These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
lexa21
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#581 - 2014-10-19 10:27:24 UTC
Have You ever tried to kill something solo on a bomber after it becomes torp? NO YOU HAVEN`T! Do you know how good you should be for killing anything except industrial ships on a bomber solo? No you don`t! But hey ill tell you what you can kill with a bomber solo:

*stupid frigate
*stupid solo flycatcher
*noob raven
*an industrial ship
*offlined POS modules

How the hell should i play this ship if i like solo pvp? The answer is - i should trash this ship. And now you are telling me that i will have less agility and more signature?
Pliskkenn
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#582 - 2014-10-19 10:34:00 UTC
lexa21 wrote:
Have You ever tried to kill something solo on a bomber after it becomes torp? NO YOU HAVEN`T! Do you know how good you should be for killing anything except industrial ships on a bomber solo? No you don`t! But hey ill tell you what you can kill with a bomber solo:

*stupid frigate
*stupid solo flycatcher
*noob raven
*an industrial ship
*offlined POS modules

How the hell should i play this ship if i like solo pvp? The answer is - i should trash this ship. And now you are telling me that i will have less agility and more signature?


That's like complaining about logistics cruisers not having excellent solo capabilities (not that this has stopped people from putting out great videos.) I'm pretty certain bombers have always been designed with group activity in mind.
Sieonigh
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#583 - 2014-10-19 11:09:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Sieonigh
Calvyr Travonis wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
No, I think we should be holding a logical and open discussion and I have asked for input, summarized said input, presented it here and then taken it to CCP, THAT is what I do.

Nut this change discussion is about stealth bombing and (a point a lot of you are ignoring) stealth in general. Not ISBoxer.

Discuss the issues on the table and try to avoid designing the way a multiboxer will work his way around it.

m


I've seen many good suggestions in this thread and on reddit as alternatives to completely nutting fleets in several other areas of the game because of one niche fleet type in null sec by implementing this proposed cloaking change. The top two, in my opinion, are:

  1. A rework of defender missiles to target bombs. To me this is the best option because it not only gives fleets a new defense mechanism, but it also makes an obsolete and irrelevant weapon system viable again. I've also seen suggestions, further to the defender missile rework, of adding a new hull, could be either destroyer or cruiser class, T1 or T2, which specializes in the use of defender missiles, creating new options for fleet doctrines, with added roles.
  2. Adding an arming code mechanic to bombs. This solution is targeted more to discouraging ISBoxer, admittedly, but I still think it's a great suggestion, that would add a new dynamic to bombing. A code would flash on the screen after the bomb was launched and would have to be entered correctly before the flight time elapsed in order to arm the bomb and have it detonate. My suggestion is that the bomber would have to be on grid and decloak to enter the code, which would give fleets a little more opportunity to eliminate some of the bombers to prevent further runs.


Is that what you're looking for, Mike? ISBoxer or not, personally I don't really care. Admittedly, I'm not a fan of it, but I see it's advantages and don't blame people for using it. And as long as it isn't against the EULA, people should be free to use it, so realistically, this whole thing isn't about ISBoxer to me, it's about stealth. The bottom line is that if the problem is with bombers, the solution should affect bombers, not every ship that cloaks.



  • A rework of defender missiles to target bombs.

    • i would also go to ask for a defender missile luncher that desen't require a launcher slot, it can only take defender missals.
    this would be so that missle ships wont be hampered with loss of damage and will use up a utility high slot. the player will have to hit the launcher to launch 1x defender

    a specialized anti bomb defender missle would also be usefull, it would be coded to auto target 1 random bomb within it operation range this will be to ensure that all defenders from a group of players don't go for the same one but the random element also means that its possible that some wont get targeted (of coarse enough monkeys with typewriters will...).
    it will do omni damage types but can't be used on players.
    lexa21
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #584 - 2014-10-19 11:13:39 UTC
    Sieonigh wrote:
    [quote=Calvyr Travonis][quote=Mike Azariah]
  • A rework of defender missiles to target bombs.

    • i would also go to ask for a defender missile luncher that desen't require a launcher slot, it can only take defender missals.
    this would be so that missle ships wont be hampered with loss of damage and will use up a utility high slot. the player will have to hit the launcher to launch 1x defender

    a specialized anti bomb defender missle would also be usefull, it would be coded to auto target 1 random bomb within it operation range, it will do omni damage types but can't be used on players.


    The only problem is non target mechanics of bombs and target mechanic of defeners
    Minalist
    Doomheim
    #585 - 2014-10-19 11:31:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Minalist
    lexa21 wrote:
    Have You ever tried to kill something solo on a bomber after it becomes torp? NO YOU HAVEN`T! Do you know how good you should be for killing anything except industrial ships on a bomber solo? No you don`t! But hey ill tell you what you can kill with a bomber solo:

    *stupid frigate
    *stupid solo flycatcher
    *noob raven
    *an industrial ship
    *offlined POS modules

    How the hell should i play this ship if i like solo pvp? The answer is - i should trash this ship. And now you are telling me that i will have less agility and more signature?


