These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
rothmal
Vengance Inc.
#421 - 2014-10-17 06:52:59 UTC
Sbrodor wrote:
i remember the clarion call 4 video of RNK.

bomber bar corp and RnK and other pipe bomb corp are managin with skill and intelligence the technique "few vs many".


first time someone has mentioned us in the same sentence as RNK if only you knew what poo flinging monkeys we are behind doors. Almost as good when i found out that CVA thought I was in charge of bombers bar when temp left eve.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#422 - 2014-10-17 06:53:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Mike Azariah wrote:

That do a decent summation?


Kind of Mike... To me, the question you should be asking yourselves 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.

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


If these changes go ahead, said spy won't even need a friend in a intercepter and it will probably spell the end of the open bombers fleets.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#423 - 2014-10-17 07:11:14 UTC
From the CSM8 winter minutes

Quote:
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 don’t see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in
fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where he’s 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

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#424 - 2014-10-17 07:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
so the guy who decided his fleet shouldn't fit any explosive hardener and subsequently lost an entire fleet to explosive bombs on a gate basically pushed for and enabled this change is gloating that people should htfu in this thread
meanwhile people with thousands of kills with bombs alone and well known boming fcs are telling you this is a stupid change

no-one is disagreeing that bombers needed a nerf, but this obtuse, archaic mechanic is not the way to go about it though and anyone with any kind of experience actually flying the ships is trying to tell you that

edit: not to mention the SAME PERSON who is gloating over the changes benefits greatly by the hp buffs to bombers because of one of his doctrines (gokufleet). i mean come on, how blatant is it that these changes were pushed by a guy who never bombs in the conventional sense and frequently runs bomber fleets that don't even fit cloaks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#425 - 2014-10-17 07:26:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Mike Azariah wrote:
From the CSM8 winter minutes

Quote:
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 don’t see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in
fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where he’s 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.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Sbrodor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#426 - 2014-10-17 07:27:56 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
From the CSM8 winter minutes

Quote:

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


"too easy" but at foolish harder level than a normal player do in a usual 00 blob. (align f1 f1 f1 f1 take passive wing warp f1 f1 f1 bcast f1 f1 f1 align take passive wing warp died)

CCP are destroyin one of the most difficult gameplay actually done in eveonline under logistical (viator cyno blackops for restock) under human coordination (everyone tell me distance from x or y because i'm fc of a ghost fleet and i cannot see you , your single voice tell me the picture of fleet position) and dps outcoming (volley 1 go, volley 2 align , volley 3 hold , volley 2 bomb, volley 1 warpout , vollety 3 align aganist f1 f1 f1 f1 f1. in every cta with 3 or 4 volley i have chronometer in hand) and dps mitigation incoming (align to celestial, warpout on yeallowbox do TD to dps and Paint the primary (for goku in example)).....
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#427 - 2014-10-17 08:14:32 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
The nerf to cloaking is SOLELY to counter the ISBoxing bomber squads. SOLELY this. And therefore, it's not getting reversed because of whining.

The anti-capital bomb with an AOE of 1m. Dude. Fozzie. Mate. How are you supposed to hit anything with this?

lets do a thought game. I am in a Hound with a Cap Void Bomb. I am burning in from 50km away aligned toward my target, who is in triage/siege, blah blah. My bomb has a range of 30,000 +/- 1m. my ship has a speed, for argument's sakes, of 300m/s. I must therefore launch my bomb EXACTLY 30,000m away ffrom my foe!

From 30km away if you launch it 1/300th of a second late or early, you miss.

OH BUT WAT IS DIS?

The server tick is 1 second! So does it launch on the server tick, or does the server (plus/minus 8-200m/s lag for Interwebs) calculate it on the actual milllisecond you press the key?

Given the reaction time of the human being is 1/30th of a second, and you have 200ms lag, you have precisely ZERO chance of landing a bomb within <1m of anything at 30km range. Hurr durr!

OK, so given a capital is a big ship, are we now saying that the bomb lands inside the foe? Or what?

TL;DR 1,000m AEO for bombs, minimum, to make them practical.

Me using a capital void bomb.


You travelling at 300 m/s and game giving you auto-aim with "approach" pointing your ship straight towards the enemy allowing pin-point accuracy will give you a window of 9.7 seconds.

