap, bubbles up everywhere and wrecks, and or being newbs...ITS LIKE HERDING CATS>>>like a vast herd of cats
its not easy to do at all.... its very hard as it is....
If the issue is ISOBOXERS(which always seem to get clean bomb runs off) then deal with that issue... but the organization to get 24+ individual players to get bombing runs off is a nightmare already
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:24:00 -
[163] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote:Cloakies decloaking other cloakies: This means that only mutliboxers will be able to coordinate bombing correctly, you are buffing mutliboxers which are seen as a problem by many and nerfing fleets of mutliple people. Maybe this is intentional.
Capital void bombs: You are introducing a mechanic that has no viable counter, there is no way for a triaged Carrier or sieged Dread to do anything against this. Normal neuts can be dealt with by applying EWAR or damage to them but this has no counter. I don't think this is fun gameplay and such mechanics should be in the game.
with the changes to bomb speed a few smart bombs are your counter |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3395
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:25:00 -
[164] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:all they did was make it so isboxer is almost required to pull off bombing runs even if they made it so you could see other fleet members organizing a human bombing run is going to be almost un doable.
ISBoxer was never required to pull off bombing runs prior to the change in 2012. It will not be required now. Learn to organize, learn to voice comms, learn to use the features of the game client, and learn to research and read. Everything you ever wanted to know about planning and executing a bombing run under these "new" circumstances is available to be absorbed, because it has all been done before. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:26:00 -
[165] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:all they did was make it so isboxer is almost required to pull off bombing runs even if they made it so you could see other fleet members organizing a human bombing run is going to be almost un doable.
ISBoxer was never required to pull off bombing runs prior to the change in 2012. It will not be required now. Learn to organize, learn to voice comms, learn to use the features of the game client, and learn to research and read. Everything you ever wanted to know about planning and executing a bombing run under these "new" circumstances is available to be absorbed, because it has all been done before.
b4 2012 we had a smaller sig so getting headshotted when some one messed up wasn't as big a problem |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10081
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:26:00 -
[166] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:After some thoughts - this will heavily impact dreads. While in siege they are just big sitting ducks. Two of them will be hit the most : - moros - revelation
NO CAP: - unable to jump out - unable to fire.
Can we get some boost to those dreads, especially revelation? Can we make all dreadnoughts similar? No cap usage for capital guns?
This is a pretty good point. The Revelation needs buffed anyways, and Siege as a concept needs redone pretty badly as well.
As for capless guns, I have to say no, the less of that we have in this game the better. But the Capital Energy Weapons are begging to be looked at. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:29:00 -
[167] - Quote
Some of these changes are just plain terrible and stupid. The rest are mediocre. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Nys Cron
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:29:00 -
[168] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:with the changes to bomb speed a few smart bombs are your counter
So you either sacrifice two highslots on the Carrier (why are you even bringing one then?) or you have to position ships around it in all directions (you don't know where the bombs will come from). This would require a lot of ships and is not really feasible, especially in wspace. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
460
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:31:00 -
[169] - Quote
Does the new bubbles take the same amount of space? Or to put it in another way: will we be able to get more of those in probe launcher than 3?
Also would like to rise the tactical overlay aspect of 1m bomb.
Also, while we are talking about cap warefare with those... CAN I HAZ CAPACITOR MAINTANANCE BOT DRONES PLOX? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3396
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:33:00 -
[170] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:all they did was make it so isboxer is almost required to pull off bombing runs even if they made it so you could see other fleet members organizing a human bombing run is going to be almost un doable.
ISBoxer was never required to pull off bombing runs prior to the change in 2012. It will not be required now. Learn to organize, learn to voice comms, learn to use the features of the game client, and learn to research and read. Everything you ever wanted to know about planning and executing a bombing run under these "new" circumstances is available to be absorbed, because it has all been done before. b4 2012 we had a smaller sig so getting headshotted when some one messed up wasn't as big a problem
Getting shot happens. That's part of EVE.
People in this thread are behaving as if ISBoxer is the only way these bombing runs happen, and that's a complete fabrication. Can it be more precise? Surely. Is it the only way? No. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:33:00 -
[171] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:all they did was make it so isboxer is almost required to pull off bombing runs even if they made it so you could see other fleet members organizing a human bombing run is going to be almost un doable.
ISBoxer was never required to pull off bombing runs prior to the change in 2012. It will not be required now. Learn to organize, learn to voice comms, learn to use the features of the game client, and learn to research and read. Everything you ever wanted to know about planning and executing a bombing run under these "new" circumstances is available to be absorbed, because it has all been done before.
Show me on the ship where the bomber touched you. |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
1201
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:33:00 -
[172] - Quote
Dear haters! HAHAHA Learn to adapt. These are decent changes and wont kill bombing runs. Most bombing runs involve ships landing on a bubble anyway and going launch and warp out and since most people put nano's in the lows anyway... i dont see what the problem is. |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
596
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:34:00 -
[173] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote:Cloakies decloaking other cloakies: This means that only mutliboxers will be able to coordinate bombing correctly, you are buffing mutliboxers which are seen as a problem by many and nerfing fleets of mutliple people. Maybe this is intentional.
Capital void bombs: You are introducing a mechanic that has no viable counter, there is no way for a triaged Carrier or sieged Dread to do anything against this. Normal neuts can be dealt with by applying EWAR or damage to them but this has no counter. I don't think this is fun gameplay and such mechanics should be in the game.
The void bombs seem fine against supers, maybe even make them stronger, but please don't introduce the ability for one multiboxer to alpha a carrier's cap without a possiblity to counter that.
You have 12 seconds to ask on comms to get bumped by 1 meter once these bombs come out. Not so hard, it takes 5 seconds to react and another 3-4 seconds for a cruiser to slam into your archon and nudge it by 1-5 meters. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:35:00 -
[174] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:with the changes to bomb speed a few smart bombs are your counter So you either sacrifice two highslots on the Carrier (why are you even bringing one then?) or you have to position ships around it in all directions (you don't know where the bombs will come from). This would require a lot of ships and is not really feasible, especially in wspace.
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 |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3396
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:36:00 -
[175] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:all they did was make it so isboxer is almost required to pull off bombing runs even if they made it so you could see other fleet members organizing a human bombing run is going to be almost un doable.
ISBoxer was never required to pull off bombing runs prior to the change in 2012. It will not be required now. Learn to organize, learn to voice comms, learn to use the features of the game client, and learn to research and read. Everything you ever wanted to know about planning and executing a bombing run under these "new" circumstances is available to be absorbed, because it has all been done before. Show me on the ship where the bomber touched you.
Do you even realize what the hell you just posted? Did you read what I posted? Obviously not. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:37:00 -
[176] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:all they did was make it so isboxer is almost required to pull off bombing runs even if they made it so you could see other fleet members organizing a human bombing run is going to be almost un doable.
ISBoxer was never required to pull off bombing runs prior to the change in 2012. It will not be required now. Learn to organize, learn to voice comms, learn to use the features of the game client, and learn to research and read. Everything you ever wanted to know about planning and executing a bombing run under these "new" circumstances is available to be absorbed, because it has all been done before. b4 2012 we had a smaller sig so getting headshotted when some one messed up wasn't as big a problem Getting shot happens. That's part of EVE. People in this thread are behaving as if ISBoxer is the only way these bombing runs happen, and that's a complete fabrication. Can it be more precise? Surely. Is it the only way? No.
but it is the best way with no down side and now they are making it even more attractive to use rather then organize |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1859
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:38:00 -
[177] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote: You have 12 seconds to ask on comms to get bumped by 1 meter once these bombs come out. Not so hard, it takes 5 seconds to react and another 3-4 seconds for a cruiser to slam into your archon and nudge it by 1-5 meters.
^people who have no idea how hitboxes work. |
Nys Cron
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:39:00 -
[178] - Quote
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. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3396
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:40:00 -
[179] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:all they did was make it so isboxer is almost required to pull off bombing runs even if they made it so you could see other fleet members organizing a human bombing run is going to be almost un doable.
ISBoxer was never required to pull off bombing runs prior to the change in 2012. It will not be required now. Learn to organize, learn to voice comms, learn to use the features of the game client, and learn to research and read. Everything you ever wanted to know about planning and executing a bombing run under these "new" circumstances is available to be absorbed, because it has all been done before. b4 2012 we had a smaller sig so getting headshotted when some one messed up wasn't as big a problem Getting shot happens. That's part of EVE. People in this thread are behaving as if ISBoxer is the only way these bombing runs happen, and that's a complete fabrication. Can it be more precise? Surely. Is it the only way? No. but it is the best way with no down side and now they are making it even more attractive to use rather then organize
Then use ISBoxer. Or get over it. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
ulililillia
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:41:00 -
[180] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:
Then use ISBoxer. Or get over it.
What a great way of thinking, you should work for CCP. |
|
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. |
|
Mysor McGuinness
Capital Fusion. Circle-Of-Two
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:16:00 -
[211] - Quote
Great changes, happy to see the iskboxing bombers life become a bit harder, if its not for the decloaking part then the decrease of agility can still hurt them.
Only thing that could worry me a little is that bomb runs will be a lot harder to do as you can no squad warp (will decloak us on landing) so individual pilots will need to position themselves. Then again, this is doable and bombing shouldnt be too easy!
Overall, good changes, keep it coming CCP! |
Jatok Reknar
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:16:00 -
[212] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. :( Not sure at all about the logic behind this. |
Tray LiSans
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Unthinkables
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:17:00 -
[213] - Quote
Making cloaked ships uncloak each other again is really just an awful idea all around. It's already frustratingly common for some knuckledragger to accidentally uncloak friendlies.
Essentially what reverting this change will do is remove every covops fleet except multiboxers. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
106
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:19:00 -
[214] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:... a very long, but well thought out, series of posts...
Everything you said about the current mechanics, and the pros/cons of armor/shield doctrine fleets is absolutely true. However, I have a very easy fix that follows a very old saying, "don't put all your eggs in one basket." Or, in eve terms, spread your fleets out. Have several anchors, and have those anchors be far enough away from each other that bombing runs hit a fraction of your fleet instead of everyone. This, btw, is also one of the best defenses against pipe bombing.
Bombs are area denial weapons, or pilot-density punishments, or both depending on how you look at it.
Go for the harder to fit and lesser damage doctrines that allow you to sit at farther ranges. Then the wings cover (overlapping fields of fire?) each other, make themselves less of a target, and make fleet combat more strategic for attackers and defenders. Have fast tackle orbiting at 30km with swarms of assisted drones instead of with the rest of the core so they can decloak or react quickly to decloaking bombers. Have cruisers orbiting (or if numbers are a problem, at likely bombing run vectors) at 15km with smartbombs ready to defend the squishy, delicious, center. There are many, MANY, counters to bomber fleets.
Adapt or die, can i have your stuff, and all that. (that last bit not directed at you personally, but to the whiners) I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic.
Please, for the love of the whatever you hold dear, stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".-á It is "uh-bad-in" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abaddon |
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
38
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:19:00 -
[215] - Quote
Thatt Guy wrote:Good job nerfing every single cloaking ship in the game Just because you (CCP) chose to allow the use of ISBoxer doesn't mean you need to nerf everyone else's game.
t0ny7 suggested on reddit that having an onlined bomb launcher could cause the decloak. Suggestion on Reddit.
It's not an appropriate solution to ISBoxer, but it's better than what you have proposed. Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Dekyk
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:20:00 -
[216] - Quote
I am totally fine with all these changes except for cloaked ships de-cloaking each other. It is the worst idea I have seen in any patch since the Incarna fiasco and I can see that almost every response posted in this thread so far is in overwhelming agreement. This is a Ret**ded change and here's why:
- Firstly, CCP admitted it was a bug back when cloaked ships de-cloaking each other was first raised with them. So putting it back in and saying it used to be a feature is just plain stupid.
- Secondly, when you fixed the "bug" back then you did it with almost overwhelming support of the playerbase. So what the hell makes you think everyone suddenly changed their minds and is going to be happy with this da-shiang bao-tza shr duh lah doo-tze?!
- Finally, even if you disregard the first two points, it doesn't take away from the fact that this makes running all the other ships with cloaks a giant pain in the rectum without providing them any bonuses to offset the nerf.
Please retract this change.
Please.
Think of the children.
-Dek |
Kleb Zellock
Control-Space DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:21:00 -
[217] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:This is a sad day to Cov op pilots and I was counting the days on when you will tackle black ops... pls don't touch black ops It seems any sense regarding how cov ops fleet works nor have the courage to ban ISBoxing and you took the easier route..GJ CCP.
This does touch BlOps. It's ALL cloaked ships. |
Vel'drinn
Sol Research and Development Aurora Foundation
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:21:00 -
[218] - Quote
August - Breeze wrote: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.
One option available is not packing hundreds of ships at a fixed point. You know, maybe spread out a little and fight multiple fronts.
This change will make bombers overly obtuse to use and require a lot of experience to fly effectively.
The time to setup warpins without decloaking everybody is going to be a nightmare even for a small gang.
With the added signature radius and proximity decloak there are going to be a lot of dead bombers no matter how good the warp in.
I'll echo the best comments I've seen so far by highlighting the need to see cloaked fleet members if this goes through. It won't matter how good your pilots are if they risk tripping over each other in space. All it takes is one error to cause a decloak chain reaction then you kiss your fleet goodbye. That's not skill, its random blind frustration. |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
123
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:24:00 -
[219] - Quote
Could you please calm down people ?
CCP Fozzie has the hardcore almost impossible task to please everyone each time his team changes a game mechanic.
Back in the days, effective bomber fleets were rare and elite. When I was part of True Reign, we used to bomb Red Alliance & cie blobs. Setting up our bookmarks and warping hours before the fights, coordinating our moves to avoid decloaking each others. Despite the efforts, a successful bomb run meant something, it meant eliteness. Those were the days.
Nowadays, its way to easy and accessible. And please dont throw me the dictors bubbles shield around fleets or the lag, we had to manage it too in the past.
Godspeed CCP
Edit: More clothes on the market plz Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
226
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:24:00 -
[220] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:with the changes to bomb speed a few smart bombs are your counter So you either sacrifice two highslots on the Carrier (why are you even bringing one then?) or you have to position ships around it in all directions (you don't know where the bombs will come from). This would require a lot of ships and is not really feasible, especially in wspace.
What's that? You will have to use non-capitals to SUPPORT your caps? Inconceivable! |
|
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
121
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:24:00 -
[221] - Quote
Thank you for showing an appreciation for physics and not allowing 50 bombers to occupy the same space, while cloaked, whilst not being smushed into a ball of scrap.
Realism 1, Bomber fanboys 0 |
Metal Icarus
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
704
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:25:00 -
[222] - Quote
"cloaked ships will now de-cloak at 2k again...."
:(
Restoring a bug doesn't seem like a great way to nerf ISboxing bomber fleets
That nerfs ALL cloaked ships working together not just bombers.
This means that all cloaked ships in warp together will likely de-cloak the whole fleet.
This is an inconvenience that doesn't need to exist and bringing it back right now, just doesn't make much sense. |
Kleb Zellock
Control-Space DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:30:00 -
[223] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:Could you please calm down people ?
CCP Fozzie has the hardcore almost impossible task to please everyone each time his team changes a game mechanic.
Back in the days, effective bomber fleets were rare and elite. When I was part of True Reign, we used to bomb Red Alliance & cie blobs. Setting up our bookmarks and warping hours before the fights, coordinating our moves to avoid decloaking each others. Despite the efforts, a successful bomb run meant something, it meant eliteness. Those were the days.
Nowadays, its way to easy and accessible. And please dont throw me the dictors bubbles shield around fleets or the lag, we had to manage it too in the past.
Godspeed CCP
Edit: More clothes on the market plz
Not everyone has hours to spend getting ready for a fight that may or may not happen. Not to mention the incredible learning curve this adds to new players that may want to explore this aspect of the game, but won't be l33t enough to get to fly with most groups. Not a very social way to play an MMO. |
Pretty Pony Princess
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:31:00 -
[224] - Quote
Good job. Instead of fixing the real problem, which is isboxing, bombers and other covert fleets are made useless.
|
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
411
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:33:00 -
[225] - Quote
I understand the ISD points about ISBoxer. While it is relevant to the discussion and we wish to balance with it in mind, calls to ban it are definitely off topic and risk getting the thread shut down.
I'm not 100% sure about the medium smartbombs change- I understand the desire to give more anti-bomb options, but the point of smartbombs is that they do AoE damage. Being able to take out a wave if bombs with a single med smartbombs pulse seems overpowered to me. Now, if you want an anti-bomb option for smaller ships that scales differently than a smartbombs, maybe we can resurrect something long left useless and unused by EVE players... Maybe we should bring back Defender missiles rebalanced to be anti-bomb munitions. |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
123
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:36:00 -
[226] - Quote
Kleb Zellock wrote:
Not everyone has hours to spend getting ready for a fight that may or may not happen. [...) won't be l33t enough to get to fly with most groups. Not a very social way to play an MMO.
We are playing EvE, not World Of Warcraft.
We had enough contents added for the casual players by CCP. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:36:00 -
[227] - Quote
I mostly agree that these changes are needed. The agility and warp speed is one of the main things that tipped bombers over the top recently. Making them easier to defend against is good.
This does NOT address the huge imbalance of bombs against certain types of ships. The 100% dependence on sig radius is bad, in my opinion. Augoror Navy Issues can take around 112 shrapnel bombs with full boosts and heat. A shield rupture can barely take 7 - less with a MWD on. There are problems with the Megathron vs Rokh and battlecruisers as well.
You'd have to tweak the numbers, but why not drop the sig radius of bombs from 400 to ~250-300 (thus making sig tanking ships a bit easier to hit) while adding an explosion velocity attribute? If this was the case, fast-moving ships (read: shield ships which generally have higher mobility) would take less damage than today, assuming they're moving, but sig tanked ships like Augorors and Megathrons would actually be killable in certain situations. Shield ships can use their higher mobility to protect themselves, armor tanks can use their superior sig. I haven't run the numbers on this, but it seems a reasonable way to balance this problem out. It would also mean frigates which are moving at MWD speed may not take damage at all, unlike today where a fleet can be stripped of their light frigates quite easily.
The above could also potentially help shield BS, which are all but useless right now, and battlecruisers, which are vulnerable due to their sig.
Lockbreakers are still in a bad place and won't see any usage.
It looks like the Nemesis is still completely awful PGU wise, at least it isn't the slowest to align anymore.
At the same time, the cloaking change doesn't really do anything other than make life miserable for everyone, including blops drops, cloaky gatecamps and other roles. |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
146
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:37:00 -
[228] - Quote
Excellent changes. I support the decloaking effect. Frankly, i support any mechanic that prevents fleets from being one thinking FC and a bunch of F1 mashers. Now that we have introduced the radical concept of individual piloting to SB fleets, can we also make it so that the more people orbiting the FC the higher everyone's sig radius gets?
Also, I am SOO happy about the extra CPU.
And the anti-cap bomb looks fun.
Great work once again. |
ulililillia
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:38:00 -
[229] - Quote
Suzuka A1 wrote:I was really looking forward to seeing more triage carriers used with 20-50 man gangs, but with ONE bomber being able to nuke 15k cap it's no longer a viable tactic.
[Q] Would you consider adding void bomb resists to cap batteries and maybe adding capital size cap batteries?
Or they could add a viable anti bombing mechanic/module, instead of doing these half assed changes |
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1300
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:39:00 -
[230] - Quote
Quote: Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. Stupid idea. Thank god I am no longer in WH space. DISCLAIMER : All of the above replies are not meant as any form of harassment. It's all SciFi. YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
772
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:39:00 -
[231] - Quote
oodell wrote:I mostly agree that these changes are needed. The agility and warp speed is one of the main things that tipped bombers over the top recently. Making them easier to defend against is good.
This does NOT address the huge imbalance of bombs against certain types of ships. The 100% dependence on sig radius is bad, in my opinion. Augoror Navy Issues can take around 112 shrapnel bombs with full boosts and heat. A shield rupture can barely take 7 - less with a MWD on. There are problems with the Megathron vs Rokh and battlecruisers as well.
You'd have to tweak the numbers, but why not drop the sig radius of bombs from 400 to ~250-300 (thus making sig tanking ships a bit easier to hit) while adding an explosion velocity attribute? If this was the case, fast-moving ships (read: shield ships which generally have higher mobility) would take less damage than today, assuming they're moving, but sig tanked ships like Augorors and Megathrons would actually be killable in certain situations. Shield ships can use their higher mobility to protect themselves, armor tanks can use their superior sig. I haven't run the numbers on this, but it seems a reasonable way to balance this problem out. It would also mean frigates which are moving at MWD speed may not take damage at all, unlike today where a fleet can be stripped of their light frigates quite easily.
The above could also potentially help shield BS, which are all but useless right now, and battlecruisers, which are vulnerable due to their sig.
Lockbreakers are still in a bad place and won't see any usage.
It looks like the Nemesis is still completely awful PGU wise, at least it isn't the slowest to align anymore.
At the same time, the cloaking change doesn't really do anything other than make life miserable for everyone, including blops drops, cloaky gatecamps and other roles.
You are correct that shield fleets need to be addressed a little vs bombs. Yaay!!!! |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1328
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:40:00 -
[232] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:I'm fine with cloaked ships decloaking each other, but it has to be done with fleet members able to see other cloaked fleet members, otherwise this change is dumb as hell
100% true.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:43:00 -
[233] - Quote
Pritovsky Pootis wrote: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.
Tear bears in the blue doughnut cry, fozzie jumps. |
Kleb Zellock
Control-Space DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:44:00 -
[234] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:Kleb Zellock wrote:
Not everyone has hours to spend getting ready for a fight that may or may not happen. [...) won't be l33t enough to get to fly with most groups. Not a very social way to play an MMO.
We are playing EvE, not World Of Warcraft. We had enough contents added for the casual players by CCP.
So in your Eve only players with years of experience and no job or family to get in the way of their play time are worthy of strapping themselves into a pod? All the other peasants should find there way to an instanced foam covered themepark rather than dirty up your tear farming utopia? |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
426
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:45:00 -
[235] - Quote
The changes are good, but only if combined with a blanket ban on ISBoxer. Right now there is no point in running bombing fleets, and bombing has just become completely monopolised by one dude multiboxing. Warping to zero |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2894
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:46:00 -
[236] - Quote
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. .
no sure if SISI will give you any usable data for balancing SBs. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
145
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:48:00 -
[237] - Quote
Suzuka A1 wrote:I was really looking forward to seeing more triage carriers used with 20-50 man gangs, but with ONE bomber being able to nuke 15k cap it's no longer a viable tactic.
[Q] Would you consider adding void bomb resists to cap batteries and maybe adding capital size cap batteries?
It would be great if they went back over and looked at batteries give them stronger resists to neuts so that their is a reson to use them over rechargers |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
126
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:49:00 -
[238] - Quote
Kleb Zellock wrote: All the other peasants should find there way to an instanced foam covered themepark rather than dirty up your tear farming utopia?
You read in my mind, good job.
Hardcore players need contents to show their eliteness and flatter their ego.
By the way, im getting laid multiple times by week.
Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3398
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:51:00 -
[239] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: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. .
no sure if SISI will give you any usable data for balancing SBs.
Of course it won't. Using a poorly provisioned test server that has an average daily population of a couple hundred except on the days they give away play SP is one of the worst things I have ever seen as far as QA goes. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
437
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:52:00 -
[240] - Quote
Even though these changes to decloaking might be a bit too harsh, I'm too much enjoying the tears in this thread to formulate anything more complicated. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
145
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:52:00 -
[241] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:Kleb Zellock wrote: All the other peasants should find there way to an instanced foam covered themepark rather than dirty up your tear farming utopia? You read in my mind, good job. Hardcore players need contents to show their eliteness and flatter their ego. By the way, im getting laid multiple times by week. you haven't been laid since you moved back in with your mother. but he's right there needs to be content for dedicated players not just guys who play 1-2hrs a week |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3398
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:55:00 -
[242] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Aram Kachaturian wrote:Kleb Zellock wrote: All the other peasants should find there way to an instanced foam covered themepark rather than dirty up your tear farming utopia? You read in my mind, good job. Hardcore players need contents to show their eliteness and flatter their ego. By the way, im getting laid multiple times by week. you haven't been laid since you moved back in with your mother. but he's right there needs to be content for dedicated players not just guys who play 1-2hrs a week
Maybe he has been getting laid since he moved back in with his mother. Everyone has different tastes.
I think the ultimate point is that if you don't have the time to get good at something, then you accept that you're not going to be good, and do it anyway for fun, or you don't do it. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
146
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:55:00 -
[243] - Quote
with the capital neut bomb i would say either up the speed and have it detonate on impact rather then time delay or if you keep it this way lower the explosion radius if you manage to nail a frig with this thing(not sure why you would be) it should lose its cap |
Corey Edward
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:57:00 -
[244] - Quote
Fozzie, you want to know why people are mad about this? Because no one was asking for these changes. We want ishtars/drones online to come to an end. We want sov changes and force projection changes. We want isboxer to go away. We want HAC and battleship buffs to make them more viable again. I know CCP is addressing some of this, but please tell us when was there a public outcry that bombers had to be nerfed like this?
Some of these people are talking about how easy it is to bomb, but its really not. To actually get 30 people to coordinate and set up for a bomb takes a like of time and effort...and it's not a sure thing, it's very easy for bombing runs to go wrong. A couple weeks ago that Abbadon fleet that got wiped out by DBRB's gang was all over reddit and en24. Why? Because it doesn't happen every day. It was pure luck of the draw and something amazing happened.
The extra 2 seconds is a long time for bombs while it is currently still possible even now for lots of fleets to warp before they detonate. The slower align time is a huge nerf because whether you have 2k or 4k ehp, it's not going to make a difference when getting shot at. The cloaking thing is self-explanatory and is a huge nerf to all cloaked ships. Bombers are not OP. These are bad changes. |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
597
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:57:00 -
[245] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote: You have 12 seconds to ask on comms to get bumped by 1 meter once these bombs come out. Not so hard, it takes 5 seconds to react and another 3-4 seconds for a cruiser to slam into your archon and nudge it by 1-5 meters.
^people who have no idea how hitboxes work.
No I dont, I dont play with game mechanics that require detailed knowledge of hitboxes.
I assume a bomb with radius of 1 m has to hit dead center on the ship's spatial coordinates or its a miss. As align towards a ship 100% speed, and if its not moving, launch. If it moves 1m/s or is bumped - miss. Am I wrong? |
Raj Sunjime
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:58:00 -
[246] - Quote
yeah, no more bombing runs!
i can go back carebearing all the day, thanks CCP!
btw can i have back my skillpoints in bomb deployment?
alas why don't trash the whole bomber class and give us back the isk?
You can keep one bomber to use the new anti capital void bomb when Pandemic drops supers in Providence... uh.. oh.. no scrap that, they won't do that anymore in November...
Sadly, you give us a new weapon when it's too late to use..
Keep going with your precious work! Thanks. |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
127
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:59:00 -
[247] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: you haven't been laid since you moved back in with your mother.
Quote:Maybe he has been getting laid since he moved back in with his mother.
That's rude and offensive.
Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
146
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:59:00 -
[248] - Quote
Corey Edward wrote:Fozzie, you want to know why people are mad about this? Because no one was asking for these changes. We want ishtars/drones online to come to an end. We want sov changes and force projection changes. We want isboxer to go away. We want HAC and battleship buffs to make them more viable again. I know CCP is addressing some of this, but please tell us when was there a public outcry that bombers had to be nerfed like this?
Some of these people are talking about how easy it is to bomb, but its really not. To actually get 30 people to coordinate and set up for a bomb takes a like of time and effort...and it's not a sure thing, it's very easy for bombing runs to go wrong. A couple weeks ago that Abbadon fleet that got wiped out by DBRB's gang was all over reddit and en24. Why? Because it doesn't happen every day. It was pure luck of the draw and something amazing happened.
The extra 2 seconds is a long time for bombs while it is currently still possible even now for lots of fleets to warp before they detonate. The slower align time is a huge nerf because whether you have 2k or 4k ehp, it's not going to make a difference when getting shot at. The cloaking thing is self-explanatory and is a huge nerf to all cloaked ships. Bombers are not OP. These are bad changes.
there were a good deal of posts asking for cloaks to uncloak cloaks.... but there are also a good deal asking for pvp free areas doesn't mean they are good ideas |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
168
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:59:00 -
[249] - Quote
We've been :CCP:'d.... again.
As mentioned by other people, the decloaking won't stop isboxers from bombing, you are literally just screwing over individual bomber fleets.
Typical. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
919
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:00:00 -
[250] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Ammzi wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote: You have 12 seconds to ask on comms to get bumped by 1 meter once these bombs come out. Not so hard, it takes 5 seconds to react and another 3-4 seconds for a cruiser to slam into your archon and nudge it by 1-5 meters.
^people who have no idea how hitboxes work. No I dont, I dont play with game mechanics that require detailed knowledge of hitboxes. I assume a bomb with radius of 1 m has to hit dead center on the ship's spatial coordinates or its a miss. As align towards a ship 100% speed, and if its not moving, launch. If it moves 1m/s or is bumped - miss. Am I wrong? You're wrong.
All ships have a radius attribute. A bomb just has to hit inside this radius to hit the ship. This gives you a decent amount of leeway when dumb-firing a one meter radius bomb. E.g.: a naglfar has a radius of 1700 m. It'll still require a degree of finesse, but not nearly as much as you're thinking it will. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Rammix
TheMurk
308
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:00:00 -
[251] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
I almost hate you.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Cloaked Ships Decloaking Each Other: 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.
Not only bombers are affected. This rebalance and cloaking changes are bullcrap (well, as usual). It was working well, don't fix what's not broken and not even problematic. OpenSUSE 13.1, wine 1.7.20 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2346
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:09:00 -
[252] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: New Anti-Capital Void Bomb: This is the first toe dipped in the water for smaller AoE (and therefore more aiming required) dumb weapons, which we think have a lot of potential in the future. It's a void bomb with the following stats:
Armor HP: 600 Explosion Radius: 4000 Energy Neut Amount: 15,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
This thing is most useful against very large ships, and has to detonate right on top of a target to have any effect. We don't expect it to take the world by storm but it should be a very good option for harassing capitals, especially with small numbers of bombers.
Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 200 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now. |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
597
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:10:00 -
[253] - Quote
Querns wrote:
All ships have a radius attribute. A bomb just has to hit inside this radius to hit the ship. This gives you a decent amount of leeway when dumb-firing a one meter radius bomb. E.g.: a naglfar has a radius of 1700 m. It'll still require a degree of finesse, but not nearly as much as you're thinking it will.
I still think it is too complicated.
A bomb is supposed to be AoE, its its not AoE, might as well use a special torpedo with a long cooldown. Why introduce this needless complexity of having to aim a non-AoE weapon manually...?
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1689
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:11:00 -
[254] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please.
sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack
Yes, I am following this and collecting feedback
Yes, I have ties with Bombers Bar and Spectre fleet
Yes, I think it is a bit much though I doubt it will 'kill the lifestyle' because players are too damn stubborn to die that easily
I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
122
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:11:00 -
[255] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:We've been :CCP:'d.... again.
As mentioned by other people, the decloaking won't stop isboxers from bombing, you are literally just screwing over individual bomber fleets.
Typical.
In times of nerfs you get to see the bottle of Eve players, and they are a bunch of whiners who need to HTFU and think before posting.
No-one gives a sh*t about ISBoxer. CCP has pretty much made their stance clear on this, they have seen the posts on reddit, they are fine with ISBoxer. This change was never about 'NERF ISBOXER CCP PLZ'. Most bombers do not ISBox at present. The problem is bombers and bombs and CCP is changing them to fix this.
ISBoxers have their align times nerfed and sigs increased too, their bombs do not go 999999 km p/hour, they are not invincible gods, although you would be forgiven for thinking it with the amount of posts that centre around them instead of the actual changes.
True, ISBoxers can setup faster, not like they couldn't setup faster and do better bomb runs at the moment anyways.
Bombers who really want to bomb can still bomb but must *communicate* and *use their brain* and *rise to the challenge*. If you can't figure out how to do this and want easy mode then don't fly bombers.
The amount of *actual feedback* on the thread is pitiful.
Now go forth and enjoy your Shield battleships, battlecruisers and other ships that were completely **** on and made unviable by bombers.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
920
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:12:00 -
[256] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Querns wrote:
All ships have a radius attribute. A bomb just has to hit inside this radius to hit the ship. This gives you a decent amount of leeway when dumb-firing a one meter radius bomb. E.g.: a naglfar has a radius of 1700 m. It'll still require a degree of finesse, but not nearly as much as you're thinking it will.
I still think it is too complicated. A bomb is supposed to be AoE, its its not AoE, might as well use a special torpedo with a long cooldown. Why introduce this needless complexity of having to aim a non-AoE weapon manually...? Actually, I think the point of this bomb is to also reclassify bombs not as AOE weapons specifically, but as dumb-fire weapons that require you to aim. The fact that most of these dumb-fire weapons also do AOE damage is not implicative of the role, in general. I'd like to see more non-AOE dumb-fire weapons, in general -- I think they reward skill in a way that a lot of things in Eve currently lack. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2346
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:14:00 -
[257] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Querns wrote:
All ships have a radius attribute. A bomb just has to hit inside this radius to hit the ship. This gives you a decent amount of leeway when dumb-firing a one meter radius bomb. E.g.: a naglfar has a radius of 1700 m. It'll still require a degree of finesse, but not nearly as much as you're thinking it will.
I still think it is too complicated. A bomb is supposed to be AoE, its its not AoE, might as well use a special torpedo with a long cooldown. Why introduce this needless complexity of having to aim a non-AoE weapon manually...? This isn't strictly true. Many modern munitions (bombs) are actually designed to have a smaller area of explosion. This keeps most of the released chemical energy where it can do the most good: on your target. Claymores, Shaped charges in general, bunker busters, and omni explosives (breaching) are common examples. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:17:00 -
[258] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Querns wrote:
All ships have a radius attribute. A bomb just has to hit inside this radius to hit the ship. This gives you a decent amount of leeway when dumb-firing a one meter radius bomb. E.g.: a naglfar has a radius of 1700 m. It'll still require a degree of finesse, but not nearly as much as you're thinking it will.
I still think it is too complicated. A bomb is supposed to be AoE, its its not AoE, might as well use a special torpedo with a long cooldown. Why introduce this needless complexity of having to aim a non-AoE weapon manually...?
simply because its more fun i'm realy looking forward to the new bomb and hope to see more like it |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
506
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:18:00 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.
Do you even play this game? Have you ever tried to do this? It's a ******* nightmare. There's a reason you didn't see massive bombing ops prior to 2012, because it was ******* impossible. We tried, and failed everytime.
If your goal is to nerf bombing runs, then do that directly, don't nerf cloaking in general. Or the sheer ability to organize in cov-ops ships.
When the time to organize and bomb a fleet is greater than the time it takes for the opposing fleet to move, then your not going to have a bombing fleet because you have no targets. This does headshot bombing because its far more work than ANY other task in this game after these changes. You aren't making a mechanic weaker, you're making it impossible to do. So why not just remove it as a whole then.
If your goal is to add in the same arbitrary and pointless gameplay mechanics that just hinder players for the sake of it, that have plagued this game for a decade and make it harder to do simple PVP operations, then mission accomplished. IF your goal is to weaken a mechanic that is being abused by tweaking its individual stats, then you've ******* screwed the pooch on this one and horrendously failed. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10088
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:18:00 -
[260] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote: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.
Well, TIL. Cheating at a videogame is okay so long as enough people do it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
94
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:19:00 -
[261] - Quote
Moraguth wrote: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.. I have no idea what your agenda or desired nerf would be, but for the sake of SCIENCE, i think you should try organizing a huge effort to scream "NERF MINING DRONES!" just to see what would happen. We need more data points to discover the pattern!
We say Nerf Mining Drones CCP: Resets Sov. A bitter vet trying to start anew. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:20:00 -
[262] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please. sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack Yes, I am following this and collecting feedback Yes, I have ties with Bombers Bar and Spectre fleet Yes, I think it is a bit much though I doubt it will 'kill the lifestyle' because players are too damn stubborn to die that easily I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail m
well let spies do what spys do that would be a plus not a drawback
=) but i think the code for this would be to hard to work out |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:21:00 -
[263] - Quote
Capital neut bombs are really going to screw over smaller setups while bigger entities will just build in extra redundancy but I can see the griefers will be gleeful... really bad, really really bad, idea IMO I can see what its intended to do but it really is like cutting off a head to cure a headache.
Cloaking changes are a step backwards also - while I lived with it before and can deal with it again progress this ain't. |
ulililillia
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:22:00 -
[264] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please. sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack Isn't that's perfectly fine? Spying is a huge part of eve and if you're flying with strangers you deserve to get that occasional spy decloak you. Also, they can already do this right now without seeing cloaked fleet members in space |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
4044
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:23:00 -
[265] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please. sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack is it feasible to have broadcasting such information optional for the individual or fleet boss? |
Alexis Nightwish
46
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:24:00 -
[266] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please. sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack Yes, I am following this and collecting feedback Yes, I have ties with Bombers Bar and Spectre fleet Yes, I think it is a bit much though I doubt it will 'kill the lifestyle' because players are too damn stubborn to die that easily I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail m
During a fanfest years ago one of the devs said "We do not believe it is our responsibility to enforce trust" or something along those lines. I don't think a good idea like being able to see your cloaked fleetmates should be tossed out because of :spy:
Two things that I think are bad and I'd like changed: 1) Cloaked fleetmates decloaking each other. If you're not in fleet, then it should still happen. 2) Lack of a real solution to the ISMB issue. I'm only assuming CCP wants to nerf ISMB bombing runs, but if I'm right, they're going about it the wrong way. Add elements of randomness to the bombing so ISMBs can't perform where humans could. Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
507
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:27:00 -
[267] - Quote
Also,
Why are bombers now supposed to be tanky? They've always relied on speed/agility to tank and get away using the cloak. This change only encourages more MSE bomber idiocy that makes no sense for what the ships are used for. All they really needed was a slight CPU buff so you don't have to offline the damn bomb launcher just to use it, or be able to fit 1-2 ewar mids along with torpedoes. No purifier is ever going to forgo a BCS for an armor plate that just slows them down and makes them easier to point.
Seriously, have you ever flown a bomber before? Because from these changes it sounds like you haven't. You just saw some frigates and complaints about bombs and went about with your hammer looking for nails. |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
127
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:28:00 -
[268] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.
There's a reason you didn't see massive bombing ops prior to 2012, because it was ******* impossible. We tried, and failed everytime.
Successful bombing runs were making the news for welping entire BS/Cruiser fleets prior to 2012.
Sorry if you werent good enough with your crew to be able to do that. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
507
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:29:00 -
[269] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:PinkKnife wrote:We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.
There's a reason you didn't see massive bombing ops prior to 2012, because it was ******* impossible. We tried, and failed everytime.
Successful bombing runs were making the news for welping entire BS/Cruiser fleets prior to 2012. Sorry if you werent good enough with your crew to be able to do that.
Really? Show me the news posts them? And show me how often and how successful it was prior to 2012.
I didn't say it wasn't done, I said it wasn't done successfully. Try and learn basic reading comprehension. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Suddenly Spaceships.
1671
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:30:00 -
[270] - 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. It was viable yes, but also tedious and frustrating. Generally speaking I've liked the progress CCP has made in removing those kinds of elements from EVE's gameplay over the past few years.
Undoing the cloaking fix is a step backward.
There's nothing wrong with the principal of making bomb runs and black ops more difficult unless you have good coordination. My issue is you're taking away the quality of life change without providing any coordination/cooperation tools to offset it. A good start would be allowing ships in the same squad/fleet/whatever to see their cloaked bros so you can actually make intelligent piloting choices and have useful references for communication.
If having cloaked ships decloak one another is a design goal you're committing to, I strongly suggest you take the same approach as the nullsec team has to 0.0 logistics. Dont nerf it out of the water until there's tools players can use to relieve some of the frustration. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
Kleb Zellock
Control-Space DARKNESS.
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:31:00 -
[271] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:Kleb Zellock wrote: All the other peasants should find there way to an instanced foam covered themepark rather than dirty up your tear farming utopia? You read in my mind, good job. Hardcore players need contents to show their eliteness and flatter their ego. By the way, im getting laid multiple times by week.
You are my new god. |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:31:00 -
[272] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
Mike, the changes are good overall, but the best idea here was the one about making sig radius less of a factor for bombs so that there is not a disparity in their effect on shield ships vs. armor ships. Bombers drive armor doctrines. While a nerf to bombers in any form will help shield ships, specifically addressing the issue of bombers being so effective against shield ships is something that needs to be addressed.
Otherwise, I like the changes as they are from the decloaking to the reduced maneuverability along with the buffs to other areas. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2346
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:32:00 -
[273] - Quote
I'm just gonna point something out:
In the dark times of yore, when bombers decloaked each other, we still managed to bomb stuff just fine, as did NPSI organizations like bombers bar. At least that's where I learned how to do it right back then.
Personally, I welcome these changes. Bombing should take some modicum of skill and practice. Although isboxed bombers need to go die in a fire ("in game"), they're literally the ebola rotting this game from the inside. |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
127
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:33:00 -
[274] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:
Really? Show me the news posts them? And show me how often and how successful it was prior to 2012.
http://archive.evenews24.com/page/4/?s=bomb&submit
You are welcome. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
Herrin Asura
Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:34:00 -
[275] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:PinkKnife wrote:We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.
There's a reason you didn't see massive bombing ops prior to 2012, because it was ******* impossible. We tried, and failed everytime.
Successful bombing runs were making the news for welping entire BS/Cruiser fleets prior to 2012. Sorry if you werent good enough with your crew to be able to do that.
Watch out, we have a badass over here.
There is no point in not making it possible for a stealth bomber fleet to know exactly where each other is located to avoid decloaking. We can fly with warp speed but we can't create an encoded signal for our fleet members to transmit our coordinates?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
921
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:34:00 -
[276] - Quote
Alright, I gotta play the Devil's Advocate here -- a lot of people are saying that the decloaking changes are meaningless because ISBoxed bombers can set differing warp-to distances. There may be some merit to other arguments regarding ISBoxer bomber fleets, but this isn't one of them -- a bombing wing with a player behind every hull can do this too, with a little bit of coordination in the fleet channel.
e.g.: FC > pick warp to targets please joe > 30,000 steve > 15,000 perry > 40k aloysius > 40k perry > f*** off aloysius i picked 40k first aloysius > no you go straight to hell zach > pap link pls
This tactic is available to both ISBoxered bombers and groups of discrete individuals. It's only a little easier for ISBoxered bombers since you don't have to deal with that jerk Aloysius. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
MIkhail Illiad
Fevered Imaginings End of Life
57
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:37:00 -
[277] - Quote
All looks pretty good except one thing. Why would you roll back the changes that were made to cloaking? That is a step backwards in terms of game design is it not? Not only is it another MAJOR nerf to smaller groups but it doesn't seem to achieve anything other than annoying ISBoxers. There once was an interesting signature here... It has long since disapeared.-á |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:37:00 -
[278] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
Mike, the changes are good overall, but the best idea here was the one about making sig radius less of a factor for bombs so that there is not a disparity in their effect on shield ships vs. armor ships. Bombers drive armor doctrines. While a nerf to bombers in any form will help shield ships, specifically addressing the issue of bombers being so effective against shield ships is something that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I like the changes as they are from the decloaking to the reduced maneuverability along with the buffs to other areas.
maybe lower their exp radi and damage??not to sure how the formula works so this may not be a good idea |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
170
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:37:00 -
[279] - Quote
Querns wrote:Alright, I gotta play the Devil's Advocate here -- a lot of people are saying that the decloaking changes are meaningless because ISBoxed bombers can set differing warp-to distances. There may be some merit to other arguments regarding ISBoxer bomber fleets, but this isn't one of them -- a bombing wing with a player behind every hull can do this too, with a little bit of coordination in the fleet channel.
e.g.: FC > pick warp to targets please joe > 30,000 steve > 15,000 perry > 40k aloysius > 40k perry > f*** off aloysius i picked 40k first aloysius > no you go straight to hell zach > pap link pls
This tactic is available to both ISBoxered bombers and groups of discrete individuals. It's only a little easier for ISBoxered bombers since you don't have to deal with that jerk Aloysius.
Alyosius alt appearing on the forums in 3...2...1... He was also flying a Drake at the time
|
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
127
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 -
[280] - Quote
Herrin Asura wrote: Watch out, we have a badass over here.
Thank you, "Herrin Asura" from " Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation"
I'm not the only one tho, Pasta is badass. We have the first bounty hunter of all time in our rank after all
An alliance of badass delivering badass contents. Get good and you are welcome to join us. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3400
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 -
[281] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: you haven't been laid since you moved back in with your mother.
Quote:Maybe he has been getting laid since he moved back in with his mother. That's rude and offensive.
I'm sorry that you find alternative sexual lifestyle choices offensive. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 -
[282] - Quote
MIkhail Illiad wrote:Why would you roll back the changes that were made to cloaking? That is a step backwards in terms of game design is it not?
as for why it may be meta and times have changed what didn't work then works now.
I don't believe this but it may be their thiking |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
787
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 -
[283] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:[
sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack
Yes, I am following this and collecting feedback
Yes, I have ties with Bombers Bar and Spectre fleet
Yes, I think it is a bit much though I doubt it will 'kill the lifestyle' because players are too damn stubborn to die that easily
I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
when the OP of the balance thread contains blatant misinformation as justification you know the actual knowledge in the area is going to be sparse. please consider who is saying what before you take their opinions on board.
imo a nerf to bombing was needed, but isboxed bombing is the real problem. since ccp will not consider balancing in such a way to make isbombing harder in relation to normal bombing, balance dictates that the only viable form of bombing is going to be isboxed post patch. as csm i feel like its your duty to help ccp realise that this is unacceptable seen as balancing towards increased revenue by a lot of players which is imo disgusting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
MIkhail Illiad
Fevered Imaginings End of Life
57
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:40:00 -
[284] - Quote
The players define the "meta" based on the changes that CCP make to the game. Not the other way around. There once was an interesting signature here... It has long since disapeared.-á |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1918
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:40:00 -
[285] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please. sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack
Haha that it the worst excuse you could have made :)
If you would have said "eve code doesn't allow for such" then that is something we can understand but the off chance of a spy guiding someone within 2km of a cloaked fleet mate is a pretty ridiculous suggestion.
You should find out if it is possible to have cloaked fleet mate show up and if it is, push for it. If it isn't, this change shouldn't happen and instead, ISboxer should be banned.
+1 |
Valterra Craven
290
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:42:00 -
[286] - 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.
That's fine and all, but why aren't you addressing people's legitimate complaint about cloaked members of a fleet not being able to see each other and therefore can't try to manage their distance to one another.
IMO that is the single most important aspect here and you are throwing it to the wind. |
Kari Trace
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:42:00 -
[287] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Let's talk Stealth Bombers!
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
Obligatory 'please god no'. #newtacticesalreadyworkedout
I like making things explode.
Kari Trace |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
487
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:43:00 -
[288] - Quote
Black Canary Jnr wrote:Thank you for showing an appreciation for physics and not allowing 50 bombers to occupy the same space, while cloaked, whilst not being smushed into a ball of scrap.
Realism 1, Bomber fanboys 0
learn to super symmetry u ass! |
Fluoroantimonicacid
Nullbear Tear Extractors Mordus Angels
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:43:00 -
[289] - Quote
I do not think people realize what you just created, or they are being quiet about it because of how overpowered it is.
The killmails I get with this will be epic, although I hope I get to have fun before it is nerfed.
Edit: Thanks for the extra dps and cargo too, those will go well with the structure ehp decreases.
-Replicator |
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
38
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:44:00 -
[290] - Quote
I like some of this, think some of this is too much together and then some just ridiculous.
The rebalance of ship resources has been needed for a couple of the bombers for a while now, more specifically, the Nemesis, which suffers from a lack of CPU like most other Gallente ships. I'm not sure I like the improved EHP in combination with the weaker agility and larger sig radius. We do run anti-bomber ships in fleets and they can already lock and kill bombers with ease and I think those people complaining that bombers can't be tackled, haven't really tried. This is an area where the meta is there to counter bombers but just isn't used because they would rather min-max a fleet than be thinking of other concerns. In this area, I would much rather have the bombers somewhat homogenized as their role is the same, across racial ships.
I saw the cloaking change coming for a long while now. As someone who does a lot of covert work (not just bombers), this is a pretty big annoyance, yes I can deal with it but with the other changes stated, I think it's a bit much as a package.
The change of the resist profile and reduction of raw HP of bombs is a bad change. Smartbombs already easily pop bombs and there isn't a need to improve this ability. You don't see people fly with smartbombs, specifically to wipe off bombs, because the smartbomb radius is rather small so this change seems worthless.
I can deal with the change in bomb speed and flight time.
Buff to Bomb Deployment effect, I can't argue with that.
Anti-capital void bomb...it's a great idea but the 1m range makes it seem ridiculous. The idea of a bomb that specifically affects a single target is just asinine. Give them the same hp/damage stats as the current void bomb and increase blast radius to 30k. Tune the cap neuted a bit but keep the expl radius to make them nearly useless against non-mwd'ing battleships.
I would also suggest that you make ISBoxer a 3rd party tool that is not allowed to use with Eve Online. The only reason I can think of why it's still legal to use is that it makes CCP more money because it is botting.
I would also like to suggest that you revert combat probing to it's previous iteration, or something like it. The sub-10 second probe scan did a lot to hurt long range comps and greatly increased the deadliness of bombers considering you can easily time a scan to give results just as a fleet hits the grid. This means that you can have your bombers in warp before fleets can move their ships. |
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
838
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:44:00 -
[291] - Quote
One of my esteemed colleagues in PASTA said it right: the problem with bombers is not the bomber, but the damage application of bombs.
BOMB EHP The adjustment of bomb HP and resists on the basis that now medium named and T2 smartbombs will be able to destroy them is just foolishly optimistic. The range on medium smartbombs is 4k meters. The AoE on bombs is 15,000 meters. The range on large smartbombs is 5000 meters. I'm not saying it can't be done. But it usually isn't because the range on bombs is so much larger than on smartbombs. The chances of actually being in range of a bomb with a smartbomb that can kill it are very small. Good luck on that. You'd be better off shooting them down with turrets. 400 sigRad on bombs, yo. But can they be targeted? I've never actually tried it.
Bomber sigRad/agility/EHP Bombers did not need a nerf to sigRad or agility. Nor did they need more tank. They could already be insta-popped by a double sebo insta-cane without links in exactly 3 seconds. The changes to align times range from almost nothing on the Nemesis to more than a second on the Manticore. Now they are all approximately 9 seconds, base. With skills and rigs, it goes down to 4-5 seconds, which is almost exactly identical to the current align times of 5-6 seconds. gg
What you did do was increase bomber EHP to levels significant enough to allow them to survive that insta-cane's alpha more frequently. CCP Fozzie, you have actually made bombers more durable and harder to kill!
The damage increase as a result of sigRad on a bomber has always been negligible, which is why bombers often fit an MSE for the extra buffer. With these changes, that all level 5 insta-cane can lock a bomber in 2.3 seconds instead of 2.7. Don't mind the server ticks rounding both up to 3 seconds. These changes are at best pointless and in once case actually counter-productive!
Fitting buff The fitting changes may make certain fits like the MWD+MSE fit a little bit easier. But they won't change anything important except perhaps making the Nemesis not total and absolute **** for everything. So for that I thank you. but the others didn't actually need it.
Cloaking behavior reversion I've flown bombers extensively for years. The previous mechanics were a huge pain. But it was doable. However, it will do nothing to ISBoxed bombers because they never make mistakes once they are set up right. The reason this change was originally made was to make bombers using bombs actually viable; and they are. It does not change the effectiveness of bombing runs in any way.
The cloaking behavior reversion will momentarily inconvenience ISBoxing bombers until they adjust their default warp-to distances on each client to warp at 0, 3k, 6k, 9k, and so on. It bans ISBoxer or it gets the hose. Oh, wait. Actual players already got the hose. gg nvm.
The current cloaking mechanics are fine and should remain in place for reason already stated in the first full paragraph above. Fix bombs!
BOMB flight time and velocity This is one of the few bright spots in the proposed changes. The reduction of bomb velocity and proportional increase to flight time will finally allow the use of Microjump Drives to escape bombing runs. With a 12 second flight time, it will be possible for an on-the-ball pilot to MJD away from the bombs before they hit. Currently that is not the case.
Bomb Deployment Skill Still useless except for unlocking T2 bombs/launchers.
Capital Void Bombs So, explosion radius of 4000m. Does that mean a BS with MWD on will lose 7500 cap? For reference, a Baltec Megathron has about 6000 max cap. Well, at least it has an AoE of 1 meter. So unless everyone is piled on top of everyone else, it shouldn't be broken vs subcaps. However, it will only take 10 of these to completely neut out an all 5 Avatar. No need for neuts on your subcaps when you can just drop a few of these. Should also work really well for bombers hot-dropping on ratting carriers or caps using gates.
10km Dictor probes Most of the uses for dictor bubbles are for bubbling large numbers of ships in fleets where a large area is preferred, or bubbling gates, which requires at least a 12km range. For anti-bomber work, you still want a bigger AoE because that allows the dictor to launch earlier, and cover more area per launch. They last plenty long enough as it is. I'm not saying there won't be a use for these and I think initial enthusiasm will get a lot of these sold on the market. But once people realize that the purpose of an AoE weapon is to cover area, the extra duration will not be as desirable. Still, I'm in favor of more ammo choices for dictor bubbles. Looking forward to future iterations.
Conclusion and Suggestions These changes will not change the effectiveness of bombing runs. They will make bombing more difficult for players to execute successfully, but not so for those that rely on ISBoxer.
That being said, I've never considered ISBoxer to be that big a problem for bombers. I've never seen more than about 8 bombers being used in this manner due to the mechanics of bombs.
Eliminate or give us a way to reduce the sigRad bloom of shield tanks. Then we can take a look at the fitting habits of shield tanks vs armor tanks and perhaps realize that most armor tanked ships dedicate more slots to tanking than shield tanks, as well as having more viable modules, most especially ones that require NO FITTING beyond 1PG for an 8% unpenalized multiplicative increase in armor. For example: WTF free rigs in mah lows with no drawbacks!
Introducing a skill that reduces signature radius bloom from shield extenders would be a good first step. Taking another look at the damage application of damage bombs and perhaps adjusting them to fall off somehow (a la DRF in the missile damage formula) would also help.
"Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:46:00 -
[292] - Quote
MIkhail Illiad wrote:The players define the "meta" based on the changes that CCP make to the game. Not the other way around.
no it is a circle you have to balance your game with how your players will react to it / how they are reacting to it, especially in a game that gives so much freedom to the player |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
412
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:48:00 -
[293] - Quote
Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
198
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:50:00 -
[294] - Quote
I'm all for most of these changes, particularly the decloaking aspect being brought back - the skill will have to come back into organising bomb runs.
The only change that concerns me, and which I'd rather not go ahead, is the extended travel time for bombs. 10 seconds is already a long time and changes to ships has created a large number that are much quicker into warp; the extra 2 seconds might not seem much but it's a lifetime during a bomb run for targets getting away either through warp or simply straight line speed out of the AoE. If you have to do this I'd say it requires an increase in the AoE to compensate for those targets that might be able to burn out of the damage range - say you chose an arbitrary speed of 1250m/s as a balance point, 2 seconds would give a 2.5km increase in AoE radius.
My strong preference is to leave this aspect alone please. |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
122
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:50:00 -
[295] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Black Canary Jnr wrote:Thank you for showing an appreciation for physics and not allowing 50 bombers to occupy the same space, while cloaked, whilst not being smushed into a ball of scrap.
Realism 1, Bomber fanboys 0 learn to super symmetry u ass!
Multiverse FTW! |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:50:00 -
[296] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground.
i feel siege and triage either need to negate or significantly reduce the effect of these bombs they will still be use full on caps out of such states as well as on suppers but it wont make triage useless outside of LS |
ArmyOfMe
PILGRIMS Advent of Fate
360
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:53:00 -
[297] - Quote
Go CCP Go
Love the coming changes (though you should not have reduced the penalty for hauling ships) QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken |
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:53:00 -
[298] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
This ruined my day |
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:55:00 -
[299] - Quote
Bad cloaking change is bad. The rest pales in comparison to the scale.
Honestly CCP, this 6 week cycle seems to be producing half baked ideas. If you need 12 weeks in the oven than take it, I for one am sick of soupy brownies.
