tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post1120669414962562336..comments2024-03-05T12:41:20.217-05:00Comments on Low Sec Lifestyle: CSM9 - Day 168Sugar Kylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15437978687639772023noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post-30504967539325511372014-10-22T13:41:14.395-04:002014-10-22T13:41:14.395-04:00@Von Keigai
This has been tested and confirmed by...@Von Keigai<br /><br />This has been tested and confirmed by several players by cloaking one ship while observing with an alt. It does not appear to be just client side, as the observer can visually see the cloaking ship for about seven seconds after the ship has been removed from the overview.<br /><br />When this was reported in the comments to the dev blog on the new cloaking effect, CCP Darwin offered this response:<br /><br />"Regarding the visibility of cloaking ships on other players' clients:<br /><br />Game design weighed in on this and the current behavior is within a range they'd consider acceptable (i.e. not a game defect). If you have feedback on the impact of the change from a gameplay standpoint, they're most likely to see it if you post it in the Oceanus feedback thread."<br /><br />So basically, "working as intended," which in this case is not an acceptable answer.<br /><br />Note: CCP Darwin's response can be found here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5091597#post5091597Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post-30934870736660721712014-10-22T09:53:13.356-04:002014-10-22T09:53:13.356-04:00Nony- my understanding of cloaking is that the new...Nony- my understanding of cloaking is that the new cloaking effect is completely client side. In other words, while it may appear to you that cloaking takes longer, it looks exactly the same to everyone else. Do you have info to the contrary?<br /><br />I'll second your plea to tie the nerfs to the bomb launcher and not the hull, at least unless CCP feels that bombless bombers are overpowered. Von Keigaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14469707993470718130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post-5241134409815724672014-10-21T13:40:11.642-04:002014-10-21T13:40:11.642-04:00Sugar, your constant willingness to listen and pat...Sugar, your constant willingness to listen and patience with the rest of us has earned you a few freighters full of forgiveness, so no worries.<br /><br />A similar suggestion was mentioned in the forum (not by me), but I think it got lost in the noise.<br /><br />Another issue I didn't include was the change to SB warp speed - it does seem odd to have this as a frigate class ship that warps slower than all other frigates. Maybe this could be attached to the launcher as well, but I'd just as soon see it removed as detrimental to the cohesiveness of frigate fleets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post-36412238676900763732014-10-20T14:38:10.094-04:002014-10-20T14:38:10.094-04:00I'll ask for forgiveness for not listing the s...I'll ask for forgiveness for not listing the stealth bomber rebalance. I wrote this more off of immediate memory then my normal forum scanning. For me stealth bombers were not this week so I forgot. Sorry!<br /><br />I think the launcher module is interesting and I'll push that forward. Have you put this on the forum as well?<br /><br />I've not personally used SB so this type of usage case is highly valuable, thanks!Sugar Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15437978687639772023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post-16180694740196716172014-10-20T14:33:22.945-04:002014-10-20T14:33:22.945-04:00Sugar,
Another thing that happened this week was ...Sugar,<br /><br />Another thing that happened this week was the announcement of the "rebalance" of Stealth Bombers. As a lowsec pilot, several of these changes concern me, and as a fellow lowsec player, I'm hoping that you can help address those issues.<br /><br />Let's set aside for a moment the argument that these changes are a badly misguided attempt to nerf multibox SB runs. The bottom line is that for whatever reason, bomb runs were determined to be either too powerful or too efficient, and CCP decided that the ships that carry these bombs needed to be made worse in order to compensate.<br /><br />The problem with this approach is that stealth bombers also see use in lowsec, where bombs are not useable. This means that for those of us who pilot SBs in lowsec, we have to deal with the nerfs to SBs without having the benefit of the weapon system that the nerfs are supposed to balance. I am primarily concerned with the changes to mass, agility, and sig. These are significant penalties for these ships, which make them even easier to kill (the HP boost really isn't much of an offset). SBs were already rather slow and lumbering for a frigate class ship, and they have been made even moreso. I understand the problems with bomb waves, but these ships do have other uses, and it hardly seems fair to destroy those uses as collateral damage.<br /><br />What I would propose as a solution is that rather than tying these penalties to the stealth bomber hulls, tie them to the bomb launcher module. It makes sense from a logical/lore perspective that equipping a ship with such a large piece of hardware would hinder its performance, while from a balance standpoint it give the desired penalty to bomb runs in nullsec while at the same time allowing lowsec bombers to carry on without overbearing nerfs. <br /><br />Not to drift too far off topic, but another related recent issue which affects this class of ship (as well as others) is the new cloaking animation. The new animation significantly prolongs the time that a ship is visible in space while the cloak is being activated. This makes it easier to spot such ships, and possible to determine the ship type, exterior module fits, and direction of travel, and all of this after the time that the ship has been removed from overview and is supposed to be undetectable. CCP has stated that the time a cloaking ship is visible is "within parameters," but this really has the potential to reduce the capability of stealth bombers and other covops ships, while removing much of the utility of cloaks in general (if this is CCP's intention, they should state it outright, instead of ignoring the complaints).<br /><br />Sugar, please help to see that CCP addresses these issues so that we lowsec bomber pilots aren't needlessly pushed out of our preferred ship class just because a nullsec-only weapon system was deemed too powerful in its current form. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post-39925265457603485742014-10-20T13:19:30.860-04:002014-10-20T13:19:30.860-04:00The Tug strikes me as really weird. If it's on...The Tug strikes me as really weird. If it's only going to hold 2.5 BSs, why have it? As pointed out above, freighters can already carry that load, unless the Tug is gonna be way tankier. And if the Tug is gonna be way tankier, why not just change the meta ALL around and let carriers into high-sec, or just increase the capacity of the Orca?<br /><br />I realize at this point there's nothing you guys can do about it: the Tug is going into the game. But other than being a really really attractive gank target, there doesn't seem to be much point to the beast yet.<br /><br />Short version: it needs something to really set it apart from the other existing options in the same space.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06362457304801165584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post-64912727215452661212014-10-20T11:50:04.712-04:002014-10-20T11:50:04.712-04:00Its two and a halfm . I'll correct then post.Its two and a halfm . I'll correct then post.Sugar Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15437978687639772023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238324579504790.post-33840003218045279602014-10-20T04:38:48.779-04:002014-10-20T04:38:48.779-04:00About the Tug, considering that a full cargo Charo...About the Tug, considering that a full cargo Charon can already put 2.5+ BSs in its cargo if you contract them, having the tug only be able to hold 1.5 would seem pretty bad unless it either had a seriously massive tank or a JF jump drive.Lair Osenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04999329487527719560noreply@blogger.com