|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1914
   |
Posted - 2014.10.16 13:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
I was hoping this was a bug on sissy because it's a really dumb decision.
If you make it so you can see fleet member when cloaked i can get behind the change but it not, this is a step back.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1918
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: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. sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack
Haha that it the worst excuse you could have made :)
If you would have said "eve code doesn't allow for such" then that is something we can understand but the off chance of a spy guiding someone within 2km of a cloaked fleet mate is a pretty ridiculous suggestion.
You should find out if it is possible to have cloaked fleet mate show up and if it is, push for it. If it isn't, this change shouldn't happen and instead, ISboxer should be banned.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1918
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Fleet of 20 bombers warps into their target. 20 bombers land and decloak. Takes longer to align.
Epic game mechanics once again from fozzie. And thus, the point of these changes is revealed. Only took 7 pages, but this guy finally gets how this nerf is intended to work.
So stealth bomber without the stealth? Awesome! May as well turn these into kamikaze ships that explode on impact 
If the "cloak ships decloak cloaked ships" mechanic is going ahead, there is no reason for all the other nerf.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1919
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 19:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Yes, you guys might not be able to warp down to a target at 30km and remained cloaked, and then pre-align your ships before decloaking and bombing.
The horror.
Or actually welcome to how every bombing run worked before the cloak changes.
That is some great constructive feedback that will appease the players.
How about you stop making things worse and go get us an answer regarding cloaked ships showing to fleet mates?!
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1922
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 22:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
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.
This whole statement is quite confusing. You imply that in 2012 organising bombing runs was too difficult/frustrating, hence the change. Now you're saying that you want to make it "bit" harder by reintroducing a mechanic that you openly admit was bad and on top of that you are going to add in some nerfs to make it even harder to do a bombing run, than it was before... so what has changed between now and then?
The second bit i take issue with is the fact that you seem pretty ignorant to the effect this will have on all forms of cloaky combat, not just bombers. Going back to the way it was means no more cloaky fleet warps and endless frustration when a fleet mate decloaks you while camping wormholes or when they click warp to zero by mistake.
It's not the first time IGÇÖve asked in vain for you to elaborate on your decision but I would very much like to see these concerns addressed. Until then it's seems quite obvious that this change is due to the use of ISboxer and you are now letting third party aps dictate your gameplay decisions and ruining the experience of people who play the game the way it was meant to be played.
Since you now use a six week development cycle, you have the opportunity to leave this particular change out while you evaluate the viability of allowing pilots to see cloaked fleet mates and not declaoking each other during and exiting warp.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1927
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 06:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
That do a decent summation?
Kind of Mike... To me the most important question is; are all the nerfs + the cloak change necessary? I think if cloaks had never been changed from how they worked in 2013, all or most of the proposed nerfs would be replaced by buffs to stealth bombers. So surely this is overkill.
But perhaps i'm wrong and you can clear this up for me... If CCP are introducing a small bubble designed to drag and deloak stealth bomber warping in, why is it necessary to hurt all forms of cloaky combat with the proposed change to decloak mechanics?
Was the ability to target and shoot bombs ever discussed? This alone would solve the problem and create a new role in fleets and i just can't see how reverting back to a bad mechanic was prefered over something like this.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1928
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 07:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue
than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in
fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy
other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively
impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with
cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything
other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more
fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to
punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m
Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:From the CSM8 winter minutesQuote:Discussion then moved to bombers, with PGL saying that they were arguably more of an issue
than drone assist. He pointed out that as it is, you donGÇÖt see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in
fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where heGÇÖs seen bombs failing to destroy
other bombs, resulting in more damage. Sort confirmed that bombers had made it effectively
impossible to bring BC fleets, and mentioned the chilling effect on training new FCs with
cheaper ships. Fozzie asked if bombers were weakened significantly, would we see anything
other than battleship fleets. Various CSM members responded they would likely bring more
fleets other than battleship fleets. There was general agreement that bombers should be able to
punish careless or bad FC decisions, but that it is currently simply too easy for them right now. because PGL brought it up earlier AND someone asked why SB's were being worked on. m Let's not forget that this was prior to the introduction of the medium (and large?) MJD. With the addition of the 12 second flight time to bombs, this is no longer a valid concern as you have ample time to hit your MJD and escape before bombs land. But thanks for the link all the same. Even if the bombs didn't deal any damage, they forced the fleet to move 100km and potentially be at a worse spot than before. You could, I don't know, launch bombs where the fleet is going to land so they have no way of getting away outside of warping instantly. You could also have a wing of heavy tackle stopping them at the other end of the MJD. Yes, we're talking about fleet warfare here as bombing a 1v1 with 40 guys is not what these changes are intended to touch on.
I don't see a problem. I'm sure people would prefer the mild inconvenience of jumping 100km and then having to use a bounce to regroup, over being destroyed by a good bombing run.
If all the BSs and BCs in fleet hit their MJD they would scatter in all directions. If a bombing fleet is able to cover a 200km battle field, then they deserve any the kill they manage to get.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 08:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:
I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap.
I still don't see your point. Is your issue with having to move? Is it the MJD that you have an issue with?
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1929
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 09:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:
I've never flown in a MJD fleet where everyone are allowed to point into random directions, being able to reposition with the MJD is a big advantage which is ruined by just being stupid with the fleet. At the same it's easy to force the use of that MJD with bombers and you will know the direction they're jumping to. Cloaky dictors, more bombers, heavy tackle, you pick the trap.
I still don't see your point. Is your issue with having to move? Is it the MJD that you have an issue with? Do you deny that the MJD would allow you to escape the initial bombing run? or do you think that there should be no counter to a blob other than another blob? I have no issue with any of those, Im not sure what you're trying to do here. What I said is that if MJD fleets come back, bombers still have their usage in denying the tactical usage of MJD by forcing them to be used early. Just because we have both MJD's and bombers neither of them are still nullified as a tactical tool and this change to bombers only causes some inconvenience to bomber squads.
