EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-01-23 18:43
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-08-12 11:43
  • Number of Posts: 100
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 87

Olmeca Gold

Security Status -1.3
  • Pleonexium Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

    But on the downside yeah there are a lot of shithead people that drummed up drama and caused problems in order to get themselves ahead. That's the same with just about any organization. The issue with NPSI groups is that they don't have the structure to enforce any form of power model.

    I think there was a CSM member or something who said he'd do something about that. Instead CCP made small gang pvp in 0.0 great again. Whatever happened to all that...Cool

    All big entities need a shared power structure, yet it seems best ones in Eve are dictatorships which are run by smart, visionary people, and sharing wealth and resources seems to be enough for a common ground for null entities. Do you need to share more power in NPSI? Spectre seems to be doing fine (from the outside), due to a more dictatorial structure compared to BB. That's probably because Jayne is such a visionary. We tried a more democratic but also without creating too much bureaucratic structure, because that was how Tempelman found BB. That was also Nova's favorite way of managing BB and he wouldn't let anyone change that. I tried to push a little but man was tiring.

    Democracy led to constant making of bad management decisions, resulting in an overall stale situation. Many problems went unaddressed. No bureaucracy led to no area specialization and no conflict resolution system.

    Former meant people arbitrarily intervening with jobs that are being done that has nothing to do with them, or which they were no part of, which often made everything a slow painful process and caused lots of arguing. It also led to people doing stuff that others wanted to do (making/promoting a video of a good bombing run, when FC wants to make his own without your knowledge), more conflict.

    Latter is the literal reason why me and Linus are out. Everyone is supposed to be equals in BB leadership, yet nobody knows what happens when someone allegedly does something wrong. Two random FCs started a conversation on slack and kicked me because I didn't give them a website. One FC took it on himself to kick Linus. All leading to this much harm. Maybe we could have solved issues if we had a defined process of what would happen. Hell, maybe I would stop posting on reddit about PL and give them the domain if I knew the sanction was getting kicked from my WH as well as getting banned, regardless of how unfair I would think these sanctions are. But nothing is really defined.

    Nova thought less bureaucracy is really cool so here we are. This is yet another example on why I keep saying BB leadership lacks vision. I hope they read this and learn a little bit. BB will go on. Despite my awoxes or whatever, they still got great FCs, and will provide good content, often thanks to prior efforts of people like me. They will just not be what they could have been, but that's OK.

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    We got our personal issues in BB but they still have some of the best cloaky FCs in this game. I'm just one guy. I will have fun killing some of their fleets when I have the time but one person won't be able to shut all their fleets down. So just try it. They are still nice people with unique content to offer. It becomes problematic only when you become part of the leadership, realize how much better it could have been, realize you are powerless to push them to be better, then begin having personal problems the more you voice your opinion. That has nothing to do with a newbro's experience so again, just try it.

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    Edwin Bauer wrote:
    Olmeca Gold wrote:

    BB makes its ISK by killing PvE ships in null. It gives one good item each kill to the hunter of that kill, %50 of the rest of the loot to FC (who then distributes it to crucial roles in fleets), and takes other %50 for SRP.

    *snipped for brevity's sake*

    So that's basically what happened. If we had the main channel rights perhaps we would have kicked them instead. But they had it. But we had the website and access to the ISK. Hence drama.

    So I take it that the rest of those guys will keep running the bar. Do you plan to run something similar yourself, according to your own vision, or will you just move on?

    Cheers and best of luck to you both.


    I still do solo things I like to do and they take all time I can allocate to Eve. Building an NPSI from scratch is too hard because Spectre or BB will have the first penetration advantage. I might start a corp in summer. I have a nice idea if it holds. RL is too hectic for me to attempt anything at this point.

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    Amber Skir wrote:
    Templeman N was the only reason to fly with Bombers Bar, when he went BB died. P

    If you think so because his charisma, you are right htat there hasn't been such a charismatic FC after him. Nova tried to approximate, but nobody can be him.

    If you think so because content, then BB had much better content only after Tempelman. Best bombing runs, new kind of bombing runs, billions of kills, titan kills, supercap kills all happened after Tempelman.

    He was a charismatic guy with a great idea for Eve. He wasn't the best person in implementing the idea. For example, whenever he had a whaling fleet, he would often rely on 1 guy hunting a specific target or a region. It was only after him BB realized distributing multiple hunters inside a jumprange, instead of using 1 guy who aims to take all the credit and glory of hunting, was a best practice in covert ops whaling.

