Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So everything stays as is slowcat online and T3 online good job.

Just when I thought ISBoxer will be useless for bombers CCP saves the day. Thank you CCP Fozzie :)

funfact; you don't need isboxer to bomb fleets and make BS doctrines irrelevant.

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 this issue under control

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

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.

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.

I guess expecting CCP to go through with a change which encouraged skill and co-ordination to succeed was too much.

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.



Obviously.

The message we are getting is that you are terrified of those ISBoxer bombers being unsubbed...