tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post8022072550168469775..comments2023-10-25T07:19:08.019-05:00Comments on The Nosy Gamer: A Stealth Bomber Nerf Due To ISBoxer?NoizyGamerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17315716516032999133noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-11526141232350146502014-10-12T13:39:42.461-05:002014-10-12T13:39:42.461-05:00This subverts the design principles that CCP tried...This subverts the design principles that CCP tried to establish with its tiericide effort. CCP wants to make all ships viable. The prevalence of stealth bomber ganges basically takes half the ships in EVE out of play in null sec really damages that goal. I've seen both CFC and PL pilots write and tweet that CCP needed to make cloaked ships decloak each other because of ISBoxer-controlled stealth bomber gangs.NoizyGamerhttp://nosygamer.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-71808414722914474292014-10-11T20:27:58.573-05:002014-10-11T20:27:58.573-05:00Don't see the problem. Per your article, CFC ...Don't see the problem. Per your article, CFC easily adjusted by switching to armor-tanked ships. Now, if there was no option to do so, ie. forced to stay with shield-tanked ships only, then I'd see reason for CCP to do something about it.Larry Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-88278325137196873982014-10-10T17:10:45.918-05:002014-10-10T17:10:45.918-05:00That is the most backasswards EVE logic I've e...That is the most backasswards EVE logic I've ever heard.godihatdisqusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-49081084744112851062014-10-10T10:50:15.106-05:002014-10-10T10:50:15.106-05:00Tiberizzle wrote:
a bonus to covert jump portal fa...Tiberizzle wrote:<br />a bonus to covert jump portal fatigue is stupid<br /><br />bomber siegefleets are one of the most effective tools in the sov null strategic toolbox and nearly everyone has a combat T3 doctrine, which can carry a depot and refit in space to a minimal mass covert/nullified travel fit<br /><br />pretty much the absolute last thing the game needs is everything except low-counterability, non-content-generating coward strategies and convenience features to be kneecapped in the name of nerfing force projection while the most egregious examples of content avoidance tactics are buffed stratospherically<br /><br />Greyscale wrote:<br />This isn't the only change we're making to bombers in this release.Dirk MacGirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-33414242328806659012014-10-10T10:21:19.305-05:002014-10-10T10:21:19.305-05:00It could also be that it's just a glitch in SI...It could also be that it's just a glitch in SISI. v0vDirk MacGirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-17441771442048899562014-10-10T10:20:26.188-05:002014-10-10T10:20:26.188-05:00ISBoxer may not have been a problem, but that'...ISBoxer may not have been a problem, but that's only it was mainly being used as a tool for ISK generation via PVE. And we all know the markets and economy don't matter, right? No matter what ISBoxer is used for, it is wrong. It's only become more noticeable now through their use in PVP, primarily their effects on bombing. But no matter the use, it either shouldn't exist or CCP should build the functionality into the game and just mainstream it. Hey, there's an ideaDirk MacGirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-80764769012666885662014-10-10T10:14:40.408-05:002014-10-10T10:14:40.408-05:00Although I dislike intensely the idea of balancing...Although I dislike intensely the idea of balancing the game around ISBoxer, I can't disagree with your comments regarding alts.<br /><br /><br />On the subject of high sec, though, I've often wondered what would happen to the volume of mining if CCP decided to ban ISBoxer. Everyone talks about risk vs. reward, but from a purely economic standpoint, I think tedium vs. reward is just as important.Messiah Complexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-50475496151886291352014-10-10T09:14:48.451-05:002014-10-10T09:14:48.451-05:00ISBoxer was not a problem until bombers were buffe...ISBoxer was not a problem until bombers were buffed not to decloak each other when closer then 2 km. No one was using ISBoxer for bombers. However then the buff came and ever since then ISBoxer bomb squads have been a scourge. However, even without ISBoxer the current bombers are too strong. The fact that they don't decloak each others made bombing ridiculously easy. You can pile as many bombers as you'd like on one place without having to worry too much. Previously you had to make sure all the bombers are at a range from each other, which was a non trivial thing. Therefore, even without ISBoxer I would say that the buff had to go.The_Langnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-58111784044463171102014-10-10T07:06:53.732-05:002014-10-10T07:06:53.732-05:00Not a chance CCP bans ISBoxer's. It has been s...Not a chance CCP bans ISBoxer's. It has been said before, and it still holds true. CCP can't afford to ban ISBoxing accounts. CCP has made a commitment to MORE alt accounts, not less. How many players are already gearing up with more capital alts to run the inverted pony express to circumvent the fatigue timers?<br /><br />CCP has given up on high sec, wormholes, and likely low sec playstyles, and is "all in", gambling that they can increase the null sec population enough to outweigh the ongoing sub losses in the other areas of the game. And that means Alt's Online, which means ISBoxer is here to stay.Viince_Snettertonnoreply@blogger.com