These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yankunytjatjara
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#461 - 2014-10-17 13:29:12 UTC
Would you consider reducing bomb volume with the reduction in bomb hp?

My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors
Dyexz
Comrades in Construction
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
#462 - 2014-10-17 13:31:23 UTC
Burneddi wrote:
Where's the ISBoxer ban announcement Fozzie


Since ISBoxer is not violating anything in the EULA a ban of it will never happen, unless CCP changes the EULA
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#463 - 2014-10-17 14:18:56 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:

Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:

Explosion Radius: 4000
Thermal Damage: 20,000
Flight Time: 15s
Velocity: 2000m/s
AoE Range: One Meter

So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.


So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#464 - 2014-10-17 14:37:02 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:

Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:

Explosion Radius: 4000
Thermal Damage: 20,000
Flight Time: 15s
Velocity: 2000m/s
AoE Range: One Meter

So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.


So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u.

Well, that would certainly make structure grinds and POS shoots rather...interesting....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Lugh Crow-Slave
#465 - 2014-10-17 14:43:41 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
[quote=PotatoOverdose]
Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:

Explosion Radius: 4000
Thermal Damage: 20,000
Flight Time: 15s
Velocity: 2000m/s
AoE Range: One Meter

So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.


Only problem i see with these is that they wouldn't be able to hit each other so you could launch as many as you had bombers so 15 or so bombers could 1 shot a carrier.

how ever i would love to see more of these types of bombs but that do support type damage (like the neut) at least until a counter other then smart bombs can be found.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#466 - 2014-10-17 14:48:30 UTC
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

progodlegend wrote:


The CSM is doing our job, most of these changes were ideas that came directly from the CSM. In reinstatement of the "cloaked ships decloak each other" mechanic is a direct result from last year's winter summit conversation on fleet warfare balance.

Actually, half of these changes were listed in the minutes of last years winter summits I'm pretty sure. If not listed they were at least summarized or hinted at.

Bros, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Yes, bombers are a problem. Or rather, perfectly synchronized, perfectly coordinated bombers are a problem. A little over a year ago I was in Curse during the thunderdome. I never saw a roaming PL fleet without an isboxed bombing fleet in tow. Most anyone in the CFC that's fought against pasta is probably quite familiar with Ammzi and Space. Many that fought against the cfc know Oodell.

Look at all of the major fleet fights which got bombed over the past year. How many of them didn't involve isboxer? Maybe one or two. How many involved isboxed bombers? Almost all of them.

The primary difficulty associated with bombers is organizational. Isboxer bypasses this difficulty. Re-balancing bombers, and ignoring isboxer, is the equivalent of doing this. And that's what most people on the first ten pages of this thread, on the reddit thread, on failheap, TMC, or EN24 are telling you. And you aren't representing that.

These changes hurt normal bomber groups (which are a dying breed quite frankly) far more than they effect isboxer. Ammzi and Space have explained that in detail in this thread and the reddit thread.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#467 - 2014-10-17 14:56:38 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:

Any chance of seeing more "interesting" bomb types along these lines? Something like this, for example:

Explosion Radius: 200
Thermal Damage: 20,000
Flight Time: 15s
Velocity: 2000m/s
AoE Range: One Meter

So a single target munition that has to be aimed and actually hit it's target, but has a relatively high damage to compensate. I'm thinking something like an "armor piercing" round (or bomb) compared to all of the "high explosive" rounds we have now.


So an anti-capital damage bomb that has a warning label on it reading "Not for use against subcapitals". Interesting. But the expRad has to be much bigger than 200m. Fixed that 4u.

Fixed it back. P The point was a dumbfire missile. Honestly, if any moving subcap actually collides with a bomb, it deserves to take a shitload of damage.
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#468 - 2014-10-17 15:00:49 UTC
PotatoOverdose 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

progodlegend wrote:


The CSM is doing our job, most of these changes were ideas that came directly from the CSM. In reinstatement of the "cloaked ships decloak each other" mechanic is a direct result from last year's winter summit conversation on fleet warfare balance.

Actually, half of these changes were listed in the minutes of last years winter summits I'm pretty sure. If not listed they were at least summarized or hinted at.

Bros, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Yes, bombers are a problem. Or rather, perfectly synchronized, perfectly coordinated bombers are a problem. A little over a year ago I was in Curse during the thunderdome. I never saw a roaming PL fleet without an isboxed bombing fleet in tow. Most anyone in the CFC that's fought against pasta is probably quite familiar with Ammzi and Space. Many that fought against the cfc know Oodell.

Look at all of the major fleet fights which got bombed over the past year. How many of them didn't involve isboxer? Maybe one or two. How many involved isboxed bombers? Almost all of them.

The primary difficulty associated with bombers is organizational. Isboxer bypasses this difficulty. Re-balancing bombers, and ignoring isboxer, is the equivalent of doing this. And that's what most people on the first ten pages of this thread, on the reddit thread, on failheap, TMC, or EN24 are telling you. And you aren't representing that.