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    Takedea Miyamoto wrote:
    As ****** of a situation as this is, I'd just like to say thanks to the both of you (Olmeca and Linus). Without getting in to the current situation, I can say I have some damn good memories flying under you. Hell Olmeca you even taught me how to rat with a bomber in LS back in late 2014 I think it was? Whatever happens, thank you for the memories, and all you've contributed to EVE /BB.

    You don't know how much this kind of posts mean to me. Reminds me that I didn't waste all that effort for nothing. Thanks.

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    Edwin Bauer wrote:
    Can I haz free stuff?

    That aside, I'm curious to know where most of that isk came from to begin with? Did it come from donations or from the leadership's pockets?

    Also what percentage of the Bar's leadership was 'problematic' from your perspective? My point being, couldn't you and other likeminded people remove the problematic ones and keep running the show? I've only flown with the Bar like twice, but both times it great fun and I think the whole idea behind it was amazing. It's a pity to see it ruined by petty drama.

    BB makes its ISK by killing PvE ships in null. It gives one good item each kill to the hunter of that kill, %50 of the rest of the loot to FC (who then distributes it to crucial roles in fleets), and takes other %50 for SRP. SRP wallet usually sustains itself and does not accumulate, but we had a 5 bil / month sponsorship from evebet and just before the ban we were able to receive some 15 billion from I Want ISK. CCP didn't take it. We did not waste that money for rainy days, and fleets made enough ISK for SRP, so it' was still there. So ISK is from kills and leftover from old sponsorships.

    BB was found by Tempelman N, who left the game and left the NPSI at the hands of Nova Valentis about 3 years ago. Besides Nova there were about 11 bartenders, 4-5 of which just joined 3 months ago or newer. All these people have amounts and areas of contribution. The new FCs usually listened the others. There were really a couple of people pushing for things to be greater. And a problem was that, because Nova wanted less bureaucracy, there was no strict division of areas which in return caused lots of people to interfere lots of others' contributions. E.g. I had to spend days to convince Nova on how to do things in the website, for which he spent no hours. Thus his understanding of less bureaucracy led to more headache. Below is a pastebin of a mail from me to the rest of the BB people after I got banned, if you want more on how exactly I thought BB was led in a bad way.


    The highest influence on decisions was Nova, then me and the other 2 years old FCs and Linus, after whom all the other FCs. To this day I don't know how exactly BB decides to do things, including kicking me or Linus. They just ask in a slack channel and if nobody objects (often nobody responds) then they take it to themselves to kick people. So basically about 5 people (Nova + two 2 year-olds + two 1 year-olds) decided we should go, and the newcomers did not object, also because they were chosen by Nova to be FCs anyway. This Nova+4 group also spent much social time with these newcomers to have influence over them. Linus and I didn't get the chance.

    The issue is that this Nova+4 probably spent less overall effort (in total number of hours or just creative contribution) for BB than me + Linus. So idk who has the `moral rights` to BB.

    So that's basically what happened. If we had the main channel rights perhaps we would have kicked them instead. But they had it. But we had the website and access to the ISK. Hence drama.

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    Mei Long wrote:
    In all seriousness, I'd like to thank you and Olmecca for your contributions to Bombers Bar. I've flown in quite a few Bombers Bar fleets in the short time I've been playing EVE, and your contributions have positively contribute to my enjoyment of the game. While I disapprove of your actions, (and quite possibly the actions of the other side too) I do truly appreciate all the hard work you both have put into Bombers Bar.


    I really appreciate your post. I hope our paths cross again.

    When I began this game I tried hard to stay out of political stuff or power play, which I quickly realized was why most relevant people were playing this game. Instead I tried to focus developing my in-game skillset, and hunted alone a lot. That's probably why, when I finally decided playing alone was not enough, I became an NPSI person. No politics, just explosions, if you buy it.

    Unfortunately finding yourself in a position of leadership somewhere makes such escape impossible. You start caring about this entity and making it big, more than caring about your own name/experience. But since it's also a collectively owned thing, in a space where other hostile entities exist, political problems arise either from within or externally.

    I really wish we weren't in this situation, but here we are. I'll just try to make the best of it.

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    Drago Tzu wrote:
    You couldn't wait until after SRP was completed for my bomber?!

    Can you please SRP my bomber?

