These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

First post
Author
Alexis Nightwish
#1 - 2015-05-14 00:03:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
If you're pressed for time or hate reading there's a tl;dr at the bottom.


Fozzie has made mention of CCP's intent to "revisit" bombers and this has me worried. Last time Fozzie went after them he almost nerfed the entire line of cloaking ships, and while the community was able to prevent that cloaking nerf, bombers were hit hard in agility and warp speed while gaining some unneeded HP as a consolation prize, resulting in them becoming fat and slow even if a bomb launcher isn't even equiped.

In an effort to prevent further unnecessary heavy handed nerfs to the bomber because of their effect within the narrow scope of nullsec blob warfare, I submit my proposal to fix what is actually wrong with bombing runs: the bomb damage mechanic itself. Please note this is NOT a proposal to nerf or buff the amount of damage bombs do, but is instead a proposal to change HOW bombs apply their damage.

Currently any object caught in the AoE of a bomb takes the same damage regardless of where in the blast it is. At the epicenter or at the periphery, it makes no difference. The only thing that currently affects damage is signature radius.

Signature radius is how easily electronic targeting systems can "see" or "resolve" an object. Larger the sig, easier it is for ship sensors to achieve a target lock, for missiles' guidance systems to strike more accurately, turrets to "see" and thus hit their target, probes to pinpoint an object's location, etc.

Bombs have no targeting systems. They are dumbfired, AoE weapons. Using signature radius to determine bomb damage is the worst metric that could have been chosen. Combined with the chilling effect this has had on shield ships, the current mechanic using of sig radius to determine bomb damage must be expunged.

So what can we use instead of signature radius? I have a few possible solutions utilizing a something we are already familiar with: the falloff formula. There are several ways to apply this formula to bomb damage that I present in each solution below.
However there is an inherent problem with all the below solutions. Since we are reducing the damage bombs do based on either distance, size, or both, what do we do to limit the number of bombs that can used in a single run?

Currently bombs have a very high resist to their own damage type so the number of bombs in a run is restricted to around 6-8, but with my proposed solutions, the damage they take from each other is reduced, so if nothing is done the number of bombs in a wave will increase. In each of the solutions to the damage mechanic below I offer a solution to this issue of limiting the number of bombs.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Alexis Nightwish
#2 - 2015-05-14 00:03:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
Solution #1: Distance from epicenter.
The further your ship is from the epicenter, the less damage you take. Simple as that. Just like falloff, there's only a slight reduction in damage at first, then it becomes dramatic, with it tapering off at the end.

Pros: This system rewards skillful play for both the bomber pilot and the potential targets as the bomber attempts to bullseye the target for maximum damage, and the target has 12 seconds to try and get away from the impact point to minimize damage. In this regard, speed (along with situational awareness) can be used to reduce incoming damage by moving away from where the bomb will detonate.
Cons: Small ships have a very real chance of getting insta-popped by a bombing wave just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anticipating bomb trajectory is quite hard.

Some examples of how damage would be reduced:
0km from center: -0.000%
2.5km from center: -15.943%
5km from center -50.065%
7.5km from center: -79.075%
10km from center: -93.880%
15km from center: -100.000%

In this solution, the bomb explosion radius would likely need to be increased to 30km so as to put the 50% damage mark at about 10km from the epicenter.

The issue of how many bombs are allowed in a run may in fact be self-correcting as bombs detonating in close proximity to maximize damage on a single target or clustered blob would be reduced in number, but "carpet bombing" a larger area could be done with more bombers.

Another tactic this would open up is sustained fire where bombers launch in series rather than concurrently so that each bomb is far enough away that it's not destroyed by the preceding bomb. This solution would definitely require testing and feedback to balance, but may not need much change to how bombs themselves are now.



Solution #2: Size of the object.
The larger the ship is, the more surface area it has, thus the more damage it takes. If I'm not mistaken, every object that can be in space has a volume attribute. Here I use ship volume in the falloff formula rather than distance.

Pros: The larger the target, the more damage, which helps prevent small craft from being instablapped and still does heavy damage to the large ships that bombs were designed to destroy.
Cons: "Grazing shots" where the ship is just barely within the blast radius still take as much damage as if it was at the center, which does not reward skilled play, especially for the bomber who typically has the advantage in bombing runs.

