These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Prince Kobol
#121 - 2014-10-16 14:08:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
CCP Fozzie wrote:
These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.


Yes but all your doing is giving those people using ISBoxer an even bigger advantage. I mean its like you are purposely changing game mechanics in order to make more people use ISBoxer.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.

I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.

If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.


How about a thread were CCP Devs actually talk about what their thought on ISBoxer are instead of continuing to ignore it exists.
Paralein
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#122 - 2014-10-16 14:09:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Paralein
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Longdrinks wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Did you just make light interdictors useless by creating interdiction stealth bombers?

It's an honest question, because this is a very significant change.

A frig with interdiction bubbling abilities is very powerful, plus being able to covop cloak.

This is a concern, but I don't know if this is op or not.

you should probably read that part again lolololololololololololololol


I have they bubble themselves, but a throwaway cloaky, or a permacloak bomber on a wormhole, or gate. We use sabre's in this way.


The new dictor bubble is for Interdictors, not for Stealth Bombers. It's in this post because it is designed as a tool for countering bombers in some circumstances.



Nice. Instead of addressing the dozens of posts talking about ISBoxer, let's respond to the one person in the entire thread who misunderstood the bit about the new bubble.

Come on, mention the elephant in the room. Its name is ISBoxer.


Is mining/missioning with ISBoxer a problem? No, because it's not mechanically superior to manual mining/missioning. A bunch of ISBoxed miners or missioners will not mine more ore or finish missions faster than the same ships piloted by humans.

When bombing, on the other hand, the main difficulty is organizing your attack. The players can't see each other, but they still have to be at the same place, align in the same direction and launch their bombs at the same time. This requires some effort.
With ISBoxer, all this "at the same ..." disappears. Essentially, you warp in one ship. You navigate and aim with one ship. You launch one bomb. No coordination required at all, ISBoxer handles the whole rest of your bombing wing for you.

With this change, you're adding an additional layer of difficulty to lining up bombing runs: Not decloaking each other. Unfortunately, this only affects players. ISBoxer users will have to do some configuring, then they can continue as normal. No additional effort required at all, since ISBoxer will keep the ships spread out for you.


EDIT:
Ok, at least we got a response regarding ISBoxer in general. But my point still stands: Bombing is the one area of the game where ISboxer gives a serious mechanical advantage over not-ISBoxing. With the proposed changes, you don't affect ISBoxer at all and nerf player-controlled bombing.

I really really really want to know if this is intentional.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2014-10-16 14:10:19 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:


If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.


How about a thread were CCP Devs actually talk about what their thought on ISBoxer are instead of continuing to ignore it exists.[/quote]

There are multiple threads about their stance on isboxer and its been stated over and over that its fine. It really isn't the dev's responsibility that the player base wishes to bury their heads in the ground and ignore the decision given by the devs over and over.
Sbrodor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#124 - 2014-10-16 14:11:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.

We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.

I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.

If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.



at moment the cormorant rail, the wise use of bubble is already a counter.
but in the antibomber wing u r giving a full weaponry to wipe us in too easy way. Smartbomb, 12 sec detonation, anti bomber bubblers, mass declaock, long time align is a headshot.

is a headshot not a rebalance for real man community, i dont care about isbox or other pirats program but i'm thinking how is possible to comunicate and do something.

At least give the chance of cloacked ship in same fleet to see eachother.
Is unthinkable even at "lore of new eden" level a squad cloacked dont see the members at few km each other! and cannot do nothing to avoid decloacking!!! sci-fi level like star wars or star treck ships aren acceptable are so dumb
Burneddi
Avanto
Hole Control
#125 - 2014-10-16 14:12:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.

You really can't deny though that bombing is the #1 thing as far as ISBoxing in PvP goes. Practically ignoring the issue completely when rebalancing bombers is just goddamn weird.
Kleb Zellock
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#126 - 2014-10-16 14:13:27 UTC
Looks like another threadnaught is needed to squash a poor idea.