    Pls send your request to Daenerys Gorp

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    JakeMiester wrote:
    Not gonna say I called this literally a year or so ago but... Big smile

    Oh it's not like we did not also call you'd harm BB in some way and leave :)

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    JetStream Drenard wrote:
    If you like what bombers bar stood for, but believe it is being led by bads, then why dont you create a new one that is not bad?

    This kind of thing requires too much metagame marketing effort to do, while we just want to play the game.

  • I just took every ISK that Bombers Bar had - AMA in EVE Gameplay Center

    More detail, and my viewpoint at http://www.bombersbareve.com/

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Now lets remove nullification from anything but an interceptor.

    Oh the amount of playstyles you have to be ignorant of to even suggest this makes me lol

    PS: Lots of us dont care about how frustrating nullified combat ships might have been for nullblob people. Two things this game definitely absolutely needs to keep having are nullified covert cyno ships and nullified probers.

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Vic Jefferson wrote:

    I respectfully disagree. Cov-ops ships are not one-use ships for hunting; provided a response fleet does not reach it before the 60s Covert Cyno is up, we find that cov-ops and prospects typically last 3 or more drops. We actually favor them because response fleets are a death sentence to hunters - I would rather not lose a 1 bill tengu every time a response fleet shows up, which is often. A casual perusing of your activity indicates that you appear to hunt where there are fewer reliable response fleets so yes, we are working with different environments. My window for black ops is about 10 seconds - that's how long you have on grid before you are overwhelmed with frigates. That being said, most larger targets like snakes are never a problem for our smaller hunters, especially given how fast our damage applies them - by the time our hunter is even locked by the target, its basically over. That, coupled with a small sig and tank, makes them keenly effective. Skilled Cov-Ops and Prospect pilots have no trouble burning many gates or through many camps - they are exceptionally hard to catch for all but the most skilled sabre pilots.

    While I see that we happen to prefer different hunting tactics, I consider one of my main play areas blops, and see the Tengu and all other T3 hunters as trash honestly - I wouldn't see them losing nullification as a threat or even a change to my play. My assessement is that they are useful and practical in a limited amount of situations when you have everything under control as far as reinforcements, escalations, and counter-drops, but when these are not true, you pay 20x more than you need to get the job done, and risk feeding your opponents - the very ones you were supposed to be using blopsy tactics to pick unfair fights in the first place. Things change a good deal if you are trying to drop on gangs or actual things that can fight back quite dramatically, but in these cases you do not need the combination of cloaky and nullified to effectively initiate on them.

    My recent activity has been some solo activity but I FC large bomber fleets and we drop mainly on carriers (or larger if we are able to catch them). As an NPSI FC without blue standings I hunted and hotdropped in every single null region in Eve. We used many covops people as well but only as a starter hunter. Nullification makes every difference when it comes to bubblefucked regions (which most of them are). Meanwhile when I check your zkill its obvious you either do lowsec or northern areas which bubbles are used way less and people rely on responses more. Maybe that explains why our judgement regarding the value of T3 nullification have been different?

    I agree that frigates have a higher chance vs battleships. But you're neither gonna blap a carrier nor you will be able to jam its fighters before it blaps the Buzzard. It's gonna 1 shot it. You are doing things right if you got the fleet or backup cyno on grid, if you are inexperienced this will not happen as well. If the carrier won't kill it, the rats in anomalies will randomly turn on it and kill it. That being said, maybe some %25 of the buzzards will survive a carrier because he was afk etc. That's still not a good number for a fleet deep inside enemy territory so the hunter needs to burn back all that distance.

    We handle a decent size response pretty easily but say a 30 man svipul fleet would force us warp off grid. But by the time enemy gets such overwhelming numbers, the 1 minute cyno timer will usually be over. Thus we rarely lose any Tengu. Meanwhile Tengus (even though they are usually cheap t2) are actually tanky enough to survive until our falcons get on grid and jam carriers/rattlesnakes. And their nullification helps get past the bubblefucks and tackle targets fast enough.

    I agree that what I said might not be valid for every single BLOPS group in this game, given the fact that we operated in all regions in all sizes of fleets and (assuming from your zkill) you operated in a limited amount of regions I think what I said could be more general than you think.

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Vic Jefferson wrote:

    Questionable. If you took away the nullification of T3Cs without adjusting bubbles, people may grow even more complacent, and feel even more secure behind a bubble camp. Speaking from my experience at least, 95% of the time, the hunter being good has nothing to do with catching something - it has to do entirely with how much the target is paying attention. If they did not have to fear a nullified hunter, my prediction is they would grow vastly more complacent and less aware if they have bubbles out. We live in an age when most of the good ratting ships are either oversize prop, have MJDs, or can rat 100% aligned - the very instant they feel threatened is the very instant they are off grid - this alone is another problem for a later post of course, but the heart of the matter is their reaction time determines the success of the hunt. Anything that makes them feel safer potentially serves to lower this reaction time.

