Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |

Commander Elysium
Tinbox Communications Group Inc
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 21:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
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
Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion
92
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 21:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
ok |

Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 22:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP moonwalking back one step at a time. |

Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
143
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 22:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Finally. Follow me on twitter: @ForlornW Follow my blog: http://crossingzebras.com/author/forlorn-wongraven |

Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
736
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 22:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
welp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |

Alundil
Isogen 5
712
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 22:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
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 Affirmative.
364
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 22:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
This would be quite annoying in w-space... |

Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
823
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 14:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
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.
- Reduce raw bomb damage.
- Reduce application of bombs by increasing the explosion radius of bombs.
- Reduce application of bombs by adding explosion velocity to bombs. Make it a very low number (sub 100m/s), kthx.
- Reduce/remove the unbalanced signature radius penalty to shield extenders and core defense shield extender rigs.
- 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?
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |

Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 19:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
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
The Pack Fidelas Constans
224
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 14:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:This would be quite annoying in w-space...
erm how about HTFU or GTFO 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
1733

|
Posted - 2014.10.13 17:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
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
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
308
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 17:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
Shuckstar wrote:Sephira Galamore wrote:This would be quite annoying in w-space... erm how about HTFU or GTFO  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
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1908
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 17:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
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. +1 |

Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
129
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 18:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
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
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 20:09:00 -
[15] - Quote
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
Isogen 5
3845
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 20:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
this is an excellent reversion :) thank you ccp. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |

Kirasten
No Vacancies
110
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 21:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
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
Isogen 5
719
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 22:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
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
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
31
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 02:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
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
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 05:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
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.
|
|

King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
188
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 08:44:33 -
[21] - Quote
So instead of banning ISBotter, CCP decides to nerf all other styled of cloaky PVP, but not ISBotter bombing?
gg |

Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
228
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 15:45:08 -
[22] - Quote
I still haven't heard any confirmation from CCP that it was intended.
|

Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
38
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 15:58:31 -
[23] - Quote
ISD consolidated the threads, so they are well aware of the issue, and we are still to hear a response, so I'm more and more sure this is some test going on. |

Obunagawe
413
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 20:53:32 -
[24] - Quote
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:ISD consolidated the threads, so they are well aware of the issue, and we are still to hear a response, so I'm more and more sure this is some test going on.
A test of the players rather than the game, I'm sure. |

Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
228
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 22:04:56 -
[25] - Quote
Obunagawe wrote:Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:ISD consolidated the threads, so they are well aware of the issue, and we are still to hear a response, so I'm more and more sure this is some test going on. A test of the players rather than the game, I'm sure.
I see the maze all around me, but can't find the cheese. |

Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 07:30:21 -
[26] - Quote
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. |

Dominous Nolen
The Unthinkables
36
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 17:26:30 -
[27] - Quote
Bump for visibility and hope that we can get confirmation from Devs if this is a change being implemented or a bug. Personally I'd rather keep the mechanic as it exists on TQ.
This is EVE, Not Hello Kitty: Island Adventure
|
|

ISD LackOfFaith
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1782

|
Posted - 2014.10.15 17:38:39 -
[28] - Quote
Thatt Guy wrote: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? Nope! I have no idea whether it is intended behavior or a bug.
I'll try to draw someone's attention to get a more official response to this, since it appears to be a matter of significant concern affecting a large number of players.
> ISD LackOfFaith
> Captain
> Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
> Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Eve Mail or anything other than the forums.
|
|

Django Askulf
Sledgehammer Logistics
71
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 17:42:44 -
[29] - Quote
Pretty sure this was intended. Ive read that cloaky ships will decloak each other somewhere around here a couple times in the past week or so.
I dont have a reference offhand. But have certainly see it as one of the changes coming up. |

Ashterothi
Aideron Robotics
183
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 18:06:14 -
[30] - Quote
Just to recap so that everyone is clear.
* A cloaked ship closer then 2k km of an object in space if forcibly decloaked and cannot cloak until they get outside of the 2km range.
* It used to be that ships that were within 2k km of each other decloaked, even if both parties were already cloaked.
* A few years back this was changed, so that cloaked ships were not considered when deciding if you were decloaked for being too close to an object
* As of the latest build in Sisi, the change has been reverted, and now behaves as it did (Cloaked ships can decloak each other)
* Players successfully bombed prior to these changes, however the changes did allow the bombers to be far more effective, have fewer mistakes, and generally increased the rate in which bombers were used.
* There has been no official response, dev-blog, or any form of communication to discuss if this change is intended, absolute, or a bug.
* ISD monitor the forums and keep things neat and tidy, their presence in this thread does nothing to confirm or deny the change.
Aideron Robotics is hiring for the Gallente Federation war effort! https://www.aideronrobotics.com/wiki/Applying
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |