|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 13:01:51 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi Space Friends, Coming with the December release, we're going to be releasing a feature we talked about at EVE Vegas 2016. Defender Missile SkillThe skill, Defender Missiles, will no longer require Missile Launcher Operation. All alpha characters will be able to train this to Level 1. The skill will provide a 10% per level bonus to Defender Missile velocity. No other skills will effect Defender Missiles. Defender MissilesDefender Missiles will no longer shoot down missiles aimed at you. Instead they will launch at a random bomb (non-structure) within its flight range. A single defender missile will kill any bomb. These defender missiles can only be loaded into a new defender launcher (described below) The Defender Missile I has a base range of 30km (45km at max skills), and a flight time of 3 seconds. During the December patch downtime, all existing defender missiles (and their blueprints) will become the new Defender Missile IDefender LaunchersThe Defender Launcher I can only load Defender Missiles. It may only be fit to Destroyer class vessels (Destroyers, Interdictors, Command Destroyers and Tactical Destroyers). Once activated, it will scan local space for any bombs,and if it finds one within range, launch a defender missile to intercept it. If it doesn't find any bombs within range, it will still cycle. The Defender Launcher I has a 120 second reactivation timer. It doesn't require a launcher hardpoint, and has low fitting requirements (10 cpu, 2 powergrid), but uses some capacitor (50gj) to activate. You can only fit one defender launcher. Command DestroyersCommand Destroyers receive at 50% role bonus to decreasing the reactivation timer on Defender Launchers. Bomb ChangesBombs now have a Minimum Velocity of 1m/s that you must be traveling at before you can launch. This is to fix some issues that can happen when your velocity is 0, causing the bomb not to move and just explode on you. You can checkout these changes (and more) on Sisi soon. We appreciate any feedback you have! Cheers, CCP Larrikin and Team Phenomenon
Hey CCP,
I just want to urge you to think about this question: when was the last time you have seen a bombing run evaporating an entire fleet? They instantly get posted on reddit, and you can see it happens perhaps once in a month, if one is to give an optimist estimate. There has been plenty of large fights during past months, but no proper bombing runs anyone has ever showed off. This means bombing is already close to be eliminated from meta.
Now I believe you have all those nullsec people as CSM and overrepresent them in the feedback you keep hearing, and they keep telling you how there is no counterplay to bombing runs. But this is because they have never been behind one. The main challenge of a bombing run today is setting it up, and finding a proper fleet to bomb. I would safely say more than %70 of the doctrines people are using are not bombable, because it simply takes too many waves for fleet to die, and they can simply warp off. Furthermore, bombable fleets are everywhere as well. Hurricanes are all over nullsec fights, which shows being bombable does not significantly limit people to unbombable doctrines. So here is already one counterplay; warping off. Here is another: having 5-10 ceptors circling your fleet trying to decloak people. Here is another: Never standing still.
Thus there are already huge countermeasures to bombing, but they are all indirect, thus people are not aware the relation between these and countering bombruns. And then when they die to that bombrun they complain how it was impossible to evade.
I get that these changes give alphas meaningful gameplay, while also giving people chance to directly respond to bombruns, which are in themselves interesting. BUT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD do not push bombing out of the meta even more. It is one of the most fun, most interesting combat mechanics in Eve, such that you featured it before everything else in This is Eve. Now you are making it so that nobody takes out bombing fleets anymore.
If you really want anti-bomb missiles so much because they are an interesting mechanic, you definitely need to buff bombing to keep it inside meta. This can be done in the form of increasing the amount of bombs you can explode next to each other, enabling ewar bombs to be exploded next to damage bombs, introducing t2 bombs, or combinations of these.
I hope you can hear our voice at times over those null people you keep listening a lot.
Olmeca Bombers Bar FC |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 13:28:50 -
[2] - Quote
Querns wrote:There's a remedy for this.
What if I want to just play a balanced game, and make my opinions about what makes it better heard, but and not make the game a huge deal in my real life? Or what if I don't care about achieving a huge organization, or just don't want to play the game in that way as a part of such an organization? Because this is how the majority who is not a part of NC/PC/Goons feels like. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 13:36:01 -
[3] - Quote
Querns wrote:Olmeca Gold wrote:Querns wrote:There's a remedy for this. What if I want to just play a balanced game, and make my opinions about what makes it better heard, but and not make the game a huge deal in my real life? Or what if I don't care about achieving a huge organization, or just don't want to play the game in that way as a part of such an organization? Because this is how the majority who is not a part of NC/PC/Goons feels like. The remedy is to vote, not to join a large power bloc. I wouldn't worry too much, though. After our complete and total defeat in the Casino Wars, you probably won't see much of GSF on the CSM next year.