These changes hurt normal bomber groups (which are a dying breed quite frankly) far more than they effect isboxer. Ammzi and Space have explained that in detail in this thread and the reddit thread.


Confirming that I too once had a SFI that was bombed by Oodell in Curse....

Does ISBoxing bomber fleets have to be considered a special case? Should there be SPECIFIC action against it? Do they even have to touch bombers if they just took action against ISBoxing bomber fleets?

Otherwise how should they adjust mechanics to counter this? Adding in something like "arming bombs with a code" seems weird, buf if it prevents automation of bombing runs, I could get behind it.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#469 - 2014-10-17 15:09:20 UTC
Metal Icarus wrote:

Confirming that I too once had a SFI that was bombed by Oodell in Curse....

Does ISBoxing bomber fleets have to be considered a special case? Should there be SPECIFIC action against it? Do they even have to touch bombers if they just took action against ISBoxing bomber fleets?

Otherwise how should they adjust mechanics to counter this? Adding in something like "arming bombs with a code" seems weird, buf if it prevents automation of bombing runs, I could get behind it.

The thing with isboxed bombers is that, at least in nullsec, there are many more successful isboxing bombing runs happening every week then there are non-isboxed bombing fleets happening every month. PGL and and Mike posted about the problems of bombed fleets, how an FC can't take his fleet anywhere without getting bombed. That problem is inescapably intertwined with isboxer. Ignoring that is myopic.

It's a sad state of affairs, but isboxers are now the primary use case of bombers. Sad
MetalJacke1 McKenzie
Spaceforce Junkies
Atomic Fusion Industries
#470 - 2014-10-17 15:12:23 UTC
Take away agility and warp speed. We're still talking about frigates right?
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#471 - 2014-10-17 15:12:41 UTC
the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.

how is that not absolute insanity to anyone else that these suggestions came "directly from the CSM" when the only exposure that the csm has to bombers with cloaks is getting put into the dumpster by them

of course those people are going to have skewed opinions. of course you can say the same about the people who actively use bombs, and thats why you should listen to both sides.
you definitely should not listen exclusively to the side proposing bombers de-cloaking each other again when that side is well known for flying bombers without cloaks, regardless of their position as CSM delegates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
wheniaminspoce
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#472 - 2014-10-17 15:27:14 UTC  |  Edited by: wheniaminspoce
It would not be out of the ordinary or difficult for CCP to ban a specific activity (such as ISBoxing bombs) within their game. There is plenty of gray area in CCP's policies, and ultimately a lot of things are decided based on how that particular GM feels on the day he opens your ticket. Rumors abound that people soloed by ISBoxers are being quietly reimbursed, which is CCP playing both sides of the fence basically; having their cake and eating it.

Some examples of murky policies within Eve where nobody really understands where the line is drawn:

*Real life harassment
*Account sharing
*Bumping things out of shields
*Spamming deployables
*Accidentally dropping some RAM into a tractor unit
*ISBoxer PvP

World of Warcraft banned multiboxing in PvP; why is CCP so reluctant to take a stance on this? Why are they willing to punish an entire class of ships for the activities of a handful of people that they could easily stop? I have my suspicions but I would prefer to believe this is a case of ignorance rather than willful profiteering at the cost of gameplay and balance.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#473 - 2014-10-17 15:29:26 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Metal Icarus wrote:

Confirming that I too once had a SFI that was bombed by Oodell in Curse....

Does ISBoxing bomber fleets have to be considered a special case? Should there be SPECIFIC action against it? Do they even have to touch bombers if they just took action against ISBoxing bomber fleets?

Otherwise how should they adjust mechanics to counter this? Adding in something like "arming bombs with a code" seems weird, buf if it prevents automation of bombing runs, I could get behind it.

The thing with isboxed bombers is that, at least in nullsec, there are many more successful isboxing bombing runs happening every week then there are non-isboxed bombing fleets happening every month. PGL and and Mike posted about the problems of bombed fleets, how an FC can't take his fleet anywhere without getting bombed. That problem is inescapably intertwined with isboxer. Ignoring that is myopic.

It's a sad state of affairs, but isboxers are now the primary use case of bombers. Sad


And making it harder for real people to use bombs will only inflate that :/ c'mon CCP even if you can't ban isboxer for whatever reason at least address that it's the problem rather then just blanket nurfing a good deal of cloaking ships with a fix that just makes isboxer a little harder to use

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#474 - 2014-10-17 15:30:38 UTC
Capqu wrote:
the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.

how is that not absolute insanity to anyone else that these suggestions came "directly from the CSM" when the only exposure that the csm has to bombers with cloaks is getting put into the dumpster by them

of course those people are going to have skewed opinions. of course you can say the same about the people who actively use bombs, and thats why you should listen to both sides.
you definitely should not listen exclusively to the side proposing bombers de-cloaking each other again when that side is well known for flying bombers without cloaks, regardless of their position as CSM delegates.