Get your **** together. |
Bl1SkR1N
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
37
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:56:00 -
[300] - Quote
Nice changes. Did you give a thought to torps tho? Could use a but of tweaking. |
|
Dr Jihad Alhariri
Dr Jihad's Brigade of Interstellar Mujahideen Corrosive.
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:01:00 -
[301] - Quote
If cloaked ships are going to start decloaking each other again, then give fleet members the ability to see other's cloaked ships. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:10:00 -
[302] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Jessica Danikov wrote:Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground. i feel siege and triage either need to negate or significantly reduce the effect of these bombs they will still be use full on caps out of such states as well as on suppers but it wont make triage useless outside of LS
On paper it should be feasible to protect them somewhat with smartbomb but in practise it gives an easy mode way to screw over a single triage carrier - which is really not a good idea IMO. |
Chessur
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
370
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:12:00 -
[303] - Quote
Really CCP? I don't understand these changes at all.
These changes are giving large fleets of 0.0 bomber a proper nerf. And while I can understand why this is needed, why did you have to go ahead and gut what little small gang / solo potential they had? I agree that the changes will make bomber gangs much harder to utalize in the 0,0 battlefield. I agree with this. However these changes are compoletely gutting bombers when they are using torps, and attacking targets in a solo / small gang environment. I don't understand why there are no buffs to bombers in this department. These changes are just blatant nerfs from across the board.
1. They need more than a slight CPU buff. not to mention that its 7 CPU.... Completely worthless. Fitting a bomber, with MWD and MSE is nigh impossible even with max fitting skills and genolutions. Just giving more CPU is not going to be fixing the problem. Some bombers like the manticore / hound are really looking for more power grid, and don't need this CPU Buff.
2. Bombers are slow as ****. A hound, with an MWD+ nanofiber is going 2.3K/s with a 6 second align time. Fozzie. Let me get this straight. The most 'agile' and 'highest speed' FRIGATE is slower and less agile than many cruisers. Of course, the manticore and nemesis are even worse. But your changes mass and agility are pushing them even further outside the window of probability for small bomber gangs to be engaging anything.
3. Sig radius changes. This is HUGE. Why on earth are you giving bombers an even larger sig? They already have paper tanks. These 'frigates' have **** speed and align time. Why make their already **** speed tank even worse, by throwing on a huge sig nerf? The paltry HP buff that you are giving them PALES IN COMPARISON to the effect the speed / align and sig changes will have on a 'frigate' which has no speed or sig tank to speak of.
4. TORPS ARE ****. A bomber with 2 Rigors, TP, max skills shooting faction trops, is lucky to apply even half of its damage to a slow boating cruiser. Again, why are torps / ship bonuses not changed? Or why cannot cruise missiles be used? Why are you only focusing on bombers using bombs inside of 0.0?
In conclusion I am EXTREMELY dissapointed in these changes. While I agree that bomber fleets in 0.0 using bombs needed changes and nerfs, I DO NOT AGREE that bombers on the whole needed these other changes. Why have you willingly disregarded bombers being used as a torpedo platform, applying DPS in a small gang / solo environment? Bombers in this respect are in a really ****** place at the current moment. These fixes (which seem hasty and poorly thought out to me) Do nothing but needlessly harm bombers in this role. Please reconsider your changes, so that bombers shooting torps and being flown in small gang / solo will not be as adversely effected.
My suggestions would be the following:
1. Give bombers enough fitting room to sport and MSE and MWD tank. Of course, a bomb launcher would not be able to be placed. But again, a bomber that is looking to use torps and work inside of a small gang / solo environment rarely if ever uses one.
2. Give them the speed / align time of other frigates. I am not saying that they have to be anywhere near AF or Inty level. Bombers already have **** EHP and no tank with which to speak of. At least allow them to have some semblance of a speed tank- that all other frigates share. Because currently a frigate going 2300ms with a nano and MWD is just a sitting duck to pretty much any weapon system in the game.
3. TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT TORPS. Stop being lazy and decide on what level of bonuses will need to be made to the torps themselves or the bomber skills. Currently applying even 50% of DPS to anything less than a BS is an extreme challenge, even when the bomber is build around application (through rigors, TPS, 2X BCS, implants). Or if torps are too much of an issue for you- perhaps there is a way to give bombers cruise missiles?
Hopefully with the above changes, bombers could have a more diverse use in the solo / small gang environment. And open up a fun and interesting 'cloaky attacker' that eve is currently lacking. |
Sans Nome
Martyr's Vengence
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:14:00 -
[304] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Let's talk Stealth Bombers! As we mentioned in the Travel Changes Dev Blog, we are doing rebalance passes on Bombers and Hictors in Phoebe. Our plan for bombers in Phoebe has several aspects, all aimed at keeping bombers effective while strengthening their counters and allowing skilled fleets to protect themselves.: [list] 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. [...] However bombers remain a crucial part of the nullsec fleet fight ecosystem and we are committed to ensuring that they remain a powerful force on the battlefield.
I wonder what the effects of these changes on FW mission running will be, and what CCP has in mind for this side of the stealth bomber coin. |
Dean Wong
Black Serpent Technologies The Unthinkables
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:17:00 -
[305] - Quote
I hate to say this but all current proposal will only reinforce large coalition and penalise smaller alliance. Nerfing of long distance travel, proposal for nerfing JF and now cloaky decloaking each other at 2000m.
I've been in 401K and MOA. Both alliance fight against CFC and do a great job (401K dissolved, I know) through the use of bombers when facing overwhelming numbers.
Even CVA give us a few bloody noses through bomb runs.
Now with this ( I will consider as a ) nerf, how will it be possible for smaller alliance to fight against one of the giants in the game?
Bomber are one of the few tools left in this game that can tip the tide of a battle against overwhelming forces. It is also the lowest SP ship class for new bros to be useful in fleet in small alliance. If they do get nerf, I forsee EVE Online been all about large BS or T3 or HACs fleets sluging it out with each other as no one will be afraid of been hotdropped or bombed.
CCP always said about encouraging players to leave high-sec and live in low/null sec. With these changes to jump fatigue, death cloning and stealth bomber, I can envision the future of 0.0 corp recruitment. It will be like:
0.0 PVP corp looking for pilots. Must be able to fly interceptors, all T3s, at least 2 racial BS (megathron and Na-apocs) and Archons/Supers. If you cannot fly all of the above, please stay in highsec till you can before considering joining us cause you're useless.
On the other hand, it may open up low-sec as the next wild-west.
In anycase, I cannot see these changes shaking null sec up. Only time can tell |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
812
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:19:00 -
[306] - Quote
Not sure if this has been posted, have not had time to read the full thread. That said, could some of these penalties be tied to equipping (on or offline) a bomb launcher?
As someone who hunts Attack BCs in hi sec with a bomber, this is a nerf based on a mod I do not even equip or use. Why not put the warp speed penalty and mobility penalty as a drawback to the bomb launcher. Otherwise this seems like merging a ship in all uses based on one use of the ship. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
487
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:19:00 -
[307] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
these are the changes id like ameded / removed:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
- Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
- 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.
cloaked ships decloaking each other is a terrible mechanic for soo many reasons that have been stated in this thread already.
bomb speed reduction alongside the above cloaking change completely removes the ability to use advanced tactics to hit fast moving Overpowered fleets like ishtars. and tbh an Eve with less ishtars is a better eve in all honesty. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
791
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:21:00 -
[308] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. This (obviously) affects all cloaky ships, not just bombers. It was considered by every player I know to the best thing to ever happen to the cloaking mechanic. Plz do not undo it. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
Sard Caid
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
107
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:24:00 -
[309] - Quote
Hey Fozzie,
With the cargo change in mind, and going beyond Bombers as torpedo platforms, can the size of torpedoes be reduced, perhaps to that of cruise missiles? Torpedo BS fit for PvP have a very hard time exploiting missile ammo diversity when 1,000 units of ammo takes 100m3 of the cargohold (torps are 0.1 m3/u).
Thanks,
SC |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
153
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:26:00 -
[310] - Quote
Glad about these changes, and with the upcoming reduction to structure HP and larger bay, making bombers a viable tool for small gangs to attack structures with torpedoes.
I also like the nerfing of Isboxers stealth fleets, bombers being the most obvious and easy to use while isboxing.
The only thing I would like you guys to consider is the following.
When doing a fleet warp, please keep the positions of all the members in the fleet relative to each others identical than what it was at the beginning of the warp, rather than making all of them warp randomly within a 2km bubble at the warp out point.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
352
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:31:00 -
[311] - Quote
Dr Jihad Alhariri wrote:If cloaked ships are going to start decloaking each other again, then give fleet members the ability to see other's cloaked ships.
Several things and please do consider that I never was part (but victim of..) a bomber fleet or any large fleet, since I like doing things on my own.
That said, I do however also like to fly with buddies I made and they like having me on comms and in their small (small as in less than six ships including me) gangs.
So while I cought up reading here this one thing came to my mind to circumvent decloaking each other:
You haz bomber fleet with your buddies, let's say you haz 50 folks in your fleet.
Now you divide your fleet into smaller wings of 7x7 + one in a Covert Ops frigate or else known as fleet commander.
Let's take a closer look at wing one. Wing one has member a, b, c, d, e and f and they are real people and they know each other.
Your fleet commander is in a position to tell 7 people were and what your targets are but he sits there and does his not-afk-cloaking thing of observing.
Now all of your seven wings with your seven sub-wing commanders, which we will call a1 - a7 from now on are in command of your cloaked bombers and your not-afk-cloaking fleet commander only oversees the targets fleet movement or non movement and tell a1- a7 what to target.
Back to a1.
A1 provides a warpin for wing one. b1 warps to a1 at 10. c1 warps tp b1 at 10 and so on. Since you are all cloaked NOBODY will see you.
A1 can now position his ship to the first target(s). As he is done positioning, he call wing one to approach him. b1 - f1 appraoch a1 and decloak each other and press 'launch dah bombs'.
a1 is so clever positioned that he is the first to warp away, b1 follows at 10, c1 follows b1 at 10 and so on.
Hell okay that's really complicated to write down. signature |
Alexis Nightwish
47
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:35:00 -
[312] - Quote
Saisin wrote:...When doing a fleet warp, please keep the positions of all the members in the fleet relative to each others identical than what it was at the beginning of the warp, rather than making all of them warp randomly within a 2km bubble at the warp out point. Excellent idea. It would benefit more than just bombers. Imagine if you could put your fleet into formation before warping, and everyone would (assuming no bubbles) land in the same formation? Brawlers could be at the front, with logi at the back for example? They wouldn't have to land as a blob? Very cool.
Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
149
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:39:00 -
[313] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Jessica Danikov wrote:Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground. i feel siege and triage either need to negate or significantly reduce the effect of these bombs they will still be use full on caps out of such states as well as on suppers but it wont make triage useless outside of LS On paper it should be feasible to protect them somewhat with smartbomb but in practise it gives an easy mode way to screw over a single triage carrier - which is really not a good idea IMO.
and that kinda sucks when you are a small WH corp and can only dedicate one carrier to a fight meaning you need triage most of the time but i think a reduction in capital void bomb effect for triage/siege and then improve that resistance at the T2 level should be balance-able |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
149
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:40:00 -
[314] - Quote
Saisin wrote:
When doing a fleet warp, please keep the positions of all the members in the fleet relative to each others identical than what it was at the beginning of the warp, rather than making all of them warp randomly within a 2km bubble at the warp out point.
this would be amazing and not just for bombers use the person who initiated the fleet warp as a reference for where the "center" is when landing |
Daegara Odenson
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:41:00 -
[315] - Quote
Consider balancing the torpedo launchers / charges rather than nerfing the cloaking mechanic. Currently almost everybody uses m4 launchers and faction torps - why are there no more interesting options? T2 torps only have a small niche in extreme range engagements but the current bonuses to T2 torps could more interestingly become rebalanced into launcher attributes. Providing meaningful differentiation within a missle launcher class forces people to make more interesting trade-offs in charge selection for bombers, instead of the de facto standard. Further this could tie in well with the upcoming module tiericide project and provide a meaningful distinction between launcher meta levels beyond simple fitting requirements!
Missile DPS application is a complex and contentious topic; the below suggestion provides a logical and easy to understand addition which provides an alternative to a more comprehensive missile rework but still providing both a powerful balancing tool as well as a new set of meaningful choices to the player.
Consider this:
New attribute: Missile mass Inversely impacts the speed/damage or range/damage balance by a set per tier, small, med, large etc. Smaller missiles should excel at hitting faster but with with lower damage and lower max range; but the comparably larger large missiles take appreciably longer to arrive (more mass therefore slower) and must make a range/speed/damage trade-off. That mass can either be dedicated to payload, speed or sacrificed for longer range.
Currently T2 missiles focus on a split between range, sig based damage application bonus and damage; by shifting this attribute to the launcher T2 missiles may then provide more meaningful choice to the player.
- Rapid - Fast moving, lower DPS - imagine more of the torpedo body is 75% fuel 25% payload (higher ROF?)
- Medial - Average speed (lower than current), average DPS ~ 50:50 range/speed (significantly lower stats than current)
- Destructive - Slow moving, higher DPS, greatly limited range
Combination of a scaling factor attribute such as missile mass in the launcher ensures that launcher types remain distinct but within a class a meaningful choice need be made as to the focus and play-style that is to be adopted. The potential for launcher class overlap is something to monitor but isn't of itself a bad thing. That way you will see everything from brawling high DPS hot drops to 100km torp broadsides from sniper bombers more frequently and would diversify rather than restrict gameplay choices!
The downside to re-adding proximity decloaking for cloaky ships
As it stands the changes provide meaningful game play to non-cloaky fleets but destroy an essential component of cloaky fleets - this need not be the case.
Everything seems fair except cloakies decloaking one-another. Consider this from a balance perspective, the role already requires extensive coordination and positional awareness to even be effective in combat, maintaining that means moving about and doing so in a group without inadvertently decloaking each other is nye-on impossible with even a single squad let alone a bomber wing. Decloaking out of position is death as it should be, the cloak is your 'tank' but this is not balancing, nor a nerf, this is legitimately class-breaking and seems incredibly short-sighted.
Eve is meant to be about risk vs reward. Trade offs. Tactical decisions. Cloakies decloaking each other removes the singular advantage they held making them significantly less useful in an engagement without adding anything meaningful to that play-style or the cloaking mechanic. Previously this behaviour was deemed a bug IIRC and returning to that behaviour rather than balancing or encouraging a more diverse means of play via constructive changes seems like a step backwards.
The role of the Cov Ops class of hulls is to facilitate surprise attacks, the decloaking change doesn't add risk to their use, it just renders them an near complete liability in anything but hot drops! Their effectiveness vs. battleship fleets needs balancing, few would argue with that, but this surely isn't the best way to do it. Rather than negatively impacting a much enjoyed play-style why not consider a more constructive change that deals with their imbalance without nerfing the enjoyment of using them into the ground?
Relative impact on legitimate vs isoboxed bombers
Comments about the validity of isoboxing aside, the changes as they stand are a nerf to human fleets which need to organise significantly more to prevent a friendly decloak whereas this limitation is quite easily side stepped by isoboxers. This then makes isoboxing bombers significantly more effective than human bombers and that is a worrying trend indeed. Other means of balancing bomber DPS as I have described would achieve the end goal without creating this situation and would seem to provide a much more elegant solution. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:41:00 -
[316] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
I would say, the cloak change is the main issue here and needs to stay as is it right now in TQ and not this suggested change as it "Headshots" cloaky group activities (not just bombers). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:45:00 -
[317] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:
I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail
m
I would say, the cloak change is the main issue here and needs to stay as is it right now in TQ and not this suggested change as it "Headshots" cloaky group activities (not just bombers).
Not sure I'd go as far as to say headshotted - I did a lot of cloaky stuff with cloaking as it used to be and its not insurmountable to operate with far from it - but the older cloaking mechanics felt incomplete/work in progress and how it is currently just works, feels like a polished system, going back to the old mechanics feels to me like a huge step backwards. |
Mikeyeve
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:46:00 -
[318] - Quote
Poor Blops ships, going to make incursions into null so much harder.
if we have the old decloaking back can we have cruises too pls? |
Nys Cron
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
42
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:47:00 -
[319] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:and that kinda sucks when you are a small WH corp and can only dedicate one carrier to a fight meaning you need triage most of the time but i think a reduction in capital void bomb effect for triage/siege and then improve that resistance at the T2 level should be balance-able This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers.
For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
352
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:47:00 -
[320] - Quote
Ooops and really people, nerf Mining Drones!!!
Mining Drones are too strong and imbalance at least something! signature |
|
BuffFresh
I'm Fine and You The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:48:00 -
[321] - Quote
"Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km."
i like how the changes you keep making in the game, drive away new players patch after patch, maybe some 1 needs a hug or *cough* a chill pill as your not really making it easy for new players are ya buddy?! see ya down the job center mate ! |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:50:00 -
[322] - Quote
the so called "good elite old time" of bomber don't had the limit of 7 bombs , u can take position and fire with all firepower in one single wave... doing the "elite old time" + 7 bomb only + 12 sec bomb + more align time + smart bomb defense + anti bomber bubbler!!!
if it was elite in old time now is unthinkable.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:53:00 -
[323] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:and that kinda sucks when you are a small WH corp and can only dedicate one carrier to a fight meaning you need triage most of the time but i think a reduction in capital void bomb effect for triage/siege and then improve that resistance at the T2 level should be balance-able This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers. For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such.
indeed it took me walking away and being re-introduced to the problem to see it |
elitatwo
Congregatio
352
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:53:00 -
[324] - Quote
Mikeyeve wrote:Poor Blops ships, going to make incursions into null so much harder . if we have the old decloaking back can we have cruises too pls?
I did propose an overall change to all missiles and mentioning giving bombers back cruise missiles.
But after making a not so serious incognito rant about heavy missiles it was dismissed and I was accused of being drunk, high on exile or smoothsayer and not being the same old e2 that I am for about 8 years now and being ditched on the character bizzare (yes intentionally writing that wrong). signature |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:57:00 -
[325] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:Not sure if this has been posted, have not had time to read the full thread. That said, could some of these penalties be tied to equipping (on or offline) a bomb launcher?
As someone who hunts Attack BCs in hi sec with a bomber, this is a nerf based on a mod I do not even equip or use. Why not put the warp speed penalty and mobility penalty as a drawback to the bomb launcher. Otherwise this seems like merging a ship in all uses based on one use of the ship.
This is a good idea. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:01:00 -
[326] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:Lady Ayeipsia wrote:Not sure if this has been posted, have not had time to read the full thread. That said, could some of these penalties be tied to equipping (on or offline) a bomb launcher?
As someone who hunts Attack BCs in hi sec with a bomber, this is a nerf based on a mod I do not even equip or use. Why not put the warp speed penalty and mobility penalty as a drawback to the bomb launcher. Otherwise this seems like merging a ship in all uses based on one use of the ship. This is a good idea.
it would need to be tied to equipping not on lining it as i would be more then willing to pay the cap cost just before launching to online the launcher and it wouldn't be to hard to manage |
progodlegend
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
176
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:04:00 -
[327] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie.
And thus, the point of these changes is revealed.
Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work. |
NFain
Quantum Singularities WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
99
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:06:00 -
[328] - Quote
Void bomb 1m radius..
"Use the force Luke... use the force" |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1918
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:09:00 -
[329] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie. And thus, the point of these changes is revealed. Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work.
So stealth bomber without the stealth? Awesome! May as well turn these into kamikaze ships that explode on impact
If the "cloak ships decloak cloaked ships" mechanic is going ahead, there is no reason for all the other nerf. +1 |
Alexis Nightwish
47
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:10:00 -
[330] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie. And thus, the point of these changes is revealed. Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work. But what about the part where they land already decloaked because they get to close to each other while warping? Is that an intent as well? Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
|
Yuri Thorpe
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
37
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:11:00 -
[331] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie. And thus, the point of these changes is revealed. Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work. So tell me, what will the point of these ships be if they are not stealth bombers but free killmails? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
548
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:15:00 -
[332] - 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.
A lot of people seem to forget that bombers aren't only used in nullsec for bombing runs. I fly them extensively in Empire space, and they make a welcome DPS addition to roaming frigate gangs. But with the agility and warp speed changes, you've all but killed the utility of a bomber in those gangs. They will fly, align, and warp more like a destroyer now than a frigate, which undermines one of the inherent strengths of a roaming frigate gang, which is mobility. So now, frigate gangs have to choose: do we want to maintain our mobility, or do we want to actually have enough DPS to take down larger targets?
Was nerfing roaming frigate gangs really one of CCP's intentions with the bomber changes? CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
156
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:18:00 -
[333] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.
yet the changes your planning on making to SBs as announced to treat a problem which in this case your treating the symptoms NOT the problem, and that problem to put it bluntly IS ]THE USE OF ISBOXER ETC IN PVP ESPECIALY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE USE OF SBs |
Keith Planck
Lazerhawks
935
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:20:00 -
[334] - Quote
I think I speak for everyone when I say there should be some way to see the location of cloaked fleet members with the new changes. "Jack Miton liked your forum post:" |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:22:00 -
[335] - Quote
i need to ask is this the changes to SBs that built upon their unique game play that we were teased about at fan fest? because i don't see how this does that(other then the new bomb) |
Pretty Pony Princess
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:23:00 -
[336] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:I think I speak for everyone when I say there should be some way to see the location of cloaked fleet members with the new changes. That would be a wonderful idea even without any changes to the cloak/decloak mechanics. |
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:23:00 -
[337] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie. And thus, the point of these changes is revealed. Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work.
Stealth Bombers. |
progodlegend
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
177
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:27:00 -
[338] - Quote
Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes. |
Leon Razor
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:28:00 -
[339] - Quote
CCP, I hope this isn't the final word for the bomber changes. You really missed the mark on this one. Seems like you are a bit better at listening to player feedback these days though so hopefully you rethink this ISBoxer buff. |
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
110
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:29:00 -
[340] - Quote
Anti-capital bomb needs a larger radius. Nothing silly, mind you, but more than 1m. I can definitely see missing the target completely because you released half a second early, especially since the overview rounds distances and they don't update in realtime. How about 500m or 1km?
Also, the warp speed. No way should a t2 frigate be slower than a t1 frigate.
Unless your intent is to reposition Stealth Bombers as t2 Destroyer-class vessels?
Also less-than-pleased about the decloak nerf. As noted by others, this only realistically hurts human players, not people running machine clients. |
|
Alexis Nightwish
47
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:31:00 -
[341] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes. Because leaving cloaking alone simply requiring the bombers to stay on grid or the bomb doesn't explode is a terrible idea. Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
151
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:32:00 -
[342] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes.
no i still can i just have to use ISBoxer rather then fly with friends but if that was the intent then.... |
Shuckstar
The Pack Fidelas Constans
229
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:32:00 -
[343] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes.
I can't actually believe I am agreeing with you.
CCP Greyscale wrote:"OK, I've read every post up to page 200, and we're getting to a point in this thread where there's not a lot of new concerns or suggestions being brought up. There will be future threads (and future blogs) as we tune details, but for now I want to thank you for all of your constructive input, and wish you a good weekend :)" |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:35:00 -
[344] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote: This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers.
For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such.
Indeed neuting out a capital should require fielding a bhaal or neut legions or whatever, being able to cap nuke them with bombers and hold em capped with 1-2 incidental neuts is just cheap and nasty.
I can see the intended application against apex forces, etc. but the knock on effect is potentially quite tragic. |
Pretty Pony Princess
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:35:00 -
[345] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror. When I'm in a ship that goes *blap* if someone even glances at it, it actually is. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1576
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:37:00 -
[346] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes. Logic says they were bad otherwise CCP would no make them as they are now... and no thay going back. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:44:00 -
[347] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Nys Cron wrote: This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers.
For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such.
Indeed neuting out a capital should require fielding a bhaal or neut legions or whatever, being able to cap nuke them with bombers and hold em capped with 1-2 incidental neuts is just cheap and nasty. I can see the intended application against apex forces, etc. but the knock on effect is potentially quite tragic.
A base Archon has 65k cap and a 2.9k sig radius . Just that alone requires 7 bombers to cap out. At base cap assuming that the sig radius/explosion radius ratio for neut application is what I think it is. Even if it was doing full cap drain that's still 5 bombers unless I'm missing something that's not an inconsequential number of pilots to devote to the task...
|
Tral Karith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:46:00 -
[348] - Quote
So lets all quit bringing 90 bombers to big fleet fights and fight like real men with guns and missiles
Maybe even some Rokhs and Maelstroms |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
152
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:47:00 -
[349] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Rroff wrote:Nys Cron wrote: This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers.
For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such.
Indeed neuting out a capital should require fielding a bhaal or neut legions or whatever, being able to cap nuke them with bombers and hold em capped with 1-2 incidental neuts is just cheap and nasty. I can see the intended application against apex forces, etc. but the knock on effect is potentially quite tragic. A base Archon has 65k cap and a 2.9k sig radius . Just that alone requires 7 bombers to cap out. At base cap assuming that the sig radius/explosion radius ratio for neut application is what I think it is. Even if it was doing full cap drain that's still 5 bombers unless I'm missing something that's not an inconsequential number of pilots to devote to the task...
7 bombers is the size of a wave not to mention that archon is not at full cap it will be repping up its friends probably balancing around 35-45% cap when the bombs hit |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1919
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:48:00 -
[350] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes.
That is some great constructive feedback that will appease the players.
How about you stop making things worse and go get us an answer regarding cloaked ships showing to fleet mates?!
+1 |
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:49:00 -
[351] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Obil Que wrote:Rroff wrote:Nys Cron wrote: This is exactly what I meant earlier. For a larger entity like SSC having dedicated smartbombers or multiple carriers might be feasible but for smaller entities it isn't. They will simply lose one more option to have a chance against larger numbers.
For us on the other hand it could mean that we a guaranteed to win all fights against smaller entites relying on capitals because we can just bring a couple bombers (ideally multiboxed by a single person) and guarantee neuting out their carrier without risking expensive Bhaalgorns and such.
Indeed neuting out a capital should require fielding a bhaal or neut legions or whatever, being able to cap nuke them with bombers and hold em capped with 1-2 incidental neuts is just cheap and nasty. I can see the intended application against apex forces, etc. but the knock on effect is potentially quite tragic. A base Archon has 65k cap and a 2.9k sig radius . Just that alone requires 7 bombers to cap out. At base cap assuming that the sig radius/explosion radius ratio for neut application is what I think it is. Even if it was doing full cap drain that's still 5 bombers unless I'm missing something that's not an inconsequential number of pilots to devote to the task... 7 bombers is the size of a wave not to mention that archon is not at full cap it will be repping up its friends probably balancing around 35-45% cap when the bombs hit
Right. Thanks. I don't have EFT in front of me to see what the total cap might be on a typical carrier pilot but the tone of the criticism was making it seem like a less than full wave of bombers was going to decimate a cap fielded by a smaller group. If you're dropping a carrier on a group that can *also* send a wave of 7 bombers at you, maybe you made a bad decision to being with because if those pilots where in other ships, you'd probably be screwed too.
|
Herrin Asura
Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:49:00 -
[352] - Quote
progodlegend wrote: Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes.
And EVERYONE was HAPPY that these times changed.
Why? Because Bombers sucked back then. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
156
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:50:00 -
[353] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Saisin wrote:
When doing a fleet warp, please keep the positions of all the members in the fleet relative to each others identical than what it was at the beginning of the warp, rather than making all of them warp randomly within a 2km bubble at the warp out point.
this would be amazing and not just for bombers use the person who initiated the fleet warp as a reference for where the "center" is when landing
Absolutely.. The person who initiated the warp fleet does land within a bubble 2km from the warp out point, like it does today, but all the other fleet members would land exactly in their original relative positions from the person who initiated the fleet warp.
I think it should be a new fleet warp option (Formation warp), rather than a replacement to the current fleet warp, as the current fleet warp as it is would still be useful to travel from gates to gates.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4264
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:50:00 -
[354] - Quote
Cloaked ships de-cloaking other ships basically takes the fun out of bombers UNLESS you also make it possible to see cloaked ships in your fleet. |
fox targaryen
Nordwaffe
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:52:00 -
[355] - Quote
>Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
you have killed real bomber fleets and buffed ISBoxer with this change |
Jean Leaner
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:52:00 -
[356] - Quote
The number of logical fallacies being used to justify people disliking this change is hilarious. |
Trey Kutoi
Nyarlthotep Holdings Ltd.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:53:00 -
[357] - Quote
since bombs have constant velocity, can we give bombers cruises (and missiles in general) and make them useful by assigning them mass, then giving them an acceleration value?That way they have the option of projecting damage to targets without instablapping all the little stuff in between.
Also I like the idea of unguided weapons, perhaps creating 'true' rockets rather than 'lower range higher dps light missiles' or whatever.
As a new player, perhaps I don't understand the nuances behind interweaved mechanics, but from the littleI've seen so far, something feels missing with delayed damage weapon systems |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
152
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:56:00 -
[358] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:
Right. Thanks. I don't have EFT in front of me to see what the total cap might be on a typical carrier pilot but the tone of the criticism was making it seem like a less than full wave of bombers was going to decimate a cap fielded by a smaller group. If you're dropping a carrier on a group that can *also* send a wave of 7 bombers at you, maybe you made a bad decision to being with because if those pilots where in other ships, you'd probably be screwed too.
not really if you have a group of good pilots a single triage carrier can multiply your force to an extreme level but they would only need maybe 3-4 bombers and a curse to neut out an archon that is actively repping. just knocking an archon down below max recharge can kill it in triage.
now i'm not saying these bombs will destroy the chance of a small gang in every case i can see that and it may come to pass that they don't see wide use outside of ganking a ratting carrier or a supper fight however there is a chance that this could cripple small WH corps. On the flip side it can also make attacking a C1-C4 hole easier since you can now remove the home field cap advantage but that isn't quite as common |
Metal Icarus
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
705
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 20:01:00 -
[359] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:I think I speak for everyone when I say there should be some way to see the location of cloaked fleet members with the new changes.
This. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 20:07:00 -
[360] - 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.
Umm... bombing has been completely viable- why do you think there's next to no shield BS used in null anymore? Hell, none of this ends the stifling effect bombers have on fleet comps. And it just is a further boon to isboxing bombers. |
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
354
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 20:25:00 -
[361] - Quote
Tral Karith wrote:So lets all quit bringing 90 bombers to big fleet fights and fight like real men with guns and missiles
Maybe even some Rokhs and Maelstroms
Nah, that's crazy-talk.. signature |
Viribus
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
264
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 20:29:00 -
[362] - Quote
List of good, balanced changes Fozzie has enacted:
|
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 20:40:00 -
[363] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes.
Or actually, welcome to admitting to not having the scope to realize the cloaking change affects more than bombers. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
152
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 20:41:00 -
[364] - Quote
Evora Pirkibo wrote:progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes. Or actually, welcome to admitting to not having the scope to realize the cloaking change affects more than bombers.
What? no bombers are the only ships that even use cloaks..... =.= |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 20:42:00 -
[365] - Quote
Tral Karith wrote:So lets all quit bringing 90 bombers to big fleet fights and fight like real men with guns and missiles
Maybe even some Rokhs and Maelstroms
So lets all quit bringing 200 slowcats to big fleet fights and fight like real .MEN with guns and missiles
Fixed that for ya ;) |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 20:46:00 -
[366] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Tral Karith wrote:So lets all quit bringing 90 bombers to big fleet fights and fight like real men with guns and missiles
Maybe even some Rokhs and Maelstroms So lets all quit bringing 200 slowcats to big fleet fights and fight like real .MEN with guns and missiles Fixed that for ya ;)
Oh, you mean sniping with tengus 220+km away and then QQ about how someone brought a Virtue prober and countered you effectively? |
Elyas Crux
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 21:04:00 -
[367] - Quote
Will the new anti-capital void bomb collide with other objects in space or will it just keep travelling the same direction it was fired until it detonates? I think it would be frustrating as hell to see your bomb bounce off your target and explode meters out of range. Also if collidable it would become a viable tactic for a subcapital to ram and deflect bombs off course.
The only other thing I'm left wondering is if you had a perfect aim and a marauder stuck in bastion mode, you could really ruin their day. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
152
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 21:07:00 -
[368] - Quote
Elyas Crux wrote:Will the new anti-capital void bomb collide with other objects in space or will it just keep travelling the same direction it was fired until it detonates? I think it would be frustrating as hell to see your bomb bounce off your target and explode meters out of range. Also if collidable it would become a viable tactic for a subcapital to ram and deflect bombs off course.
The only other thing I'm left wondering is if you had a perfect aim and a marauder stuck in bastion mode, you could really ruin their day.
i doubt they will but if it would of bounced off your target then you missed anyway because if it doesn't bounce it will go through and miss |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 21:08:00 -
[369] - Quote
I was expecting Cruise Missiles to make a comeback on stealth bombers, So you can pick between torpedo or cruise missiles.
Oh well |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 21:28:00 -
[370] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:
Right. Thanks. I don't have EFT in front of me to see what the total cap might be on a typical carrier pilot but the tone of the criticism was making it seem like a less than full wave of bombers was going to decimate a cap fielded by a smaller group. If you're dropping a carrier on a group that can *also* send a wave of 7 bombers at you, maybe you made a bad decision to begin with because if those pilots where in other ships, you'd probably be screwed too.
We've faced off a number of times with null groups who have dropped a 70+ man BC fleet on our triage + 10-15 t3s (with mixed results) those extra 7 pilots in dps is not really here or there, in neuting ships a bigger issue but something that can be dealt with tactically and the outcome might not always be in our favour but its usually a pretty good fight either way - bombers popping up out of nowhere relatively speaking and cap shocking triage is just meh.
Unfortunately most of the time we've not lost ships to the main bulk of hostiles so BRs don't really tell the story this one is closer to a complete picture: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=20762916 |
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
389
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 21:52:00 -
[371] - Quote
Make it so Fozzie :Picard: CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, please give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
180
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 21:53:00 -
[372] - Quote
Thanks for confirming the cloaking change. Like the larger bay for bomb carrying.
Thank you. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1516
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 21:54:00 -
[373] - Quote
I'm not sure how much I like the cloak changes. The other changes seem to be effective in their own way. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
389
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:01:00 -
[374] - Quote
The decloaking mechanic was there before, and there was plenty of successful bombing going on. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, please give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals. |
Zarkeer
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:02:00 -
[375] - Quote
So you want to make bombers easier to counter by nerfing every covert ops ship in the game? |
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Surely You're Joking
428
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:03:00 -
[376] - Quote
This is probably one of the first times in recent memory where I just could not see why a change was made to the game. I'm sitting here in complete disappointment at just how bad the majority of these ideas are. I can't say I completely blame you because covops and bombing are an extremely niche play style that many players do not participate in and less even excel at it. While the majority of ships all balance around the idea of dps, mobility and tank, cov ops factors in the mental game more so than any other ship.
There are some staggering bad misconceptions expressed within the thread which I have read through most of but I want to underline and debunk a few because I believe CCP is putting these changes in out of a misunderstanding mostly backed by said misconceptions. Bombers as they are now are perhaps one of the most balanced ships in the game. The only thing I would have done is to add a touch more fitting and mobility to the Nemesis. Bombers are devastating but their paper thin tank allows them to be easily counterable which I will detail.
Furthermore bombers are not only almost completely balanced, but also act as a balancing factor in Eve. They are one of the few ships that curb the N+1 problem. Bring 10,000 ships against me? As long as they are within the radius of the bomb blast, they all die the same. Bombers/cov ops are one of the few ways the "little guy" can stand up to the big powers.
Now some of the bad reasons FOR the changes:
ISBoxing: Although CCP won't say this directly, it seems to be an almost universal opinion here that curbing ISboxing bombers is one of the main reasons for some of these changes. As explained, even by posterchild ISboxer bomber wheniminspace, as well as others, this penalizes individual bomber pilots much more than it does ISboxers. Want to deal with ISboxer? Ban it directly.
No more Shield Battleships: This was spoken by a few people some of which should clearly know better. The main reason for armor bs doctrine dominance is due to the popularity of Archon/Armor triage carriers. NOT because of bombers. Shield BS doctrines were popular long after the cloak changes were made in 2012. Certain groups preferred armor, others shield. PL took over Delve as part of the HBC using Rail Rohks.
No counters?: A few people say there are no counters to bombing runs. Anyone remember insta lock arty canes? I know TEST was running with a good twenty or so in every major fleet. These pilots would have an overview tab that would show bombers and only bombers. The moment something appeared on their overview it was locked and popped. Bombs don't do damage if your bomber dies before it detonates. You can also use frigates such as the combat ceptors or pirate frigs to catch bombers. Not every bombing run is a success. Bubbles already are a strong counter to them as well as a defensive bubble will pull in the bombers and either put them out of place or decloak them.
Bombers are suppose to be nimble evasive frigates designed to provide a counter to the N+1 problem. Making them slower, making them uncloak one another (which was said to be a glitch) and messing with their bomb damage is completely pointless and limits player interaction. Now bombers will only be on grid for the moment it takes them to drop their bomb rather than 150+ away on grid setting up for a run. I urge CCP to reconsider these changes, even scrap the majority of it all together. Hades Effect /-áConflict Resolution /-áPirate Protection |
Kwa Zulu
The Graduates Forged of Fire
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:03:00 -
[377] - Quote
Dear Fozzie
I can understand the cloak change to require a bombersquad to have some preperation, but the slowing of the bomb speed combined with the weakening of bombs and the slowing of bombers itself is a bit too much of a nerf I'm afraid, if you drop one of these changes it should be a better balance |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
279
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:05:00 -
[378] - Quote
Not sure who uses medium smartbombs tbh, they're anemic at best. Large t1 = 5km radius and 250 damage, while medium are 4km radius and only 100 damage. Perhaps increasing medium SB damage to at least half of large (125+) would make them more attractive. X |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1922
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:06:00 -
[379] - 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.
This whole statement is quite confusing. You imply that in 2012 organising bombing runs was too difficult/frustrating, hence the change. Now you're saying that you want to make it "bit" harder by reintroducing a mechanic that you openly admit was bad and on top of that you are going to add in some nerfs to make it even harder to do a bombing run, than it was before... so what has changed between now and then?
The second bit i take issue with is the fact that you seem pretty ignorant to the effect this will have on all forms of cloaky combat, not just bombers. Going back to the way it was means no more cloaky fleet warps and endless frustration when a fleet mate decloaks you while camping wormholes or when they click warp to zero by mistake.
It's not the first time IGÇÖve asked in vain for you to elaborate on your decision but I would very much like to see these concerns addressed. Until then it's seems quite obvious that this change is due to the use of ISboxer and you are now letting third party aps dictate your gameplay decisions and ruining the experience of people who play the game the way it was meant to be played.
Since you now use a six week development cycle, you have the opportunity to leave this particular change out while you evaluate the viability of allowing pilots to see cloaked fleet mates and not declaoking each other during and exiting warp. +1 |
Tiberius Funk
Last Huzzah
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:20:00 -
[380] - Quote
Why the major warp speed nerf? It makes bombers slower than even t1 frigates. It's a t2 frigate though so surely that cannot be right? I think a decrease is fair as they are "bombers" which are usually slow. However, a decrease to 5 au per sec would be best as that brings them in line with t1 frigs.
The rest seems pretty cool. Not overly fond of the align time increase but can understand why. Although as bombers may well be pulled in to close range weapons range with the new 10km bubbles it seems a bit unfair to slow their align down and make them faster to target by increasing their sig radii. Now amount of buff to HP will stop a bomber from going SPLLLLLLAAAAT if caught at close range to a fleet.
TiBBeH |
|
Dhuras
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation Moist.
120
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:25:00 -
[381] - 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 so much. For me all this change means is that it becomes overly complicated to maneuver several cloaked people on grid. With no way to tell where cloaked feet members are you've merely added a random chance mechanic for whether or not your fleet gets decloaked, and we all know how much fun random chance mechanics are |
Koda Thule
Havok Squad
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:29:00 -
[382] - Quote
Fozzie strikes again with ******** nerfs. cloak ships decloaking each other is a joke. you just killed black ops fleets and found one more way for you to screw wormholes. |
Ronin Silfar
Our Big Spaceship Gang
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:34:00 -
[383] - Quote
Allow fleet members to see each other while cloaked and these changes are fine. |
Dreadnaut Faustus
The Devon Foundation
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:36:00 -
[384] - Quote
Just think of the awkward panic bombs when two enemy bomber fleets decloak each other.
The just sit there staring at each other. Naked.
Trying to align and scramble naked teenagers caught in the bushes, simultaneously trying to run away and put on their clothes.
That being said, I like the new void bomb. You know there is going to be a painter or a expert bomber who will just wreck cap cruisers. Similar how void bombs work on Shield fleets. Should be fun. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
487
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:41:00 -
[385] - Quote
you know what would be good? to wind the clock back and see how many negative comments were made to do with the 'fix' of the bug to cloaking and how many people were so against that.
im sure like me you might find very few people raging and saying that it was a bad decision. so take the amount of posts against the fix, and the variety of people against that fix, and weigh it against the amount of people and posts against this 'ant-fix' back to the bug.
im sure that would put a lot of things into perspective. |
Seraph Essael
Devils Diciples League of Infamy
947
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:54:00 -
[386] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:This is probably one of the first times in recent memory where I just could not see why a change was made to the game. I'm sitting here in complete disappointment at just how bad the majority of these ideas are. I can't say I completely blame you because covops and bombing are an extremely niche play style that many players do not participate in and less even excel at it. While the majority of ships all balance around the idea of dps, mobility and tank, cov ops factors in the mental game more so than any other ship.
There are some staggering bad misconceptions expressed within the thread which I have read through most of but I want to underline and debunk a few because I believe CCP is putting these changes in out of a misunderstanding mostly backed by said misconceptions. Bombers as they are now are perhaps one of the most balanced ships in the game. The only thing I would have done is to add a touch more fitting and mobility to the Nemesis. Bombers are devastating but their paper thin tank allows them to be easily counterable which I will detail.
Furthermore bombers are not only almost completely balanced, but also act as a balancing factor in Eve. They are one of the few ships that curb the N+1 problem. Bring 10,000 ships against me? As long as they are within the radius of the bomb blast, they all die the same. Bombers/cov ops are one of the few ways the "little guy" can stand up to the big powers.
Now some of the bad reasons FOR the changes:
ISBoxing: Although CCP won't say this directly, it seems to be an almost universal opinion here that curbing ISboxing bombers is one of the main reasons for some of these changes. As explained, even by posterchild ISboxer bomber wheniminspace, as well as others, this penalizes individual bomber pilots much more than it does ISboxers. Want to deal with ISboxer? Ban it directly.
No more Shield Battleships: This was spoken by a few people some of which should clearly know better. The main reason for armor bs doctrine dominance is due to the popularity of Archon/Armor triage carriers. NOT because of bombers. Shield BS doctrines were popular long after the cloak changes were made in 2012. Certain groups preferred armor, others shield. PL took over Delve as part of the HBC using Rail Rohks.
No counters?: A few people say there are no counters to bombing runs. Anyone remember insta lock arty canes? I know TEST was running with a good twenty or so in every major fleet. These pilots would have an overview tab that would show bombers and only bombers. The moment something appeared on their overview it was locked and popped. Bombs don't do damage if your bomber dies before it detonates. You can also use frigates such as the combat ceptors or pirate frigs to catch bombers. Not every bombing run is a success. Bubbles already are a strong counter to them as well as a defensive bubble will pull in the bombers and either put them out of place or decloak them.
Bombers are suppose to be nimble evasive frigates designed to provide a counter to the N+1 problem. Making them slower, making them uncloak one another (which was said to be a glitch) and messing with their bomb damage is completely pointless and limits player interaction. Now bombers will only be on grid for the moment it takes them to drop their bomb rather than 150+ away on grid setting up for a run. I urge CCP to reconsider these changes, even scrap the majority of it all together. Sense. That post makes all of it... ^^^
But they won't listen and will implement all these changes anyway... Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person." |
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:03:00 -
[387] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:This is probably one of the first times in recent memory where I just could not see why a change was made to the game. I'm sitting here in complete disappointment at just how bad the majority of these ideas are. I can't say I completely blame you because covops and bombing are an extremely niche play style that many players do not participate in and less even excel at it. While the majority of ships all balance around the idea of dps, mobility and tank, cov ops factors in the mental game more so than any other ship.
There are some staggering bad misconceptions expressed within the thread which I have read through most of but I want to underline and debunk a few because I believe CCP is putting these changes in out of a misunderstanding mostly backed by said misconceptions. Bombers as they are now are perhaps one of the most balanced ships in the game. The only thing I would have done is to add a touch more fitting and mobility to the Nemesis. Bombers are devastating but their paper thin tank allows them to be easily counterable which I will detail.
Furthermore bombers are not only almost completely balanced, but also act as a balancing factor in Eve. They are one of the few ships that curb the N+1 problem. Bring 10,000 ships against me? As long as they are within the radius of the bomb blast, they all die the same. Bombers/cov ops are one of the few ways the "little guy" can stand up to the big powers.
Now some of the bad reasons FOR the changes:
ISBoxing: Although CCP won't say this directly, it seems to be an almost universal opinion here that curbing ISboxing bombers is one of the main reasons for some of these changes. As explained, even by posterchild ISboxer bomber wheniminspace, as well as others, this penalizes individual bomber pilots much more than it does ISboxers. Want to deal with ISboxer? Ban it directly.
No more Shield Battleships: This was spoken by a few people some of which should clearly know better. The main reason for armor bs doctrine dominance is due to the popularity of Archon/Armor triage carriers. NOT because of bombers. Shield BS doctrines were popular long after the cloak changes were made in 2012. Certain groups preferred armor, others shield. PL took over Delve as part of the HBC using Rail Rohks.
No counters?: A few people say there are no counters to bombing runs. Anyone remember insta lock arty canes? I know TEST was running with a good twenty or so in every major fleet. These pilots would have an overview tab that would show bombers and only bombers. The moment something appeared on their overview it was locked and popped. Bombs don't do damage if your bomber dies before it detonates. You can also use frigates such as the combat ceptors or pirate frigs to catch bombers. Not every bombing run is a success. Bubbles already are a strong counter to them as well as a defensive bubble will pull in the bombers and either put them out of place or decloak them.
Bombers are suppose to be nimble evasive frigates designed to provide a counter to the N+1 problem. Making them slower, making them uncloak one another (which was said to be a glitch) and messing with their bomb damage is completely pointless and limits player interaction. Now bombers will only be on grid for the moment it takes them to drop their bomb rather than 150+ away on grid setting up for a run. I urge CCP to reconsider these changes, even scrap the majority of it all together. So much this ^^^ |
Ziraili Onzo
Yggdrasil Woodchoppers
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:04:00 -
[388] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.
I think people got upset because they have known to expect and love your threads on ship balance, based on the fact that you normally give with one hand and take away with the other.. Its balance, its the best way of doing things, i applaud you in your efforts so far. Now Stealth Bombers have a unique role on the battlefield, one that might be a bit too strong right now agreed, but still one that i would hate to see be nerfed to non-existance moving forward.
However, with this change, your showing us what your giving to all other ships to counter bombers (smartbombs, slower align for the bombers themself, longer reaction-time), you then proceed to take away a very big part of the SB's ability to be effective on field, instead of just going in blind and praying they can get the organizational part done that comes before the actual decloak and fire. Then when it comes to the "giving with the one hand"-part, your serving us what can only be classified as horse manure. Might as well "rebalance" T2 logistics ship, reduce their range by 50% and give them a tracking bonus on your *****-gun to replace it.. Thats how useful a HP bonus to a bomber is.
Now, if you want to nerf the current way of not decloaking each other because its making setting up a squad too easy, then i get your point. And i wont argue that it has to stay this way, or else bombers will surely die and all that.. But if your going to take away with one hand, then give us some way of still being able to do that actual organization of our squad/fleet members so we can get our job done. Show our own squad/fleet in space/overview even if they are cloaked or something, at least a minimum of information so that we can effect us getting randomly decloaked or not. Reverting back to the old ways is just silly unless we have some way to control the outcome of a good/bad organized squad.
That being said, just adding the changes to smartbomb-screening for bomb-runs could potentially be enough to offset what i agree to be a too easy way of making a successful bombrun. Its gonna suck enough for the bomber to pull of a good run, only to see the enemy fleet have strategic placed ships at the edges, lighting up with smartbombs and go "denied!!" Throw in all the hoops you have to pass just to not decloak your squad with just a pure luck-based warpin/alignment, reduced agility and longer reaction-time for bombs. You just found the perfect way to tell the players they should do torpedo-only based SBs and just remove bomb-launchers entirely. That unique role in combat SB once had just went from too strong to potentiallgone in 1 patch. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
153
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:10:00 -
[389] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:The decloaking mechanic was there before, and there was plenty of successful bombing going on.
bombs also didn't blow each other up |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
interstellar initiative Incorporated
303
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:10:00 -
[390] - Quote
Looks pretty good.
Can we get Ishtars fixed now? |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
153
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:15:00 -
[391] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:This is probably one of the first times in recent memory where I just could not see why a change was made to the game. I'm sitting here in complete disappointment at just how bad the majority of these ideas are. I can't say I completely blame you because covops and bombing are an extremely niche play style that many players do not participate in and less even excel at it. While the majority of ships all balance around the idea of dps, mobility and tank, cov ops factors in the mental game more so than any other ship.
There are some staggering bad misconceptions expressed within the thread which I have read through most of but I want to underline and debunk a few because I believe CCP is putting these changes in out of a misunderstanding mostly backed by said misconceptions. Bombers as they are now are perhaps one of the most balanced ships in the game. The only thing I would have done is to add a touch more fitting and mobility to the Nemesis. Bombers are devastating but their paper thin tank allows them to be easily counterable which I will detail.
Furthermore bombers are not only almost completely balanced, but also act as a balancing factor in Eve. They are one of the few ships that curb the N+1 problem. Bring 10,000 ships against me? As long as they are within the radius of the bomb blast, they all die the same. Bombers/cov ops are one of the few ways the "little guy" can stand up to the big powers.
Now some of the bad reasons FOR the changes:
ISBoxing: Although CCP won't say this directly, it seems to be an almost universal opinion here that curbing ISboxing bombers is one of the main reasons for some of these changes. As explained, even by posterchild ISboxer bomber wheniminspace, as well as others, this penalizes individual bomber pilots much more than it does ISboxers. Want to deal with ISboxer? Ban it directly.
No more Shield Battleships: This was spoken by a few people some of which should clearly know better. The main reason for armor bs doctrine dominance is due to the popularity of Archon/Armor triage carriers. NOT because of bombers. Shield BS doctrines were popular long after the cloak changes were made in 2012. Certain groups preferred armor, others shield. PL took over Delve as part of the HBC using Rail Rohks.
No counters?: A few people say there are no counters to bombing runs. Anyone remember insta lock arty canes? I know TEST was running with a good twenty or so in every major fleet. These pilots would have an overview tab that would show bombers and only bombers. The moment something appeared on their overview it was locked and popped. Bombs don't do damage if your bomber dies before it detonates. You can also use frigates such as the combat ceptors or pirate frigs to catch bombers. Not every bombing run is a success. Bubbles already are a strong counter to them as well as a defensive bubble will pull in the bombers and either put them out of place or decloak them.
Bombers are suppose to be nimble evasive frigates designed to provide a counter to the N+1 problem. Making them slower, making them uncloak one another (which was said to be a glitch) and messing with their bomb damage is completely pointless and limits player interaction. Now bombers will only be on grid for the moment it takes them to drop their bomb rather than 150+ away on grid setting up for a run. I urge CCP to reconsider these changes, even scrap the majority of it all together.
Read what this guy is saying |
Barrack SquirrelTap
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:25:00 -
[392] - Quote
- bombs now require an activation code before being armed, random 4 digit alphanumeric number that must be entered after launch but before detonation
Agreed...Also make defender missiles an anti bomb missile with only light defenders and like 2-3 missiles to destroy a bomb. This would make it so that if you have 3 or 4 DEDICATED ships with a full rack of launchers they could take out a single wave. Kinda like a real life Aegis air defense destroyer. On the flip side you could have every ship in fleet with a launcher slot give up one of those for bomb defense. It would then be a player choice rather than just nerfing bombers. Also a new 1k decloak range (with two cloaked ships) would be a better range for bombers. The 2.5k range makes gate camps, bridging, etc. all equally a pain. |
Elyas Crux
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:35:00 -
[393] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Elyas Crux wrote:Will the new anti-capital void bomb collide with other objects in space or will it just keep travelling the same direction it was fired until it detonates? I think it would be frustrating as hell to see your bomb bounce off your target and explode meters out of range. Also if collidable it would become a viable tactic for a subcapital to ram and deflect bombs off course.
The only other thing I'm left wondering is if you had a perfect aim and a marauder stuck in bastion mode, you could really ruin their day. i doubt they will but if it would of bounced off your target then you missed anyway because if it doesn't bounce it will go through and miss
Granted if you fired from 6kms away it should go in one side and out the other and miss. But it has an AoE range of 1 meter and 12km range. If I fire at someone 11.9kms away I want to know that the last 100 meters isn't it bouncing back off them and missing. |
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling
453
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:40:00 -
[394] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:This is probably one of the first times in recent memory where I just could not see why a change was made to the game. I'm sitting here in complete disappointment at just how bad the majority of these ideas are. I can't say I completely blame you because covops and bombing are an extremely niche play style that many players do not participate in and less even excel at it. While the majority of ships all balance around the idea of dps, mobility and tank, cov ops factors in the mental game more so than any other ship.
There are some staggering bad misconceptions expressed within the thread which I have read through most of but I want to underline and debunk a few because I believe CCP is putting these changes in out of a misunderstanding mostly backed by said misconceptions. Bombers as they are now are perhaps one of the most balanced ships in the game. The only thing I would have done is to add a touch more fitting and mobility to the Nemesis. Bombers are devastating but their paper thin tank allows them to be easily counterable which I will detail.
Furthermore bombers are not only almost completely balanced, but also act as a balancing factor in Eve. They are one of the few ships that curb the N+1 problem. Bring 10,000 ships against me? As long as they are within the radius of the bomb blast, they all die the same. Bombers/cov ops are one of the few ways the "little guy" can stand up to the big powers.
Now some of the bad reasons FOR the changes:
ISBoxing: Although CCP won't say this directly, it seems to be an almost universal opinion here that curbing ISboxing bombers is one of the main reasons for some of these changes. As explained, even by posterchild ISboxer bomber wheniminspace, as well as others, this penalizes individual bomber pilots much more than it does ISboxers. Want to deal with ISboxer? Ban it directly.
No more Shield Battleships: This was spoken by a few people some of which should clearly know better. The main reason for armor bs doctrine dominance is due to the popularity of Archon/Armor triage carriers. NOT because of bombers. Shield BS doctrines were popular long after the cloak changes were made in 2012. Certain groups preferred armor, others shield. PL took over Delve as part of the HBC using Rail Rohks.
No counters?: A few people say there are no counters to bombing runs. Anyone remember insta lock arty canes? I know TEST was running with a good twenty or so in every major fleet. These pilots would have an overview tab that would show bombers and only bombers. The moment something appeared on their overview it was locked and popped. Bombs don't do damage if your bomber dies before it detonates. You can also use frigates such as the combat ceptors or pirate frigs to catch bombers. Not every bombing run is a success. Bubbles already are a strong counter to them as well as a defensive bubble will pull in the bombers and either put them out of place or decloak them.
Bombers are suppose to be nimble evasive frigates designed to provide a counter to the N+1 problem. Making them slower, making them uncloak one another (which was said to be a glitch) and messing with their bomb damage is completely pointless and limits player interaction. Now bombers will only be on grid for the moment it takes them to drop their bomb rather than 150+ away on grid setting up for a run. I urge CCP to reconsider these changes, even scrap the majority of it all together.
Agreed. Link to original post if you wanted to find it: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5125162#post5125162 Feel free to quote. Schrodinger's Hot Dropper - The Fate of Forum Alts - Click me! Click me! |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
1715
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 23:49:00 -
[395] - Quote
The nerf to cloaking is SOLELY to counter the ISBoxing bomber squads. SOLELY this. And therefore, it's not getting reversed because of whining.
The anti-capital bomb with an AOE of 1m. Dude. Fozzie. Mate. How are you supposed to hit anything with this?
lets do a thought game. I am in a Hound with a Cap Void Bomb. I am burning in from 50km away aligned toward my target, who is in triage/siege, blah blah. My bomb has a range of 30,000 +/- 1m. my ship has a speed, for argument's sakes, of 300m/s. I must therefore launch my bomb EXACTLY 30,000m away ffrom my foe!
From 30km away if you launch it 1/300th of a second late or early, you miss.
OH BUT WAT IS DIS?
The server tick is 1 second! So does it launch on the server tick, or does the server (plus/minus 8-200m/s lag for Interwebs) calculate it on the actual milllisecond you press the key?
