These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord Xyon
Team Hemi
#681 - 2014-10-21 20:45:47 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Pretty sure I never said anything about stopping ISBoxers. I'm not one of those, I promise you.


Rain6637 wrote:
If you dislike the idea of ISBoxer, you should like this cloak change.


Oh so your just on this thread to troll and mess with people. I see. I just quoted you 4 posts ago.

Anyway since your just trying to troll and mess with people ignoring your posts on the matter.
Doddy
Excidium.
#682 - 2014-10-21 20:55:45 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Doddy wrote:
RIP bombing.

Anti capital bomb will be useless against anyone who brings more than one smartbomb in their fleet...

But hey at least solo hunters get a hp boost. If only they hadn't been nerfed by rats preferentially shooting them that might be usefull.



no if you stagger several of the anti cap bomb it can still pass through a few smart bombs


ok, you automatically lose a third of your capping to 2 smartbombs, 2/3rds to 4 smartbombs and any number of bombers will be countered by 6 smartbombs or 1 bomber in position to defensively bomb its own caps.




yes but you would need to fit 6 bombs to your own cap and with this type of bomb you would need more then 1 defensive bomber if they were smart enough not to bomb all from one direction


6 hi slots to defend a cap fleet isn't exactly mutch, less of a sacrifice than the attacker is wasting on pilots for the bombers in the first place. If its a solo cap you just kill it you don't need to waste time chucking void bombs at it. If it has any support 1 bs fitted with smartbombs is all you need, or just fitting a smartbomb on a few of the carriers which they tend to do anyway for cleaning off drones or mitigating missile dps.

As for the bomber it will destroy all bombs in space which would hit the cap. Stagger individual bombs to avoid being killed by a counterbomb and you are back at being countered by two smartbombs.
Rain6638
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#683 - 2014-10-21 21:04:18 UTC
Wow, this goon tag is just OP.

My point is this stealth change is not just about ISBoxer. It's about imbalance. Ball of stealth ships = imbalance. Whether it's one player controlling 50 stealth ships, or 50 players with 1 stealth ship each, it's the same scenario: Numbers were used to overcome an attempted balance to cloaks.

There is a group of people who blame ISBoxer for this change, my statement was regarding those people. (review: ball of stealth ships = imbalance, ISBoxer or not ISBoxer)

also, I know a bit about what goes on in wormholes.

seems grrgoons is keeping you from thinking straight right now Xyon.

[ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#684 - 2014-10-21 23:28:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Rain6638 wrote:
Wow, this goon tag is just OP.

My point is this stealth change is not just about ISBoxer. It's about imbalance. Ball of stealth ships = imbalance. Whether it's one player controlling 50 stealth ships, or 50 players with 1 stealth ship each, it's the same scenario: Numbers were used to overcome an attempted balance to cloaks.

There is a group of people who blame ISBoxer for this change, my statement was regarding those people. (review: ball of stealth ships = imbalance, ISBoxer or not ISBoxer)

also, I know a bit about what goes on in wormholes.

seems grrgoons is keeping you from thinking straight right now Xyon.


That's not entirely true. The number of bombers does not equal imbalance but the mechanics of bomber can seem overpowered when you use them in large quantities. ISboxer makes organizing bomber fleets easier and reduces the room for error and as organisation/co-ordination is key in a bombing run, ISboxer clearly has its uses.

Balance can be achieved in two ways. One way is to nerf the thing causing the issue and the other is to provide a sufficient counter. With the stealth bomber and cloak change, CCP are kind of doing both but they're taking a half baked approach; the counters aren't enough on their own and the change to cloaks have an adverse effect on other classes of ship.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#685 - 2014-10-21 23:31:06 UTC
Sup Rek

Do I sense a death 2 afk cloaky post in there somewhere
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#686 - 2014-10-21 23:33:28 UTC
No at all. I'm a wormhole and a cloak is my lifeblood. Smile
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#687 - 2014-10-21 23:35:58 UTC
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#688 - 2014-10-22 02:25:30 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
Thanks for not dealing with the real issue here which is ISBox bombing, but making real player coordinated bomber fleets more of a pain to coordinate.

This only emphasizes the need for automated, single player run bombing fleets.


