These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kari Trace
#281 - 2014-10-16 17:42:52 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Let's talk Stealth Bombers!

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



  • Obligatory 'please god no'.
    #newtacticesalreadyworkedout

    I like making things explode.

    Kari Trace

    GeeShizzle MacCloud
    #282 - 2014-10-16 17:43:33 UTC
    Black Canary Jnr wrote:
    Thank you for showing an appreciation for physics and not allowing 50 bombers to occupy the same space, while cloaked, whilst not being smushed into a ball of scrap.

    Realism 1, Bomber fanboys 0


    learn to super symmetry u ass!
    Fluoroantimonicacid
    Nullbear Tear Extractors
    Hostile Intervention
    #283 - 2014-10-16 17:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Fluoroantimonicacid
    I do not think people realize what you just created, or they are being quiet about it because of how overpowered it is.

    The killmails I get with this will be epic, although I hope I get to have fun before it is nerfed.

    Edit: Thanks for the extra dps and cargo too, those will go well with the structure ehp decreases.

    -Replicator
    Quesa
    Macabre Votum
    Northern Coalition.
    #284 - 2014-10-16 17:44:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
    I like some of this, think some of this is too much together and then some just ridiculous.

    The rebalance of ship resources has been needed for a couple of the bombers for a while now, more specifically, the Nemesis, which suffers from a lack of CPU like most other Gallente ships. I'm not sure I like the improved EHP in combination with the weaker agility and larger sig radius. We do run anti-bomber ships in fleets and they can already lock and kill bombers with ease and I think those people complaining that bombers can't be tackled, haven't really tried. This is an area where the meta is there to counter bombers but just isn't used because they would rather min-max a fleet than be thinking of other concerns. In this area, I would much rather have the bombers somewhat homogenized as their role is the same, across racial ships.

    I saw the cloaking change coming for a long while now. As someone who does a lot of covert work (not just bombers), this is a pretty big annoyance, yes I can deal with it but with the other changes stated, I think it's a bit much as a package.

    The change of the resist profile and reduction of raw HP of bombs is a bad change. Smartbombs already easily pop bombs and there isn't a need to improve this ability. You don't see people fly with smartbombs, specifically to wipe off bombs, because the smartbomb radius is rather small so this change seems worthless.

    I can deal with the change in bomb speed and flight time.

    Buff to Bomb Deployment effect, I can't argue with that.

    Anti-capital void bomb...it's a great idea but the 1m range makes it seem ridiculous. The idea of a bomb that specifically affects a single target is just asinine. Give them the same hp/damage stats as the current void bomb and increase blast radius to 30k. Tune the cap neuted a bit but keep the expl radius to make them nearly useless against non-mwd'ing battleships. Also, I know you guys are on an anti-capital rampage and all but have you even seen how quickly you can cap-dry a super+ with this proposal?...lets not even get started with how this will all but destroy triage.

    I don't see the dictor bubble used for anti-bomber work, this will actually be widely used for inline or pull bubbles on gates. When in combat where ships are always moving, the smaller bubble will actually make pulling bombers in *harder* because...it's smaller. Where this may be used is in static fleets that post up on a grid and don't move, then this bubble might be used in the center which will pull those warping to the center of the blob but this is a very small case for these bubbles being used for anti-bomber work. ie. this change doesn't even belong in this thread.


    I would also suggest that you make ISBoxer a 3rd party tool that is not allowed to use with Eve Online. The only reason I can think of why it's still legal to use is that it makes CCP more money because it is botting.

    I would also like to suggest that you revert combat probing to it's previous iteration, or something like it. The sub-10 second probe scan did a lot to hurt long range comps and greatly increased the deadliness of bombers considering you can easily time a scan to give results just as a fleet hits the grid. This means that you can have your bombers in warp before fleets can move their ships.

    Another suggestion would be to have the bomb damage dependent upon how close to the center of the bomb blast. 0-5km gets 100% damage, 5.1-10k 75% and 10.1-15 is 50% damage. This would reduce the multi-vector bombing runs (4 squads bombing at the same time) since most of their damage would be reduced, quite dramatically.