Given the reaction time of the human being is 1/30th of a second, and you have 200ms lag, you have precisely ZERO chance of landing a bomb within <1m of anything at 30km range. Hurr durr!
OK, so given a capital is a big ship, are we now saying that the bomb lands inside the foe? Or what?
TL;DR 1,000m AEO for bombs, minimum, to make them practical. J's before K's. Sudden Buggery is recruiting w-nerds and w-noobs. Mail your resume in today! http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
155
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:00:00 -
[396] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:The nerf to cloaking is SOLELY to counter the ISBoxing bomber squads. SOLELY this. And therefore, it's not getting reversed because of whining.
The anti-capital bomb with an AOE of 1m. Dude. Fozzie. Mate. How are you supposed to hit anything with this?
lets do a thought game. I am in a Hound with a Cap Void Bomb. I am burning in from 50km away aligned toward my target, who is in triage/siege, blah blah. My bomb has a range of 30,000 +/- 1m. my ship has a speed, for argument's sakes, of 300m/s. I must therefore launch my bomb EXACTLY 30,000m away ffrom my foe!
From 30km away if you launch it 1/300th of a second late or early, you miss.
OH BUT WAT IS DIS?
The server tick is 1 second! So does it launch on the server tick, or does the server (plus/minus 8-200m/s lag for Interwebs) calculate it on the actual milllisecond you press the key?
Given the reaction time of the human being is 1/30th of a second, and you have 200ms lag, you have precisely ZERO chance of landing a bomb within <1m of anything at 30km range. Hurr durr!
OK, so given a capital is a big ship, are we now saying that the bomb lands inside the foe? Or what?
TL;DR 1,000m AEO for bombs, minimum, to make them practical.
yeah and even if you are holding still the overview and even the overlay aren't exact but i would like to see these explode on impact. delay the warhead (so you can't just do it from 2km) but make it so if it hits its target say after it's gone 25-26km then it goes off.
or to make coding easier just make it a radius of 500m-1km
i love the idea of single target bombs and want to see this test run a success so we can see more like it.
in another note do you know when we will see these on SiSi so we can find out just how hard it will be to hit something? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:05:00 -
[397] - 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.
As I said before, this is a terrible change. Chimera has explained why. Please go back to the drawing board. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13638
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:14:00 -
[398] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Chiimera wrote:Great work killing bombing runs completely.
Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. As I said before, this is a terrible change. Chimera has explained why. Please go back to the drawing board.
A whole host of ships are now viable again. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sjaandi HyShan
New Sepulchral Monolith
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:19:00 -
[399] - Quote
If the steal bomber is mainly being converted to a destroyer, why not actually make it one? The skill train is the same, you are slowing the warp and align time and increasing the HP (which is basically a destroyer in all but name). The destroyer line is lonely with only Interdictors as the T2 variants, with the Frigate line being overrepresented in T2. And now with the smaller bubble, the ships seem to be made to pit against each other. |
Driler Nolm
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:20:00 -
[400] - Quote
hey Fozzie. instead of slowly making bombers more useless. Why not spare us bomber pilots that pain and just throw all the stealth bombers in the trashcan. Thanks for NOTHING. Decloaking?? stupid. 12 second flight time? really? And by the way, a bomb is a dumb weapon and once deployed, it should STILL blow up even if the ship is dead. You must not have EVER flown a stealth bomber in a small fleet, it is already very difficult to organize. |
|
Catherine Laartii
Providence Guard Templis CALSF
320
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:24:00 -
[401] - Quote
Please change the Purifier into a Khanid ship. It uses missiles as a primary weapon and that's all the justification we need. Thank you. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:30:00 -
[402] - Quote
Kalissis wrote: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.
Seriously. Have you ever used a bomber to try to solo a ratter? You already have to deal with the hostile DPS and the rats will aggro you almost immediately because you have electronic warfare.
On the other hand, my interdictor pilot will love killing all those slow to align bombers. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:33:00 -
[403] - Quote
Herrin Asura wrote:progodlegend wrote: Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes.
And EVERYONE was HAPPY that these times changed. Why? Because Bombers sucked back then.
This. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13640
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:36:00 -
[404] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Herrin Asura wrote:progodlegend wrote: Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes.
And EVERYONE was HAPPY that these times changed. Why? Because Bombers sucked back then. This.
Wrong. You want useless bombers? Lets go back to when they spat out cruise missiles and bombs did less damage than a wet fart. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Monkeynipple Salad
Quovis The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:40:00 -
[405] - Quote
All these people saying the new cap void bomb is impossible to hit because it's 1m range. Has it not occured to you that capital ships (especially ****) are rather large, and that bombs don't have collision? As long as the bomb goes off INSIDE the gigantic hitbox of the ship that is several km long (or within 1m) it works.
While it will certainly be harder then hitting with a normal bomb, it far away from being impossible, especially on **** that isn't moving. |
Ronin Silfar
Our Big Spaceship Gang
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:54:00 -
[406] - Quote
Monkeynipple Salad wrote:All these people saying the new cap void bomb is impossible to hit because it's 1m range. Has it not occured to you that capital ships (especially ****) are rather large, and that bombs don't have collision? As long as the bomb goes off INSIDE the gigantic hitbox of the ship that is several km long (or within 1m) it works.
While it will certainly be harder then hitting with a normal bomb, it far away from being impossible, especially on **** that isn't moving.
I was thinking the same thing, but figured I was just missing some crucial element since no one had pointed it out yet. |
Elyas Crux
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 00:56:00 -
[407] - Quote
I think if something is able to decloak me I should be able to see it, or it shouldn't be able to decloak me. If this change goes ahead players cannot fly cloaked ships with any sort of teamwork. If a group of players all warp to a point RNGesus decides where they land on grid so decloaking is inevitable. There are no tools in game to allow players to coordinate and be on grid together while remaining cloaked. To remain useful all cloaked ships would have to be used for solo playing only and not in fleet with any other ship (besides being a warp in, yay participation). |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13640
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 01:04:00 -
[408] - Quote
Elyas Crux wrote:I think if something is able to decloak me I should be able to see it, or it shouldn't be able to decloak me. If this change goes ahead players cannot fly cloaked ships with any sort of teamwork. If a group of players all warp to a point RNGesus decides where they land on grid so decloaking is inevitable. There are no tools in game to allow players to coordinate and be on grid together while remaining cloaked. To remain useful all cloaked ships would have to be used for solo playing only and not in fleet with any other ship (besides being a warp in, yay participation).
We managed to do this very thing before, we will manage to do it again. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 01:40:00 -
[409] - 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.
ISBoxing or not, the cloak nerf affects and nerfs more than just the bombers, and affects them all negatively. I think your balance pass works right up until that point. Just my thought on the matter I guess.
I can send you plenty of videos of bombing ops going wrong if you need evidence that they don't really need nerfing themselves, but the ways to defend against them need to be buffed. |
Ghurthe
KRH Mining
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 01:40:00 -
[410] - Quote
Love the changes, everything except the 2km cloak thing.
That just makes ISboxing bombing runs super powerful while normal runs become awful. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13641
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 01:53:00 -
[411] - Quote
Momiji Sakora wrote: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. ISBoxing or not, the cloak nerf affects and nerfs more than just the bombers, and affects them all negatively. I think your balance pass works right up until that point. Just my thought on the matter I guess. I can send you plenty of videos of bombing ops going wrong if you need evidence that they don't really need nerfing themselves, but the ways to defend against them need to be buffed.
If everything else needs to be buffed to balance one thing then the one thing needs to be nerfed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1690
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 02:25:00 -
[412] - Quote
Okay, all caught up again.
Let me show you my notes . . .
Decloaking is the #1 issue. Solutions include: not doing it, formation warping, not applicable to people in fleet, ability to 'see' cloaked people in your fleet.
The 12sec rule allows a prepared fleet to have the instacanes and counter. Not overly hated.
The speed and agility and warp speed make the bomber feel like a pig, a destroyer pig. If it is a frigate it should move like a frigate.
A few voices in the wilderness are pointing out that Bombers are not the only cloakies. WH and Blops are being hit with the same bat as collateral damage.
There is an issue that bombers drive null doctrine towards armor. That may be and if bombers become more rare then this may drift back.
Those who argue that bombers are the counter to n+1 . . . really? The big groups are precluded from flying them and I wasn't told? Bombers are a way to make a fleet nervous and allows the little guy to punch above his weight, agreed. But do not try to tell me that the blobs cannot just as easily field the bombers
Note, I am not discussing ISBoxer, here. Changes to stealth, yes.
That do a decent summation?
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 02:37:00 -
[413] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Okay, all caught up again.
Let me show you my notes . . .
Decloaking is the #1 issue. Solutions include: not doing it, formation warping, not applicable to people in fleet, ability to 'see' cloaked people in your fleet.
The 12sec rule allows a prepared fleet to have the instacanes and counter. Not overly hated.
The speed and agility and warp speed make the bomber feel like a pig, a destroyer pig. If it is a frigate it should move like a frigate.
A few voices in the wilderness are pointing out that Bombers are not the only cloakies. WH and Blops are being hit with the same bat as collateral damage.
There is an issue that bombers drive null doctrine towards armor. That may be and if bombers become more rare then this may drift back.
Those who argue that bombers are the counter to n+1 . . . really? The big groups are precluded from flying them and I wasn't told? Bombers are a way to make a fleet nervous and allows the little guy to punch above his weight, agreed. But do not try to tell me that the blobs cannot just as easily field the bombers
Note, I am not discussing ISBoxer, here. Changes to stealth, yes.
That do a decent summation?
m
Pretty good summation. I would like to add that a potential change to bomb damage mechanics may help balance bomb damage. Basing bomb damage by distance to blast center and or applying explosion velocity to bombs similar to missile damage application.
the addition of ehp to bombers at the cost of sig radius is a slap to the face. slowing bomber align and slowing warp speed, is understandable, but also slapping a sig penalty is extremely heavy handed. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2351
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 02:38:00 -
[414] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
Note, I am not discussing ISBoxer, here. Changes to stealth, yes.
That do a decent summation?
m
Maybe do your job and raise the issue most represented on each page, every page of this thread? Or don't. Whatever. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2353
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 02:49:00 -
[415] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: Note, I am not discussing ISBoxer, here.
That do a decent summation?
m
Let me elaborate on my previous post a bit: it's pretty goddam clear both from every page of this thread and the reddit thread that the overwhelming consensus of the player base is that isboxed bombers are the problem, doubly so because regular bombing fleets have been marginalized to near obscurity.
This is, overwhelmingly, the position of the player base. On every forum, from Eve-O, to reddit, to failheap and on every news site, from TMC to EN24. Your job is to represent the community, not just to tell ccp what it wants to hear. Do your goddam job, or step aside for someone that will. |
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Surely You're Joking
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 03:01:00 -
[416] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Okay, all caught up again.
Let me show you my notes . . .
Decloaking is the #1 issue. Solutions include: not doing it, formation warping, not applicable to people in fleet, ability to 'see' cloaked people in your fleet.
The 12sec rule allows a prepared fleet to have the instacanes and counter. Not overly hated.
The speed and agility and warp speed make the bomber feel like a pig, a destroyer pig. If it is a frigate it should move like a frigate.
A few voices in the wilderness are pointing out that Bombers are not the only cloakies. WH and Blops are being hit with the same bat as collateral damage.
There is an issue that bombers drive null doctrine towards armor. That may be and if bombers become more rare then this may drift back.
Those who argue that bombers are the counter to n+1 . . . really? The big groups are precluded from flying them and I wasn't told? Bombers are a way to make a fleet nervous and allows the little guy to punch above his weight, agreed. But do not try to tell me that the blobs cannot just as easily field the bombers
Note, I am not discussing ISBoxer, here. Changes to stealth, yes.
That do a decent summation?
m
(not in any order)
It isn't that bigger groups cannot use Bombers Mike, it's that there's a law of diminishing returns in play that balances out bombers extremely well. You can only drop so many bombs on a target before there's no point to do so anymore. Numbers simply give you more chances to land bombing runs this is true, but for every bomber you have in fleet, that is one possible battleship or carrier you could have had instead. So the usefulness of bombers can be expressed thus:
http://cnx.org/resources/3beb349483fab0b8a0a265ed11d36b27/normal-curve.jpg
The more bombers you have the more bombs you can drop. At it's apex you reach the maximum amount of bombers required to destroy a sub cap fleet. Anything after that not only isn't anymore effective, but because a loss to your fleet as you're taking conventional ships out of the fleet. Basic economic principle, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Bombers didn't drive doctrines to armor. I already detailed this in my previous post when I pointed out that shield doctrines were still extremely common after the update that let cloaked bombers be within 2km of each other. The sizes of battles due to unhealthy force projection drove doctrines to armor. With so many people on field, the goal became to be as durable as you could be. The larger the battle, the less mobility plays a role in combat. Once the battles become smaller because of the limiting factor of force projection and the need to travel conventionally via gates becomes more common, you'll find shield doctrines being more common. But then again even now what are people flying? Shield Isthars and Shield Rail Tengus. So this may not even be a valid point now.
Lastly "instacanes" were viable during the entire existence of bombers and still are. Hades Effect /-áConflict Resolution /-áPirate Protection |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 03:07:00 -
[417] - 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.
I think that the larger problem is not how the decloaking mechanic change affects stealth bombers, but how it affects every other ship that cloaks. While the change may improve things with SBs, it is definitely going to negatively affect any pilot that flies a covert ops ships. Anywhere. Ever. Say goodbye to wormhole PvP. In fact, there are a lot of aspects of wormhole life that will be heavily impacted by this change. As if wormhole life hasn't already been made more difficult in the last month or two, now you can't even move a fleet around cloaked without broadcasting to anyone who cares to hit a d-scan that you have a fleet in their hole?!
You don't solve a problem on one hull by screwing up every other hull that uses a crucial module on the problem hull.
-EDIT- All the other proposed changes look just fine to me and make sense, because they only affect the hull that is being targeted. Again, the problem is with the change to cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships because you're nerfing a lot of ships that there's nothing with as collateral. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3429
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 04:23:00 -
[418] - Quote
Removed some off topic posts. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security
99
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 04:30:00 -
[419] - Quote
Please let us shoot bombs. Because 10 (12) secs to lock and shoot a bomb is totally doable especially by destroyers and AFs. This would be a good role for them in large fleets. I see no reason that this shouldn't be the case honestly. It makes more sense that the bomb should be destroyed than the bomber to mitigate damage.
Clokies decloaking others is going to be a pain for many many ships. I really hope you look at that one more carefully |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
272
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 04:44:00 -
[420] - Quote
The manticore is flatly better than the nemesis. |
|
Hal Lubbert
Body Snatchers
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 04:52:00 -
[421] - Quote
Stealth Bombers are not liked by most pilots and here is why!
Like a SNIPER, it takes time and lots more time to become a decent SB pilot and more time to prepare a good bomb run...
Most exWOW players and new EVEKiddies do not have what it takes to fly a Stealth Bomber.
So what does CCP do? ..............drum roll!
CCP make it easier to kill Stealth Bombers !! CCP calls it a REBALANCE. I call it another way to satisfy the LAZY EVE PILOTS (interceptors, frigs and other lighter ships that most jump into so they don't lose ISK)
A Large Sig Radius - OMG! Weaker Agility - What were you thinking CCP? (Oh wait now they can be caught easier = ISK ISK LOSSES) Lower Warp Speed - Really ? 2KM - DeCloak Your Mate - the one who you encouraged to train SB so you can go deep into enemy space with. Slower BOMB SPEED ---- so kiddies have more time to get away !!
And you gave us more HP? really come on... the Sb is a small ship = less HP. More cargo = more ISK to lose!
But wait for $19.95 you also get to bomb Capital ships .... call us for your USE ONLY IN MED TO LARGE FLEET OPS BONUS rebalance now!!!! |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
272
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:14:00 -
[422] - Quote
Hal Lubbert wrote:Most exWOW players and new EVEKiddies do not have what it takes to fly a Stealth Bomber. You don't seem to either. |
progodlegend
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
178
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:24:00 -
[423] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: Those who argue that bombers are the counter to n+1 . . . really? The big groups are precluded from flying them and I wasn't told? Bombers are a way to make a fleet nervous and allows the little guy to punch above his weight, agreed. But do not try to tell me that the blobs cannot just as easily field the bombers
I've been bombed by a 100 man bomber fleet before. It sucks, we were low sig and armor tanked :(. |
progodlegend
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
178
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:26:00 -
[424] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: Note, I am not discussing ISBoxer, here.
That do a decent summation?
m
Let me elaborate on my previous post a bit: it's pretty goddam clear both from every page of this thread and the reddit thread that the overwhelming consensus of the player base is that isboxed bombers are the problem, doubly so because regular bombing fleets have been marginalized to near obscurity. This is, overwhelmingly, the position of the player base. On every forum, from Eve-O, to reddit, to failheap and on every news site, from TMC to EN24. Your job is to represent the community, not just to tell ccp what it wants to hear. Do your goddam job, or step aside for someone that will.
The CSM is doing our job, most of these changes were ideas that came directly from the CSM. In reinstatement of the "cloaked ships decloak each other" mechanic is a direct result from last year's winter summit conversation on fleet warfare balance.
Actually, half of these changes were listed in the minutes of last years winter summits I'm pretty sure. If not listed they were at least summarized or hinted at. |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:36:00 -
[425] - Quote
i remember the clarion call 4 video of RNK.
bomber bar corp and RnK and other pipe bomb corp are managin with skill and intelligence the technique "few vs many".
i think is a value for the EveOnline community small entity can manage the "few vs many" guerrilla techniques.
The jump fatigue (even for pipe bomb) and the destruction of SB make this a clear direction of gameplay.
But, before bomber bar corp vanish, i need to say that "making bomb run more complicated" is for challenging pilot a good trial but i will point the finger that medium 0.0 pilot have only to follow the primary and anchor. At moment we have to co-op with clocked invisible pilot, probing in combat between 600 ships and wreck and corpse that declaock us. Find a good spot and theorize without seen if can drag from our invisible tactical, call the warp then align a invisible wing then decloakc and bomb and warp out to another good spot found before. Doing this with 3 volley and avoid every volley decloack the others is really at a difficult level unthinkable for "classic 0.0 monkey". This is already awesome level of gameplay of eve online when the usual 0.0 blob have difficult in following a single primary and anchor once landed to fc.
I thinked a lot of Gokus but the +15 point of signature against 125mm turret is a headshot too. faster lock, faster alpha. Goku usually wipe with x-instinct and booster signature.... nowadays.. a few point of armor with a major dps incoming is brutal.
I really hope dev and ccp tried to do in a real 0.0 field a bomber wing with 2-3 volley: because i think if they doing is successful i think all this nerf will not to be made.
At least we can rethink about see other bomber in space or give us a t2 bomb with major damage and smaller area so we can think to manage smaller volley like 3-4 and using the bonus of rof (even if with nerf to align and warp speed we already land at tactical with t2 launcher almost reloaded!, no need more rof).
12 sec flight time not allow to bomb the safespot tactical when done fast probing and panic warpout ... a error of enemy fc and we cannot gain advantage :(
please don't go in blob f1 monkey direction this is a real loss of value for the community.
|
Kiela Cage
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:42:00 -
[426] - Quote
These changes make no sense. The one unique thing a stealth bomber has the ability to do is....
DROP A BOMB! (which is only allowed in null mind you)
So now CCP is making it harder for a bomber to do the one thing that its really designed for.... Its already easy enough for the frigates to get away from a bomb if the pilot is paying attention.
12 second flight time as if 10 seconds isn't bad enough it takes a decent frigate pilot less than 2 seconds to align and jump out.
Decreased agility? with no buff to cloaked speed doesn't make any sense why am i aligning slower if I'm not moving any faster?
CPU upgrade is cool but only +7? really?
Decloaking within 2k? bye bye bombing buddy =(
The decrease in warp speed might actually be a good thing giving a bomber more time to cloak while warping before he reaches his warp to location.
All in all it seems like a step back... leaning towards larger fleet actions(of course- warmonger CCP) which is really useful for us small time players in small time corps who have never seen a fleet fight in our lifes.
At the moment i think the bomber has enough draw backs it keeps a lot of players from taking the time to train one let alone training it to be effective. now with changes like these whats the point eh?
Heres to fun! --- Cage. |
rothmal
Vengance Inc.
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 06:52:00 -
[427] - Quote
Sbrodor wrote:i remember the clarion call 4 video of RNK.
bomber bar corp and RnK and other pipe bomb corp are managin with skill and intelligence the technique "few vs many".
first time someone has mentioned us in the same sentence as RNK if only you knew what poo flinging monkeys we are behind doors. Almost as good when i found out that CVA thought I was in charge of bombers bar when temp left eve. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1927
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 06:53:00 -
[428] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: That do a decent summation?
Kind of Mike... To me the most important question is; are all the nerfs + the cloak change necessary? I think if cloaks had never been changed from how they worked in 2013, all or most of the proposed nerfs would be replaced by buffs to stealth bombers. So surely this is overkill.
But perhaps i'm wrong and you can clear this up for me... If CCP are introducing a small bubble designed to drag and deloak stealth bomber warping in, why is it necessary to hurt all forms of cloaky combat with the proposed change to decloak mechanics?
Was the ability to target and shoot bombs ever discussed? This alone would solve the problem and create a new role in fleets and i just can't see how reverting back to a bad mechanic was prefered over something like this.
+1 |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1693
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:11:00 -
[429] - Quote
From the CSM8 winter minutes
Quote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now.
because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on.
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
806
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:21:00 -
[430] - Quote
so the guy who decided his fleet shouldn't fit any explosive hardener and subsequently lost an entire fleet to explosive bombs on a gate basically pushed for and enabled this change is gloating that people should htfu in this thread meanwhile people with thousands of kills with bombs alone and well known boming fcs are telling you this is a stupid change
no-one is disagreeing that bombers needed a nerf, but this obtuse, archaic mechanic is not the way to go about it though and anyone with any kind of experience actually flying the ships is trying to tell you that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1928
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:26:00 -
[431] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m
Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. +1 |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:27:00 -
[432] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote: There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now.
because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m
"too easy" but at foolish harder level than a normal player do in a usual 00 blob. (align f1 f1 f1 f1 take passive wing warp f1 f1 f1 bcast f1 f1 f1 align take passive wing warp died)
CCP are destroyin one of the most difficult gameplay actually done in eveonline under logistical (viator cyno blackops for restock) under human coordination (everyone tell me distance from x or y because i'm fc of a ghost fleet and i cannot see you , your single voice tell me the picture of fleet position) and dps outcoming (volley 1 go, volley 2 align , volley 3 hold , volley 2 bomb, volley 1 warpout , vollety 3 align aganist f1 f1 f1 f1 f1. in every cta with 3 or 4 volley i have chronometer in hand) and dps mitigation incoming (align to celestial, warpout on yeallowbox do TD to dps and Paint the primary (for goku in example)).....
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:14:00 -
[433] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:The nerf to cloaking is SOLELY to counter the ISBoxing bomber squads. SOLELY this. And therefore, it's not getting reversed because of whining. The anti-capital bomb with an AOE of 1m. Dude. Fozzie. Mate. How are you supposed to hit anything with this? lets do a thought game. I am in a Hound with a Cap Void Bomb. I am burning in from 50km away aligned toward my target, who is in triage/siege, blah blah. My bomb has a range of 30,000 +/- 1m. my ship has a speed, for argument's sakes, of 300m/s. I must therefore launch my bomb EXACTLY 30,000m away ffrom my foe! From 30km away if you launch it 1/300th of a second late or early, you miss. OH BUT WAT IS DIS? The server tick is 1 second! So does it launch on the server tick, or does the server (plus/minus 8-200m/s lag for Interwebs) calculate it on the actual milllisecond you press the key? Given the reaction time of the human being is 1/30th of a second, and you have 200ms lag, you have precisely ZERO chance of landing a bomb within <1m of anything at 30km range. Hurr durr! OK, so given a capital is a big ship, are we now saying that the bomb lands inside the foe? Or what? TL;DR 1,000m AEO for bombs, minimum, to make them practical. Me using a capital void bomb.
You travelling at 300 m/s and game giving you auto-aim with "approach" pointing your ship straight towards the enemy allowing pin-point accuracy will give you a window of 9.7 seconds.
(Hint, signature radius of a triage archon is 2900 meters). |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:17:00 -
[434] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. But thanks for the link all the same.
Even if the bombs didn't deal any damage, they forced the fleet to move 100km and potentially be at a worse spot than before. You could, I don't know, launch bombs where the fleet is going to land so they have no way of getting away outside of warping instantly. You could also have a wing of heavy tackle stopping them at the other end of the MJD.
Yes, we're talking about fleet warfare here as bombing a 1v1 with 40 guys is not what these changes are intended to touch on. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:30:00 -
[435] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. But thanks for the link all the same. Even if the bombs didn't deal any damage, they forced the fleet to move 100km and potentially be at a worse spot than before. You could, I don't know, launch bombs where the fleet is going to land so they have no way of getting away outside of warping instantly. You could also have a wing of heavy tackle stopping them at the other end of the MJD. Yes, we're talking about fleet warfare here as bombing a 1v1 with 40 guys is not what these changes are intended to touch on.
I don't see a problem. I'm sure people would prefer the mild inconvenience of jumping 100km and then having to use a bounce to regroup, over being destroyed by a good bombing run.
If all the BSs and BCs in fleet hit their MJD they would scatter in all directions. If a bombing fleet is able to cover a 200km battle field, then they deserve any the kill they manage to get. +1 |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:35:00 -
[436] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. But thanks for the link all the same. Even if the bombs didn't deal any damage, they forced the fleet to move 100km and potentially be at a worse spot than before. You could, I don't know, launch bombs where the fleet is going to land so they have no way of getting away outside of warping instantly. You could also have a wing of heavy tackle stopping them at the other end of the MJD. Yes, we're talking about fleet warfare here as bombing a 1v1 with 40 guys is not what these changes are intended to touch on. I don't see a problem. I'm sure people would prefer the mild inconvenience of jumping 100km and then having to use a bounce to regroup, over being destroyed by a good bombing run. If all the BSs and BCs in fleet hit their MJD they would scatter in all directions. If a bombing fleet is able to cover a 200km battle field, then they deserve any the kill they manage to get.
I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap. |
MsArj
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:47:00 -
[437] - Quote
Destroying COVOPS is just plain sad, its the "game environment" i really enjoy and sadly form the looks of it, because bombers who are bombing is a threath they nerf the whole COVOPS idea to hell.
Do something about the bombs, even make bombers unflyable, give em a new "torp" role, do something else than nerfing the crap out of COVOPS in general.. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:54:00 -
[438] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote: I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap.
I still don't see your point. Is your issue with having to move? Is it the MJD that you have an issue with? +1 |
Zumbul Cvetkov
Your Loss Dead Terrorists
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:00:00 -
[439] - Quote
Good Lord...
Nerf SB cause CFC loses to them are too immense.. what is next? Buffing Megathrons and Celestis cause CFC flies them?
Nice work killing bombing runs. Instead of nerfing cloaking we get a BomberDrakenerf here.. Go on, make more ships useless.
Iam looking forward to quit anyway when Elite: Dangerous comes out... but its sad what can 1 person do to a game. I was thinking to coming back later to EVE.. but maybe there will be no Eve later anymore :(
To end my rant i will quote this:
"WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID IS ONE OF THE MOST INSANELY, IDIOTIC THINGS I HAVE EVER HEARD. AT NO POINT IN YOUR RAMBLING, INCOHERENT, RESPONSE, WERE YOU EVEN CLOSE TO ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED A RATIONAL THOUGHT. EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS NOW DUMBER FOR HAVING LISTENED TO IT. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL." |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
167
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:11:00 -
[440] - Quote
Making bombers less agile with bigger sig makes them pretty much crap for small gang torp ops.
It's really sad that a situation in null with bombers is driven by a single out-of-game factor, ISBotter, and instead of focusing on that factor, ship balance is altered in a way that has wide-reaching negative effects outside sov blobs. Ironically this change favours ISBotter bombing fleets even more over normal fleets.
ISBotter is a cancer slowly gnawing at this game, and this ill-thought nerf is the most obnoxius example of CCP favouring subscription money at any cost over a functional and balanced virtual world.
Surely attracting new real human subscribers is better for long term MMO health than buffing 3rd party solutions that encourage massive armies of alts.
And to ISDs, this thread is about ISBotting and nothing else, bombing was not an issue before ISBotting become so widespread. |
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:14:00 -
[441] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote: I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap.
I still don't see your point. Is your issue with having to move? Is it the MJD that you have an issue with? Do you deny that the MJD would allow you to escape the initial bombing run? or do you think that there should be no counter to a blob other than another blob?
I have no issue with any of those, Im not sure what you're trying to do here.
What I said is that if MJD fleets come back, bombers still have their usage in denying the tactical usage of MJD by forcing them to be used early. Just because we have both MJD's and bombers neither of them are still nullified as a tactical tool and this change to bombers only causes some inconvenience to bomber squads. |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:32:00 -
[442] - Quote
people but these ISBOX how many kill have done?
because we did 35k kill in our corp only and we doin often bomber bars. The isbox is a cancer doing thousand of kills every month or we are talking of 2-3 wing wipe a month? for what i know we never seen in south of new eden isboxer bomber wing, maybe in the north they running? they did so much damage to need to destroy entire corp\bomber wing?
i dont think the cure for a small problem is making 100-200-500 real people totally sad for destroy his gameplay...
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:32:00 -
[443] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote: I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap.
I still don't see your point. Is your issue with having to move? Is it the MJD that you have an issue with? Do you deny that the MJD would allow you to escape the initial bombing run? or do you think that there should be no counter to a blob other than another blob? I have no issue with any of those, Im not sure what you're trying to do here. What I said is that if MJD fleets come back, bombers still have their usage in denying the tactical usage of MJD by forcing them to be used early. Just because we have both MJD's and bombers neither of them are still nullified as a tactical tool and this change to bombers only causes some inconvenience to bomber squads.
So basically you don't have a valid point to make then. The problem isn't "bomber force me to run away and regroup " it's that it's too easy to set up a devastating bombing run that wipes out an entire fleet, and with that i agree.
I'll spell it out for you incase you missd my I want. I'm trying to get CCP to come up with a better way to address the prevalence of ISboxer bombing fleets that won't severely harm all forms of cloaky combat.
The fact is there are currently several counters to bombers (MJD is just one) and with the nerfs coming to bomber after this patch, those counters will be even more effective. If your FC is too lazy to implement these counters or "doesn't allow you to face in differing directions for a MJD escape", why should everyone else suffer?! (that's rhetorical) +1 |
Kion Oriki
LAWN Moons
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:46:00 -
[444] - Quote
CCP 'nerfs' the most over used and over powered ship in the game with small tweeks to drone tracking, and then does a backwards over zealous nerf to make a ship used in a small niche useless in most cases apart from with ISboxer.
GG CCP |
Archetype 66
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:07:00 -
[445] - Quote
Fozzie,
Is not it time to give a value to Defender Missile ? Anti-bomb Light Defender missile would be fun + Capital Anti-Bomb Defender missiles would be a fun obverse to those new AoE bombs.
Keep up the good work. |
Fonda Dicks
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:13:00 -
[446] - Quote
-1
Do you guys just do quick fire suggestions at a team meeting and pick the first ones. Really off putting for your players when it seems you don't put any thought into your changes. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
814
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:13:00 -
[447] - Quote
I realise posting so much criticism in this thread without offering constructive feedback on what I think the issues are / proposed solutions is pretty hypocritical so I'm going to attempt to remedy that with this (hopefully) constructive feedback post. So here goes, these are what I feel like the main unaddressed issues are with bombing atm, in order of importance.
============================
ISSUE: Bombers warping fleet-doctrine meta. Far too strong against destroyer/frigate sized hulls and shield doctrines which leads to a prevailance of low sig, huge tank armor doctrines and the complete disappearance of any frigate/destroyer doctrine that cannot tank 2+ waves of bombs.
EXPLANATION: Bombs are one of the few weapons that only look at one aspect of a ships mitigation through evasion: signature. Most other weapons that can be mitigated by evasion are mitigated by both signature and speed. Armor doctrines only penalize speed, shield doctrines only penalize signature, thus armor becomes the only viable choice in a meta where bombs are used at any reasonable level. Similarly most frigate/destroyer doctrines main defense is speed, which is completely negated by bombs.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Make bombs care about both aspects of evasive mitigation. Add an explosion velocity to bombs, akin to missiles, so that shield and armor can both mitigate effectively and so that small ships relying on speed don't get obliterated. After this change mitigation for every moving ship would increase, but for shield doctrines far more than armor, and smaller class doctrines more than large. Also consider adding armor honeycombing for shield signature.
============================
ISSUE: Bombers are able to near-immediately bomb a fleet landing on grid by, making it very hard to fly doctrines that rely on light tank and sniping to stay on field.
EXPLANATION: Combat probing fleets landing on a grid and warping your bombing squad over to them is too easy. A bombing bomber can even comfortably fit an expanded launcher, meaning you don't even have to work in order to have easy access to combat probes. [common bombing fc fit for reference: https://zkillboard.com/kill/40443783/ cynos offline]
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Make bombers unable to fit expanded launchers without large sacrifices (perhaps a cpu reduction + a torp cpu usage role bonus?). Make bombers warp much slower (1.5 AU/s). Make combat probing harder. Perhaps remove the ability to warp your fleet to a result, and require the prober to warp there first. Perhaps make it so the warp to range is not reliable. Perhaps increase the time it takes to combat probe. Don't know how to achieve this without affecting other areas of the game too much, but I think combat probing is too strong in most areas anyway.
============================
ISSUE: Syncronized bombing by one person with multiple clients, ignoring fleet formup time/effort.
EXPLANATION: Bomb wave comes out at the same time (much less reaction time for targets, in a normal wave the bombs will always be slightly staggered even with a countdown). "FC" can always know where the entire bombing squad is at all times without any communication required, greatly reducing the time between runs.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION: I don't have a viable solution to this, assuming no direct counter-synchronisation options are used [i.e. arming code on each bomb]. Banning ISBoxer from being used in conjunction with bomb runs is something most players would accept, but I understand why CCP do not wish to pursue that avenue. All I can say to this is for CCP to please reconsider their stance.
============================
ISSUE: Some bombers more valuable than others.
EXPLANATION: PG on Manticore / Nemesis absurdly low compared to Purifier, Nemesis also lacks CPU for no real upside. Slot layout on Hound/Purifier much better for bombing. Damage bonus means combined with the way bombs work means you only really want one type of bomber in a fleet, restrictive for new players.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Bump Manticore / Nemesis PG to 40. Purifier down to 42. Change bomb damage bonus on hull from racial to universal damage so people aren't punished for not having the right bomber - still restrictive enough due to limited cargo space plus being unable to reload cloaked. Consider moving purifier to 5/2/4 and Nemesis to 5/3/3.
============================
I really don't want to see non-isboxed bombers become obsolete but I that is how the changes in Pheobe are currently poised. Instead of attempting to make bombers harder to use and more finicky while remaining disproportionately effective versus shield/armor/frigate doctrines, my solutions would diminish their impact on the meta allowing new doctrines to evolve, while allowing their relevance versus current doctrines to remain in a slightly weaker state. Bombers certainly don't need the HP tweaks. The align time nerfs I agree with, the bomb flight time nerfs are fine too - however these two nerfs don't affect what bombers are good against and what they warp the meta towards, all they do is affect bombers power level. While bomber power level is an issue, it is not the main problem with bombers and I hope I have proven that with this post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
mannyman
Catastrophic Operations The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:16:00 -
[448] - Quote
Can you also please have a 1h timer on the indefinetely cloak ?
CCP has restrictions towards bots, but why is the cloak indefinetely ? Its OK to camp, but not from DT to DT with window minimized and not even looking at the game screen.
1h recycle for cloak will sort this out. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
611
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:30:00 -
[449] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Thanks for not dealing with the real issue here which is ISBox bombing, but making real player coordinated bomber fleets more of a pain to coordinate.
This only emphasizes the need for automated, single player run bombing fleets. Expecting CCP to make reasonable decisions based on logic
mannyman wrote:Can you also please have a 1h timer on the indefinetely cloak ?
CCP has restrictions towards bots, but why is the cloak indefinetely ? Its OK to camp, but not from DT to DT with window minimized and not even looking at the game screen.
1h recycle for cloak will sort this out. Implying cloaky camping will even do anything when the black ops get nerfed. You won't be able to drop a thing most of the time because its either too far or because your timers are still up.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
153
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:33:00 -
[450] - Quote
Capqu wrote:ISSUE: Bombers are able to near-immediately bomb a fleet landing on grid by, making it very hard to fly doctrines that rely on light tank and sniping to stay on field. EXPLANATION: Combat probing fleets landing on a grid and warping your bombing squad over to them is too easy. A bombing bomber can even comfortably fit an expanded launcher, meaning you don't even have to work in order to have easy access to combat probes. [common bombing fc fit for reference: https://zkillboard.com/kill/40443783/ cynos offline] POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Make bombers unable to fit expanded launchers without large sacrifices (perhaps a cpu reduction + a torp cpu usage role bonus?). Make bombers warp much slower (1.5 AU/s). Make combat probing harder. Perhaps remove the ability to warp your fleet to a result, and require the prober to warp there first. Perhaps make it so the warp to range is not reliable. Perhaps increase the time it takes to combat probe. Don't know how to achieve this without affecting other areas of the game too much, but I think combat probing is too strong in most areas anyway. How about making combat probes unable to get results on targets that are in a warp tunnel? Also make it so that the target has to be in range of the probes for the entire duration of the scan to get a result, instead of just being in range for the instant the scan is over. Would at least give people in slow-warping ships a little more time to breathe before someone combat probes them and warps on top of them. |
|
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:42:00 -
[451] - Quote
Burneddi wrote:How about making combat probes unable to get results on targets that are in a warp tunnel? Also make it so that the target has to be in range of the probes for the entire duration of the scan to get a result, instead of just being in range for the instant the scan ends. Would at least give people in slow-warping ships a little more time to breathe before someone combat probes them and warps on top of them. Can you imagine the additional server load? |
mannyman
Catastrophic Operations The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:45:00 -
[452] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote: You won't be able to drop a thing most of the time because its either too far or because your timers are still up.
True, but eve is supposed to be how to say it, feeling of exploration right ? When you go out there, and a dude logs in aft DT, sits at SS cloaked just to fuckup the owners day from DT to DT just because its the third alt on the second account since he doesnt use the main toon on that account for that amount of time is not exactly the feeling of unexplored space should be.
Its not like its unexplored anymore, but being able to DT-DT cloak minimized not active screen isnt the type of gameplay we want. Better to log off in that case. hence the 1h timer.
I dont complain about the cloaky camper, by all means, cloak and camp and scout. but that toon and player should atleast be an active one, not a minimized 23h one. |
NekoGeko
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:46:00 -
[453] - Quote
12sec bomb flight time means you can ultra-safely MJD your Battleship fleet away with no losses at all.
To think about it 1) Bombers will be useless against MJD Battleship fleets 2) Useless vs armor tanked cruisers fleets 3) Useless vs fleets with SmartBomb BattleShips that will protect vs bombs
There is just too much ways of dealing with SB.
But the most crucial nerf comes from 2km decloacking - which makes warping out to bombing positions very hard.
Complicated bombing + useless against some fleets = death of SB bombing wings. |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
817
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:46:00 -
[454] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Burneddi wrote:How about making combat probes unable to get results on targets that are in a warp tunnel? Also make it so that the target has to be in range of the probes for the entire duration of the scan to get a result, instead of just being in range for the instant the scan ends. Would at least give people in slow-warping ships a little more time to breathe before someone combat probes them and warps on top of them. Can you imagine the additional server load?
its a good idea tbh, and it wouldnt require much more server load. a little over 2x as much as currently - a scan at the start, then a scan at the end, and any results that have moved by 100km~ or more aren't warpable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
153
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:49:00 -
[455] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Burneddi wrote:How about making combat probes unable to get results on targets that are in a warp tunnel? Also make it so that the target has to be in range of the probes for the entire duration of the scan to get a result, instead of just being in range for the instant the scan ends. Would at least give people in slow-warping ships a little more time to breathe before someone combat probes them and warps on top of them. Can you imagine the additional server load? The effects of probing on server load are probably fairly negligible, and this wouldn't really change that. At its simplest, it could be implemented with two new checks: 1) Check if the target is in range when probe scan is initiated (in addition to being in range when the scan finishes) 2) Check that the target is not in warp |
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:53:00 -
[456] - Quote
Yeah, the two server checks make sense. |
zar dada
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
28
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 10:57:00 -
[457] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...
Cloaked ships will once again de-cloak each other if they come within 2km. ...
Cloaked Ships De-cloaking Each Other: The change that allowed cloaked ships to pass through each other without de-cloaking 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 game-play of attempting to de-cloak other players with your own cloaked ship. We know that some players are going to be unhappy with the way this makes their game-play more challenging, but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after. ...
Wormholers, make sure when the 2nd scout getting eyes on the enemy POS doesn't warp to 0 anymore. Both of you will de-cloak and perhaps die to the POS. The same thing goes for warping to a wormhole from the same direction i.e. the entry wormhole. We'll have to stagger our warps so the guy in front can move out of the way without de-cloaking anyone else. I guess they did this before 2012, but I wasn't in wormholes then.
Also we can't fleet warp a cloaky fleet without de-cloaking each other
RIP stealth in wormholes
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
368
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:05:00 -
[458] - Quote
Querns wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Querns wrote:
All ships have a radius attribute. A bomb just has to hit inside this radius to hit the ship. This gives you a decent amount of leeway when dumb-firing a one meter radius bomb. E.g.: a naglfar has a radius of 1700 m. It'll still require a degree of finesse, but not nearly as much as you're thinking it will.
I still think it is too complicated. A bomb is supposed to be AoE, its its not AoE, might as well use a special torpedo with a long cooldown. Why introduce this needless complexity of having to aim a non-AoE weapon manually...? Actually, I think the point of this bomb is to also reclassify bombs not as AOE weapons specifically, but as dumb-fire weapons that require you to aim. The fact that most of these dumb-fire weapons also do AOE damage is not implicative of the role, in general. I'd like to see more non-AOE dumb-fire weapons, in general -- I think they reward skill in a way that a lot of things in Eve currently lack.
I'd still really like to see a siege ship that can fire multiple bombs at once, battleship class. 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
|
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:05:00 -
[459] - Quote
zar dada wrote:RIP stealth in wormholes RIP cloaky fleets in general.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:11:00 -
[460] - Quote
mannyman wrote:Arya Regnar wrote: You won't be able to drop a thing most of the time because its either too far or because your timers are still up.
True, but eve is supposed to be how to say it, feeling of exploration right ? When you go out there, and a dude logs in aft DT, sits at SS cloaked just to fuckup the owners day from DT to DT just because its the third alt on the second account since he doesnt use the main toon on that account for that amount of time is not exactly the feeling of unexplored space should be. Its not like its unexplored anymore, but being able to DT-DT cloak minimized not active screen isnt the type of gameplay we want. Better to log off in that case. hence the 1h timer. I dont complain about the cloaky camper, by all means, cloak and camp and scout. but that toon and player should atleast be an active one, not a minimized 23h one.
if he's afk he can't hurt you if he's not then he's not afk cloaking |
|
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
307
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:13:00 -
[461] - Quote
Normally you dont play baseball in the winter, but you guys are swinging that nerf bat like its the MLB. Can we just solve the core issues here rather than putting another nerf on Deck? If you don't keep up to date on the upcoming changes, you may as well be living under a Rokh. I would even Venture to say that was a good pun on my part. Stay beautiful o7. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
555
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:18:00 -
[462] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:This is probably one of the first times in recent memory where I just could not see why a change was made to the game.
...
Seraph IX Basarab for CSM. Seriously. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
359
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:20:00 -
[463] - Quote
Archetype 66 wrote:Fozzie,
Is not it time to give a value to Defender Missile ? Anti-bomb Light Defender missile would be fun + Capital Anti-Bomb Defender missiles would be a fun obverse to those new AoE bombs.
Keep up the good work.
Edit : already proposed on thread.
The defender missile did have a value once upon a time before CCP Tuxford and CCP Xhagen were in the Band of Brother's ship rebalancing team and gave every missile a turret tracking attribute that does make any sense.
Anyhow, even back in the day when no missile have a turret tracking thingy on them and was a boolean hit or no hit thing they were not disbanding goonswarm, did not rule EVE and the big fleet fights were fought with...
Rail-Megathrons and Tachyon-Laser Apocs.
Wow, now that is a revelation of some magnitude, isn't it?
How could the powerblocks of the old not have taken that all-powerfull advantage for their own sake and only fly Ravens all day long?
Imagine that!
Missiles did have 100% or 0% application and were not used in large scale pvp.
Shocking, but the truth.
Now why is that?
Because you can (nope not could you still can but there is no reason to use them anyway) shoot them down with defender missiles, torpedos and citadel torpedos take two defender missiles to shoot down.
Or you can make them explode with smart-(I hate that word for an energy pulse weapon)bombs. Also very shocking relevation for some of you. signature |
elitatwo
Congregatio
359
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:29:00 -
[464] - Quote
NekoGeko wrote:12sec bomb flight time means you can ultra-safely MJD your Battleship fleet away with no losses at all.
To think about it 1) Bombers will be useless against MJD Battleship fleets 2) Useless vs armor tanked cruisers fleets 3) Useless vs fleets with SmartBomb BattleShips that will protect vs bombs
There is just too much ways of dealing with SB.
But the most crucial nerf comes from 2km decloacking - which makes warping out to bombing positions very hard.
Complicated bombing + useless against some fleets = death of SB bombing wings.
Sometimes I think that tactics like baiting are totally overrated.
So if baiting a battleship fleet with two bombers to microjump and knowing that they cannot do that again for two minutes and hiding the bulk of your cloaked fleet to get the new position and trap them there is too much, I can see that.
But let's not talk tactics.
Oh and mining drones are madness!! Nerf mining drones now!! signature |
Jezza McWaffle
Pandora Sphere Disavowed.
152
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:47:00 -
[465] - Quote
I think the anti capital void bomb needs to be seriously looked at and in its current form it will be broken beyond belief. I live in a Wormhole so most of my thinking regarding this change will be in the eye of a wormhole capital pilot. My main issue is the amount of cap that will be neut'd by them and the lack of defence options available without fielding smartbomb fleets.
A CCC rigged Archon has 81K GJ of capacitor before Mindflood, with mindflood it has 97K. If one bomb removes 15K cap then (81/15=5.4) 5 bombs will pretty much nail the capacitor of a an Archon, thats 6 bombs with mindflood. A T1 Semiconductor fit Moros has 99K GJ of cap, with mindflood thats 120K GJ Therefore it will take between 6 & 8 bombs to completely dry a Moros
In a C6 Red Giant with a bonus to 100% of bomb damage which also translates into 100% increase in cap neut'd then it only requires 3 bombs to nail an Archon and 4 bombs for a Moros. Thats ridiculous, given you can only field 3 capitals into an opposing wormhole and they aren't cheap at that. I don't see why only a handful of bombers which can easily be used on alts can have such a massive effect on what is a very 'high end' ship.
On a side note maybe you have found a reason to buff the Capacitor Battery? Making ships more resilient to these capital neut bombs might be a good idea.
Still though this will definitely cause alot of friction in Wormhole combat as far as capitals are concerned. C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/ |
Techno Model
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 12:11:00 -
[466] - Quote
Stay the course Fozzie, do not let these lightweights from a single alliance sway you with their tear laden posts. Stay strong CCP and buff those bombers into awesomeness.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 12:18:00 -
[467] - Quote
EDIT |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13653
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:01:00 -
[468] - Quote
Zumbul Cvetkov wrote:Good Lord...
Nerf SB cause CFC loses to them are too immense.. what is next?
We use bomber fleets in near every fight, this impacts us too. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Seiko Hikitari
Promethean Society
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:07:00 -
[469] - Quote
Posting in agreement of ammzi / capqu / wheniaminspace / seraph IX I wish I could add something to the discussion but I feel like they've nailed it through and through already.
I would have been satisfied had you just fixed the nemesis cpu/agility and added bomb launch codes like was suggested on reddit and in this thread several times (delaying bomber rebalance to next release is fine). |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
555
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:20:00 -
[470] - Quote
Techno Model wrote:Stay the course Fozzie, do not let these lightweights from a single alliance sway you with their tear laden posts. Stay strong CCP and buff those bombers into awesomeness.
I'm guessing you don't fly bombers in Empire? The nerf to mobility seriously impacts their ability to fly with roaming frigate gangs without gimping said gang's most important asset: mobility. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
|
AOSA
Atreidun Order
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:21:00 -
[471] - Quote
I am in favor of all of these changes, BUT I'd like to see a change to the overview and in space that permits fleet members to see the position of cloaked ships in space. From a game play stand point it would be nearly impossible with the cloak changes to cordinate a cloaked fleet with out at least seeing each others proximity on grid.
AOSA |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:24:00 -
[472] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Techno Model wrote:Stay the course Fozzie, do not let these lightweights from a single alliance sway you with their tear laden posts. Stay strong CCP and buff those bombers into awesomeness.
I'm guessing you don't fly bombers in Empire? The nerf to mobility seriously impacts their ability to fly with roaming frigate gangs without gimping said gang's most important asset: mobility.
Fozzie is out to solidify the blue doughnut. Hmm, wonder why? |
Yankunytjatjara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
107
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:29:00 -
[473] - Quote
Would you consider reducing bomb volume with the reduction in bomb hp? My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
Dyexz
Comrades in Construction
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:31:00 -
[474] - Quote
Burneddi wrote:Where's the ISBoxer ban announcement Fozzie
Since ISBoxer is not violating anything in the EULA a ban of it will never happen, unless CCP changes the EULA |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:33:00 -
[475] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Making bombers less agile with bigger sig makes them pretty much crap for small gang torp ops.
It's really sad that a situation in null with bombers is driven by a single out-of-game factor, ISBotter, and instead of focusing on that factor, ship balance is altered in a way that has wide-reaching negative effects outside sov blobs. Ironically this change favours ISBotter bombing fleets even more over normal fleets.
Null tears run the game. Blue doughnut is here to stay. Plan accordingly. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:18:00 -
[476] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 4000 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.
So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
555
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:37:00 -
[477] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 4000 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.
So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u. Well, that would certainly make structure grinds and POS shoots rather...interesting.... CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:43:00 -
[478] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:[quote=PotatoOverdose] Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 4000 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.
Only problem i see with these is that they wouldn't be able to hit each other so you could launch as many as you had bombers so 15 or so bombers could 1 shot a carrier.
how ever i would love to see more of these types of bombs but that do support type damage (like the neut) at least until a counter other then smart bombs can be found.
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2357
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:48:00 -
[479] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m
progodlegend wrote:
The CSM is doing our job, most of these changes were ideas that came directly from the CSM. In reinstatement of the "cloaked ships decloak each other" mechanic is a direct result from last year's winter summit conversation on fleet warfare balance.
Actually, half of these changes were listed in the minutes of last years winter summits I'm pretty sure. If not listed they were at least summarized or hinted at.
Bros, you're missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, bombers are a problem. Or rather, perfectly synchronized, perfectly coordinated bombers are a problem. A little over a year ago I was in Curse during the thunderdome. I never saw a roaming PL fleet without an isboxed bombing fleet in tow. Most anyone in the CFC that's fought against pasta is probably quite familiar with Ammzi and Space. Many that fought against the cfc know Oodell.
Look at all of the major fleet fights which got bombed over the past year. How many of them didn't involve isboxer? Maybe one or two. How many involved isboxed bombers? Almost all of them.
The primary difficulty associated with bombers is organizational. Isboxer bypasses this difficulty. Re-balancing bombers, and ignoring isboxer, is the equivalent of doing this. And that's what most people on the first ten pages of this thread, on the reddit thread, on failheap, TMC, or EN24 are telling you. And you aren't representing that.
These changes hurt normal bomber groups (which are a dying breed quite frankly) far more than they effect isboxer. Ammzi and Space have explained that in detail in this thread and the reddit thread. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2357
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:56:00 -
[480] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 200 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.
So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u. Fixed it back. The point was a dumbfire missile. Honestly, if any moving subcap actually collides with a bomb, it deserves to take a shitload of damage. |
|
Metal Icarus
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
706
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:00:00 -
[481] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m progodlegend wrote:
The CSM is doing our job, most of these changes were ideas that came directly from the CSM. In reinstatement of the "cloaked ships decloak each other" mechanic is a direct result from last year's winter summit conversation on fleet warfare balance.
Actually, half of these changes were listed in the minutes of last years winter summits I'm pretty sure. If not listed they were at least summarized or hinted at.
Bros, you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, bombers are a problem. Or rather, perfectly synchronized, perfectly coordinated bombers are a problem. A little over a year ago I was in Curse during the thunderdome. I never saw a roaming PL fleet without an isboxed bombing fleet in tow. Most anyone in the CFC that's fought against pasta is probably quite familiar with Ammzi and Space. Many that fought against the cfc know Oodell. Look at all of the major fleet fights which got bombed over the past year. How many of them didn't involve isboxer? Maybe one or two. How many involved isboxed bombers? Almost all of them.The primary difficulty associated with bombers is organizational. Isboxer bypasses this difficulty. Re-balancing bombers, and ignoring isboxer, is the equivalent of doing this. And that's what most people on the first ten pages of this thread, on the reddit thread, on failheap, TMC, or EN24 are telling you. And you aren't representing that.These changes hurt normal bomber groups (which are a dying breed quite frankly) far more than they effect isboxer. Ammzi and Space have explained that in detail in this thread and the reddit thread.
Confirming that I too once had a SFI that was bombed by Oodell in Curse....
Does ISBoxing bomber fleets have to be considered a special case? Should there be SPECIFIC action against it? Do they even have to touch bombers if they just took action against ISBoxing bomber fleets?
Otherwise how should they adjust mechanics to counter this? Adding in something like "arming bombs with a code" seems weird, buf if it prevents automation of bombing runs, I could get behind it.
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2357
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:09:00 -
[482] - Quote
Metal Icarus wrote: Confirming that I too once had a SFI that was bombed by Oodell in Curse....
Does ISBoxing bomber fleets have to be considered a special case? Should there be SPECIFIC action against it? Do they even have to touch bombers if they just took action against ISBoxing bomber fleets?
Otherwise how should they adjust mechanics to counter this? Adding in something like "arming bombs with a code" seems weird, buf if it prevents automation of bombing runs, I could get behind it.
The thing with isboxed bombers is that, at least in nullsec, there are many more successful isboxing bombing runs happening every week then there are non-isboxed bombing fleets happening every month. PGL and and Mike posted about the problems of bombed fleets, how an FC can't take his fleet anywhere without getting bombed. That problem is inescapably intertwined with isboxer. Ignoring that is myopic.
It's a sad state of affairs, but isboxers are now the primary use case of bombers. |
MetalJacke1 McKenzie
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc. Almost Awesome.
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:12:00 -
[483] - Quote
Take away agility and warp speed. We're still talking about frigates right? |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
821
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:12:00 -
[484] - Quote
the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
how is that not absolute insanity to anyone else that these suggestions came "directly from the CSM" when the only exposure that the csm has to bombers with cloaks is getting put into the dumpster by them
of course those people are going to have skewed opinions. of course you can say the same about the people who actively use bombs, and thats why you should listen to both sides. you definitely should not listen exclusively to the side proposing bombers de-cloaking each other again when that side is well known for flying bombers without cloaks, regardless of their position as CSM delegates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1872
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:30:00 -
[485] - Quote
Capqu wrote:the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
how is that not absolute insanity to anyone else that these suggestions came "directly from the CSM" when the only exposure that the csm has to bombers with cloaks is getting put into the dumpster by them
of course those people are going to have skewed opinions. of course you can say the same about the people who actively use bombs, and thats why you should listen to both sides. you definitely should not listen exclusively to the side proposing bombers de-cloaking each other again when that side is well known for flying bombers without cloaks, regardless of their position as CSM delegates.
Lobbying at its finest. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
360
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:30:00 -
[486] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: -snip- Fixed it back. The point was a dumbfire missile. Honestly, if any moving subcap actually collides with a bomb, it deserves to take a shitload of damage.
Potato thank you,
you just gave me an idea about bombs in general!
Collision charges!
They effect only one target like those neut-bombs but only on impact. So girls and boys make sure you aim those things right or there is no explosion to watch signature |
wheniaminspuce
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:32:00 -
[487] - Quote
wheniaminspoce wrote:It would not be out of the ordinary or difficult for CCP to ban a specific activity (such as ISBoxing bombs) within their game. There is plenty of gray area in CCP's policies, and ultimately a lot of things are decided based on how that particular GM feels on the day he opens your ticket. Rumors abound that people soloed by ISBoxers are being quietly reimbursed, which is CCP playing both sides of the fence basically; having their cake and eating it.