(Hint, signature radius of a triage archon is 2900 meters).
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#428 - 2014-10-17 08:17:00 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
From the CSM8 winter minutes

Quote:
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 don’t see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in
fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where he’s 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.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#429 - 2014-10-17 08:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
From the CSM8 winter minutes

Quote:
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 don’t see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in
fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where he’s 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.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#430 - 2014-10-17 08:35:45 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
From the CSM8 winter minutes

Quote:
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 don’t see cruiser or BC or shield BS fleets in
fights, entirely because of bomb risks. He highlighted where he’s 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.


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.
MsArj
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2014-10-17 08:47:27 UTC
Destroying COVOPS is just plain sad, its the "game environment" i really enjoy and sadly form the looks of it, because bombers who are bombing is a threath they nerf the whole COVOPS idea to hell.

Do something about the bombs, even make bombers unflyable, give em a new "torp" role, do something else than nerfing the crap out of COVOPS in general..
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#432 - 2014-10-17 08:54:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
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?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Zumbul Cvetkov
Your Loss
#433 - 2014-10-17 09:00:50 UTC
Good Lord...

Nerf SB cause CFC loses to them are too immense.. what is next?
Buffing Megathrons and Celestis cause CFC flies them?

Nice work killing bombing runs.
Instead of nerfing cloaking we get a BomberDrakenerf here..
Go on, make more ships useless.

Iam looking forward to quit anyway when Elite: Dangerous comes out... but its sad what can 1 person do to a game. I was thinking to coming back later to EVE.. but maybe there will be no Eve later anymore :(


To end my rant i will quote this:

"WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID IS ONE OF THE MOST INSANELY, IDIOTIC THINGS I HAVE EVER HEARD.
AT NO POINT IN YOUR RAMBLING, INCOHERENT, RESPONSE, WERE YOU EVEN CLOSE TO ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED A RATIONAL THOUGHT.
EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS NOW DUMBER FOR HAVING LISTENED TO IT.
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL."
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#434 - 2014-10-17 09:11:18 UTC
Making bombers less agile with bigger sig makes them pretty much crap for small gang torp ops.

It's really sad that a situation in null with bombers is driven by a single out-of-game factor, ISBotter, and instead of focusing on that factor, ship balance is altered in a way that has wide-reaching negative effects outside sov blobs. Ironically this change favours ISBotter bombing fleets even more over normal fleets.

ISBotter is a cancer slowly gnawing at this game, and this ill-thought nerf is the most obnoxius example of CCP favouring subscription money at any cost over a functional and balanced virtual world.

Surely attracting new real human subscribers is better for long term MMO health than buffing 3rd party solutions that encourage massive armies of alts.

And to ISDs, this thread is about ISBotting and nothing else, bombing was not an issue before ISBotting become so widespread.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#435 - 2014-10-17 09:14:12 UTC
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.
Sbrodor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#436 - 2014-10-17 09:32:21 UTC
people but these ISBOX how many kill have done?

because we did 35k kill in our corp only and we doin often bomber bars. The isbox is a cancer doing thousand of kills every month or we are talking of 2-3 wing wipe a month?
for what i know we never seen in south of new eden isboxer bomber wing, maybe in the north they running? they did so much damage to need to destroy entire corp\bomber wing?

i dont think the cure for a small problem is making 100-200-500 real people totally sad for destroy his gameplay...
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#437 - 2014-10-17 09:32:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
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 Cry" 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 missed what 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)

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Kion Oriki
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#438 - 2014-10-17 09:46:13 UTC
CCP 'nerfs' the most over used and over powered ship in the game with small tweeks to drone tracking, and then does a backwards over zealous nerf to make a ship used in a small niche useless in most cases apart from with ISboxer.

GG CCP
Archetype 66
Perkone
Caldari State
#439 - 2014-10-17 10:07:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Archetype 66
Fozzie,

Is not it time to give a value to Defender Missile ? Anti-bomb Light Defender missile would be fun + Capital Anti-Bomb Defender missiles would be a fun obverse to those new AoE bombs.

Keep up the good work.

Edit : already proposed on thread.
Fonda Dicks
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#440 - 2014-10-17 10:13:34 UTC
-1

Do you guys just do quick fire suggestions at a team meeting and pick the first ones. Really off putting for your players when it seems you don't put any thought into your changes.