These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#721 - 2014-10-23 18:27:10 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie



"but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread"

then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.

Goonswarm Federation
#722 - 2014-10-23 19:09:06 UTC
It is a separate issue. A single squad of bombers, mulitboxed or not, devastate shield ships no matter how fast they are moving, or any other metric. A single squad (or even any reasonable number) of bombers are next to useless against Sig tanked ships like ANIs.

The root cause of the bomber imbalance is the 100% dependence on Sig in the damage formula. This is driving all doctrine development.

The cloak change might make it harder to land a run for less experienced FC's, but when it does land it'll still be maelstroms oracles and ruptures dying, not megathrons and armor cruisers.
#723 - 2014-10-23 19:30:15 UTC
Sieonigh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie



"but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread"

then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.



All of those legit bombing runs and bombers bar are not part of the discussion because you have linked two activities inseparably together?
Interhole Revenue Service
#724 - 2014-10-23 20:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
oodell wrote:
It is a separate issue. A single squad of bombers, mulitboxed or not, devastate shield ships no matter how fast they are moving, or any other metric. A single squad (or even any reasonable number) of bombers are next to useless against Sig tanked ships like ANIs.

The root cause of the bomber imbalance is the 100% dependence on Sig in the damage formula. This is driving all doctrine development.

The cloak change might make it harder to land a run for less experienced FC's, but when it does land it'll still be maelstroms oracles and ruptures dying, not megathrons and armor cruisers.


I never lived in null sec or been bombed that often so i would be grateful if you could explain the issue a little bit more. I understand the mechanics so no need to go into detail on that.

Do the current counters like bubbling your own fleet, using smart bombs or escaping with MJD not work or are FC just to lazy too use the counters?
Goonswarm Federation
#725 - 2014-10-23 21:56:51 UTC
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.


they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory.
Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.


They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP.

Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers...



Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?...

MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is.

Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay.
Mercenary Coalition
#726 - 2014-10-23 22:07:14 UTC
Sieonigh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie



"but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread"

then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.


It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about.it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers.
#727 - 2014-10-23 22:28:45 UTC
The Ironfist wrote:
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.


they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory.
Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.


They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP.

Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers...



Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?...

MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is.

Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay.


Regarding your first point, firewalling ships stay between the aggressor and the main dps fleet, not in the middle of the fleet.

Regarding your second point, if there's multiple bomber squadrons in system and you want to evade them using an MJD then simply MJD out of the bubbles and then align to a ping (you use those in your fleets don't you?) and warp to the ping if you get a second bomb wave.

Your reply just shows your poor ability of developing tactics to counter your enemies other than DPS/logi blob as I mentioned before. Your brain must have some grey mass... use it!
Minmatar Republic
#728 - 2014-10-24 04:33:59 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Sieonigh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie



"but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread"

then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.


It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about.it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers.


Neither are cloaks restricted to bombers only, and still they are discussed in this thread.
Goonswarm Federation
#729 - 2014-10-24 07:28:39 UTC  |  Edited by: The Ironfist
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
The Ironfist wrote:
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.


they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory.
Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.


They are already nerfing the bomber fleets by making the bombs themselves slower and possible to destroy with most medium T2 smartbombs. That combined with dedicated anti-bomber ships in heavier fleet doctrines (read battleships) should be enough to mitigate the bomber so proclaimed OP.

Maybe the issue is that most FCs are too lazy to actually have a fleet composition with ships dedicated to different roles and just want to have the DPS / Logi Blob combo... maybe bombers would be less OP if people would start playing more with tactics and not so much with numbers...



Stop talking when you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Anti-bomber in shield fleets is not viable for the simple reason that there is no shield ships that fit the role and have enough tank to not just die right away! Also "fire-walling" bombs does not work its dumb. I've done it in EMP with domis and Large Smarty and its too unrelible medium smarty will do even worse 5km smarty radius while bombs have 30km radius notice something?...

MJD is also not a viable tactic because when you field shield fleets everyone and their mother shows up to bomb you like could be seend a year ago in delve 1SMB fights 200 bombers in system. You can only MJD once every few minutes.. so tell me again how viable it is.

Right now anything above cruiser sized hull is dead in nullsec because of bombing everyone is using tengu's because they can tank a metric **** ton of bombs. When people start building doctrines soley based on how many bombs they can tank you know something is wrong. Just nerfing align time and move bomb travel time will not be enough of a nerf to bombers. Either bombs it self get reworked or cloaky changes need to stay.


Regarding your first point, firewalling ships stay between the aggressor and the main dps fleet, not in the middle of the fleet.

Regarding your second point, if there's multiple bomber squadrons in system and you want to evade them using an MJD then simply MJD out of the bubbles and then align to a ping (you use those in your fleets don't you?) and warp to the ping if you get a second bomb wave.

Your reply just shows your poor ability of developing tactics to counter your enemies other than DPS/logi blob as I mentioned before. Your brain must have some grey mass... use it!


This just now tells me you have never FC'd anything. Good job talking about stuff you know nothing about. I'll tell you what bombers let to SLOWCATS its the only thing I've used though out delve and southern war after a while. Why? Bombs cant touch em. With these changes if bombs dont get curb-stomped all you will see is 100+ slowcats on every defensive op. Because nothing will be able to touch them in their own space period.

Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress.

oh and firewall will have to be with the fleet not behind because imagine you can get bombed from every direction not just from were the enemy fleet is. So why would your firewall stay between you and your enemy if they are not using missiles?.... Thanks for showing your deep understanding for eve online fleet doctrines and how to use em. carry on.
Badfellas Inc.
#730 - 2014-10-24 07:51:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Arronicus
Mark Hadden wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

Here's hoping that what you're aiming for isn't to ruin cloaky fleet warfare and as a result, the cloak change will be scrapped.


they have to nerf bomber fleets somehow anyways, thats mandatory.
Current meta of too easy bombing denies whole doctrine lines, like most of battleship doctrines.


The extended flight time of bombs in conjuction with the lower hitpoints allowing off-space smartbombs to more easily destroy bombs makes battleship doctrines more worthwhile, though it could take quite a bit of organization to not lose your entire fleets drones the moment any bomb appears coming toward your ships.

I'm of a mixed opinion in that I completely agree, as they are now, bombers are too effective against large fleets. However, for small gang, roaming stuff, they arent all that problematic.

Sieonigh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie



"but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread"

then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.



Perhaps because there are already other threads for Isboxer discussion, where that belongs, instead of getting into it here. Or would you like if we derailed the threat into black ops jump mechanics, fatigue, destroyer effectiveness, and other similarly related issues?
Badfellas Inc.
#731 - 2014-10-24 08:00:49 UTC
.
Mercenary Coalition
#732 - 2014-10-24 08:11:54 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Sieonigh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back from Vegas and all caught up on the thread.

I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.

We received a lot of great feedback so far in this thread and at EVE Vegas, and we're currently taking another look over the changes to make sure they hit all the marks we are aiming for.

Thanks again
-Fozzie



"but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread"

then how about you let them know what being discussed here, cause right now its become a merged issue which you are refusing to accept.


It's not being discussed directly because it isn't just bombers that use them. the argument Will always boils down to One person controlling many ships,which is not what this discussion is about. it hinders the entire balance discussion based on a single factor that can be applied to many places not just bombers.


Neither are cloaks restricted to bombers only, and still they are discussed in this thread.
Maybe i should clarify, ISboxer is not something that is essential to bombers use. A cloak is something a bomber needs to use, like bomb launchers. ISboxer discussion is a much more broad aspect than cloaks are. You take away the boxer comments and the discussion moves along as usual, take away discussion on the cloaks and a key aspect is missing. Remember we're discussing the balance of ships not the players.

We either turn this thread into an iSboxer thread and get no where or we debate the ships themselves and figure out changes from that. Otherwise we could just start talking about how unfair ISboxed miners are, or boxed nados, boxed logi, etc.
#733 - 2014-10-24 10:08:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I want to remind people that any debates around isboxer are a separate issue from the changes listed in this thread. I completely understand that many of you have passionate opinions on that topic, but I should be clear that none of the people who are involved with CCP's policy towards isboxer are reading this particular thread.


The ISD CCL will sort out the ISBoxing comments made and hand them to those unnamed people involved with CCPs policy towards ISBoxer, because that is the job of ISD CCL. Compress feedback and deliver to the right guys.

Maybe this (and many many other) thread(s) would derail less if those persons we don't call by name but surely exists would open a discussion thread where people can discuss input broadcasting and stuff. Closing all threads about it saying "redundant... use the existing threads (which we already locked)" isn't a solution. A sticky topic in general discussion would REALLY help to keep other threads clean.

It would REALLY help your volunteer ISD CCL guys to focus the neverending discussion into one single thread.

On the topic:
Increased hitpoints with increased signature and lowered align time... I do like this nerf to several FW missions.
Maybe the MWD bonus should be bit stronger... 60% reduction for MWD sig penalty will still result in ~20% more signature compared to prePhoebe but the bonus hitpoints don't help with survivabilty in a way signature does. I'm totally not looking at those glascannon torpedo launcher at all Lol
Northern Coalition.
#734 - 2014-10-24 10:12:09 UTC
Looking good!
Tactical-Retreat
#735 - 2014-10-24 12:18:18 UTC
What about a special kind of torpedoes designed to attack supers?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

#736 - 2014-10-24 12:19:43 UTC
The Ironfist wrote:

Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress.


This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.


The Ironfist wrote:

oh and firewall will have to be with the fleet not behind because imagine you can get bombed from every direction not just from were the enemy fleet is. So why would your firewall stay between you and your enemy if they are not using missiles?.... Thanks for showing your deep understanding for eve online fleet doctrines and how to use em. carry on.


I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships.
#737 - 2014-10-24 13:20:44 UTC
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
The Ironfist wrote:
Bombers are broken right now and I'm totally fine with CCP killing them. Anything that brings back subcap fights other then T3's is progress.

This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.

Well, people do use ishtars and interceptors.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Amarr Empire
#738 - 2014-10-24 13:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:

Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.

I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well.
isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing.
Solyaris Chtonium
#739 - 2014-10-24 14:29:33 UTC
I wouldn't even mind it if the bombs were so weak you could only launch one or two at a time. To me it seems much more balanced if it would required a steady stream of bomb volleys to attack a large fleet instead of all in one go. I'm sure the hamsters would rejoice at not having to calculate so much AOE at the same time either.
Goonswarm Federation
#740 - 2014-10-24 14:32:50 UTC
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:

This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.

They are not an obstacle why would they all I'll do is just keep dropping slowcats and T3 fleets. You just wont have any diversity in the game in terms of fleet doctrines. Making entire ship class's obsolete is not really something I'd call balanced. Bombers used to decloak each other for ages and people still bomb'd adapt or die buddy.

Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:

I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships.


Please just stop this hurts position ships against something you cant see coming just stop already.. its pretty obvious that you're a puppy who's never fc'd anything at this point.
Forum Jump