Some examples of murky policies within Eve where nobody really understands where the line is drawn:
*Real life harassment *Account sharing *Bumping things out of shields *Spamming deployables *Accidentally dropping some RAM into a tractor unit *ISBoxer PvP
World of Warcraft banned multiboxing in PvP; why is CCP so reluctant to take a stance on this? Why are they willing to punish an entire class of ships for the activities of a handful of people that they could easily stop? I have my suspicions but I would prefer to believe this is a case of ignorance rather than willful profiteering at the cost of gameplay and balance.
I agree completely. CCP loves to have a lot of wiggle room in their policies and leaving everything up to their discretion without explicitly stating what that is. Here is a perfect opportunity for them to exercise that discretion instead of damaging their game and they are ignoring the issue entirely. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
555
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:34:00 -
[488] - Quote
wheniaminspuce wrote:wheniaminspoce wrote:It would not be out of the ordinary or difficult for CCP to ban a specific activity (such as ISBoxing bombs) within their game. There is plenty of gray area in CCP's policies, and ultimately a lot of things are decided based on how that particular GM feels on the day he opens your ticket. Rumors abound that people soloed by ISBoxers are being quietly reimbursed, which is CCP playing both sides of the fence basically; having their cake and eating it.
Some examples of murky policies within Eve where nobody really understands where the line is drawn:
*Real life harassment *Account sharing *Bumping things out of shields *Spamming deployables *Accidentally dropping some RAM into a tractor unit *ISBoxer PvP
World of Warcraft banned multiboxing in PvP; why is CCP so reluctant to take a stance on this? Why are they willing to punish an entire class of ships for the activities of a handful of people that they could easily stop? I have my suspicions but I would prefer to believe this is a case of ignorance rather than willful profiteering at the cost of gameplay and balance. I agree completely. CCP loves to have a lot of wiggle room in their policies and leaving everything up to their discretion without explicitly stating what that is. Here is a perfect opportunity for them to exercise that discretion instead of damaging their game and they are ignoring the issue entirely in favor of poorly designed band-aids and reintroducing bugs as features. Nice to see you agreeing with yourself? CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:37:00 -
[489] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: -snip- Fixed it back. The point was a dumbfire missile. Honestly, if any moving subcap actually collides with a bomb, it deserves to take a shitload of damage. Potato thank you, you just gave me an idea about bombs in general! Collision charges! They effect only one target like those neut-bombs but only on impact. So girls and boys make sure you aim those things right or there is no explosion to watch but there would need to be a minimum range or you would just have bombers warping right on top of ships for a guaranteed hit. |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
330
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:00:00 -
[490] - Quote
Capqu wrote:the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
how is that not absolute insanity to anyone else that these suggestions came "directly from the CSM" when the only exposure that the csm has to bombers with cloaks is getting put into the dumpster by them
of course those people are going to have skewed opinions. of course you can say the same about the people who actively use bombs, and thats why you should listen to both sides. you definitely should not listen exclusively to the side proposing bombers de-cloaking each other again when that side is well known for flying bombers without cloaks, regardless of their position as CSM delegates.
You need to 'all' quit blowing up the carebear null tears ships. There can be no ships blown up in null.
Game fixt. |
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:00:00 -
[491] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:[
Look at all of the major fleet fights which got bombed over the past year. How many of them didn't involve isboxer? Maybe one or two. How many involved isboxed bombers? Almost all of them.
i totally disagree. i know at least a couple of corp bombing oriented and they dunt use never isbox (cause they are all differente real people coordinating in ts3 ).
I never never seen isbox in south of new eden. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13655
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:05:00 -
[492] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Techno Model wrote:Stay the course Fozzie, do not let these lightweights from a single alliance sway you with their tear laden posts. Stay strong CCP and buff those bombers into awesomeness.
I'm guessing you don't fly bombers in Empire? The nerf to mobility seriously impacts their ability to fly with roaming frigate gangs without gimping said gang's most important asset: mobility.
If I can get a battleship to roam with frigates you can get a bomber to do it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2602
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:11:00 -
[493] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Nice to see you agreeing with yourself? CCP please ban ISBoxing posters! |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1517
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:22:00 -
[494] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Techno Model wrote:Stay the course Fozzie, do not let these lightweights from a single alliance sway you with their tear laden posts. Stay strong CCP and buff those bombers into awesomeness.
I'm guessing you don't fly bombers in Empire? The nerf to mobility seriously impacts their ability to fly with roaming frigate gangs without gimping said gang's most important asset: mobility. If I can get a battleship to roam with frigates you can get a bomber to do it. Now the question is, how is your new (assuming you got it) Moros going to keep up? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:31:00 -
[495] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Soldarius wrote:[quote=PotatoOverdose] Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:
Explosion Radius: 4000 Thermal Damage: 20,000 Flight Time: 15s Velocity: 2000m/s AoE Range: One Meter
So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now. Only problem i see with these is that they wouldn't be able to hit each other so you could launch as many as you had bombers so 15 or so bombers could 1 shot a carrier. how ever i would love to see more of these types of bombs but that do support type damage (like the neut) at least until a counter other then smart bombs can be found.
Wait wait wait. 1-shotting caps with bombers... I like this idea. How about this:
Makes the expRad and AoE (at least the expRad) changes to all damage bombs. Now bombs are anti-cap weapons and don't work well or at all vs subcaps. ENTIRE PROBLEM SOLVED, and now we have cool new anti-capital ship weapons.
EDIT: Adjust bomb application stats is what many of us have been saying for a while now.
Also, while we're at it, can we get the old torpedo AoE graphics applied to bombs? The AoE shockwave effect was really cool and well-suited to AoE weapons like bombs. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13656
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:31:00 -
[496] - Quote
Rowells wrote:baltec1 wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Techno Model wrote:Stay the course Fozzie, do not let these lightweights from a single alliance sway you with their tear laden posts. Stay strong CCP and buff those bombers into awesomeness.
I'm guessing you don't fly bombers in Empire? The nerf to mobility seriously impacts their ability to fly with roaming frigate gangs without gimping said gang's most important asset: mobility. If I can get a battleship to roam with frigates you can get a bomber to do it. Now the question is, how is your new (assuming you got it) Moros going to keep up?
It wont. Shes at best a cruiser gang ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
315
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:36:00 -
[497] - Quote
wheniaminspuce wrote:Here is a perfect opportunity for them to exercise that discretion instead of damaging their game and they are ignoring the issue entirely in favor of poorly designed band-aids and reintroducing bugs as features. Unfortunately I think CCP is pretty reliant on ISBoxer for subscriptions. Banning it would hurt their bottom line too much as the Replicators of the shard unsubscribe their dozens of alts. The game's addicted to it, and withdrawal will be a complete b****.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
491
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:47:00 -
[498] - Quote
Sbrodor wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:[
Look at all of the major fleet fights which got bombed over the past year. How many of them didn't involve isboxer? Maybe one or two. How many involved isboxed bombers? Almost all of them.
i totally disagree. i know at least a couple of corp bombing oriented and they dunt use never isbox (cause they are all differente real people coordinating in ts3 ). I never never seen isbox in south of new eden.
clearly you are totally f**king blind then. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
176
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:49:00 -
[499] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:wheniaminspuce wrote:Here is a perfect opportunity for them to exercise that discretion instead of damaging their game and they are ignoring the issue entirely in favor of poorly designed band-aids and reintroducing bugs as features. Unfortunately I think CCP is pretty reliant on ISBoxer for subscriptions. Banning it would hurt their bottom line too much as the Replicators of the shard unsubscribe their dozens of alts. The game's addicted to it, and withdrawal will be a complete b****.
I call BS. How many ISboxers do you think are paying for their subscriptions in cash vs how many PLEX via ISK? My guess is that a huge percentage if not all are doing it via PLEX/ISK meaning that they money for those accounts is coming from other people buying the item, not from their own cash wallets. It would not hurt CCP in the least to lose them and perhaps help from the ripple effect it might have on other players enjoyment in the areas where ISB impacts... |
Vel'drinn
Sol Research and Development Aurora Foundation
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:49:00 -
[500] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Unfortunately I think CCP is pretty reliant on ISBoxer for subscriptions. Banning it would hurt their bottom line too much as the Replicators of the shard unsubscribe their dozens of alts. The game's addicted to it, and withdrawal will be a complete b****.
Might as well make it a feature then and add it to all the power of 2 promos.
It is upsetting that the mention of ISBoxer is being dismissed as irrelevant. People seem to universally recognize that its bad for the game and especially PvP but the cash flow makes the rule.
Business integrity -1.
|
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
361
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 16:54:00 -
[501] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ... but there would need to be a minimum range or you would just have bombers warping right on top of ships for a guaranteed hit.
Hey Lugh,
that's why I left values out of this. Sometimes I get ideas when I read here and post them without thinking them through and sometimes it turns out it wasn't a good idea after all.
So if I have an idea that others think is a good one and agree we can talk numbers and restrictions. (if x do dat; else don't, hehe) signature |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1694
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:08:00 -
[502] - Quote
Capqu wrote:the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
couple of corrections
1) do you assume that all csm fly only on their mains? 2) Ali is female 3) When time and duties allow, I fly and keep in touch with the Bombers Bar. When this dev blog went out the first thing I did was go in channel with them and talk about the changes . . . with people it directly effected. I do NOT talk from a position of inexperience, I talk to the people who ARE experienced and try to represent them.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
330
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:17:00 -
[503] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Capqu wrote:the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
couple of corrections 1) do you assume that all csm fly only on their mains? 2) Ali is female 3) When time and duties allow, I fly and keep in touch with the Bombers Bar. When this dev blog went out the first thing I did was go in channel with them and talk about the changes . . . with people it directly effected. I do NOT talk from a position of inexperience, I talk to the people who ARE experienced and try to represent them. m
That says it all, meaning nothing. |
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:23:00 -
[504] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Let's talk Stealth Bombers!
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.
:content: alert!
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
438
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:24:00 -
[505] - Quote
wheniaminspoce wrote: *Accidentally dropping some RAM into a tractor unit
I'm here just to point out that the velocity which the hamburger left my mouth at when reading this caused permanent damage to the drywall. |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
132
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:31:00 -
[506] - Quote
I checked all your killboards one by one, killmail by killmail and as I thought a large part of you has no ******* idea how bombing worked prior to 2012 and didnt bomb intensively at all before and after.
You are just complaining to ruin CCP Fozzie weekend and that's not cool. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order) |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
160
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:32:00 -
[507] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:wheniaminspoce wrote: *Accidentally dropping some RAM into a tractor unit
I'm here just to point out that the velocity which the hamburger left my mouth at when reading this caused permanent damage to the drywall.
it could happen to anyone
don't act like you've never dropped anything only to see a tractor unit instantly grab it and pull it away from your grasp leaving you no recourse but to shoot it gay gamers for jesus |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
823
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:33:00 -
[508] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Capqu wrote:the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
couple of corrections 1) do you assume that all csm fly only on their mains? 2) Ali is female 3) When time and duties allow, I fly and keep in touch with the Bombers Bar. When this dev blog went out the first thing I did was go in channel with them and talk about the changes . . . with people it directly effected. I do NOT talk from a position of inexperience, I talk to the people who ARE experienced and try to represent them. m
1) yes. i feel like its reasonable for the most part to expect your main to reflect your play-style somewhat 2) not relevant 3) i appreciate that you did that, but after the devblog has come out is often too late, which i pretty much am resigned into believing this time around too. i am aware that is not your fault and not in your control. as for speaking from a position of inexperience, maybe you don't, but you are not the only csm and its not unheard of for people to push their own agendas at a detriment to the greater good.
basically im depressed and disappointed as hell because this isn't the first time ccp has ignored minority player base when they destroy some niche of the game. first they came for the rat ai changes, mission flipping etc. etc.
i don't want my corp to completely give up bombing as real people in a fleet. we rarely do it now because we have isboxers to do it instead and it just feels like wasting 8 peoples time doing something less effective than 1 person. even those people who do the isboxing and regularly slam dunk fleets with them are complaining. it's not fun, it's not balanced. i thought this rebalance would change that, perhaps naively but i honestly didnt think ccp cared so much about their bottom line over everything else.
i don't know why i'm even in this thread tbh its not like anything i say matters but then again nothing we do on this earth truely matters might as well try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
315
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:35:00 -
[509] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:I call BS. How many ISboxers do you think are paying for their subscriptions in cash vs how many PLEX via ISK? Makes absolutely no difference. People who pay via ISK make the PLEX->ISK exchange more attractive, and so increase real-world sales. Either way, CCP gets their money. If you didn't have ISBoxers buying PLEX off the in-game market, the price would crash (drastically, as PLEX would no longer be seen as a safe investment) and fewer people would want to plunk down $20 for 400 million ISK. |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
160
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:40:00 -
[510] - Quote
Capqu wrote: i don't know why i'm even in this thread tbh its not like anything i say matters but then again nothing we do on this earth truly matters might as well try
Capqu, let's see you grit those teeth
Listen up capqu, don't believe in yourself - believe in me. Believe in the Don who believes in you. He takes the hamfisted balance changes in his bare hands and endures the searing stupidity. A man's man sustained by strength of will. When you hear of the great Don, they're talking about me. Go beyond the bad metagame and kick bad reasoning to the kerb. That's how Love Squad rolls. Who the hell do you think I am? gay gamers for jesus |
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1694
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:41:00 -
[511] - Quote
Capqu wrote: 3) i appreciate that you did that, but after the devblog has come out is often too late, which i pretty much am resigned into believing this time around too. i am aware that is not your fault and not in your control. as for speaking from a position of inexperience, maybe you don't, but you are not the only csm and its not unheard of for people to push their own agendas at a detriment to the greater good.
basically im depressed and disappointed as heck because this isn't the first time ccp has ignored minority player base when they destroy some niche of the game. first they came for the rat ai changes, mission flipping etc. etc.
Well, the NDA kind of forbids me from asking folks ahead of dev blogs. Sometimes I try to find a way around it but most times I try to be fast on the response and see how well I can shift the position from the original. That is why you see me asking for input and top two things you would like chenged.
Sorry to hear about the depression but weren't you normal bomber folk depressed if all the bombing in your corp was being handed to the isbox guy? or did I misread that?
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2367
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:49:00 -
[512] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Capqu wrote:the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.
couple of corrections 1) do you assume that all csm fly only on their mains? 2) Ali is female 3) When time and duties allow, I fly and keep in touch with the Bombers Bar. When this dev blog went out the first thing I did was go in channel with them and talk about the changes . . . with people it directly effected. I do NOT talk from a position of inexperience, I talk to the people who ARE experienced and try to represent them. m How many fleets has bombers bar wiped with their bombing runs over the past month? And how many fleets have ammzi, space, oodell, or any of the numerous other well-known isboxing bombers killed?
The problem with these changes is that they don't have a pronounced effect on the most prolific source of bomb related issues. It's a question of throughput.
It just looks like your ignoring the salient issue (isboxer, and how it applies to bombers in particular) because it also touches on an issue (isboxer as a whole) that probably represents 2%-3% of CCP's revenue. Or maybe that is the salient issue... |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
823
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:49:00 -
[513] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Capqu wrote: 3) i appreciate that you did that, but after the devblog has come out is often too late, which i pretty much am resigned into believing this time around too. i am aware that is not your fault and not in your control. as for speaking from a position of inexperience, maybe you don't, but you are not the only csm and its not unheard of for people to push their own agendas at a detriment to the greater good.
basically im depressed and disappointed as heck because this isn't the first time ccp has ignored minority player base when they destroy some niche of the game. first they came for the rat ai changes, mission flipping etc. etc.
Well, the NDA kind of forbids me from asking folks ahead of dev blogs. Sometimes I try to find a way around it but most times I try to be fast on the response and see how well I can shift the position from the original. That is why you see me asking for input and top two things you would like chenged. Sorry to hear about the depression but weren't you normal bomber folk depressed if all the bombing in your corp was being handed to the isbox guy? or did I misread that? m
nah i understand about the nda, i'm not blaming you. main priority for change would be ANYTHING that makes bombs apply damage equally to shield/armor doctrines instead of a soley a power-level nerf, and secondary priority would be something to discourage isboxer
yea we hate it, that's life it's like knowing you're on a team with 7 of your bestest pals, but if you ditch all of them and just play by yourself instead you'll amount to more than you could ever achieve together. a couple of those pals i used to bomb with / fc bombers with decided to go down that route, and i can't blame them for it. the power of friendship doesn't work in video games, only anime. when you have 3/4 squads of isboxed bombers, there really isnt any point in adding more human bombers - the combination of diminishing returns and massively increased effort takes away any illusion of enjoyment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Lord Xyon
Team Hemi
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:51:00 -
[514] - Quote
My issue with this is the decloaking part. This is just plain stupid. I am ok with the rest of it. However, your already nerfed wormholes to where people are moving out. Now you take away pretty much most of our life and quite frankly I am getting pretty fed up with some of the stupid decisions. People in wormholes fly mainly cloaked.
Since Fozzie so so clueless as to how cloaking is used elsewhere.
PVP gang fleets in wormholes. Since you still won't put in temp bookmarks or fleet bookmarks or linkable bookmarks and bookmarks also take forever to go out to all toons in a corp. We hunt, we scout we find a targets. We have to fleet warp to 10 on a wormhole. Can't do that anymore we all decloak. You pretty much screw most Wspace travel. Using a covert ops ship as a scout, Warp to scout? Can't do that anymore decloak the covert ops.
Hunting and seeing traffic on a wormhole everyone cloaks up orbiting at 5k from the hole so we can jump in as soon as they do. Nope not anymore we will all decloak each other.
How about rolling holes. Well we already know you hate rolling holes after what you did to us in the last patch. We cloak waiting our timers, we don't warp off. Cloak and orbit the hole. We now will run into each other.
The cloak thing does nothing to an isboxer fleet it only harms everyone else. It harms PVP elsewhere and this stupid idea just generally pisses people off.
So by changing cloaking to somehow try to fix stealth bombers you affect the entire gameplay of: Recon Ships Strategic Cruisers Covert Ops Frigates Expedition Frigates Transport Ships Some Faction Cruisers Some Faction Frigates And then Stealth bombers
Then you also affect every single other ship that has a fit where they can put a cloaking device on. I have put them on dictors and even Battlecruisers before. Heck I have one fit on a Noctis for farming wormholes it floats in space safely cloaked until needed. Admittedly as safe spots which should still keep him safe but still. This is pretty stupid change.
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
439
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:52:00 -
[515] - Quote
El Space Mariachi wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:wheniaminspoce wrote: *Accidentally dropping some RAM into a tractor unit
I'm here just to point out that the velocity which the hamburger left my mouth at when reading this caused permanent damage to the drywall. it could happen to anyone don't act like you've never dropped anything only to see a tractor unit instantly grab it and pull it away from your grasp leaving you no recourse but to shoot it
Yes, but not multiple times in a row in the same system and same spot. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
176
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:56:00 -
[516] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Obil Que wrote:I call BS. How many ISboxers do you think are paying for their subscriptions in cash vs how many PLEX via ISK? Makes absolutely no difference. People who pay via ISK make the PLEX->ISK exchange more attractive, and so increase real-world sales. Either way, CCP gets their money. If you didn't have ISBoxers buying PLEX off the in-game market, the price would crash (drastically, as PLEX would no longer be seen as a safe investment) and fewer people would want to plunk down $20 for 400 million ISK.
People bought PLEX at 400 People buy PLEX at 800
So ISBoxer is single handedly responsible for the PLEX market price now? |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
31
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:17:00 -
[517] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:I checked all your killboards one by one, killmail by killmail and as I thought a large part of you has no ******* idea how bombing worked prior to 2012 and didnt bomb intensively at all before and after.
You are just complaining to ruin CCP Fozzie weekend and that's not cool.
http://oscurasimmetria.eve-kill.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=186748
http://kb.yulaifederation.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=7476
http://kb.yulaifederation.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_ext_id=98091868&view=ships_weapons over 16000 kills in purifier , over 5700 kills in manticore.
before 2012 u don't had the each-other damage of bombs so u can have clacking problem but u had only to manage a single volley.
ccp will introduce a tons of nerf much more than "before 2012". and i think they buffed the bomber to allow people to use them so was a problem and a solution. if they now want to lower use of bombers they have to put the bomber difficult level between "prior 2012" and "now".
with this feature we go in a new level of difficult much more than 2012.
in prior 2012 u dont had:
12 sec flight smart bomb defense higher signature antibomber bubbles lower agility. damage each other bombs.
this is the death. |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:20:00 -
[518] - Quote
When I was watching that announcement at fanfest, where Mr. Fozzi was talking all that crap about how he wanted to make SBs more fun to fly and improve them and whatnot, I already said thats code for rendering them useless due to nulltears. I stopped putting bomber and blackops related skills in, unsubbed covops/blackops alts, awaiting the nerfbat.. So, it's not like I didn't see the nerf coming.
I gotta say, the extent to which this happens now, still surprises me. The effiency of nerfing every single aspect that made them work is almost German. This isnt a rebalance. This is making sure bombers are utterly useless and ineffective in pvp, especially fleet operations. This is eleminating one of the last remaining ways of asymmetrical warfare and at the same time dealing a maximum of collateral on the game experience of totally unrelated players (eg me - never isboxing, to start with). Good job in once again rigging the dice in favor of the winning party. It's one thing to HTFU and adapt to changing rules. It's a completely different thing to adapt to rules that are changed on demand of the other team. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13656
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:22:00 -
[519] - Quote
Sbrodor wrote:Aram Kachaturian wrote:I checked all your killboards one by one, killmail by killmail and as I thought a large part of you has no ******* idea how bombing worked prior to 2012 and didnt bomb intensively at all before and after.
You are just complaining to ruin CCP Fozzie weekend and that's not cool. http://oscurasimmetria.eve-kill.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=186748http://kb.yulaifederation.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=7476before 2012 u don't had the each-other damage of bombs so u can have clacking problem but u had only to manage a single volley. ccp will introduce a tons of nerf much more than "before 2012". and i think they buffed the bomber to allow people to use them so was a problem and a solution. if they now want to lower use of bombers they have to put the bomber difficult level between "prior 2012" and "now". with this feature we go in a new level of difficult much more than 2012. in prior 2012 u dont had: 12 sec flight smart bomb defense higher signature antibomber bubbles lower agility. damage each other bombs. this is the death.
I'm from a time when bombers were paper thin, bombs were utterly useless and they launched cruise missiles. They are far from useless after these changes. The only problem here is the same problem that every ship has after it gets changed, people cant think for themselves. In less than a month people will swap to using new bomber fits and tactics that others who can and do adapt to change will come up with and all will be well again. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2492
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:24:00 -
[520] - Quote
Thread temporarily locked for some cleaning. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
170
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:58:00 -
[521] - Quote
at this rate of nerf incoming, we should finish 2015 (yes next year) with all ship like 1HP and only civilian modules? WTS BPO : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=307169 |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 19:06:00 -
[522] - Quote
Almethea wrote:at this rate of nerf incoming, we should finish 2015 (yes next year) with all ship like 1HP and only civilian modules?
well that's a bit harsh what this nurf looks like is they got together talked about it and some people had a few good ideas so they implemented them however they forgot that each idea was independent so when implemented together it went over kill |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
316
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 19:23:00 -
[523] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:People bought PLEX at 400 People buy PLEX at 800 So it's established that you are clueless about basic economics. Unfortunately, this isn't the place for the course, and I don't see you offering to pay for a tutor. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 20:06:00 -
[524] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Obil Que wrote:People bought PLEX at 400 People buy PLEX at 800 So it's established that you are clueless about basic economics. Unfortunately, this isn't the place for the course, and I don't see you offering to pay for a tutor.
You're the one claiming that touching ISB will crash the PLEX market
|
Alexis Nightwish
47
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 20:13:00 -
[525] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I'm from a time when bombers were paper thin, bombs were utterly useless and they launched cruise missiles. They are far from useless after these changes. The only problem here is the same problem that every ship has after it gets changed, people cant think for themselves. In less than a month people will swap to using new bomber fits and tactics that others who can and do adapt to change will come up with and all will be well again. Way less than a month. I already know what tactics will be used.
Also, this. Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
330
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 20:32:00 -
[526] - Quote
Lord Xyon wrote:
The cloak thing does nothing to an isboxer fleet it only harms everyone else. It harms PVP elsewhere and this stupid idea just generally pisses people off.
So by changing cloaking to somehow try to fix stealth bombers you affect the entire gameplay of: Recon Ships Strategic Cruisers Covert Ops Frigates Expedition Frigates Transport Ships Some Faction Cruisers Some Faction Frigates And then Stealth bombers
Someone in NULL tears up about losing a few ships. Fozzie to the rescue. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
390
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 20:53:00 -
[527] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: New 10km Dictor Bubbles:
Are these half the size (m3) of the others? |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
30
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 21:35:00 -
[528] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fozzie to the rescue. Actually, one of the CSM members said that most of these changes were proposed by the CSM members themselves.
While you guys are changing stealth bombers, can you switch the Purifier to use the Tormentor hull instead of the Inquisitor? It makes no sense as-is, since the others are based off of combat frigates (Kestrel>Manticore, Tristan>Nemesis, Breacher>Hound) while the Amarr bomber's based off of the logi frigate. |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 22:02:00 -
[529] - Quote
lol at cloak changes...
good job removing all competition, in favor of multiboxers.. less real people doing bomber runs - less standard anti-bomberfittings - more tears when i warp
box 1 warp to 0 - box 2 warp to 10 - box 3 warp to 20 - etc... does anyone play this game when changes are beeing proposed... or is it still listening to the biggest whiners first?
** CCP you are making multiboxer fleets stronger! Thank you ** |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
331
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 22:03:00 -
[530] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fozzie to the rescue. Actually, one of the CSM members said that most of these changes were proposed by the CSM members themselves.
Oh yea, DEV's taking the advise of a few self serving CSM's.
That will make the game better. |
|
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
32
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 22:15:00 -
[531] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Mike Azariah wrote: Those who argue that bombers are the counter to n+1 . . . really? The big groups are precluded from flying them and I wasn't told? Bombers are a way to make a fleet nervous and allows the little guy to punch above his weight, agreed. But do not try to tell me that the blobs cannot just as easily field the bombers
I've been bombed by a 100 man bomber fleet before. It sucks, we were low sig and armor tanked :(. I would pay to see the video of 100 bombs going off on a fleet, 10-20 bombs already looks amazing :D |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1697
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 22:28:00 -
[532] - Quote
as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate
but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade
That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
elitatwo
Congregatio
366
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 22:34:00 -
[533] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I'm from a time when bombers were paper thin, bombs were utterly useless and they launched cruise missiles. They are far from useless after these changes. The only problem here is the same problem that every ship has after it gets changed, people cant think for themselves. In less than a month people will swap to using new bomber fits and tactics that others who can and do adapt to change will come up with and all will be well again.
Sorry but me too.
Back in the day the Manticore was the only stealth bomber worth flying. The rest of them were not even considered. And none of them could fit a 100 million (that is no joke!) covert ops cloak.
I'll let you in on a secret, the only reason why the Manticore was the best stealth bomber in 2006 was that the Manticore had cruise missiles without missile launcher tracking nonsense.
Another big revelation of the past and the end of daze coming from the missiles without tracking nonsense from the past.
(Guess what I was telling the truth all along, even without exile and smoothsayer and a drop of mindflood in my quafe..)
The other bombers used turrets - battleship turrets like the Talos, Nage, tornado and Oracle do.
They did get a speed buff from using the improved tech II cloak and were fit with....
surprise!!!! Sensor dampeners!!
The covert ops cloak came years later and even in 2006 somehow people were able to not decloak themselves. It only seems impossible to do again after two years signature |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
331
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 22:41:00 -
[534] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate
but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade
That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?
m
Remove bombers from the game, leave cloaking alone.
Make tear bears ships immune to damage so we don't have to hear the crying of little girls anymore.
Because that is all this is about. |
Byson1
Zan Industries ZADA ALLIANCE
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 00:45:00 -
[535] - Quote
is there any communication between the guys deciding to screw with mechanics? Is there really a good reason this should even happen. or is it just to screw with people? I think people working for ccp who play the game should not be allowed to make such decisions. I don't believe they are impartial. There needs to be an audit to see who these changes will help the most. Who in CCP? then fire that person.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 00:48:00 -
[536] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate
but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade
That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?
m i would like it if the new bomb was looked at in regards to carriers and dreads either by making triage/siege immune(or resistance) to the cap void (thus they can be used to force carriers into triage) or see if anything can be done to batteries to up their nuet resistance to a point that this module is worth using over recharges.
but asit stands a small WH group will be to strongly affected by this bomb |
Gantz Vendetta
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 00:48:00 -
[537] - Quote
Im sure its been said before but TLDR.
I am a fairly poor PvPer trying to get into the role of the solo bomber, and as it stands I have enough troubles just surviving, let along landing a bomb, let alone that bomb doing pathetic damage, let alone warping out after a bomb, let alone etc etc.
Why make something that is so hard to be fully succesful at even harder? Surely there is a way to target mid to large bomber fleets without completely ruining the ship in its entirety.
Nerfing bomb damage, then giving more bombs and faster fire rate is hardly fair. Not to mention the fact that bombs do such pathetic damage already.
I dont know what more to say than if this does go ahead i would like a refund on all bomber related skills, including covert ops and torps.
|
Hal Lubbert
Body Snatchers
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 00:56:00 -
[538] - Quote
Gantz Vendetta wrote:Im sure its been said before but TLDR.
I am a fairly poor PvPer trying to get into the role of the solo bomber, and as it stands I have enough troubles just surviving, let along landing a bomb, let alone that bomb doing pathetic damage, let alone warping out after a bomb, let alone etc etc.
Why make something that is so hard to be fully succesful at even harder? Surely there is a way to target mid to large bomber fleets without completely ruining the ship in its entirety.
Nerfing bomb damage, then giving more bombs and faster fire rate is hardly fair. Not to mention the fact that bombs do such pathetic damage already.
I dont know what more to say than if this does go ahead i would like a refund on all bomber related skills, including covert ops and torps.
I agree with what he said !!! |
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Surely You're Joking
446
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 01:22:00 -
[539] - Quote
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1410/IBombers.png
This. Hades Effect /-áConflict Resolution /-áPirate Protection |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1698
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 01:33:00 -
[540] - Quote
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
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13670
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 01:51:00 -
[541] - Quote
Byson1 wrote:is there any communication between the guys deciding to screw with mechanics? Is there really a good reason this should even happen. or is it just to screw with people? I think people working for ccp who play the game should not be allowed to make such decisions. I don't believe they are impartial. There needs to be an audit to see who these changes will help the most. Who in CCP?
These changes will mean more ship comps will be viable again. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Jaysen Larrisen
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 01:58:00 -
[542] - Quote
Gantz Vendetta wrote:Im sure its been said before but TLDR.
I am a fairly poor PvPer trying to get into the role of the solo bomber, and as it stands I have enough troubles just surviving, let along landing a bomb, let alone that bomb doing pathetic damage, let alone warping out after a bomb, let alone etc etc.
Why make something that is so hard to be fully succesful at even harder? Surely there is a way to target mid to large bomber fleets without completely ruining the ship in its entirety.
Nerfing bomb damage, then giving more bombs and faster fire rate is hardly fair. Not to mention the fact that bombs do such pathetic damage already.
I dont know what more to say than if this does go ahead i would like a refund on all bomber related skills, including covert ops and torps.
I do think there is a good point here. You don't want to make the bomber (or any frigate for that matter) so difficult to use that you start to really impinge on it's accessibility to players.
I'm not saying you should be able to hop into a SB after a month and half and smash folks in PVP at all...but you shouldn't set it up that it's a coffin for folks that don't have 2yrs in the game. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery
109
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 02:32:00 -
[543] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
So if I understand you correctly...
Having ships that decloak each other is underpowered. Having ships that don't decloak each other is overpowered.
There's a compromise here between the two extremes: fleet members decloak each other, but they also can see each other. That fixes the real issue that first fix didn't properly address. Don't just revert back to the previous system that you already decided wasn't working. "Returning to the old gameplay" makes your design team look like they don't know what they're doing. Move forward, not back.
And how come you never released that high-slot "reverb target painter"? That would give low-sec bombers some teeth. I'm sure marauder and rapier pilots would appreciate it too. Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 03:12:00 -
[544] - 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
you can set it so there is a delay
bomber one lands at 0 bomber 2 holds to sec warps to 5
so on and so forth
this is something much harder for real players to do quickly as they would need to wait 4+ do to server and voice coms lag
such as you cant go biased of when bomber 1 heads in because bomber two may lag on voice and hear it after bomber 3 bomber 3 still waits to warp based on the time it takes bomber one then bomber 2 to go. do to the lag the spacing is wrong and 3 lands at the same time or just b4 causing bomber 2 to warp through and de-cloak bomber 3
and if you go based on each bomber calling out you now have to wait for the server and voice lag causing the time to take much longer then isboxer.
isboxer can also control ship speed much easier then a group of players to lower the chance of de-cloaking when aligning to target |
Midgen
Viziam Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 04:02:00 -
[545] - Quote
NO CCP...... my god, just NO... you are going too far with all this.... i think you have started to loose site here and are blindly stumbling into a wall |
BravoSierra
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 07:31:00 -
[546] - Quote
I'm all for these changes. Keep it up CCP!
Cloaking is OP in EVE. Reverting the change gives cloaky blobs more rope to hang themselves as their number grow. Just because T3s/recons aren't as pervasive as bombers doesn't make them good for the game either. The mechanic is bit clunky, but it's EVE after all and somehow we will suck it up.
Changes for bubbles, firewall, etc. are great for tactical aspects of the game. I'm really happy to see them, and hope for more in the future. Stats tweaks don't deepen the game in the same way.
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
Like Lugh Crow-Slave said, there has to be a delay. But it takes fifteen seconds total, and anyone not listening will lose their ship anyway.
The key thing this graphic gets wrong is only one bomber, if any, will be within 5-¦ of the warp out and actually insta-warp. It's not easy to set up the bookmarks for any of them to be at the right angle. If the target is exactly between the 15km bomber and warp out, the 10km and 20km bombers are 10-¦ off. To be insta-aligned, bombers have to be 2-2.6 km of each other.
It's no better than fleet warping in except the squad isn't on DScan for that couple seconds. The insta-align workarounds spread damage out. |
Oxide Ammar
171
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 07:40:00 -
[547] - Quote
Quote: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.
When I started playing EVE I thought cloakies decloaking each other was bug and you were lazy to fix it, but now you are reverting to this **** again? really ? How the hell you can convince someone to play a game saying cloaky ships decloak each other and same time they can't see each other while they are in fleet ?
Pls keep adding invisible walls and barriers to play this game like this stupid fatigue and now nerfing SBs. GG encouraging blobs with no real threat to them. 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. |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
168
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 07:42:00 -
[548] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Byson1 wrote:is there any communication between the guys deciding to screw with mechanics? Is there really a good reason this should even happen. or is it just to screw with people? I think people working for ccp who play the game should not be allowed to make such decisions. I don't believe they are impartial. There needs to be an audit to see who these changes will help the most. Who in CCP? These changes will mean more ship comps will be viable again.
There are no bombs in lowsec, and BCS aren't viable there. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1931
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 07:43:00 -
[549] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate
but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade
That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?
m i would like it if the new bomb was looked at in regards to carriers and dreads either by making triage/siege immune(or resistance) to the cap void (thus they can be used to force carriers into triage) or see if anything can be done to batteries to up their nuet resistance to a point that this module is worth using over recharges. but asit stands a small WH group will be to strongly affected by this bomb
This.
Caps need some defence from void bombs otherwise thes bombs are going to be hugly overpowered... caps are aleready rapidly becoming the weakest class of ships in the game; the can't jump far, can't jump a gate if a HIC is around, can't defend them selves against sub caps... +1 |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
443
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 07:47:00 -
[550] - Quote
BravoSierra wrote:I'm all for these changes. Keep it up CCP! Cloaking is OP in EVE. Reverting the change gives cloaky blobs more rope to hang themselves as their number grow. Just because T3s/recons aren't as pervasive as bombers doesn't make them good for the game either. The mechanic is bit clunky, but it's EVE after all and somehow we will suck it up. Changes for bubbles, firewall, etc. are great for tactical aspects of the game. I'm really happy to see them, and hope for more in the future. Stats tweaks don't deepen the game in the same way. 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 Like Lugh Crow-Slave said, there has to be a delay. But it takes fifteen seconds total, and anyone not listening will lose their ship anyway. The key thing this graphic gets wrong is only one bomber, if any, will be within 5-¦ of the warp out and actually insta-warp. It's not easy to set up the bookmarks for any of them to be at the right angle. If the target is exactly between the 15km bomber and warp out, the 10km and 20km bombers are 10-¦ off. To be insta-aligned, bombers have to be 2-2.6 km of each other. It's no better than fleet warping in except the squad isn't on DScan for that couple seconds. The insta-align workarounds spread damage out.
Warpout could be 10AU away, at that point we're talking about 1/1000 000 of degrees. Sure, you'd have the bombs spread a little bit more, but when has the enemy been in a pretty ball which is exactly the radius of the bomb outside of trying to catch them at a warp-in?
The bombers are just tools, expect to lose a few and this tactic becomes even more viable. |
|
BROTHER Mullakai
GoD SwarM
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 08:44:00 -
[551] - Quote
All is not lost , ( we usually just have a very small group and warp our selves so this is less about de cloaking as we go different times and distances ) i am a little concerned about the 12s on bombs thing but people on the ball will get away any way with 10 secs and numbskulls dont even notice it heading their way and im sure that will continue . The align thing was bugging me then i rememberd
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sensor-overlay-2.0-bigger-better-bookmarks-in-spacier/
This is happening , bookmarks on overlay in same expansion unless i have this wrong you could literraly set bookmarks on the fly the opposite side to each other of target , get closer (having overlay bookmark on selected item ready ) de cloak / bomb/warp by clicking slected item as usuall ;)
Never have to really align .
Hope i have this right ?
|
Longdrinks
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
129
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 09:32:00 -
[552] - Quote
BROTHER Mullakai wrote:All is not lost , ( we usually just have a very small group and warp our selves so this is less about de cloaking as we go different times and distances ) i am a little concerned about the 12s on bombs thing but people on the ball will get away any way with 10 secs and numbskulls dont even notice it heading their way and im sure that will continue . The align thing was bugging me then i rememberd http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sensor-overlay-2.0-bigger-better-bookmarks-in-spacier/This is happening , bookmarks on overlay in same expansion unless i have this wrong you could literraly set bookmarks on the fly the opposite side to each other of target , get closer (having overlay bookmark on selected item ready ) de cloak / bomb/warp by clicking slected item as usuall ;) Never have to really align . Hope i have this right ? yes but theres a couple of minutes delay on corp bookmarks updating for everyone so hope your target sits still |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 10:37:00 -
[553] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate
but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade
That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?
m i would like it if the new bomb was looked at in regards to carriers and dreads either by making triage/siege immune(or resistance) to the cap void (thus they can be used to force carriers into triage) or see if anything can be done to batteries to up their nuet resistance to a point that this module is worth using over recharges. but asit stands a small WH group will be to strongly affected by this bomb This. Caps need some defence from void bombs otherwise thes bombs are going to be hugely overpowered... caps are aleready rapidly becoming the weakest class of ships in the game; the can't jump far, can't jump a gate if a HIC is around, can't defend themselves against sub caps...
Well caps should not be able to defend themselves against subcaps w/o subcaps in their fleet but with this new bomb even with a subcap support fleet they just become a liability rather then a force multiplier.
(not directed at rek) now in the large capital fleets of null this bomb will probably work as intended and in LS you wont be able to use them so it is WH space where this becomes a problem |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 11:04:00 -
[554] - 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
do you eaven know what you're talking about - the isboxer bomb fleet is already setup to warp at differend ranges .... - warp to random object at their respected distance - cloak - keep at range 30km preset so the fleet moves away from the center ship??
and lets face it - IF you would uncloak eachother in warp when warping from the same grid to another location in system- then there is no need for a covert cloak right??
the changes are shortsighted, ineffective and doing the exact difference what you want them to do.
> people who play this game, know the things that are complained about already given you the exact reasons why this is bad,wrong and utterly dumb... Though we all know it will be ignored and more tears will flow |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 11:16:00 -
[555] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Byson1 wrote:is there any communication between the guys deciding to screw with mechanics? Is there really a good reason this should even happen. or is it just to screw with people? I think people working for ccp who play the game should not be allowed to make such decisions. I don't believe they are impartial. There needs to be an audit to see who these changes will help the most. Who in CCP? These changes will mean more ship comps will be viable again.
It's curing the disease by killing the patient. |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
414
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 11:26:00 -
[556] - 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
Warp to an off-grid spot at default ranges. All bombers are spaced out by 5km and can cloak.
Warp to the bm at default ranges cloaked. Job's a good'un.
Also, for what it's worth, if you have a smooth damage curve (i.e. higher damage at the center of the bomb detonation, low damage at the edge) and tweak the bomb HP values, ISBoxer gets nerfed into the ground as precision bombing causes all the bombs to land in the same place.... which means the first bomb will destroy all the other bombs and you'll only get a single detonation. Real players spreading out bombs due to natural human inaccuracy and/or rippling bomb release across multiple bombers will be needed, which is far more interesting bomber coordination than blind men trying not to bump into each other. |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 11:35:00 -
[557] - Quote
BROTHER Mullakai wrote:All is not lost , ( we usually just have a very small group and warp our selves so this is less about de cloaking as we go different times and distances ) i am a little concerned about the 12s on bombs thing but people on the ball will get away any way with 10 secs and numbskulls dont even notice it heading their way and im sure that will continue . The align thing was bugging me then i rememberd http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sensor-overlay-2.0-bigger-better-bookmarks-in-spacier/This is happening , bookmarks on overlay in same expansion unless i have this wrong you could literraly set bookmarks on the fly the opposite side to each other of target , get closer (having overlay bookmark on selected item ready ) de cloak / bomb/warp by clicking slected item as usuall ;) Never have to really align . Hope i have this right ?
As always.. great changes beeing overshadowed by that one "wtfwereyouthinking"-change...
"The only lesson we ever learn is that we never learn " Robert Fisk: |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
335
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 12:09:00 -
[558] - Quote
1 Change affects all cloaked ships. 2 It's a knee jerk reaction to a few null tear bears, what happened to HTFU in this game, guessing all the good players left, couldn't deal with crying little girls. 3 There are far fewer ships that get blown up in null care bear space than anywhere else on the map, yet a few null tear bears cry and the game needs to be changed. F them. 4 Covert Ops, yea we wouldn't want to have anything getting in the way of the null tear bears RMT operations. 5 Changes in no way effects what they are crying about, HTFU.
Fact is null space is the safest on the map, yet they are the biggest cry babies.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats
They do have the most NPC kills though. Farmers. |
Sieonigh
Vengance Inc.
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 12:35:00 -
[559] - 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
quite simple really set a unique BMs for each bomber at off grids name them the same thing but not be at the exact spot, but in the same vicinity, cloak up and get set.
ISbox bombing in this regard revolves around prior set up, camping a gate of JB ect. which in turn will be more viable with jump fatigue changes forcing pilots to use gates more.
im on team "don't do cloak change" i do feel it will be destructive to other cloak classes. |
Sieonigh
Vengance Inc.
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 12:40:00 -
[560] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Capqu wrote: 3) i appreciate that you did that, but after the devblog has come out is often too late, which i pretty much am resigned into believing this time around too. i am aware that is not your fault and not in your control. as for speaking from a position of inexperience, maybe you don't, but you are not the only csm and its not unheard of for people to push their own agendas at a detriment to the greater good.
basically im depressed and disappointed as heck because this isn't the first time ccp has ignored minority player base when they destroy some niche of the game. first they came for the rat ai changes, mission flipping etc. etc.
Well, the NDA kind of forbids me from asking folks ahead of dev blogs. Sometimes I try to find a way around it but most times I try to be fast on the response and see how well I can shift the position from the original. That is why you see me asking for input and top two things you would like chenged. Sorry to hear about the depression but weren't you normal bomber folk depressed if all the bombing in your corp was being handed to the isbox guy? or did I misread that? m nah i understand about the nda, i'm not blaming you. main priority for change would be ANYTHING that makes bombs apply damage equally to shield/armor doctrines instead of a soley a power-level nerf, and secondary priority would be something to discourage isboxer yea we hate it, that's life it's like knowing you're on a team with 7 of your bestest pals, but if you ditch all of them and just play by yourself instead you'll amount to more than you could ever achieve together. a couple of those pals i used to bomb with / fc bombers with decided to go down that route, and i can't blame them for it. the power of friendship doesn't work in video games, only anime. when you have 3/4 squads of isboxed bombers, there really isnt any point in adding more human bombers - the combination of diminishing returns and massively increased effort takes away any illusion of enjoyment
you know smart bombs don't take sig into account right? why not make bombs do the same and reduce damage?
|
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
30
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 12:47:00 -
[561] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Pls keep adding invisible walls and barriers to play this game like this stupid fatigue Fatigue is a barrier to new players getting into the game, when it'll take over a year for a new player to get into a ship that's actually affected by fatigue?
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Protect the farmers, they are crying. This change in no way affects the AFK null-bear ratters. It's aimed at stealth bomber wings wiping out null-sec subcap fleets (which aren't made up of the risk-averse ratters you mention, otherwise they wouldn't fleet up; they'd just sit and rat). At the moment, every major sov entity is using stealth bomber fleets, so you can't complain it's one group wanting to nerf another, since they would get the nerf as well. The CSM, almost all of which have been on different sides of these wars, pretty much all agreed to nerfing stealth bombers because of how they're affecting fleet compositions.
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Change affects all cloaked ships. This is the only reason I agree with you. Your reasoning behind it is flawed, but you're correct about that. Use the right argument to support your assertion and people might take you seriously.
Taking a real stance on ISBoxer, alongside the changes to the bombs themselves, would be the exact nerf to stealth bombing that CCP wants. The cloaking change is going to make ISBoxer the only viable way to make bombing runs. |
per
Terpene Conglomerate
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 15:34:00 -
[562] - Quote
Wandering Squirl wrote:Hello CCP,
..... how about giving fleets a fighting chance against bombs them selves by making defender missiles work against bombs.....
S
have you ever used defender missiles? do you actually know how they work? missiles =! bombs + u can use the smartbombs now
not saying im happy with those changes though
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
337
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 15:40:00 -
[563] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:This is the only reason I agree with you. Your reasoning behind it is flawed, but you're correct about that. Use the right argument to support your assertion and people might take you seriously.
Taking a real stance on ISBoxer, alongside the changes to the bombs themselves, would be the exact nerf to stealth bombing that CCP wants. The cloaking change is going to make ISBoxer the only viable way to make bombing runs.
Because there is no way to limit how many accounts can log in from the same machine.
They don't need to eliminate isboxing, just reduce the number of clients. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 15:43:00 -
[564] - Quote
per wrote:Wandering Squirl wrote:Hello CCP,
..... how about giving fleets a fighting chance against bombs them selves by making defender missiles work against bombs.....
S have you ever used defender missiles? do you actually know how they work? missiles =! bombs not saying im happy with those changes though
i think that's why he was asking for them to be changed so they do work
however i would much rather the bombs be target able lower their sig(and resists accordingly) so that only destroyers/frigs have a chance to lock them in time
this would give a new reason to have smaller ships in the fleets and give a reason to launch more then 7 bombs in a wave as most will probably get intercepted.
at the same time make it so even if the bomber dies the bomb can still go off so you have to chose "do i try and go for the bomber to prevent him from launching anymore? or do i go after the bombs to keep these ones from landing" |
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 16:44:00 -
[565] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate
but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade
That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?
m i would like it if the new bomb was looked at in regards to carriers and dreads either by making triage/siege immune(or resistance) to the cap void (thus they can be used to force carriers into triage) or see if anything can be done to batteries to up their nuet resistance to a point that this module is worth using over recharges. but asit stands a small WH group will be to strongly affected by this bomb This. Caps need some defence from void bombs otherwise thes bombs are going to be hugely overpowered... caps are aleready rapidly becoming the weakest class of ships in the game; the can't jump far, can't jump a gate if a HIC is around, can't defend themselves against sub caps... Well caps should not be able to defend themselves against subcaps w/o subcaps in their fleet but with this new bomb even with a subcap support fleet they just become a liability rather then a force multiplier. (not directed at rek) now in the large capital fleets of null this bomb will probably work as intended and in LS you wont be able to use them so it is WH space where this becomes a problem
It will only affect W-space if its is deemed worth sacrificing a vital pilot for the bomber. That being said capacitor warfare in Wspace is extremely powerful and this bomb may be overpowered in that regard. CCP needs to look at this before the release
That being said CCP don't care about Wspace so who knows what they will do So Much Space |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 16:52:00 -
[566] - Quote
Faren Shalni wrote:
It will only affect W-space if its is deemed worth sacrificing a vital pilot for the bomber. That being said capacitor warfare in Wspace is extremely powerful and this bomb may be overpowered in that regard. CCP needs to look at this before the release
That being said CCP don't care about Wspace so who knows what they will do
if you are defending bring in bombers just long enough to send out a volly and shut down an archon is something most groups would find worth the loss of dps if they can't beat the reps as is but yeah i wish they would so us some love in WH |
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 17:17:00 -
[567] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:
It will only affect W-space if its is deemed worth sacrificing a vital pilot for the bomber. That being said capacitor warfare in Wspace is extremely powerful and this bomb may be overpowered in that regard. CCP needs to look at this before the release
That being said CCP don't care about Wspace so who knows what they will do
if you are defending bring in bombers just long enough to send out a volly and shut down an archon is something most groups would find worth the loss of dps if they can't beat the reps as is but yeah i wish they would so us some love in WH EDIT: I do really like the idea behind this bomb and feel it fits WH style bombing amazingly but i'm just worried it may be a touch to strong if capitals have no other way then smart bombs to counter them
Well I am looking at Dreads mainly. The meta has moved to shield dreads meaning their capacitor is life..... and these bombs take that away in one run.
Also it seems CCP want us to use the frig holes more..........
Edit: Just checked. That just over 2 bhaal's of neuting alpha in one bomb.... thats insanely powerful in fact thats overpowered So Much Space |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 17:53:00 -
[568] - Quote
Faren Shalni wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:
It will only affect W-space if its is deemed worth sacrificing a vital pilot for the bomber. That being said capacitor warfare in Wspace is extremely powerful and this bomb may be overpowered in that regard. CCP needs to look at this before the release
That being said CCP don't care about Wspace so who knows what they will do
if you are defending bring in bombers just long enough to send out a volly and shut down an archon is something most groups would find worth the loss of dps if they can't beat the reps as is but yeah i wish they would so us some love in WH EDIT: I do really like the idea behind this bomb and feel it fits WH style bombing amazingly but i'm just worried it may be a touch to strong if capitals have no other way then smart bombs to counter them Well I am looking at Dreads mainly. The meta has moved to shield dreads meaning their capacitor is life..... and these bombs take that away in one run. Also it seems CCP want us to use the frig holes more.......... Edit: Just checked. That just over 2 bhaal's of neuting alpha in one bomb.... thats insanely powerful in fact thats overpowered....goodbye triage and siege in wspace
This will certainly affect dreads as well why i think a resistance should be tied to siege and triage mods this would still play hell with a slow cats cap chain (if you have enough bombers) but would lessen the effect on single carrier or dread fleets.
I'm not saying it has to be a 100% resist but i do think that some resist for T1 siege/triage and a bit more for T2 wouldn't be to bad (unless these bombs are meant to shut down small cap fleets?) |
Doddy
Esoteric Operations
903
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 19:03:00 -
[569] - Quote
RIP bombing.
Anti capital bomb will be useless against anyone who brings more than one smartbomb in their fleet...
But hey at least solo hunters get a hp boost. If only they hadn't been nerfed by rats preferentially shooting them that might be usefull. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 19:09:00 -
[570] - Quote
Doddy wrote:RIP bombing.
Anti capital bomb will be useless against anyone who brings more than one smartbomb in their fleet...
But hey at least solo hunters get a hp boost. If only they hadn't been nerfed by rats preferentially shooting them that might be usefull.
no if you stagger several of the anti cap bomb it can still pass through a few smart bombs |
|
Doddy
Esoteric Operations
904
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 19:25:00 -
[571] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Doddy wrote:RIP bombing.
Anti capital bomb will be useless against anyone who brings more than one smartbomb in their fleet...
But hey at least solo hunters get a hp boost. If only they hadn't been nerfed by rats preferentially shooting them that might be usefull. no if you stagger several of the anti cap bomb it can still pass through a few smart bombs
ok, you automatically lose a third of your capping to 2 smartbombs, 2/3rds to 4 smartbombs and any number of bombers will be countered by 6 smartbombs or 1 bomber in position to defensively bomb its own caps.
|
BROTHER Mullakai
GoD SwarM
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 19:43:00 -
[572] - Quote
Longdrinks wrote:BROTHER Mullakai wrote:All is not lost , ( we usually just have a very small group and warp our selves so this is less about de cloaking as we go different times and distances ) i am a little concerned about the 12s on bombs thing but people on the ball will get away any way with 10 secs and numbskulls dont even notice it heading their way and im sure that will continue . The align thing was bugging me then i rememberd http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sensor-overlay-2.0-bigger-better-bookmarks-in-spacier/This is happening , bookmarks on overlay in same expansion unless i have this wrong you could literraly set bookmarks on the fly the opposite side to each other of target , get closer (having overlay bookmark on selected item ready ) de cloak / bomb/warp by clicking slected item as usuall ;) Never have to really align . Hope i have this right ? yes but theres a couple of minutes delay on corp bookmarks updating for everyone so hope your target sits still
hmmm thats a point :/
|
BROTHER Mullakai
GoD SwarM
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 19:44:00 -
[573] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:BROTHER Mullakai wrote:All is not lost , ( we usually just have a very small group and warp our selves so this is less about de cloaking as we go different times and distances ) i am a little concerned about the 12s on bombs thing but people on the ball will get away any way with 10 secs and numbskulls dont even notice it heading their way and im sure that will continue . The align thing was bugging me then i rememberd http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sensor-overlay-2.0-bigger-better-bookmarks-in-spacier/This is happening , bookmarks on overlay in same expansion unless i have this wrong you could literraly set bookmarks on the fly the opposite side to each other of target , get closer (having overlay bookmark on selected item ready ) de cloak / bomb/warp by clicking slected item as usuall ;) Never have to really align . Hope i have this right ? As always.. great changes beeing overshadowed by that one "wtfwereyouthinking"- sssssh :P its a seacrate :P "The only lesson we ever learn is that we never learn " Robert Fisk:
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
167
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 19:52:00 -
[574] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Doddy wrote:RIP bombing.
Anti capital bomb will be useless against anyone who brings more than one smartbomb in their fleet...
But hey at least solo hunters get a hp boost. If only they hadn't been nerfed by rats preferentially shooting them that might be usefull. no if you stagger several of the anti cap bomb it can still pass through a few smart bombs ok, you automatically lose a third of your capping to 2 smartbombs, 2/3rds to 4 smartbombs and any number of bombers will be countered by 6 smartbombs or 1 bomber in position to defensively bomb its own caps.
yes but you would need to fit 6 bombs to your own cap and with this type of bomb you would need more then 1 defensive bomber if they were smart enough not to bomb all from one direction |
BROTHER Mullakai
GoD SwarM
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:04:00 -
[575] - Quote
well i just cancelled both my accounts a minute ago , not saying i wont be back (and no ya cant have my stuff lol ) i just wanna sit this one out and wait not paying for it , and if im honest thers some other space projects mmo's i kinda got my eye on though im still a lill sceptical if they can achive their promises,
this sint the reason ive done this but eve has always had soo much promise and when you get it to deliver its amazing, but for me that has gone now (im not interested in big fleets )
This isnt a protest vote i recenty turned 40 im just a grumpy bastard lol
:) may be back |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
122
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:24:00 -
[576] - Quote
Hi CCP Fozzie.
After a couple of days of thinking about the changes i've come to the conclusion that they are abit overkill, even for a bomber hater like me. My main concerns are the sig + align nerfs, and the 12 second bomb time.
12 second bombs
I realise this was implemented because you want to get some team work between bubblers, tacklers and bombers. I usually fly a bubbler and there fleets are a nightmare to fly against, they have good tracking and usually run with recons and kite out away from fleets. The result is that any tackler that gets within 40km of them stands out like a sore thumb and is melted. I have in the past flown bubblers with combat probes to combat these kind of fleets, however bubbles are destroyed by 1 bomb leaving HICs are the only really. And HICs, with their bubble up, are prime targets and melted in fleet fights. As a result i strongly believe that bomb runs on cruiser sized line ships are now impossible with the ample time to warp off.