I chose a volume of 600,000m3 for the 100% damage mark because the largest battleships are 595,000m3. This could of course be adjusted for balance if needed, but using what I've got, here are some examples of damage reduction based on ship size:
Capsule (1,000m3) -99.998%
Atron (22,500m3) -99.119%
Moa (101,000m3) -83.764%
Covetor (200,000m3) -49.935%
Iteron Mark V (275,000m3) -26.880%
Typhoon (414,000m3) -4.995%
Machariel (595,000m3) -0.023%


The easiest solution to the "number of bombs" problem would be to make it so that bombs, once launched, have their volume attribute increased in a manner similar to how deploying a container does. When a container is launched, it "unpacks" or "expands" becoming larger than it was in the cargo bay. Same concept.

Bombs would probably have to increase to somewhere in the range of 10,000m3 when they are launched. When in your cargo bay they would still be 75m3 of course. They would need to have their resistances removed, and use their expanded size to determine damage taken from other bombs. To make it clear, a bomb that "expanded" to 10,000m3 would take (from level V bombs) only 13.55 damage so they wouldn't need resistance anymore.



Solution #3: The better of the two above.
When a bomb explodes, the server makes two calculations for each object in the radius. One for damage reduction based on distance, and one for damage reduction based on size. Whichever of the two gives the most reduction is the one used to calculate applied damage.
Pros: Gives the best of both worlds. Small craft aren't punished for supporting larger fleets, and direct hits on large ships still does large damage.
Cons: Very punishing to bomber pilots who don't land perfect shots, and makes bombs basically worthless for attacking something smaller than a BC.


More examples:
Atron (22,500m3), 2.5km from center (better of -99.119% from size, or -15.943% from distance): -99.119%
Moa (101,000m3), 10km from center (better of -83.764% from size, or -93.880% from distance): -93.880%
Covetor (200,000m3), 5km from center (better of -49.935% from size, or -50.065% from distance): -50.065%
Iteron Mark V (275,000m3), 2.5km from center (better of -26.880% from size, or -15.943% from distance): -26.880%
Typhoon (414,000m3), 12.5km from center (better of -4.995% from size, or -98.849% from distance): -98.849%

Combining the two ideas above would work here to limit the number of bombs at once. The self correcting nature of solution #1, combined with increasing in-flight volume of solution #2 would be effective, but lots of testing and feedback would be needed.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Alexis Nightwish
#3 - 2015-05-14 00:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
Solution #4: The first two combined.
Both distance and small size combine to further reduce damage taken.

Pros: This is probably the most realistic model as both size and distance factor in concurrently.
Cons: Small ships can remove bombs from their overview as they are less of a threat than a Warrior I. To keep bombs viable potential damage output would have to be increased by either raising the base damage, increasing the number of bombs that can be used in one run, or both. Lots of room to play with the numbers, but balance would be a *****. This is my least liked solution.

Moar examples:
Atron (22,500m3), 2.5km from center (-99.119% from size and -15.943% from distance): -99.26%
Moa (101,000m3), 10km from center (-83.764% from size and -93.880% from distance): -99.36%
Covetor (200,000m3), 5km from center (-49.935% from size and -50.065% from distance): -25.07%
Iteron Mark V (275,000m3), 2.5km from center (-26.880% from size and -15.943% from distance): -38.54%
Typhoon (414,000m3), 12.5km from center (-4.995% from size and -98.849% from distance): -98.91%

Oh man. Bombs per wave would spike way up. This right here is why I don't like #4. Just too hard to balance. The only thing I can think of is removing bombs' resistance and seeing what happens, but the outlook isn't good as EVE players are notorious for maxing out and breaking systems.



Solution #5: Split the difference
Both distance and size are used, but each only have 50% of the weight in the calculation. In other words, half the damage would be based on distance from the epicenter, and half would be based on the size of the ship.