    I would also like to see more utilitarian bombs like painting bombs, a true ECM bomb, a damp bomb, webbing bomb...etc etc (just some ideas that have been bounced around). Give bombers more utility.
    Soldarius
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #285 - 2014-10-16 17:44:52 UTC
    One of my esteemed colleagues in PASTA said it right: the problem with bombers is not the bomber, but the damage application of bombs.

    BOMB EHP
    The adjustment of bomb HP and resists on the basis that now medium named and T2 smartbombs will be able to destroy them is just foolishly optimistic. The range on medium smartbombs is 4k meters. The AoE on bombs is 15,000 meters. The range on large smartbombs is 5000 meters. I'm not saying it can't be done. But it usually isn't because the range on bombs is so much larger than on smartbombs. The chances of actually being in range of a bomb with a smartbomb that can kill it are very small. Good luck on that. You'd be better off shooting them down with turrets. 400 sigRad on bombs, yo. But can they be targeted? I've never actually tried it.

    Bomber sigRad/agility/EHP
    Bombers did not need a nerf to sigRad or agility. Nor did they need more tank. They could already be insta-popped by a double sebo insta-cane without links in exactly 3 seconds. The changes to align times range from almost nothing on the Nemesis to more than a second on the Manticore. Now they are all approximately 9 seconds, base. With skills and rigs, it goes down to 4-5 seconds, which is almost exactly identical to the current align times of 5-6 seconds. gg

    What you did do was increase bomber EHP to levels significant enough to allow them to survive that insta-cane's alpha more frequently. CCP Fozzie, you have actually made bombers more durable and harder to kill!

    The damage increase as a result of sigRad on a bomber has always been negligible, which is why bombers often fit an MSE for the extra buffer. With these changes, that all level 5 insta-cane can lock a bomber in 2.3 seconds instead of 2.7. Don't mind the server ticks rounding both up to 3 seconds. These changes are at best pointless and in once case actually counter-productive!

    Fitting buff
    The fitting changes may make certain fits like the MWD+MSE fit a little bit easier. But they won't change anything important except perhaps making the Nemesis not total and absolute **** for everything. So for that I thank you. but the others didn't actually need it.

    Cloaking behavior reversion
    I've flown bombers extensively for years. The previous mechanics were a huge pain. But it was doable. However, it will do nothing to ISBoxed bombers because they never make mistakes once they are set up right. The reason this change was originally made was to make bombers using bombs actually viable; and they are. It does not change the effectiveness of bombing runs in any way.

    The cloaking behavior reversion will momentarily inconvenience ISBoxing bombers until they adjust their default warp-to distances on each client to warp at 0, 3k, 6k, 9k, and so on. It bans ISBoxer or it gets the hose. Oh, wait. Actual players already got the hose. gg nvm.

    The current cloaking mechanics are fine and should remain in place for reason already stated in the first full paragraph above. Fix bombs!

    BOMB flight time and velocity
    This is one of the few bright spots in the proposed changes. The reduction of bomb velocity and proportional increase to flight time will finally allow the use of Microjump Drives to escape bombing runs. With a 12 second flight time, it will be possible for an on-the-ball pilot to MJD away from the bombs before they hit. Currently that is not the case.

    Bomb Deployment Skill
    Still useless except for unlocking T2 bombs/launchers.

    Capital Void Bombs
    So, explosion radius of 4000m. Does that mean a BS with MWD on will lose 7500 cap? For reference, a Baltec Megathron has about 6000 max cap. Well, at least it has an AoE of 1 meter. So unless everyone is piled on top of everyone else, it shouldn't be broken vs subcaps. However, it will only take 10 of these to completely neut out an all 5 Avatar. No need for neuts on your subcaps when you can just drop a few of these. Should also work really well for bombers hot-dropping on ratting carriers or caps using gates.

    10km Dictor probes
    Most of the uses for dictor bubbles are for bubbling large numbers of ships in fleets where a large area is preferred, or bubbling gates, which requires at least a 12km range. For anti-bomber work, you still want a bigger AoE because that allows the dictor to launch earlier, and cover more area per launch. They last plenty long enough as it is. I'm not saying there won't be a use for these and I think initial enthusiasm will get a lot of these sold on the market. But once people realize that the purpose of an AoE weapon is to cover area, the extra duration will not be as desirable. Still, I'm in favor of more ammo choices for dictor bubbles. Looking forward to future iterations.