Sig radius and align time.
Bombers are really hard to catch, at the moment they spend prehaps 5 seconds on field and are gone. It takes a bit of luck or a bomber FC without a bubblers tab to destroy an entire wing. Your other 'Counter' alternatives are insta-lock alpha based alternatives and fast lock inties, for which bombers fit 1 WCS. However the 1/3 nerf to sig radius and extra second align combined are pretty ridiculous, now HACs and Tech 3 cruisers will be able to lock and shoot bombers, considering that perfect warpouts are no longer existant, which is kind of really dumb, considering the move away from battleships towards these cruiser sized hulls.
That's what i think was done wrong with the proposed changes. Nerfing bombers damage application and survivability so hard is a receipe for disaster, bomber wings will be largely ineffective in large fights and if they do go in for a bomb run then they can expect to lose half their wing.
Proposed changes to the changes
So like everyone in the world at the moment, ive got a few thoughts on how these could be improved.
1. Turn defender missiles into anti bomb missiles.
Changes the code, or just make a new 'anti bomb' missile that targets the closest bomb. To stop them hard countering bombers they should only be allowed to attempt to shoot that first closest missile. Ie. Everyone launches their anti-bomb missiles at once, they kill 1 bomb, however if launched over say 9 seconds they can get prehaps 3 bombs. I figure maybe 10k speed or so to limit the damage to bombs to at max 3 bombs per a 7 wave bomb run. This allows players to punish lazy bombers operating by bombing 1 squad at a time and incentivises people to co-ordinate bomber wings to deliver payloads at the same time to maximise damage (which also increases the chance of a bomber squad decloaking next to a sabre :p ). Also, defender missiles worth using and not wasted SP. Reddit seemed to show strong support the idea of defender missiles -> work against bombs.
2. Revert the bomb timers to 10 seconds.
I feel that bombers should be allowed to bomb cruiser sized targets, like HACs and Tech 3 cruisers. At present it is impossible to land a bomb run on them if they are not bubbled and don't want to get bombed. For a good example of how this interplay between HACs and bombers atm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv9ZxX42lhk (Dances with bombers video, not sure if links are allowed on this forum)
3. Change the Sig / agility changes.
Bombers don't need a 1/3rd extra sig radius and an extra second align. Cut down the sig radius nerf, it hurts, alot. Just rebalance these numbers essentially. Personally i like the idea of having to fit a sebo on a cruiser to target stealth bombers before they warp out after a run (unless they are like doing a 180 turn) as a limit to the nerfing. Balance HP increases accordinly.
4. MJD changes
A little noticed change in the current proposals is that you can sort of counter bombs with MJDs if you are fast enough. When MJDs came out alot of people were excited about this but the spool up time made it pretty much impssoble. I think that this would be a positive change so support a change to the spool up times of MJDs to help Battlecruisers and Battleships, which are in a bad way in fleet fights at the moment without the speed to get out of bubbles and avoid being bombed, as well as warp changes.
5. Reinstate a longer bomber time/ Revert the cloaking changes.
I really like the cloaking changes but as a balance suggestion introducing a sort of hard counter (defender missiles) and cloakies decloaking each other is a heavy nerf. Bring back the old bombing ways, re-increase/ nerf the timer of bombs so it's not a 70 second a bomb 0.0 and there's abit more time between runs.
If you're reading this post Fozzie you're probably like 'Not another of these 'know everything, balance it like this' posts. So, whatever. Maybe there is an idea or two in there you think is good and the rest are bat sh*t crazy. *shrugs*
Ps. i liked the other changes to bombers and HICs. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
168
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:56:00 -
[577] - Quote
Black Canary Jnr wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie.
After a couple of days of thinking about the changes i've come to the conclusion that they are abit overkill, even for a bomber hater like me. My main concerns are the sig + align nerfs, and the 12 second bomb time.
12 second bombs
I realise this was implemented because you want to get some team work between bubblers, tacklers and bombers. I usually fly a bubbler and there fleets are a nightmare to fly against, they have good tracking and usually run with recons and kite out away from fleets. The result is that any tackler that gets within 40km of them stands out like a sore thumb and is melted. I have in the past flown bubblers with combat probes to combat these kind of fleets, however bubbles are destroyed by 1 bomb leaving HICs are the only really. And HICs, with their bubble up, are prime targets and melted in fleet fights. As a result i strongly believe that bomb runs on cruiser sized line ships are now impossible with the ample time to warp off.
Sig radius and align time.
Bombers are really hard to catch, at the moment they spend prehaps 5 seconds on field and are gone. It takes a bit of luck or a bomber FC without a bubblers tab to destroy an entire wing. Your other 'Counter' alternatives are insta-lock alpha based alternatives and fast lock inties, for which bombers fit 1 WCS. However the 1/3 nerf to sig radius and extra second align combined are pretty ridiculous, now HACs and Tech 3 cruisers will be able to lock and shoot bombers, considering that perfect warpouts are no longer existant, which is kind of really dumb, considering the move away from battleships towards these cruiser sized hulls.
That's what i think was done wrong with the proposed changes. Nerfing bombers damage application and survivability so hard is a receipe for disaster, bomber wings will be largely ineffective in large fights and if they do go in for a bomb run then they can expect to lose half their wing.
Proposed changes to the changes
So like everyone in the world at the moment, ive got a few thoughts on how these could be improved.
1. Turn defender missiles into anti bomb missiles.
Changes the code, or just make a new 'anti bomb' missile that targets the closest bomb. To stop them hard countering bombers they should only be allowed to attempt to shoot that first closest missile. Ie. Everyone launches their anti-bomb missiles at once, they kill 1 bomb, however if launched over say 9 seconds they can get prehaps 3 bombs. I figure maybe 10k speed or so to limit the damage to bombs to at max 3 bombs per a 7 wave bomb run. This allows players to punish lazy bombers operating by bombing 1 squad at a time and incentivises people to co-ordinate bomber wings to deliver payloads at the same time to maximise damage (which also increases the chance of a bomber squad decloaking next to a sabre :p ). Also, defender missiles worth using and not wasted SP. Reddit seemed to show strong support the idea of defender missiles -> work against bombs.
2. Revert the bomb timers to 10 seconds. .
I like what you are saying for the most part except it would be better game play if bombs were simply target able (but if defenders are easier to re-code it would work)
2. I think the 12 second is still a good amount of time and with this you would not need to change MJDs (thus altering game play outside of just avoiding bombs) |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
124
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 22:50:00 -
[578] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
I like what you are saying for the most part except it would be better game play if bombs were simply target able (but if defenders are easier to re-code it would work)
2. I think the 12 second is still a good amount of time and with this you would not need to change MJDs (thus altering game play outside of just avoiding bombs)
I am not in favorable of targetable bombs, for me that's a total counter that requires very little effort, and it's not worth bombing if your effect on the battle is zero and you don't have a chance to get on some kills, and by extension bombers would be worthless, which isn't balanced or fun.
Strongly disagree on the 12 seconds, for above stated purposes. HACs and Tech 3 cruisers are already difficult to bomb, and able to warpout for the most part. MJDs in PvP they are the 'get out button' when your fleet is going down or needs a reposition, adding in that option to evade bombs with a disciplined fleet and quick thinking removes that get out option for Fleets for the cool down period, so it's a cool little trade with lots to go wrong if people MJD too late and catch a bomb with 500% sig radius
Ty for feedback, it's appreciated :) |
Hal Lubbert
Body Snatchers
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:33:00 -
[579] - Quote
BROTHER Mullakai wrote:well i just cancelled both my accounts a minute ago , not saying i wont be back (and no ya cant have my stuff lol ) i just wanna sit this one out and wait not paying for it , and if im honest thers some other space projects mmo's i kinda got my eye on though im still a lill sceptical if they can achive their promises,
this sint the reason ive done this but eve has always had soo much promise and when you get it to deliver its amazing, but for me that has gone now (im not interested in big fleets )
This isnt a protest vote i recenty turned 40 im just a grumpy bastard lol
:) may be back
yes I feel that OLDER players who have A LOT of time, ISK and MONEY invested in EVE are always getting the WORST in EVE now (last 4 years).
Most changes seem to benefit new players in many ways..... EVE use to be about rewarding the pilots who put time and skills into the GAME:( That's what made EVE so SPECIAL. Many of us stay just to meet up online with our digital mates now.
I am also looking out for new games....... anyone have any ideas send me a message. |
Hal Lubbert
Body Snatchers
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:37:00 -
[580] - Quote
Midgen wrote:NO CCP...... my god, just NO... you are going too far with all this.... i think you have started to loose site here and are blindly stumbling into a wall
AGREED ....... this is madness! |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
168
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:48:00 -
[581] - Quote
Black Canary Jnr wrote:
I am not in favorable of targetable bombs, for me that's a total counter that requires very little effort, and it's not worth bombing if your effect on the battle is zero and you don't have a chance to get on some kills, and by extension bombers would be worthless, which isn't balanced or fun.
Ty for feedback, it's appreciated :)
you will just need to send in more bombs at once it won't be easy for the enemy fleet to co-ord and not double up they will miss bombs
it will just wind up being one or two big waves just not a wave after wave approach |
Hal Lubbert
Body Snatchers
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:08:00 -
[582] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Black Canary Jnr wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie.
After a couple of days of thinking about the changes i've come to the conclusion that they are abit overkill, even for a bomber hater like me. My main concerns are the sig + align nerfs, and the 12 second bomb time.
12 second bombs
I realise this was implemented because you want to get some team work between bubblers, tacklers and bombers. I usually fly a bubbler and there fleets are a nightmare to fly against, they have good tracking and usually run with recons and kite out away from fleets. The result is that any tackler that gets within 40km of them stands out like a sore thumb and is melted. I have in the past flown bubblers with combat probes to combat these kind of fleets, however bubbles are destroyed by 1 bomb leaving HICs are the only really. And HICs, with their bubble up, are prime targets and melted in fleet fights. As a result i strongly believe that bomb runs on cruiser sized line ships are now impossible with the ample time to warp off.
Sig radius and align time.
Bombers are really hard to catch, at the moment they spend prehaps 5 seconds on field and are gone. It takes a bit of luck or a bomber FC without a bubblers tab to destroy an entire wing. Your other 'Counter' alternatives are insta-lock alpha based alternatives and fast lock inties, for which bombers fit 1 WCS. However the 1/3 nerf to sig radius and extra second align combined are pretty ridiculous, now HACs and Tech 3 cruisers will be able to lock and shoot bombers, considering that perfect warpouts are no longer existant, which is kind of really dumb, considering the move away from battleships towards these cruiser sized hulls.
That's what i think was done wrong with the proposed changes. Nerfing bombers damage application and survivability so hard is a receipe for disaster, bomber wings will be largely ineffective in large fights and if they do go in for a bomb run then they can expect to lose half their wing.
Proposed changes to the changes
So like everyone in the world at the moment, ive got a few thoughts on how these could be improved.
1. Turn defender missiles into anti bomb missiles.
Changes the code, or just make a new 'anti bomb' missile that targets the closest bomb. To stop them hard countering bombers they should only be allowed to attempt to shoot that first closest missile. Ie. Everyone launches their anti-bomb missiles at once, they kill 1 bomb, however if launched over say 9 seconds they can get prehaps 3 bombs. I figure maybe 10k speed or so to limit the damage to bombs to at max 3 bombs per a 7 wave bomb run. This allows players to punish lazy bombers operating by bombing 1 squad at a time and incentivises people to co-ordinate bomber wings to deliver payloads at the same time to maximise damage (which also increases the chance of a bomber squad decloaking next to a sabre :p ). Also, defender missiles worth using and not wasted SP. Reddit seemed to show strong support the idea of defender missiles -> work against bombs.
2. Revert the bomb timers to 10 seconds. . I like what you are saying for the most part except it would be better game play if bombs were simply target able (but if defenders are easier to re-code it would work) 2. I think the 12 second is still a good amount of time and with this you would not need to change MJDs (thus altering game play outside of just avoiding bombs)
REPLY TO:
1) BOMBS SHOULD NOT BE TARGETABLE - but hey your kill boards look like you rather be flying smaller ships that attack bomber pilots. Bombers only have the element of surprise to help get kills. Now you want to shoot the only real damage they do !!
2.) In small fleet bomber roams (what i mainly do) only pilot who are half asleep get caught by bombs mostly. So why give them more time to get away?
|
Byson1
Zan Industries ZADA ALLIANCE
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:18:00 -
[583] - Quote
Bomb for Cap ships you mean crap ships? cause that's what they'll be after this. They pop too fast as it is to make them more vulnerable. |
Alexis Nightwish
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 01:03:00 -
[584] - 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 I guess I should have been more explanatory when I made that graphic.
The bombers are already cloaked off-grid. You simply warp to default at an off grid BM, and since they are all now 5km apart, you can recloak them if needed.
Align all the bombers to the on-grid BM/spotter.
Then you warp ISBomber 1 (the one with a default warp range of 0) to the on-grid BM/spotter (who would of course have to leave or be moving away at a decent speed as soon as ISBomber1 initiates warp so as to not decloak on arrival). A second or two afterwards you send ISBomber 2 (whose default is 5km). Few seconds later, #3, wait, #4, wait, #5... until they all arrive in a nice little line, and are still cloaked since they didn't share a warp tunnel. They won't all land at once, but the lag from the first to the last bomber would only be 15seconds, or less.
Can you see now how the cloaking nerf does nothing to harm ISBoxer but it DOES harm everyone else who uses a cloaking ship?
Oh and if you think the bomb damage will be crippled because they're all "spread out" let's examine it, shall we?
If the middle bomber is exactly 30km from the center of the target blob, then the ones at the end (#1 and #7) would be ~33.541km from the center. So 3.5km short for the outlier bombers. Could someone who actually flies bombers and uses bombs on a daily basis tell me if this would cripple your run? I don't think it will.
This post brought to you by Players Against Cludgey Changes and the Pythagorean Theorem. Power Projection: A Brighter Future: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5115336 |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1701
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 01:29:00 -
[585] - Quote
Oh I got it before, I actually like old pythagorus and his sex cult.
I think the best thing will be proof of concept, if isboxers are seen to go to the onetime effort to set up the new ones and keep on keeping on. All the theory crafting in the world is easier to show once empirical evidence is dragged out into the town square and shown for what it really is (scooby doo reveal)
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 04:35:00 -
[586] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Oh I got it before, I actually like old pythagorus and his sex cult.
I think the best thing will be proof of concept, if isboxers are seen to go to the onetime effort to set up the new ones and keep on keeping on. All the theory crafting in the world is easier to show once empirical evidence is dragged out into the town square and shown for what it really is (scooby doo reveal)
m
So what you're saying is that we just leave this all as proposed and "if" the ISBoxers adapt, which we know they will, then revisit it? Because you know that they aren't going to test it on SiSi, they'll wait for it to go live. You said yourself that it'll be a one-time effort to set up, then they'll just continue on, business as usual. Is it really worth even considering that they won't immediately make that one-time effort, then share the setup with everyone they know that also uses ISBoxer to bomb? Then we're right back where we started, except that individually controlled fleets are further behind than before.
Why not be proactive for once and head the problem off before it happens, rather than letting it happen, then thinking about fixing it. Because we all know that once it's in, it'll be a lot more difficult to convince CCP to revert it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13685
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 07:30:00 -
[587] - Quote
Calvyr Travonis wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Oh I got it before, I actually like old pythagorus and his sex cult.
I think the best thing will be proof of concept, if isboxers are seen to go to the onetime effort to set up the new ones and keep on keeping on. All the theory crafting in the world is easier to show once empirical evidence is dragged out into the town square and shown for what it really is (scooby doo reveal)
m So what you're saying is that we just leave this all as proposed and "if" the ISBoxers adapt, which we know they will, then revisit it? Because you know that they aren't going to test it on SiSi, they'll wait for it to go live. You said yourself that it'll be a one-time effort to set up, then they'll just continue on, business as usual. Is it really worth even considering that they won't immediately make that one-time effort, then share the setup with everyone they know that also uses ISBoxer to bomb? Then we're right back where we started, except that individually controlled fleets are further behind than before. Why not be proactive for once and head the problem off before it happens, rather than letting it happen, then thinking about fixing it. Because we all know that once it's in, it'll be a lot more difficult to convince CCP to revert it. -EDIT- Oh, and even if the decloak change were to discourage ISBoxer bombing, even in the slightest, (which it won't) you're still forgetting about the fact that you're not just affecting SBs with the change. You're screwing with EVERY cloaky ship in the game, from scouts, to T3s, Recons, Black Ops, the works! All in the name of a "fix" that won't actually fix the problem in the first place.
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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1701
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 07:33:00 -
[588] - Quote
Calvyr Travonis wrote:
So what you're saying is that we just leave this all as proposed and "if" the ISBoxers adapt, which we know they will, then revisit it?
No, I think we should be holding a logical and open discussion and I have asked for input, summarized said input, presented it here and then taken it to CCP, THAT is what I do.
Nut this change discussion is about stealth bombing and (a point a lot of you are ignoring) stealth in general. Not ISBoxer.
Discuss the issues on the table and try to avoid designing the way a multiboxer will work his way around it.
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1932
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 08:20:00 -
[589] - Quote
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. +1 |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 08:32:00 -
[590] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Calvyr Travonis wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Oh I got it before, I actually like old pythagorus and his sex cult.
I think the best thing will be proof of concept, if isboxers are seen to go to the onetime effort to set up the new ones and keep on keeping on. All the theory crafting in the world is easier to show once empirical evidence is dragged out into the town square and shown for what it really is (scooby doo reveal)
m So what you're saying is that we just leave this all as proposed and "if" the ISBoxers adapt, which we know they will, then revisit it? Because you know that they aren't going to test it on SiSi, they'll wait for it to go live. You said yourself that it'll be a one-time effort to set up, then they'll just continue on, business as usual. Is it really worth even considering that they won't immediately make that one-time effort, then share the setup with everyone they know that also uses ISBoxer to bomb? Then we're right back where we started, except that individually controlled fleets are further behind than before. Why not be proactive for once and head the problem off before it happens, rather than letting it happen, then thinking about fixing it. Because we all know that once it's in, it'll be a lot more difficult to convince CCP to revert it. -EDIT- Oh, and even if the decloak change were to discourage ISBoxer bombing, even in the slightest, (which it won't) you're still forgetting about the fact that you're not just affecting SBs with the change. You're screwing with EVERY cloaky ship in the game, from scouts, to T3s, Recons, Black Ops, the works! All in the name of a "fix" that won't actually fix the problem in the first place. 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.
|
|
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 08:34:00 -
[591] - 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.
QFT
Scrap the cloak change and I think that most everyone can live with everything else. |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 08:54:00 -
[592] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:No, I think we should be holding a logical and open discussion and I have asked for input, summarized said input, presented it here and then taken it to CCP, THAT is what I do.
Nut this change discussion is about stealth bombing and (a point a lot of you are ignoring) stealth in general. Not ISBoxer.
Discuss the issues on the table and try to avoid designing the way a multiboxer will work his way around it.
m
I've seen many good suggestions in this thread and on reddit as alternatives to completely nutting fleets in several other areas of the game because of one niche fleet type in null sec by implementing this proposed cloaking change. The top two, in my opinion, are:
- 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.
Is that what you're looking for, Mike? ISBoxer or not, personally I don't really care. Admittedly, I'm not a fan of it, but I see it's advantages and don't blame people for using it. And as long as it isn't against the EULA, people should be free to use it, so realistically, this whole thing isn't about ISBoxer to me, it's about stealth. The bottom line is that if the problem is with bombers, the solution should affect bombers, not every ship that cloaks. |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 09:18:00 -
[593] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Oh I got it before, I actually like old pythagorus and his sex cult.
I think the best thing will be proof of concept, if isboxers are seen to go to the onetime effort to set up the new ones and keep on keeping on. All the theory crafting in the world is easier to show once empirical evidence is dragged out into the town square and shown for what it really is (scooby doo reveal)
m
said this a couple post before.... no harm in quoting it again:
Quote:"The only lesson we ever learn is that we never learn " Robert Fisk:
no use in warning any further... Rule one to beeing alowed to propose changes in EVE, know nothing about the actual gameplay involved and never listen to detailed arguments on how the changes are flawded... I wont even go to ignoring better proposals.. cuz that wouldn't fit into your own agenda.
see you on the field ( i'll be in bombers) o/
|
Bakuhz
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 09:28:00 -
[594] - Quote
Not happy about the changes i can live with all of them but one the decoaking of cloaks.
Atleast give fleets the ability to see eachother even when cloaked so we have a visual of our bombers or limit it atleast to squad level. Either showing the cloak visual on all ships or some kind of IFF transponder signal so we see ranges and blibs on the field. so far in the future there should be technology for that.
This way you can pretty much implement your ''HULK SMASH NERF" and atleast move up the quality of life to navigate better with bombers
http://kb.negativewaves.co.uk/corporation/98315061/
|
lexa21
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 10:27:00 -
[595] - Quote
Have You ever tried to kill something solo on a bomber after it becomes torp? NO YOU HAVEN`T! Do you know how good you should be for killing anything except industrial ships on a bomber solo? No you don`t! But hey ill tell you what you can kill with a bomber solo:
*stupid frigate *stupid solo flycatcher *noob raven *an industrial ship *offlined POS modules
How the hell should i play this ship if i like solo pvp? The answer is - i should trash this ship. And now you are telling me that i will have less agility and more signature? |
Pliskkenn
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 10:34:00 -
[596] - Quote
lexa21 wrote:Have You ever tried to kill something solo on a bomber after it becomes torp? NO YOU HAVEN`T! Do you know how good you should be for killing anything except industrial ships on a bomber solo? No you don`t! But hey ill tell you what you can kill with a bomber solo:
*stupid frigate *stupid solo flycatcher *noob raven *an industrial ship *offlined POS modules
How the hell should i play this ship if i like solo pvp? The answer is - i should trash this ship. And now you are telling me that i will have less agility and more signature?
That's like complaining about logistics cruisers not having excellent solo capabilities (not that this has stopped people from putting out great videos.) I'm pretty certain bombers have always been designed with group activity in mind. |
Sieonigh
Vengance Inc.
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 11:09:00 -
[597] - Quote
Calvyr Travonis wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:No, I think we should be holding a logical and open discussion and I have asked for input, summarized said input, presented it here and then taken it to CCP, THAT is what I do.
Nut this change discussion is about stealth bombing and (a point a lot of you are ignoring) stealth in general. Not ISBoxer.
Discuss the issues on the table and try to avoid designing the way a multiboxer will work his way around it.
m I've seen many good suggestions in this thread and on reddit as alternatives to completely nutting fleets in several other areas of the game because of one niche fleet type in null sec by implementing this proposed cloaking change. The top two, in my opinion, are:
- 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.
Is that what you're looking for, Mike? ISBoxer or not, personally I don't really care. Admittedly, I'm not a fan of it, but I see it's advantages and don't blame people for using it. And as long as it isn't against the EULA, people should be free to use it, so realistically, this whole thing isn't about ISBoxer to me, it's about stealth. The bottom line is that if the problem is with bombers, the solution should affect bombers, not every ship that cloaks.
A rework of defender missiles to target bombs. i would also go to ask for a defender missile luncher that desen't require a launcher slot, it can only take defender missals. this would be so that missle ships wont be hampered with loss of damage and will use up a utility high slot. the player will have to hit the launcher to launch 1x defender
a specialized anti bomb defender missle would also be usefull, it would be coded to auto target 1 random bomb within it operation range this will be to ensure that all defenders from a group of players don't go for the same one but the random element also means that its possible that some wont get targeted (of coarse enough monkeys with typewriters will...). it will do omni damage types but can't be used on players. |
lexa21
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 11:13:00 -
[598] - Quote
Sieonigh wrote:[quote=Calvyr Travonis][quote=Mike Azariah]
A rework of defender missiles to target bombs. i would also go to ask for a defender missile luncher that desen't require a launcher slot, it can only take defender missals. this would be so that missle ships wont be hampered with loss of damage and will use up a utility high slot. the player will have to hit the launcher to launch 1x defender
a specialized anti bomb defender missle would also be usefull, it would be coded to auto target 1 random bomb within it operation range, it will do omni damage types but can't be used on players.
The only problem is non target mechanics of bombs and target mechanic of defeners |
Minalist
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 11:31:00 -
[599] - Quote
lexa21 wrote:Have You ever tried to kill something solo on a bomber after it becomes torp? NO YOU HAVEN`T! Do you know how good you should be for killing anything except industrial ships on a bomber solo? No you don`t! But hey ill tell you what you can kill with a bomber solo:
*stupid frigate *stupid solo flycatcher *noob raven *an industrial ship *offlined POS modules
How the hell should i play this ship if i like solo pvp? The answer is - i should trash this ship. And now you are telling me that i will have less agility and more signature?
No problem mate
Fozzie gave us HP buff so even when we all jump to BM and decloack as one we'll still have some chance of survival . . . . . . until Naga, Tornado, Flycatcher, alpha Thrashers, Talwar and others say "Hello! - Goodbye".
I was planing to train my exploration alt to use bombers but I see no point with these changes.
Too bad. If bomb skills had been trained, a bomb run in Jita would be my order for Phoebe launch. At least I'll have fireworks. |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 11:33:00 -
[600] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Calvyr Travonis wrote:
So what you're saying is that we just leave this all as proposed and "if" the ISBoxers adapt, which we know they will, then revisit it?
No, I think we should be holding a logical and open discussion and I have asked for input, summarized said input, presented it here and then taken it to CCP, THAT is what I do. Nut this change discussion is about stealth bombing and (a point a lot of you are ignoring) stealth in general. Not ISBoxer. Discuss the issues on the table and try to avoid designing the way a multiboxer will work his way around it. m
- not seeing your allies and decloaking your fleet - was not a problem brought up? - all other ships using a cloak are affected by this? WHs operations depend on beeing hidden until you can get that point onto your prey - every other person in system that is cloaked/warping cloaked etc is a liability? - "returning gamefeature" that was years ago fixed because it was a bug?
i find it funny how you think this playerbase is stupid enough to not see this is a reaction to multiboxbomber setups... its an insult to be honnest.
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.
but keep ignoring the players who actualy log in and use the features you are nerfbatting... it has always worked in the passed (< sarcasm )
|
|
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 |
|
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 08:58:00 -
[631] - Quote
This doesn't solve any of the problems. It just makes bombers more annoying to use for everyone, and not much else.
I keep saying this: The biggest problems with bombs are due to their 100% tie to sig radius. Shield BS, battlecruisers, shield cruisers and MWD frigs all melt for this reason. The polar opposite of this is sig-tanked setups like ANI's which can tank an obscene (112) number of bombs with boosts and heat.
At the same time, I don't have much issue with a 50-man bomber fleet pulling off a well co-ordinated run against a megathron fleet today.
So here is what I would do:
*Add explosion velocity to bombs, like torps *Reduce explosion radius from 400 to say ~250 *Keep bomb HP like OP *Keep the slower align time like OP *Remove the cloak changes
With explosion velocity as a factor, more mobile ships have a better defense against bombs due to their higher speed, on top of being more difficult to hit in the first place due to ground zero being static after a fleetwarp is committed. Theoretically, shield ships are generally more mobile. Having MWD on might be a good option to mitigate bomb damage. Armor retains some of their advantage as sig is still a factor.
Obviously the damage formula would have to be carefully worked out, but that's the concept.
This will also reduce the number of target options a multiboxer can feasibly go after with a single squad, which is what the vast majority of them run. They could try to move to two squads, but this is much more difficult., expensive and logistically difficult. If you look at the kills multiboxers get, the vast majority of them are shield cruisers, destroyers and bc's, outside of single-target attacks.
The cloak changes are clunky and widely disliked. You say that bomb runs happened before and they will after this reversion, but that was before people adopted anti-bomber techniques like perimeter bubbles, pre-hic warpins and the like. Or even had the presence of mind to think bombers were on field. This change also severely hurts cloaky gate camps and blops drops. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
922
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 11:17:00 -
[632] - Quote
nemesis definitely needs some help .. aswell as all of them needing more PG so they can actually fit some tank ... nemesis is the slowest of the bunch which is unusual for gallente ships... consider reducing the cpu need of bulkheads so it can hull tank .. 40 cpu is very high .. 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 |
Marcia en Welle
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:05:00 -
[633] - Quote
I am all for these changes to bombers. But changing the cloaking mechanic is regressive and adds no gameplay benefit alongside having lots of unintended side effects to many other areas of the game.
Yes, bombers used to decloak each other, but then we also used to warp to 15km at stargates, and probes had to be individually positioned each time. |
Oxide Ammar
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:16:00 -
[634] - Quote
Aside from the stupid nerf to cloaky ships, has anyone run the numbers if the 4 bombers will be able to run 3x tech II torp launchers + tech II bomb launcher with out sacrificing arm and leg of your fit ? because if not that means clearly Fozzie have zero knowledge about bombers. 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. |
TAckermassacker
New Republic The Initiative.
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:30:00 -
[635] - Quote
can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:37:00 -
[636] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Aside from the stupid nerf to cloaky ships, has anyone run the numbers if the 4 bombers will be able to run 3x tech II torp launchers + tech II bomb launcher with out sacrificing arm and leg of your fit ? because if not that means clearly Fozzie have zero knowledge about bombers.
They cannot do this now - nor should they be able to. The extra fitting room will be nice, but the extra signature radius will be a horrible addition. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:40:00 -
[637] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings.
I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
245
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 12:43:00 -
[638] - Quote
Just posting to further echo the sentiment of the decloak change being rubbish. It's going to impact all ships that fit cloaks. As others have said, bringing this back intentionally without having some way of seeing where your fleetmates are is really poor. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
922
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:20:00 -
[639] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline.
well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall 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 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1935
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:30:00 -
[640] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall
Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :) +1 |
|
Herrin Asura
Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:43:00 -
[641] - Quote
Thats a thing of the past. After Phoebe we have the size of a Destroyer.... |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
922
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:20:00 -
[642] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :)
not really a nemesis is a good 40m bigger than an enyo 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 |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
169
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:28:00 -
[643] - Quote
Calvyr Travonis wrote: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
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.
Their is a man in my corp had a scaffolding fall on him not only does he play with two pencils taped to his hands but has trouble seeing or remembering the placement of keys |
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
794
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:29:00 -
[644] - Quote
I am a bit concerned with the Manticore and Nemesis having the same grid but one having more CPU.
The Manticore has long been the obvious choice over the nemesis since both had the same grid (not to say it's the go to bomber, just that there isn't much reason to pick the Nemesis instead), but the manticore has more CPU which means anything you can fit on the nemesis can be fit on the maticore, but the manticore is slightly more maneuverable (mainly due to mass, and though the difference isn't what I would call significant, I have seen it brought up) and has fitting room to spare, so anything Nemisis can do, manticore can do better.
Under these changes, the situation is reversed, Nemesis can fit anything Manticore can and then some, and now has better mobility (aside from speed). I really think they need some differentiation similar to the Hound and Purifier in that one has more CPU while the other has more grid, so they can have different fittings rather than one just being able to fit more stuff. it may not make the Nemesis more attractive as a ship, but does at least provide differentiation rather than having a ship be mostly redundant.
Also Nemesis needs to be changed to a Roden ship. ==== I would also add my support to saying making cloaked ships decloak each other once again is a bad change in general. it disrupts covert gangs too much, and I fail to see very many advantages to the metagame as a whole. if we could at least track the location (and thus, distance) of cloaked fleetmates, that would at least mitigate the disadvantages by letting us prevent accidental decloaks.
On a side note. While it is nice you are looking at bombs, I would hope you guys are also looking at Stealth bombers from the Torpedo platform standpoint. The bomb launchers are the primary point of these ships, but the fact they use battleship sized weaponry despite being a (much) smaller platform, is still and important aspect of their design, so their viability in that role needs to be preserved even with bomb changes. I am a bit concerned the sig radius changes meant to allow fleets to better defend themselves against bombing runs may harm the viability of Stealth bombers as torpedo platforms.
If you feel bombers on a bombing mission need to be easier to target and destroy, you should attach a sig radius penalty to the bomb launcher so ships using them are easier to take down, while ships fitted solely as torpedo platforms aren't harmed by the change (being in active combat that long is already hazardous enough on its own given the paltry defenses)
Also, a personal note: I think it would be neat to expand bombers to be able to carry all of the Battleship launcher types to enhance their diversity a bit. |
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
794
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:30:00 -
[645] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :) They used to be, but since they added models for missile launchers, the Bombers have gotten new models that are a fair bit larger than other frigates in order to fit torpedo launchers |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
169
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:40:00 -
[646] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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.
do you know what hardware is because its not the game's software |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:24:00 -
[647] - Quote
CW Itovuo wrote: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.
I always get a kick out of people that think they know about about modern weapons tech and then try to apply it to eve.
There is this thing called a Target Painter that takes the place of the aircraft mounting guidance systems. Anyone can carry one, even infantry. Its how an aircraft can launch a cruise missile from 100km away or a 500lb bomb from 50,000 feet and still hit a 1-foot-square target like the air-shaft of a bunker complex even when its cloudy.
Eve target painters are of course used for a different purpose. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
TAckermassacker
New Republic The Initiative.
62
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:25:00 -
[648] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius? This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :) They used to be, but since they added models for missile launchers, the Bombers have gotten new models that are a fair bit larger than other frigates in order to fit torpedo launchers
really arguing the ship model to the stats? if you go for this a machariel must have got 3000m signature radius in the last pirate faction rebalance. So please gtfo with shipmodel to use of ship arguing.
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13692
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 16:32:00 -
[649] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:baltec1 wrote: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. do you know what hardware is because its not the game's software
We had this the other year, CCP does not snoop on your computer like an Icelandic NSA. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13692
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 16:34:00 -
[650] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
A bomber does not do the job of an assault frigate. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
TAckermassacker
New Republic The Initiative.
63
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:01:00 -
[651] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
A bomber does not do the job of an assault frigate.
i was referring a worm in specific cause its a position independent kiting frigate with high dps. (that sounds like the job of a bomber to me) |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
590
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:17:00 -
[652] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
A bomber does not do the job of an assault frigate.
A worm isn't an assault frigate. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:04:00 -
[653] - Quote
So, I did a thing and added some theoretical damage stats to a bomb (expVel=100m/s, DRF=5.5) for the purposes of simulating percentage damage reduction to bombs for a typical baltec Megathron and a Rail Rokh. Relevant aspects of the fits are listed below the chart.
http://imgur.com/co68YeH
Obviously, a Mega or Rokh without an MWD is not going to go 1200m/s. But for the purposes of getting all the data into one chart, the data has to extend that far or google automatically stretches it to fit the chart. Google charts fail.
Each curve consists of 120 data points. The curves for "noMWD" apply identically to no prop mod or AB on, since the horizontal scale shows velocity and sigRad doesn't change for those conditions.
Relevant Stats: (all 5s and max links) Mega with 2x 1600mm T2 plates, 2x T1 trimarks, and 1x T1 EM pump.
- Mega w/o prop mod running: sigRad: 249m, max vel: 135m/s, align time: 9.4 sec.
- Mega w/MWD running: sigRad: 1493m, max vel: 1201m/s, align time: 14 sec.
- Mega w/AB running: sigRad: 249m, max vel: 423m/s, align time: 14 sec.
Rokh w 1x LSE II and 3x LCDFE I.
- Rokh w/o prop mod running: sigRad: 388m, max Vel: 111m/s, 11.4 sec.
- Rokh w/MWD running: sigRad: 2246m, max Vel: 986m/s, 16.8 sec.
- Rokh w/AB running: sigRad: 388, max Vel: 347m/s, align time: 16.8 sec.
The above chart tells us a lot. Please remember, the Rokh is also slower than the Mega. So a direct vertical comparison at each ship's top speed is not possible.
- The current linear reductions due to expRad/sigRad mean there is no way to mitigate bomb damage except with links and boosters (drugs).
- Armor tanks currently enjoy an insanely unbalanced advantage over shield tanks. The difference between the no-prop lines clearly shows this.
- The chart clearly shows that sigRad will still play a huge part in how much damage shield tanks take over armor tanks, even when velocity is figured into the equation.
- Enabling velocity reductions would reduce the amount of damage taken, but only once the effected ship reaches a sufficiently high velocity. In this case, no-prop mod battleships don't benefit much from a velocity reduction.
- Full speed align AB would give the Mega an apx 85% damage reduction. A Rokh would get apx 74% reduction. That being said, those are pretty big reductions. Bombs would become pretty meaningless to full-speed aligned ABing battleships.
- Using an MWD increases mobility at the expense of taking more damage from pretty much everything. Full speed MWD Mega would still receive a 79% reduction. A Rokh would get only a 43% reduction. In this case, the huge difference in sigRad makes a huge difference in damage.
Now for another graph that show a comparison using a Rokh that suffers no penalties to its sigRad from shield rigs or extenders. http://imgur.com/IOqXs5D
In this example, the Rokh would have only a 1965m sigRad with MWD on, 328m without. This brings the MWD reduction to 50% at 895m/s, and AB reduction to 77%. This compares a little bit better imo.
At this point, I feel its more of a balance point decision on exactly how much damage one feels is healthy for the environment. But some things MUST happen to bring bombs into balance: remove the shield sigRad penalties through either a straight removal of penalties, or give us skills to reduce the penalties to nothing, a combination of a reduction in the penalties and the skills to make them negligible, and consider velocity in the bomb damage equation.
Also, I'm providing the link to my spreadsheet so people can see for themselves that the math and theory are good, as well as play with the numbers for themselves. Interesting things happen when you play with the DRF. Please don't wreck the sheet. Google is bad with their permission levels. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13692
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:10:00 -
[654] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:baltec1 wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:
you have a lot disadvantages already if you compare a stealthbomber with a worm in terms of stats, damage and projection you have already many sacrifices.
A bomber does not do the job of an assault frigate. i was referring a worm in specific cause its a position independent kiting frigate with high dps. (that sounds like the job of a bomber to me)
bomber is a stealthy torpedo boat built for attacking shipping and large targets such as battleships.Worm is an anti interceptor.
Two very different jobs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
568
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:23:00 -
[655] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:At this point, I feel its more of a balance point decision on exactly how much damage one feels is healthy for the environment. But some things MUST happen to bring bombs into balance: remove the shield sigRad penalties through either a straight removal of penalties, or give us skills to reduce the penalties to nothing, a combination of a reduction in the penalties and the skills to make them negligible, and consider velocity in the bomb damage equation. Great post.
Adding skills to reduce signature radius is an interesting idea, but since that skill would impact such a wide range of game mechanics it would have to be balanced very carefully with all of them taken into consideration, not just with bombs in mind. Possible, but would requite mounds of effort.
Removing the penalty of signature radius to bomb damage would be wholly broken as it would allow bombers to ZOMGWTFBBQ frigate fleets with ease. This is what is referred to in my line of work as "A very bad idea."
Adding velocity to the bomb damage equation I think is the most viable solution. It would bring it in line with the missile damage equation, and help address the imbalance between bomb damage applied to shield and armor battleships. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:34:00 -
[656] - Quote
You could also co-ordinate with other subcap fleets to web anchors down prior to a bomb run.
It would also buff void bombs a little bit, as shutting off prop mods would be very useful for increase bomb damage yield.
Maybe even webbing bombs?
Damage formula needs some work I think, the difference between the rokh and the mega is still a bit big in my opinion (although armor can still have some small advantage)
One thing that would be really nice to keep is the ability for bombers to ruthlessly exploit mistakes. That's something I really like with bombers and cloaky ships in general. Explosion velocity in the damage formula works towards that. If you mess up your insertion to the field (ie. don't use defensive hics or perimeter bubbles) you will be vulnerable while not moving. Also getting dragged unexpectedly or similar would have bigger consequences.
The other thing is, I don't think armor ships should be buffed at all versus today, so adding velocity will be tricky to balance. That's why I suggested dropping the explosion radius down from 400 to 250 or something to level the playing field a bit. This would apply higher damage to sig-tanked armor fleets to compensate for the buff they get from velocity. It shouldn't make much difference for shield fleets. |
Redd Dredd
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 19:42:00 -
[657] - Quote
If you could somehow make it so that it takes less than 60 seconds to lock an SB by a pos scram or web, that would go a long ways towards bringing them back in line. Currently there are no POS defenses against a bomber gang as even the smallest POS guns cant track or hit them. If I am manning the guns on a POS, I should be able to kill one or two of them at a minimum. Right now it is a pretty broken mechanic. |
DUBLYUR
D A R K Homeworld DARK UNI0N
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 20:11:00 -
[658] - Quote
This is a very bad update by CCP Fozzie.
Sorry that CCP can not make the game.
Like falling online? :
http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
846
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 20:12:00 -
[659] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Soldarius wrote:At this point, I feel its more of a balance point decision on exactly how much damage one feels is healthy for the environment. But some things MUST happen to bring bombs into balance: remove the shield sigRad penalties through either a straight removal of penalties, or give us skills to reduce the penalties to nothing, a combination of a reduction in the penalties and the skills to make them negligible, and consider velocity in the bomb damage equation. Great post. Adding skills to reduce signature radius is an interesting idea, but since that skill would impact such a wide range of game mechanics it would have to be balanced very carefully with all of them taken into consideration, not just with bombs in mind. Possible, but would requite mounds of effort. Removing the penalty of signature radius to bomb damage would be wholly broken as it would allow bombers to ZOMGWTFBBQ frigate fleets with ease. This is what is referred to in my line of work as "A very bad idea." Adding velocity to the bomb damage equation I think is the most viable solution. It would bring it in line with the missile damage equation, and help address the imbalance between bomb damage applied to shield and armor battleships.
I apologize. My wording was clunky and difficult to understand, and this has already led to a misunderstandings. Let me elucidate (holy crap that word came right out out of my ass and I actually had the usage correct. I have shat a golden egg.) upon the matter.
I didn't want a skill to reduce sigRad. I want a skill to reduce the sigRad penalty of shield extenders. We already have a skill the reduces the penalty of shield rigs (Shield Rigging).
Shield Rigging: 10% reduction in the penalty of shield rigs per level. Up this to 20% per level. Let us completely remove the penalty.
Shield Focusing (Proposed new skill): 20% reduction in the signature radius penalty of shield extenders per level.
I did not suggest removing explosion radius / sigRad consideration from bombs. Only adding the velocity part so that it works exactly like missile damage.
The numbers I chose to play with (100 m/s and 400 meters) were just a base line that seemed appropriate for a generic battleship weapon. They can and should be tweaked until a balance is found. I've found tweaking DRF downward lessens the sudden drop in damage reductions.
Train both to 5 and voila, no more shield penalties. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 20:32:00 -
[660] - Quote
I would love for alphafleet and battlecruiser fleets to make a comeback, but it's not going to happen without some change to the damage formula. |
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
846
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 20:59:00 -
[661] - Quote
oodell wrote:I would love for alphafleet and battlecruiser fleets to make a comeback, but it's not going to happen without some change to the damage formula.
and Ishtars. And T3s.
Also WTB recon rebalance.
"Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 21:08:00 -
[662] - Quote
I didn't even think of attack battlecruisers. It would be great to see them in nullsec again.
The cloak changes also go against the whole 'wait for a mistake' mentality. Today you can keep a bomber fleet on a jump bridge, or even 30km off a fighting fleet, waiting for them to change align, bubble themselves, turn on MWD or stop moving. You won't be able to do that decloaked, multiboxed or not. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
569
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 21:48:00 -
[663] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:I apologize. My wording was clunky and difficult to understand, and this has already led to a misunderstandings. Let me elucidate (holy crap that word came right out out of my ass and I actually had the usage correct. I have shat a golden egg.) upon the matter.
I didn't want a skill to reduce sigRad. I want a skill to reduce the sigRad penalty of shield extenders. We already have a skill the reduces the penalty of shield rigs (Shield Rigging).
Shield Rigging: 10% reduction in the penalty of shield rigs per level. Up this to 20% per level. Let us completely remove the penalty.
Shield Focusing (Proposed new skill): 20% reduction in the signature radius penalty of shield extenders per level.
Train both to 5 and voila, no more shield penalties.
I did not suggest removing explosion radius / sigRad consideration from bombs. Only adding the velocity part so that it works exactly like missile damage.
The numbers I chose to play with (100 m/s and 400 meters) were just a base line that seemed appropriate for a generic battleship weapon. They can and should be tweaked until a balance is found. I've found tweaking DRF downward lessens the sudden drop in damage reductions. Ah, okay that makes far more sense. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Some thoughts:
1. I have a hard time seeing the justification of making Shield Rigging function differently than all of the other penalized Rigging skills just because Bomb damage is out of whack because the motivation has absolutely nothing to do with rigs.
2. A skill reducing the signature radius penalty of shield extenders would actually be fairly reasonable given that there's a skill to reduce the mass penalty of armor plates. However, that skill, Armor Layering, only offers a 5% bonus, not a 20% bonus. Drop "Shield Focusing" down to 5% reduction, and I'd be sold on it.
3. Yeah, still agree that velocity needs to be part of the Bomb damage equation. That's pretty straightforward.
4. If velocity were to be factored into Bomb damage and you changed the Shield Rigging skill, then you'd have to change the penalty reduction for Armor Rigging too in order to maintain parity. Then you'd end up with two penalized Rigging skills working different than the other penalized Rigging skills for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with rigs.
Getting closer, but I think your pushing for too much. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23167
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 21:55:00 -
[664] - Quote
From what I've seen of the ISBoxer creator, he's alright. He's familiar with game companies and their policies--apparently he had some court appearances as well, related to a Blizzard lawsuit against a botter. ISBoxer AMA read it, ISBoxer author is good people.
Point is, the most likely way ISBoxer will get "banned" from EVE is if CCP simply asks him nicely.
The main thing to remember about ISBoxer is it can only do what a group of individual pilots can do. Those are two separate issues: what's possible, and who is doing it.
Who is doing it is nobody's business. It's a character or group of characters, operating within the game mechanics.
What is possible in this case is coordinated bombing runs that are too easy to set up and too powerful when executed.
I saw that wormholer's post about decloaking, and I'm assuming they use nulli/covert T3 blobs, which probably gets hit pretty hard by this change. In that case as well as bombers, it's just OP. Those subsystems are balanced by a nerf to DPS but what they've done is decided to use N of them to compensate for the lower DPS, with no loss of the cloaky and nulli subsystem benefits.
This cloaking change is to bring that scalability back into balance. 1 player with 50 characters or 50 characters, doesn't matter.
If you dislike the idea of ISBoxer, you should like this cloak change. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur | Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined | |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 22:15:00 -
[665] - Quote
Small groups of bombers are anathema to shield ships, particularly cruisers. That's true if it's one person multiboxing or a group of people in a fleet. The main advantage multiboxed bombers have is simply their ability to bring enough bombs very quickly without the logistical and setup mess of a group of people. If a multiboxer preloads this effort himself, well good for him. The cloak nerf makes setup and organization way worse for groups of people and slightly more annoying for a multiboxer.
The cloak change doesn't do anything to fix the problems with bombs against the vulnerable ships. Shield ships are broken against bombers to begin with, it just so happens that they're an easy and obvious target for multiboxers, since they can be nuked by a single squad fairly easily.
Rain6637 wrote:If you dislike the idea of ISBoxer, you should like this cloak change.
Wrong. Multiboxers already have to work around dozens of barriers, adding one more isn't going to change anything |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23167
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 22:23:00 -
[666] - Quote
I was admiring your recent work against replicator, it was inspiring.
I think we might have to disagree on this one. I was thinking bombing runs are just as possible after this change, it just means everyone will have to be a big boy and make their own warpout point. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur | Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined | |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 22:33:00 -
[667] - Quote
Disagree on what? I just told you I can work around the cloak change. I'll just curse Fozzie every time I have to warp anywhere. It doesn't fix the root cause. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23168
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 22:47:00 -
[668] - Quote
well. I kind of agree with the decloaking radius as a way of throttling the density of cloakies in space. 1 cloaked ship per sphere. It adds an extra step, of the warp-in flying perpendicular to the warp direction, with each cloaky warping in every 5 or 6 seconds (as the warp-in covers each 2km (plus a bit extra). but it still leaves the same warp-out valid, and they shouldn't bother each other in cloaky align for long enough. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur | Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined | |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 22:56:00 -
[669] - Quote
'throttling the density of cloakies in space' doesn't add anything for the amount it'll **** everyone off |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23168
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 23:11:00 -
[670] - Quote
Yeah for individual players, I see your point. Comms won't compare to the awareness of a multiboxer. Keeping cloakies separated is also a safeguard against one ship decloaking the whole group, but doing that over comms is nearly impossible compared to the awareness of a multiboxer (who can easily compare each ship's location). I guess that's why I'm ok with this change, especially after already flying cloakies with separation.
So ok, this change really sucks for cloaky gangs of individual players. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur | Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined | |
|
TAckermassacker
New Republic The Initiative.
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 23:36:00 -
[671] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
bomber is a stealthy torpedo boat built for attacking shipping and large targets such as battleships.Worm is an anti interceptor.
Two very different jobs.
proves you havent used one of these in a long time. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23169
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 00:16:00 -
[672] - Quote
it's also possible fozzie simply doesn't want cloakies used en masse, at all. (greyscale, whoever) President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur | Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined | |
Flashrain
Vanguard Frontiers Intrepid Crossing
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:10:00 -
[673] - Quote
Bomb more often - reduce bomb volume by 90%. That will tend to more bomb runs than mere reload speed. We run out of bombs to drop.
Anticapital bomb - Need a very strong visual to indicate where it explodes/affects the target. This will be practically impossible to gauge effectiveness... actually apply this visual to existing void bombs and ECM bombs too. At least damage bombs leave wrecks to prove its effect.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1541
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:38:00 -
[674] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:baltec1 wrote:
bomber is a stealthy torpedo boat built for attacking shipping and large targets such as battleships.Worm is an anti interceptor.
Two very different jobs.
proves you havent used one of these in a long time. The bomber? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23170
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:48:00 -
[675] - Quote
Who knows. Pointless comment that doesn't say anything constructive. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur | Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined | |
Iam Widdershins
Spidercakes Baked Goods and Industriel Servises
879
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 02:43:00 -
[676] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:My question regarding the new anti-capital void bomb (which, incidentally, I think is a really cool idea): with a 1 meter area of effect, does the bomb have to land within 1 meter of the ships physical model, or it's collision radius? I know that on some caps, especially titans and the Naglfar, this will make a difference.
Thanks! The "physical model" and "collision radius" are the same thing. The model you see with all the polygons and wings and guns and stuff, that points in different directions, does not exist on the server and is purely visual. As far as the server is concerned we're all driving little non-oriented spheres around and bumping into each other all day.
If the bomb shows less than 1m distance on the enemy's overview when it explodes, that'd be a hit. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 03:33:00 -
[677] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:CW Itovuo wrote: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. I always get a kick out of people that think they know about about modern weapons tech and then try to apply it to eve. There is this thing called a Target Painter that can take the place of the aircraft mounting laser. Anyone can carry one, even infantry. Its how an aircraft can launch a cruise missile from 100km away or a 500lb bomb from 50,000 feet and still hit a 1-foot-square target like the air-shaft of a bunker complex even when its cloudy. Eve target painters are of course used for a different purpose.
Sanctimonious much?
Target painters in EVE are used for exactly the same purpose: increased accuracy which leads to greater lethality.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13693
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 03:42:00 -
[678] - Quote
TAckermassacker wrote:baltec1 wrote:
bomber is a stealthy torpedo boat built for attacking shipping and large targets such as battleships.Worm is an anti interceptor.
Two very different jobs.
proves you havent used one of these in a long time.
Feel free to give me an anti frig torp bomber that can do the job of a worm. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
32
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 07:54:00 -
[679] - Quote
i suppose at least making the cloacked fleet visibile each other is the only chance to let something like a bomber bar living... and at lore level is absolutly acceptable than a ship without any form of sensor (even visual)... |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
415
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 10:31:00 -
[680] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:So, I did a thing and added some theoretical damage stats to a bomb (expVel=100m/s, DRF=5.5) for the purposes of simulating percentage damage reduction to bombs for a typical baltec Megathron and a Rail Rokh. Relevant aspects of the fits are listed below the chart.
-snip-
Those figures are why I don't think damage reduction based on velocity is a good idea- most ships can reach fairly high velocities, even battleships, and to balance out and do appropriate damage to moving battleships, you have to buff the damage or fiddle with the sig damage equation. What you really want is something that takes a little inertia into consideration- the fact that large ship's high velocities are achievable, but not without a longer acceleration time/time to orientate. Damage fall off based on distance from point of detonation gives you that, as damage mitigation is provided by positioning (indirectly by velocity, agility and acceleration) rather than pure speed alone.
Doing the math actually highlights some interesting stuff. I started off with a typical linear fall-off, setting the bomb damage to 200% at the center, 100% at half radius, 0% at max radius, but obviously this is wrong as this significantly reduces the bomb's overall value because of the volume component. In order to achieve the same damage-volume, you have to apply the linear fall-off to the volume:
r% damage 1199.9407407 2199.5259259 3198.4 4196.2074074 5192.5925926 6187.2 7179.6740741 8169.6592593 9156.8 10140.7407407 11121.1259259 1297.6 1369.80740741 1437.39259259 150
What's interesting to note about this application of bombs is that, in a typical bombing pattern where all bombers either align to the same distant celestial or to a single target (which gives variations up to 5 km) and released together, the damage at the center of the run is actually identical due to the fact that the doubled damage results in an optimal bomb wave of 3-4 bombs, more being destroyed by the damage. This forces more thought into either spread patterns or rippled release times.
You could, instead, dilute the bomb damage-volume over a greater area, keeping 100% damage at the center and going from there:
r% damage 199.98518519 299.88148148 399.6 499.05185185 598.14814815 696.8 794.91851852 892.41481481 989.2 1085.18518519 1180.28148148 1274.4 1367.45185185 1459.34814815 1550 1639.31851852 1727.21481481 1813.6 190
Of course, there's also potential to fiddle around with the bomb's explosion radius itself, and the distance coverable with an MWD vs. the potential extra damage due to the sig bloom should always be taken into consideration (the long cycle time of prop mods makes this a difficult thing to consider on the fly, but those kinds of snap-decisions are part of what makes EVE fun). |
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
573
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:41:00 -
[681] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:The "physical model" and "collision radius" are the same thing. The model you see with all the polygons and wings and guns and stuff, that points in different directions, does not exist on the server and is purely visual. As far as the server is concerned we're all driving little non-oriented spheres around and bumping into each other all day.
If the bomb shows less than 1m distance on the enemy's overview when it explodes, that'd be a hit. I understand that. However, I can be at 0m from something and not bump off of it while still approaching, while sometimes I can bump off of something that I'm more than 0m away from. The physical model of some objects, even if it's just a visual effect, extends outside of the collision sphere, while some collision spheres are considerably larger than the visual model.
Your answer of "less than 1m distance on the enemy's overview" makes perfect sense from the target's standpoint, but how does the bomber know where to aim for that? That's what I'm trying to ask.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
847
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:43:00 -
[682] - Quote
When velocity is added into the equation, Its up to the bomber and BS FCs to set the conditions where upon a successful bombing run can occur. Currently the only thing that matters is your ship and fit. If tankType=shield, death, else lol.
Danikov, your model of damage based on range from the bomb's epicenter is interesting and allows for bomber pilot skill to figure more into damage applied. I think its worth looking at. Not sure how well the servers will like them though.
Why small ships don't just get deleted by bombs (I understand the mechanics) is a mystery. With your model, that is exactly what would happen (not saying its a bad thing) unless they were able to get out of the AoE. Intended? At least you could scatter an inty fleet. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
847
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:43:00 -
[683] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:The "physical model" and "collision radius" are the same thing. The model you see with all the polygons and wings and guns and stuff, that points in different directions, does not exist on the server and is purely visual. As far as the server is concerned we're all driving little non-oriented spheres around and bumping into each other all day.
If the bomb shows less than 1m distance on the enemy's overview when it explodes, that'd be a hit. I understand that. However, I can be at 0m from something and not bump off of it while still approaching, while sometimes I can bump off of something that I'm more than 0m away from. The physical model of some objects, even if it's just a visual effect, extends outside of the collision sphere, while some collision spheres are considerably larger than the visual model. Your answer of "less than 1m distance on the enemy's overview" makes perfect sense from the target's standpoint, but how does the bomber know where to aim for that? That's what I'm trying to ask.
The bracket box in space is as far as I can tell, the center of both. Aim for that.
"Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online. |
Lord Xyon
Team Hemi
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 20:45:47 -
[684] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Pretty sure I never said anything about stopping ISBoxers. I'm not one of those, I promise you.