EXAMPLES!
Atron (22,500m3), 2.5km from center (-99.119% from size and -15.943% from distance): -57.531%
Moa (101,000m3), 10km from center (-83.764% from size and -93.880% from distance): -88.822%
Covetor (200,000m3), 5km from center (-49.935% from size and -50.065% from distance): -50.00%
Iteron Mark V (275,000m3), 2.5km from center (-26.880% from size and -15.943% from distance): -21.4115%
Typhoon (414,000m3), 12.5km from center (-4.995% from size and -98.849% from distance): -51.922%

As you can see in the above examples, a single bomb could wreck a careless Atron, while an average shot still does good, but not devastating damage to the Typhoon.
I honestly think this is the best solution as it has all the benefits of the above possibilities, but greatly reduced drawbacks.

Just like in Solution #3, we use both #1's and #2's methods of controlling the number of bombs in a wave by removing their resists, increasing their in-flight volume, and counting on the fact that bombs going off in close proximity to one another will do way more damage to each other than if they are spread out, but if they are spread out it becomes very hard to dunk a target or clustered group.



Conclusion
In all of my proposed solutions, bomb damage is nerfed. Whether this is a good or bad thing, Is not something I'm going to argue as this post is really about changing the damage model from the terribad one it uses now, to a more elegant, fair, and realistic one.

If CCP were to adopt one of my solutions and felt that bomber damage was too low, I would not suggest a simple increase in bomb damage. A more holistic approach would be to allow more bombers in a single run instead. This would keep the maximum damage potential similar, but increase the difficulty of executing a perfect run (especially now that ISbox is crippled, yay CCP for purging that blight!).

If you made it this far I am impressed as most people's eyes glaze over when they see a long post with a bunch of numbers. ;) I created a spreadsheet showing the different damage models in pretty graph format, and it even lets you plug in numbers to see the resulting damage. Please download it and take a look! :)

If you have any thoughts, feedback, or constructive criticism please post it. Thank you for you time!




tl;dr
Bombers are not the problem, bombs are. If anything must be nerfed, nerf the weapon, not the hull.
Signature radius, a stat that shows how easily electronic targeting systems can lock an object is the worst metric to determine the damage of a dumbfired, AoE weapon.
Instead, distance from the bomb's epicenter, size of the object hit, or some combination of the two should be used.
Please download my spreadsheet showing visually what I mean, with an option to plug in your own numbers to see how versatile and robust the solutions are.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2015-05-14 01:35:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Khan Wrenth
I've skilled for bombers, but haven't gotten around to using them. I'm still interested in using them, so this sort of topic does grab my attention. That said, I would like to opine on this a little bit, but I do it knowing that I don't have the large amount of experience others have.

Your ideas are quite interesting. But I don't quite like the "distance from epicenter" idea. Bombers are there to counter blob or hit a wide range of targets. Falloff damage from bombs puts a very serious dent into their primary purpose and limits them in ways I don't think is in the spirit of the weapon system. With the now 12-second travel time, people have plenty of time to get moving, if not completely out of the way, but closer to the edge of of effect. Plus, how do you ever really do optimal damage on any moving target when they're most likely moving at full speed (unless a Marauder or something) for a full 12 seconds? They are probably using a prop mod, if not before you uncloak and launch that bomb, then certainly after.

Someone once suggested that the already-existing explosion velocity be the new way of calculating damage, instead of sigrad. That way shield doctrines aren't unfairly gimped, and using MWD to get away from the bomb area makes more sense. Smaller ships already have better speed, so the ability of bombs to do more damage to larger targets would be in play.

So what do you think about incorporating velocity into your suggestions?
Alexis Nightwish
#5 - 2015-05-14 01:59:40 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
...Your ideas are quite interesting. But I don't quite like the "distance from epicenter" idea. Bombers are there to counter blob or hit a wide range of targets. Falloff damage from bombs puts a very serious dent into their primary purpose and limits them in ways I don't think is in the spirit of the weapon system.
Have you looked at the spreadsheet? I put a page where the radius is increased to 30km. Please take a look at it :) If any distance-based option was used, I feel the radius would have to be increased as being just 5km off target is punishing if left as is.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
With the now 12-second travel time, people have plenty of time to get moving, if not completely out of the way, but closer to the edge of of effect. Plus, how do you ever really do optimal damage on any moving target when they're most likely moving at full speed (unless a Marauder or something) for a full 12 seconds? They are probably using a prop mod, if not before you uncloak and launch that bomb, then certainly after.
I like counterplay and feel this is a good thing :)

