These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Imagonem
Black Bag Ops
#181 - 2014-10-16 15:46:32 UTC
I'am not a fan at all at bumping into fleetmates without seeing them again. Not being able to warpin a couple of us cloaked because we'll decloak as warp pushes us togheter.

If you want to add this... old mechanic of decloaking a cloaked enemy with your own cloaked ship.. lul what? It would occasinaly happen and both cloakers would be staring at eachother with friggin deer-in-trailer-headlights-eyes. Possibly someone might have used it as a tactic... but dont blow smoke: Such a tactic would have been utalized by a tiny minority of a minority of players; I suppose my old discorifter is also an old tactic by thoose standards.

If you want to add it, it must at the least be made possible to see your cloaked fleetbuddies, and even then warping cloaked and bumping into eachother... horrible.

As is mentioned: A change to cloaking as is today after the bugfix years back does not only change how bombers behave, but every ship that uses a cloak. Every tactic that uses cloaks.

Now that we are done with that.

You are overnerfing things. A big hammer instead of a few adjustments here and there.
Better ideas: Instead of making a bomber turn like a slow whale make the fitted bomb launcher the culprit, not the hull and so on. Or how about a 10s effect upon firing the heavy bomb cursing your agility to hell for the duration ^^
And so on.

Dont overnerf. It never did you good in the past.
Also. Hail ISBOXER our deliverer.




Lugh Crow-Slave
#182 - 2014-10-16 15:46:48 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:


Then use ISBoxer. Or get over it.


Right because why would i want to organize and play with others in an MMO
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2014-10-16 15:47:10 UTC
the decloaking changes will hurt isboxing players much less than players that organize bombing runs by hand. that's not cool
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#184 - 2014-10-16 15:47:37 UTC
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.
Except bombers arent the only ones who use cloaks. Anyway, thanks for shitting on wormholers and making carebearing safer, again.
Gob Lox
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#185 - 2014-10-16 15:47:38 UTC
I fail to see how nerfing a entire group of ships will help curb the problem. Lets face it; the real problem is with ISBoxer. Please ban the software and not take it out on those who coordinate bombers properly
Marius Noragol
Perkone
Caldari State
#186 - 2014-10-16 15:47:54 UTC
Chiimera wrote:
Great work killing bombing runs completely.

Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are.


This. I think all other changes are fine if you give real pilots an easy way of achieving the same result as the (often mentioned) multiboxing software.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#187 - 2014-10-16 15:48:41 UTC
ulililillia wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:


Then use ISBoxer. Or get over it.


What a great way of thinking, you should work for CCP.


Why work for them? I volunteer my time for free.

If you don't like those options, you're free to suggest a third one he could use under the proposed changes. I mean, we could suggest that he stop flying bombers, but it sounds like he wants to fly bombers. So that leaves him two options: Use ISBoxer, or get over it and do it the old fashioned way. That's reality.
Corey Lean
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#188 - 2014-10-16 15:49:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Lean
ulililillia wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:


Then use ISBoxer. Or get over it.


What a great way of thinking, you should work for CCP.

Maybe CCP can work out a deal with Lavishsoft where we can get an EVE client+isboxer bundled subscription Smile
TheMercenaryKing
Ultimatum.
#189 - 2014-10-16 15:50:02 UTC
Altrue wrote:
I'm worried about the 1m sphere of anti-capital bombs not showing on the tactical overlay, thus not helping the perfect aim required.

Its already hard enough with the tactical overlay, given the fact that it a client-side help while the actual launch alignment is server side.


Fozzie, this is a good point. is there a way to make a "falloff sphere" for these bombs so we can see where they will land better? like a 500m radius?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#190 - 2014-10-16 15:51:39 UTC
Funny observations of the last weeks:

We say Ishtar op!

CCP comes:
Nerf missiles!

We say bombs too strong!

CCP comes:
Nerf cloaks!

Got me thinking, if we can determine the right pattern here we could ask for the right nerf or buff to occure. I am usually very observant and good at this but this pattern still eludes me..

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Pritovsky Pootis
Eschelon Directive
Quantum Inquisition
#191 - 2014-10-16 15:52:15 UTC
Great. Another wide sweeping change from fozzie that once again fails to take in the big picture. Just because some people use bombers via isbot in nullsec and someone cried that their fleets died doesn't mean you have to nerf every single cloaked ship in the game. Terrible idea to have cloaked ships decloak each-other (without even letting you SEE other fleet members). Like some have said this effectively kills ALL fleet warps of cloaked ships, even non bombers eg. T3s.

In WH space where cloaked ships are pretty much essential this feels like a big middle finger to us especially after the mass changes (and the ignored feedback). I can only hope, probably in vain, that this time you might actually change your mind.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#192 - 2014-10-16 15:52:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
thankfully cloaked ships can see other cloaked ships in fleet so they can coordinate to not decloak each other. oh wait.

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

Herrin Asura
Covert Operations Agency
#193 - 2014-10-16 15:53:06 UTC
Quote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.


You guys are insane. Why do you buff ISBoxer and hit legit players with the nerf bat? Ah yes... because the multiboxing players pay more. got it, thank you.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#194 - 2014-10-16 15:53:30 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Funny observations of the last weeks:

We say Ishtar op!

