These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Defender Missiles

First post First post First post
Author
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#21 - 2016-11-25 21:08:51 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
So in order to guard your fleet effectively, you really need to put these almost directly on top of your existing fleet (which to need them would be something slow and heavy, say battlecruisers or battleships)... But they're destroyers... so realistically one or two bombs gets through and they're going to explode due to the low EHP of destroyers, especially when sig-bloomed by MWD.

They'll probably get annihilated by a small wing of RLML caracals anyway prior to bombs launching, but I'd say a passive bonus resistance to bomb damage wouldn't go amiss when fitting to destroyers.


This is by design. We want to ensure there is plenty of counter-gameplay to destroyers screening a fleet from bombs with defenders.


If this is a design decision, I would suggest that it's a poor one...

There obviously needs to be counterplay, but by introducing the need to pray to RNGesus you've turned a potentially solid idea into something that is utterly wasteful.

My statistics are a little rusty... but as soon as the first missile is launched, every other ship has a 1 in 8 chance of being completely wasted, the second has a 2 in 8 chance of being wasted, the third has a 3 in 8 chance of being wasted, and so on. By the time you've got 4 missiles in the air you're just as likely to completely waste your shot as you are to help your fleet.

This is birthday paradox central.

Someone will have to check my maths as I'm pretty tired, but 1/8 * 2/8 * 3/8 * 4/8 * 5/8 * 6/8 * 7/8 * 8/8 means that if you counter 8 bombers with 8 support destroyers, your chance of destroying every incoming bomb is practically non-existent (0.2%) giving a 99% chance that a bomb is going to explode on top of your anti-bomber ship and likely destroy it.

That's from ONE wave... and in any major fight you're going to have 4 or 5 waves minimum to wreck the EHP of most doctrines.

With those kind of numbers, and the number of people required to effectively guard against multiple bombs in multiple waves, with such massively diminishing benefits, I see no circumstance where it would not be preferable to field those same people in sebo'd arty / rail destroyers, sit further away outside defensive bubbles, and try to blap the bombers before their bombs detonate.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#22 - 2016-11-25 21:21:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Sentient Blade wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
So in order to guard your fleet effectively, you really need to put these almost directly on top of your existing fleet (which to need them would be something slow and heavy, say battlecruisers or battleships)... But they're destroyers... so realistically one or two bombs gets through and they're going to explode due to the low EHP of destroyers, especially when sig-bloomed by MWD.

They'll probably get annihilated by a small wing of RLML caracals anyway prior to bombs launching, but I'd say a passive bonus resistance to bomb damage wouldn't go amiss when fitting to destroyers.


This is by design. We want to ensure there is plenty of counter-gameplay to destroyers screening a fleet from bombs with defenders.


If this is a design decision, I would suggest that it's a poor one...

There obviously needs to be counterplay, but by introducing the need to pray to RNGesus you've turned a potentially solid idea into something that is utterly wasteful.

My statistics are a little rusty... but as soon as the first missile is launched, every other ship has a 1 in 8 chance of being completely wasted, the second has a 2 in 8 chance of being wasted, the third has a 3 in 8 chance of being wasted, and so on. By the time you've got 4 missiles in the air you're just as likely to completely waste your shot as you are to help your fleet.

This is birthday paradox central.

Someone will have to check my maths as I'm pretty tired, but 1/8 * 2/8 * 3/8 * 4/8 * 5/8 * 6/8 * 7/8 * 8/8 means that if you counter 8 bombers with 8 support destroyers, your chance of destroying every incoming bomb is practically non-existent (0.2%) giving a 99% chance that a bomb is going to explode on top of your anti-bomber ship and likely destroy it.

That's from ONE wave... and in any major fight you're going to have 4 or 5 waves minimum to wreck the EHP of most doctrines.

With those kind of numbers, and the number of people required to effectively guard against multiple bombs in multiple waves, with such massively diminishing benefits, I see no circumstance where it would not be preferable to field those same people in sebo'd arty / rail destroyers, sit further away outside defensive bubbles, and try to blap the bombers before their bombs detonate.

You could do both? It doesn't appear to be meant a solid counter to a whole wave. You diminish their effectiveness, which matches the mechanics of almost every other counter-effect in game.

Even if we assume that on average you'll knock out 4/8 bombs, that mean they need to do twice as many runs, giving you double the opportunities to destroy the bombers. With its small fittings and easy skills, it's an easy addition to any destroyers on your fleet.