Khan Wrenth wrote:
Someone once suggested that the already-existing explosion velocity be the new way of calculating damage, instead of sigrad. That way shield doctrines aren't unfairly gimped, and using MWD to get away from the bomb area makes more sense. Smaller ships already have better speed, so the ability of bombs to do more damage to larger targets would be in play.
I don't want to take away from bombs' uniqueness and using explosion velocity would make them too similar to missiles IMO.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
In such a system, even if the enemy saw the bombs coming and scrambled to get way, and all of them did, theoretically you just broke up their formation, made their logi jobs a lot more complicated, and seriously disrupted their game plan even if you haven't destroyed a single ship. It would still be a powerful tool, I would think.
Yes! :)

Khan Wrenth wrote:
So what do you think about incorporating velocity into your suggestions?

I think being able to reduce your damage by getting away from the center of impact allows for a ship's velocity to factor into the equation. Indirectly at least.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2015-05-14 02:24:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Khan Wrenth
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Many things and quotes later....


Honestly, somehow I didn't see the spreadsheet the first time. However if you are suggesting to increase the damage area to 30km, that would alleviate many of my concerns.

I also like counterplay, I just want to make sure counterplay doesn't become too one-sided. Whenever people bring up bombs, there's always a wave of suggestions about various ways to shoot down bombs which either side on completely useless or completely op that would negate bombers as a tool altogether. I just don't want to see that happen.

You are right that distance from epicenter does indirectly work like velocity*, I'm just used to the idea of hitting all targets within a sphere equal opportunity of damage. With distance, those already on the edge would barely feel any damage and the effect on them would be minimal outside of calling for reps (or self repping) a little bit sooner. I just imagine that the threat of full damage within the sphere (sigrad or volume withstanding, of course), at least forces them to react to the attack, rather than being able to shrug it off because they're not close enough to the center to care. But I will say this again with emphasis so it is not missed, your suggestion to up the damage sphere to 30km does alleviate many of my concerns on this, enough that I'm actually rather interested to see your suggestion implemented on the test server to see how well it fares in practice.

Also since you seem knowledgable about bombs, let me ask you a quick question. As I said before I haven't been a part of bomb runs. And I've heard conflicting information on one point...if you release a bomb but your bomber gets destroyed and/or you warp off before it detonates, does it still detonate?

I've heard secondhand on comms from a corpie who was lamenting that he was flying a bomber, had to warp out before detonation, and therefore the bomb did not detonate. As he tells it, he sent in a support ticket asking for clarification, and the reply was "working as intended - you are supposed to be forced to stay on grid with the bomb until it detonates just like missiles". He was annoyed at that reasoning since bombs aren't guided, and he did make quite a stink about it on comms.

Last time the bomber nerf came up, people discussed shooting down the bombers quickly via destroyers, but I saw numerous replies of "shooting down the bomber/forcing a warp-away doesn't do you any good if he's already released a bomb, you're still going to get hit hard".

So which is it?

*fixed a typo
Alexis Nightwish
#7 - 2015-05-14 05:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
Khan Wrenth wrote:
So which is it?

Okay so I just tested this to make sure I wasn't mis-remembering.

Bomb facts:

  1. If a bomb is launched and the bomber is destroyed before detonation, the bomb does no damage. It does show the graphic for the explosion however.
  2. If a bomb is launched and the bomber is alive at time of detonation, the bomb does damage. The bomber can be in warp, on grid, or off grid. It doesn't matter.
  3. If a bomb is launched and impacts an object before reaching 30km, it detonates prematurely and does damage.
  4. Bombs cannot be locked, thus bombs can only be destroyed by smartbombs and other bombs.