Lobbying at its finest.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#475 - 2014-10-17 15:30:41 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
-snip-
Fixed it back. P The point was a dumbfire missile. Honestly, if any moving subcap actually collides with a bomb, it deserves to take a shitload of damage.


Potato thank you,

you just gave me an idea about bombs in general!

Collision charges!

They effect only one target like those neut-bombs but only on impact. So girls and boys make sure you aim those things right or there is no explosion to watch Sad

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
wheniaminspuce
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2014-10-17 15:32:08 UTC  |  Edited by: wheniaminspuce
wheniaminspoce wrote:
It would not be out of the ordinary or difficult for CCP to ban a specific activity (such as ISBoxing bombs) within their game. There is plenty of gray area in CCP's policies, and ultimately a lot of things are decided based on how that particular GM feels on the day he opens your ticket. Rumors abound that people soloed by ISBoxers are being quietly reimbursed, which is CCP playing both sides of the fence basically; having their cake and eating it.

Some examples of murky policies within Eve where nobody really understands where the line is drawn:

*Real life harassment
*Account sharing
*Bumping things out of shields
*Spamming deployables
*Accidentally dropping some RAM into a tractor unit
*ISBoxer PvP

World of Warcraft banned multiboxing in PvP; why is CCP so reluctant to take a stance on this? Why are they willing to punish an entire class of ships for the activities of a handful of people that they could easily stop? I have my suspicions but I would prefer to believe this is a case of ignorance rather than willful profiteering at the cost of gameplay and balance.


I agree completely. CCP loves to have a lot of wiggle room in their policies and leaving everything up to their discretion without explicitly stating what that is. Here is a perfect opportunity for them to exercise that discretion instead of damaging their game and they are ignoring the issue entirely in favor of poorly designed band-aids and reintroducing bugs as features.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#477 - 2014-10-17 15:34:37 UTC
wheniaminspuce wrote:
wheniaminspoce wrote:
It would not be out of the ordinary or difficult for CCP to ban a specific activity (such as ISBoxing bombs) within their game. There is plenty of gray area in CCP's policies, and ultimately a lot of things are decided based on how that particular GM feels on the day he opens your ticket. Rumors abound that people soloed by ISBoxers are being quietly reimbursed, which is CCP playing both sides of the fence basically; having their cake and eating it.

Some examples of murky policies within Eve where nobody really understands where the line is drawn:

*Real life harassment
*Account sharing
*Bumping things out of shields
*Spamming deployables
*Accidentally dropping some RAM into a tractor unit
*ISBoxer PvP

World of Warcraft banned multiboxing in PvP; why is CCP so reluctant to take a stance on this? Why are they willing to punish an entire class of ships for the activities of a handful of people that they could easily stop? I have my suspicions but I would prefer to believe this is a case of ignorance rather than willful profiteering at the cost of gameplay and balance.


I agree completely. CCP loves to have a lot of wiggle room in their policies and leaving everything up to their discretion without explicitly stating what that is. Here is a perfect opportunity for them to exercise that discretion instead of damaging their game and they are ignoring the issue entirely in favor of poorly designed band-aids and reintroducing bugs as features.

Nice to see you agreeing with yourself?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Lugh Crow-Slave
#478 - 2014-10-17 15:37:39 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
-snip-
Fixed it back. P The point was a dumbfire missile. Honestly, if any moving subcap actually collides with a bomb, it deserves to take a shitload of damage.


Potato thank you,

you just gave me an idea about bombs in general!

Collision charges!

They effect only one target like those neut-bombs but only on impact. So girls and boys make sure you aim those things right or there is no explosion to watch Sad

but there would need to be a minimum range or you would just have bombers warping right on top of ships for a guaranteed hit.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#479 - 2014-10-17 16:00:05 UTC
Capqu wrote:
the csm may indeed be doing its job, but noone on the csm has any actual experience with bombing fleets / isbombing. in fact i looked up all the csm members and the only one with any appreciable background using bombs is Ali Aras, and he isn't the most active of pilots with no activity since june and sub a hundred bombing kills before that.

how is that not absolute insanity to anyone else that these suggestions came "directly from the CSM" when the only exposure that the csm has to bombers with cloaks is getting put into the dumpster by them

of course those people are going to have skewed opinions. of course you can say the same about the people who actively use bombs, and thats why you should listen to both sides.
you definitely should not listen exclusively to the side proposing bombers de-cloaking each other again when that side is well known for flying bombers without cloaks, regardless of their position as CSM delegates.


You need to 'all' quit blowing up the carebear null tears ships. There can be no ships blown up in null.

Game fixt.
Sbrodor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#480 - 2014-10-17 16:00:23 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
[



Look at all of the major fleet fights which got bombed over the past year. How many of them didn't involve isboxer? Maybe one or two. How many involved isboxed bombers? Almost all of them.



i totally disagree. i know at least a couple of corp bombing oriented and they dunt use never isbox (cause they are all differente real people coordinating in ts3 ).

I never never seen isbox in south of new eden.