    No problem mate Big smile

    Fozzie gave us HP buff so even when we all jump to BM and decloack as one we'll still have some chance of survival . . .
    . . . until Naga, Tornado, Flycatcher, alpha Thrashers, Talwar and others say "Hello! - Goodbye".

    I was planing to train my exploration alt to use bombers but I see no point with these changes.

    Too bad. Roll
    If bomb skills had been trained, a bomb run in Jita would be my order for Phoebe launch.
    At least I'ld had fireworks.
    FunGu Arsten
    Ascendance
    Goonswarm Federation
    #586 - 2014-10-19 11:33:01 UTC  |  Edited by: FunGu Arsten
    Mike Azariah wrote:
    Calvyr Travonis wrote:


    So what you're saying is that we just leave this all as proposed and "if" the ISBoxers adapt, which we know they will, then revisit it?


    No, I think we should be holding a logical and open discussion and I have asked for input, summarized said input, presented it here and then taken it to CCP, THAT is what I do.

    Nut this change discussion is about stealth bombing and (a point a lot of you are ignoring) stealth in general. Not ISBoxer.

    Discuss the issues on the table and try to avoid designing the way a multiboxer will work his way around it.

    m



    - not seeing your allies and decloaking your fleet - was not a problem brought up?
    - all other ships using a cloak are affected by this?
    - WHs operations depend on beeing hidden until you can get that point onto your prey - every other cloaked person in fleet is a liability?
    - "returning gamefeature" that was years ago fixed because it was a bug?


    i find it funny how you think this playerbase is stupid enough to not see this is a reaction to multiboxbomber setups... its an insult to be honnest.

    I multibox, i love it and have no issue with it at all. but bombers beeing multiboxed are overpowered because of the way the bombers work, any other ship has a counter when multiboxed.

    but keep ignoring the players who actualy log in and use the features you are nerfbatting... it has always worked in the passed (< sarcasm )
    Marlin Spikes
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #587 - 2014-10-19 14:50:30 UTC
    Just getting up to speed with these proposed changes. So let me make sure I understand this. Fail null sec blob fleets have managed to convince CCP to nerf the best blob counter in the game. Wow! Meta-gaming at its best.

    Travel fatigue, bombing nerf, higher sig, less agility, uncloaking cloaked fleet members who are not visible, slower warp speeds. Heck, why stop there? How about adding to the list a feature that upon activating your cloak, a cyno-like beacon lights up in local that allows us to better see each other and enemy blob fleets can warp on top of the cloaked bomber(s).

    I guess it's time for me to throw a tarp over my hound and let it rust away in my hangar.

    Thanks CCP for breaking my favorite ship.

    Bombers Rule!!!
    Jessica Danikov
    Network Danikov
    #588 - 2014-10-19 16:53:07 UTC
    FunGu Arsten wrote:

    I multibox, i love it and have no issue with it at all. but bombers beeing multiboxed are overpowered because of the way the bombers work, any other ship has a counter when multiboxed.


    I've had a change of heart, I think ISBoxer is entirely tangential to this conversation given the simple premise that anything someone can do with ISBoxer, a fleet of human players can achieve with a little practice and good coordination. The ISBoxer advantage of having all your ships slaved to single commands can cut both ways- humans will find it a lot easier to scatter randomly and be hard to catch, while an ISBoxer tends to end up with all their eggs in one basket more often than not. You can find plenty of situations where the advantages of one or the other can be highlighted or downplayed, but ultimately the possibility space is functionally identical and that's one of the reasons it continues to be permitted.

    Making bombers decloak each other can be adapted to by both types of players (has been in the past!), the real questions a) is this providing interesting gameplay? b) is this affecting game balance?

    The answers are no and no. Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships just makes life nightmarish, while at the same time, bombs are doing the same damage over the same area, so the overall effect of successful bomb runs is the same, regardless of how they are achieved. An extra 2 seconds reaction time is hardly consequential, given that the only useful reactions to a bomb run are to warp off or overheat your hardener. It's very difficult to predict where a bomb will land and ships that have the velocity to outrun a bomb usually have to use an MWD to do so, putting them at very high risk.

    That adds another thing I believe should be added: a bomb detonation location and a countdown on the UI, complete with line towards the incoming bomb if you hover over it in the tactical view. Bombs are incredibly predictable so the advanced systems of the future should be available to extrapolate their velocity and time to impact. With such UI elements, targets of such a run have a better chance of reacting to incoming bombs in a sensible manner.
    Mike Azariah
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #589 - 2014-10-19 17:27:25 UTC
    Rek Seven wrote:
    Mike, is it clear to you what most people don't like about these change?