My test bed was some shuttle wrecks, and friendly corp mates who were happy to help both by being on-grid eyes and by blaping me :)

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Not that Forumguy
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2015-05-14 06:05:58 UTC
Bombers will never be good because of all the tears they would have to hear about, they like dishing it out but not other strategy's where they have to take it.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#9 - 2015-05-14 06:07:18 UTC  |  Edited by: FireFrenzy
This doesnt even sound crazy, although personally i think we can afford to be a little higher handed with the numbers in favor of battleships.

That said i think your "scaling damage from the original location" thing might just kill all the hamsters, that sounds like alot of ships times alot of math times alot of bombs... Thats quite a few things to take into account.

And while this might be splitting hairs, whenever i go "we need to do something about bombers" i have ALWAYS concidered the bomb launcher to be part of the base hull... and yes i know there are torpedo bombers that dont fit them for hotdropping purposes and such but lets face it... Bombers exist to BOMB:)
Alexis Nightwish
#10 - 2015-05-14 07:01:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
FireFrenzy wrote:
This doesnt even sound crazy, although personally i think we can afford to be a little higher handed with the numbers in favor of battleships.

Download my spreadsheet. In it there's a bunch of fields you can enter your own numbers into. Try putting 1,000,000 into the "Volume (in m3) for 100% damage" field and see what happens. :)

One great thing about my proposal is that there's lots of nobs and dials to twist to get the balance right.

FireFrenzy wrote:
That said i think your "scaling damage from the original location" thing might just kill all the hamsters, that sounds like alot of ships times alot of math times alot of bombs... Thats quite a few things to take into account.

Computers love doing calculations. They LOVE it. Every time a turret fires in EVE this calculation is run: https://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/images/a/aa/ChanceToHitv2.png

That's run for every turret, including drones. When you group your turrets it still runs the calculation for each one. When 1000 sentries were assigned to a drone bunny the server didn't catch fire when he pulled the trigger. I'm confident the server could handle it, even if there were hundreds of targets in the blast.


FireFrenzy wrote:
And while this might be splitting hairs, whenever i go "we need to do something about bombers" i have ALWAYS concidered the bomb launcher to be part of the base hull... and yes i know there are torpedo bombers that dont fit them for hotdropping purposes and such but lets face it... Bombers exist to BOMB:)

On this point I must disagree. :) See, if CCP sees bombing runs as a problem, I think they should focus on the bombs. Torpedo bombers aren't broken and shouldn't suffer nerfs because of issues with another weapon system. It's like saying "Hmmm the Megathron does too much damage when using rails. Let's nerf the Megathron." When really looking into rails would the the correct course of action.

I mean, they almost sorta got it right last time when they attached the sig penalty to the bomb launcher. But then they put their pants on their head and reduced the warp speed and agility of the ship itself. *sigh*

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#11 - 2015-05-14 08:40:59 UTC
I will admit that torp bombers are fine, and that nerfing the bomb is a good way to take the bombers from "nothing that isnt very fast and low sig" meta. But if people are talking "bomber" we tend to talk "DBRB whiping 125+ ishtars off the grid with impunity". not "Templeman N dropping 25 torp bombers on a ratting carrier"

I admit that BOMBS are the problem not the hull they are attached too. But since the bomb launcher can only be fit to the bomber hull they get lobbed together alot. Much like people say "ishtar blob" and mean "shield tanked ishtars dropping bouncers and then going for a little drive". The rest of the information is "implied by context" as it were.
Alexis Nightwish
#12 - 2015-05-15 20:39:34 UTC
To the top, for great justice!

