These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
El Space Mariachi
Zero Fun Allowed
#41 - 2014-10-16 11:54:58 UTC  |  Edited by: El Space Mariachi
muhadin wrote:
As someone who runs alot of accounts at once, and has used isboxer. I don't even know why ccp allows isboxer to be used.
The first major red flag should be that ISboxer is run on Inner Space which is used for botting in eve. The problems are not bombers, bombers were probably one of the most balanced things in eve. The problem is isboxer. Bombers already have counters to them, many bomber fleets have died, and there are too many nerfs to bombers all lumped together.



Also +1 on new dictor bubble.


CCP tolerate ISboxer because it adds subscriptions to their game, no other reason. I would be completely for preventing its use in PvP as other major MMOs have, and restricting it to PvE, if not banning it altogether.

I wouldn't say bombers are the most balanced ship in the game because they're capable wiping entire fleets with very little effort as it stands, but the cloak changes will bring them to the other end of the scale - near useless in the hands of actual players. 8 people simply CANNOT coordinate as well as one person using software that clones their mouse clicks, no matter their individual skill or how good friends they are irl

gay gamers for jesus

KaRa DaVuT
Cutting Edge Incorporated
#42 - 2014-10-16 11:56:08 UTC
no more "no effort" bombing.

ty fozzie

Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is in your heart and on your mind... And what you decide to do every day, makes you - not your race - a good man - or not.

colera deldios
#43 - 2014-10-16 11:56:24 UTC  |  Edited by: colera deldios
Quote:
Are you going to make ships that are Sieged/Triaged immune to these Bombs ? Because ... If this rolls in without Traige/Siege immunity than you have effectively destroyed the most crucial thing used to fight outnumbered.

I mean it's going to be stupid easy to hit caps that are moving at 200ms (unrealistic) with these bombs let alone an immobile capital ship I mean unless you are 100% blind you should have no problem hitting them and at 15,000 Neut you can say good bye to Triage and good bye to fighting outnumbered etc..


This is another bandage fix done wrong like constant stream of capital/super capital nerfs that end up changing nothing at all.
I mean you are directly and indirectly hitting capital ships where they really are not the problem in EVE.

Take a step back and see when Capitals/Supers became a doctrine. It's when Goons and what remained of NC started fielding 1500+ strong Alpha fleets and the only counter to that was Capitals who could survive the initial volley.

From then on instead of remaping 0.0 and how we fight for sov rebuilding the system from ground up to allow skilled pilots with less players to fight a larger entity you went after capital ships on and on and on again.


Good ******* job. +0 for the effort.

However the rest of the changes are very good.
Kalissis
#44 - 2014-10-16 11:56:42 UTC
I understand how you want to nerf bombing runs. But you are totally nerfing all other aspects of the bomber hull as well, with more sig radius and weaker agility it will kill also those bombers beeing used as torp support or black ops drop dps ships.

Very viable way was to sig tanking large (and medium) guns using ABs on bombers at least to some degree before getting killed.
I can't calculate anything from here as I'm at work but please check if the addition to sig will break those aspects.
romzzz
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2014-10-16 11:58:23 UTC
I'm sad to see the cloaking nerf. It will be hard to organize bombing fleets from now on.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2014-10-16 11:58:43 UTC
Sigh, ill first link this post and just copy paste it for reference.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5119858#post5119858

Yi Hyori wrote:
Bumping for dev response to these changes whether intentional or not.

These changes seem to be a step backwards.

If these changes were not intentional, I would like to point out that there are other ways of nerfing bombers without affecting the entire line of covert ops cloak reliant classes of ships.

There have been a few suggestions already and I'll bring them here in one post to condense it.

Reduce bomb damage or at least allow better mitigation. Armor battleships are far superior to shield due to the massive penalty of shield extenders and without the ability to somehow mitigate this, shield fleets tend to get absolutely ripped apart by bombs.

- suggestion a new skill similar to what was introduced in I believe Rubicon with the armor honeycombing skill would be highly beneficial to shield ships.
-introducing an explosion velocity to bomb damage would significantly reduce damage taken by smaller ships and would allow larger ships to still minimize some of the damage.
- half the resists on the bombs. This would half the initial bomb waves so the first damage wave will be reduced and give fleets a chance to respond.

If these changes were not intentional and merely a bug, please ignore.

But please do not let this change hit tranquility. Its simply stupid.




Anyway, so the fact that the decloak change has been confirmed, please take a moment to remember what CCP said when they implemented that change. The patch note said something along the lines of, "oh hey yea its a bug and we're finally fixing. npnp bros." and covert ops rejoiced for their cloaked ships decloaking each other was fixed.


the main issue with these changes is that it really hurts the average players more than anyone else. I am an avid supporter of ISBoxer and I have no qualms with the program, however I do have issues with changes that are heavy handed sweeping changes that not only affect the targeted group, but massive collateral along with it.

I hate to have to compare Eve to this game, but World of Warcraft had to deal with multiboxers in arenas and battlegrounds. The public outcry ( read crybabies ) were so loud that blizzard had to do something. So they removed the ./follow command in battlegrounds and arenas. That was their bandaid solution.

This change, of rolling back the cloaking changes, feels like a bandaid fix to try and fix something that ccp views as "too easy".

Please take a look at this again and find a better solution. Reducing the effectiveness of bombs is a great step, but the decloak change is a huge step backwards.