Other options to increase effectiveness also exist. If the denfender missiles are staggered over the course of 10 seconds, you can really improve the number of destroyed bombs by waiting until the number of bombs has dropped.

And honestly, if I have the chance to go from a totally wiped fleet to a fleet holding on to their last shreds of structure, I'm taking the latter.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#23 - 2016-11-25 21:47:26 UTC
I'd love to see new bomb types. Tracking Disruption or Missile Disruption AoE effects would be interesting.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#24 - 2016-11-25 23:27:30 UTC
Rowells wrote:
You could do both? It doesn't appear to be meant a solid counter to a whole wave. You diminish their effectiveness, which matches the mechanics of almost every other counter-effect in game.


Bombs, like all weapons, scale in a liner fashion, they don't have diminishing returns like say, a stasis webifier would.

My point was that your first wave of ships would fire off their missiles, attempting to destroy as many as possible... the chance of destroying all 8 in a wave would be incredibly low, meaning they're more often than not going to end up with the bombs going off in their faces and taking out the rest of the not-overly-tanky destroyers...

Then the next wave hits.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#25 - 2016-11-26 00:26:06 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
Rowells wrote:
You could do both? It doesn't appear to be meant a solid counter to a whole wave. You diminish their effectiveness, which matches the mechanics of almost every other counter-effect in game.


Bombs, like all weapons, scale in a liner fashion, they don't have diminishing returns like say, a stasis webifier would.

My point was that your first wave of ships would fire off their missiles, attempting to destroy as many as possible... the chance of destroying all 8 in a wave would be incredibly low, meaning they're more often than not going to end up with the bombs going off in their faces and taking out the rest of the not-overly-tanky destroyers...

Then the next wave hits.

Then you stagger the launch of the defenders. You should have enough time to get three distinct Defender waves off.

At the start, you can afford to gamble two/three Defenders as the chance of two picking the same bomb is 1/n for n-bombs. There's a ~65% chance of three Defenders picking different targets out of an eight-bomb wave.

Second round: Assuming the optimistic scenario of 5/8 bombs remaining, a second wave of three Defenders gives you a 48% chance of picking three of the remaining bombs.

That's a 31% chance of reducing bomber DPS by three quarters.

And you have about five seconds left to deal with those last two bombs.


TLDR. Don't blow your load as soon as you see bombs.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#26 - 2016-11-26 02:33:36 UTC
Yea-y-ish more stuff for blobb-online. Who even needs to learn to fly when you can just bring even morerer pilots.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Nomistrav
Unitas Nusquam Est
VINDICTIVE
#27 - 2016-11-26 03:51:31 UTC
VCBee 2fast2furious wrote:
Just to confirm, do Defender Missiles 2.0 distinguish between friendly and non-friendly bombs?


At <15km, there's no such thing as a friendly bomb :P

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Nomistrav
Unitas Nusquam Est
VINDICTIVE
#28 - 2016-11-26 04:03:04 UTC
Rawketsled wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
Rowells wrote:
You could do both? It doesn't appear to be meant a solid counter to a whole wave. You diminish their effectiveness, which matches the mechanics of almost every other counter-effect in game.


Bombs, like all weapons, scale in a liner fashion, they don't have diminishing returns like say, a stasis webifier would.

My point was that your first wave of ships would fire off their missiles, attempting to destroy as many as possible... the chance of destroying all 8 in a wave would be incredibly low, meaning they're more often than not going to end up with the bombs going off in their faces and taking out the rest of the not-overly-tanky destroyers...

Then the next wave hits.

Then you stagger the launch of the defenders. You should have enough time to get three distinct Defender waves off.

At the start, you can afford to gamble two/three Defenders as the chance of two picking the same bomb is 1/n for n-bombs. There's a ~65% chance of three Defenders picking different targets out of an eight-bomb wave.

Second round: Assuming the optimistic scenario of 5/8 bombs remaining, a second wave of three Defenders gives you a 48% chance of picking three of the remaining bombs.

That's a 31% chance of reducing bomber DPS by three quarters.

And you have about five seconds left to deal with those last two bombs.


TLDR. Don't blow your load as soon as you see bombs.


Honestly, could just have one or two guys in Coraxs/Talwars play the role of Point Defense. Talwar gets a reduction to MWD sig penalty, so already he's going to fair better. Not to mention the missile velocity bonus (though I dunno if that'll affect defender missiles) would help out a bit. Slap them full of defender missiles and you have one or two guys who defend the fleet while the rest focus on their jobs. Bombing runs are situational anyway, so I don't really see a lot of fleet doctrines including one bay loaded with Defender Missiles on all ships for something that may or may not happen.

