These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#161 - 2016-12-07 23:57:51 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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.


This, that's why ships tend to act weirdly for certain functions at 0m/s, and why align time is calculated from a standing start and is the same regardless of initial 'orientation' unless the ship is already moving.
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#162 - 2016-12-08 03:38:23 UTC
The removal of the 0ms bomb drop will be missed. Could we see some kind of specialty bomb to replace it.

My gut tells me that these defender missiles will over all not do as well as we hope, while also killing off the use of bombs more so than it has by other meta factors. Of which having read some of the other posts in this thread others can explain better.

With that in mind I think CCP should start looking at other non stealth ships to let us fit bomb launchers too. Or removing or lessening bomb wave limits so that we have more options to getting around the need for just more bombing alts to get good runs.

Not sure if its a good idea, but I would get great personal joy if all battleships could fit bomb launchers as a utility.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#163 - 2016-12-08 03:48:02 UTC
Given what's been said about the random bomb selection and the behavior of the missiles after a bomb has been destroyed, I don't see this as a hard counter to bombs. I see it as adding some amount of mitigation. I don't think that in practice it will be all that bad for bombers. Throw in the additional incentive for new players to get involved meaningfully and have to learn to coordinate, and it's probably a net positive.

The thing that I don't like about it is giving the bonus to command destroyers. We have enough reasons to fly destroyers right now. I'd prefer to see keep the ability to fit them to t1 destroyers (for Alphas) and add the ability for assault frigates to fit them, and put the bonus there.

But maybe that's just because I love my AFs.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2016-12-08 04:10:24 UTC
A cunning masterplan. Talk CCP into putting defenders on Assault Frigs; plea for additional PG/CPU to be able to fit these modules, even though we never intend to use them; and eventually end up with assault frigs finally allowing some room for creativity. Brilliant! \o/
Cade Windstalker
#165 - 2016-12-08 04:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
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.
Gizzie Haslack
4249003
#166 - 2016-12-08 08:58:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizzie Haslack
Glathull wrote:
Given what's been said about the random bomb selection and the behavior of the missiles after a bomb has been destroyed, I don't see this as a hard counter to bombs. I see it as adding some amount of mitigation. I don't think that in practice it will be all that bad for bombers. Throw in the additional incentive for new players to get involved meaningfully and have to learn to coordinate, and it's probably a net positive.

The thing that I don't like about it is giving the bonus to command destroyers. We have enough reasons to fly destroyers right now. I'd prefer to see keep the ability to fit them to t1 destroyers (for Alphas) and add the ability for assault frigates to fit them, and put the bonus there.

But maybe that's just because I love my AFs.



AF's eh? Not a bad idea.


But with Bomb Prices so high I am still wary about making it pointless to use Cov-Ops. If Defender Missiles are too good ( unrealistically good compared to Patriot Missile systems ) then a lot of people won't be able to afford to fly Bombers/ T2.

Which isn't great, let's be honest. They're just frigates after all.

Why train when there is no point? And then you lose ship choice, which means losing part of the fun of this game.


I've revised my view to thus:


Defender Missiles for AF's and Dessies. 50% accuracy or summat.


Insurance for T2 ships adapting to the new Sisters of EVE " we need the wormholes " by paying out 15-20m for a 35m Bomber ( instead of the current 5m tops ). Do you need those Wormholes or not?



That would keep game balance. Blapping uninsurable ships more ( what Defenders are about, let's be honest ) would certainly damage the Sisters of EVE initiative, as hunting Cloakies would become more of an option.

I may fly with BB, but the first thing I looked into was how to kill them. I won't say it here, but ISK warfare is a problem for BB if the enemy do certain things. And Defenders are about ISK warfare.

If there is no loot/ less loot, and the ships cost a fortune, then who is going to bother? Serious question. Fun is fun, but if it is too hard to get the ISK then fun will suffer.
Olmeca Gold
Democratic Space Socialism
#167 - 2016-12-08 11:35:04 UTC
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?

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.

Olmeca Gold
Democratic Space Socialism
#168 - 2016-12-08 15:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Olmeca Gold
Nvm

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.

Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#169 - 2016-12-08 17:50:27 UTC
Gizzie Haslack wrote:



But with Bomb Prices so high I am still wary about making it pointless to use Cov-Ops. If Defender Missiles are too good ( unrealistically good compared to Patriot Missile systems ) then a lot of people won't be able to afford to fly Bombers/ T2.