Rain6637 wrote:If you dislike the idea of ISBoxer, you should like this cloak change.
Oh so your just on this thread to troll and mess with people. I see. I just quoted you 4 posts ago.
Anyway since your just trying to troll and mess with people ignoring your posts on the matter. |
Doddy
Esoteric Operations
905
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 20:55:45 -
[685] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Doddy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Doddy wrote:RIP bombing.
Anti capital bomb will be useless against anyone who brings more than one smartbomb in their fleet...
But hey at least solo hunters get a hp boost. If only they hadn't been nerfed by rats preferentially shooting them that might be usefull. no if you stagger several of the anti cap bomb it can still pass through a few smart bombs ok, you automatically lose a third of your capping to 2 smartbombs, 2/3rds to 4 smartbombs and any number of bombers will be countered by 6 smartbombs or 1 bomber in position to defensively bomb its own caps. yes but you would need to fit 6 bombs to your own cap and with this type of bomb you would need more then 1 defensive bomber if they were smart enough not to bomb all from one direction
6 hi slots to defend a cap fleet isn't exactly mutch, less of a sacrifice than the attacker is wasting on pilots for the bombers in the first place. If its a solo cap you just kill it you don't need to waste time chucking void bombs at it. If it has any support 1 bs fitted with smartbombs is all you need, or just fitting a smartbomb on a few of the carriers which they tend to do anyway for cleaning off drones or mitigating missile dps.
As for the bomber it will destroy all bombs in space which would hit the cap. Stagger individual bombs to avoid being killed by a counterbomb and you are back at being countered by two smartbombs.
|
Rain6638
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3431
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 21:04:18 -
[686] - Quote
Wow, this goon tag is just OP.
My point is this stealth change is not just about ISBoxer. It's about imbalance. Ball of stealth ships = imbalance. Whether it's one player controlling 50 stealth ships, or 50 players with 1 stealth ship each, it's the same scenario: Numbers were used to overcome an attempted balance to cloaks.
There is a group of people who blame ISBoxer for this change, my statement was regarding those people. (review: ball of stealth ships = imbalance, ISBoxer or not ISBoxer)
also, I know a bit about what goes on in wormholes.
seems grrgoons is keeping you from thinking straight right now Xyon.
[ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:28:39 -
[687] - Quote
Rain6638 wrote:Wow, this goon tag is just OP. My point is this stealth change is not just about ISBoxer. It's about imbalance. Ball of stealth ships = imbalance. Whether it's one player controlling 50 stealth ships, or 50 players with 1 stealth ship each, it's the same scenario: Numbers were used to overcome an attempted balance to cloaks. There is a group of people who blame ISBoxer for this change, my statement was regarding those people. (review: ball of stealth ships = imbalance, ISBoxer or not ISBoxer) also, I know a bit about what goes on in wormholes. seems grrgoons is keeping you from thinking straight right now Xyon.
That's not entirely true. The number of bombers does not equal imbalance but the mechanics of bomber can seem overpowered when you use them in large quantities. ISboxer makes organizing bomber fleets easier and reduces the room for error and as organisation/co-ordination is key in a bombing run, ISboxer clearly has its uses.
Balance can be achieved in two ways. One way is to nerf the thing causing the issue and the other is to provide a sufficient counter. With the stealth bomber and cloak change, CCP are kind of doing both but they're taking a half baked approach; the counters aren't enough on their own and the change to cloaks have an adverse effect on other classes of ship.
+1
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23180
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:31:06 -
[688] - Quote
Sup Rek
Do I sense a death 2 afk cloaky post in there somewhere
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:33:28 -
[689] - Quote
No at all. I'm a wormhole and a cloak is my lifeblood.
+1
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23180
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:35:58 -
[690] - Quote
Oh, just checking. Hey, I wanna become an wormhole too
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
1254
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 02:25:30 -
[691] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Thanks for not dealing with the real issue here which is ISBox bombing, but making real player coordinated bomber fleets more of a pain to coordinate.
This only emphasizes the need for automated, single player run bombing fleets.
CCP isn't going to do anything about ISBoxer. Makes their subs look better on paper because all the additional alts being used for ISBoxer. Better looking sub numbers means more money in CCPs pocket. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1868
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 03:13:26 -
[692] - Quote
Doyle Aldurad wrote:I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing' Lets compare bombers to destroyers: Similar HP? Yes. Similar sig radius? Yes. Similar powergrid? Yes. Similar velocity? Yes. Similar align time? Yes. Similar mass? Yes. Similar damage output? Yes. Similar warp speed? Finally yes.
Conclusion: Stealth Bombers are destroyers, not frigates.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
117
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 06:21:41 -
[693] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:it's like asking 7 blind men to mill around a room without walking within 2 meters of each other. I'm fine with cloaked ships decloaking each other, but it has to be done with fleet members able to see other cloaked fleet members, otherwise this change is dumb as hell (and I'm not going to take it any more).
This part with 7 blind guys... XD Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before, but now it's being returned as a new feature... In any case, sucks... but then again, I haven't logged in days, so we'll see what happens when phoebe hits..
[center] [The Incursion Guild](http://youtu.be/b2GK2e17xTs)[/center] [center] [QA Combat Analyzer](http://goo.gl/GH5zO6)[/center] [center] [Incursion Layout Builder](http://goo.gl/J94YI3)[/center]
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1868
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 08:36:43 -
[694] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups.
I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 09:22:39 -
[695] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Doyle Aldurad wrote:I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing' Lets compare bombers to destroyers: Similar HP? Yes. Similar sig radius? Yes. Similar powergrid? Yes. Similar velocity? Yes. Similar align time? Yes. Similar mass? Yes. Similar damage output? Yes. Similar warp speed? Finally yes. Conclusion: Stealth Bombers are destroyers, not frigates.
yet they are frigates.... dear god what's happening!!!
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 14:44:17 -
[696] - Quote
Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?
+1
|
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 15:23:40 -
[697] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups. I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.
And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden. Now you want them to take a further hit by losing another high slot? I don't think so, terrible idea. If the decloak change is going to go through, the ability to see cloak fleetmates should be inherent, not require a special module. Otherwise, it's just not functional. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 15:28:03 -
[698] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?
Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change.
Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23204
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 15:41:29 -
[699] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups. I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly. that's a decent one. seeing fleet mates cloaked, with the polygon overlay that was on Sisi for a bit. but not for a slot
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Vel'drinn
Sol Research and Development Aurora Foundation
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 16:37:23 -
[700] - Quote
I kind of like the concept of damage intensity based on position from the blast point. Aiming your bomb at the correct range requires extra skill and risk to pull off. By risk I'm talking about unplanned bomb runs where you get a warp in but don't necessarily have an ideal warp out point. This mechanic would strike a balance of aiming for optimal damage vs. optimal survival.
It would buff faster fleets too. Frigate and Cruiser fleets can zip around relatively quick making it much harder to pinpoint where they will be when bombs detonate. A skilled fleet could change their trajectory to mitigate a lot of damage that way. Battleships fleets, especially shield ships, are out of luck but that's the cost of having more tank and less maneuverability. If nothing else they can still microjump out of the blast. UNLESS they get void bombed first =)
AoE damage could also use explosive velocity to calculate damage instead of signature since this hurts shield ships so much more than armor. The faster you are the less likely you take damage. Current mechanics essentially say microwarp drive + bomb = death with a lot fewer bombs required to kill the target.
At any rate AoE damage scaling could be all that's needed to put the skill back into bombing without nerfing all cov ops doctrines into oblivion. I really hope the cloak change doesn't happen cause we might as well take the Stealth out of Stealth Bombers.
So all this means smaller ships survive longer and can be used again. Massed blobs of hard hitting battleships can still be countered by bombers. The smaller ships being able to survive bombs easier with those mechanics will EAT BOMBERS ALIVE with current stats on bombers. Smaller ships not dying so easily = bombers getting locked up and killed = bombs not detonating.
Think about it. Varied fleet comps become a thing again and all those fleet types have viable counters. |
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
169
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 17:38:02 -
[701] - Quote
I think that other cloaked ships in fleet should be visible to the player in their cloaked form and on overview. Only if they are in fleet. This would assist in knowing how close you are to a fleet member so as to avoid decloaking unintentionally.
This change is going to affect far more than just bombers. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
191
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 21:44:22 -
[702] - Quote
Whatever they do, I doubt CCP intends to make any significant changes to bomb damage code that could result in it being more complex than it already is. Those hamsters have a tough enough time as it is per tick, determining all the cause and effect of each AOE. |
Pritovsky Pootis
Eschelon Directive Universal Consortium
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 21:50:48 -
[703] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change? Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change. Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber.
As seen in the hyperion "feedback" threads, none of what we say actually matters- it gets pushed through anyway. They obviously know what they are changing is for the best and everyone who actually plays the game and can see how changes so poorly thought through like this one will negatively effect gameplay are wrong.
Though I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong this time. Your move, CCP. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1868
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 22:33:21 -
[704] - Quote
Calvyr Travonis wrote:And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden. How do you lose anything by not fitting a module that didn't previously exist in the game?
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Mharius Skjem
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 22:51:43 -
[705] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups. I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.
Just have it that cloaked ships in fleet show up in tactical view, as presumably your fleet is a fleet because it shares telemetry.
A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23209
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 23:51:04 -
[706] - Quote
as well as overview information such as speed, distance, etc
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 03:26:13 -
[707] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Calvyr Travonis wrote:And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden. How do you lose anything by not fitting a module that didn't previously exist in the game?
Let's see, a high slot module (where weapons go) that would need to be fit so that fleetmates can see each other. Your proposed module would then take up an additional high slot, taking away from already reduced damage output. That is, unless any ship that cloaks would automatically get an extra high slot to compensate. It's much easier to simply make the ability to see cloaked fleetmates inherent. Of course, the absolute best solution is just to not change the way cloaking mechanics work. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6461
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 04:19:26 -
[708] - Quote
Pritovsky Pootis wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change? Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change. Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber. As seen in the hyperion "feedback" threads, none of what we say actually matters- it gets pushed through anyway. They obviously know what they are changing is for the best and everyone who actually plays the game and can see how changes so poorly thought through like this one will negatively effect gameplay are wrong. Though I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong this time. Your move, CCP. I don't know, in the other changes they basically said they didn't know what would happen, so it's admitted.
Still happening, though.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 12:14:57 -
[709] - Quote
just ban isboxer, problem solved |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 13:18:55 -
[710] - Quote
get rid of isbotters per EULA and game policies, not ineffective bandaid "fixes". |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11764
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 13:40:58 -
[711] - Quote
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Herrin Asura
Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:02:17 -
[712] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie
Good to hear. I hope you'll come up with a better solution. There are many better suggestions in this thread already. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1945
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:20:32 -
[713] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: ... we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for. -Fozzie
Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
+1
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
35
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:48:37 -
[714] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2010
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:53:57 -
[715] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: ... we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for. -Fozzie
Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
true enough i would prefer cloaked ship not decloak eachother and instead introduce a tech II tier two desi that has a high slot unit that can ping enemy ships within a 30km radius and have them show up on the overview for 3 seconds but not able to target the ship...
this would make a cat and mouse game where said desi would have to approach and hopefully decloak the ship.
Mark Hadden wrote:they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.
yeah but wont that be fixed by firebombing the incoming bombs?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1343
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 16:39:56 -
[716] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie
That's a mistake. Isboxer currently allows bombers to do things that regular humans can't do: being perfectly syncronized in terms of timing and positionning. Two things that are heavily important for bombers.
Discussing bomber balance without taking into account isboxer is completely irrealistic, at best.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 17:12:04 -
[717] - Quote
Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie That's a mistake. Isboxer currently allows bombers to do things that regular humans can't do: being perfectly syncronized in terms of timing and positionning. Two things that are heavily important for bombers. Discussing bomber balance without taking into account isboxer is completely irrealistic, at best. can i still have 10 bombers online on differend pcs and use an usb mouse broadcasting system to click cloak - bomb - warp? yes multiboxed bombers are an issue... the software you are naming isn't. the ability to multibox =/= one software.
there are more ways to get this done, none using software (or specificly Isboxer) |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
35
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 17:29:52 -
[718] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:the software you are naming isn't. the ability to multibox =/= one software. its just the most popular one. however they are all covered by EULA 6-A, point 3. |
Nauclerus Serpens
Mad Bombers of TDA The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 17:47:45 -
[719] - Quote
I was playing around on SISI and saw how these cloaking changes effected ships. A reasonable (potentially) middle point on the change could be that ships do still decloak each other, but can warp as a squad or wing without decloaking. Otherwise the squad /wing warp is completely useless. 2 ships in squad warp (to a fix) decloak each other 30% of the time, and 3 ships decloak 100% of the time.
If the squad or wing is positioned from each other in excess of 2000m then they maintain the relative positions to each other through the warp and on landing. After that the new proposed changes can take effect.
The rest of the changes can be mitigated with skills, fitting, on grid boosting, etc. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:08:56 -
[720] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.
They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP.
Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers...
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1820
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:14:10 -
[721] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Rek Seven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: ... we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for. -Fozzie
Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped. true enough i would prefer cloaked ship not decloak eachother and instead introduce a tech II tier two desi that has a high slot unit that can ping enemy ships within a 30km radius and have them show up on the overview for 3 seconds but not able to target the ship... this would make a cat and mouse game where said desi would have to approach and hopefully decloak the ship. Mark Hadden wrote:they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines. yeah but wont that be fixed by firebombing the incoming bombs?
Correct fix would be to BUFF the battleships..t hat are a pathetically weak class of ship.
Also bobms should have an explosion velocity like the missiles,
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
|
Beryl Invictus
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:17:14 -
[722] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie
Seperate how exactly? You hung over still or what???? |
Crazy Candy
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:18:50 -
[723] - Quote
Thanks, CCP Fozzie. |
Sieonigh
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 18:27:10 -
[724] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie
"but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread"
then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.
|
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 19:09:06 -
[725] - Quote
It is a separate issue. A single squad of bombers, mulitboxed or not, devastate shield ships no matter how fast they are moving, or any other metric. A single squad (or even any reasonable number) of bombers are next to useless against Sig tanked ships like ANIs.
The root cause of the bomber imbalance is the 100% dependence on Sig in the damage formula. This is driving all doctrine development.
The cloak change might make it harder to land a run for less experienced FC's, but when it does land it'll still be maelstroms oracles and ruptures dying, not megathrons and armor cruisers. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
463
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 19:30:15 -
[726] - Quote
Sieonigh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.
All of those legit bombing runs and bombers bar are not part of the discussion because you have linked two activities inseparably together? |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1945
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 20:53:13 -
[727] - Quote
oodell wrote:It is a separate issue. A single squad of bombers, mulitboxed or not, devastate shield ships no matter how fast they are moving, or any other metric. A single squad (or even any reasonable number) of bombers are next to useless against Sig tanked ships like ANIs.
The root cause of the bomber imbalance is the 100% dependence on Sig in the damage formula. This is driving all doctrine development.
The cloak change might make it harder to land a run for less experienced FC's, but when it does land it'll still be maelstroms oracles and ruptures dying, not megathrons and armor cruisers.
I never lived in null sec or been bombed that often so i would be grateful if you could explain the issue a little bit more. I understand the mechanics so no need to go into detail on that.
Do the current counters like bubbling your own fleet, using smart bombs or escaping with MJD not work or are FC just to lazy too use the counters?
+1
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 21:56:51 -
[728] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines. They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP. Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers...
Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?...
MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is.
Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1547
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 22:07:14 -
[729] - Quote
Sieonigh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept. It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about.it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 22:28:45 -
[730] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines. They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP. Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers... Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?... MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is. Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay.
Regarding your first point, firewalling ships stay between the aggressor and the main dps fleet, not in the middle of the fleet.
Regarding your second point, if there's multiple bomber squadrons in system and you want to evade them using an MJD then simply MJD out of the bubbles and then align to a ping (you use those in your fleets don't you?) and warp to the ping if you get a second bomb wave.
Your reply just shows your poor ability of developing tactics to counter your enemies other than DPS/logi blob as I mentioned before. Your brain must have some grey mass... use it!
|
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
188
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 04:33:59 -
[731] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Sieonigh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept. It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about.it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers.
Neither are cloaks restricted to bombers only, and still they are discussed in this thread.
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 07:28:39 -
[732] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines. They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP. Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers... Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?... MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is. Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay. Regarding your first point, firewalling ships stay between the aggressor and the main dps fleet, not in the middle of the fleet. Regarding your second point, if there's multiple bomber squadrons in system and you want to evade them using an MJD then simply MJD out of the bubbles and then align to a ping (you use those in your fleets don't you?) and warp to the ping if you get a second bomb wave. Your reply just shows your poor ability of developing tactics to counter your enemies other than DPS/logi blob as I mentioned before. Your brain must have some grey mass... use it!
This just now tells me you have never FC'd anything. Good job talking about stuff you know nothing about. I'll tell you what bombers let to SLOWCATS its the only thing I've used though out delve and southern war after a while. Why? Bombs cant touch em. With these changes if bombs dont get curb-stomped all you will see is 100+ slowcats on every defensive op. Because nothing will be able to touch them in their own space period.
Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress.
oh and firewall will have to be with the fleet not behind because imagine you can get bombed from every direction not just from were the enemy fleet is. So why would your firewall stay between you and your enemy if they are not using missiles?.... Thanks for showing your deep understanding for eve online fleet doctrines and how to use em. carry on. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1186
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 07:51:18 -
[733] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory. Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.
The extended flight time of bombs in conjuction with the lower hitpoints allowing off-space smartbombs to more easily destroy bombs makes battleship doctrines more worthwhile, though it could take quite a bit of organization to not lose your entire fleets drones the moment any bomb appears coming toward your ships.
I'm of a mixed opinion in that I completely agree, as they are now, bombers are too effective against large fleets. However, for small gang, roaming stuff, they arent all that problematic. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1186
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 08:00:49 -
[734] - Quote
. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1548
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 08:11:54 -
[735] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Rowells wrote:Sieonigh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
Thanks again -Fozzie "but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread" then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept. It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about. it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers. Neither are cloaks restricted to bombers only, and still they are discussed in this thread. Maybe i should clarify, ISboxer is not something that is essential to bombers use. A cloak is something a bomber needs to use, like bomb launchers. ISboxer discussion is a much more broad aspect than cloaks are. You take away the boxer comments and the discussion moves along as usual, take away discussion on the cloaks and a key aspect is missing. Remember we're discussing the balance of ships not the players.
We either turn this thread into an iSboxer thread and get no where or we debate the ships themselves and figure out changes from that. Otherwise we could just start talking about how unfair ISboxed miners are, or boxed nados, boxed logi, etc. |
Samsara Toldya
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
82
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 10:08:56 -
[736] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.
The ISD CCL will sort out the ISBoxing comments made and hand them to those unnamed people involved with CCPs policy towards ISBoxer, because that is the job of ISD CCL. Compress feedback and deliver to the right guys.
Maybe this (and many many other) thread(s) would derail less if those persons we don't call by name but surely exists would open a discussion thread where people can discuss input broadcasting and stuff. Closing all threads about it saying "redundant... use the existing threads (which we already locked)" isn't a solution. A sticky topic in general discussion would REALLY help to keep other threads clean.
It would REALLY help your volunteer ISD CCL guys to focus the neverending discussion into one single thread.
On the topic: Increased hitpoints with increased signature and lowered align time... I do like this nerf to several FW missions. Maybe the MWD bonus should be bit stronger... 60% reduction for MWD sig penalty will still result in ~20% more signature compared to prePhoebe but the bonus hitpoints don't help with survivabilty in a way signature does. I'm totally not looking at those glascannon torpedo launcher at all
|
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
68
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 10:12:09 -
[737] - Quote
Looking good! |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1344
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 12:18:18 -
[738] - Quote
What about a special kind of torpedoes designed to attack supers?
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 12:19:43 -
[739] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote: Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress.
This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
The Ironfist wrote: oh and firewall will have to be with the fleet not behind because imagine you can get bombed from every direction not just from were the enemy fleet is. So why would your firewall stay between you and your enemy if they are not using missiles?.... Thanks for showing your deep understanding for eve online fleet doctrines and how to use em. carry on.
I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6463
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 13:20:44 -
[740] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress. This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game. Well, people do use ishtars and interceptors.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
37
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 13:59:02 -
[741] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well. isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
192
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 14:29:33 -
[742] - Quote
I wouldn't even mind it if the bombs were so weak you could only launch one or two at a time. To me it seems much more balanced if it would required a steady stream of bomb volleys to attack a large fleet instead of all in one go. I'm sure the hamsters would rejoice at not having to calculate so much AOE at the same time either. |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 14:32:50 -
[743] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
They are not an obstacle why would they all I'll do is just keep dropping slowcats and T3 fleets. You just wont have any diversity in the game in terms of fleet doctrines. Making entire ship class's obsolete is not really something I'd call balanced. Bombers used to decloak each other for ages and people still bomb'd adapt or die buddy.
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships.
Please just stop this hurts position ships against something you cant see coming just stop already.. its pretty obvious that you're a puppy who's never fc'd anything at this point. |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:25:28 -
[744] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well. isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing.
I've played the game for 2.5 years and have never had to deal with cloaky ships decloaking each other. I don't know if I'd say 2+ years of a mechanic in a game can be considered young. And if you think about it, over the course of human civilization, computers, antibiotics and even automated industry are all extremely young and we survived alright before those things came along; would you like to go back to a time before any of those things existed? Just because people got by with things the way they used to be, doesn't make it any better, and it doesn't mean that they should ever go back to the way it was before things changed. |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:33:07 -
[745] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:I wouldn't even mind it if the bombs were so weak you could only launch one or two at a time. To me it seems much more balanced if it would required a steady stream of bomb volleys to attack a large fleet instead of all in one go. I'm sure the hamsters would rejoice at not having to calculate so much AOE at the same time either.
I actually really like this idea. The "stealth" in "stealth bomber" indicates to me, that they're intended to be a strategic weapon. The idea of multiple waves of 2-3 bombers, dropping out of warp and decloaking from several different angles seems a lot more interesting and compelling gameplay to me than 8 bombers essentially carpet bombing a fleet. Sure, you could have all of your bombers warp in from the same spot in waves, but that's going to make defence easier because after the first wave, they'll know where you're coming from. If you come from different sides, they won't know where to expect you next. Also, it gives the defending fleet a little more opportunity to set up for subsequent waves, avoiding being completely wiped out by a single strike. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1831
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:36:38 -
[746] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well. isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing.
It seems You have not played the game for long.. ships did not decloak other cloacked ships for most part of eve history.. than for a SHORT period, I think about 3 years they decloacked... THEN they FIXED that, while admiting it was a mistake and now they are backtracking...
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:03:02 -
[747] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
They are not an obstacle why would they all I'll do is just keep dropping slowcats and T3 fleets. You just wont have any diversity in the game in terms of fleet doctrines. Making entire ship class's obsolete is not really something I'd call balanced. Bombers used to decloak each other for ages and people still bomb'd adapt or die buddy. Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships.
Please just stop this hurts position ships against something you cant see coming just stop already.. its pretty obvious that you're a puppy who's never fc'd anything at this point.
So, what is your suggestion then? All I keep seeing is tears and cries that you can't use anything besides slowcats (which will be interesting to see you deploying after phoebe) and T3s. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:15:49 -
[748] - Quote
This might be sidetracking a little bit but since the main subject is how bombers are so OP and kill everything below Titan class (exaggeration intended), why not provide more tools for the fleets to counter the bomber menace instead of just trying to kill the bomber concept?
Create deployable units similar to the cyno inhibitors but that the sole purpose is to prematurely detonate any bombs within x km from it (50k for instance) kind of a sentry laser detonator of sorts. This way, less moveable fleets can protect themselves from bombing (as long as the bomb detonator is still alive).
This would help fleets to protect exposed flanks from bombing and add another tactical layer to the bombing run, which would need to either have the bomb detonators eliminated or position themselves in a way that the bombs wouldn't get intercepted. |
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:46:52 -
[749] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:This might be sidetracking a little bit but since the main subject is how bombers are so OP and kill everything below Titan class (exaggeration intended), why not provide more tools for the fleets to counter the bomber menace instead of just trying to kill the bomber concept?
Create deployable units similar to the cyno inhibitors but that the sole purpose is to prematurely detonate any bombs within x km from it (50k for instance) kind of a sentry laser detonator of sorts. This way, less moveable fleets can protect themselves from bombing (as long as the bomb detonator is still alive).
This would help fleets to protect exposed flanks from bombing and add another tactical layer to the bombing run, which would need to either have the bomb detonators eliminated or position themselves in a way that the bombs wouldn't get intercepted.
This is an interesting idea, but the problem that I see with it is that it then just becomes another mandatory part of any fleet doctrine. That's not a problem by itself, but on the surface, this looks extremely OP simply because it's an automated defence that completely negates bombers. I'm sure that there could be some restrictions and cooldowns associated with this type of unit that would make it viable though.
Personally, I like the idea of making this type of defence be an actual fleet role. Something for destroyers, or even cruisers to handle. There have been several suggestions in this thread and in other locations, that this could be a great way to make defender missiles viable again, if they affected bombs. That way, it's something where somebody has to actively do something, rather than simply deploying a module, and it could be something that fairly low SP pilots could do and add a significant contribution to the fleet. |
Flaming Forum Spammer
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 02:56:25 -
[750] - Quote
the ability to shoot a freaking bomb please. Dessies want some more range action. bombs shot down should still do some AoE damage, but like 20% -they are bombs after all.
Balance Cloakies
Have cloaking devices consume Liquid Ozone to truly cloak a ship, 1 unit per 20 minutes or something. If no ozone, cloak reduces speed/lockrange/scanres by 50%, reduces sig radius by 90% so it gives off screwy interference, and uses capacitor rapidly.
please -let covert ships not decloak within 5km of each other |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
392
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 03:21:33 -
[751] - Quote
Flaming Forum Spammer wrote:the ability to shoot a freaking bomb please. Dessies want some more range action. bombs shot down should still do some AoE damage, but like 20% -they are bombs after all.
Balance Cloakies
Have cloaking devices consume Liquid Ozone to truly cloak a ship, 1 unit per 20 minutes or something. If no ozone, cloak reduces speed/lockrange/scanres by 50%, reduces sig radius by 90% so it gives off screwy interference, and uses capacitor rapidly.
please -let covert ships not decloak within 5km of each other
Noes
signature
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23220
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 03:23:55 -
[752] - Quote
AOE has always gone the way of the dumpster. Bombs will be no different, as long as they scale so perfectly.
cloaks too.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Oxide Ammar
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 12:13:39 -
[753] - Quote
LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing..
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.
|
Jonah Bridges
Primordial Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 15:00:35 -
[754] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote: Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.
I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well. isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing. It seems You have not played the game for long.. ships did not decloak other cloacked ships for most part of eve history.. than for a SHORT period, I think about 3 years they decloacked... THEN they FIXED that, while admiting it was a mistake and now they are backtracking...
I would have to agree with Kagura Nikon, I began bombing in fleets when bombers could decloak each other, it would be impossible to return cyno back to hisec after a hotdrop, have to warp to range then burn toward the BLOPS an kill ur afterburner so that you didnt produce a larger sig radius an he had to use more fuel on you. FC would complain. then they made it better where it didnt matter where all the bombers were because you were all part of a fleet, this is a sci fi game an your taking part in a covert ops fleet, you'd think there'd be some fluff about how each pilot links their signitures together and then synchonizes them or something so that they would decloak each other....? I suppose that we shall see if these new changes are favoured or not, I do have to mention though that a stealth bombers tank is its cloak, sure you can put on a MSE or something, but to truly stand up to any other ship class, a bomber must have a cloak, an now that tank has been nerfed
oh %$#@ it
|
Pandoralica
DEFCON. The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 15:03:00 -
[755] - Quote
Why not give the decloak-problem and increased signature to the bomb launcher as a module? That way bombers can still be used for other stuff and force recons would still be used after patch. |
Hagika
Hipsters In Space
269
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 17:53:11 -
[756] - 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.
So you dont want un-viable but are content with making them garbage, great....... |
Hagika
Hipsters In Space
269
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 17:54:00 -
[757] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing..
So instead of nerfing the weapon, they nerf the crap out of the ship. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6464
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 19:02:07 -
[758] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing.. So instead of nerfing the weapon, they nerf the crap out of the ship. What about.. ships with bomb launchers fitted decloak other ships with bomb launchers fitted
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Hagika
Hipsters In Space
270
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 23:44:50 -
[759] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Hagika wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing.. So instead of nerfing the weapon, they nerf the crap out of the ship. What about.. ships with bomb launchers fitted decloak other ships with bomb launchers fitted
That is actually a really good idea. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
856
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 13:22:22 -
[760] - Quote
Previously I said ISBoxing bombers wasn't a significant problem.
https://zkillboard.com/br/12382/
I may have been mistaken.
http://evewho.com/corp/Nullbear+Tear+Extractors
Nothing but ISBoxing. 1 player. 33 accounts.
"Remember remember the 4th of November!"
Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online.
|
|
ivona fly
Aideron Robotics
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 15:58:15 -
[761] - Quote
I see that the Nemesis for one will get a Hull Buffer tank in the region of a tristan and overall a bigger buffer, will we see them used as cloaked tackle now with zero delay a hull tank of ~7k and scram/web/AB ?
Shield Manticore looks stronk as well |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1560
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 16:17:39 -
[762] - Quote
lol at the rorq loot
E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that.
E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example. |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 19:46:12 -
[763] - Quote
i hope fozzie u can reconsider some point of this huge nerf. Let us view each other to take position (and lore compatible and acceptable) when clocked. 12 seconds, smart bomb, mass decloacking, align time, signature (lock time and being alphaed) is a class destruction even more with new t3 dessie!!!!
There is another big problem. Actual wave is done by 3 void and 7 normal bomb. If u lower HP the void make a lot of damage to normal bomb and cannot sustain a full wave with void inside.
Is possible lower the damage of void bomb compatible with reduction of hp of bombs so we can keep the void strike in same wave of damage?
void go for 8 seconds too? versus the new 12 second of normal nerfed bombs?
-we did over 14k kills in bomber, safe bomber bar corp!!! - |
drago Yaken
Caldari High Prime Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 00:02:17 -
[764] - Quote
ccp you bad at eve |
Lugh Crow-Slave
187
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 08:45:10 -
[765] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing..
I know because we see those same fleets that are missing in null all the time in low sec right? |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
38
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 09:01:58 -
[766] - Quote
Rowells wrote:lol at the rorq loot E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that. E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example. sure isbotter fleets just do whatever group of real players can do, the problem is that isbotter replaces said group of players with 1 guy automating 30 clients - this shouldnt be allowed. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23254
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 11:01:10 -
[767] - Quote
epic freaking portrait
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Oddsodz
C.Q.B Bohica Empire
111
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 19:22:03 -
[768] - Quote
Just posting again to say that I don't like the decloak range change. I feel this is a step backwards. Most of the posts in this thread have been of the same tone. We the players that have taken the time to post here do not want that change.
As for the ISboxer stuff. I will make it simple. Eve players wants/needs more players. Not more accounts for one player. |
Sieonigh
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 19:55:29 -
[769] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Rowells wrote:lol at the rorq loot E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that. E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example. sure isbotter fleets just do whatever group of real players can do, the problem is that isbotter replaces said group of players with 1 guy automating 30 clients - this shouldnt be allowed.
yeah but the rorq was a goon so no harm no foul right? |
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
183
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 20:19:07 -
[770] - Quote
I am very opposed to the decloak changes. People say it will be like when it was like that before. Yea and nobody bombed, which is of course what these people want. No viable bombers. Also this has huge impacts on the rest of the cloak ships in the game, and its not like you really can control range in a group when warping.
Hell even a bomb activation delay after decloak would be better. Not much but at least it just nerfs bombers.
And then you make them less agile? They already aren't that agile.
Seriously is sounds like some mega fleets are just butthurt that there fleets are not 100% invulnerable or something. Bomber kills are not that out of whack. Since when is eve a isk to win or SP to win game?
Right now bombers are very much a glass cannon that has a lot of counters. The rule of thumb we use is 1 AF kills a bomber every 5 seconds for the obvious one. Smaller ships are already safe since they can fly off or warp off long before a bomb lands and then there is the sig radius thing. About the only thing that is very vulnerable is large fleets of nothing but BS, so fly with some support for gods sake. Even then drones correctly applied **** bombers.
Now add pilot error or a unlucky server tick. Bombers explode a *lot*.
If more balance is really needed, and i don't really see how it is. Then the lower bomb HP to make firewalls more effective seems good, 12 second flight time? perhaps, small stuff still gets away while BS still can't. But then they can firewall.
But decloaking? When the game flight mechanics don't really support that sort of blind precision flying anyway? Just make bomb damage half and don't pretend its anything but a "we don't want bomb runs to work anymore".
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
837
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 20:50:19 -
[771] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ib4JucJYKo&t=260
no mention of the cloak change in the video?
eagerly awaiting your next post fozzie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1568
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 22:14:53 -
[772] - Quote
Instead of decloaking other cloaked ships, would it be easier to make the bomb launcher launch after 1-2 seconds? Gives time to destroy the bomber during the launch. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1568
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 22:16:45 -
[773] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Rowells wrote:lol at the rorq loot E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that. E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example. sure isbotter fleets just do whatever group of real players can do, the problem is that isbotter replaces said group of players with 1 guy automating 30 clients - this shouldnt be allowed. Well, with that logic, so should any type of multi boxing. One player should be able to do the job of more than a single pilot. No cyno alts, no logi alts, etc. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11793
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:17:43 -
[774] - Quote
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.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1282
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:25:10 -
[775] - 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.
Didn't want to fly anything but Tengus, anyways.
~
|
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:27:24 -
[776] - Quote
Thank you Fozzie! |
Valentine Wiggin Wiggin
Bringing Winter Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:32:16 -
[777] - 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.
Congrats on caving to a bunch of spoiled whiners and their easy win button. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
237
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:32:57 -
[778] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We've sourced a lot of these changes from this thread, thanks to everyone who has been providing feedback.
Good job! You finally said it! Now can you say the same things about the wormhole mass spawn distance change? Or do we need more practice?
Anyway, seems Bombers Bar wont be killed off. Gotta re-buy a new purifier now. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23280
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:35:20 -
[779] - Quote
*unbinds macros*
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Schwa Nuts
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:36:03 -
[780] - Quote
In an effort to nerf stealth bombers, and their chilling effect on the fleet meta, we have instead offered up buffs to stealth bombers. |
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
380
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:37:08 -
[781] - Quote
Who wants to fly battleships anyway? |
Daktar Jaxs
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:38:46 -
[782] - Quote
just when you start to think fozzie might not be dickhead, nope |
Jean Leaner
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:39:54 -
[783] - Quote
**** this. |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
164
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:40:28 -
[784] - Quote
I'm very glad you saw sense here with the decloak changes because they were an awful way of doing this, but please don't let this discourage you from giving bombers the nerf they need in future, especially those of the ISboxer variety.
gay gamers for jesus
|
Ryu Chaos
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:43:25 -
[785] - Quote
bb any shield doctrine ever o7
@RyuChaos_
|
Sieonigh
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:43:58 -
[786] - Quote
i had actually lost hope |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
837
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:44:33 -
[787] - Quote
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Manfred Sideous
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
974
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:45:37 -
[788] - Quote
@CCPFozzie
wow way to cave man way to cave. How about do this for now then make the interaction changes. We were so looking forward to fly something other than sig tankers. But this kills it.
You have ruined my day and made me sad
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
JoveBishop
Bishop Enterprises
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:46:26 -
[789] - Quote
What a lame move. ******* crybabies win. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
837
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:47:47 -
[790] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCPFozzie wow way to cave man way to cave. How about do this for now then make the interaction changes. We were so looking forward to fly something other than sig tankers. But this kills it. You have ruined my day and made me sad
what makes you think sig tanking ships would become less common when bombers aren't changed at all in regards to what they are strong vs and instead just have an obtuse mechanic added to them in order to make them "harder"
i much prefer that this change is reverted so that a future change addressing the viability of shield ships takes its place
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
|
dephekt
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:48:02 -
[791] - 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.
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 |
Viktor Fel
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:48:25 -
[792] - 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've sourced a lot of these changes from this thread, thanks to everyone who has been providing feedback.
Really not the best way to go about this. Not only have the they failed to address ISBoxing bomber fleets, but the Dev Team have potentially buffed them with the other changes. The decloak mechanic was a good thing because it actually took just a little bit of skill to not be a complete scrub at bombing.
Who is Viktor Fel?
Killboard
|
slip66
STEEL CITY. Black Legion.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:49:43 -
[793] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Who wants to fly battleships anyway?
:( pretty much.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11800
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:50:36 -
[794] - Quote
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.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:51:50 -
[795] - Quote
JoveBishop wrote:What a lame move. ******* crybabies win.
Not really. Crybabies where the reason CCP came up with this ridiculous changes in the first place. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
837
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:52:25 -
[796] - Quote
Herrin Asura wrote:JoveBishop wrote:What a lame move. ******* crybabies win. Not really. Crybabies where the reason CCP came up with that ridiculous changes in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
dephekt
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:56:26 -
[797] - 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. 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. |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:57:21 -
[798] - Quote
glad to see the awful cloak thing go away, but we still won't be seeing alphafleet again anytime soon. |
Mrs Comfortable
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:57:40 -
[799] - Quote
Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame. |
Elmnt80
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
221
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:58:08 -
[800] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Both the new bomb and new interdiction probe will be made available exclusively in the Syndicate LP store.
If I can ever make it to Fanfest/EvE Vegas, remind me I owe you one bottle of scotch, your choice. |
|
Masterkiller Mechanics
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:00:30 -
[801] - Quote
Fozzie, here is a suggestion.
Have two damage bombs types: focused and support.
The focused bomb would have a small focused area of effect (3-5km radius?). This would allow for focused bombing to take out a few ships (if landed correctly) but not an entire battleship fleet (which is overpowered).
The other bomb type would have larger area of effect intended to hit more ships but doing less damage to each ship. This wouldn't necessarily kill fleets, but would soften them up in a support role.
I don't know if it's possible with your current code but capping total damage done (across all targets) is also a traditional limiter for AOE type weapons. |
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
183
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:00:50 -
[802] - Quote
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).
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
MukkBarovian
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:00:56 -
[803] - Quote
Could we discuss the balance of warp speeds on bc and bs? If shield BS aren't exactly welcome on big fleets it would be nice if we could roam with them. I'm not saying they need to go cruiser speed, but faster than right now would be nice. |
Viktor Fel
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:01:06 -
[804] - Quote
Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame.
15 players? come up to Fade and Deklein you can see one player ISboxing 47 bombers and 4 scouts.
Who is Viktor Fel?
Killboard
|
Xenocy
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:02:58 -
[805] - Quote
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.
Hit the nail on the head with that one. |
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
183
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:04:09 -
[806] - Quote
Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame. Bring some support ships with your BS. How dam hard is it to field a few AFs or destroyers or whatever. They really are glass cannons. You practically instaspolode. Oh and how exactly would the cloak thing change torp strategy? Bombing runs on something like a real fight is hard.
If it so easy. So me ..I will check your killboard at the end of the week.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Masterkiller Mechanics
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:06:22 -
[807] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame. Bring some support ships with your BS. How dam hard is it to field a few AFs or destroyers or whatever. They really are glass cannons. You practically instaspolode. Oh and how exactly would the cloak thing change torp strategy? Bombing runs on something like a real fight is hard. If it so easy. Show me ..I will check your killboard at the end of the week.
You have never seen 100+ Dominix die instantly when you land on a gate have you.... |
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
183
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:07:15 -
[808] - Quote
JoveBishop wrote:What a lame move. ******* crybabies win. How are you not a crybaby? Because you can't have immunity to bombers? May need some support? Boo hoo.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
183
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:11:56 -
[809] - Quote
Masterkiller Mechanics wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame. Bring some support ships with your BS. How dam hard is it to field a few AFs or destroyers or whatever. They really are glass cannons. You practically instaspolode. Oh and how exactly would the cloak thing change torp strategy? Bombing runs on something like a real fight is hard. If it so easy. Show me ..I will check your killboard at the end of the week. You have never seen 100+ Dominix die instantly when you land on a gate have you.... Try local and Intel channels, getting that many lost means your doing it wrong. Would like to see some proof.
So No i haven't' because getting that lucky with a bombing runs is very hard. We did get like 20 BS once. But again. You have to be lucky.
By the logic that you shouldn't lose that much on a gate. You also want smart bombs banned... and bubbles and any tactic that doesn't make you feel safe everywhere.
If its so OP, stay in LS and HS. We won't miss you.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
606
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:14:24 -
[810] - Quote
You could say Fozzie just bombed this thread HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
|
|
Circumstantial Evidence
146
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:14:37 -
[811] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Both the new bomb and new interdiction probe will be made available exclusively in the Syndicate LP store. for ease of transport (bombs are big) Please make these items available (also?) in the form of BPC's |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1202
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:16:32 -
[812] - 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.
Very nice to see that you are applying most of the sig radius penalty to bomb launchers themselves. This change was unnecessarily punishing torp bombers, that were in a an alright place before.
The t2 bomb launcher capacity increase I think gives far more merit to the skilltrain than the reactivation delay, especially when you have to warp out, get re-setup, and warp back in, so that's really nice too.
Considering the way that you want the decloaking mechanic to work, without punishing all cloakies, is it not possible to also tie the decloaking other cloakies effect onto the bomb launcher? Or too complicated?
MukkBarovian wrote:Could we discuss the balance of warp speeds on bc and bs? If shield BS aren't exactly welcome on big fleets it would be nice if we could roam with them. I'm not saying they need to go cruiser speed, but faster than right now would be nice.
I don't think that's really a 'stealth bombers changes discussion' thread topic =P |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
942
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:17:46 -
[813] - 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. I'm not really sure how to proceed giving feedback here. Could I ask a simple question, instead?
Does CCP see the vast gulf between the viability of shield-tanked fleet doctrines and armor-tanked fleet doctrines, a gulf which is overwhelmingly due to the damage application of bombs, as a problem?
The ISBoxer and cloaking nonsense are irrelevant to this question, and I'm not looking for any justification for the answer one way or the other. A Yes or No answer will suffice. I promise not to assign arbitrary, unfounded, bespoke justification to your response. I would just like to know.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
491
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:18:21 -
[814] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCPFozzie wow way to cave man way to cave. How about do this for now then make the interaction changes. We were so looking forward to fly something other than sig tankers. But this kills it. You have ruined my day and made me sad
with all your relevant experience in running bomber fleets right manfred? the only experience you have of bomber fleets is on the wrong side of them so i can understand a blanket dumb as f**k approach with zero finesse and interesting nuances would suite you to the ground.
There are better ways to bring bombers a little way back from being able to bomb all the things and make shield BS fleets become something other than blatently suicidal in a fight. Some have suggested adding some of the missile explosion velocity vs ship speed into the bomb damage equation, i think thats trending towards a better solution and imho adding that, balancing some armor BS and shield BS sig sizes alongside bombs explosion radius would be sufficient.
i also think that the not so recent change to bs sized mwd cap usage is also something that might become useful eventually!
CCP Fozzie wrote: We're increasing the capacity of the T2 bomb launcher to 300m3.
thats a nice change but not exactly something that would make me want to ask people to train a 2 week+ lvl5 skill for. Especially when said launcher is the only loaded weapon system wthout any t2 ammunition.
CCP Fozzie wrote: The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed.
i thought the original explosion radius was 1m? which would mean this is a 4999m increase. knit-picking i know but i do like the change. Could the new Focused Void bomb be a t2 ammo choice for the t2 bomb launcher? it would be a big draw for serious bombers to invest sp into bomb deployment 5 (and maybe a subsequent specialisation skill??) |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1202
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:18:29 -
[815] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Masterkiller Mechanics wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame. Bring some support ships with your BS. How dam hard is it to field a few AFs or destroyers or whatever. They really are glass cannons. You practically instaspolode. Oh and how exactly would the cloak thing change torp strategy? Bombing runs on something like a real fight is hard. If it so easy. Show me ..I will check your killboard at the end of the week. You have never seen 100+ Dominix die instantly when you land on a gate have you.... Try local and Intel channels, getting that many lost means your doing it wrong. Would like to see some proof. So No i haven't' because getting that lucky with a bombing runs is very hard. We did get like 20 BS once. But again. You have to be lucky. By the logic that you shouldn't lose that much on a gate. You also want smart bombs banned... and bubbles and any tactic that doesn't make you feel safe everywhere. If its so OP, stay in LS and HS. We won't miss you.
Stay in highsec alone, you mean. Rumor has it Masterkiller Mechanics lost his 100 dominix fleet to the guy with 11 rokhs in lowsec. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
839
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:20:30 -
[816] - Quote
Querns 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. I'm not really sure how to proceed giving feedback here. Could I ask a simple question, instead? Does CCP see the vast gulf between the viability of shield-tanked fleet doctrines and armor-tanked fleet doctrines, a gulf which is overwhelmingly due to the damage application of bombs, as a problem?The ISBoxer and cloaking nonsense are irrelevant to this question, and I'm not looking for any justification for the answer one way or the other. A Yes or No answer will suffice. I promise not to assign arbitrary, unfounded, bespoke justification to your response. I would just like to know.
i sure hope they do querns, but i hope you agree the decloak change wouldn't affect how bombers apply to either shield or armour and thus was not the needed change
a change bombers desperately need is their damage equalized vs shield/armor. before that happens any power level nerfs or other changes are pretty meaningless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1634
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:20:49 -
[817] - Quote
The problem is the meta has already shifted to everyone flying the same ship in large fights. But hey, if you guys want to see 4 fleets of the same ship ok whatevs.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1202
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:21:58 -
[818] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:uncher is the only loaded weapon system wthout any t2 ammunition. CCP Fozzie wrote: The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed.
i thought the original explosion radius was 1m? which would mean this is a 4999m increase. knit-picking i know but i do like the change. Could the new Focused Void bomb be a t2 ammo choice for the t2 bomb launcher? it would be a big draw for serious bombers to invest sp into bomb deployment 5 (and maybe a subsequent specialisation skill??)
AOE radius is still 1m. Explosion radius 4000m --> 5000m, meaning that it will apply very little cap drain on something like a subcap IF it hits, and significantly reduced cap drain on something like a capital ship. |
Brad314
Prospero's Island
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:22:35 -
[819] - 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.
So Why? Why take it back? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
942
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:24:30 -
[820] - Quote
Capqu wrote:i sure hope they do querns, but i hope you agree the decloak change wouldn't affect how bombers apply to either shield or armour and thus was not the needed change
a change bombers desperately need is their damage equalized vs shield/armor. before that happens any power level nerfs or other changes are pretty meaningless Yeah, I don't really give a crap about the cloak changes. It's just quality of life stuff. The only meaningful change the decloaking thing would have had on a competent bomber group would have been the one, maybe two seconds of extra warning a fleet would get as bombers decloak each other in warp. Maybe. I'm not even sure that is a thing that would happen or not.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
491
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:29:24 -
[821] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:uncher is the only loaded weapon system wthout any t2 ammunition. CCP Fozzie wrote: The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed.
i thought the original explosion radius was 1m? which would mean this is a 4999m increase. knit-picking i know but i do like the change. Could the new Focused Void bomb be a t2 ammo choice for the t2 bomb launcher? it would be a big draw for serious bombers to invest sp into bomb deployment 5 (and maybe a subsequent specialisation skill??) AOE radius is still 1m. Explosion radius 4000m --> 5000m, meaning that it will apply very little cap drain on something like a subcap IF it hits, and significantly reduced cap drain on something like a capital ship.
ahh good point well made, and the increase i would still agree with as its a capital class weapon and should scale well to not be OP against subs (if you could even hit one with it)
still think that 1m aoe is somewhat ridiculous in a game where 1km is a tiny distance. |
Sof0s
Parental Control Triumvirate.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:33:23 -
[822] - 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.
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 . |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
815
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:33:38 -
[823] - Quote
Bombers need to be changed up so that more doctrines are available.
Carefully not decloaking your fleetmates was not the way to do it.
It was a half baked band aid fix that would have been annoying.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Oddsodz
C.Q.B Bohica Empire
111
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:43:11 -
[824] - Quote
Thank you for not going back to the old decloak range bug. |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1285
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:47:30 -
[825] - Quote
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.
~
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
161
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:48:49 -
[826] - 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.
Or you can be like Greyscale and not cave to people crying. Amazing I thought CCP was finally standing on their own legs instead of caving to tears. Good show fozzie |
Pritovsky Pootis
Eschelon Directive Universal Consortium
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:49:12 -
[827] - Quote
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!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10375
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 00:52:33 -
[828] - Quote
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.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Daktar Jaxs
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:03:09 -
[829] - 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.
careful or CCP will fix this problem by nerfing tengus into the ground
|
Mrs Comfortable
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:08:49 -
[830] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame. Bring some support ships with your BS. How dam hard is it to field a few AFs or destroyers or whatever. They really are glass cannons. You practically instaspolode. Oh and how exactly would the cloak thing change torp strategy? Bombing runs on something like a real fight is hard. If it so easy. Show me ..I will check your killboard at the end of the week.
With any large fleet comp one of the main concerns is can it survive a half decent bombing run. Shield BS are automatically out. Armor BS maybe..., All BC's out.
A few destroyers will stop a few bombs. With 3 to 4 squads of bombers it makes little difference. Your ability to kill them before they warp of dwindles after the first few decloak due to lock times and weapon cycling times.
Why should a group of ships be allowed to easily get within 30km of a fleet while invisible, then throw 300,000 + AOE DPS at it, multiple times? sounds balanced when you look at it from that side?
It's just all to terribly easy at the moment. |
|
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
42
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:11:46 -
[831] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Here are our latest updates to the plan.
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.
So a survivability penalty for training up to T2 bomb launchers?
Tell me I'm reading this wrong. |
Vectara Lock
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:16:17 -
[832] - Quote
Phew for a second there I thought CCP might actually do something right. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
840
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:20:49 -
[833] - 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.
sure you said a whole lot of stuff i agree with, like shield being way easier to bomb than armour and that being really bad for the meta etc
however a global "nerf" (if you can even call it that, all it really does is increase complexity) is not going to change any of those things. all it would have done is make the already super-effective isboxed runs slightly less efficient/quick and completely removed pilot based bombing while retaining the vast superiority of armour vs shield.
the only way that armour would still not retain the huge advantages over shield with this nerf would have been if bombing was so complex that it was completely irrelevant when considering combat. that evidently isn't the case and we've tested isboxing on pheobe with the decloak changes - it's still trivially easy. the decloak nerf literally does nothing to help your shield BC fleet eat a wave of bombs and survive, and is a redicilous change to ask for if what you really want is armor/shield parity
if you want to cry about bombers in general i'll probably agree with you, but don't try to mask it with m-muh shield bs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Pirate Slavegirl
Twenty Questions RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:24:29 -
[834] - 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.
Awesome! Thank you! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
491
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:26:16 -
[835] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:
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.
...
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.
So out of interest, ive had an idea brewing for a while and wondered what you may think about it...
Most pilots who fleet warp and generally do 'stuff' in space with more than just a couple of others will know any warping to or from somewhere put you in a fairly random position in a sphere thats 4km in diameter. this spaces some stuff out to look cool and adds some 'random' elements to landing locations (it also needs to be looked at and iterated on with fleet warps of caps and supers, as multiple ships inside one another looks weird and broken)
Imagine when warping a squad/wing/fleet when fleet members are cloaked those fleet members that are cloaked do not warp or land in a randomised location on landing but all land exactly on top of each other in the central point of that sphere. When they decloak on top of each other (due to someone manually decloaking in order to bomb) they all immediately bump on landing scattering their direction and screwing with their ability to both bomb in the same direction and re-align to warp out.
This would mean fleet/wing/squad warping bombers to bomb on landing would be a somewhat suicidal method for bombers, or would require bomber squads to deblob cloaked before re-aligning to bomb (and therefore incur a subsequent realignment penalty to warp out). FC's would require another method to pull off a bomber run like requiring a bomber fc/alt/helper to put a cloaked ship in a danger-close position to hostiles to be a warp to point for bombers to individually warp (and therefore not bump) and complete a successful bomber run.
This would add a high degree of pilot skill, finesse, time to prep and a moderate amount of danger in order to achieve a ninja like bombing run. |
ArmyOfMe
PILGRIMS Advent of Fate
362
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:38:37 -
[836] - Quote
bad move. For once i had hoped you guys would have the stones to go through with these radical changes that this game so much needed.
QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
|
Jaffinator
The Scope Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:40:13 -
[837] - 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.
Nailed years and years of theorycrafting around bombers in like 200 words. |
Kayi Brixius
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:43:33 -
[838] - Quote
Woo HOOOOO! Thank you Fozzie! INCOMING!!!!!!! |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1291
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:48:14 -
[839] - Quote
Capqu wrote: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. sure you said a whole lot of stuff i agree with, like shield being way easier to bomb than armour and that being really bad for the meta etc however a global "nerf" (if you can even call it that, all it really does is increase complexity) is not going to change any of those things. all it would have done is make the already super-effective isboxed runs slightly less efficient/quick and completely removed pilot based bombing while retaining the vast superiority of armour vs shield. the only way that armour would still not retain the huge advantages over shield with this nerf would have been if bombing was so complex that it was completely irrelevant when considering combat. that evidently isn't the case and we've tested isboxing on pheobe with the decloak changes - it's still trivially easy. the decloak nerf literally does nothing to help your shield BC fleet eat a wave of bombs and survive, and is a redicilous change to ask for if what you really want is armor/shield parity if you want to cry about bombers in general i'll probably agree with you, but don't try to mask it with m-muh shield bs
I don't know how you got "m-muh shield bs" from that. I guess if my post had to be reduced into some blubbering nonsense for the sake of ~poasting~ it would be "boo-hoo my sweet anything but t3, navypoc, mega MWD'ing HAC backbone" because really that's all that can exist in the medium-to-large scale meta where it takes 60 seconds to setup a 30-man bombing run. I mean there was a time when bombers decloaked one another. It's not some sort of rose-colored glasses revisionist bullshit, it wasn't even that long ago. They were still deathly effective, but it took significantly more effort to setup. ISBoxer wasn't really a ~thing~, but if you've ever used ISboxer you know how difficult it would be to do. We had dedicated bombing FCs that were revered, whereas now we just have a guy and some alts. I guess you could argue it takes some practice, but those guys have completely eclipsed the individuals who used to specialize in that sort of thing because their brand is the most efficient. Getting rid of that seems pretty d0pe to me. Adding complexity for the sake of it adjusts the effectiveness-easiness scale, which is really the only thing plaguing them at the moment.
~
|
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
228
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:55:26 -
[840] - 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.
You can totally have my babies! |
|
Jaffinator
The Scope Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:57:58 -
[841] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: I don't know how you got "m-muh shield bs" from that. I guess if my post had to be reduced into some blubbering nonsense for the sake of ~poasting~ it would be "boo-hoo my sweet anything but t3, navypoc, mega MWD'ing HAC backbone" because really that's all that can exist in the medium-to-large scale meta where it takes 60 seconds to setup a 30-man bombing run. I mean there was a time when bombers decloaked one another. It's not some sort of rose-colored glasses revisionist bullshit, it wasn't even that long ago. They were still deathly effective, but it took significantly more effort to setup. ISBoxer wasn't really a ~thing~, but if you've ever used ISboxer you know how difficult it would be to do. We had dedicated bombing FCs that were revered, whereas now we just have a guy and some alts. I guess you could argue it takes some practice, but those guys have completely eclipsed the individuals who used to specialize in that sort of thing because their brand is the most efficient. Getting rid of that seems pretty d0pe to me. Adding complexity for the sake of it adjusts the effectiveness-easiness scale, which is really the only thing plaguing them at the moment.
This. There is no arguing that the current state of bombers is pretty oppressive to the meta. It all but eliminates shield-based BC and BS hulls from consideration and locks those that are able to reasonably theorycraft optimized fits into a handful of the same familiar fleet comps we've seen for a long, long time now. The BS rebalance was a good way to open the door to new options but most stuck with what they were using (or a slightly new take on it while maintaining the ideology) simply because of bombers. |
Vesperi Kobra
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 01:59:10 -
[842] - Quote
Do any of you really think they give a crap about how op bombers are? CCP is here to make money. If every other dickhead in the game is going to sub 20-40 accounts so that they can multibox bombers there is no way in hell they will stop that. 40 accounts is a lot of plex and in turn a lot of cash. Rather than make the game better they will just sit back make money and laugh at how much everyone in this thread rages. |
DNSBLACK
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
701
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:00:20 -
[843] - Quote
Fozzie,
1. JF you back down on
2. I was excited about making bombing hard again and watching a good bombing FC change a fight.
3. Why the change back??? Give us your reason. Show us the test server data. With out data then all we can say is you caved for A. B. C. reason with out giving it a try the old way.