One of the main concerns or issues that seems to come up is that if this "feature" and i use the term loosely, goes live, there needs to be a way to show fleet members that are cloaked. Either through the new bookmark overlay or soemthign that shows where they are to prevent accidental decloaking. Adding extra layers of complication does not equal great mechanics.

Again, I urge you all at CCP to take a look at these changes and reconsider the thoughts that went into these changes. Complicated mechanics does not make a good game. Simple yet interesting mechanics does a good game make.
Nordalis Rmith
Thorny Holdings
#47 - 2014-10-16 12:06:43 UTC
I do not like the ships de-cloaking each other change. I feel like this impacts many aspects of cloaking not related to bombers.
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
#48 - 2014-10-16 12:07:09 UTC
For the love of....
All of you people complaining about cloaked ships decloaking each other, stop whining. Back in the day, that was how cloaks worked, and we did bombing runs just fine, even outdamaging the supers at times.

So all your blathering on about how that is going to kill bombing runs is pure bullshit, it just takes a modicum of skill, which I suggest you acquire, instead of trying to get CCP to give you your easymode toys back.
Prince Kobol
#49 - 2014-10-16 12:09:17 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.




Hahahaha

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

Good Job !!!!
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#50 - 2014-10-16 12:09:43 UTC
Capqu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
(except when damage bombs are mixed with void or lockbreaker bombs, but that was already a bad idea)


this made me lol out loud in irl

you are hilariously uneducated when it comes to bombing

those bombs were designed to be used together, thats why voids launched at the same time as damage bombs detonate first and aren't destroyed by the damage bombs, and deal less damage to a damage bomb than a same type damage bomb would. in fact you could do slightly larger waves of bombs by launching voids -> damage and having the voids cap out targets before the damage arrived


QFT - forgot in my write up about the fact i lol'd at you inane ignorance of how voids work in conjunction with damage bombs in a single run Fozzie.

wow...

...just wow.
Prince Kobol
#51 - 2014-10-16 12:10:16 UTC
Arden Elenduil wrote:
For the love of....
All of you people complaining about cloaked ships decloaking each other, stop whining. Back in the day, that was how cloaks worked, and we did bombing runs just fine, even outdamaging the supers at times.

So all your blathering on about how that is going to kill bombing runs is pure bullshit, it just takes a modicum of skill, which I suggest you acquire, instead of trying to get CCP to give you your easymode toys back.


I personally have no problem with this change its just that it makes using ISboxer even better when compared with using a bomber fleet consisting of real people.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#52 - 2014-10-16 12:11:06 UTC
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:
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.

+1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please.


surely this 'should' be possible with the new sensor overlay right?


...right????
a dolp heater
Doomheim
#53 - 2014-10-16 12:14:11 UTC
Why not make bombers a separate ship for the sole purpose of bombing and stealth bombers be a weaker version for that but with torps

im thinking like banelings or infested terrans CoolCoolCoolCoolCool
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2014-10-16 12:15:17 UTC
Also not really sure what dropping bubble sizes does to help.
Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2014-10-16 12:16:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Odithia
El Space Mariachi wrote:
[
CCP tolerate ISboxer because it adds subscriptions to their game, no other reason. I would be completely for preventing its use in PvP as other major MMOs have, and restricting it to PvE, if not banning it altogether.

How many people ragequit eve because of isboxer ?
I suppose that's why other MMO ban it.


I like all those change except the proximity cloak nerf, curious to see how the anti capital and new interdiction probe will work.
Capqu
Half Empty
#56 - 2014-10-16 12:16:49 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Also not really sure what dropping bubble sizes does to help.


nothing

i'll repost what i posted on reddit [aka the premier feedback site for eveonline]:

the 10km bubble is completely garbage for anti bomber, in fact it just makes you more of a target since youre in a goddamn bubble that you can be bombed safely from way outside of
only the lowest of the low fcs thought hic 1 bubbles up on their own fleet discouraged bombing at all, decent bombing fcs were always able to make warpins regardless
Kalissis
#57 - 2014-10-16 12:23:34 UTC
After seeing some of the posts I must say:

+1 changes on decloak, we did manage it back in the day with it.
+1 on some of the changes not beeing thought thru 100%
+1 ban ISBoxer for PVP.


Ps. +1 give back cruise missiles to bombers.
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#58 - 2014-10-16 12:24:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ab'del Abu
Not so bad overall, but I was hoping for an emphasis on strategic/e-war roles.

Imho

1.) torpedo's should be removed completely from the hull (there is not a single word on torps in your post! whut?)

--> getting 500+ dps out of a boat that can use cov ops cloak, throw bombs, has decent tank and costs only ~40m is nuts. For cloaky damage you should need to resort to bigger ships like t3s, stratios', black ops etc. Also the siege bombing meta sucks.

2.) bomb damage should work similar to that of smartbombs, i.e NOT depend on signature radius and nerfed to somewhere around 2,5k-ish damage/bomb.

--> In any case you should look into the effect that bombs have on the tanking meta in large scale conflicts.
Ka'Narlist
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#59 - 2014-10-16 12:28:53 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Interesting changes, definitely a nerf for multiboxers (at last!)

No its not. Multiboxers are the ones least affected by the uncloaking change
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#60 - 2014-10-16 12:30:59 UTC
KaRa DaVuT wrote:
no more "no effort" bombing.

ty fozzie


<3 u bro, u know that but in this aspect, you're dead wrong Kara.