Seriously. I don't consider myself a bomber, but old RSS was my FAVORITE weapon, when I logged in today and saw there was a reboot for the new shards I was devastated and thought to myself "they actually did it, they actually ----ing did it" and I was even more offended that they turned the "compensation" into a free UV tickets for all event, while they expected me to craft a whole new bomb to get my elemental damage back (I didn't by the way, there's no way I am using this thing) The two bombs don't compare in any way, and I'm not sure how they justified replacing it. Bombers keep getting the short end of the stick, you put bombing in the game OOO, why don't you want people to play it?
Sorry that got off topic, I support this suggestion.

All those (nonsentimental) reasons you listed as why the old bomb was good and should be kept were the very reasons that Three Rings removed them. It wasn't even that they wanted to change them/add new ones, they removed them because they wanted that playstyle gone because they didn't feel it was bomber-like. People can cry all they like but unless someone can actually contest the core reason they were removed, they're not going to be brought back.

Yes, they added more variety/playstyle to bombs. That very thing was undesirable in the big picture. It wasn't bomb-like enough to Three Rings.

If you don't like the pure-bomb style, then don't go pure bombs. The solution isn't to ask for a bomb that isn't like a bomb so you can say you're using pure bombs.

Swords can shoot projectiles further than any gun, it's totally fine.
Guns can deal more close range damage than any sword, also fine.
Bombs can't shoot long range projectiles or deal burst damage, because that's unbalanced.

I personally Dont have a shard bomb. But, I understand. Shards were the only bombers weapons I fear in LD. (although I can dodge most of them well) But now, they are SO much easier to dodge. Get out OOO, We want our precious beautiful shards back. +1

swords do a mix of the two.

Or if you own any 5-star sword, both at once.

guns fire bullets

Unless you own an Autogun line weapon, then they just create 45° cones of death in front of them.
Can't forget Polaris and Alchemers either.

Why fix something that isn't even slightly broken in comparison to the rest of the line-up of weapons?

"old RSS werent bomb like"

Simple, rename them to 'experimental 8-way cannon-gun'. Problem solved, no need to erase them. What a bad excuse.

but the idea of changing my old shard bomb, (which i paid darn good money to get vh ctr) then adding a new to do the exact same thing.........this makes absolutely no sense, if you step back and consider it.

leave my old shard bomb as is. then make a new one that does the new function.

p.s. they should at least give us the option of choosing which "new line" of the shards our old RSS is. i mean, i got a DBB for peircing damage, not they just made my RSS a dumbed down DBB....thanks but no thanks, really

I honestly couldn't care less about how the bomb itself actually works. I have no opinion whatsoever, not even the slightest, about how it used to work, how it functions now, and how it ought to in the future. My only concern was the fact that most people seem to completely miss the intent behind the change. As far as I can tell/Three Rings said, it had little to do with balance and little/nothing to do with how swords/guns worked. They only cared about how bombs in general work and how that specific bomb worked. People who try to bring up analogies about other weapons function fail on this comprehension completely.

On the note of analogies that fail, I'm going to throw out another complaint that always bugged me. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because another weapon fails/is imbalanced/whatever doesn't mean yours should be too. It means they should fix both. Or, in the worse case, just fix what they can now. I can not for the life of me fathom why anyone would argue that they should break one thing so it is just as broken as two other things.

Doarael, we aren't missing the intent of it. What we are saying is their intent and what is actually happening in the game... doesn't add up.

We aren't saying that we don't appreciate them working on all these bombs for us to use. We are complaining that they took a bomb that we all enjoyed and changed it completely. If the bomb wasn't what they intended at all, they should have just taken the bomb out of the game a long time ago.

Here are some changes to the RSS that I could handle... a bit of a bigger blast radius, like a bit smaller than the proto bomb, and a shorter range on the shards (but the shards go out away from the blast radius).

What's sad is that instead of them keeping it the way it is and creating all new lines... they completely replaced it. So now... hardly anyone is going to appreciate these new bombs, which are actually fun to use... but a bit useless. It just saddens me. I'm disappointed. Plus... they are glitchy. These were not ready to be released yet.

On the note of analogies that fail

They're entirely valid comparisons.
If bombs are only meant to create areas of damage, then guns should only fire SINGLE bullets and swords should either shoot short range line projectiles OR hit in arcs.