4. Why not go with the way you have done things in the past. Make the change and then adjust. Isn't this what you have been doing with BOBS all along ( Hence no covert cloak).
5. If the sig is attached to the launcher then attach the decloak to the launcher also. If you have a bomb launcher you will get a increase sig radius and you will decloack other cov op ship with in 2500. This would effectivly make the IS boxer bomber go away and then make the bomber who are torping not suffer.
6. Stop caving to pressure that isn't there. That is what you stated in your response, saying this is not about subs. |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1292
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:02:08 -
[844] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:
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.
...
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.
So out of interest, ive had an idea brewing for a while and wondered what you may think about it... Most pilots who fleet warp and generally do 'stuff' in space with more than just a couple of others will know any warping to or from somewhere put you in a fairly random position in a sphere thats 4km in diameter. this spaces some stuff out to look cool and adds some 'random' elements to landing locations (it also needs to be looked at and iterated on with fleet warps of caps and supers, as multiple ships inside one another looks weird and broken) Imagine when warping a squad/wing/fleet when fleet members are cloaked those fleet members that are cloaked do not warp or land in a randomised location on landing but all land exactly on top of each other in the central point of that sphere. When they decloak on top of each other (due to someone manually decloaking in order to bomb) they all immediately bump on landing scattering their direction and screwing with their ability to both bomb in the same direction and re-align to warp out. This would mean fleet/wing/squad warping bombers to bomb on landing would be a somewhat suicidal method for bombers, or would require bomber squads to deblob cloaked before re-aligning to bomb (and therefore incur a subsequent realignment penalty to warp out). FC's would require another method to pull off a bomber run like requiring a bomber fc/alt/helper to put a cloaked ship in a danger-close position to hostiles to be a warp to point for bombers to individually warp (and therefore not bump) and complete a successful bomber run. This would add a high degree of pilot skill, finesse, time to prep and a moderate amount of danger in order to achieve a ninja like bombing run.
I like the idea of making bombing more skill intensive, and your solution seems to solve a problem, but I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to game design changes I'd make a terrible game designer. I think pretty much everyone who posts on the forums suffers from the same ailment. I mean if I had it my way, caps wouldn't have jump fatigue and titans would have DDs 3x as strong, and able to fit 7 of them. So long capital proliferation! If a fight like b-r were to happen, then basically every active supercap in the game would be down for the count. Hilarious? Definitely. A sensible game design decision? Let's just say you won't be seeing "CCP HazedScrub" anytime soon.
I think nobody is really arguing that bombers are fine right now - we all recognize that they're too strong and have been for awhile. Same is true about tons of stuff in the game, though, and I'm fine with that. It gives the game flavor. But it's very frustrating as a player to see the issue addressed, mechanics reversed to a time when bombing wasn't considered broken, and then just having all that that chucked in the trash and tabled for a later date at the last minute. But I mean, there's this new TSwift album out so I'll get over the :smith:.
~
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
840
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:02:11 -
[845] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: Adding complexity for the sake of it adjusts the effectiveness-easiness scale, which is really the only thing plaguing them at the moment.
okay, effectiveness vs armor/shields isn't an issue at all you're right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Sl8er13
SIX F1NGERS
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:04:20 -
[846] - Quote
Masterkiller Mechanics wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame. Bring some support ships with your BS. How dam hard is it to field a few AFs or destroyers or whatever. They really are glass cannons. You practically instaspolode. Oh and how exactly would the cloak thing change torp strategy? Bombing runs on something like a real fight is hard. If it so easy. Show me ..I will check your killboard at the end of the week. You have never seen 100+ Dominix die instantly when you land on a gate have you....
Sounds like a classic Rooks and Kings Pipebomb, just need more BS to break the armor hp |
Zverofaust
Origin. Black Legion.
146
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:06:35 -
[847] - Quote
Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2659
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:10:39 -
[848] - Quote
Way to **** the bed CCP
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
840
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:11:31 -
[849] - Quote
Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels.
wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead
everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
Nauclerus Serpens
Mad Bombers of TDA The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:13:11 -
[850] - Quote
An ill prepared bs fleet will have a bad day against a well prepared fleet with a bomber wing. Bring logi. Bring destroyers to shoot the bombs. You have twelve seconds. Or is that too hard? What else? Nerf logi? Nerf teamwork and a good fc? Thanks fozzie forllistening. |
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
198
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:16:10 -
[851] - Quote
I had high hopes we would start seeing a resurgence of battleship doctrines as a result of the original plan. Emphasis on Had...as in, no longer.
How bout this: Make bombs weak enough that a single bomb can only tank one other bomb. This way, if you want to destroy a whole fleet with just bombs, you'll require to do it in several volleys, not just all at once. |
Vesperi Kobra
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:17:44 -
[852] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing
In classic bombing you have 1 person per ship and they can warp at distance and burn to where they need to be. When you control 40 it is hard to do them all that way but hitting fleet warp it **** easy. |
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:20:59 -
[853] - Quote
Just dropping by to thank CCP Fozzie and the rest of the devs involved for listening to us and deciding that forcing covops pilots to dance around fleetmates they can't see wasn't a great idea after all. I had almost lost faith
|
Rebnok
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:22:03 -
[854] - Quote
So why was my AEO DD taken away again? Too easy for one dude to wipe out an entire fleet? |
Bisba
PILGRIMS Advent of Fate
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:23:17 -
[855] - Quote
Rebnok wrote:So why was my AEO DD taken away again? Too easy for one dude to wipe out an entire fleet?
This is so true! |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
840
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:25:12 -
[856] - Quote
Vesperi Kobra wrote:Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing In classic bombing you have 1 person per ship and they can warp at distance and burn to where they need to be. When you control 40 it is hard to do them all that way but hitting fleet warp it **** easy.
no. in one person per ship bombing you have to communicate distances and vectors for every pilot and update on the fly with players joining/leaving the fleet
with one person 8 ships bombing you use pre set distances per client and bomb as normal, was tested and it was very easy to do on sisi
the above combined with the knowledge of the position of your entire cloaked fleet without the need to communicate, perfectly synchronised bomb waves & warpouts and the ability to have a full wave of bombers on demand was going to be the death of non-isboxed bombers. many of us would prefer the opposite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
|
DNSBLACK
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
702
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:31:05 -
[857] - Quote
Why not make it this then
1. Fit a bomb launcher on a bomber you cant warp cloaked. This seems to be the thinking with our so OP Black Ops BS LOL.
2. Fit bomb launchers your sig goes up
3. Allow bomber to load torp or cruise missles.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:32:00 -
[858] - Quote
CCP refuses to even discuss ISBoxer.
Any mention of their recent behavior gets you an official forum warning for rumor mongering, despite of course the fact that any post that isn't rumor mongering in their eyes would be violating the EULA for posting GM correspondence.
We know what you're doing. Stop pretending you're not doing it.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
945
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:34:17 -
[859] - Quote
Rebnok wrote:So why was my AEO DD taken away again? Too easy for one dude to wipe out an entire fleet? It was taken away because we did not like it.
:sun:
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
37
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:35:36 -
[860] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:I like the idea of making bombing more skill intensive, and your solution seems to solve a problem, but I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to game design changes I'd make a terrible game designer. I think pretty much everyone who posts on the forums suffers from the same ailment. I mean if I had it my way, caps wouldn't have jump fatigue and titans would have DDs 3x as strong, and able to fit 7 of them. So long capital proliferation! If a fight like b-r were to happen, then basically every active supercap in the game would be down for the count. Hilarious? Definitely. A sensible game design decision? Let's just say you won't be seeing "CCP HazedScrub" anytime soon.
I think nobody is really arguing that bombers are fine right now - we all recognize that they're too strong and have been for awhile. Same is true about tons of stuff in the game, though, and I'm fine with that. It gives the game flavor. But it's very frustrating as a player to see the issue addressed, mechanics reversed to a time when bombing wasn't considered broken, and then just having all that that chucked in the trash and tabled for a later date at the last minute. But I mean, there's this new TSwift album out so I'll get over the :smith:.
Exactly. And to disapprove the notion that bombing was not a thing before bombers got the cloaking buff a few years ago, I'd like to point to the fight that occurred UB-UQZ, 2012-01-05 18:59 - 22:04 (posted this way because of the ridiculous restrictions on posting KB links on EVEO forums, you will have to look it up yourself on eve-kill) where I participated and in which we massacred 2.5 consecutive waves of CFC Alpha Maelstroms.
What changed with the cloaking buff is that it made things much easier to automate because of the reduced chance of being decloaked during positioning, which usually results in having to reposition and start from scratch. Before to do a successful positioning a more intensive preparation was needed and using something like isboxer was much more difficult because each bomber/client had to have a different warpin distance which could sometimes change depending on the situation. That is not a problem when you've got 40 dudes at the keyboard because each one of them can do that easily for their own client. However doing it for isboxed clients it's much more difficult and time consuming because you have to fiddle with each one of them. For maximum success one had to get into the system 30-45 min before, and make bookmarks on the various perches for every bomber. It was also more prone to player mistake because if one warped wrong there was a good chance of decloaking someone else in your bomber wing. In general a minimum of training was necessary to do things right and people at the keyboard were necessary to do things right.
With the advent of the cloak buff a lot of things changed. Automation of bomber control with isboxer became a trivial thing, and worse it made using isboxer much more efficient compared to using living, breathing people, because you don't have to train them to work in a fleet and you reduce the chance of player mistake considerably. The cloaking buff also made positioning trivial. Before you had to take into account the spatial disposition of your fleet, the bombers needed to be spread over a wide area to prevent them decloaking each other. Now? Just warp them all into a single point in space, no need to worry about anything. You can just make a ping on the spot and you will be bombing as efficiently as if you had prepared everything before the fight meticulously.
In conclusion, taking into account my experience before and after the cloaking buff, I think I can reasonably well say that the cloaking buff has made bombers pretty much OP because it removed the intrinsic limitations that did not allow for its automation with isboxer. This in turn has made BC and BS shield fleets essentially obsolete, as Elise has explained already. |
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
241
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:49:09 -
[861] - Quote
Why don't CCP just reduce the radius of the bombs doing damage, from 15 km to 5 km or something along those lines. I liked the idea someone else came up with of bomb launchers being a targeted module too. |
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect Surely You're Joking
458
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 02:56:37 -
[862] - Quote
The issue with bombers isn't bombers and how they work now. It's ISboxer. The changes detailed in this thread by CCP are a terrible way of dealing with ISboxer indirectly. Unfortunately as several ISboxing bombers have pointed it, it's only going to further alienate conventional bombers in favor of ISboxer bombers.
Hades Effect /-áConflict Resolution /-áPirate Protection
|
Sister Bliss
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
72
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:00:45 -
[863] - 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.
I'm happy to see the reversal of the proposed decloak changes as that was a very ugly tactical fix indeed, however I really hope you prioritise balancing of bombs as a matter of urgency. That this has gone untouched for a number of years is really staggering.
It's no coincidence that the variety of ships being flown in 0.0 has been reduced massively to a fraction due to the overwhelming impact of bombers. This even prior to the emergence of Isboxing was an issue which needed addressing as even the most hapless of bomber FC's can wing warp a 2/4-wave daisy cutter onto a hostile fleet and destroy it with relative ease.
I see claims about how much skill bomber FCing requires, but really it doesn't. I also see claims about the ease of negating the bomb threat with bubbles or fast lockers etc. In practise this can usually be overcome in all but the most extreme of situations (where the grid is impregnable).
I feel a great sense of hypocrisy in writing this as I love the principles of bombing and the experience of wiping out entire fleets at a stroke, but on balance I don't think it is good for the game. Remember that most people play to want to have a fight and have fun. There is more than enough tedious preamble in getting to the point where a fight is actually going to happen, only for the potential for it to last < 60 seconds. This does not feel like good game design.
There also seems on occasion to be a sense of entitlement in the bombing community to a right to be able to destroy whole fleets on a whim with very little risk involved on their part unless draconian and impractical countermeasures are employed by their opponent. Imagine for a moment if a bomber cost 500m...given the destructive power and likely ability to escape unharmed, does that seem reasonable given the risk v reward? Heaven forbid CCP add a 5s immobility timer after bomb launch! If you turn the tables, there is really an imbalance here.
It also seems hypocritical when you see examples quoted 'you didn't bring a 50 man insta-cane fleet to accompany your main fleet' therefore you deserve to die to my 14 guys (or 2 guys as it may be). An anti-blob WOMD which requires more blobbing to negate.
Currently those who can afford it, will fly Tengus or low-sig BS (Napoc etc.) to increase the probability of survival, which has led to very 1 dimensional combat and fleet selection. As soon as bombers are in the air, fleets re-ship and/or stand down which denies content for everyone in all but the most suicidal or desperate of times. The end result is that nobody wins.
The irony is the success of bombers have virtually starved them of their own habitat and increasingly the only bombers remaining are bred in captivity via Isboxer.
I hope to see a balanced solution where bombers can have fun with a target rich environment, but also where their prey can also have fun with a reasonable risk profile and sensible countermeasures and/or survivability. Perhaps we will also see more people stepping up to try their hand at FCing and taking out fleets for fights which is what everyone wants.
It may also be enjoyable to fly something which isn't a Tengu. |
Zverofaust
Origin. Black Legion.
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:04:19 -
[864] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Vesperi Kobra wrote:Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing In classic bombing you have 1 person per ship and they can warp at distance and burn to where they need to be. When you control 40 it is hard to do them all that way but hitting fleet warp it **** easy. no. in one person per ship bombing you have to communicate distances and vectors for every pilot and update on the fly with players joining/leaving the fleet with one person 8 ships bombing you use pre set distances per client and bomb as normal, was tested and it was very easy to do on sisi the above combined with the knowledge of the position of your entire cloaked fleet without the need to communicate, perfectly synchronised bomb waves & warpouts and the ability to have a full wave of bombers on demand was going to be the death of non-isboxed bombers. many of us would prefer the opposite
I agree that it doesn't do anything to really counter isboxer; I never expected it would. My comments were aimed towards traditional multiperson bombing being too easy for the potential effect it could have; most of the most hilariously effective boming runs I've had first hand experience in weren't isboxers. In fact people like oodel, space, ammzi only run 1 squads worth of bombers but it's the multi squad consecutive waves of 20+ that are responsible for wiping out entire bs fleets. |
Manfred Sideous
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
977
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:09:18 -
[865] - Quote
@CCP
For the interim:
Fitting a bomb launcher disables the ability to cloak.
TYTIA
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Suddenly Spaceships.
1677
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:13:26 -
[866] - Quote
+1 for postponing the cloak changes in favor of a more comprehensive look at cloak mechanics.
Will be interesting to see what you guys come up with.
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1568
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:17:20 -
[867] - Quote
Oh my how the tears have turned |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
293
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:33:07 -
[868] - Quote
Also +1 for taking a broader, slower look at cloak mechanics. Really good decisions IMO. I really don't get how people can say CCP does not listen to player feedback--those little changes are directly reflective of what people convincingly argued here. |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Unthinkables
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:36:49 -
[869] - Quote
I am REALLY glad you are reconsidering the decloaking change. It is such a Quality of Life decrease. Thank you.
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
Dominous Nolen
The Unthinkables
36
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:37:12 -
[870] - 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.
YES!
This is EVE, Not Hello Kitty: Island Adventure
|
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:44:34 -
[871] - Quote
In other words:
FREE TORPEDO DELIVERIES FOR EVERYONE Now with increased speed, cap, tank, and CPU!
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.
You've just read another amazing post by WiNGSPANTT, the 4th Best Commentator on YouTube! GÇï Follow along with my exploration and stealth bomber adventures on my YouTube channel
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
354
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:49:20 -
[872] - Quote
Schwa Nuts wrote:In an effort to nerf stealth bombers, and their chilling effect on the fleet meta, we have instead offered up buffs to stealth bombers.
r u scared? you should be. |
Dr Jihad Alhariri
Dr Jihad's Brigade of Interstellar Mujahideen Corrosive.
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 04:48:11 -
[873] - 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.
This is very good news. The "cloakies can decloak other cloakies" change, by itself, would have been a step backwards in Eve's progression.
To make it really work out, other supportive changes have to be made alongside. For example: Allowing fleet members to see other cloaked ships in fleet. This would allow the fleet's cloakies to be coordinated unlike a cage full of blindfolded squirrels.
I am also glad to see the sig radius increase toned down. The current numbers look more reasonable (they aren't de facto destroyers with the new planned values).
So... ship it! |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2933
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 04:55:33 -
[874] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Explosion Radius: 5000 .. AoE Range: One Meter
physics sais no
eve style bounties (done)
dust boarding parties
imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
237
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 05:07:43 -
[875] - Quote
Easiest way to keep regular bombers happy and kill ISBoxing bombers: Add a random 4-digit code (like the Captcha, but cleaner) that must be entered to arm a bomb before detonation but after launch. Make sure you can still click on overview and warp off before entering code tho. |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
904
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 05:35:13 -
[876] - Quote
Couldn't you just like decrease bomber damage + increase bomb sig radius / decrease BS sig and reduce flight ime somewhat
Seems like a reasonable way of nerfing bombers for now |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1285
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 05:49:26 -
[877] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCP
For the interim:
Fitting a bomb launcher disables the ability to cloak.
TYTIA this belongs in the OLBI thread.
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Jonah Bridges
Primordial Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 06:17:47 -
[878] - Quote
Cheers Fozzie
oh %$#@ it
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
38
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 06:45:51 -
[879] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Well, with that logic, so should any type of multi boxing. One player should be able to do the job of more than a single pilot. No cyno alts, no logi alts, etc.
no, not at all. My point are automated clients, not multiboxing as such.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Firstly and most significantly, the change to decloaking mechanics has been put on hold indefinitely.
so no meaningful bomber neft anymore? Ban isbotters at least then. |
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:04:35 -
[880] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:In other words:
FREE TORPEDO DELIVERIES FOR EVERYONE Now with increased speed, cap, tank, and CPU!
LOL. Funny videos. |
|
Ame Umida
Quovis The Bastion
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:06:52 -
[881] - Quote
If you intend on bring in 1 meter cap void bombs, bring back mines please (for low and nullsec space of course). |
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:13:57 -
[882] - Quote
Rowells wrote:lol at the rorq loot E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that. E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example.
Pretty hard to divorce ISBOXER from stealth bomber "rebalance" when you see KM's like that. |
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:17:02 -
[883] - Quote
Seriously what is wrong with everyone? Bombers are suppose to be good against BS. That is the POINT. Nerf them so BS are safe again? Fly in high-sec if you want no risk.
Show me all these fleets of BS being wiped from the battle field all the time. I just don't see it. Bombers are not that high on the kills list. (Ishtars are!). As for bomb runs are easy to set up (yea right). A quick look at your killboard show that you know nothing about it, and the "its my alt account that does bombing" is not going to cut it. Put up, and show the data of all this rampant bomb runs or shut up.
As for "only amour doctrines are viable". That is sort of true. But its not just because of bombers. It is how sig radius work with tracking as well. Oh and the fact that shield mods use mids and therefore you lose valuable ewar slots etc.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:22:03 -
[884] - Quote
CW Itovuo wrote:Rowells wrote:lol at the rorq loot E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that. E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example. Pretty hard to divorce ISBOXER from stealth bomber "rebalance" when you see KM's like that. That kill is with torps. Have an escort and stop expecting to be safe alone. A few AF around and they never would have uncloaked, or as you can see from the kill boards, he loses every bomber and most of the pods. Also the de cloak thing would have changed nothing.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
249
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:32:21 -
[885] - Quote
Thanks for rolling back the decloak change! :) |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:36:46 -
[886] - 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.
So everything stays as is slowcat online and T3 online good job. |
Grave Digger Eriker
Grave Diggers Guild
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:51:16 -
[887] - Quote
Great so with the roll--back that is only really beneficial to ISKBoxer players you are ruining the game for any large fleet and expect the introduction of 2 virtually useless bombs to compensate.
Are you are intentionally trying to get rid of all large fleets or just aiming at clearing out Nullsec so that yo don't need to fix the problems because no-one lives there.
That's not a very bright way of keeping/increasing your player base. |
Cyaron wars
My Little Pony Industries Inc. Out of Sight.
85
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:01:32 -
[888] - 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.
Just when I thought ISBoxer will be useless for bombers CCP saves the day. Thank you CCP Fozzie :) |
Sans Nome
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:09:44 -
[889] - Quote
To end the choke hold bombers have om the current meta i suggestie the following: A Make defender missiles an anti bomb weapon B make it zo that a bomb upon launching locks the bomber that launched it. If this lock is broken due to any reason, the bomb Will fail to explode give the bomb a lock range of 250km but no relock ability. |
Dave Stark
7073
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:12:18 -
[890] - Quote
Grave Digger Eriker wrote:Great so with the roll--back that is only really beneficial to ISKBoxer players you are ruining the game for any large fleet and expect the introduction of 2 virtually useless bombs to compensate.
Are you are intentionally trying to get rid of all large fleets or just aiming at clearing out Nullsec so that yo don't need to fix the problems because no-one lives there.
That's not a very bright way of keeping/increasing your player base.
funfact; you don't need isboxer to bomb fleets and make BS doctrines irrelevant. |
|
Dave Stark
7073
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:14:18 -
[891] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Easiest way to keep regular bombers happy and kill ISBoxing bombers: Add a random 4-digit code (like the Captcha, but cleaner) that must be entered to arm a bomb before detonation but after launch. Make sure you can still click on overview and warp off before entering code tho.
this is literally the dumbest thing i've ever seen suggested. it's on par with every other captcha suggestion, and is just as bad for the same reasons. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:16:23 -
[892] - Quote
I am kind of neutral about backtracking on the decloaking but despite CCP saying it was not done to target sb isboxing, I still believe it t would have curved it a bit...
The fact is that isboxed SB fleet are going to gain even more visibility with the addition of polarized torpedoes and the reduction of structures HP with Phoebe If only a handful of very rich players can impact the game that much, it will reflect badly on the game, and the perceived impact on newer and casual, players can be really bad.
Drop the decloaking thing, yes, but change your EULA to clearly ban isboxing as botting. The risk of losing all these accounts will be enough to deter their usage on a wider scale., and keep his issue under control
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:21:00 -
[893] - 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.
TNX CCP. This is good. we accept 12 sec flight and other nerfs but my corp can still continue exist. ^^^^ |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
269
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:22:49 -
[894] - Quote
how about activating a bomb launcher immediately reduces your velocity by 50% (or some other arbitrary number). you can no longer bomb aligned and be 100% safe so long as you're not bubbled.
This way bombers are still able to punish unsupported battleship fleets as Allah intended but are vulnerable to instalocking hurricanes/SFIs/legions/whatever people use these days. It would also make it far more dangerous to bomb frigates and destroyers, which is probably an unintended use of the bombing mechanic from CCP's point of view
PS nerf ishtars and ceptors, buff BCs and HMLs please
watch me be a scurb and get owned
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23352
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:27:17 -
[895] - Quote
CCP Rattati balancing things based on graphs
is this how stuff is balanced, with a 10,000 foot view based on usage?
Quote:Case: The Rail Rifle
KPI's: Kills, Spawns and K/S Sample: Prototype Rifles in Public Contracts since May 2014 (post 1.8 through all hotfixes) Data Insights: The Rail Rifle has the highest K/S in the sample, gets the most kills and is the most used Rifle currently Main Theory: The Rail Rifle is too effective Forum Support: Yes Secondary Theory: The following Rifles are not effective enough, Assault Scrambler, Burst Assault, Tactical Assault, and Assault Rail. Forum Support: Yes
just curious
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
187
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:37:39 -
[896] - Quote
Grave Digger Eriker wrote:Great so with the roll--back that is only really beneficial to ISKBoxer players you are ruining the game for any large fleet and expect the introduction of 2 virtually useless bombs to compensate.
Citation required. Seriously. Everyone says this is happening all the time. Yet the best anyone comes up with is the odd kill here and there *with torps* against un escorted ships. 30 bombers takes quite a while to kill a properly fitted Roqual. A few AF would have torn the bombers apart. And a isboxer fleet even more so and faster.
This is eve. Everytime you undock there is a real risk you can lose a ship, your BS only fleets are not invulnerable and they are never suppose to be. You don't like it. Play WoW.
Ironically the very few isboxer kills posted would work just as well with plenty of other ship types as well.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Perseus Hagakure
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:41:06 -
[897] - 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.
Thank you |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:41:58 -
[898] - Quote
Oh my, this may be a long post...
Firstly, I'm sorry in advanced, but this is going to be slightly off-topic, people need to stop looking at bombers in the form of multiboxer or not. There is an inherent lack of good judgement when there are 40 people in local and you decide to jump into a beacon. Regardless of whether the 40 in local is a single multiboxer or 40 individuals, it doesn't change the fact that jumping into a system with that many hostiles is a stupid decision. So please stop pointing at ISBoxer for that, but point at the victims for doing something stupid. This community is great at mocking people who make poor decisions, but the anti ISBoxer bandwagon is a little much.
To the main point of this thread, Fozzie, thank you for taking these stealth changes by not reintroducing a bug that was fixed years ago. With that said, these changes still don't nerf bombers nearly enough. In actuality, these changes are actually slight buffs to torpedo bombers while slightly nerfing actual bombs. While these are steps in the right direction, bomb effectiveness needs to be lowered. As stated by other players, the bomb application is heavily skewed towards one type of tank type and there is no reliable method of mitigating the damage. The introduction of new ways to avoid the damage completely is a great step, but binary combat system of 100% dmg or 0% dmg isn't very interesting gameplay. This argument was used when introducing the new invention changes by yourselves.
Introduction of damage modifier via explosion velocity would be a great help for allowing that sort of interesting non binary gameplay. However, the drawback to something like this is that it may increase the calculations required by the server and thus might not be a desirable fix.
Reduction of the explosion radius from 15km to 10km may help to alleviate this problem as well. 10km along with the 12 second flight time would give ample time for most ships to completely evade the bomb damage. This would also allow non multiboxing bombers to become more effective as they can align and carpet bomb an area for more effectively than a single ISBoxer aligning to a single point. Mayhaps even nerfing down to 8km may have the same effect, but this would require testing.
The changes to move the sig penalty to bomb launchers is actually a pretty good change. I would however like to point out that at this time, there is no reason to train bomb deployment past 1 unless youre looking to drop void bombs. at this point you would train up to 4. The increased rearm time on the bomber is a nice touch, but still doesn't give enough of a benefit to train the skill to 5. Swapping the penalty to 12m to t1 launchers and 10m to t2 launchers would make bomb deployment 5 far more desirable. The current feature makes it so that t1 launchers are far more desirable than a t2 launcher. The increased bay is nice, but a bomb truck for multibomb run would be present and the increased sig ont he t2 launcher would make it more of a hinderace than a benefit.
Another argument that players are making is to introduce a captcha system into bomb launchers. This is a silly idea as it would only act to over complicate gameplay for no real discernible reason than to make it more complicated for a single type of player. Introducing overly clunky and cluttered mechanics as a fix a perceived problem are usually poor ideas.
Common "fixes" the players are suggesting in this thread to fix bombers are -disable warp after dropping a bomb -disable cloak on bombers -ban isboxer
For the first 2 suggestions, the bomber would have to be completely reworked to fit into that line of thought. The main frustration against bombers is that if they are bombed properly, they have no change of fighting back. That frustration is translated into their suggestion of being able to actually lock and fight these targets. If these changes were to be applied, the bomber would have to be reborn as a 20-30k ehp cruiser with large weapons. In essence a cruiser sized attack battlecruiser. Or whatever the naga, nado, oracle, talos are now called.
This is because the current stats on the bombers make them extremely vulnerable to damage. To the point that t1 drones from any frigate can kill a bomber in short order. Throwing in these types of changes would surely make bombers obsolete and I doubt CCP would want to completely delete an entire class of ships.
As for the ISBoxer issue, I stand with CCP that multiboxing is a niche style of gameplay that is accepted by the developers.
I understand that this is a sticky topic, but I think it would be prudent to address this issue. The ISBoxer community has been grown and nurtured in the eve community due to CCP's willingness to accept this niche community to play in this sandbox over the years. The outcry against ISBoxer seems to be relatively recent due to public figures such as amnzi and wheniaminspace. The hypocritical playerbase is completely fine when ISBoxers do mundane things such as mining or hauling to provide them with cheaper ships, but when it threatens their own safety, they cry bloody murder. Regardless, CCP's legal team may need to reword the EULA to allow CCP to state that software multiboxing via key broadcast is 100% allowed while still maintaining their stance against automated botting. The player outcry comes from CCP's "well, the EULA says no, but we say yes because we have that jurisdiction".
Thank you Fozzie for taking the time to swim through the mess in these threads and introducing changes and revisions via player feedback.
|
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
246
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:49:46 -
[899] - Quote
Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame.
hum.. bombers OP? i don't think so.
Also, maybe rather than whining about bombers being a threat to your blob-ball-of-doom, you could start thinking about tactics in which a fleet is moving differently than the "orbit anchor" approach that everyone has adopted. you know, back in the days we didn't all do the same thing.
3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications
|
Scatim Helicon
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3061
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:56:52 -
[900] - Quote
I guess expecting CCP to go through with a change which encouraged skill and co-ordination to succeed was too much.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
|
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! |
|
punch monke
Spartan Industries
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:29:02 -
[931] - 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.
Why would they not decloak eachother? Been in fleets where literally 100bombers decloak and bomb in intervals. They are op and you got rid of the one change to address it. I meean you get in a fleet cloak, the squad commander warps them around, all they do is hit decloak, bomb, and warp off. Regroup and do it again. Doesn't take much effort, can do it afk. If they are sitting on top of eachother then there is no reason they should decloak eachother.
The reason why there are there are no fleet fights in anything bigger than a crusiers |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1574
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:39:02 -
[932] - Quote
punch monke 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. Why would they not decloak eachother? Been in fleets where literally 100bombers decloak and bomb in intervals. They are op and you got rid of the one change to address it. I meean you get in a fleet cloak, the squad commander warps them around, all they do is hit decloak, bomb, and warp off. Regroup and do it again. Doesn't take much effort, can do it afk. If they are sitting on top of eachother then there is no reason they should decloak eachother. The reason why there are there are no fleet fights in anything bigger than a crusiers If your fleet gets hit with every wave of bombers, your fleet deserves every single explosion at least twice over. I don't care what your situation is. |
Nic D
Watschn Inc. The Unthinkables
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:41:11 -
[933] - 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.
Why are you so bad? You killing your game with those yes or maybe not you are doing. You killing the 0.0 space slightly with the on off politics you do.
|
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 13:45:20 -
[934] - Quote
punch monke wrote:
Why would they not decloak eachother? Been in fleets where literally 100bombers decloak and bomb in intervals. They are op and you got rid of the one change to address it. I meean you get in a fleet cloak, the squad commander warps them around, all they do is hit decloak, bomb, and warp off. Regroup and do it again. Doesn't take much effort, can do it afk.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. |
Padre deSoya
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 14:24:26 -
[935] - Quote
punch monke wrote: ... Doesn't take much effort, can do it afk. ...
I guess your reality is just different than mine |
Kari Trace
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 14:26:16 -
[936] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Didn't want to fly anything but Tengus, anyways.
Insta-canes == dead bombers
I like making things explode.
Kari Trace
|
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 14:29:48 -
[937] - Quote
Some actual data on how much bomb runs are really going on would be very informative.
They only way i have died to bomb runs is because we Derped. Big time.
You keep saying bomber pilots need to use more skill.. How about these fleets that sit still on gate in ball 15km or smaller for 100s of seconds even after single bomber decloaked? Without anything to escort. You want lots of kills being nothing but f1 monkeys, while complaining about skillless bomb runs. Try it they are not some "3 min" thing.
So you can get it too work with the de cloak thing, But its much harder, which doesn't mean its easy without that complication.
As for Ishtars and tengus being popular because of bombers is crazy. Ishtars are the single best ship in the game by a huge margin. Massive tank, Massive capless, 0 PG and 0 CPU DPS. Small sig. Tengus (and other t3s) have BS level tank and cruiser sig radius. Of course they are powerful. It has nothing to do with bombers.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Kari Trace
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 14:32:54 -
[938] - Quote
punch monke wrote: Why would they not decloak eachother? Been in fleets where literally 100bombers decloak and bomb in intervals. They are op and you got rid of the one change to address it. I meean you get in a fleet cloak, the squad commander warps them around, all they do is hit decloak, bomb, and warp off. Regroup and do it again. Doesn't take much effort, can do it afk. If they are sitting on top of eachother then there is no reason they should decloak eachother.
The reason why there are there are no fleet fights in anything bigger than a cruisers
This shows a complete lack of adaptation. Either evolve, die (in spaceships), or go back to high sec.
I like making things explode.
Kari Trace
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:02:31 -
[939] - Quote
Schwa Nuts wrote:In an effort to nerf stealth bombers, and their chilling effect on the fleet meta, we have instead offered up buffs to stealth bombers. this is hilariously correct |
Nordalis Rmith
The Scope Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:07:46 -
[940] - Quote
Thank you for holding back the decloak others change. I do think that bombers still need a nerf but not this. |
|
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
337
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:18:17 -
[941] - Quote
Why not just implement the cloaking change and then see how it goes. This isn't anything novel or groundbreaking or anything, it's a mechanic that was already present in the game until it got patched out.
I was looking forward to fleets that are currently hamstrung by ever present bomber threat. |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:18:35 -
[942] - Quote
Prince Kobol 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. The message we are getting is that you are terrified of those ISBoxer bombers being unsubbed...
Because such an army of alts is very likely to be funded by real money and not paid for in isk. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:24:28 -
[943] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote: Because such an army of alts is very likely to be funded by real money and not paid for in isk.
do you idiots think ccp accepts isk for subscriptions? you bought a gift card off someone else for isk, ccp got actual dollars (and more than if you'd subscribed), you didn't give ccp worthless space money |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
760
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:24:58 -
[944] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:
Because such an army of alts is very likely to be funded by real money and not paid for in isk.
you cant fund gameplay by ISK, every plex is paid by real money. some people just bribe other players to pay for them. |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
908
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:25:30 -
[945] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:Prince Kobol 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. The message we are getting is that you are terrified of those ISBoxer bombers being unsubbed... Because such an army of alts is very likely to be funded by real money and not paid for in isk.
You know someone had to buy the plex at some point right
Don't be dense |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
947
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:27:51 -
[946] - Quote
To be fair, he could also be implying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make enough isk to afford all the plex needed to keep the accounts subscribed.
This concept is so alien to me, it kinda hurt my brain to come up with it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
760
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:30:43 -
[947] - Quote
Querns wrote:To be fair, he could also be implying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make enough isk to afford all the plex needed to keep the accounts subscribed.
This concept is so alien to me, it kinda hurt my brain to come up with it.
I think if you farm incursions alone with an isbotted nightmare fleet for example, its probably not that hard |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
207
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:30:49 -
[948] - Quote
The funny thing is, we all fly tengus in null because of bombers. Now that Fozzie has all but shot down what could have been a blossoming resurgence of battleship doctrines, we are left with the original problem...and an upcoming Tengu nerf at that! |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:33:02 -
[949] - Quote
punch monke wrote: Why would they not decloak eachother? Been in fleets where literally 100bombers decloak and bomb in intervals. They are op and you got rid of the one change to address it. I meean you get in a fleet cloak, the squad commander warps them around, all they do is hit decloak, bomb, and warp off. Regroup and do it again. Doesn't take much effort, can do it afk. If they are sitting on top of eachother then there is no reason they should decloak eachother.
The reason why there are there are no fleet fights in anything bigger than a crusiers
Talking effort, I was wondering how the mysterical out of the sudden isboxer sb squad that seems to camp all of null 24/7 to the extent of BS fleets unable to undock, can get a successful run on you that easily. You aren't by any chance sitting unaligned in the place the fleetwarp dropped you while watching netflix? Because if not, Im wondering, how they bomb a constantly on the move, scattered fleet. How do they even get the 30km away align point on a fleet thats paying attention? It's not like the bombers are invisible in local, aren't they?
Also - I think I remember some of the people in this thread from when isboxed catalysts mass suicided into hisec miners and freighters and the message there was something along the lines of HTFU and adapt. Double standards much? |
Semaj Valencia
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:33:29 -
[950] - Quote
What CCP doing to the bombers is a good thing. However, What they are doing to the capitals/black op's is a bad thing and will only result to players demanding to change the capitals/black ops back to the way they use to be. dont make it to where they cant use the jump drive for 3 days, that is just plain stupidy on your part CCP. so I STRONGLY URGE FOR CCP TO REVIEW THEIR CHANGES TO CAPITALS/ BLACK OPS. |
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
356
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:40:45 -
[951] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Seriously what is wrong with everyone? Bombers are suppose to be good against BS. That is the POINT. Nerf them so BS are safe again? Fly in high-sec if you want no risk.
Show me all these fleets of BS being wiped from the battle field all the time. I just don't see it. Bombers are not that high on the kills list. (Ishtars are!). As for bomb runs are easy to set up (yea right). A quick look at your killboard show that you know nothing about it, and the "its my alt account that does bombing" is not going to cut it. Put up, and show the data of all this rampant bomb runs or shut up.
As for "only amour doctrines are viable". That is sort of true. But its not just because of bombers. It is how sig radius work with tracking as well. Oh and the fact that shield mods use mids and therefore you lose valuable ewar slots etc.
One nicely executed bomb run and the forums are full of tears.
OMG, a bomber blew up my internet space ship. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
236
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:43:11 -
[952] - 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).
Completely agree with this.
Keep in mind we're still talking about frigates, granted they're specialized frigates, but it's a small ship so I don't see how messing with align times and warp speed would even remotely be considered an upgrade. Plain and simple, it's a nerf.
If the T1 ships can fly faster and align quicker than the T2 variant, why should someone skill for it?
Bombers have a purpose; they provide surprise hit and run attacks, and fleet disruption. Not much else than that. Nerfing the bomb speed because someone can't align fast enough is clearly an advantage to the player being bombed, defeating the purpose of surprise attacks/hit and run tactics.
Messing with that means someone doesn't understand the use of bombers.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
80
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:49:45 -
[953] - 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..
Oh come on .... this was one of the best changes coming .....
i was so hyped for it ... bombing is way to easy and have way to BIG influance on the fights : S
Shame :< |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
857
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:49:50 -
[954] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing
Despite all this, the PL talking heads still say the same thing "nerf bombers", like it will put them into BS fleets.
So what would they be saying if bomb launchers could be fit on something like a battleship? Align, MJD, launch. 10 12 seconds later, no more enemy fleet.
NERF BATTLESHIPS! BATTLESHIPS OP!
Never mind that it was the bombs that did the damage. Applied damage from bombs has almost nothing to do with the ship that launches it. Yet they still cry to nerf the ship, leaving the weapon system untouched.
In reality, they're going to be rolling around in OP T3s that can be blops bridged with 50% reduced fatigue and cooldowns, refit on the fly with mobile depots or at a POS, and be completely combat ready in 2 minutes with a fleet that is stronger than any BS fleet for the exact same reasons they always have: reduced sigRad and massive tank.
1337 pvpers: "These aren't the nerfs you're looking for."
"Remember remember the 4th of November!"
Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1574
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 15:57:54 -
[955] - Quote
Semaj Valencia wrote:dont make it to where they cant use the jump drive for 3 days, that is just plain stupidy on your part CCP I could also say its pretty dumb to let it get that high, but thats a bit off topic. |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
908
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 16:03:04 -
[956] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing Despite all this, the PL talking heads still say the same thing "nerf bombers", like it will put them into BS fleets. So what would they be saying if bomb launchers could be fit on something like a battleship? Align, MJD, launch. 10 12 seconds later, no more enemy fleet. NERF BATTLESHIPS! BATTLESHIPS OP! Never mind that it was the bombs that did the damage. Applied damage from bombs has almost nothing to do with the ship that launches it. Yet they still cry to nerf the ship, leaving the weapon system untouched. In reality, they're going to be rolling around in OP T3s that can be blops bridged with 50% reduced fatigue and cooldowns, refit on the fly with mobile depots or at a POS, and be completely combat ready in 2 minutes with a fleet that is stronger than any BS fleet for the exact same reasons they always have: reduced sigRad and massive tank. 1337 pvpers: "These aren't the nerfs you're looking for."
Calm down and use your words |
CorryBasler
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
87
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 16:09:09 -
[957] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing Despite all this, the PL talking heads still say the same thing "nerf bombers", like it will put them into BS fleets. So what would they be saying if bomb launchers could be fit on something like a battleship? Align, MJD, launch. 10 12 seconds later, no more enemy fleet. NERF BATTLESHIPS! BATTLESHIPS OP! Never mind that it was the bombs that did the damage. Applied damage from bombs has almost nothing to do with the ship that launches it. Yet they still cry to nerf the ship, leaving the weapon system untouched. In reality, they're going to be rolling around in OP T3s that can be blops bridged with 50% reduced fatigue and cooldowns, refit on the fly with mobile depots or at a POS, and be completely combat ready in 2 minutes with a fleet that is stronger than any BS fleet for the exact same reasons they always have: reduced sigRad and massive tank. 1337 pvpers: "These aren't the nerfs you're looking for."
U seem pretty mad bro
|
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
756
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 16:13:33 -
[958] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing Despite all this, the PL talking heads still say the same thing "nerf bombers", like it will put them into BS fleets. So what would they be saying if bomb launchers could be fit on something like a battleship? Align, MJD, launch. 10 12 seconds later, no more enemy fleet. NERF BATTLESHIPS! BATTLESHIPS OP! Never mind that it was the bombs that did the damage. Applied damage from bombs has almost nothing to do with the ship that launches it. Yet they still cry to nerf the ship, leaving the weapon system untouched. In reality, they're going to be rolling around in OP T3s that can be blops bridged with 50% reduced fatigue and cooldowns, refit on the fly with mobile depots or at a POS, and be completely combat ready in 2 minutes with a fleet that is stronger than any BS fleet for the exact same reasons they always have: reduced sigRad and massive tank. 1337 pvpers: "These aren't the nerfs you're looking for."
Show us on the doll where PL touched you
If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
|
Ammzi
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1877
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 16:18:26 -
[959] - Quote
Step in the right direction, Fozzie. Now we just need to get rid of ISBoxing bombers and we're good. |
Aurelius Valentius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
378
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 16:45:49 -
[960] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Step in the right direction, Fozzie. Now we just need to get rid of ISBoxing bombers and we're good.
oh you had to mention that didn't you... you had to go there... now they will be watching you... *hands him the special foil hat and a passport, ticket and sunglasses*... try to get out the back while you can. |
|
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 16:52:17 -
[961] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Heinrich Rotwang wrote: Because such an army of alts is very likely to be funded by real money and not paid for in isk.
do you idiots think ccp accepts isk for subscriptions? you bought a gift card off someone else for isk, ccp got actual dollars (and more than if you'd subscribed), you didn't give ccp worthless space money
Actually I'm exclusively funding my gameplay by selling a lot plexes in Jita. Plexes I bought with Gé¼. There seem to be people out there that have a need to buy these PLEX with isk. Wonder how much money CCP is making of them. |
Drakken Lowenhertz
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 17:06:18 -
[962] - Quote
Very glad to hear the cloak change is being reassessed, would have left things painfully punishing for working with anyone that isnt very well versed in the execution the cloaky arts. o7 Fozzie |
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 17:31:00 -
[963] - Quote
punch monke 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. Why would they not decloak eachother? Been in fleets where literally 100bombers decloak and bomb in intervals. They are op and you got rid of the one change to address it. I meean you get in a fleet cloak, the squad commander warps them around, all they do is hit decloak, bomb, and warp off. Regroup and do it again. Doesn't take much effort, can do it afk. If they are sitting on top of eachother then there is no reason they should decloak eachother. The reason why there are there are no fleet fights in anything bigger than a crusiers
Lets see, 7 bombers per wave. 5 seconds between waves. That is 14 waves of bombs and it takes 70 seconds. You sat around watching 14 waves of bombs? How bad you can you be? You didn't notice that 100 extra people in local?
Yea, someone in this case was unskilled. It wasn't the bombing pilots.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
171
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 17:31:36 -
[964] - Quote
Aurelius Valentius wrote:Ammzi wrote:Step in the right direction, Fozzie. Now we just need to get rid of ISBoxing bombers and we're good. oh you had to mention that didn't you... you had to go there... now they will be watching you... *hands him the special foil hat and a passport, ticket and sunglasses*... try to get out the back while you can.
*raises paw* ammzi is one of our most cancerous isboxers, he's immune to reprisals from CCP
gay gamers for jesus
|
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 17:39:22 -
[965] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Step in the right direction, Fozzie. Now we just need to get rid of ISBoxing bombers and we're good. +1 to that. Don't forget about the ISBoxing ISK printing machines. |
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 17:51:03 -
[966] - Quote
dephekt wrote: 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.
I very much doubt you'll see Fozzie respond directly to the ISBoxer point but one of the main objections to the decloak change from many people, myself included, was that it was actually a nerf to non-ISBoxer bomber groups. ISBoxer has pre-existing internal tools allowing those abusing it to warp their ships in at set ranges from eachother, thus avoiding the decloak issue entierly.
TL:DR - The changes did nothing to ISBoxer bombers |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 18:11:45 -
[967] - Quote
I'm quite mad that an alliance such Pasta can still isboxers without any risk.
Isboxers are ruining this game since years, completely killing any gameplay and the eve community.
Im not surprised CCP soundwave left, last words i heard from him:
" Isbox..errrss..madness.. has to s..."
Im sure he tried to say "stopped"
**Official Poster:-á**http://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order)
|
Bisba
PILGRIMS Advent of Fate
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 18:15:25 -
[968] - Quote
Why not add explosion velocity to bombs, say equal to that of rage torpedoes? |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 18:21:07 -
[969] - Quote
check please the damage of void bomb, actually with "old" damage they nuke normal damage bomb in same volley.
|
Hendrick Tallardar
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
275
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 18:25:32 -
[970] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Capqu wrote:Zverofaust wrote:Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.
I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.
I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels. wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing Despite all this, the PL talking heads still say the same thing "nerf bombers", like it will put them into BS fleets. So what would they be saying if bomb launchers could be fit on something like a battleship? Align, MJD, launch. 10 12 seconds later, no more enemy fleet. NERF BATTLESHIPS! BATTLESHIPS OP! Never mind that it was the bombs that did the damage. Applied damage from bombs has almost nothing to do with the ship that launches it. Yet they still cry to nerf the ship, leaving the weapon system untouched. In reality, they're going to be rolling around in OP T3s that can be blops bridged with 50% reduced fatigue and cooldowns, refit on the fly with mobile depots or at a POS, and be completely combat ready in 2 minutes with a fleet that is stronger than any BS fleet for the exact same reasons they always have: reduced sigRad and massive tank. 1337 pvpers: "These aren't the nerfs you're looking for."
You sound like you need a hug from a PL bro.
EVE 101 Tutorial Series |-áMonthly Nullsec Recap
|
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1574
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 18:33:31 -
[971] - Quote
Aram Kachaturian wrote:I'm quite mad that an alliance such Pasta can still isboxers without any risk. huh? |
Pen Ris
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 19:19:58 -
[972] - Quote
Good change Fozzie until such time that Eves mechanics allow you to see other invisible ships in your fleet and avoid them, then this is great. |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3450
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 20:53:28 -
[973] - Quote
Removed an off topic post.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
857
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 21:03:27 -
[974] - Quote
I honestly didn't think my post sounded mad. Was just pointing out the irony of PL supporting an ineffective nerf to something that they claim is OP and ruining the game, while they're still third-partying everyone they can in an obviously OP ship doctrine.
Nerfing all cloaked ships would have done nothing to change bomb damage application differences vs BC/BS armor and shield tanks. It would have penalized living players working together, and done nothing to ISBoxers.
I'm glad CCP Fozzie saw the light on this one and has chosen to take the time to do a more thorough and effective investigation and rebalance effort.
"Remember remember the 4th of November!"
Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online.
|
Blastcaps Madullier
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
156
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 21:19:39 -
[975] - Quote
Viktor Fel wrote:Mrs Comfortable wrote:Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.
That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.
Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame. 15 players? come up to Fade and Deklein you can see one player ISboxing 47 bombers and 4 scouts. Again, epic gameplay issue dodge there CCP Dev Team.
And there is boxing players in CFC as well, point still comes down to multi boxing software like ISBoxer IS the problem really where as fozzie seems to want to address this your still going to loose expensive things to MOA :) worry more when its all of MOA and replicator at once |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
857
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 21:45:03 -
[976] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: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
I just read through the CSM Summer Minutes. This specific thing was mentioned. Repurposing Defender Missiles into some sort of CIWS system could make them very effective bomb killers.
Light Defender Missiles have a base velocity of 8000m/s and a flight time of 10 seconds. This makes their base range = 80km. But they only do 60 explosive damage. There are no damage type variations. So they would be useless vs Shrapnel bombs.
The base cycle time of T2 Light Launchers is about 12 seconds. With the new 12 second flight time for bombs and skills, you can get two volleys off before the bombs detonate. A RLML ship with a RoF bonus would work very well, too.
There is also the issue of them targeting nothing but missiles. But the way I see it, if they can be coded to target nothing but missiles, they can be coded to target nothing but bombs.
There is a Heavy Defender variant with slightly shorter range and slightly more damage.
Flycatcher and Heretic come with 6 and 7 launcher slots respectively. Sabre and Eris only have 1. Coupled with their bubbles, they could be very effective in this role. Which ship you fly could depend on which type of picket ship you want: anti-bomb, or anti-bomber.
Personally, I'd like them to have stats sufficient so that a Flycatcher or Heretic that has been completely dedicated to picket duty with a full rack of standard launchers could wipe an entire squad of bombs per volley. 7 bombs, 7 launchers. With their damage bonuses, at max, they both get a 50% bonus to damage. So 90 damage. 116 is required to pop the bomb. So it would require 2 volleys if each launcher targeted a different bomb, which I don't think they currently can do.
"Remember remember the 4th of November!"
Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online.
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
957
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 22:08:17 -
[977] - Quote
I am glad that CCP stepped back on this, I don't think the cloaking mechanics were the issue, I also don't think ISBoxer is an issue either. The issue has always been with the bombs themselves, they are largely unavoidable once launched, and the suffer minor drawbacks to any means of tanking outside of buffer. They impact shield ships more than anything due to the sig bloom of shields, and the supposed trade off of more agility/speed than armor isn't accounted for.
I think to really put bombs in to line you absolutely must allow for speed tanking the damage as a form of mitigation. Giving bombs a similar explosion radius as torpedoes will allow for gangs designed around a speed concept more chance at survivability, while still allowing for stopping power against larger ships...however if larger ships fit smart bombs they can mitigate damage using a fire wall technique.
Tweaking the bombs for a speed check is probably the single best thing one can do to balance bombs in the game right now. It isn't the ship or the number of them, it is the essentially unavoidable damage. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
947
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 22:12:11 -
[978] - Quote
Repurposing defender missiles is romantic and all, but it comes with some pretty serious technical debt to pay down. Namely -- defender missiles only shoot down incoming missiles that are targeted at you.
Yeah.
Putting them on anti-bomb duty would require a significant rework of their code.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23406
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 22:16:03 -
[979] - Quote
but it has semantics on its side, which is 95% of what drives balance, so
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Eklykti
Zion foundation Legion of xXDEATHXx
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 23:19:41 -
[980] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are going to take some more time to work on the best way to have ships interact with cloakies Possible some sort of 'beacon', visible only to selected broadcast receivers, appearing when sending 'In position' broadcast? |
|
JoveBishop
Bishop Enterprises
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 00:11:01 -
[981] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:JoveBishop wrote:What a lame move. ******* crybabies win. How are you not a crybaby? Because you can't have immunity to bombers? May need some support? Boo hoo.
Immunity? How about learn to play and HTFU instead of isboxing 30 accounts with I WIN button.
You don't have skill that's why you need this mechanic to show others how awesome you are.
Noob. |
MukkBarovian
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 01:51:52 -
[982] - Quote
Some people are saying the solution to bombers is to bring dedicated pickets.
When you actually get into a fleet fight those dedicated picket ships tend to die first. An instacane has laughable EHP. A shield instacane is a joke. And something like, say an instaloki still has terrible HP compared to the Tengu. The enemy FC knows he has bombers on standby. He spends 30 seconds blapping your picket because those ships are the only thing keeping you from dying in a fire to bombs. He tells the bomber FC he has cleared the way. Then the bombing run happens. In the meantime while the pickets were dying they were not contributing very much to the fleet fight.
It's so much easier just to use a doctrine that won't die easily to bombers in the first place. If I was lying about this you would be able to point to shield BS doctrines in use by 0.0 entities defended by instacanes or something similar. You don't. Anyone who thinks an instacane is an answer to bombers when there is also an enemy fleet on the field is an idiot. Instacanes only work when bombers are the only threat, isolated skirmishers in need of suppresion. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 02:19:49 -
[983] - Quote
MukkBarovian wrote:Some people are saying the solution to bombers is to bring dedicated pickets.
When you actually get into a fleet fight those dedicated picket ships tend to die first. An instacane has laughable EHP. A shield instacane is a joke. And something like, say an instaloki still has terrible HP compared to the Tengu. The enemy FC knows he has bombers on standby. He spends 30 seconds blapping your picket because those ships are the only thing keeping you from dying in a fire to bombs. He tells the bomber FC he has cleared the way. Then the bombing run happens. In the meantime while the pickets were dying they were not contributing very much to the fleet fight.
It's so much easier just to use a doctrine that won't die easily to bombers in the first place. If I was lying about this you would be able to point to shield BS doctrines in use by 0.0 entities defended by instacanes or something similar. You don't. Anyone who thinks an instacane is an answer to bombers when there is also an enemy fleet on the field is an idiot. Instacanes only work when bombers are the only threat, isolated skirmishers in need of suppresion.
I believe your line of thought is fairly correct.
Requiring a line of single purpose ships for a fleet is usually fairly boring gameplay. Most people want to be the one up front shooting their guns and doing damage. This can be reflected in most games where the damage dealing classes are abundant and utility classes are highly sought after. IE Tanks, healers, buffers.
The reason we still have players that play those utility based classes is the need for them regardless of the situation. You are almost always going to need a tank, healer, and or buffer. The benefits aren't niche, they are a requirement.
With that line of thought, introducing a line of ships or in our case, a fit for a ship, that is dedicated 100% for anti bomb or bomber, the players arent going to want fly a ship on the offchance that they may be bombed. Putting those launchers on a dic ( which are almost always primary'd anyway ) puts a target on a target already.
Instead of forcing an entire ship to be balanced around anti bomb, how about a single module that can be put on anything battlecruisers or larger?
Balancing issues aside, i was thinking maybe a BC+ sized module that works similar to ECM Burst. Long cooldown with an area effect that disables launched bombs. Cooldown on these would have to be long so that you cannot have 1 or 2 defend an entire fleet from bombs, but at the same time allow larger ships to still defend against bombs somewhat.
The drawbacks would have to be fairly large, but you would also have to be unable to see that the ships are packing these anti bomb emp burst ( lol? ) modules until deployed. Coordination in large fleets to be able to spread these modules to cycle them within a fleet to maintain bomb defense would be vital. However this would pretty much make BC and larger fleets immune to bombs 100%. The drawback would ahve to be implemented to counter this. Perhaps it works similar to ECM Burst and guarantee target break within that zone. This would allow the opposing fleet to take advantage of the enemy fleet using these modules.
100% ecm can also be bad as it can be abused to break locks on tackle and used inappropriately. so a different penalty would have to be implemented. But I'm just tossing ideas around right now.
The problem right now is that battlecruiers and battleships see very little deployment due to the threat of bombs. ( and warp speed, but thats another can of worms ) perhaps giving larger hulls a means of defending against bombers would be a move int he right direction. The issue of bombers being OP isnt always necessarily their stats, but the balance of available defense moves against them, or lack these of.
just 2cent |
Soridar Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 02:33:40 -
[984] - 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.
This patch has plenty good, but does that make up for rolling out some rather stupid changes also? or to not fix massively broken PvP balance? If I told my boss I just completed a major assignment, do you think he'd be happy to learn half of it is complete waste that is likely to cost the company more than make it?
|
Rattman
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
31
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 03:14:50 -
[985] - Quote
Not hard to fix bombers, make them have to stay on grid till the bomb detonates, then you can buff / nerf thier survivability till they are at a point you are happy with power of bombing runs.