CCP comes:
Nerf missiles!

We say bombs too strong!

CCP comes:
Nerf cloaks!

Got me thinking, if we can determine the right pattern here we could ask for the right nerf or buff to occure. I am usually very observant and good at this but this pattern still eludes me..


Don't give up find this pattern and save eve from CCP
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#195 - 2014-10-16 15:56:32 UTC
Oh, and while we're at it, since the thread is about 50% on this topic anyway.

Ban ISBoxer. Or barring such decisive action, at least dredge up the fortitude to address it, make a statement regarding it's use. Knock off the tiptoeing around the issue, and address the elephant in the room once and for all.

Heck, if the truth of the matter is that you just can't tell whether someone is using it or not, just admit it. Many of us suspect such a thing anyway.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#196 - 2014-10-16 15:58:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh, and while we're at it, since the thread is about 50% on this topic anyway.

Ban ISBoxer. Or barring such decisive action, at least dredge up the fortitude to address it, make a statement regarding it's use. Knock off the tiptoeing around the issue, and address the elephant in the room once and for all.

Heck, if the truth of the matter is that you just can't tell whether someone is using it or not, just admit it. Many of us suspect such a thing anyway.


This if you don't know then at least let us know you don't know rather then just looking like you don't care
Pandoralica
DEFCON.
The Initiative.
#197 - 2014-10-16 15:59:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Pandoralica

  • 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.

-makes sense


  • Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.

- this kills a lot of content, as bombers are not just good for bombing
ive run different setups relying on the cloak in the past and i doubt this is the fix you are looking for
ISbox-bombing and easy-bombing should be fixable with other changes



  • Reduction in HP (with increase in resists) for the damage bombs, so that they can be destroyed by (named or higher) medium smartbombs.

- yes


  • 17% reduction in bomb speed, with associated flight time increase. This means that you'll have 12 seconds to react to bombs instead of 10. Range stays the same.

- yes


  • Doubling the effect of the Bomb Deployment skill, to 10% per level. This will allow people to bomb more often.

- dont know why, but ok


  • A new anti-capital void bomb with a tiny range and a large explosion radius. You need to land it right on your target but if you hit a cap ship it will eat a ton of cap.

- normal voids do not work under heavy tidi (i tried it with 50bombers in B-R), so i guess capital-voids wont work the same
and if you aim for caps you need to expect heavy tidi i guess :(


  • New 10km radius interdiction probes. Intended to give fleets more options for bubbling themselves and pulling in opponents (including bombers) at undesired ranges.

- ok, you could also give HICs the option to adjust their range...

all in all nice ideas but the cloak thing really issnt cool! think about it

o/
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#198 - 2014-10-16 16:03:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh, and while we're at it, since the thread is about 50% on this topic anyway.

Ban ISBoxer. Or barring such decisive action, at least dredge up the fortitude to address it, make a statement regarding it's use. Knock off the tiptoeing around the issue, and address the elephant in the room once and for all.

Heck, if the truth of the matter is that you just can't tell whether someone is using it or not, just admit it. Many of us suspect such a thing anyway.


Of course they don't know. And as soon as they find a way to know, it'll be circumvented by hiding the program's processes.

The truth of the matter is that they know banning multibox software WILL result in sub losses. No doubt. Unlike everyone who threatens to leave over this or that change, banning ISBoxer guarantees sub/PLEX sale losses, because people with massive ISBoxed fleets literally no longer have their playstyle available.
Alexis Nightwish
#199 - 2014-10-16 16:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
You had me at "Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km." ^^


EDIT: Okay so I posted w/o realizing that this would also include your fleetmates. I'm such a goddamn noob.

I do think that cloaked ships that are NOT fleeted should decloak each other.

CCP, if your goal is to reduce the effectiveness of bombing runs by ISMB users, then you need to make changes that will cripple ISMB, but not harm individual humans. One brilliant suggestion on this thread was to have an activation code that's random for every bomb launched. My own idea is to make it so you must manually fly the bombs to your target using the arrow keys. However the directions they controlled would be randomized. "UP" could actually make the bomb go left. Also randomize the camera orientation when it focuses on the bomb so while a human could very easily orient it, the ISMB could not. Notice that all of these suggestions include elements of randomness. ISMB requires that the same commands can be entered, not different ones for every account. That's its weakness. Attack it there.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#200 - 2014-10-16 16:04:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

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.


Not wanting to add fuel to this but the reason why such threads like this are somewhat hijacked is due to Developer visibility. The current apparent open conversation thread about isboxing ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=354128&find=unread ) has ZERO... absolutely ZERO dev posts, only 4 csm posts where 2 of them were completely off topic, and the other 2 were shrugging off posts in no way open to any form of discussion on the topic.

Its Developer Visibility that counts in these forums, especially in areas that people believe is broken, that affect areas that they are concerned about.

A bunch of geeks talking about something they have no control over, in 1 thread of hundreds that are created every day in these forums accomplishes absolutely nothing.

As far as we would know, no devs have been directly contacted about Isboxing or its game breaking effect and thats the point! we're totally in the dark.

we post here because its connected, and that you're reading this thread. Open a dialogue about pressing concerns AND show you are reading and watching it, an you'll get less hijacking.