These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Are the old cloaking habits back?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Commander Elysium
Tinbox Communications Group Inc
#1 - 2014-10-09 21:39:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Elysium
As of the latest build on SIS two cloaked ships now uncloak if they venture closer than 2000m to each other.
Is this just a bug on SISI or is this planned to be implemented in Phoebe?

If I remember correct CCP has stated that the uncloaking of cloaked ships was a bug and was fixed so that cloaked ships wont uncloak each other.
Does this mean that you are reverting back to a known bug or what is the deal here?
Wrik Hoover
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2014-10-09 21:52:11 UTC
ok
Porucznik Borewicz
GreenSwarm
#3 - 2014-10-09 22:01:47 UTC
CCP moonwalking back one step at a time.
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#4 - 2014-10-09 22:06:09 UTC
Finally.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#5 - 2014-10-09 22:16:19 UTC
Alundil
Rolled Out
#6 - 2014-10-09 22:41:09 UTC
Commander Elysium wrote:
As of the latest build on SIS two cloaked ships now uncloak if they venture closer than 2000m to each other.
Is this just a bug on SISI or is this planned to be implemented in Phoebe?

If I remember correct CCP has stated that the uncloaking of cloaked ships was a bug and was fixed so that cloaked ships wont uncloak each other.
Does this mean that you are reverting back to a known bug or what is the deal here?

Inquiring minds want to know. Hopefully this isn't a kludgy fix to get around the isbox'd bomber fleets

I'm right behind you
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
Kvitravn.
#7 - 2014-10-09 22:50:17 UTC
This would be quite annoying in w-space...
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#8 - 2014-10-10 14:13:10 UTC
If this is intentional, and not just OP not knowing what is in space near him, then this is not the nerf that bombs need. In fact, this is not a nerf to bombs. Only to covert cloaks. It effects all sorts of non-bombing gameplay that just happen to involve covert cloaks.

Because no one did bombing runs before the decloaking bug was fixed, amirite?

Nope. I'll just leave this here. http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=4000544

If CCP wants to fix bombs, they need to do something about how much damage is applied to large targets by bombs. This can be adjusted in any number of fashions.


  1. Reduce raw bomb damage.
  2. Reduce application of bombs by increasing the explosion radius of bombs.
  3. Reduce application of bombs by adding explosion velocity to bombs. Make it a very low number (sub 100m/s), kthx.
  4. Reduce/remove the unbalanced signature radius penalty to shield extenders and core defense shield extender rigs.
  5. Introduce a skill that reduces the signature radius penalty of shield extenders. There is already one for CDFE rigs. There is already Armor Honeycombing skill for armor plate velocity penalty. Why not one for shield extenders?


Any of these options would do it. Some are more desirable than others for various reasons. I'm a fan of option 5. Call it Shield Harmonics Focusing?


http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#9 - 2014-10-10 19:21:37 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
  • Introduce a skill that reduces the signature radius penalty of shield extenders. There is already one for CDFE rigs. There is already Armor Honeycombing skill for armor plate velocity penalty. Why not one for shield extenders?
    • [/list]

    Any of these options would do it. Some are more desirable than others for various reasons. I'm a fan of option 5. Call it Shield Harmonics Focusing?



    True, but really, it's the entire shield vs armor that is out of whack.

    The penalty for armor is mass, thus your agility/speed are impacted. However, having lower speed doesn't affect incoming non-missile damage directly for any weapon system. In fairness, it's a 2nd-order contributor to how tightly you can orbit etc. though that rarely matters in large fights where wings of bombers come into play.

    The penalty for shield tanking is signature radius, which is a first order contributor to how easily you get hit, how quickly you can be locked, how easy you are to scan, how much damage you take from bombs, etc.

    I'd love to see a new skill that gives 20% reduction in the signature penalty for shield extenders and shield rigs per level. I'd call it Shield Harmonics Integrity Thresholding.
    Shuckstar
    Blue Dreams Plus
    #10 - 2014-10-11 14:47:47 UTC
    Sephira Galamore wrote:
    This would be quite annoying in w-space...


    erm how about HTFU or GTFO Lol wasn't that the line being used about the jump drive changes and fatigue stuff on null sec dwellers?


    Also i hope it is not a bug, cloaked ships next to each other should decloak them like they used to.

