These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
#141 - 2016-12-02 14:56:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Algarion Getz
Bombing gets nerfed even more? Wat. Have i missed some buffs to bombs or does CCP just want to beat them to death with the nerfbat?

I dont like that the defender missiles become such a niche weapon. Why not keep them like they are now, but add the ability to destroy bombs? For balance reasons, it should take multiple missiles to destroy a bomb.

Also, destroyers dont need another buff. The restriction is not necessary.
Gizzie Haslack
4249003
#142 - 2016-12-02 18:18:07 UTC
Algarion Getz wrote:
Bombing gets nerfed even more? Wat. Have i missed some buffs to bombs or does CCP just want to beat them to death with the nerfbat?

I dont like that the defender missiles become such a niche weapon. Why not keep them like they are now, but add the ability to destroy bombs? For balance reasons, it should take multiple missiles to destroy a bomb.

Also, destroyers dont need another buff. The restriction is not necessary.



If you look at the Patriot missile systems that exist now they're actually quite big.

They do miss on occasion, but one hit is enough to at least put a missile ( unguided ) off course. Which in space is enough to consider it destroyed.


Will defender missiles always hit? That would be HIGHLY unrealistic if so.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2016-12-04 02:19:39 UTC
Nice idea.

Gives alpha pilots a defined role and a nice attempt to knock a chip off the blob with a different kind of support role (dessies can do more than just guard for bombs, but the sum of that *stuff* has to compete with the opportunity cost of lost primary dps).

Also helpful for rounding errors in fitting skillz with that low power cpu high slot module

All told a nice quality of life change...

T2 bombs would compliment the defender missile nicely (buff the bombers and with t2 bombs adding emphasis to the need for defender missiles).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#144 - 2016-12-04 02:27:35 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Nice idea.

Gives alpha pilots a defined role and a nice attempt to knock a chip off the blob with a different kind of support role (dessies can do more than just guard for bombs, but the sum of that *stuff* has to compete with the opportunity cost of lost primary dps).

Also helpful for rounding errors in fitting skillz with that low power cpu high slot module

All told a nice quality of life change...

T2 bombs would compliment the defender missile nicely (buff the bombers and with t2 bombs adding emphasis to the need for defender missiles).

I want bombs to be relevant again :(
Lugh Crow-Slave
#145 - 2016-12-04 12:48:09 UTC
so i know this is going to sound strange and i doubt it will be considered but here goes.

can defenders please keep their current functionality as well if loaded into a standard launcher? I know they are not used much but i do have 2 fits that use them and it feels really good when you micro right and can reduce around 1/4 of an enemy's dps while only giving up a small amount of your own. Now i will be honest i have never used these fits outside of FW but they were fun and i'm sure no one would say over powered lol

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#146 - 2016-12-04 12:49:25 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Nice idea.

Gives alpha pilots a defined role and a nice attempt to knock a chip off the blob with a different kind of support role (dessies can do more than just guard for bombs, but the sum of that *stuff* has to compete with the opportunity cost of lost primary dps).

Also helpful for rounding errors in fitting skillz with that low power cpu high slot module

All told a nice quality of life change...

T2 bombs would compliment the defender missile nicely (buff the bombers and with t2 bombs adding emphasis to the need for defender missiles).


if they are focused bombs i'm down.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Nova Valentis
No Overly Valuable Assets
#147 - 2016-12-05 02:27:15 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Nice idea.

Gives alpha pilots a defined role and a nice attempt to knock a chip off the blob with a different kind of support role (dessies can do more than just guard for bombs, but the sum of that *stuff* has to compete with the opportunity cost of lost primary dps).

Also helpful for rounding errors in fitting skillz with that low power cpu high slot module

All told a nice quality of life change...

T2 bombs would compliment the defender missile nicely (buff the bombers and with t2 bombs adding emphasis to the need for defender missiles).

I want bombs to be relevant again :(



me too bro, me too!
Nova Valentis
No Overly Valuable Assets
#148 - 2016-12-05 02:28:08 UTC
Capqu wrote:
sorry for being rude

but could you answer some actual feedback now instead of just repeating what you already said in the OP for people who literally didnt bother reading it



what that guy said.
ryan meyer
Dead and Delirious
Brotherhood of Spacers
#149 - 2016-12-06 05:25:32 UTC
Bomb Changes
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.



CCPLEASE CAN WE NOT DO THIS CHANGE there really isnt a problem with the bomb launch at all its just some ppl are bad and its kinda like telling them that ya know that they messed up and are bad and should be bad
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#150 - 2016-12-06 08:35:33 UTC
ryan meyer wrote:
Bomb Changes
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.



CCPLEASE CAN WE NOT DO THIS CHANGE there really isnt a problem with the bomb launch at all its just some ppl are bad and its kinda like telling them that ya know that they messed up and are bad and should be bad

Now please tell me where in game it tells you that your facing is a purely visual construct and the server represents you purely by a velocity. Players should not have to have in depth knowledge of the physics engine behind the game to know what effect something will have.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2016-12-06 15:19:27 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Now please tell me where in game it tells you that your facing is a purely visual construct and the server represents you purely by a velocity. Players should not have to have in depth knowledge of the physics engine behind the game to know what effect something will have.