So basically you don't have a valid point to make then. The problem isn't "bomber force me to run away and regroup  " it's that it's too easy to set up a devastating bombing run that wipes out an entire fleet, and with that i agree.
I'll spell it out for you incase you missd my I want. I'm trying to get CCP to come up with a better way to address the prevalence of ISboxer bombing fleets that won't severely harm all forms of cloaky combat.
The fact is there are currently several counters to bombers (MJD is just one) and with the nerfs coming to bomber after this patch, those counters will be even more effective. If your FC is too lazy to implement these counters or "doesn't allow you to face in differing directions for a MJD escape", why should everyone else suffer?! (that's rhetorical)
+1 |
|
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1931
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 07:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate
but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade
That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?
m i would like it if the new bomb was looked at in regards to carriers and dreads either by making triage/siege immune(or resistance) to the cap void (thus they can be used to force carriers into triage) or see if anything can be done to batteries to up their nuet resistance to a point that this module is worth using over recharges. but asit stands a small WH group will be to strongly affected by this bomb
This.
Caps need some defence from void bombs otherwise thes bombs are going to be hugly overpowered... caps are aleready rapidly becoming the weakest class of ships in the game; the can't jump far, can't jump a gate if a HIC is around, can't defend them selves against sub caps...
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1932
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 08:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mike, is it clear to you what most people don't like about these change?
Do you agree that changing the cloak mechanic to combat bombers with have a negative effect on all forms of cloaky combat?
There really isn't much more to say at this point.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1935
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:can you just attach the signature + 16m to the bomb launcher module and leave the bomber hull itself unchanged in signaure radius?
This would buff people who actually to torpedo pvp without bomb spamming and have the same effect as intended to bomberwings. I really like this idea. Make it apply even if the bomb launcher is offline. well you have too imagine that bombers are very large frigates .. they had too make them bigger for the torp launchers too fit afterall
Actually they are normal size frigates that have had their speed and tanking abilities stripped out to accommodate torp/bomb launchers. :)
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:28:39 -
[14] - Quote
Rain6638 wrote:Wow, this goon tag is just OP. My point is this stealth change is not just about ISBoxer. It's about imbalance. Ball of stealth ships = imbalance. Whether it's one player controlling 50 stealth ships, or 50 players with 1 stealth ship each, it's the same scenario: Numbers were used to overcome an attempted balance to cloaks. There is a group of people who blame ISBoxer for this change, my statement was regarding those people. (review: ball of stealth ships = imbalance, ISBoxer or not ISBoxer) also, I know a bit about what goes on in wormholes. seems grrgoons is keeping you from thinking straight right now Xyon.
That's not entirely true. The number of bombers does not equal imbalance but the mechanics of bomber can seem overpowered when you use them in large quantities. ISboxer makes organizing bomber fleets easier and reduces the room for error and as organisation/co-ordination is key in a bombing run, ISboxer clearly has its uses.
Balance can be achieved in two ways. One way is to nerf the thing causing the issue and the other is to provide a sufficient counter. With the stealth bomber and cloak change, CCP are kind of doing both but they're taking a half baked approach; the counters aren't enough on their own and the change to cloaks have an adverse effect on other classes of ship.
+1
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:33:28 -
[15] - Quote
No at all. I'm a wormhole and a cloak is my lifeblood. 
+1
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 14:44:17 -
[16] - Quote
Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?
+1
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1945
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:20:32 -
[17] - Quote
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.
+1
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1945
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 20:53:13 -
[18] - Quote
oodell wrote:It is a separate issue. A single squad of bombers, mulitboxed or not, devastate shield ships no matter how fast they are moving, or any other metric. A single squad (or even any reasonable number) of bombers are next to useless against Sig tanked ships like ANIs.
The root cause of the bomber imbalance is the 100% dependence on Sig in the damage formula. This is driving all doctrine development.
The cloak change might make it harder to land a run for less experienced FC's, but when it does land it'll still be maelstroms oracles and ruptures dying, not megathrons and armor cruisers.
I never lived in null sec or been bombed that often so i would be grateful if you could explain the issue a little bit more. I understand the mechanics so no need to go into detail on that.
Do the current counters like bubbling your own fleet, using smart bombs or escaping with MJD not work or are FC just to lazy too use the counters?
+1
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1953
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 19:50:34 -
[19] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:Destoya wrote:Why not just implement the cloaking change and then see how it goes. This isn't anything novel or groundbreaking or anything, it's a mechanic that was already present in the game until it got patched out.
I was looking forward to fleets that are currently hamstrung by ever present bomber threat. This. Literally every completely **** change you guys are just like "well the beauty of our new deployment cycle is we can change it super soon if it's bad." But on this you wuss out? Really? Bombers existed and were hugely successful before they were given the low-effort way of bombing they currently have now. But no. Don't make people actually have to coordinate in order to bomb. And just let the meta stagnate still with just boring comps because you refuse to actually think like you did when you were still a player that actually had experience with this crap. Oh and to top it off, go ahead and buff bombers without introducing any downsides. Hell you still can't even mjd out of a bomb run with that flight time which is effectively the ONLY change that could even conceivably be pointed to here as attempting to bring them to balance.
Changes to cloaks and balancing bombers are two different things. The original proposals would have a negative effect on all ships that use a cloak and i believe this is why CCP decided to postpone the change.
Instead of complaining about CCP not adding a bad mechanic, you should be asking them the improve the counter to bomber fleets (which they are doing) if that is your real issue.
+1
|
|
|
| |
|