Well actually I wish DBRB was CSM or something, at least some bomber voice would be heard, and he is the only one FC from null that I know. And you will prolly be replaced by other null people, so that changes nothing from our perspective. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 13:39:33 -
[4] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote:I think everyone appreciates the effort to make the defender missiles and their skills actually do something. But as a dozen people have already said.... nobody bombs anymore. Bombs are so lacking in utility or efficacy, this is the gravestone of bombing as a whole. Unless this release is PAIRED with a whole new suite of bombs, "bombing" will be all but forgotten.
"No one" bombs any more because the entire game flies T3Cs, or other sig-tanking doctrines whose primary benefit is resistance to bombs. Providing counterplay other than training Strategic Cruisers opens up quite a bit of room for other ships to actually get used in nullsec.
This is plain wrong. Hurricanes, feroxes, etc. etc. are everywhere. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 13:40:26 -
[5] - Quote
Querns wrote:Olmeca Gold wrote: Well actually I wish DBRB was CSM or something, at least some bomber voice would be heard, and he is the only one FC from null that I know. And you will prolly be replaced by other null people, so that changes nothing from our perspective.
So vote, and be the change you wish to see.
Thats really idealist of you :) |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 13:52:20 -
[6] - Quote
Querns wrote:Olmeca Gold wrote:Querns wrote:Olmeca Gold wrote: Well actually I wish DBRB was CSM or something, at least some bomber voice would be heard, and he is the only one FC from null that I know. And you will prolly be replaced by other null people, so that changes nothing from our perspective.
So vote, and be the change you wish to see. Thats really idealist of you :) It's how we get folks onto the CSM. It's not hard; you just vote, instead of not voting.
I mean I just stated I didn't want more of nullsec in CSM even though I would have preferred if that will be the case at least bomber FCs being CSM. So im not voting for you.
The people I vote do not win. Because they cant get votes unless they have backing of organized nullsec groups. So its no remedy. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 13:53:28 -
[7] - Quote
Samsara Toldya wrote:So... the "random" part.
Let's say there is a bombing wing with 11 bombers while there are 10 destroyers with d.i.c.k.s. cycling on grid.
Bomber 1 decloakes and launch a bomb.
10 d.i.c.k.s. get triggert by nearby bomb and shoot down the single bomb, causing 120 seconds cooldown on every d.i.c.k.
Remaining 10 bombers decloak and launch bombs.
Very random.
Or do all d.i.c.k.s. on grid communicate with each other and only a single defender missile is fired when there is only one bomb nearby?
Depends on how they do things. But they at least have time and means to communicate, or even decide beforehand who launches when. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 14:00:31 -
[8] - Quote
Querns wrote:Olmeca Gold wrote: The people I vote do not win. Because they cant get votes unless they have backing of organized nullsec groups. So its no remedy.
Then organize your own group? You don't even have to blue them or fly with them.
The problem is having to go through such an effort to make your voice heard. Because it is not like people who actually goes through this effort has a more valuable voice. I think posting here is enough effort to spend for such a goal, but definitely not organizing a campaign, as most do.
The entire CSM system is broken. CCP should rely on carefully reading these forums instead of elections with insignificant turnout to make people feel heard. I mean there is just 2 people who does not represent those nullsec fleets, and 4 people who is entirely independent from NC PL or Goons. Would it be surprising to keep hearing changes which primarily benefits organized big nullsec fleets? |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 14:03:24 -
[9] - Quote
Spark Progenitori wrote:Does this mean you can buff bombers back up again? Having every dictor, t3d, and CD in a fleet with a defender launcher means you need an exceptional amount of bombers in multiple waves to make an impact.
Like, can we not have cloaked ships decloak each other again? This is a dramatic QOL item for running bomber fleets.
also some variety in bombs would be cool: velocity, range, aoe, maybe even other effects along the lines of void bombs (web, sensor strength, tracking disruption)
Cloaked ships do not decloak each other already. it was a proposed change but never went alive. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 17:48:05 -
[10] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:Quote:Bombs now have a Minimum Velocity of 1m/s that you must be traveling at before you can launch. This is to fix some issues that can happen when your velocity is 0, causing the bomb not to move and just explode on you. This honestly makes me a little sad. It was a fun little quirk of bombs.
You have no idea how big my plans were for this little feature :S |
|
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 17:50:05 -
[11] - Quote
Querns wrote: Nah. The CSM works because it allows for the representation of a much larger number of players. A forum post can be made by anyone.
You mean like maybe %10 of the player base, who only does sov nullsec?
Or else I dont know how you can explain only one of them not having ties to nullsec blob alliances.
|
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
49
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 08:10:17 -
[12] - Quote
By the way, there are lost of posts here, such as Nova's or Chance Ravinne's, which argue removing some previous nerfs would balance this nerf. Make no mistake. While other changes related to bombing (warp speed, agility, fozsesov etc.) had indirect impacts on the position of bombing in meta, DICKs are a direct intervention on how they work. A possible agility or warp speed unnerf won't change anything in the ability to land these bombs, which is the challenge in the first place. If we desire bombing to have its fair place in meta, DICKs can only be balanced by direct buffs on them (reducing the flight time, increasing the amount of bombs you can explode at the same time, giving more damage options via t2 bombs, etc etc.). |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 15:47:40 -
[13] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Not really sure the reason for this move. For small and medium gang it has little to no effect, and from what I hear bombers aren't much of a thing in large scale fleet ops nowadays either.
Any chance you could elaborate as to the reasoning for this change Larikin. I can think of many other things in much greater need of being fixed than bombers currently (AFs and medium artillery for example).
I feel like this is CCP trying hard to give alpacas a proper role in null fights |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 15:49:40 -
[14] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:This will be the fourth or fifth nerf to bombing runs in what, one and a half years? Except this is not a nerf because no one will be basing a fleet doctrines around the use of defender missiles. Bombers are hardly overwhelming currently and there are many more important roles for destroyers to fulfil. I doubt anyone will use them much like now. (this is based on the assumption that CCP don't release new types of bomb with useful effects, and if they do it won't be for a very long time if at all).
It is not hard to spend one slot for any generic t3 dessie, command dessie or dictor you are using for general purposes anyway. You need those in any big null fighti and every dessie will fit them, because why not. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 15:57:09 -
[15] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:This is a great idea. I don't think ti will work practically, meaning working on this is a waste of time, but thanks for at least trying.
Effectively it will just mean that FCs will give orders to have enemy dessies scrubbed 1st (their low levels of EHP mean reps ain't goina do squat in a fleet fight) so at the end of the day, not much will change. If you'd put them on cruisers or battlecruisers then that would have opened up the fleet meta to battleship doctrines again, because bigger ships could survive because of their higher hpm pools.
Sorry for being blunt but your post is clueless.
1) You realize bomb damage is not like smartbomb damage, that it scales with sig radius, and dessies can very well tank multiple waves right? It is probably harder to properly bomb to kill a t3 dessie than a battlecruiser. The generic battlecruiser will die way earlier even.
2) Have you ever checked how many recent battlereports are out there with Feroxes, Machariels, Hurricanes or Rattlesnakes? This is not 2 years ago. Bombing does not have too much of an effect on doctrine choices anymore, unless you know there is a specific bombing fleet coming for you. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
52
|
Posted - 2016.12.01 17:21:42 -
[16] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Olmeca Gold wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:This is a great idea. I don't think ti will work practically, meaning working on this is a waste of time, but thanks for at least trying.
Effectively it will just mean that FCs will give orders to have enemy dessies scrubbed 1st (their low levels of EHP mean reps ain't goina do squat in a fleet fight) so at the end of the day, not much will change. If you'd put them on cruisers or battlecruisers then that would have opened up the fleet meta to battleship doctrines again, because bigger ships could survive because of their higher hpm pools. Sorry for being blunt but your post is clueless. 1) You realize bomb damage is not like smartbomb damage, that it scales with sig radius, and dessies can very well tank multiple waves right? It is probably harder to properly bomb to kill a t3 dessie than a battlecruiser. The generic battlecruiser will die way earlier even. If you don't know what's being said, , read it again, then ask for clarification. I never said anything about Dessies being bombed, said " FCs will give orders to have enemy dessies scrubbed 1st". You know, with guns?
Sorry, your actual point was a further hyphotetical so I assumed you just didn't know how bombs work which was the simpler scenario. What you are saying presumes that the bombing fleet has is working together with one of the fleets on ground against the other side., and in close coordination, while they often are independent third parties, or at least not in close coordination with the friendly fleet. E.g. DBRB often takes a bomber fleet to NCPL vs CO2/TEST fights.
Also in a skirmish if what you are primarying is enemy dessies, while you need to primary main body of the enemy, just because you have friendly bombers around, then you might already be paying the price by losing your own ships. If there is a price then the bomber group might already be worth taking. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 11:35:04 -
[17] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I don't think AFs are the right hull for this sort of thing. It doesn't fit their other roles and bonuses for one.
