These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

*New Ship Class* Heavy Bombers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kabark
Schilden
#1 - 2015-01-31 23:29:17 UTC
I think this may have been touched on before but don't remember. The plan is to make more use of bombs and give destroyers more of a purpose in fleets aside from just throwing up bubbles. For the sake of my description, I will use a Corax as demonstration. The new ship class would be Advanced destroyer/ heavy bombers. The bonuses would look something like this universally save for racial bonuses toward torps.

(Corax Chassis)

Destroyer Skill
10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level
20% bonus to torpedo missile velocity per level

Heavy Bomber Skill
2% bonus to bomb kinetic damage per level
15% bonus to torpedo kinetic damage per level

Role Bonus
-99.7% Reduction in Torpedo Launcher powergrid needs
-50% Reduction in Bomb Launcher reload time
Can fit 2 bomb launchers

(Fitting)
High 6x - Launcher 4x slot
Medium 4x
Low 2x

(Attribute Change)
Increase cargohold to 550m3

*Notes*
It's all a pretty simple transfer of stealth bomber attributes. Bomb damage trait reduced from 5% per specialty level to 2% for a total of 10% at max vs a stealth bombers 20%. Still utilizing torpedoes, it can fit one additional launcher as per destroyer style to tote more firepower. The idea of the ship is to provide a piloted version of a Fighter Bomber and provide supplemental firepower where smaller corporations are more able to defend themselves from battleship and capital fleets.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2015-01-31 23:37:04 UTC
Search tool, it is your friend
cue echo in 5 4 3 2 1

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Kabark
Schilden
#3 - 2015-01-31 23:41:31 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:
Search tool, it is your friend
cue echo in 5 4 3 2 1

Not sure if that is the same idea. Destroyer with citadel torps is not quite what I proposed.
Foxicity
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-01-31 23:43:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Foxicity
Kabark wrote:
Let's do more bombs.


NOOOOOOO
Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2015-01-31 23:46:11 UTC
ignoring that this has come up before we really don't need more bombs right now and SBs are already great at being used by smaller corps to deal with BS and capitals

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Kabark
Schilden
#6 - 2015-01-31 23:46:20 UTC
Foxicity wrote:
Kabark wrote:
Let's do more bombs.


NOOOOOOO

Sounds like someone got poped by a bomb one to many times.
Kabark
Schilden
#7 - 2015-01-31 23:48:11 UTC
They are all cloaky. This one isn't =P
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#8 - 2015-02-01 00:46:49 UTC
Some things II whish this one could get:

- AOE Damage, solar system wide
- Biomasses all characters in the system, permanently
- Makes the solar system explode by entering and creates a new one that cannot be claimed
- Kill all gates in nullsec and opens the new class 22 wormholes with roaming bubble camping carcadian sleeper titans, super-sleeper motherships and sleeper bombers

- All those new class 22 wormhole entrances are bubbled for 250km, interdiction-un-nullified

- all sleepers inside will podkill you and pipebomp cloaked ships with 25km 1000hp omni-damage sleeper-smartbombs

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Zhaniz
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2015-02-01 01:12:53 UTC
i like the idea of the heavy bomber but the destroyer hull for it doesn't feel right my idea for them was to base them off the teir 3 battlecrusiers such as the naga ,talos ,oracle and tornado
Kabark
Schilden
#10 - 2015-02-01 01:21:13 UTC
Zhaniz wrote:
i like the idea of the heavy bomber but the destroyer hull for it doesn't feel right my idea for them was to base them off the teir 3 battlecrusiers such as the naga ,talos ,oracle and tornado

An addition to advanced BCs would be nice. I haven't considered that but looking at it more I like that idea over the destroyers. Given the new T3 destroyers, it would give BCs a good T3 to rely on.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2015-02-01 05:24:12 UTC
Kabark wrote:
Zhaniz wrote:
i like the idea of the heavy bomber but the destroyer hull for it doesn't feel right my idea for them was to base them off the teir 3 battlecrusiers such as the naga ,talos ,oracle and tornado

An addition to advanced BCs would be nice. I haven't considered that but looking at it more I like that idea over the destroyers. Given the new T3 destroyers, it would give BCs a good T3 to rely on.


Yep. The current Attack Battlecruisers are:
Amarr - Oracle - Large Energy Turret
Caldari - Naga - Large Hybrid Turret (damage and range bonus)
Gallente - Talos - Large Hybrid Turret (damage and tracking bonus)
Minmitar - Tornado - Large Projectile Turret

Seems reasonable to have an Attack Battlecruiser that can fit the missile systems intended for battleships - Rapid Heavy, Cruise and Torpedo. The Naga currently doesn't fit in with the pattern of the other three ships. But I know some people really like their sniping Naga. So maybe change the Drake so that instead of cruiser-sized Heavy and Heavy Assault systems it can use the battleship ones? Not sure it'd be proper to give Caldari *two* BCs that can fit BS weapons, though...
Helios Panala
#12 - 2015-02-01 14:12:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Helios Panala
If we're being silly I'd like to throw turret based bomb launchers for Battleships into the mix.

There is your true heavy bomber.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#13 - 2015-02-01 23:57:15 UTC
Helios Panala wrote:
If we're being silly I'd like to throw turret based bomb launchers for Battleships into the mix.

There is your true heavy bomber.

Put it on the Phoenix.

It's relevant again!
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-02-02 03:32:58 UTC
I think CCP should just admit that stealth bombers really are destroyers, and stop calling them frigates.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
ShadowStar90
Deaf Armada
#15 - 2015-02-02 17:37:45 UTC
No... Just.... no. Bombers in frigates are already really deadly to cruiser and up.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#16 - 2015-02-02 19:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Alundil
The problems with this are many.

1. Typical bomb delivery requires approaching the target. Frigate sized bombers already diaf the minute they are locked by anything larger than a frigate (especially to n/omens, zealots, canes etc). This same idea on a thin destroyer hull is going to be even harder on the destroyer bomber pilot as things will lock them even faster.

2. Launching two bombs at once further reduces the number of individual pilot needed for a max damage bomb run (or increases the likelihood of people killing their own bombs by having too many explode within range of each other).

3. This goes against CCP's apparent goal of reducing the effectiveness of bomber wings (see Fozzie's 'Nerf' to bombers, the idea that they would decloak each other, and the changes to enforcement of isboxer repeater/broadcaster banning). Attempting to increase the lethality of bombers just seems to be going in the other direction.


There are probably others, but those are just from the top of my head.

I'm right behind you
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#17 - 2015-02-02 21:07:45 UTC
Oh look it's this idea.

Again.

Roll