    Conclusion and Suggestions
    These changes will not change the effectiveness of bombing runs. They will make bombing more difficult for players to execute successfully, but not so for those that rely on ISBoxer.

    That being said, I've never considered ISBoxer to be that big a problem for bombers. I've never seen more than about 8 bombers being used in this manner due to the mechanics of bombs.

    Eliminate or give us a way to reduce the sigRad bloom of shield tanks. Then we can take a look at the fitting habits of shield tanks vs armor tanks and perhaps realize that most armor tanked ships dedicate more slots to tanking than shield tanks, as well as having more viable modules, most especially ones that require NO FITTING beyond 1PG for an 8% unpenalized multiplicative increase in armor. For example: WTF free rigs in mah lows with no drawbacks!

    Introducing a skill that reduces signature radius bloom from shield extenders would be a good first step. Taking another look at the damage application of damage bombs and perhaps adjusting them to fall off somehow (a la DRF in the missile damage formula) would also help.

    http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #286 - 2014-10-16 17:46:08 UTC
    MIkhail Illiad wrote:
    The players define the "meta" based on the changes that CCP make to the game. Not the other way around.


    no it is a circle you have to balance your game with how your players will react to it / how they are reacting to it, especially in a game that gives so much freedom to the player
    Jessica Danikov
    Network Danikov
    #287 - 2014-10-16 17:48:52 UTC
    Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground.
    Nikuno
    Atomic Heroes
    #288 - 2014-10-16 17:50:04 UTC
    I'm all for most of these changes, particularly the decloaking aspect being brought back - the skill will have to come back into organising bomb runs.

    The only change that concerns me, and which I'd rather not go ahead, is the extended travel time for bombs. 10 seconds is already a long time and changes to ships has created a large number that are much quicker into warp; the extra 2 seconds might not seem much but it's a lifetime during a bomb run for targets getting away either through warp or simply straight line speed out of the AoE. If you have to do this I'd say it requires an increase in the AoE to compensate for those targets that might be able to burn out of the damage range - say you chose an arbitrary speed of 1250m/s as a balance point, 2 seconds would give a 2.5km increase in AoE radius.

    My strong preference is to leave this aspect alone please.
    Black Canary Jnr
    Higher Than Everest
    #289 - 2014-10-16 17:50:18 UTC
    GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
    Black Canary Jnr wrote:
    Thank you for showing an appreciation for physics and not allowing 50 bombers to occupy the same space, while cloaked, whilst not being smushed into a ball of scrap.

    Realism 1, Bomber fanboys 0


    learn to super symmetry u ass!


    Multiverse FTW!
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #290 - 2014-10-16 17:50:45 UTC
    Jessica Danikov wrote:
    Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground.


    i feel siege and triage either need to negate or significantly reduce the effect of these bombs they will still be use full on caps out of such states as well as on suppers but it wont make triage useless outside of LS
    ArmyOfMe
    Teddybears.
    Dead Terrorists
    #291 - 2014-10-16 17:53:25 UTC
    Go CCP GoBig smile

    Love the coming changes (though you should not have reduced the penalty for hauling ships)

    GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.

    h4kun4
    The Validus
    #292 - 2014-10-16 17:53:54 UTC  |  Edited by: h4kun4
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


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



  • This ruined my day

    EDIT:
    I should say something constructive...

    Well, less agility together with more EHP seems like a ok deal since you have to fit your bomber for one Job (Bombing or Hotdrops) now to make it viable and more signature seems somehow useless but we will see the impact before judging it.

    The bomb flight time increase makes it now almost impossoble to bomb frigates and harder to bomb cruisers, which was also not really useful before the patch, and it makes fleeing from the bombs for BC and BS with MJDs easier, which i like.

    The bomb cooldown timer is nice, the cooldown was not annyoingly long but reducing cooldowns is never a bad idea, got it? Cooldowns? too soon? ok...