Missiles in EVE always hit. There is no missing with missiles. Who care if it's better than patriot? The game does not have to follow any real life concern. It only does so when it fitting game play wise and balance wise.
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#170 - 2016-12-08 19:03:09 UTC
Quote:
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.


Is there a technical reason for the change to have a minimum bomb velocity? Because otherwise you are killing a valid PVP tactics that was very inventive and difficult to pull off. You can see a few videos of it being done here (Doomcats):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VK36gWs_1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcaL8T-T2XM

I would be very disappointed to see this removed from game without some kind of justification.
Sbrodor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#171 - 2016-12-08 19:06:00 UTC
i support again the no need of that.

in same way give us t2 bomb heavly skill intensive or a bomber cruiser or something making bomber not daily nerfed.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#172 - 2016-12-08 21:28:27 UTC
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 honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Sarah Umbra
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#173 - 2016-12-08 22:53:27 UTC
If this change goes through in the near future, I would like to know if defender missiles on current NPC will changed with this.

Will NPC currently fitted with defender missiles be or not be able to hit incoming missiles if this change is confirmed?
Olmeca Gold
Democratic Space Socialism
#174 - 2016-12-09 11:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Olmeca Gold
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)
--
EDIT: Scratch this, defender changes are there

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.

Rthulhu Voynich
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2016-12-09 15:36:48 UTC
Patchnotes-Update:

"Changed the behavior of Defender Missiles, you can find out more here."
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#176 - 2016-12-09 16:57:51 UTC
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.

Quote:

Changed the behavior of Defender Missiles, you can find out more here.


nope.

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'.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Olmeca Gold
Democratic Space Socialism
#177 - 2016-12-09 19:02:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Olmeca Gold
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 with each nerf to bombing. 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.

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.

Chenguang Hucel-Ge
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2016-12-09 22:28:59 UTC
I'm not into PvP that much, but hey, defenders sound way too OP. Still, If you insist on adding one, please do it, but not without a tool to counter this one.

Behold, duds.

We have Bomb Launcher and then we add another launcher, let's call it "Bar I".
Same fitting requirements of Bomb Launcher, roughly on par everything else.
The difference is charge used. It's a dud, let's call it "Misericorde I". Cheaper than carbon, does no damage at all.
The trick though, these are launched 3 per cycle, allowing for mild space saturation, thus providing some damage loss mitigation at cost of extra man on the field.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#179 - 2016-12-10 13:40:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Chenguang Hucel-Ge wrote:
I'm not into PvP that much, but hey, defenders sound way too OP. Still, If you insist on adding one, please do it, but not without a tool to counter this one.

Behold, duds.

We have Bomb Launcher and then we add another launcher, let's call it "Bar I".
Same fitting requirements of Bomb Launcher, roughly on par everything else.
The difference is charge used. It's a dud, let's call it "Misericorde I". Cheaper than carbon, does no damage at all.
The trick though, these are launched 3 per cycle, allowing for mild space saturation, thus providing some damage loss mitigation at cost of extra man on the field.



nope the counter is bluff runs/more bombs per run 7 is no longer the holy number



i do think this is much to big a nerff to bombs and does need the addition of fun new bombs to compensate.

perhaps a focused bomb that when it hits a target will then web out and hit other targets trickling down in sig size. so you hit a carrier then if any BBs are near it will jump to them and then jump down to the next smaller ships up with a max number of jumps. similar but less powerful than the citadel DD
Gizzie Haslack
4249003
#180 - 2016-12-10 13:48:09 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Chenguang Hucel-Ge wrote:
I'm not into PvP that much, but hey, defenders sound way too OP. Still, If you insist on adding one, please do it, but not without a tool to counter this one.

Behold, duds.

We have Bomb Launcher and then we add another launcher, let's call it "Bar I".
Same fitting requirements of Bomb Launcher, roughly on par everything else.
The difference is charge used. It's a dud, let's call it "Misericorde I". Cheaper than carbon, does no damage at all.
The trick though, these are launched 3 per cycle, allowing for mild space saturation, thus providing some damage loss mitigation at cost of extra man on the field.



nope the counter is bluff runs/more bombs per run 7 is no longer the holy number



Launching duds for the real bombs to hide amongst is a reasonable strategy. If the defenders chase a dud then that is handy stuff.