Devil's advocate - you think a great many players invest enough time to train into a stealth bomber, join a group to make use of a mass bombing run...but haven't played enough to know that movement mitigates damage and that's generally a good idea to be moving in combat? Or that nobody in the bombing group will make mention that movement is necessary for a bomb run?

I say Devil's Advocate because I'm not against the change in any way shape or form, but the reasoning seems a bit silly. And yes, the fix is already being done so it's not like dev resources can be repurposed elsewhere at this stage, but this seems like an incredibly niche situation and that maybe some time would have been better spent elsewhere.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#152 - 2016-12-07 02:05:23 UTC
Professor Humbert wrote:
Trying to find more fleet roles for the null-sec alphas, perhaps?
What's next? Defender missiles shooting down bubbles, eh?


to be fair this is an idea the community has bean bringing up for years in regards to defenders working against bombs

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#153 - 2016-12-07 12:48:21 UTC
Capqu wrote:
these changes would have been good 2 years ago


Probably it was on the timeline and they came to that feature just now.

ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ɢᴀᴍᴇ ʜᴇʟᴘs ᴛᴏ ᴛᴇʟʟ ᴀ sᴛᴏʀʏ 📕

ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ɪs ᴀɴɢʀʏ ᴄᴏɴᴄᴏʀᴅ ɢᴜʏ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ʜɪᴍ

ᴏsᴘʀᴇʏ 🚀

≡⋁≡ ♥
Gizzie Haslack
4249003
#154 - 2016-12-07 12:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizzie Haslack
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Professor Humbert wrote:
Trying to find more fleet roles for the null-sec alphas, perhaps?
What's next? Defender missiles shooting down bubbles, eh?


to be fair this is an idea the community has bean bringing up for years in regards to defenders working against bombs



Considering how BB melted down an entire fleet on Sunday Night I can see why they say it, but...


Bombers can't be insured. They are expensive to run. Unlike a Caracal or BLAH. If you want to take away our blappage then you have to give us something back.

I'm not opposed to Patriot Missile systems, but Bombing is chuffing expensive ( including the ammo too. 6m a shot etc ).



If Cov & Black Ops got limited cover on our Insurance ( 20m max payout for a Nemesis ), instead of pretty-much none ( 5m max ), then I would be a LOT happier. Game Balance is Game Balance. It costs about 35m to fit a bomber, and that's with just Torpedoes in it. And we're only covered for about 5m...

Or there is no point in flying Cov Ops. Basically.

There is a business argument that Cov & Black Ops are 'high risk high reward', but if you Take Away Our Guns (tm) then where is the adjustment for the lower reward ( as in, more of us will be shot down )?


I know winning gets you the Cargo, but what if the Cargo is naff? Cargo is luck. It's not very reliable on it's own.



Take away some of our power and you'll have to compensate us for the higher casualty rate we'll suffer, or there is no point in flying these expensive uninsurable Ships. Even though they are important to the game. Important?

Sisters of Eve have normalised Cov Ops tech now ( we need the Black Holes etc ), so surely the Insurance Firms will have to keep up with this change from 'plausable deniability' to 'normal exploration' if the Cov Ops role is still important for stuff. Especially with our risks going up to do it with these new Defender Missiles coming in to play.

We are just exploring; & Low, Null, & WH space can be rough. Why are we the only ones in Frigates who can't get cover?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#155 - 2016-12-07 15:47:28 UTC
Gizzie Haslack wrote:


We are just exploring; & Low, Null, & WH space can be rough. Why are we the only ones in Frigates who can't get cover?


Because you decided to fly TII maybe?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#156 - 2016-12-07 19:59:28 UTC
Why the change to stationary bombs? I always saw it as a valid tactic to drop one of these if you found yourself tackled. A suicide bomb if you will.
Gizzie Haslack
4249003
#157 - 2016-12-07 21:26:36 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Gizzie Haslack wrote:


We are just exploring; & Low, Null, & WH space can be rough. Why are we the only ones in Frigates who can't get cover?


Because you decided to fly TII maybe?



There were perks to flying T2, that are now being reduced. To the point where there is no point? Be careful on that one.
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
#158 - 2016-12-07 22:00:13 UTC
Defender Missiles looks to me basically how to rework one not used thing to another rare used thing.

Bomb launch change is very strange IMHO. Wouldn't it be better to guarantee bomb always fly 3km/s from ship front even for ship at 0 speed? I understand it is easier to put simple condition in the code than to switch bomb parameters evaluation from movement vector to ship orientation vector.
Cade Windstalker
#159 - 2016-12-07 22:33:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Why the change to stationary bombs? I always saw it as a valid tactic to drop one of these if you found yourself tackled. A suicide bomb if you will.


I would assume because the behavior is unintuitive and is mostly unexpected and detrimental to the majority of players that experience it.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#160 - 2016-12-07 23:24:16 UTC
Croc Evil wrote:
Defender Missiles looks to me basically how to rework one not used thing to another rare used thing.

Bomb launch change is very strange IMHO. Wouldn't it be better to guarantee bomb always fly 3km/s from ship front even for ship at 0 speed? I understand it is easier to put simple condition in the code than to switch bomb parameters evaluation from movement vector to ship orientation vector.

There is no such thing in the code as ship orientation vectors. There is only movement. Ship Orientation is a purely client side graphics render based on the movement vector, and changing the codebase to have an actual ship orientation would be a huge project.