These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kleb Zellock
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#221 - 2014-10-16 16:30:53 UTC
Aram Kachaturian wrote:
Could you please calm down people ?

CCP Fozzie has the hardcore almost impossible task to please everyone each time his team changes a game mechanic.

Back in the days, effective bomber fleets were rare and elite. When I was part of True Reign, we used to bomb Red Alliance & cie blobs. Setting up our bookmarks and warping hours before the fights, coordinating our moves to avoid decloaking each others. Despite the efforts, a successful bomb run meant something, it meant eliteness. Those were the days.

Nowadays, its way to easy and accessible. And please dont throw me the dictors bubbles shield around fleets or the lag, we had to manage it too in the past.

Godspeed CCP

Edit: More clothes on the market plz



Not everyone has hours to spend getting ready for a fight that may or may not happen. Not to mention the incredible learning curve this adds to new players that may want to explore this aspect of the game, but won't be l33t enough to get to fly with most groups. Not a very social way to play an MMO.
Pretty Pony Princess
Princess Club
#222 - 2014-10-16 16:31:34 UTC
Good job.
Instead of fixing the real problem, which is isboxing, bombers and other covert fleets are made useless.

Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#223 - 2014-10-16 16:33:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessica Danikov
I understand the ISD points about ISBoxer. While it is relevant to the discussion and we wish to balance with it in mind, calls to ban it are definitely off topic and risk getting the thread shut down.

I'm not 100% sure about the medium smartbombs change- I understand the desire to give more anti-bomb options, but the point of smartbombs is that they do AoE damage. Being able to take out a wave of bombs with a single med smartbombs pulse seems overpowered to me. Now, if you want an anti-bomb option for smaller ships that scales differently than a smartbomb, maybe we can resurrect something long left useless and unused by EVE players... Maybe we should bring back Defender missiles rebalanced to be anti-bomb munitions.
Aram Kachaturian
Aram Pleasure Hub Holding
#224 - 2014-10-16 16:36:45 UTC
Kleb Zellock wrote:


Not everyone has hours to spend getting ready for a fight that may or may not happen. [...) won't be l33t enough to get to fly with most groups. Not a very social way to play an MMO.


We are playing EvE, not World Of Warcraft.

We had enough contents added for the casual players by CCP.

Servant of the Secret League, Wielder of the Monocle Clubhouse Flame.
oodell
Rotciv Rrama Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#225 - 2014-10-16 16:36:56 UTC  |  Edited by: oodell
I mostly agree that these changes are needed. The agility and warp speed is one of the main things that tipped bombers over the top recently. Making them easier to defend against is good.

This does NOT address the huge imbalance of bombs against certain types of ships. The 100% dependence on sig radius is bad, in my opinion. Augoror Navy Issues can take around 112 shrapnel bombs with full boosts and heat. A shield rupture can barely take 7 - less with a MWD on. There are problems with the Megathron vs Rokh and battlecruisers as well.

You'd have to tweak the numbers, but why not drop the sig radius of bombs from 400 to ~250-300 (thus making sig tanking ships a bit easier to hit) while adding an explosion velocity attribute? If this was the case, fast-moving ships (read: shield ships which generally have higher mobility) would take less damage than today, assuming they're moving, but sig tanked ships like Augorors and Megathrons would actually be killable in certain situations. Shield ships can use their higher mobility to protect themselves, armor tanks can use their superior sig. I haven't run the numbers on this, but it seems a reasonable way to balance this problem out. It would also mean frigates which are moving at MWD speed may not take damage at all, unlike today where a fleet can be stripped of their light frigates quite easily.

edit: And for the anti-isboxer crowd: Go look what 90% of our kills are (Hint: Shield cruisers and destroyers/frigates)

The above could also potentially help shield BS, which are all but useless right now, and battlecruisers, which are vulnerable due to their sig.

Lockbreakers are still in a bad place and won't see any usage.

It looks like the Nemesis is still completely awful PGU wise, at least it isn't the slowest to align anymore.

At the same time, the cloaking change doesn't really do anything other than make life miserable for everyone, including blops drops, cloaky gatecamps and other roles.
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2014-10-16 16:37:00 UTC
Excellent changes. I support the decloaking effect. Frankly, i support any mechanic that prevents fleets from being one thinking FC and a bunch of F1 mashers. Now that we have introduced the radical concept of individual piloting to SB fleets, can we also make it so that the more people orbiting the FC the higher everyone's sig radius gets?

Also, I am SOO happy about the extra CPU.

And the anti-cap bomb looks fun.

Great work once again.
ulililillia
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#227 - 2014-10-16 16:38:17 UTC
Suzuka A1 wrote:
I was really looking forward to seeing more triage carriers used with 20-50 man gangs, but with ONE bomber being able to nuke 15k cap it's no longer a viable tactic.

[Q] Would you consider adding void bomb resists to cap batteries and maybe adding capital size cap batteries?

Or they could add a viable anti bombing mechanic/module, instead of doing these half assed changes
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#228 - 2014-10-16 16:39:52 UTC
Quote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.
Stupid idea. Thank god I am no longer in WH space. Ugh

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#229 - 2014-10-16 16:39:54 UTC
oodell wrote:
I mostly agree that these changes are needed. The agility and warp speed is one of the main things that tipped bombers over the top recently. Making them easier to defend against is good.