    I am up to see how the void bomb will impact, it will not have so much of an impact on triage as far as i can tell because triages have an insane cap recharge, lets see how many guys firesale their Revelations pre patch.

    What is interesting me the most with the 10km bubbles....do there fit more bubbles inside? They could also be used to tackle more sieged dreads, triaged carriers with a solo dictor for a longer time.

    for the decloak stuff...well, you read my initial comment i guess
    Evora Pirkibo
    Tribal Liberation Force
    Minmatar Republic
    #293 - 2014-10-16 17:55:18 UTC
    Bad cloaking change is bad. The rest pales in comparison to the scale.

    Honestly CCP, this 6 week cycle seems to be producing half baked ideas. If you need 12 weeks in the oven than take it, I for one am sick of soupy brownies.

    Get your **** together.

    On a long enough timeline, the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero.

    Bl1SkR1N
    13th HOUR
    #294 - 2014-10-16 17:56:45 UTC
    Nice changes. Did you give a thought to torps tho? Could use a but of tweaking.
    Dr Jihad Alhariri
    Dr Jihad's Brigade of Interstellar Mujahideen
    #295 - 2014-10-16 18:01:57 UTC
    If cloaked ships are going to start decloaking each other again, then give fleet members the ability to see other's cloaked ships.
    Rroff
    Antagonistic Tendencies
    #296 - 2014-10-16 18:10:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
    Jessica Danikov wrote:
    Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground.


    i feel siege and triage either need to negate or significantly reduce the effect of these bombs they will still be use full on caps out of such states as well as on suppers but it wont make triage useless outside of LS


    On paper it should be feasible to protect them somewhat with smartbomb but in practise it gives an easy mode way to screw over a single triage carrier - which is really not a good idea IMO.
    Chessur
    Fweddit
    Free Range Chikuns
    #297 - 2014-10-16 18:12:37 UTC
    Really CCP? I don't understand these changes at all.

    These changes are giving large fleets of 0.0 bomber a proper nerf. And while I can understand why this is needed, why did you have to go ahead and gut what little small gang / solo potential they had? I agree that the changes will make bomber gangs much harder to utalize in the 0,0 battlefield. I agree with this. However these changes are compoletely gutting bombers when they are using torps, and attacking targets in a solo / small gang environment. I don't understand why there are no buffs to bombers in this department. These changes are just blatant nerfs from across the board.

    1. They need more than a slight CPU buff. not to mention that its 7 CPU.... Completely worthless. Fitting a bomber, with MWD and MSE is nigh impossible even with max fitting skills and genolutions. Just giving more CPU is not going to be fixing the problem. Some bombers like the manticore / hound are really looking for more power grid, and don't need this CPU Buff.

    2. Bombers are slow as ****. A hound, with an MWD+ nanofiber is going 2.3K/s with a 6 second align time. Fozzie. Let me get this straight. The most 'agile' and 'highest speed' FRIGATE is slower and less agile than many cruisers. Of course, the manticore and nemesis are even worse. But your changes mass and agility are pushing them even further outside the window of probability for small bomber gangs to be engaging anything.

    3. Sig radius changes. This is HUGE. Why on earth are you giving bombers an even larger sig? They already have paper tanks. These 'frigates' have **** speed and align time. Why make their already **** speed tank even worse, by throwing on a huge sig nerf? The paltry HP buff that you are giving them PALES IN COMPARISON to the effect the speed / align and sig changes will have on a 'frigate' which has no speed or sig tank to speak of.

    4. TORPS ARE ****. A bomber with 2 Rigors, TP, max skills shooting faction trops, is lucky to apply even half of its damage to a slow boating cruiser. Again, why are torps / ship bonuses not changed? Or why cannot cruise missiles be used? Why are you only focusing on bombers using bombs inside of 0.0?

    In conclusion I am EXTREMELY dissapointed in these changes. While I agree that bomber fleets in 0.0 using bombs needed changes and nerfs, I DO NOT AGREE that bombers on the whole needed these other changes. Why have you willingly disregarded bombers being used as a torpedo platform, applying DPS in a small gang / solo environment? Bombers in this respect are in a really ****** place at the current moment. These fixes (which seem hasty and poorly thought out to me) Do nothing but needlessly harm bombers in this role. Please reconsider your changes, so that bombers shooting torps and being flown in small gang / solo will not be as adversely effected.