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Silvia Nova
Submarines in Space
#13 - 2015-05-16 02:30:30 UTC
For my taste bombs should become more of a first strike instead of an end all weapon and bombers as a class more mainstream. You should be able to use bombs everywhere (not only nullsec) but only up to 5 seconds after decloaking. Additional changes to make it work: Reduced damage (by ~54% to 3000), reduced AOE range (by 66% to 5km), increased travel speed (6sec to 30km; firewallable and primary target for defender missiles - so defenders could finally have a use?), reduced cost (~100k per bomb) and reduced size (~5m²), launcher cooldown reduced to 60sec. All bombs should get equal resistance to all damage types to enable the racial bomb bonus and make up for lost damage per bomb(er). Bomb neut amount should be based on target signature size. You should be able to target multiple smaller hotspots with your bomber-fleet and increase the max bomb count on each hotspot. The detonate on contact behavior should be removed. Bombers should get a small (2-5% per level) damage bonus to heavy and light missiles and a powergrid reduction for heavy missiles to open up more usage scenarios. The proximity decloak should be reduced to 1000m between black ops and covert ops cloak enabled ships (while cloaked or uncloaked); increased to 2500m for all other ships. Example: a bomber can be at 1200m to another (cloaked or uncloaked) bomber and still activate cloak while a (cloaked or uncloaked) T1 frigate at 2500m would decloak the bomber (and the T1 frigate if it was also cloaked).
Alexis Nightwish
#14 - 2015-05-19 15:51:22 UTC
Not gonna lie. I'm a little disheartened that this hasn't received more of a response. Other ideas, good, bad, or controversial, have however. Ugh

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Gorga
Grim Determination
Manifest Destiny.
#15 - 2015-05-19 20:03:00 UTC
This is pretty good. Don't feel disheartened -- this has been seen, maybe not discussed much, but we'll see.
allfonso Hekard
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#16 - 2015-05-19 20:57:41 UTC
+1 Love your ideas!

It really shows that you have been doing your homework.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#17 - 2015-05-20 00:39:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Chance Ravinne
I 100% agree that any issue with bombers lies in bomb mechanics, and not bombers themselves. While there may be a few people out there who wish they could return their torpedo deliveries, by and large the complaints about bombers stem from their massive AOE death waves.

That said, my concern with these solutions, while cool, is that they don't fundamentally shift the impact of bombs. Right now bombs do the most damage to things with large signature radii that are too slow to burn out of the explosion radius before they impact.

#1 still punishes slow-moving ships. Industrials, battleships etc will still be taking the brunt of bomb damage while frigates and destroyers, which were already fast enough to get out of the way within 12 seconds, will still be taking zero or nearly zero damage.

#2 is the same thing, and is essentially what the explosion radius currently does. Ships with lower signature radius already get bomb damage reduction. This may be increasing that reduction but ultimately on a high level doesn't solve the "problems" that bombs cause.

#3 through #5 are therefore mixes of the same thing. I guess I just wonder if it will change enough, essentially

(EDITED to not go off on a tangent)

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Garrett Howe
New Eden Shipbuilding
#18 - 2015-05-20 04:55:34 UTC
IMO, bombs should be anti-capital weapons, with much less damage applied to sub-capital ships. I would increase the explosion radius of bombs from 400 m to around 2000 m, then give bombers a bonus to bomb damage against capital ships (maybe like 10x or so). This is assuming that capitals are made more useful in the future than they currently are with the new sov system. Otherwise, this would probably be a bit cruel.
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-05-20 07:03:07 UTC
With the changes to smartbombs and bomb flight time, except void.. Alot changed. Its become harder to bomb of thight comps as they smartbomb it easy off with medium smarties.

Ccp has stats on death by bomber and it would be intrssting too see that development. I think smartbombs aoe btw is up, as its more commonly used, which btw, would be the alternative that needs fixing next.

Bombs also poor mens choice, and good against blob. There should be a counter too blob. As long as it requires skill, which it does more and more.

Also with fozzie sov comming ,fights will be more mobiel, will be intrsting how kills by bombers adjust too this number wise.

I am not conviced there is a issue atm, and would like more data from ccp at summit, on bomber kills veruss other kills.

In this area fit, t3 and ishtars still, or overwhelming impact of logi, and supers and so on. All questionable, but needed direct data in oreer to make good call
Wooly Akachi
What Could Go Wrong
Northern Coalition.
#20 - 2015-05-20 07:29:02 UTC
I get the right sort of vibe from #5 as if you manage to land a bomb in the middle of a bunch of frigs they are going to know about it! but they are smaller so it takes more skill to line up the shot. but you don't have to be quite so accurate on say a BC.
It seems to follow a fairly logical curve.

AS for comments on hamsters, They have alot more to worry about than a few pesky bombs going off, they will survive.

Wooly

P.S bombs in low would be nice - you can use DD in low so why not bombs!
123Next page