This does NOT address the huge imbalance of bombs against certain types of ships. The 100% dependence on sig radius is bad, in my opinion. Augoror Navy Issues can take around 112 shrapnel bombs with full boosts and heat. A shield rupture can barely take 7 - less with a MWD on. There are problems with the Megathron vs Rokh and battlecruisers as well.

You'd have to tweak the numbers, but why not drop the sig radius of bombs from 400 to ~250-300 (thus making sig tanking ships a bit easier to hit) while adding an explosion velocity attribute? If this was the case, fast-moving ships (read: shield ships which generally have higher mobility) would take less damage than today, assuming they're moving, but sig tanked ships like Augorors and Megathrons would actually be killable in certain situations. Shield ships can use their higher mobility to protect themselves, armor tanks can use their superior sig. I haven't run the numbers on this, but it seems a reasonable way to balance this problem out. It would also mean frigates which are moving at MWD speed may not take damage at all, unlike today where a fleet can be stripped of their light frigates quite easily.

The above could also potentially help shield BS, which are all but useless right now, and battlecruisers, which are vulnerable due to their sig.

Lockbreakers are still in a bad place and won't see any usage.

It looks like the Nemesis is still completely awful PGU wise, at least it isn't the slowest to align anymore.

At the same time, the cloaking change doesn't really do anything other than make life miserable for everyone, including blops drops, cloaky gatecamps and other roles.


You are correct that shield fleets need to be addressed a little vs bombs.

Yaay!!!!
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#230 - 2014-10-16 16:40:10 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:
I'm fine with cloaked ships decloaking each other, but it has to be done with fleet members able to see other cloaked fleet members, otherwise this change is dumb as hell


100% true.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#231 - 2014-10-16 16:43:36 UTC
Pritovsky Pootis wrote:
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.


Tear bears in the blue doughnut cry, fozzie jumps.
Kleb Zellock
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#232 - 2014-10-16 16:44:02 UTC
Aram Kachaturian wrote:
Kleb Zellock wrote:


Not everyone has hours to spend getting ready for a fight that may or may not happen. [...) won't be l33t enough to get to fly with most groups. Not a very social way to play an MMO.


We are playing EvE, not World Of Warcraft.

We had enough contents added for the casual players by CCP.



So in your Eve only players with years of experience and no job or family to get in the way of their play time are worthy of strapping themselves into a pod? All the other peasants should find there way to an instanced foam covered themepark rather than dirty up your tear farming utopia?
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#233 - 2014-10-16 16:45:06 UTC
The changes are good, but only if combined with a blanket ban on ISBoxer. Right now there is no point in running bombing fleets, and bombing has just become completely monopolised by one dude multiboxing.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#234 - 2014-10-16 16:46:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. .

no sure if SISI will give you any usable data for balancing SBs.

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
Lugh Crow-Slave
#235 - 2014-10-16 16:48:50 UTC
Suzuka A1 wrote:
I was really looking forward to seeing more triage carriers used with 20-50 man gangs, but with ONE bomber being able to nuke 15k cap it's no longer a viable tactic.

[Q] Would you consider adding void bomb resists to cap batteries and maybe adding capital size cap batteries?


It would be great if they went back over and looked at batteries give them stronger resists to neuts so that their is a reson to use them over rechargers

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Aram Kachaturian
Aram Pleasure Hub Holding
#236 - 2014-10-16 16:49:50 UTC
Kleb Zellock wrote:
All the other peasants should find there way to an instanced foam covered themepark rather than dirty up your tear farming utopia?


You read in my mind, good job.

Hardcore players need contents to show their eliteness and flatter their ego.

By the way, im getting laid multiple times by week.

Servant of the Secret League, Wielder of the Monocle Clubhouse Flame.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#237 - 2014-10-16 16:51:39 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. .

no sure if SISI will give you any usable data for balancing SBs.


Of course it won't. Using a poorly provisioned test server that has an average daily population of a couple hundred except on the days they give away play SP is one of the worst things I have ever seen as far as QA goes.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#238 - 2014-10-16 16:52:12 UTC
Even though these changes to decloaking might be a bit too harsh, I'm too much enjoying the tears in this thread to formulate anything more complicated.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#239 - 2014-10-16 16:55:50 UTC
with the capital neut bomb i would say either up the speed and have it detonate on impact rather then time delay or if you keep it this way lower the explosion radius if you manage to nail a frig with this thing(not sure why you would be) it should lose its cap

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Corey Edward
State War Academy
Caldari State
#240 - 2014-10-16 16:57:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Edward
Fozzie, you want to know why people are mad about this? Because no one was asking for these changes. We want ishtars/drones online to come to an end. We want sov changes and force projection changes. We want isboxer to go away. We want HAC and battleship buffs to make them more viable again. I know CCP is addressing some of this, but please tell us when was there a public outcry that bombers had to be nerfed like this?

Some of these people are talking about how easy it is to bomb, but its really not. To actually get 30 people to coordinate and set up for a bomb takes a lot of time and effort...and it's not a sure thing, it's very easy for bombing runs to go wrong. A couple weeks ago that Abbadon fleet that got wiped out by DBRB's gang was all over reddit and en24. Why? Because it doesn't happen every day. It was pure luck of the draw and something amazing happened.

The extra 2 seconds is a long time for bombs while it is currently still possible even now for lots of fleets to warp before they detonate. The slower align time is a huge nerf because whether you have 2k or 4k ehp, it's not going to make a difference when getting shot at. The cloaking thing is self-explanatory and is a huge nerf to all cloaked ships. Bombers are not OP. These are bad changes.