The de-cloak does nothing to hurt the isboxer and makes it harder for the human player who can make human error. This does not in any way help new players learn to do something besides mashing F1 and contemplating how much money they are spending to sit in TiDi, because it will be a very steep learning curve to learn to bomb. Bomber FC's are going to be reluctant to take anyone along that has a likelihood to welp the the whole fleet because they don't understand the mechanics. 'Sorry new guy, go die in your rifter like a good little meat shield.'

If it was so great when it was a bug then it wouldn't have changed, would it?


That being said: the only other thing might be to give a little more range on that new bomb. 1m is going to make it near impossible to use. Since the theme of Phoebe seems to be Death to All Supers you should give it a chance to actually hit something. Maybe 100m-250m.
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#127 - 2014-10-16 14:13:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ab'del Abu
Hey Fozzie, first of thanks for commenting on feedback! I'd like to learn your take on bombers as a torpedo-plattform.

I believe this particular role should be either completely removed or at least significantly nerfed. There is already a strong meta of so called siege fleets - bombers running around/ bridged by black ops shooting structures at minimal risk and the ability to blue-ball each and every counter - which is only going to be even more popular once the changes for jump drives hit.

The dps role should be reserved for cloaky ships that are bigger and more expensive such as t3 vessels and black ops. 700 dps on a 40m ship that can hardly be catched is kinda silly :>
Kalissis
#128 - 2014-10-16 14:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalissis
CCP Fozzie wrote:
These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.

We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.

I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.

If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.


Bombing runs should be nerfed, that is understandable. But please rethink the sig radius change, it makes them useless in all the other applications that bombers are used for. You can't compete against cruisers and below anyway anymore with bombers why make this even worse? Nerf bombing it's fine, but please give them some more fighting abilities.
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#129 - 2014-10-16 14:18:09 UTC
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#130 - 2014-10-16 14:19:35 UTC
since the anti-cap void bomb has no AOE there is no reason to not allow them in low, right?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Sbrodor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#131 - 2014-10-16 14:21:28 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
since the anti-cap void bomb has no AOE there is no reason to not allow them in low, right?


with no aoe and multiple decloack i think is almost impossible for a wing to center target. OFC a real man wing with vets and noob inside.
ISD LackOfFaith
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#132 - 2014-10-16 14:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD LackOfFaith
Quote:

2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.


Thread cleaned up as per the above rules. Please keep your comments civil, on topic, and constructive.

Additionally:

Quote:

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


As CCP Fozzie said:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.


Please keep the discussion on-topic to these changes, their impact on gameplay (ISBoxer or not), and feedback regarding that. This is not the right place to give feedback or request change of policy on how ISBoxer is handled. I have allowed borderline posts to stay so far, but if discussion on that continues, CCL may have to cut it short. I recommend using a different thread for those issues.

ISD LackOfFaith

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to Eve Mail or anything other than the forums.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#133 - 2014-10-16 14:54:53 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Cloaked Ships Decloaking Each Other:

The change that allowed cloaked ships to pass through each other without decloaking was made back in 2012 to make bombing easier. With the last few years of evidence to look at, it becomes clear that organizing bombing runs has become a bit too easy.
This change will add some more complexity to organizing multiple cloaked ships, as well as returning the old gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship.
We know that some players are going to be unhappy with the way this makes their gameplay more challenging, but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after.




Hahahaha

So you have nerfed bombing runs for real players and just made using ISBoxer even better.

Good Job !!!!


What would be a good job is if you went ahead and did that whole leaving the game thing you promised to do.
wheniaminspice
Border Gateway Protocol
#134 - 2014-10-16 14:58:34 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.

We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.

I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.

If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.


ISBoxer is not a separate discussion here. Bombing is the strongest application of ISBoxer in PvP, so these two issues are undeniably linked. I could go over the many ways in which ISBoxer is superior to leading a fleet of real people, but it should be very obvious that there are a lot of things that are simply not possible without it.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=24414904 - around this time, our coalition had 4 active ISBoxers. We forced the CFC to retire it's rupture doctrine because they kept getting owned by bombs; we bombed multiple harpy fleets, it was disgustingly strong.

