Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It would work the same way as we today launch bombs off a stealth bomber. The difference is that since its not a AOE weapon, you need to ensure that the flightpath is set on collisioncourse with the target before launcing. But even with stealthbombers you need to do this to achieve maximum effect with the bombs.



The term "strategic" in strategic bombers refer to its proper role. It is a weapon with a strategic impact. Unlike the socalled strategic cruisers which can have no direct strategic impact in any shape or form. TBH I would prefer the strategic cruisers to be renamed "Advanced Modular Cruiser" or something similar to avoid the continuing misuse of the word.

As for the T3 vs T2 question, I feel that a since the bomber is a VERY specialized asset which basically excels at one thing, Tech 2 is the correct Tech level for this ship. It conforms to CCPs plans on how differnt Tech levels are supposed to work in EVE.




Yes. You need to have close to zero angular velocity (but it is a big target so not necessarly zero) to hit the target. My numbers may not be optimal, but the intetion is to severly restrict the effectiveness of this weapon against subcap targets.

hm...

regarding the OP: why can i like one posting only once?
IMO really something that should be considered.

cu

I agree with what your saying in regards to capitals needing sub cap support to stay alive.... against other capitals and sub caps.... But lets agree to disagree on this point around engaging super ship classes with cruiser sized hulls.

You've come at it (this proposal) from an isk perspective, stating that smaller ships that can dent supers would be more affordable and thus allow smaller entities to break into the 0.0 game. But we all know that wont solve the stagnation around null, as the blob will remain teh blob regardless if its supers or battleships being fielded. Smaller, hobo entities will never have what it takes to break into null if the big boys dont want it to happen.

In terms of the threat ship classes pose to other ship classes:

I firmly believe that capitals and supers should present a threat that sub capitals (Large, medium small hulls) should not be able to handle on their own without an adequate capital fleet. The days of 30 frigates ganking dreadnaughts should come to an end. Frigate sized ships, frigate sized threats, frigate sized rewards.

Big sub caps (t3s, battleships) should at most be able to dent capitals in groups, but be very effective against most sub caps by themselves or in gangs...

Capitals should be the only ship group that should pose a risk to both supers and the bigger sub caps (t3s, BS).

Supers don't pose a risk to sub caps thanks to the great super nerf.... so sub caps should not pose a risk to supers. This would require sub capital blobs to field an effective capital fleet to assist in taking down supers.

If capital ships depend on sub cap support to stay alive....and supers should depend on capitals to stay alive... then sub caps should depend on capitals to take down supers and vice versa, creating an equilibrium around the capital class, with a dependency chain working both ways across the 3 classes in terms of survival and damage.

Ideas like this cruiser super killer is just giving more and more power to sub capitals and devaluing the capital and super classes... which is ass backwards imo.

Stop nerfing supers and capitals by boosting sub caps and let the Dragons roam in the ghetto and beyond. As nature intended. Worried about mroe blobbing of supers? Expand the super range with new roles and watch the problem correct itself just like it did in the past when the Battleship was the end game ship that got proliferated into the next life.




I'm also not one to close the gap between the rich and the poor... knowing full well the poor are poor for a reason. If they fail at creating wealth to the point where they can flex some muscle and impact other entities in the game... then for all intensive purposes they are a non entity and deserve to be seen and treated as such.

Well, firstly because you dont actually kill the ships, so at best you can achieve a small delay in their ops as they need to replenish their fighter bombers. Secondly a Fighterbomber swarm will be easiest to hit when they orbit a target. But their targets are often so big (POS, Station etc) that the spehere of fighterbombers gets pretty large. Too large to be effectievly killed by a bombing run. At best you will remove a fraction of them possibly/probably for the cost of your entire bomber wing if their dictor pilots are on the ball.

You can actually kill Motherships with Dreads, provided they have protection from fighter-bombers.
And what do you mean by "delay to replenish"? If we're trying to kill a supercap that is not tackled - we're doing it wrong anyway.

This.

My god.

This.

I dont see one idea necessarily invalidating another. As I've said previosly, I support fleshing out the capital line-up somewhat. But I still feel introducing a comparatively low-cost assymetric threat might shake things up that desperately need shaking up. It is not like strategic bombers are ever going to pose an exsistential threat to the capital ships. They will inflict losses, and be a tool in the toolbox. Not the end of capital warfare.

Have to say i agree that the idea for a anti capital /POS bomb ,and laucher fits far better on a black ops battleship imo.No need for a new ship at all ,As a black ops BS allready has the abilities you want ie cloak,able to jump and bridge its own covert ops support cruisies / frigates to tackle any support ships of the target capital ship / POS..Personnally i think its a marvalous idea for giving black ops BS a much needed role in game ,and giving PVP an added dimension to boot

From an economic perspective, introducing constant change and flip flopping of ship strengths is a good way to try to close the gap between the haves-and-have-nots. The bigger an existing fleet, the less efficient the converstion from one tech-and-tactics fad to another. This is somewhat similar to real-world corporate cycles, where large entrenched organizations have so much momentum down a path that they can be blindsided by a much smaller org because of technology or market shifts.

Of course in the real world, the old companies stuck in a legacy mindset are not paying the bills of those who write the rules. At least not unless we're talking about Wall Street.

Don't you feel there is a slight contradiction here? It would be much more intuitive to make it a torpedo that has the same target limitations a DDD has (ie, no subcap targets allowed), and the explosion radius/velocity you suggested, with a reasonable cooldown timer.
There is no reason to make it a "bomb" (as in with the same mechanics as a stealth-bomber bomb).