Recently CCP seemed to rudderless when it comes to targetting solutions to problems that may or may not exsist. It seems that a shotgun solution is being used due to the new patch system. Come out with a heap of half assed solutions and see how they work, get all these feed back and cancell them because they were bad. Instead of carefully working out a solution then massaging the finer points to get a solution thats better in the end
|
Soridar Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 03:17:57 -
[986] - Quote
When it comes to the balance of armor vs shield BS and bombers being the deciding factor... BooHoo. Honestly if bombs start doing even dmg to both, then we go back to shield fleets being the flavor of the year being that they have exceptionally better damage. Until CCP finally comes to the understanding that the flaw in armor and shield fleet is the way the slot layouts are and the lack of diversity for how fleets can fit mods.
Wanna see shield BS fleets again, get rid of crazy penalties for sig on shield mods and rigs and instead have a penalty that actually make sense, higher power grid and CPU costs and get rid of stupid things like armor plates needing crazy power grid and CPU, but rather have heavy inertia penalties (last time I noticed, solid plates of metal really don't need a lot of power???). Balancing the actual types of tanking would be a much better way to balance not only the fleet types but the game as a whole. I mean seriously why is it a low power slot and yet the armor tank plates/reppers use more power than almost any other mods in the game excluding batteries, shield hardeners/boosters and weapon systems. If plates need power grid then why are they not mid slot items? as well as all self reppers and instead hardeners/resist mods?
Make changes like these that bring a bit of common sense. Provide a believable environment, in which the armor tanking races aren't complete morons for never having devised a mid slot damage booster. And who knows you might be able to start balancing ships because they all start having similar behaviors, which become easier to flavor to suit needs and roles.
Who knows we might actually get to see EWAR become a thing to cry again, rather than cry over bomb damage. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1575
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 03:48:25 -
[987] - Quote
has anyone peeked at the stats for fitting the new blighted torpedo launcher to a bomber? I sadly do not posess the skills |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23406
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 04:53:45 -
[988] - Quote
yeah it's like, 20% more damage, something something fitting, zero resists, nothing unexpected.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1575
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 05:20:53 -
[989] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:yeah it's like, 20% more damage, something something fitting, zero resists, nothing unexpected. well thats dissapointing |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6475
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 05:35:42 -
[990] - Quote
Rowells wrote:has anyone peeked at the stats for fitting the new blighted torpedo launcher to a bomber? I sadly do not posess the skills
Rain6637 wrote:yeah it's like, 20% more damage, something something fitting, zero resists, nothing unexpected.
Hmm, you know what?
Quote:Specifically engineered to fire torpedoes, stealth bombers represent the next generation in covert ops craft. The bombers are designed for sneak attacks on large vessels with powerful missile guidance technology enabling the torpedoes to strike faster and from a longer distance. Clearly the torpedo (ie: bombless bomber) type is being encouraged.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23413
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 05:45:26 -
[991] - Quote
meant to check if warfare boosts caused anything funky, like the resist bugs of the DST, sneeze goes kaboom etc
would be funny.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
197
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 07:52:22 -
[992] - Quote
JoveBishop wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:JoveBishop wrote:What a lame move. ******* crybabies win. How are you not a crybaby? Because you can't have immunity to bombers? May need some support? Boo hoo. Immunity? How about learn to play and HTFU instead of isboxing 30 accounts with I WIN button. You don't have skill that's why you need this mechanic to show others how awesome you are. Noob. You HTFU, serisouly. How much fail at eve can you have to be so scared of bombers you don't undock a Battleship.
May also want to check your facts. I have only one account and this is my main. I don't isbox and i really don't care if others do. Shesh use local and intel properly. Bombers and bombing fleets are some of the easiest things to avoid even solo.
I was in a WH and i am going back when the war dec things run out. ISBoxers and no local. I don't need to HTFU. I don't cry when Ishtars are 5x better than any BS or when T3 kick most ships clean off the battlefield. I skill up for them. I learn how to fly them, I die working a few things out. But that the way it goes. Or work out proper ways to deal with these fleets. In the ishtar case it is normally Run Away. Same with Navy Apocs.
But bombers... We spread out and don't sit around being sitting ducks. For a bomb run to work. The targets must be sitting ducks.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4349
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 08:02:20 -
[993] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:JoveBishop wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:JoveBishop wrote:What a lame move. ******* crybabies win. How are you not a crybaby? Because you can't have immunity to bombers? May need some support? Boo hoo. Immunity? How about learn to play and HTFU instead of isboxing 30 accounts with I WIN button. You don't have skill that's why you need this mechanic to show others how awesome you are. Noob. You HTFU, serisouly. How much fail at eve can you have to be so scared of bombers you don't undock a Battleship. May also want to check your facts. I have only one account and this is my main. I don't isbox and i really don't care if others do. Shesh use local and intel properly. Bombers and bombing fleets are some of the easiest things to avoid even solo. I was in a WH and i am going back when the war dec things run out. ISBoxers and no local. I don't need to HTFU. I don't cry when Ishtars are 5x better than any BS or when T3 kick most ships clean off the battlefield. I skill up for them. I learn how to fly them, I die working a few things out. But that the way it goes. Or work out proper ways to deal with these fleets. In the ishtar case it is normally Run Away. Same with Navy Apocs. But bombers... We spread out and don't sit around being sitting ducks. For a bomb run to work. The targets must be sitting ducks. lol, this guy.
Mate, when you are in several hundred player fight, defending something critical, you can;t just run away the second a bomber fleet turns up. What that means is there's whole categories of fits which at one time were viable and now are completely useless because a single player with isboxer can wipe them out. If you can't see why that's a critical gameplay flaw, you need serious help. Something needs to change to make isboxer less viable in fleet PvP.
It sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about. Why don't you actually learn how to play EVE from more than a single viewpoint, then come back.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
197
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 08:22:47 -
[994] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:lol, this guy.
Mate, when you are in several hundred player fight, defending something critical, you can;t just run away the second a bomber fleet turns up. What that means is there's whole categories of fits which at one time were viable and now are completely useless because a single player with isboxer can wipe them out. If you can't see why that's a critical gameplay flaw, you need serious help. Something needs to change to make isboxer less viable in fleet PvP.
It sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about. Why don't you actually learn how to play EVE from more than a single viewpoint, then come back.
citation required that most bomber fleets are isboxers. And not just fleets of real pilots.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
197
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 08:29:33 -
[995] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:lol, this guy.
Mate, when you are in several hundred player fight, defending something critical, you can;t just run away the second a bomber fleet turns up. What that means is there's whole categories of fits which at one time were viable and now are completely useless because a single player with isboxer can wipe them out. If you can't see why that's a critical gameplay flaw, you need serious help. Something needs to change to make isboxer less viable in fleet PvP.
It sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about. Why don't you actually learn how to play EVE from more than a single viewpoint, then come back. Oh and How the hell do you have a 200 ship fight in a 15km ball with BS. Your doing it wrong. Yes i have been in big fights.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 08:34:56 -
[996] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Oh and How the hell do you have a 200 ship fight in a 15km ball with BS. Your doing it wrong. Yes i have been in big fights.
Have you ever done what military experts are calling a fleet warp? |
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
197
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 08:57:03 -
[997] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Oh and How the hell do you have a 200 ship fight in a 15km ball with BS. Your doing it wrong. Yes i have been in big fights. Have you ever done what military experts are calling a fleet warp? I think i missed the game mechanic where you can get bombed in warp.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 10:23:58 -
[998] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:lol, this guy.
Mate, when you are in several hundred player fight, defending something critical, you can;t just run away the second a bomber fleet turns up. What that means is there's whole categories of fits which at one time were viable and now are completely useless because a single player with isboxer can wipe them out. If you can't see why that's a critical gameplay flaw, you need serious help. Something needs to change to make isboxer less viable in fleet PvP.
It sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about. Why don't you actually learn how to play EVE from more than a single viewpoint, then come back. citation required that most bomber fleets are isboxers. And not just fleets of real pilots.
Someone is blapping PL ships -> must be cheating. Nerf eeet! |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 12:01:07 -
[999] - Quote
Something else for the player base to consider in regards to bombers is that that there needs to be a paradigm shift in fleet combat. Currently the most effective tactic is to anchor and hit f1 on broadcast'd targets. There was a time when this tactic was valid and proved to be very effective, however demanding the nerf of a single class of ships which makes that one tactic obsolete or at least extremely vulnerable does not necessarily mean we should nerf it to the ground. Perhaps fleet warfare needs to be looked at again. Perhaps it is the large fleets that need to adapt to the changing battleground.
It would be absolutely hilarious if a commander from the middle ages attempted to command an army in a modern warzone due to the changes and improvements to combat that have been developed by man. Similarly, perhaps we are all looking at this all wrong and it is the fleets that are so reliant on the anchor and f1 model that needs to shift how large fleet warfare is fought.
Even in this video game, it is quite often quoted, Adapt or die. Perhaps clinging to the old ways is not the way of the future.
edit: Please note that I have been a strong proponent for bomber nerfs, but I also believe that this new battlefield meta may need to be adapted by the players at the same time. |
Apothne
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 12:08:16 -
[1000] - Quote
Preface: I have FCed bombers on multiple occasions against multiple sizes and types of fleet, but have not often been a FC of the larger fleet getting bombed. I'm also pretty stupid.
To me the complaints seem that bombers can kill large fleets too easily, and nerfing their damage makes them useless against everything. The difficulty of bombing seems difficult to get just right, with ISKboxer being a thing.
Some points I am taking as given:
- In a mid-large scale fight, each bombing run has a good probability to lose some bombers to the fleet they are trying to bomb, if teh fleet is actively trying to have something to deal with bombers rather than ignoring them. - We would like bombs to be able to kill things, but currently they kill everything too well, especially battleships and especially shield doctrines (and thus especially especially shield battleships).
My proposal to consider would be to introduce a new type of bomb while making the current damage bombs less generally useful:
- Current bombs: Through a change of figures as to how signature radius affects damage and the base damage stats, I would propose total bomb damage be significantly reduced, to the point where even a co-ordinated strike of multiple wings could not kill a half-decenty tanked battleship fleet, or even to Battlecruisers. It would take 2-3 squads to volley well-tanked T1 cruisers. I would however make them such that they were still deadly to frigate and destroyer class ships, such that they have to pilot their faster ships to remain safe. - New bomb type: Resist bombs - each bomb introduces a penalty to one resist (Racial bombers get bonus to appropriate resist), such that given damage bombs now have a minimal effect to the core of a larger, well-coordinated fleet, these bombs now exists in a support role in overcoming enemy logistics. Each bomb would apply a resist penalty (with stacking penallties) to the given resist type, lasting something like 30 ingame seconds.
Bombers now become a tool for harassing/destroying a larger fleets support, as well as being a powerful tool to be used in conjunction with the main fleet of the Bomber's Alliance/Corp. The time limit of the bomb effect stipulates the need for repeated runs, meaning especially with Phoebe changes affecting the ease of getting replacement bombers into the fight via BlOps each bomber lost is a hit to the bomber wings effectiveness over time, rewarding well chosen moments to bomb and the ability to do so consistently.
I highly doubt this is an original idea, or that it is even a particularly good one, but I like sharing :)
My regards to the game designers, you guys are awesome, you do a great job and I miss hanging out with those of you that I did during my time in Iceland.
Apoth GÖÑ
[center]mastersdegreeinspaceships.wordpress.com[/center]
|
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
356
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 13:49:35 -
[1001] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote: Lets see, 7 bombers per wave. 5 seconds between waves. That is 14 waves of bombs and it takes 70 seconds. You sat around watching 14 waves of bombs? How bad you can you be? You didn't notice that 100 extra people in local?
Yea, someone in this case was unskilled. It wasn't the bombing pilots.
Your introducing concepts way beyond an F1 monkeys abilities.
Local? wuts that. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
471
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 13:51:11 -
[1002] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Heinrich Rotwang wrote: Because such an army of alts is very likely to be funded by real money and not paid for in isk.
do you idiots think ccp accepts isk for subscriptions? you bought a gift card off someone else for isk, ccp got actual dollars (and more than if you'd subscribed), you didn't give ccp worthless space money Actually I'm exclusively funding my gameplay by selling a lot plexes in Jita. Plexes I bought with Gé¼. There seem to be people out there that have a need to buy these PLEX with isk. Wonder how much money CCP is making of them.
Exactly the same amount as the PLEXes you bought. There's no magical button to spawn 100 PLEXes to your cargo hold outside of using a credit card or paying in other approved manners. |
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 13:52:06 -
[1003] - Quote
I don't like this idea tbh. Stealth Bombers are supposed to bomb and destroy stuff not to apply mass debuffs. I like your mass debuff idea for some kind of EWAR ship but not for Bombers. |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
356
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 13:55:27 -
[1004] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote: You HTFU, serisouly. How much fail at eve can you have to be so scared of bombers you don't undock a Battleship.
May also want to check your facts. I have only one account and this is my main. I don't isbox and i really don't care if others do. Shesh use local and intel properly. Bombers and bombing fleets are some of the easiest things to avoid even solo.
I was in a WH and i am going back when the war dec things run out. ISBoxers and no local. I don't need to HTFU. I don't cry when Ishtars are 5x better than any BS or when T3 kick most ships clean off the battlefield. I skill up for them. I learn how to fly them, I die working a few things out. But that the way it goes. Or work out proper ways to deal with these fleets. In the ishtar case it is normally Run Away. Same with Navy Apocs.
But bombers... We spread out and don't sit around being sitting ducks. For a bomb run to work. The targets must be sitting ducks.
But you want the null cry babies to has skillz?
Why when they can just cry their way out of being bad. |
Apothne
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:24:56 -
[1005] - Quote
Herrin Asura wrote:I don't like this idea tbh. Stealth Bombers are supposed to bomb and destroy stuff not to apply mass debuffs. I like your mass debuff idea for some kind of EWAR ship but not for Bombers.
Lockbreaker & Void bombs already exist. Void bombs are super cool!
[center]mastersdegreeinspaceships.wordpress.com[/center]
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6477
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:31:06 -
[1006] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Or work out proper ways to deal with these fleets. In the ishtar case it is normally Run Away. Same with Navy Apocs. Interesting, do you have a home that those ishtars or navy apocs can burn down?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:37:55 -
[1007] - Quote
Apothne wrote:
Lockbreaker & Void bombs already exist. Void bombs are super cool!
Yes, and if they add your bomb idea thats ok for me, but part of your idea was to make normal bombs useless against everything bigger than a frigate. That would change the Stealth Bomber to a debuff ship. Noone goes out on a bomb run to kill a frigate.
In my opinion the only good solution would be a real good counter to bomb fleets. There is no point in making bomb runs less effective bc. its an awesome playstyle many people love. But a fleet whos aware of the existence of bomb squads should be able to take initiative of some kind to stop them. Something like a heavy cooldown pulse wich decloaks everything on grid for example.
I don't know but I'm not a developer so I am happy that someone else has to find solutions and make such decisions. |
Apothne
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:42:31 -
[1008] - Quote
Not useless, just not able to volley. if your whole BS fleet takes 20%damage from a nice run a) your logis get confused unless everyone is super disciplined and b) you have less buffer for the enxt primary for reps to catch. I'm suggesting they are only a significant lethal threat to frigates/dessies & non-brick cruisers, not for BCs/BS to be able to ignore them completely. Obviously if the larger ships sit through wave after wave after wave and the FC doesn't get hit **** sorted they'd still die.
[center]mastersdegreeinspaceships.wordpress.com[/center]
|
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:18:04 -
[1009] - Quote
So a single bomb would make ~3% dmg on a BS. I call that useless. I guess we have different mind sets on how to fix problematic PVP constelations. I would like to see a buff for fleets wich helps them to handle Stealth Bombers, you would like to see a nerf of bombs. Both would fix the problem but I honestly think that my way of thinking keeps the expierience for everyone more interesting.
|
Apothne
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:58:25 -
[1010] - Quote
A single volley from a Tengu does maybe 1000 damage to a TFI, doesn;t stop a group of them vlleying TFIs off the field :D
I would hope that a single shot from a 50mill fitted ship doesn't have a ridiculous impact on a 200mill+ ship, before we consider it's doing that blow to many ships at once.
[center]mastersdegreeinspaceships.wordpress.com[/center]
|
|
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:20:30 -
[1011] - Quote
Who the hell in new eden is using lockbreaker bombs?
**Official Poster:-á**http://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order)
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
92
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:24:31 -
[1012] - Quote
Apothne wrote:A single volley from a Tengu does maybe 1000 damage to a TFI, doesn;t stop a group of them vlleying TFIs off the field :D
I would hope that a single shot from a 50mill fitted ship doesn't have a ridiculous impact on a 200mill+ ship, before we consider it's doing that blow to many ships at once.
price has nothing to do with anything. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:50:54 -
[1013] - Quote
Apothne wrote:A single volley from a Tengu does maybe 1000 damage to a TFI, doesn;t stop a group of them vlleying TFIs off the field :D
I would hope that a single shot from a 50mill fitted ship doesn't have a ridiculous impact on a 200mill+ ship, before we consider it's doing that blow to many ships at once.
By that train of thought officer fit ships should be pretty much invulnerable , but we all know how that usually ends up.... on the front page of our favorite propaganda website :)
that aside, I understand your need to protect the status quo, but do you not feel that fleets should move on from the standard orbit anchor and hit f1 methodology? Overly complicating things should not be the answer, but just taking the nerf bat to anything that does hurts the current meta fleets isn't a great way to nurture this game either.
My personal suggestions, feel free to disassemble them, are as follows.
- Change the damage formula for bombs to include explosion velocity.
This will allow speed tanking bombs an option and not hurt shield fleets as much. Also to note, this may end up buffing armor fleets since their sig is small as it is and theyll be moving too so the explosion velocity will aide their mitigation. Would need to consider reducing bombs explosion radius as well to compensate, but that will hurt smaller ships as well.
- Decrease bomb AOE radius to 10km. Area of effect would be reduced to 20km from 30km. This would hurt the large fleets that like to clump up and orbit / f1, while rewarding skirmish fleets that are faster and allow them to avoid the bomb damage without the need for anti bomber ships. IE instacanes and firewalls.
- Introducing an armor honeycombing skill equivalent for shields which reduce the penalty of using shield extenders.
*this one needs some fleshing out as its something that came to me recently. - Introduce a module that disables launched bombs in a 10km radius.
This module would be a huge change for bombers. The module would need to be limited to BC hulls and larger. The cooldown would have to be as long as or longer than a single bomber can reload and fire again to prevent these modules from being overused to shut down bombing runs by itself. Having a single module shut down an entire wave would be unbalanced even if the cooldown was extremely long. Would have to require 2-3 of these modules to disable a wave. Maybe damage application mod for bombs only. Having it do omni AOE dmg would hurt dic bubbles.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
197
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:02:36 -
[1014] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Or work out proper ways to deal with these fleets. In the ishtar case it is normally Run Away. Same with Navy Apocs. Interesting, do you have a home that those ishtars or navy apocs can burn down? Sometimes. Sometimes indeed. But the stuff i fly. its just hard to deal with a well FC'ed well piloted apoc. And Ishtars raw DPS is hard to deal with.. depending on what your in. My typical game plan with ishtar gate camps is to explode.
Yea I jump blind sometimes.
I don't ask for everything that kills me to be nurffed.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Apothne
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:46:33 -
[1015] - Quote
Well I wasn't equating everything to ISK, evidently I was making my point poorly.
[center]mastersdegreeinspaceships.wordpress.com[/center]
|
JamesT KirkJr
Asylum Institution Care Factor
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 03:25:42 -
[1016] - Quote
Masterkiller Mechanics wrote:Fozzie, here is a suggestion.
Have two damage bombs types: focused and support.
The focused bomb would have a small focused area of effect (3-5km radius?). This would allow for focused bombing to take out a few ships (if landed correctly) but not an entire battleship fleet (which is overpowered).
The other bomb type would have larger area of effect intended to hit more ships but doing less damage to each ship. This wouldn't necessarily kill fleets, but would soften them up in a support role.
I don't know if it's possible with your current code but capping total damage done (across all targets) is also a traditional limiter for AOE type weapons.
This could be used for splitting bomb types - damage bombs would have the small AOE and void / lockbreaker the large AOE. That handles the "multiple bombers are so OP" problem pretty nicely right there. You couldn't just all shoot at the same place and wipe out everything in a 30-km sphere, you'd have to assign bombers different targets, and that's something that would counter multiboxing.
I'd go for this idea just on that basis.
Adding in another idea - locking to set the bomb detonation spot (no tracking, it just flies straight to where the locked target was when you launched it) would fix the problem of aiming a small radius bomb, while accomplishing a lot of other things.
Target locking delays launching after uncloaking, and also warns the target. The small radius for damage bombs gives targets time to move out of the blast radius, the large radius "utility" bombs would not be so affected. Forcing locking also prevents leading the target, so damage bombs pretty much couldn't hit fast-moving targets. Which is a good thing for a weapon named "bomb". Right now you can lead them and the huge explosion radius can give you hits, which is a situation bombs weren't designed for.
I like your idea a lot. Combining it with some aspects of the target locking idea, It seems like it would fix just about all of the problems. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6478
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 05:15:25 -
[1017] - Quote
JamesT KirkJr wrote:Right now you can lead them and the huge explosion radius can give you hits, which is a situation bombs weren't designed for. Interesting.
Area of effect weapons weren't designed to hit things that are not at the center of the area of effect
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 06:13:19 -
[1018] - Quote
actually void bomb do a little bit more of 21 hp of damage to normal bomb, with only around 96 hp the void bomb cannot be mixed anymore with normal bombs. it is intended?
i think is coherent reduce damage of void bomb to allow the usual mix. |
Delt0r Garsk
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
202
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 07:31:45 -
[1019] - Quote
Sbrodor wrote:actually void bomb do a little bit more of 21 hp of damage to normal bomb, with only around 96 hp the void bomb cannot be mixed anymore with normal bombs. it is intended?
i think is coherent reduce damage of void bomb to allow the usual mix. Void bombs travel faster but have the same range. So they detonate before the wave of damage bombs arrive. I don't recall if its enough however. I did do the math once with a half wave of void+DPS on things like t3s. Problem is you still need the t3s to be asleep for them to stick around long enough for enough wave to really do anything.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 09:08:49 -
[1020] - Quote
sorry for my english. THE PROBLEM is the DAMAGE of void (7 of each type) TO OTHER BOMBS. not the problem ofc of other bombs on void (void faster ofc).
with lower HP (from 240 to 96) the VOID do a lot of damage to normal damage bomb.
ps. i wiped shittons of sleepy tengu but need the void. |
|
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 11:45:32 -
[1021] - Quote
Right now, bombs apply full damage up to the edge of the AOE sphere. The way AOE works in $OTHER_GAME is that damage degrades from full damage at the center to 0 at the maximum range.
PS: To the one isboxing guy that seems to keep all of those null elite pro money bags from undocking these days: I don't know who you are and what you are up to (and honestly, I don't even care) but you can be damn sure I put you in my prayers. Give 'em hell! Isboxing was considered qualitiy content as long as it hit the small and the weak. Now that it hits the more equal than equal, it suddenly became a game breaking problem. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23528
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 11:48:13 -
[1022] - Quote
true, but the proper way to use bombs is have as many as possible converge on a focus in unison.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
323
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 12:05:57 -
[1023] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Seriously what is wrong with everyone? Bombers are suppose to be good against BS. That is the POINT. Nerf them so BS are safe again? Fly in high-sec if you want no risk.
Show me all these fleets of BS being wiped from the battle field all the time. I just don't see it. Bombers are not that high on the kills list. (Ishtars are!). As for bomb runs are easy to set up (yea right). A quick look at your killboard show that you know nothing about it, and the "its my alt account that does bombing" is not going to cut it. Put up, and show the data of all this rampant bomb runs or shut up.
As for "only amour doctrines are viable". That is sort of true. But its not just because of bombers. It is how sig radius work with tracking as well. Oh and the fact that shield mods use mids and therefore you lose valuable ewar slots etc. You don't see it because people stopped flying BS doctrines due to bombers. Kinda ******* simple point there. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
323
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 12:26:21 -
[1024] - Quote
Destoya wrote:Why not just implement the cloaking change and then see how it goes. This isn't anything novel or groundbreaking or anything, it's a mechanic that was already present in the game until it got patched out.
I was looking forward to fleets that are currently hamstrung by ever present bomber threat. This. Literally every completely **** change you guys are just like "well the beauty of our new deployment cycle is we can change it super soon if it's bad." But on this you wuss out? Really?
Bombers existed and were hugely successful before they were given the low-effort way of bombing they currently have now.
But no. Don't make people actually have to coordinate in order to bomb. And just let the meta stagnate still with just boring comps because you refuse to actually think like you did when you were still a player that actually had experience with this crap.
Oh and to top it off, go ahead and buff bombers without introducing any downsides. Hell you still can't even mjd out of a bomb run with that flight time which is effectively the ONLY change that could even conceivably be pointed to here as attempting to bring them to balance. |
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 13:42:18 -
[1025] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote: You don't see it because people stopped flying BS doctrines due to bombers. Kinda ******* simple point there.
Ah yes, and all the killmails from back then vanished too. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
208
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 13:54:41 -
[1026] - Quote
Make it so any bomb can only tank one other bomb.
-reduces load on hamsters having to calculate so much AOE per tick -gives the defender an opportunity to react in the face of an onslaught of bombing -solves the isboxer concerns as you won't have more than two bombers/volley -puts some actual challenge on bomber fc's to co-ordinate volleys -PROMOTES the use of BATTLESHIPS and other ship classes that are currently avoided due to bomb threat. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
202
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 14:36:23 -
[1027] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Seriously what is wrong with everyone? Bombers are suppose to be good against BS. That is the POINT. Nerf them so BS are safe again? Fly in high-sec if you want no risk.
Show me all these fleets of BS being wiped from the battle field all the time. I just don't see it. Bombers are not that high on the kills list. (Ishtars are!). As for bomb runs are easy to set up (yea right). A quick look at your killboard show that you know nothing about it, and the "its my alt account that does bombing" is not going to cut it. Put up, and show the data of all this rampant bomb runs or shut up.
As for "only amour doctrines are viable". That is sort of true. But its not just because of bombers. It is how sig radius work with tracking as well. Oh and the fact that shield mods use mids and therefore you lose valuable ewar slots etc. You don't see it because people stopped flying BS doctrines due to bombers. Kinda ******* simple point there. You know i am sure PL dropped BS on us not that long ago. Plenty of BS fleets still around.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
202
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 14:45:37 -
[1028] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Make it so any bomb can only tank one other bomb.
-reduces load on hamsters having to calculate so much AOE per tick -gives the defender an opportunity to react in the face of an onslaught of bombing -solves the isboxer concerns as you won't have more than two bombers/volley -puts some actual challenge on bomber fc's to co-ordinate volleys -PROMOTES the use of BATTLESHIPS and other ship classes that are currently avoided due to bomb threat. So in other words make bombs completyl useless.
Any properly fitted BS typically already needs two waves, with only 2 bombers per wave you would never hurt a BS. You can't really apply damage to cruisers, so what would bombs be for?
Lets face it, you don't want bomber balance. You want them out of the game.
You want to encourage BS. Then give them more tank than a t3 or a HAC. Right now with the warp changes, its hard to really want to use a BS over a HAC or t3, and that has *nothing* to do with bombers.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
208
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 15:15:01 -
[1029] - Quote
What I'd rather see is it taking a steady barrage of bombs to whelp an entire bs fleet instead of all in one go like they do now. Also we've seen time and time again where it took only 1 wave to destroy a 'properly' fitted BS fleet.
But I do like your idea about buffing tank on battleships instead. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
202
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 16:03:47 -
[1030] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:What I'd rather see is it taking a steady barrage of bombs to whelp an entire bs fleet instead of all in one go like they do now. Also we've seen time and time again where it took only 1 wave to destroy a 'properly' fitted BS fleet.
But I do like your idea about buffing tank on battleships instead. A steady barrage of damage is what torps currently do. So why bother with bombs? BTW bombers with just torps and a BLOPS is pretty effective. But the changes with jump bridges will shift that around, don't have a feel for how. (ps big fan of the jump changes).
Yea I really feel both BC and BS are overshadowed by t3s and HACs. T3s matter less since you lose SP when you die. Now they [BC and BS] are much slower I feel more tank in comparison to HACs is really needed. Of course some of that is a HAC that shall rename nameless that has a very high DPS weapon system that consumes neither cap, cpu or pg.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23540
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:11:02 -
[1031] - Quote
AOE is just one of those warm & fuzzy lore ideas that just can't be controlled through stats. CCP literally can't balance it.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
936
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:18:34 -
[1032] - Quote
i do think combat bc's having double the sig of a cruiser doesn't help them out much either along with the slower warp speed
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
|
Oddsodz
C.Q.B
112
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 02:51:33 -
[1033] - Quote
Learn to use instacanes in your fleets you lazy funks. If the enemy is bringing combined arms against you (IE: Fleet of megas plus a bomber fleet). Then maybe you should bring a counter of your own instead of wincing about how your battleships die. CFC seem more than happy to have wings of harppys with them when they go out with battleships. Maybe you l337 types might want to think about that. I Will agree that the BOMBS and sig radius needs looking at. But bitching about how you can't use battleships because of bombs is poor form. |
Rio Bravo
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 03:27:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Love the stealth bomber! Used it for lots of things, and works quite well pve/pvp. I used one to matadore belt rat BS's in null in the early days. Funny thing about the cloaking changes, I am so old, I thought that cloaked ships still decloaked each other. All this time I thought I had just been lucky! Bit nervous about the sig changes. The only 'coordinated' bombing run I had ever been in, failed miserably. Warping in wrong distances, not paying attention, bombed gate by accident. Only one bomb got off, and our targets killed us all, there was much laughter in local....before we were podded of course. The changes won't get me out of a bomber....one day I will be in a bombing run that actually blows something up.
GÇ£You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig.-áI dig.GÇ¥
-á- Clint Eastwood, misquote.
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 19:01:47 -
[1035] - Quote
Rio Bravo wrote: The changes won't get me out of a bomber....one day I will be in a bombing run that actually blows something up.
Seems all you need to do is take note of the baddies that are crying about them in here and hunt them down.
Because it isn't that they are bad, it's cause SB's are OP. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1953
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 19:50:34 -
[1036] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:Destoya wrote:Why not just implement the cloaking change and then see how it goes. This isn't anything novel or groundbreaking or anything, it's a mechanic that was already present in the game until it got patched out.
I was looking forward to fleets that are currently hamstrung by ever present bomber threat. This. Literally every completely **** change you guys are just like "well the beauty of our new deployment cycle is we can change it super soon if it's bad." But on this you wuss out? Really? Bombers existed and were hugely successful before they were given the low-effort way of bombing they currently have now. But no. Don't make people actually have to coordinate in order to bomb. And just let the meta stagnate still with just boring comps because you refuse to actually think like you did when you were still a player that actually had experience with this crap. Oh and to top it off, go ahead and buff bombers without introducing any downsides. Hell you still can't even mjd out of a bomb run with that flight time which is effectively the ONLY change that could even conceivably be pointed to here as attempting to bring them to balance.
Changes to cloaks and balancing bombers are two different things. The original proposals would have a negative effect on all ships that use a cloak and i believe this is why CCP decided to postpone the change.
Instead of complaining about CCP not adding a bad mechanic, you should be asking them the improve the counter to bomber fleets (which they are doing) if that is your real issue.
+1
|
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 05:15:07 -
[1037] - Quote
Quote:New Anti-Capital Void Bomb:
Yes... yes that will do nicely...
Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne
Déan gáire...Tiocfaidh ár lá
|
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
797
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 07:34:13 -
[1038] - Quote
Rattman wrote: Recently CCP seemed to rudderless when it comes to targetting solutions to problems that may or may not exsist. It seems that a shotgun solution is being used due to the new patch system. Come out with a heap of half assed solutions and see how they work, get all these feed back and cancell them because they were bad. Instead of carefully working out a solution then massaging the finer points to get a solution thats better in the end
I do really wish they would put out changes for player feedback earlier. They need to throw feedback up when the previous release happens or even a couple weeks before.
Querns wrote:Repurposing defender missiles is romantic and all, but it comes with some pretty serious technical debt to pay down. Namely -- defender missiles only shoot down incoming missiles that are targeted at you.
Yeah.
Putting them on anti-bomb duty would require a significant rework of their code. Their code already needs reworked, though. Defenders already need to be made so that you can activate them and have them launch automatically when missiles are incoming rather than you trying to rush to activate them every time a volley is actually incoming on you, and they would be much more useful if they could function better as an area defense weapon rather than point defense, so a couple of ships can be run for fleet defense.
Adding bombs to the target selection isn't that much in comparison, and would be better defense than hoping you can escape the blast radius and blap the bombers before they recloak.
As far as increasing bombing risk, cloak delays might be effective. Require a second or two after decloaking before firing a bomb and/or don't allow a bomber to cloak for a bit after firing so bombers can't just vanish again while setting up the next pass.
The big problem with balancing bombing runs is the fact bombers have a bit of a dual role in that they are also designed to fit torpedoes in a compact platform, so some changes to reduce the effectiveness to bombs could adversely affect torpedo bomber effectiveness since torpedo bombers have to spend an extended period on grid, decloaked. That's why the sig radius penalty is better on the bomb launcher than the hull.
I would again like to bring up balance between the Manticore and Nemesis. Again, with both having the same Grid but one having more CPU and being faster, there isn't much reason to ever fly a Nemesis. A PG boost on the nemesis might be a good idea, that way the Manticore and Namesis are complementary like the Purifier and Hound where one has more CPU and the other has more grid. It still leaves one a bit more useful than the other, generally, but there's much more reason for the Nemesis to exist when there isn't another ship that can run every single fit it can and more. A bit more speed and maneuverability might also be nice.
On a side note, how would it change things if Bombers could use any of the BS sized missiles rather than just torps?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
241
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 15:44:07 -
[1039] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:This. Literally every completely **** change you guys are just like "well the beauty of our new deployment cycle is we can change it super soon if it's bad." But on this you wuss out? Really?
Bombers existed and were hugely successful before they were given the low-effort way of bombing they currently have now.
But no. Don't make people actually have to coordinate in order to bomb. And just let the meta stagnate still with just boring comps because you refuse to actually think like you did when you were still a player that actually had experience with this crap.
Oh and to top it off, go ahead and buff bombers without introducing any downsides. Hell you still can't even mjd out of a bomb run with that flight time which is effectively the ONLY change that could even conceivably be pointed to here as attempting to bring them to balance.
What part of "the multiboxing bombers posted in the thread to tell CCP that it would not work in nerfing multibox bomber fleets" did you miss? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
203
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 17:28:39 -
[1040] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote: On a side note, how would it change things if Bombers could use any of the BS sized missiles rather than just torps?
This was in fact true a while back IIRC (was before my time). They could use Cruise missiles as well. There were many stories of bombers on shot kills. In fact i heard stories of people really using defender missiles to prevent bomber one shot deaths.
So yea bombers are not how they started in this game. But then what is?
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
45thtiger 0109
AL3XAND3R.
109
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 00:36:57 -
[1041] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:SFM Hobb3s wrote:What I'd rather see is it taking a steady barrage of bombs to whelp an entire bs fleet instead of all in one go like they do now. Also we've seen time and time again where it took only 1 wave to destroy a 'properly' fitted BS fleet.
But I do like your idea about buffing tank on battleships instead. A steady barrage of damage is what torps currently do. So why bother with bombs? BTW bombers with just torps and a BLOPS is pretty effective. But the changes with jump bridges will shift that around, don't have a feel for how. (ps big fan of the jump changes). Yea I really feel both BC and BS are overshadowed by t3s and HACs. T3s matter less since you lose SP when you die. Now they [BC and BS] are much slower I feel more tank in comparison to HACs is really needed. Of course some of that is a HAC that shall rename nameless that has a very high DPS weapon system that consumes neither cap, cpu or pg.
But the new T3 Destroyers you will not lose any SP at all.
**You Have to take the good with the bad
and the bad with the good.
Welcome to EvE OnLiNe**
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1851
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 09:30:56 -
[1042] - Quote
On My view. Stealth bombers bombs should be made weaker. Make them be more easily poped so at most 3 are fired in a volley. Also bombers effective rof for bombs should be nerfed. SB shoudl be surprise factor and less about sustained barrages.
On other hand introduce a new class of ship. A new t2 BC sized hull in a field howitzer role, that could have a bonus to bombs HP, bomb velocity (for more range) and bomb launcher fire rate. But a ship WITHOUT cloak ( more EHP and would need to be kept alive as a field ship).
Sustained barrages should be form a dedicated ship class.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1851
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 09:33:30 -
[1043] - Quote
Oddsodz wrote:Learn to use instacanes in your fleets you lazy funks. If the enemy is bringing combined arms against you (IE: Fleet of megas plus a bomber fleet). Then maybe you should bring a counter of your own instead of wincing about how your battleships die. CFC seem more than happy to have wings of harppys with them when they go out with battleships. Maybe you l337 types might want to think about that. I Will agree that the BOMBS and sig radius needs looking at. But bitching about how you can't use battleships because of bombs is poor form.
Did you ever fought a COMPETENT group of bombers? They bomb aligned to something or someone and warp before you can do anything. Your instacanes will kill like 20% the value of their own losses before the end of the fight.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Oxide Ammar
177
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 09:45:10 -
[1044] - Quote
I would trade bombs anyday with alpha strike bomber like it was before when they were able to equip cruise missile and were able to one shot 0 m/s frigs in single salvo. I always like to play with glass cannon class/ship in games and I was attracted to the game by that idea to find out sadly they already change how bombers work.
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.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
205
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 13:45:51 -
[1045] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:On My view. Stealth bombers bombs should be made weaker. Make them be more easily poped so at most 3 are fired in a volley. Also bombers effective rof for bombs should be nerfed. SB shoudl be surprise factor and less about sustained barrages.
The RoF of bombs is totally irrelevant until it's longer than about 5 mins or more. That is how long it takes to reset, and who the hell is going to be sitting around waiting for the next set of bomb waves? Even F1 monkeys are better than that.
Again moving to 3 bombs a volley makes them absolutely useless. May as well be honest and remove them from the game. Which is what you want.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
357
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 14:27:18 -
[1046] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote: On a side note, how would it change things if Bombers could use any of the BS sized missiles rather than just torps?
What would change is that it would show how bad Torpedoes are at the moment.
Stealth Bombers are about the only ships that have use for Torpedoes, all other ships are using Cruise, because if you don't get the ridiculous range and explosion radius bonus, it's a weapon system that has little more use than for shooting structures. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
419
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 15:16:04 -
[1047] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:...What would change is that it would show how bad Torpedoes are at the moment.
Stealth Bombers are about the only ships that have use for Torpedoes, all other ships are using Cruise, because if you don't get the ridiculous range and explosion radius bonus, it's a weapon system that has little more use than for shooting structures.
Yes, since the day CCP made all bombers equal.
Torpedos like all other missiles in EVE have been given a problem and with that Vale of the Silent CCP is hiding behind, they are avoiding to respond and mistakenly hoping for that problem they created to magically disappear.
I do not feel any remorse by telling CCP they made a mistake and are too ashamed to admit that they were wrong.
To not respond to a question in the room is a response.
To ignore someone is plain rude.
signature
|
Psyatt
penguins are your nefarious end Serenitas Solutus
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 00:44:24 -
[1048] - Quote
My two cents,
Cloaks de-cloaking each other is fine, as long as there is a graphical, if not overview, way to see fleet mates. Allowing fleet mates to see the same new shiney graphics that we see on our own ships should be enough of a clue. De-cloak should be adjusted to ONLY work on-grid AND ONLY with all related ships/structures in sidereal(not warp) space.
Bomb damage needs to be more fully addressed, as stated by others, in a way that balances away from armor prevalence. The sig radius calculation seems to be for the MWD small ships that the bomber excels at killing. How about changing that to mass? Completely alter the paradigm. Bombers would suck at killing smaller ships but allow the poor down-trodden masses to smack larger fleets of larger ships. Bomb damage would need some adjustment to be sure, such as reducing resists to get volleys to 4-5. This counters bombers by allowing the enemy fleet to bring small ships of their own to hunt bombers without the risk of popping when they use MWD.
The new Focused Void is a wonderful and overdue foray into specialty bombs. The one meter range should be opened up to 50 meters. Not everyone is Davy Crocket in a bomber.
Giving Bombers any kind of ehp buff for any reason is like putting tinfoil over a cardboard box. Sure, it looks nicer... but when a truck hits it, it's just as flat.
Yes to cargo. Three bombs for all.
Suggested new bombs.
Spatial Destabilizer - Cancels/disallows all warps/jumps in detonation radius for 10(?)/X seconds. Target must re-enter command. Could break up fleet warps into manageable chunks on the other end. Not so much a tackle as a stumble. Like being ECM jammed.
Shaped Charge - Same basic principles as the new Focused Void, but damage bomb for use against Titans and SCs. Have to lay it right in the old thermal exhaust port, but if you do... Hey there are plenty of Titans, and more a-building every day. Why not allow a frigate class to help thin the thundering herd?
EMP - De-stabilizes ship systems thereby de-cloaking any ship in detonation range. Cannot sweep without the proper broom. SB vs SB. There is a counter. Use SBs against themselves.
|
Psyatt
penguins are your nefarious end Serenitas Solutus
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 01:17:58 -
[1049] - Quote
Not so much just a new bomb but a re-imagining of an ancient weapon.
Proximity Mine - Travels the 30 Km and stops. Detonates if any SHIP(not drone/missile/etc) crosses detonation radius. Mines WILL de-cloak ships. 60(?) minute lifespan with launching pilot on-grid, cloaked or not. If/when pilot leaves grid for any reason, timer drops to 60(?) seconds. Any un-exploded ordinance de-activates(no detonation) upon timer expiration. Nul/Negsec only. The criminality of mines has been experienced.
Mine Launcher Skill - 4x - Each level allows the deployment of two(?) mines, for a maximum of ten(?).
If one is going to sit at a gate camp staring into space, may as well have something useful to stare AT. The pretty minefield you and a dozen of your friends laid around that gate. Mix-n-match mine types if desired. |
JamesT KirkJr
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 04:12:11 -
[1050] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:JamesT KirkJr wrote:Right now you can lead them and the huge explosion radius can give you hits, which is a situation bombs weren't designed for. Interesting. Area of effect weapons weren't designed to hit things that are not at the center of the area of effect
And yet it's standard training to lead ships on the move so that the massive radius will hit them. Disclaimer, I'm still learning the ins and outs, but I believe the damage calculation does not even take distance into effect (no square cubed law applied). |
|
Neuron Stew
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 17:29:17 -
[1051] - Quote
Why not add in a set of damage bombs that scale damage based on a ship's mass instead of Sig radius for anti-captial and anti-armor fleet use?
|
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions
419
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 20:23:12 -
[1052] - 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. Very nice. Faith restored Fozzie, faith restored. |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions
419
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 21:01:14 -
[1053] - Quote
Neuron Stew wrote:Why not add in a set of damage bombs that scale damage based on a ship's mass instead of Sig radius for anti-captial and anti-armor fleet use?
Hmm, I'm thinking gravity influxion bomb, damage based upon the mass of the ship. Now that'd be very awesome and very sci fi. |
Psyatt
penguins are your nefarious end Serenitas Solutus
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 02:49:57 -
[1054] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Neuron Stew wrote:Why not add in a set of damage bombs that scale damage based on a ship's mass instead of Sig radius for anti-captial and anti-armor fleet use?
Hmm, I'm thinking gravity influxion bomb, damage based upon the mass of the ship. Now that'd be very awesome and very sci fi.
Look up a few posts. Barely beat you to the posts, but I bet many have thought of similar things.
I figured this was a prevalent idea.
To my limited understanding, it seems that a frigate that mounts battleship weapons should be used against larger ship types.
Instead, we have stealth bomber wings that can obliterate any small-ship gang that uses MWD as a tactic.
Switch all bomb calculations to mass instead of sig radius, along with adjustments of DPS scaling for balance of course. You do not want a pair of SBs insta-popping a plated Megathron while leaving a shield tanked Raven sitting there pretty. The cap ship bombs can be used for high DPS against just those ship types.
That makes counters by the score. Small ships can hunt SBs with this change. No need for random smarty fits on everyone that can fit a medium or better.
More bomb types, all with lower resists. The more fun the individual bomb is, the less you want in one place. Get the volleys down to 4 or so inside the same AOE, but play with other stats.
This would be a major overhaul/change, and I can understand that the changes being made now are simpler to accomplish.
-
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6480
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 18:21:08 -
[1055] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Neuron Stew wrote:Why not add in a set of damage bombs that scale damage based on a ship's mass instead of Sig radius for anti-captial and anti-armor fleet use?
Hmm, I'm thinking gravity influxion bomb, damage based upon the mass of the ship. Now that'd be very awesome and very sci fi. Not bad, an avatar would take like twice (not more than three times, anyway) the damage an archon would.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Heathkit
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
91
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 13:48:42 -
[1056] - Quote
Doyle Aldurad wrote:I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing'
There's nothing written in stone saying that bombers need to be frigates. Maybe it would be more appropriate for them to be destroyers or cruisers, and have the survivability and agility that comes with that. |
Crynsos Cealion
Matari Munitions The Obsidian Front
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 13:40:13 -
[1057] - Quote
In case this hasn't been posted here yet, a good idea from reddit to hurt ISBoxer bombers the same way as originally intended:
How about having a pop up window come up after launching a bomb, asking you to enter a randomized 4 number code within 10 seconds so that the bomb gets armed, otherwise it would not explode? That would be easy for any normal human player to do (and distracted them a little from escaping while we're at it), but quite hard for ISBoxers without some scripts, which would be classified as botting anyways. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
946
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 14:33:50 -
[1058] - Quote
Heathkit wrote:Doyle Aldurad wrote:I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.
Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing' There's nothing written in stone saying that bombers need to be frigates. Maybe it would be more appropriate for them to be destroyers or cruisers, and have the survivability and agility that comes with that.
they would also be quicker too lock .. less agile and they would have slower warp speed i'm sure and slower lock time .. kind of all the things you don't want
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
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
205
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 11:06:38 -
[1059] - Quote
Crynsos Cealion wrote:In case this hasn't been posted here yet, a good idea from reddit to hurt ISBoxer bombers the same way as originally intended:
How about having a pop up window come up after launching a bomb, asking you to enter a randomized 4 number code within 10 seconds so that the bomb gets armed, otherwise it would not explode? That would be easy for any normal human player to do (and distracted them a little from escaping while we're at it), but quite hard for ISBoxers without some scripts, which would be classified as botting anyways. That is a really stupid idea. While your at it, lets add a CAPTCHA to any mining ship, or anyone docked to make sure they are not afk and scaring people away from the system in local.
Or how about you just list all the play styles you don't like and ban them. It makes about as much sense.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
223
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 23:08:48 -
[1060] - Quote
Captcha is not enough. You should be required to answer a skill-testing question in order to even undock. |
|
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 23:41:06 -
[1061] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: Let's just say you won't be seeing "CCP HazedScrub" anytime soon.
If you would ever work for CCP I would rather vote for you naming yourself "CCP MistakesWereMade" ;). |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:51:57 -
[1062] - Quote
Crynsos Cealion wrote:In case this hasn't been posted here yet, a good idea from reddit to hurt ISBoxer bombers the same way as originally intended:
How about having a pop up window come up after launching a bomb, asking you to enter a randomized 4 number code within 10 seconds so that the bomb gets armed, otherwise it would not explode? That would be easy for any normal human player to do (and distracted them a little from escaping while we're at it), but quite hard for ISBoxers without some scripts, which would be classified as botting anyways.
May I suggest that everyone that comes up with wild ideas like that would please attach a killmail of his own successful solo bomb run on a BS or BC that wasn't AFK? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
884
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 15:41:44 -
[1063] - Quote
Herrin Asura wrote:Noone goes out on a bomb run to kill a frigate.
I'll just leave this here.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
884
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 15:58:10 -
[1064] - Quote
Psyatt wrote:EMP - De-stabilizes ship systems thereby de-cloaking any ship in detonation range. Cannot sweep without the proper broom. SB vs SB. There is a counter. Use SBs against themselves.
This gave me an idea.
What if cloaks used cap? Then void bombs could potentially decloak a bomber. In a close formation, this could result in an entire wing of bombers and/or other cloaked ships getting decloaked.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
251
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:01:13 -
[1065] - Quote
Bombs in low sec yet? |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:58:24 -
[1066] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Psyatt wrote:EMP - De-stabilizes ship systems thereby de-cloaking any ship in detonation range. Cannot sweep without the proper broom. SB vs SB. There is a counter. Use SBs against themselves. This gave me an idea. What if cloaks used cap? Then void bombs could potentially decloak a bomber. In a close formation, this could result in an entire wing of bombers and/or other cloaked ships getting decloaked.
how many normal bombs would it take to destroy a stealth bomber? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
212
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:50:09 -
[1067] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Soldarius wrote:Psyatt wrote:EMP - De-stabilizes ship systems thereby de-cloaking any ship in detonation range. Cannot sweep without the proper broom. SB vs SB. There is a counter. Use SBs against themselves. This gave me an idea. What if cloaks used cap? Then void bombs could potentially decloak a bomber. In a close formation, this could result in an entire wing of bombers and/or other cloaked ships getting decloaked. how many normal bombs would it take to destroy a stealth bomber? a MSE fit bomber it is about 5 or so in my hound. It is AB fit of course.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1904
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:55:14 -
[1068] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Psyatt wrote:EMP - De-stabilizes ship systems thereby de-cloaking any ship in detonation range. Cannot sweep without the proper broom. SB vs SB. There is a counter. Use SBs against themselves. This gave me an idea. What if cloaks used cap? Then void bombs could potentially decloak a bomber. In a close formation, this could result in an entire wing of bombers and/or other cloaked ships getting decloaked.
Not a bad idea. Make it a low usage of cap, and fast cycle rate, so that gettign with zero cap even for a handful of seconds woudl decloak you.
Great idea.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
500
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 13:18:10 -
[1069] - Quote
Just a quick FYI for you guys, the fact that the new warp disrupt probes and new capital void bombs have to be bought in the syndicate LP store as items and not as bpc's or bpo's are quite literally the main reason why they have very very very very rarely been seen used (if at all).
Faction ammo typically being bought in this form from faction LP stores are understandable as you can normally buy a lot for the cargo space it takes up, however this is not the case with warp disrupt probes and bombs.
Plz use some sense and logic and add bpc's / bpo's of these items to the syndicate LP store. |
Eyes to Escape
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 13:50:28 -
[1070] - Quote
Cloak should use capacitor. Enough that you cannot run it indefinitely but it can be ran for a very long time.
In addition, Id like to see cloaking devices overheat as a function of the number of entities on grid, the character's thermodynamics skill, and the sig radius of the cloaked ship. Bombers could arrive on grid and launch torpedoes/bombs but it would be very difficult for a ship to remain on grid cloaked for an extended period of time.
If the ship happens to be in a safe spot with no entities nearby the cloak simply runs off capacitor. |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
500
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 14:08:08 -
[1071] - Quote
Eyes to Escape, if u wanna pedal your own f**king ideas and play amateur developer plz make your own thread to do it. |
Eyes to Escape
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 18:49:50 -
[1072] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Eyes to Escape, if u wanna pedal your own f**king ideas and play amateur developer plz make your own thread to do it.
Incredibly unconstructive.
Either way, back on topic the only way to decloak a stealth ship is to spam a warp/jump in with entities and hope they get within 2km. That just invites exploits.
Just give cloak a reasonable counter. They should not be risk free and undocked |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
124
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 19:25:25 -
[1073] - Quote
Eyes to Escape wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Eyes to Escape, if u wanna pedal your own f**king ideas and play amateur developer plz make your own thread to do it. Incredibly unconstructive. Either way, back on topic the only way to decloak a stealth ship is to spam a warp/jump in with entities and hope they get within 2km. That just invites exploits. Just give cloak a reasonable counter. They should not be risk free and undocked
the counter is a cloak cant do anything when in use |
Eyes to Escape
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 23:05:30 -
[1074] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: the counter is a cloak cant do anything when in use
Thats not a counter, thats a restriction.
There's literally no active counter to cloaking. Nothing any player in the game can do to actively counter someone cloaked on grid with them.
There's a passive counter... spamming entities and pray they run into something.
Don't get me wrong, cloaking is incredibly fun on the hunter side. Stealth Bombing is awesome, being able to literally hunt players. But there's nothing they can do about it. At all.
I dont know if my idea's the right idea, but damned if there shouldn't be something. Being the hunted is awful, because there's nothing you could have done.
They're undocked and riskfree. That there alone should speak volumes to the problem.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
223
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 08:28:59 -
[1075] - Quote
Please tell me this hasn't moved to Yet Another AFK Cloak thread.
Cloaks where never the issue here. That is why the original idea, that would affect all cloak ships was dropped. cloaks are not OP. Many feel bombers are OP (I disagree but meh). this thread is not about counters to cloak because they don't need one.
For gods sake in k space you have local, the biggest single intel leak in the game. If you can't see the potential for bombers and you sit around waiting for them to set up. Well you get what you deserve.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1911
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 09:26:55 -
[1076] - Quote
Eyes to Escape wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Eyes to Escape, if u wanna pedal your own f**king ideas and play amateur developer plz make your own thread to do it. Incredibly unconstructive. Either way, back on topic the only way to decloak a stealth ship is to spam a warp/jump in with entities and hope they get within 2km. That just invites exploits. Just give cloak a reasonable counter. They should not be risk free and undocked
That is why the suggestion of a VERY small cap usage. Not enough that the ship wil EVEr get out of cap. But enough that if you are hit by a void bomb you will uncloak. Then they can increase the void bomb radius of effect (since almost no one uses them anyway)
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
501
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 17:36:56 -
[1077] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Please tell me this hasn't moved to Yet Another AFK Cloak thread.
Thats exactly why i told the guy to kindy f**k off and make his own thread.
All I'd requested were 2 new items detailed by CCP Fozzie in this Threads OP to become more accessible to all players, not just the few that are within 5-10ly from a syndicate LP store.
So for the final time Eyes, make your own thread / post in the cloak b*tching and moaning threads that already exist plz. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
159
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 23:30:32 -
[1078] - Quote
After the last mineral rebalance on asteroids, there's currently a issue where the current amounts of mexallon being refined from ores is currently too low, the primary source of mexallon used to be reprocessed rat loot drops, and with the nerf to the amount of minerals from reprocessing them, as well as the nerf to the amount of mods etc that drop, this has caused the availability of mexallon to decrease resulting in a corrisponding price increase market wise. Can you please relook at the amount of mexallon you get from refining ores and consider upping the amount from refining ores, possibly with spod being the highest refining amount?
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
1833
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 23:33:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:After the last mineral rebalance on asteroids, there's currently a issue where the current amounts of mexallon being refined from ores is currently too low, the primary source of mexallon used to be reprocessed rat loot drops, and with the nerf to the amount of minerals from reprocessing them, as well as the nerf to the amount of mods etc that drop, this has caused the availability of mexallon to decrease resulting in a corrisponding price increase market wise. Can you please relook at the amount of mexallon you get from refining ores and consider upping the amount from refining ores, possibly with spod being the highest refining amount?
You are in the wrong threw methinks |
krickettt
Hounds of War. Hashashin Cartel
20
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 03:21:15 -
[1080] - Quote
RIP battleship fleets. Some day you will be flown again... |
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
691
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 03:24:44 -
[1081] - Quote
krickettt wrote:RIP battleship fleets. Some day you will be flown again...
I must not have seen all those Dominix fleets in Fountain the past three weeks.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
2146
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 06:11:21 -
[1082] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:krickettt wrote:RIP battleship fleets. Some day you will be flown again... I must not have seen all those Dominix fleets in Fountain the past three weeks.
All in your imagination . . . .after all with the nerfs hitting left right and centre Nullsec has died and no ships are blowing up anywhere
/sarcasm
I am looking forward to seeing id there is a shift after Jan 1, after all, that could be considered a bomber nerf of a sort as well.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
228
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 11:39:39 -
[1083] - Quote
krickettt wrote:RIP battleship fleets. Some day you will be flown again... BS fleets are common enough, unless your blind,sure they are less common than they use to be. Bombers taking out BS is far less common than claimed. Which is why none of you can quote the massive list of BS dying to bombers much less isBoxer bombers.
Right now cruisers are popular because they are typically the best subcap in the game. HACs and t3 especially. Why? well they warp faster, align faster and often can have a lot of tank. t3 have BS level tank with BS level damage output and can often apply that damage better.
Then there is a mighty Ishtar. It is, as of right now the best ship in the game. It not because of bombers, its because its just better than the current offering of BS.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
|
|
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] |