Besides, carry a Mobile Depot for refitting purposes and those guys can just switch out anyway.

Zappity wrote:
I'd love to see new bomb types. Tracking Disruption or Missile Disruption AoE effects would be interesting.


Sort of like a Chaff Grenade. I like it.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Petrified
Grimm Hounds
SONS of BANE
#29 - 2016-11-26 07:06:24 UTC
Glad to see defender missiles getting some love. YAY, more reasons for destroyers to be used.

Not sure if this is the kind of healthy love they need, however. Not sure why the mechanics would prevent this from becoming a proper PDS to shoot down non-friendly missiles, but I suppose it was easier to code it to shoot down slow moving bombs than fast moving missiles.

I see a potential problem with this system however: if multiple bombs are launched and you have multiple destroyers armed with defender missiles: are they smart enough to not shoot the same target? If 3 defender missiles fire at 5 bombs, will 2 bombs survive or 4?

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Capqu
Half Empty
#30 - 2016-11-26 08:13:00 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Its truly random.


truly random is a concept, not an obtainable operation

what you mean to say it is sufficiently complex such that you cannot predict the outcome with available measurements and observations

this is not a serious post, more some attempted humour being injected into my life which my doctor (medical variety) says i sorely require

-capqu m.d. (mathematics variety)
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#31 - 2016-11-26 09:18:55 UTC
Petrified wrote:
Glad to see defender missiles getting some love. YAY, more reasons for destroyers to be used.

Not sure if this is the kind of healthy love they need, however. Not sure why the mechanics would prevent this from becoming a proper PDS to shoot down non-friendly missiles, but I suppose it was easier to code it to shoot down slow moving bombs than fast moving missiles.

I see a potential problem with this system however: if multiple bombs are launched and you have multiple destroyers armed with defender missiles: are they smart enough to not shoot the same target? If 3 defender missiles fire at 5 bombs, will 2 bombs survive or 4?

Have a re-read of the posts in this thread.
Grookshank
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2016-11-26 09:22:36 UTC
Can you please explain the reasoning for this change?

Bombing fleets is already not done that much anymore. Now you introduce a noskill/random/semi-automatic bomb killing missile and make it work for alphas. So large blops put their alphas in cheap destroyers to be safe from any bombing. Do you think this in engaging gameplay for alpha characters? Why do you think bombing is too strong to need a nerf? Why do you further strengthen large blobs against smaller groups?

I simply can't understand it.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#33 - 2016-11-26 09:34:15 UTC
Grookshank wrote:
Can you please explain the reasoning for this change?

Bombing fleets is already not done that much anymore. Now you introduce a noskill/random/semi-automatic bomb killing missile and make it work for alphas. So large blops put their alphas in cheap destroyers to be safe from any bombing. Do you think this in engaging gameplay for alpha characters? Why do you think bombing is too strong to need a nerf? Why do you further strengthen large blobs against smaller groups?

I simply can't understand it.

I imagine it's in anticipation of some forthcoming Battleship changes.
Cristl
#34 - 2016-11-26 09:55:09 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
So in order to guard your fleet effectively, you really need to put these almost directly on top of your existing fleet (which to need them would be something slow and heavy, say battlecruisers or battleships)... But they're destroyers... so realistically one or two bombs gets through and they're going to explode due to the low EHP of destroyers, especially when sig-bloomed by MWD.

They'll probably get annihilated by a small wing of RLML caracals anyway prior to bombs launching, but I'd say a passive bonus resistance to bomb damage wouldn't go amiss when fitting to destroyers.


This is by design. We want to ensure there is plenty of counter-gameplay to destroyers screening a fleet from bombs with defenders.


If this is a design decision, I would suggest that it's a poor one...

There obviously needs to be counterplay, but by introducing the need to pray to RNGesus you've turned a potentially solid idea into something that is utterly wasteful.

My statistics are a little rusty... but as soon as the first missile is launched, every other ship has a 1 in 8 chance of being completely wasted, the second has a 2 in 8 chance of being wasted, the third has a 3 in 8 chance of being wasted, and so on. By the time you've got 4 missiles in the air you're just as likely to completely waste your shot as you are to help your fleet.

This is birthday paradox central.

Someone will have to check my maths as I'm pretty tired, but 1/8 * 2/8 * 3/8 * 4/8 * 5/8 * 6/8 * 7/8 * 8/8 means that if you counter 8 bombers with 8 support destroyers, your chance of destroying every incoming bomb is practically non-existent (0.2%) giving a 99% chance that a bomb is going to explode on top of your anti-bomber ship and likely destroy it.