    While I agree they should not remove nullification on T3Cs until bubbles are not 100% 'free' interdiction, if they did remove it before doing so, it wouldn't be the end of the world for blops - not by a long shot! There are many, many other choices for hunters, and ones that have proven track records in some of the most heavily defended space in the game.

    I'm not saying the hunter will be out of options. There is the option of logging off in a ratting system, or Gulnar style tactics to catch DED runners which I myself rely on a lot. And I don't say catching a target relies purely on reaction time.

    But here is what I think happens. In current state of null, over %95 of anomaly runners (miner or combat ship) will notice you in intel channels, or in local, or they are bots, and they will get safe. So in one sense it's not about the reaction time as you say. Of the remaining %5, I say at least %2 will survive if they were given 30 seconds more reaction time. But given that these make up %40 of all anomaly runners that a blops group catches, and the majority of PVEers who die to BLOPs groups are anomaly runners, this IS a significant blow on BLOPS groups.

    For the carelessness part, I really don't think removing nullification from T3Cs will have any significant impact on null PvE'rs mentality, increasing the voluntary risk they are taking, in either ratting more or staying on grid more after a neutral appears in system. If a neutral appears, then you dock, regardless of nullification status quo, because there is a multitude of places the neutral could be coming from (logging in, wormhole, jumping to a blue covert cyno, etc etc). So nerfing nullification at gates will not make them feel safer.

    Another issue is if you remove nullification people will %100 give up T3Cs for covert cyno hunting, which was the initial point in using them. Instead they will go for 1-use ships such as covops frigs (and they are 1-use because upon cynoing up they will die to the target before target is dead). This is due to that if they kept up with Tengus there would be shitloads of deaths to gatecamps, because covops HKs have to take 60-70 gates to completely cover their range, and you don't wanna die to gatecamps everyday in 1 billion ships. Also buzzards etc. will become faster at catching targets if Tengus are deprived of nullification. In turn, being forced to use 1-use frigates for covert hunting will be a logistical nightmare for many fleets, which will need to replace the ship (or even bring back the pod from its home station), to a region which they probably reached by jumping distances or taking wormholes, meanwhile you can just keep on hunting in a Tengu upon killing a target.

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    What BLOPSers Think about Nullified T3s:

    I predict there are two groups of people who will have strong negative feelings about nullified T3s. They will be either gatecampers because they will find covert cloaky nullification OP. Or small/large scale fleet consensual pvp people in null and wormholes will have negative feelings about them because they will find combat capability of nullified T3s OP. If you completely remove nullification from T3s some of these people will be happy and I admit that the changes would probably provide them a slightly more interesting and meaningful gameplay. I offer a solution in the end which works to solve issues of BLOPSers and fleet warfare people but not for gatecampers, which is the best I could come up with.

    Here is the catch.

    Given that how Eve should be an interesting risk/reward game (which rewards risk-taking), nullsec with the current state of local is really safer than it should be for PvE ships (on another note it is also not rewarding enough IMHO). The only thing you have to do to survive is to dock when someone comes in local. And on top of that you have intel channels, bubblefucked gates, system wide cyno jamming, etc etc. I'm not even mentioning botting activities, which in my experience either CCP or Eve community as a whole (because we don't report them enough) is inefficient in combating this. But the fact is a carrier or a super will see a roaming enemy fleet coming from miles away, and if not, then notice it in local, and dock. This mechanic that completely relies on carelessness on the part of owners of the PvE ships in null is already something that should be replaced with mechanics that rely on creativity and outplaying each other, which is an issue for another topic. But moral here is nullsec is already a safe place.

    Aside from ragerolling nullsec static wormholes (which is accessible only to few WH groups who you will notice keeps killing PvE supers), perhaps the only way to even have a chance to catch/kill these PvE ships is to use a nullified covops Tengu with a blops fleet. Because a nullified Tengu is fast, combat probe capable, and it doesn't take 30 precious seconds for it to burn away from the bubblefucked gate, which is even more time for a PvE ship needs to warp off, who already has time enough without nullification. And if you ever go to null, you will notice %95 of main ratting systems have bubblefucked gate. Nerfing anchorable bubbles is not a solution here, because if you make them expire they will just renew it, and if you completely remove them those who rat in billions worth ships will %100 have the means to spare some alt toons to bubble their in gates. Yes there will be systems which won't be paying attention, but overall you will make nullsec even safer, especially for those who are not careless. But this is not a good thing because there is no interesting mechanic where the hunter can outplay the careful null group. And in my experience the carelessness mechanic is also unsustainable in a sandbox game because people GROW careful after few mistakes, and the average experience/carefulness level of PvE'rs in Eve nullsec is not static but steadily increasing.

