These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#101 - 2014-10-16 13:45:36 UTC
interesting changes .. the extra HP would go better with more pg .. plated/extender fits..
cpu is still too short here .. torp launchers use so much of the stuff .... try fitting T2 launchers
that agility does seem a little crazy for a frig .. have you considered adding mass too bombs? it would allow no bomb versions too behave normally ... like high sec POS versions or low sec uses..

1 metre AOE .. what are the odds that a capital can't move faster in 12 seconds before impact?? nedds too be more like 100metres at least..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2014-10-16 13:46:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.


    • I was hoping this was a bug on sissy because it's a really dumb decision.

    If you make it so you can see fleet member when cloaked i can get behind the change but it not, this is a step back.

    The wishlist is pretty much complete...
    Maennas Vaer
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #103 - 2014-10-16 13:47:52 UTC
    As the new interdiction probes are for all intents and purposes, a specialized bubble, will they be T2 ammo and can we get T2 Interdiction Sphere Launchers that maybe hold 4 bubbles or reload after 45 secs instead now please?
    Capqu
    Half Empty
    xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
    #104 - 2014-10-16 13:47:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Phoenix Jones wrote:
    Longdrinks wrote:
    Phoenix Jones wrote:
    Did you just make light interdictors useless by creating interdiction stealth bombers?

    It's an honest question, because this is a very significant change.

    A frig with interdiction bubbling abilities is very powerful, plus being able to covop cloak.

    This is a concern, but I don't know if this is op or not.

    you should probably read that part again lolololololololololololololol


    I have they bubble themselves, but a throwaway cloaky, or a permacloak bomber on a wormhole, or gate. We use sabre's in this way.


    The new dictor bubble is for Interdictors, not for Stealth Bombers. It's in this post because it is designed as a tool for countering bombers in some circumstances.



    cmon fozzie ur better than this, don't just answer the low hanging fruit for once in your life and actually respond to the people with criticism and maybe address their concerns or something


    i know you want to reply to this with some snarky bullshit but maybe just this once could u reply with how you expect this to impact isboxer instead that would be great

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
    Odithia
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #105 - 2014-10-16 13:48:19 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    The new dictor bubble is for Interdictors, not for Stealth Bombers. It's in this post because it is designed as a tool for countering bombers in some circumstances.

    If upper management allow you to comment on this.
    What's your take on how proposed changes will affect isboxed bomber fleets ?
    Aivlis Eldelbar
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #106 - 2014-10-16 13:50:51 UTC
    Rek Seven wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.


    • I was hoping this was a bug on sissy because it's a really dumb decision.

    If you make it so you can see fleet member when cloaked i can get behind the change but it not, this is a step back.



    This. It's a major pain in the arse, maneouvering without seeing what will decloak you. Either let us see our fleet members while they are cloaked, or remove this horrible idea from the patch. Right now it just decreases quality of life for everyone and makes covert ops a matter of LUCK rather than skill.
    Varun Arthie
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #107 - 2014-10-16 13:51:07 UTC
    Fozzie as a Bomber pilot I have mixed opinions on these changes so far - I will need to research this a bit more to understand them fully.

    I do like the idea of the new capital void bomb. However I do have to ask you this:
    The bomb will have next to zero AOE, requiring prescison runs. If bombs are going to be made vulnerable to smartbombs, then how do expect them to land on capital ship, considering most capital pilots tend to have smartbombs active and with a radious of upto 10km, I think they'll be largely unused.
    I personally think a small AOE of this bomb would work, even if was only 1km.


    I also would like to ask if you have any plans for the lockbreaker bomb? This bomb is rarely used as it doesn't debuff affected targets. Are there any suggesttions to improve the viability of its use?
    Akrasjel Lanate
    Immemorial Coalescence Administration
    Immemorial Coalescence
    #108 - 2014-10-16 13:51:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Akrasjel Lanate
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after.


    If it was sooooooo good why change it in first place.

    CEO of Lanate Industries

    Citizen of Solitude
    Phoenix Jones
    Small-Arms Fire
    #109 - 2014-10-16 13:51:49 UTC
    Maennas Vaer wrote:
    As the new interdiction probes are for all intents and purposes, a specialized bubble, will they be T2 ammo and can we get T2 Interdiction Sphere Launchers that maybe hold 4 bubbles or reload after 45 secs instead now please?


    Thanks for the clarity. I couldn't wrap my head around why interdiction probes would be in a stealth bomber thread.

    Yaay!!!!
    handige harrie
    Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
    #110 - 2014-10-16 13:55:58 UTC
    Why not have Defender missiles as a hard counter against bombs?

    like a lot of people were suggesting.

    1. makes an obsolete weapon platform useful
    2. gives people new roles to play in fleets
    3. gives FC's more choices

    Baddest poster ever
    GeeShizzle MacCloud
    #111 - 2014-10-16 13:56:49 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
    Yi Hyori wrote:


    Lastly, for the vocal minority of a mob that is currently attempting to blame everything and their mother on this topic, multiboxing is not cheating. ISBoxer is not cheating. Get over it.
    Because a player enjoys a different style of gameplay that you do not agree with , does not make the said player a cheater. The definition of a cheater is defined by the masters of the game. This can be changed by appealing to said masters. And this appeal was made.