That's from ONE wave... and in any major fight you're going to have 4 or 5 waves minimum to wreck the EHP of most doctrines.

With those kind of numbers, and the number of people required to effectively guard against multiple bombs in multiple waves, with such massively diminishing benefits, I see no circumstance where it would not be preferable to field those same people in sebo'd arty / rail destroyers, sit further away outside defensive bubbles, and try to blap the bombers before their bombs detonate.

Your stats are indeed pretty rusty, I'll give more detail when I'm not on a mobile.

However, an obvious failing seems to be: what if a bomber wing fires one bomb before the main wave. Won't all defenders then fire towards that, leaving the main bomb wave to hit unmolested?
Capqu
Half Empty
#35 - 2016-11-26 10:22:08 UTC
to the above: assuming each bomb is equally likely to be hit [unlikely in practise], the probability of 8 destroyers destroying 8 bombs if all 8 destroyers fire their defender missile at the same time while all 8 bombs are in range is as follows
( 8! / 8^8 ) = .0024~
just under 1/400 basically

all these launchers will do is make bombing require more people, not be harder or more interesting, just more tedious and frustrating as the fc herds a bag of spiders
to make it increasingly likely that a full wave of bombs lands, the bombers have to add more bombs to each wave. whereas before you would launch exactly max bombs per wave, now you will probably want to launch max+3 or 4 to have a high chance of a full hit

this just exasperates all the boring parts of bombing (especially in tidi), where non-fc bomber fleet members literally just sit cloaked for hours. it doesn't provide any interesting game play, it just nerfs an already dying way of 3rd partying or supplementing your main fleet
Capqu
Half Empty
#36 - 2016-11-26 10:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
and like i previously said, fozziesov and being unable to predict the location of engagements already severely hampers a bomber wings ability to influence an engagement. adding more required pilots per bomb wave through these launchers just ensures less people will be willing to try it

edit also so u know im not talkin out of my ass

https://zkillboard.com/character/1107018389/topalltime/

almost 3,000 confirmed kills in a purifier on my main (noone uses their main to bomb anymore)
my corporation was and still is by far the #1 bombing corp in the game
https://zkillboard.com/ship/12038/topalltime/

we only used purifiers for bombing, almost never torping

i fc'd some bomber fleets in my time in PANDEMIC LEGION (aka the best alliance in the game) also, but the above fozziesov changes to predicting where fights would happen rendered it an effort in wasting everyones time on a lot of occasions. i do not think this is a flaw of fozziesov, nor something that needs changing mind you, I'm just trying to illustrate that bombing is a dying activity and does not need the assisted suicide attempted in this thread
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#37 - 2016-11-26 10:41:41 UTC
From a game balancing perspective this makes absolutely no sense unless you plan to roll back the bomber nerfs from 2013.
Bombers with bomb launchers are used rarely in any large engagement now-a-days due to the distributed multi-grid fights across several systems making the logistics and strategy of a bomber fleet quite complicated.

But now you wish to take the remaining and small usability of bombers and throw that completely out by giving an I-WIN button to counter bombs. Where is the logic in this? Usually these balance posts are preluded by motivation for a particular nerf or boost. I.e. "We will that bombers in general are too powerful in the current game play". But there's no such explanation given here - possibly hinting that you don't have a legitimate motivation.

This change will lead to simply extinguishing an interesting and dynamic combat mechanic in EVE.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#38 - 2016-11-26 11:58:57 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
...Bombers with bomb launchers are used rarely in any large engagement now-a-days due to the distributed multi-grid fights across several systems...


This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Grookshank
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2016-11-26 12:02:49 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
...Bombers with bomb launchers are used rarely in any large engagement now-a-days due to the distributed multi-grid fights across several systems...


This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Yes, removing gameplay options is good. Let's rat, mine, stay safe tethered on citadels and only move out for arranged fun fights :/
Ilian Amarin
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2016-11-26 12:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ilian Amarin
While i personally agree with the idea of this concept. Its execution, in my opinion, is pretty bad.

Having the defender missile randomly choose a bomb is just outright stupid.

Just make it rather quick for a dessie (~2-3s) to lock onto a bomb and make the defender launcher a targeted attack against the bomb that kills it.

Also please give us EWar bomb types, for e.g. Tracking Disruption, Sensor Dampening with an AOE timed effect. Kind of like an inverse command burst.

And those bombs should take like 2 defender missiles to take out.