Since they are how those particular weapons are described in the exact same post you're using to try and discredit everybody's opinions.

fail on this comprehension completely.

Looks like somebody can't read.

PROTIP: It's you.

Those are your opinions. Do guns not shoot bullets? Are swords not a mix of the two? Do bombs not create areas of damage? As long as those things are satisfied, mission accomplished.

Anything you guys add on top of that are personal opinions. They never said guns exclusively fire bullets and nothing else can. They never said bullets can't explode. Or any of other possible things that people add on to it. Distinguish what is said and what you want it to mean, please.

Edit: To reiterate, because people seem to not be able to get the point unless it's spelled out for them, the old RSS was used for single target reasons more than area damage much more often than Three Rings intended/desired. Thus, it did break the intentions of bombs. Unless you can find me a gun that doesn't actually shoot bullets (regardless of what those freaking bullets do), there is no gun analogy. What is said and how you read it are not the same.

well a change is a change, i think OOO should at least make a 1* or 2* bomb having the old 'shards bomb' characteristic, just like hot edge and wrench wand, we consider as 'fun' weapons.

I'm gonna miss the bomb *sniff*. Sorry, gotta blow my nose. BBBTTTHHHH!!!!!!!

Previous announcement .

Reason for the changes:
"The current shard-style bombs are functionally, not very bomb-like. They are the standouts in the system we've tried to build whereby: guns fire bullets, bombs create areas of damage, and swords do a mix of the two."

Oh, you made a post earlier that I wanted to respond to but kind of forgot in the midst of replying to other people so I'll do so now.

First, I'm going to repeat that I actually don't care about the old or new RSS but am just trying to explain how I interpret Three Rings intentions/actions.

Now, I'm guessing the reason they want weapons that are not too "out of character" is that they want people to have a reason to diversify their arsenal. Yes, you can go all sword, or all guns, or all bombs. But going all in in a certain thing should have its limitations with such specializations. Sure, a DA/Brandish/whatever other sword might be long range/projectile can function as a "gun" but I don't think anyone would seriously try to argue that it's just as good/better than using an actual gun that is good against a Gun Puppy that is on a floating isle (or what have you). Bombs were intended for AE and the RSS was used too much for single target purposes (whether to one shot mobs or to snipe things far away).

On a personal and completely subjective note, I feel that the Blitz suffers similarly not because of it's one shot use but the fact that it's typically used as a close range weapon, which is how I feel (again, me, personally) guns ought to work. As long as they fire bullets though, they technically satisfied how guns ought to work as how Three Rings defined it. Three Rings never said that guns need to be primarily a ranged weapon. While, yes, you can use RSS for area damage, I think most people weren't, and Three Rings was unhappy with that.

Edit: added a "not" in a place that really should have been there as far as my intentions went. And a "can." Words are hard.

One thing that came to mind when I heard about the new shard bomb was " I feel bad for people like roarr, chawkthree and more people who were beast at LD w/ RSS" on the bright side the ISB which has dmg bonus slime is now actually useful on jellies bcuz it does shadow dmg now :P

The Shard bombs didn't make guns insignificant. Guns could fire three bullets without the need of a charge shot. The Shard bombs could only plant one bomb with the need of a charge shot.

Your "Three Rings wanted more diversity among players' arsenals" isn't a valid reason. In the story, there were knights who specialized in different areas (striker, bomber, guardian, etc.). They're not that different from swordsmen, gunslingers, and bombers. If Three Rings wanted to support diversity among players' arsenals, they wouldn't have even included knight that specialize in different things (as shown in the Hall of Heroes). They want players to have the option of being specialized in an area so that they can be a skilled master of that area on their team.

And the Shard bombs were created for damaging multiple enemies, which is exactly what AoE is, the damaging of multiple enemies. If you got enemies all around you, plant a Shard bomb, and all of them get hit. How is that not AoE? Besides, if there's only one enemy left, and all you got is Bombs, you aren't inclined to use a Shard bomb to eliminate that one enemy.

@Darkparadox: Bombs were intended to be AE. The old RSS was mainly used for single target purposes (sniping and one shotting). It could be used for multi target purposes but most people didn't. I don't think Three Rings liked that, thus changed it.

@Sourix: Distinguish fact and opinion please. It was my opinion that they wanted people to either have a diverse arsenal if people wanted things that were good for everything, and people who specialized (sword only, guns only, bombs only) couldn't do some things as well. That is my opinion. It does not matter.