    Do you agree that changing the cloak mechanic to combat bombers with have a negative effect on all forms of cloaky combat?

    There really isn't much more to say at this point.


    Yes and yes.

    I have spoke with a few WH folks outside of this and they are telling me the same. This is a change flying under one label (stealth bombers) that is going to hit a lot of ships and areas of space. I am going to be asking ccp if this is intended or a side effect.

    m

    Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
    Ammzi
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #590 - 2014-10-19 17:32:34 UTC
    Mike Azariah wrote:
    Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
    http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1410/IBombers.png

    This.


    Nice graphic, the only issue I have with it is when do they cloak? If (btw has this little gem been confirmed?) they can be decloaked in warp if they are in the same warp bubble would they all have to space out ahead of time or would they cycle in?

    m


    Yeh, I setup my ISBoxer bombers on sisi and warped around and bombed with no issues. Don't even get decloaked mid-warp, only when I land to do the bomb run :)

    Setup time is nil.
    Mike Azariah
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #591 - 2014-10-19 17:47:25 UTC
    Calvyr Travonis wrote:

  • A rework of defender missiles to target bombs. To me this is the best option because it not only gives fleets a new defense mechanism, but it also makes an obsolete and irrelevant weapon system viable again. I've also seen suggestions, further to the defender missile rework, of adding a new hull, could be either destroyer or cruiser class, T1 or T2, which specializes in the use of defender missiles, creating new options for fleet doctrines, with added roles.
  • Adding an arming code mechanic to bombs. This solution is targeted more to discouraging ISBoxer, admittedly, but I still think it's a great suggestion, that would add a new dynamic to bombing. A code would flash on the screen after the bomb was launched and would have to be entered correctly before the flight time elapsed in order to arm the bomb and have it detonate. My suggestion is that the bomber would have to be on grid and decloak to enter the code, which would give fleets a little more opportunity to eliminate some of the bombers to prevent further runs.
    • [/list]



    arming mechanism, no. That would be too hard on people whose vision might not be 100% or players who are drunk or just bad typists.

    Defender missiles? I have tried multiple times to get them repurposed, drone killer, bomb killer, hell antilaser chaff cannon. So far I have had little (actually no) success.

    m

    Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
    Galmas
    United System's Commonwealth
    #592 - 2014-10-19 18:03:25 UTC
    Please dont do the "cloaky ships will decloak each other again" part.

    PPPPLLLLEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE!!!

    I have no idea why you think it is a good idea. I just know that from my point of view it will be a massive pain in some dark areas of the body.

    If this is about ISBoxers, like many state here, then just change your EULA and hunt them down. Problem solved...

    Please don't bring back the pain of the guessing where your cloaked buddies are, pretty pretty please.

    Cheers
    Gal
    Heinrich Rotwang
    Spectre Fleet Corporation
    #593 - 2014-10-19 18:14:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinrich Rotwang
    baltec1 wrote:

    Bombers are very much an issue now given that they have invalidated a large number of options in fleet setups and tactics. CCP changed cloaking to what we have today, it has caused issues, CCP are reverting it again. Now, players got along just fine before and they will get along just fine again. The only type of fleet this will heavily impact will be bomber fleets in large fleet fights. The bombers themselves will be a bit more sturdy and a good deal better at small gang/solo roaming after these changes.


    "Goon Swarm Federation" - stopped reading there. Lobbyist blabla.
    Calvyr Travonis
    The Martial Virtues Foundation
    #594 - 2014-10-19 18:15:31 UTC
    Mike Azariah wrote:
    arming mechanism, no. That would be too hard on people whose vision might not be 100% or players who are drunk or just bad typists.

    Defender missiles? I have tried multiple times to get them repurposed, drone killer, bomb killer, hell antilaser chaff cannon. So far I have had little (actually no) success.

    m


    Vision problems, I'll give you as a person doesn't have too much control over that and sometimes even corrective lenses aren't enough. Unless of course the alert providing the arming code was large enough to compensate for people with poor vision. Something maybe in a 24px or even 32px font size. If they can't see that, I don't know how they're playing the game at all.

    Players being drunk or having poor typing skills though, really? So we're going to account for people who are suffering from a self inflicted impairment now? And poor typing, we're not talking about transcribing a dissertation on particle physics, we're talking about say a 6-12 character string. Even the worst "hunt and peck" typist can handle that.
    K'rysteena Mocking'Jay
    Doomheim
    #595 - 2014-10-19 18:19:00 UTC
    Dearest CCP Fozzie


    * Cloaked ships now de-cloak again * I guess the original statement that this was a bug was wrong and that it was a feature? Can I just say that if you spend more time going back and forth on items that in the long run are truly minutia in the realm of things that should be fixed, you will NEVER get EVE to where it could be.