    My suggestions would be the following:

    1. Give bombers enough fitting room to sport and MSE and MWD tank. Of course, a bomb launcher would not be able to be placed. But again, a bomber that is looking to use torps and work inside of a small gang / solo environment rarely if ever uses one.

    2. Give them the speed / align time of other frigates. I am not saying that they have to be anywhere near AF or Inty level. Bombers already have **** EHP and no tank with which to speak of. At least allow them to have some semblance of a speed tank- that all other frigates share. Because currently a frigate going 2300ms with a nano and MWD is just a sitting duck to pretty much any weapon system in the game.

    3. TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT TORPS. Stop being lazy and decide on what level of bonuses will need to be made to the torps themselves or the bomber skills. Currently applying even 50% of DPS to anything less than a BS is an extreme challenge, even when the bomber is build around application (through rigors, TPS, 2X BCS, implants). Or if torps are too much of an issue for you- perhaps there is a way to give bombers cruise missiles?

    Hopefully with the above changes, bombers could have a more diverse use in the solo / small gang environment. And open up a fun and interesting 'cloaky attacker' that eve is currently lacking.
    Sans Nome
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #298 - 2014-10-16 18:14:47 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Let's talk Stealth Bombers! As we mentioned in the Travel Changes Dev Blog, we are doing rebalance passes on Bombers and Hictors in Phoebe.

    Our plan for bombers in Phoebe has several aspects, all aimed at keeping bombers effective while strengthening their counters and allowing skilled fleets to protect themselves.:
    [list]
  • A stat rebalance on the bombers themselves. Short version is significantly more HP, weaker agility, larger sig radius, more cargo (so that they can all carry 3 bombs), smidge more CPU, lower warp speed.

  • [...] However bombers remain a crucial part of the nullsec fleet fight ecosystem and we are committed to ensuring that they remain a powerful force on the battlefield.


    I wonder what the effects of these changes on FW mission running will be, and what CCP has in mind for this side of the stealth bomber coin.
    Dean Wong
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #299 - 2014-10-16 18:17:15 UTC
    I hate to say this but all current proposal will only reinforce large coalition and penalise smaller alliance. Nerfing of long distance travel, proposal for nerfing JF and now cloaky decloaking each other at 2000m.

    I've been in 401K and MOA. Both alliance fight against CFC and do a great job (401K dissolved, I know) through the use of bombers when facing overwhelming numbers.

    Even CVA give us a few bloody noses through bomb runs.

    Now with this ( I will consider as a ) nerf, how will it be possible for smaller alliance to fight against one of the giants in the game?

    Bomber are one of the few tools left in this game that can tip the tide of a battle against overwhelming forces. It is also the lowest SP ship class for new bros to be useful in fleet in small alliance. If they do get nerf, I forsee EVE Online been all about large BS or T3 or HACs fleets sluging it out with each other as no one will be afraid of been hotdropped or bombed.

    CCP always said about encouraging players to leave high-sec and live in low/null sec. With these changes to jump fatigue, death cloning and stealth bomber, I can envision the future of 0.0 corp recruitment. It will be like:

    0.0 PVP corp looking for pilots.
    Must be able to fly interceptors, all T3s, at least 2 racial BS (megathron and Na-apocs) and Archons/Supers.
    If you cannot fly all of the above, please stay in highsec till you can before considering joining us cause you're useless.


    On the other hand, it may open up low-sec as the next wild-west.

    In anycase, I cannot see these changes shaking null sec up. Only time can tell
    Lady Ayeipsia
    BlueWaffe
    #300 - 2014-10-16 18:19:54 UTC
    Not sure if this has been posted, have not had time to read the full thread. That said, could some of these penalties be tied to equipping (on or offline) a bomb launcher?

    As someone who hunts Attack BCs in hi sec with a bomber, this is a nerf based on a mod I do not even equip or use. Why not put the warp speed penalty and mobility penalty as a drawback to the bomb launcher. Otherwise this seems like merging a ship in all uses based on one use of the ship.