What is fact is that most people used RSS for single target and not multitarget/AE for PvE (I'm not going to try to pretend to know anything about PvP).

I can not stress enough how little it matters about how the bomb worked compared to swords and/or guns. It does not. Three Rings cared about how the RSS worked compared to other bombs. Talking about swords and/or guns is pointless.

i love the change, needed to be more bomb-like

i didnt like being cheap-lucky in lockdown so yeah.

I actually don't consider any of those exploits.

Again, it doesn't matter if it could be used for AE. Most people used it for single target DPS. Three Rings did not approve, thus they changed it. It's really that simple.

Also, I think I already mentioned it in this very thread but even assuming you are right about those being exploits, two (or six) wrongs don't make a right. Just because one or five other things are broken doesn't mean this thing shouldn't be fixed.

Do you really think shield canceling was intentional? Do you really think Shiver'ing Vanna and Blitz'ing him down was intentional? Or even infinite ammo for the Alchemer line? If you do you need more experience in gaming. Also, they have fixed SOOO many things due to exploits it snot funny. First time LoA was released, you could kill all of the almirian crusaiders with blitz before you got in the room. What happened 2 days later? Patch fpr Deadnaught sounds, but no mention on LoA being changed a bit. They added walls to the places and put crusaiders further back to not make it a cake walk. Beta testers remember when DA charge was Op on vanna, what happens? Patched. New orbs. Oh, and what about Vannaduke's issue with the alchmer series and how they ricochet inside him making the charge pretty strong until P5? i doubt that was intended. His large model made him vulnerable but they did not plan that, but there is no fix yet due to the way Java works. And Shield canceling allows you to have ASI boost low until the 3rd strike, or infinite strikes on 2-hit or more (DVS and WHB) swords. What about FOV on Jelly King? Or Dark Retributions OP'ness, then they over nerf it. The list goes on. Do you REALLY think that this is fair after giving you a small amount of things they fixed due to exploits? If they fix one they should fix all.

and a side note: A winmillion does not make me feel like a swordsman. OOO, better do something about this!!!!1!one!

@Darkparadox: I said I didn't consider any of the things you originally listed as exploits. Yes, I'm sure there are other things that were unintended. To counter some of the original ones you listed: I'm guessing shield cancelling was intentional consider you can only cancel incomplete combos. Why can't you shield cancel after a full combo and negate the freeze period where you're vulnerable? There is no reason that the code should work one way for that (end of combo) and another way for the attacks that you can shield cancel. Also shivering Vana was likely intentional because it can easily be fixed. Darkfire Vana is immune to freeze. Do you really think it's that hard to make Vana immune to freeze if they can make Darkfire immune? They left it as is. There's no way of knowing about whether weapon swapping is intentional or not. Unlike some of you, I'm not going to pretend to know one way or another for certain though.

The whole exploit thing aside, you didn't actually counter or even respond to my real arguments. RSS was still mainly a single target weapon to most people and Three Rings didn't want most people using it that way. Yes, some people used it differently but the fact that you could use it that way and that it was most widely used that way is something else. Also the whole being wrong two+ times makes this being wrong acceptable is absurd.

@Dancinjen: You're welcomed to ignore my posts if you want. It's kind of silly to say that I'm arguing for the sake of arguing when I am simply trying to explain to people why I think Three Rings made the changed they did. It's a really simple reason. I don't get what the hold up is.

People can make all the random arguments they want and if they're just going to ignore the reasons for why Three Rings did what they did I doubt Three Rings is going to care what you have to say. If you want them to care then pay more attention to what they have to say and why they do what they do before opening your mouth.

Here is a post from someone who got banned that tried to make an analogy of what they did with shield cancelling. Eurydice shot it down. I think that's sufficient to say that they don't find shield cancelling to be an exploit.

You missed the point. Eurydice didn't say "This bigger exploit is way worse than this smaller one." She completely ignored the other supposed exploit, because it wasn't one. It's a game play mechanic that only people who are loosely trying to grasp at wild analogies/straws try to make out as an exploit. It's not.

Also again, this is not a case of two wrongs making a right or one wrong being better/worse than another wrong. One thing is a wrong, another thing is not a wrong. Please don't try to make this thing wrong because you think other things are wrong (irrelevant of whether they are or are not wrong).