Realistically, not much of this would have been possible when using our own pilots. I could get into specifics regarding the difficulties of organising a large bomber fleet, the friction involved, the ease of ruining a bomber fleet but again i suspect it's all pretty obvious to anyone who understands the mechanics.

Anyway here's my point: ban ISBoxing bombers, make a few minor changes to the mechanics, see what happens. Don't nerf bombers into the ground, making them more trouble than they're worth. Cloaked ships de-cloaking each other is a horrible and obtuse mechanic, and a band-aid for a problem that you are reluctant to fix for what i can only assume are concerns about people unsubbing their accounts. I for one use these accounts for plenty of things, and i won't unsub them i PROMISE.

The collateral damage from this change in particular will be terrible, much like the NPC AI changes killing solo pvp.
dj ore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2014-10-16 14:58:34 UTC
leave it to ccp to shake things up without any regard. why don't you fix afk 24/7 claokers that hurrasse for isk or real life cash to stop camping have cloaking devices use ozone. but no cloaked ship can decloak each others. so what cap fleet will the bombers bombs. you have nerfered the cap too they wont be fighting much any more. why don't you gusy make new shisp types more missions more anoms in 00 then mess things up. may be its time to find a different game to play. some of spent years maxing out bombers and caps and you just made them un usable as wing warp thank ccp whay are you treating us if we were blink ?
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#136 - 2014-10-16 14:59:06 UTC
dj ore wrote:
leave it to ccp to shake things up without any regard. why don't you fix afk 24/7 claokers that hurrasse for isk or real life cash to stop camping have cloaking devices use ozone. but no cloaked ship can decloak each others. so what cap fleet will the bombers bombs. you have nerfered the cap too they wont be fighting much any more. why don't you gusy make new shisp types more missions more anoms in 00 then mess things up. may be its time to find a different game to play. some of spent years maxing out bombers and caps and you just made them un usable as wing warp thank ccp whay are you treating us if we were blink ?



afk players can't do anything and this isn't the thread for that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Queen ofPassion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#137 - 2014-10-16 14:59:17 UTC

It's a nerf for Wormhole-Space.

I don't mind the changes to bombers, but once again CCP changed a game-mechanic not considering W-Space and W-Space-palyers.

As long as you cant "see" your cloaked fleet members, it's making an old awful bug a new feature.

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2014-10-16 15:01:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • A stat rebalance on the bombers themselves. Short version is significantly more HP, weaker agility, larger sig radius, more cargo (so that they can all carry 3 bombs), smidge more CPU, lower warp speed.



EVE lore supports pilots knowing the location of cloaked fleet members, due to the Warp To Member command. With the Phoebe change of showing bookmarks in space, what do you think about also showing cloaked fleetmembers in space? This would allow human pilots to coordinate their stealthy activities better than just voice coms would allow. And not just for bombing runs, but also activities like coordinating warping to a cloaked friendly sneaking up on a target.
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH
Scumlords
#139 - 2014-10-16 15:02:00 UTC
wow..... this is a HUGE nerf to bombers..

decloaking nerf will KILL small gang (10-20 people)usage of these ships.... and we rely on them to outwit numerical advantages of our enemies...its hard enough trying to bomb in a fleet of players with DC's and people not warping cloaked.... let alone decloaking each other...

it basically nerfs covops power projection ..and the ability to even use them ..as you have to be near the BLOPS bridge...to bridge....this adds a whole other dimention of PITA of using these ships...which are already a PITA with the current rule set


it will make using covops VERY difficult, in enemy space....and gives BLOBS the upper hand yet again

if you want to stop ISOBOXERS... stop ISOBOXERS
Teleil Zoomers
Royal Sphynx Ltd
#140 - 2014-10-16 15:05:09 UTC
This makes me sad. i use bombers in everyday wormhole play.

if you would nerf them so much then can i at least has my sp back plz?