These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Phoebe] Stealth Bombers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#701 - 2014-10-22 22:33:21 UTC
Calvyr Travonis wrote:
And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden.

How do you lose anything by not fitting a module that didn't previously exist in the game?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Mharius Skjem
Guardians of the Underworld
#702 - 2014-10-22 22:51:43 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before

It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups.

I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.


Just have it that cloaked ships in fleet show up in tactical view, as presumably your fleet is a fleet because it shares telemetry.

A recovering btter vet,  with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...

Don't take me too seriously though, I like to tease a bit on the forums, but that's only because I love you...
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#703 - 2014-10-22 23:51:04 UTC
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
#704 - 2014-10-23 03:26:13 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Calvyr Travonis wrote:
And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden.

How do you lose anything by not fitting a module that didn't previously exist in the game?


Let's see, a high slot module (where weapons go) that would need to be fit so that fleetmates can see each other. Your proposed module would then take up an additional high slot, taking away from already reduced damage output. That is, unless any ship that cloaks would automatically get an extra high slot to compensate. It's much easier to simply make the ability to see cloaked fleetmates inherent. Of course, the absolute best solution is just to not change the way cloaking mechanics work.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#705 - 2014-10-23 04:19:26 UTC
Pritovsky Pootis wrote:
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?


Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change.

Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber.


As seen in the hyperion "feedback" threads, none of what we say actually matters- it gets pushed through anyway. They obviously know what they are changing is for the best and everyone who actually plays the game and can see how changes so poorly thought through like this one will negatively effect gameplay are wrong.

Though I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong this time. Your move, CCP.

I don't know, in the other changes they basically said they didn't know what would happen, so it's admitted.

Still happening, though.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#706 - 2014-10-23 12:14:57 UTC
just ban isboxer, problem solved
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#707 - 2014-10-23 13:18:55 UTC
get rid of isbotters per EULA and game policies, not ineffective bandaid "fixes".
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#708 - 2014-10-23 13:40:58 UTC
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Herrin Asura
Covert Operations Agency
#709 - 2014-10-23 14:02:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Herrin Asura
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie


Good to hear. I hope you'll come up with a better solution. There are many better suggestions in this thread already.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#710 - 2014-10-23 14:20:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

... we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
-Fozzie


Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#711 - 2014-10-23 14:48:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Rek Seven wrote:

Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.


they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory.
Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#712 - 2014-10-23 14:53:57 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Rek Seven wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

... we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
-Fozzie


Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.


true enough i would prefer cloaked ship not decloak eachother and instead introduce a tech II tier two desi that has a high slot unit that can ping enemy ships within a 30km radius and have them show up on the overview for 3 seconds but not able to target the ship...

this would make a cat and mouse game where said desi would have to approach and hopefully decloak the ship.

Mark Hadden wrote:
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory.
Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.


yeah but wont that be fixed by firebombing the incoming bombs?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#713 - 2014-10-23 16:39:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie


That's a mistake. Isboxer currently allows bombers to do things that regular humans can't do: being perfectly syncronized in terms of timing and positionning.
Two things that are heavily important for bombers.

Discussing bomber balance without taking into account isboxer is completely irrealistic, at best. Straight

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
FunGu Arsten
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#714 - 2014-10-23 17:12:04 UTC  |  Edited by: FunGu Arsten
Altrue wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie


That's a mistake. Isboxer currently allows bombers to do things that regular humans can't do: being perfectly syncronized in terms of timing and positionning.
Two things that are heavily important for bombers.

Discussing bomber balance without taking into account isboxer is completely irrealistic, at best. Straight

can i still have 10 bombers online on differend pcs and use an usb mouse broadcasting system to click cloak - bomb - warp?
yes multiboxed bombers are an issue... the software you are naming isn't. the ability to multibox =/= one software.

there are more ways to get this done, none using software (or specificly Isboxer)
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#715 - 2014-10-23 17:29:52 UTC
FunGu Arsten wrote:
the software you are naming isn't. the ability to multibox =/= one software.

its just the most popular one. however they are all covered by EULA 6-A, point 3.
Nauclerus Serpens
Provi Rapid Response
#716 - 2014-10-23 17:47:45 UTC
I was playing around on SISI and saw how these cloaking changes effected ships. A reasonable (potentially) middle point on the change could be that ships do still decloak each other, but can warp as a squad or wing without decloaking. Otherwise the squad /wing warp is completely useless. 2 ships in squad warp (to a fix) decloak each other 30% of the time, and 3 ships decloak 100% of the time.

If the squad or wing is positioned from each other in excess of 2000m then they maintain the relative positions to each other through the warp and on landing. After that the new proposed changes can take effect.

The rest of the changes can be mitigated with skills, fitting, on grid boosting, etc.
Khiluale Zotakibe
Protection of Underground Resources
#717 - 2014-10-23 18:08:56 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.


they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory.
Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.


They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP.

Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers...
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#718 - 2014-10-23 18:14:10 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

... we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.
-Fozzie


Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.


true enough i would prefer cloaked ship not decloak eachother and instead introduce a tech II tier two desi that has a high slot unit that can ping enemy ships within a 30km radius and have them show up on the overview for 3 seconds but not able to target the ship...

this would make a cat and mouse game where said desi would have to approach and hopefully decloak the ship.

Mark Hadden wrote:
they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory.
Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.


yeah but wont that be fixed by firebombing the incoming bombs?



Correct fix would be to BUFF the battleships..t hat are a pathetically weak class of ship.

Also bobms should have an explosion velocity like the missiles,

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Beryl Invictus
Dictors without Borders
#719 - 2014-10-23 18:17:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie



Seperate how exactly? You hung over still or what????
Crazy Candy
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#720 - 2014-10-23 18:18:50 UTC
Thanks, CCP Fozzie.