    Oh, and make up your freaking mind, your like a bunch of teenaged girls trying to decide something...
    K'rysteena Mocking'Jay
    Doomheim
    #596 - 2014-10-19 18:25:40 UTC
    *** THE NEW EVE VISION STATEMENT ***


    Welcome to EVE, a space simulation, please be mindful of others. If you group together in anything large than 20 people we will nerf you. If you do anything in game with forethought and excellence, we will nerf your activity into the ground so that everyone is on an even playing field.

    THERE IS NO ROOM FOR YOUR EXCELLENCE IF IT MAKES OTHERS FEEL INFERIOR
    IF YOU CAN DO IT BETTER! WE CAN CHANGE THE RULES SO YOU CANT!
    Marxism will rule the day.
    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #597 - 2014-10-19 18:27:00 UTC
    Heinrich Rotwang wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:

    Bombers are very much an issue now given that they have invalidated a large number of options in fleet setups and tactics. CCP changed cloaking to what we have today, it has caused issues, CCP are reverting it again. Now, players got along just fine before and they will get along just fine again. The only type of fleet this will heavily impact will be bomber fleets in large fleet fights. The bombers themselves will be a bit more sturdy and a good deal better at small gang/solo roaming after these changes.


    "Goon Swarm Federation" - stopped reading there. Lobbyist blabla.


    We make heavy use of bombers in near every fight but hey, I guess you were also against the tech nerf too because its all a grroons plot.
    Max Deveron
    Deveron Shipyards and Technology
    Citizen's Star Republic
    #598 - 2014-10-19 18:31:36 UTC
    Yi Hyori wrote:
    Continuing from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5123470#post5123470


    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 ,


    uhm......
    Mining is a playstyle
    Manufacturing is a playstyle
    Bounty Hunting is a play style
    Ganking is a playstyle
    Being the best Frg tackler is a playstyle
    the list can go on and on.....

    1 player running so many accounts that for all intent purposes acts together as a single MOTHER OF GOD account........is not a playstyle.
    In the spirit of things....ISboxer is cheating....because it literally breaks the game on so many levels because it either stagnates a singular area of play for others, or it is way to easy and simple to destroy a target that the same sized fleet of individuals or mulit-boxed accounts simply can not do with the the same results.

    Mulit-box = a multi monitor way playing accounts -or- alt-tabbing between them
    ISboxer does neither....so yes its cheating. 1 player, 40 accounts = 1 player and 39 bots.
    Heinrich Rotwang
    Spectre Fleet Corporation
    #599 - 2014-10-19 18:50:19 UTC
    baltec1 wrote:
    Heinrich Rotwang wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:

    Bombers are very much an issue now given that they have invalidated a large number of options in fleet setups and tactics. CCP changed cloaking to what we have today, it has caused issues, CCP are reverting it again. Now, players got along just fine before and they will get along just fine again. The only type of fleet this will heavily impact will be bomber fleets in large fleet fights. The bombers themselves will be a bit more sturdy and a good deal better at small gang/solo roaming after these changes.


    "Goon Swarm Federation" - stopped reading there. Lobbyist blabla.


    We make heavy use of bombers in near every fight but hey, I guess you were also against the tech nerf too because its all a grroons plot.


    Couldn't care less about tech. Thing is, you just got something nuked I care about. You win. I lose. And now you show up in the typical goon style we all got used to in order to add insult to injury and see if you can farm some more tears by explaining how the people affected by that change are just too stupid to see that taking the small signature away, bombers decloaking each other and nerfed bombs are actually an improvement of bombers. No, I don't think I feel like letting myself get trolled on top of losing the only compelling aspect of eve that kept me playing.
    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #600 - 2014-10-19 18:59:34 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
    Heinrich Rotwang wrote:


    Couldn't care less about tech. Thing is, you just got something nuked I care about. You win. I lose.


    Didn't even see this one coming.

    Heinrich Rotwang wrote:

    And now you show up in the typical goon style we all got used to in order to add insult to injury and see if you can farm some more tears by explaining how the people affected by that change are just too stupid to see that taking the small signature away, bombers decloaking each other and nerfed bombs are actually an improvement of bombers. No, I don't think I feel like letting myself get trolled on top of losing the only compelling aspect of eve that kept me playing.


    I'm willing to bet you have not tested the revamped bomber. More tank and more fitting room a nice to have as is the larger cargo, sig being bumped up isnt the end of the world and you just have to laugh when people say they cant keep up with frigate gangs anymore.