I do agree that this won't kill bomb use though. It's mitigation and there will be ways around it, whether that's with clever bomb deployment timings or just throwing more bombs at the problem. Right now though Bombs are far too useful and powerful for anyone to seriously consider abandoning them, and similarly this will probably push large fleet FCs to form squads of Command Destroyers for a mix of range control and bomb defense.
Worst cases for this change are either they have to tone it down a little, or it doesn't have a significant impact on fleet comps and things stay more or less as they are.
Oh god not you again :)
People did abandon bombing except a few FCs. Right now a successful bombrun happens every once in a month maybe even two months, compared to what we had 1 or 2 years ago that is a really low rate of occurance. Stats speak for themselves. Do you seriously think that is powerful or in its right place in meta? Have you ever tried to bomb a fleet, or are you aware of the multiple nerfs that has been done on bombing the last year? You like organization and coordination. Do yo know how much of these is needed to land a successful run, and even then every single type of fleet can avoid dying with a simple warp off? |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:24:01 -
[18] - Quote
Looks like CCP heard the majority feedback and at least postponed this change from December 13th release.
Thanks CCP for hearing us out and not rushing this change. |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 11:57:56 -
[19] - Quote
Glathull wrote:Olmeca Gold wrote:Looks like CCP heard the majority feedback and at least postponed this change from December 13th release.
Thanks CCP for hearing us out and not rushing this change. Where did you see that?
I just didn't see the defender missile changes talked about in here in Dec 13 release notes (except the 0 velocity bombing change) |
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 19:02:35 -
[20] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: Bear in mind, people arguing against something are almost always louder than people who like it. So 'majority feedback' is a harder thing to quantify than 'how many people posted'.
This is one factor but it's not that simple. There are other factors. A CSM of all people should be aware of this.
People tend to argue (even in feedback forums) taking their only own playstyle into account rather than the general goodness of the game, so if some playstyle is played less, it is gonna be defended less. We both can agree people who bomb are less than people who get bombed. This has been a way bigger factor in general in feedback forums than the "negative feedback expressed more" factor, and also is a great factor in this topic which would otherwise have been filled with negative feedback even to a way greater degree.
I think in this case the feedback, both in here and on reddit, immensely is against the change, especially considering the fact that many null FCs or capsuleers (who usually are the targets of bombing activity) also have the same stance. This can be seen if the discussions are closely analyzed.
If CCP goes along with it either they know something we don't (entirely possible), or they prioritize empowering alphas over bombing meta balance (debatable but bad choice imho for everyone including alphas), or there is not much point to these feedback forums because they don't pay attention.
You guys make us (every FC seeking content with a 20+ man bomber fleet at his/her disposal) wanna conduct bombing runs less and less each small change. Using these bombers to hotdrop on people seem way more rewarding and fun. And people with objectives (destroy citadel, enemy fleet etc) will just prefer taking other ships out. Just so you know where you keep pushing people. As a bombing FC this is the first time ever I come to this forums and make a significant case. Maybe this can show at least I'm not the type of dude who screams at forums whenever his playstyle is nerfed. |
|
Olmeca Gold
Pleonexium Sustainable Whaling Inc.
60
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 15:05:10 -
[21] - Quote
Kruselloyne wrote:SoulMIner wrote:
Edit: 10 pages of negative reply's day one of post, is a move in the wrong direction.
Like 10 people in those 10 pages, but who's counting? People complain about every change CCP makes because it's not fixing THEIR pet issue.
Yeah people complain but its all about the negative/positive ratio and degree of the feedback. If you are gonna stop hearing negative feedback because "people always complain" then what is the purpose of a request of feedback in the first place right?
Personally I have never seen a change with this much overwhelmingly uniform negative feedback being rushed into the implementation without giving it a second thought. The uniformity of negative feedback for this one is on a par with the cancelled "cloakies decloak each other when cloaked" change.
Two reasons for this I think is that firstly CCP is rightly enthusiastic about giving alphas meaningful play (but they are doing it wrong), and secondly there is not really a lot of people in CSM who represents bombing fleets' interests, at least to the degree of being able to make their voice heard.
As Bombers Bar we will keep trying good bombing runs (but probably way less often), and we will succeed at times (but at a much lower level than a balanced meta deserves), and then some bombing illiterate CSM member will come and say "oh we told you defenders were a balanced change" and get his upvotes. Meanwhile you will see a good bombing run perhaps once in four months instead of one (which is already a low rate than a balanced meta deserves), and bombing will slowly and surely sink down to deep frozen depths of meta.
If nothing else changes. |
|
|
|