    CCP Greyscale wrote:"OK, I've read every post up to page 200, and we're getting to a point in this thread where there's not a lot of new concerns or suggestions being brought up. There will be future threads (and future blogs) as we tune details, but for now I want to thank you for all of your constructive input, and wish you a good weekend :)"

    ISD LackOfFaith
    ISD Community Communications Liaisons
    ISD Alliance
    #11 - 2014-10-13 17:01:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD LackOfFaith
    FYI: I am redirecting other threads with feedback on this change to this thread. If you have friends who would like to comment on this change, please give them this thread rather than have them start a new one. It saves the CCL having to copy-paste the following forum rule:

    Quote:
    17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.

    As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread.


    With this post I have hereby bumped and decloaked this thread!

    ISD LackOfFaith

    Captain

    Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

    Interstellar Services Department

    I do not respond to Eve Mail or anything other than the forums.
    Arsine Mayhem
    Doomheim
    #12 - 2014-10-13 17:38:15 UTC
    Shuckstar wrote:
    Sephira Galamore wrote:
    This would be quite annoying in w-space...


    erm how about HTFU or GTFO Lol wasn't that the line being used about the jump drive changes and fatigue stuff on null sec dwellers?


    Also i hope it is not a bug, cloaked ships next to each other should decloak them like they used to.


    Because everyone should care bear in null where it's safe.
    Rek Seven
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #13 - 2014-10-13 17:58:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
    This would be a step back for wormhole combat.

    Cloaky combat in w-space relies on people being within jump range of a wormhole and if you are constantly being decloaked by fleetmates, it will ruin your chance of a fight. Further more, remaining cloaked during fleet warps becomes impossible.

    This change sounds like a lazy way to compat isboxer bombing runs. If that is the reason then ban isboxer!

    If CCP make it so you can see cloaked fleet mates, is won't be so bad but if not, going back to the old cloak mechanics is a bad thing imo.

    The wishlist is pretty much complete...
    Thatt Guy
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #14 - 2014-10-13 18:03:32 UTC
    ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
    FYI: I am redirecting other threads with feedback on this change to this thread. !


    So your confirming this is a change and not a bug?

    Haters gonna hate, Trolls gonna troll.
    Sbrodor
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #15 - 2014-10-13 20:09:48 UTC
    if ccp want to make more difficult the bomb run i may agree, but this way make this almost impossible.

    we build a entire corp around bomber bar and we developed many techniques and skills around that.

    the each other deadlock waste a lot of out time and is a headshot to this community.

    make it more skill intensive, more challenging but not impossible please.
    Jack Miton
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #16 - 2014-10-13 20:49:59 UTC
    this is an excellent reversion :)
    thank you ccp.

    There is no Bob.

    Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

    Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
    Kirasten
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #17 - 2014-10-13 21:52:30 UTC
    Jack Miton wrote:
    this is an excellent reversion :)
    thank you ccp.


    This is mildly annoying reversion that may at times cost us kills, and at other times create kills.
    Alundil
    Rolled Out
    #18 - 2014-10-13 22:28:04 UTC
    Jack Miton wrote:
    this is an excellent reversion :)
    thank you ccp.

    Just out of curiosity, Jack, what's the gain from this from a gameplay perspective? What's the upside? As I mentioned in another thread, we'll deal with it just as we did before. But CCP obviously changed it THEN to its current state now for "reasons". They are only now changing it back, imo, due to the massive power IsBoxer gives to bombers under these circumstances. No other reason.

    So what's the benefit to changing it back?

    I'm right behind you
    Aivlis Eldelbar
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #19 - 2014-10-14 02:30:16 UTC
    So, bombs are op, better nerf cloaks?

    Not sold; how about we get a rework of what actually makes bombers so dominant on today's battlefield instead of this half assed change that will only serve to mak life difficult for everybody that wishes to use a cloak with a few fleetmates?

    ISBoxed bombers will be hit the least by this as, once input, the warp-in ranges work perfectly every time, while human fleets are prone to pilot error.
    Sbrodor
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #20 - 2014-10-14 05:36:45 UTC
    Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
    So, bombs are op, better nerf cloaks?

    Not sold; how about we get a rework of what actually makes bombers so dominant on today's battlefield instead of this half assed change that will only serve to mak life difficult for everybody that wishes to use a cloak with a few fleetmates?

    ISBoxed bombers will be hit the least by this as, once input, the warp-in ranges work perfectly every time, while human fleets are prone to pilot error.


    this is the point, isbox now can set warp at 3km bot 1 and 6km bot 2 and 9km bot 3 ... so computer bot cannot mistake and real player are in difficult.
    123Next page