    ISBoxing was a bannable offense in its infancy, but this ruling was changed , not because the corporate heads came together and decided that ISboxer generates more revenue, but because ISboxer's functionality is no different than a hardware set up that mirrors keys across physical computers. The difference is that it does it via software instead of hardware.

    etc...


    i thought id separate and italic the part of your nice rant that both is completely nonsensical and also the linchpin of your argument. so what your saying is if i made a hardware version of an auto-aim bot, then by extension all auto-aim bots in fps's should now not be considered cheating?

    seriously go take a flying leap of a bridge.

    cheating is cheating is cheating, whether its software, hardware or you've paid surgeons to attach a cybernetic arm to allow u to hit a button 5000 times a second for hours on end. Its an pay to win advantage that cannot be directly controlled by the games developers.

    You have some serious issues with logic, or you're enjoying abusing isboxer, or both. Either way you're bad and you should feel bad.
    Ncc 1709
    Fusion Enterprises Ltd
    Pandemic Horde
    #112 - 2014-10-16 13:57:55 UTC
    yaay bombing runs will actually take time to setup once again and not be something that can be done in 30 seconds
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #113 - 2014-10-16 14:01:18 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
    These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.

    We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.

    I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.

    If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    Altrue
    Exploration Frontier inc
    Tactical-Retreat
    #114 - 2014-10-16 14:02:44 UTC
    I'm worried about the 1m sphere of anti-capital bombs not showing on the tactical overlay, thus not helping the perfect aim required.

    Its already hard enough with the tactical overlay, given the fact that it a client-side help while the actual launch alignment is server side.

    Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

    Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
    Bronson Hughes
    The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
    #115 - 2014-10-16 14:03:18 UTC
    My question regarding the new anti-capital void bomb (which, incidentally, I think is a really cool idea): with a 1 meter area of effect, does the bomb have to land within 1 meter of the ships physical model, or it's collision radius? I know that on some caps, especially titans and the Naglfar, this will make a difference.

    Thanks!

    Relatively Notorious By Association

    My Many Misadventures

    I predicted FAUXs
    Jessica Danikov
    Network Danikov
    #116 - 2014-10-16 14:04:32 UTC
    ISBoxers can adjust to this easily by configuring their default ranges. Given that non-multiboxed bombers have absolutely no way of seeing where each other are, it's like asking 7 blind men to mill around a room without walking within 2 meters of each other. I'm fine with cloaked ships decloaking each other, but it has to be done with fleet members able to see other cloaked fleet members, otherwise this change is dumb as hell (and I'm not going to take it any more)!

    The comments about armour being too strong compared to shields being very weak to bombs is spot on- bombs need an explosion velocity element. Alternatively, they should have a damage drop off based on range (honestly, the fact I can take no damage rather than being popped by being 1m further away also is dumb as hell and stretches credulity). Having damage drop off means that shield ships have a better chance of mitigating damage by moving, armor ships endure better, but all ships benefit from trying to fly away from the detonation point (and working out where the detonation point is matters more). It also rewards bombing precision- concentrated bombs may guarantee kills on a few targets and punish very tight blobs, distributed bomb patterns may kill more if done right but are more risky, and spreading out to defend against bombs is more of a smooth continuum of mitigation rather than trying to beat a static figure.
    Ammzi
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #117 - 2014-10-16 14:04:37 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.

    I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.

    If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.


    Thanks, that is really disappointing perspective by CCP. But at least it's a reply.
    Capqu
    Half Empty
    xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
    #118 - 2014-10-16 14:05:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
    appreciate the actual reply fozzlord, regardless of how i feel on the subject

    do you not think the multiplication of input specifically with regards to something as precise as bombing is a bit of an issue?

    without the preciseness of isboxer, combined with the amount of human error it eliminates, i don't think there is a way of making bombing viable without it while making bombing balanced with it. unless you specifically target isboxer with some kind of detonation codes or other un-mulitpliable input i can't see bombing ever being balanced both with and without the existance of isboxer

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
    Yi Hyori
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #119 - 2014-10-16 14:05:56 UTC
    In hindsight, adding my rant about ISboxer haters was probably not the smartest thing to add to my rather long rant about bombing issues. I just found that most of the people who complain about ISboxer link the two together.

    Aside from that, yes fozzie, we did come into this thread expecting something entirely different... like the actual problems with bombers being addressed, not a slap on fix ... that doesn't actually fix anything.

    and to put it bluntly, what is the point of increasing the time to set up bombing runs, but at the same time decreasing bomb rate of fire? That just seems, to me, something thats just thrown in for good measure. because why not?

    Reducing align time for bombers, understandable, adding cargo space, real cool. more ehp for more sig radius. ?? O.o getting targeted in the first place in a bomber is bad and a small increase in ehp for a sig radius bloom is counter intuitive, but if this is to make bombers easier to catch, so be it.

    but again, not addressing the main issue which is bomb damage.

    Again, I really think you guys should take a look at these changes.
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #120 - 2014-10-16 14:06:20 UTC
    handige harrie wrote:
    Why not have Defender missiles as a hard counter against bombs?

    like a lot of people were suggesting.

    1. makes an obsolete weapon platform useful
    2. gives people new roles to play in fleets
    3. gives FC's more choices


    defenders as a midslot e-war style role..

    - anti drone warheads
    - e-war effects warheads
    - anti bombs warheads
    etc...

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using