    Thus if you nerf covops nullified tengus, you will blow a HUGE hit to BLOPS gameplay, and make nullsec even safer, which should be highly undesirable. Furthermore this gameplay (especially active hunting) is more interesting and fun than gatecamping, which is a rather lazy method of finding kills. So you don't really want to nerf BLOPS to buff gatecamping, which will force more people to play Eve in a more lazy and less creative way.

    Bottom line is that you can try and find a solution to combat capable nullified ships, but this game should maintain a combat probe/covert cloak/covert cyno capable nullified ship as an option if you want to avoid making it less interesting. By definition this also has to enable those who want to safely carry precious low volume cargo through null but if gatecampers think this is lame, well BLOPS groups will think it is a decent price to pay to keep the nullsec the risky place it should be.

    Lastly, I would like to notify you guys at CCP/CSM. Because gatecampers outnumber blopsers, and everyone is interested in solving their own specific problems, the majority of the feedback in this thread might suggest detaching covert ops cloak from nullification. It doesn't mean these players have considered different kinds of gameplays and the balance among them, which should be of utmost importance for you guys. It really worries me when you rely on quantitatively superior feedback, rather than qualitatively superior feedback, and even the CSM election system is reinforcing this issue.



    Make it so that nullification subsystems can only be fitted together with covops subsystems and doesn't work with any other offensive subsystem. Covert ops subsytems already bring a nice limitation to the combat capability of any T3C, so mandating nullification to only be compatible with covert ops entirely solves the issue of highly combat capable nullified ships in fleet warfare. Meanwhile it will not affect any other T3C balance issue, nor require a change in subsystem visuals etc., so it will be minimum hassle for CCP.

    Meanwhile this solution maintains BLOPS groups' capabilities, which shouldn't be nerfed as I already argued.

    It will not solve gatecampers' issues with covert cloaky nullification, but as I argued these issues should be posterior to not only issues of BLOPS gameplay but also the risk/reward balance in nullsec for the reasons I have provided above. Also, if you take away nullification from T3Cs, it's not like people keep carrying those PLEXes in T3Cs. They will be forced to access other solutions such as jump freighters, which will not change anything in a gatecamper's life. Overall covert cloaky nullification for T3Cs does more good than bad for this game.

  • [December] Defender Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kruselloyne wrote:
    SoulMIner wrote:

    Edit: 10 pages of negative reply's day one of post, is a move in the wrong direction.

    Like 10 people in those 10 pages, but who's counting?

    People complain about every change CCP makes because it's not fixing THEIR pet issue.

    Yeah people complain but its all about the negative/positive ratio and degree of the feedback. If you are gonna stop hearing negative feedback because "people always complain" then what is the purpose of a request of feedback in the first place right?

    Personally I have never seen a change with this much overwhelmingly uniform negative feedback being rushed into the implementation without giving it a second thought. The uniformity of negative feedback for this one is on a par with the cancelled "cloakies decloak each other when cloaked" change.

    Two reasons for this I think is that firstly CCP is rightly enthusiastic about giving alphas meaningful play (but they are doing it wrong), and secondly there is not really a lot of people in CSM who represents bombing fleets' interests, at least to the degree of being able to make their voice heard.

    At this point what I expect is gonna happen is that as bombing FCs we will keep trying good bombing runs (but probably way less often), and we will succeed at times (but at a much lower level than a balanced meta deserves), and then some bombing illiterate CSM member will come and say "oh you can still bomb we told you defenders were a balanced change" and get his upvotes. Meanwhile you will see a good bombing run perhaps once in four months instead of one (which is already a low rate than a balanced meta deserves), and bombing will slowly and surely sink down to deep frozen depths of meta.

    If nothing else changes.

    PS: I hope you get that what I'm writing here are observations and expectations, not complaints.

  • [December] Defender Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    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.

  • [December] Defender Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    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

  • [December] Defender Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center


  • [December] Defender Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    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?

Forum Signature

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.