CCP isn't going to do anything about ISBoxer. Makes their subs look better on paper because all the additional alts being used for ISBoxer. Better looking sub numbers means more money in CCPs pocket.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#689 - 2014-10-22 03:13:26 UTC
Doyle Aldurad wrote:
I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.

Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing'

Lets compare bombers to destroyers:
Similar HP? Yes.
Similar sig radius? Yes.
Similar powergrid? Yes.
Similar velocity? Yes.
Similar align time? Yes.
Similar mass? Yes.
Similar damage output? Yes.
Similar warp speed? Finally yes.

Conclusion: Stealth Bombers are destroyers, not frigates.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Sentenced 1989
#690 - 2014-10-22 06:21:41 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:
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).


This part with 7 blind guys... XD
Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before, but now it's being returned as a new feature...
In any case, sucks... but then again, I haven't logged in days, so we'll see what happens when phoebe hits..
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#691 - 2014-10-22 08:36:43 UTC
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before

It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups.

I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Lugh Crow-Slave
#692 - 2014-10-22 09:22:39 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Doyle Aldurad wrote:
I am pretty good with all of these changes but one. These are still Frigates. Making them slower in warp than any generic T-1 frigate seems inappropriate and unbalancing. Suddenly even keeping up with my allies in a roam is a lot more difficult. Making them "slower" I do understand, given you're desire to weaken them overall, but dropping their warp speed that of a destroyer seems completely wrong. You've already made them both notably easier to discover and destroy, plus made their signature weapon easier to evade.

Please remove that aspect of the 'balancing'

Lets compare bombers to destroyers:
Similar HP? Yes.
Similar sig radius? Yes.
Similar powergrid? Yes.
Similar velocity? Yes.
Similar align time? Yes.
Similar mass? Yes.
Similar damage output? Yes.
Similar warp speed? Finally yes.

Conclusion: Stealth Bombers are destroyers, not frigates.


yet they are frigates.... dear god what's happening!!!

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#693 - 2014-10-22 14:44:17 UTC
Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?
Calvyr Travonis
The Martial Virtues Foundation
#694 - 2014-10-22 15:23:40 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before

It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups.

I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.


And what about every other cloaky ship out there? WH gangs rely on stealth and already take a hit on their DPS over their non-cloaky counterparts for the ability to stay hidden. Now you want them to take a further hit by losing another high slot? I don't think so, terrible idea. If the decloak change is going to go through, the ability to see cloak fleetmates should be inherent, not require a special module. Otherwise, it's just not functional.
Khiluale Zotakibe
Protection of Underground Resources
#695 - 2014-10-22 15:28:03 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?


Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change.

Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#696 - 2014-10-22 15:41:29 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Epic description of new a.k.a old mechanic which was considered bug before

It was never considered bug. CCP tried taking it out because large stealth fleets were struggling with it, and bombers primarily work in large groups.

I think they should add a module that covert ops ships can equip into a high slot which would allow them to see cloaked fleet members while they are cloaked. Bombers could elect to equip this module at the cost of one torpedo launcher. If they are dedicated to doing bombing runs, they probably don't want the torpedoes so badly.

that's a decent one. seeing fleet mates cloaked, with the polygon overlay that was on Sisi for a bit. but not for a slot
Vel'drinn
Sanguine Vipers
#697 - 2014-10-22 16:37:23 UTC
I kind of like the concept of damage intensity based on position from the blast point. Aiming your bomb at the correct range requires extra skill and risk to pull off. By risk I'm talking about unplanned bomb runs where you get a warp in but don't necessarily have an ideal warp out point. This mechanic would strike a balance of aiming for optimal damage vs. optimal survival.

It would buff faster fleets too. Frigate and Cruiser fleets can zip around relatively quick making it much harder to pinpoint where they will be when bombs detonate. A skilled fleet could change their trajectory to mitigate a lot of damage that way. Battleships fleets, especially shield ships, are out of luck but that's the cost of having more tank and less maneuverability. If nothing else they can still microjump out of the blast. UNLESS they get void bombed first =)

AoE damage could also use explosive velocity to calculate damage instead of signature since this hurts shield ships so much more than armor. The faster you are the less likely you take damage. Current mechanics essentially say microwarp drive + bomb = death with a lot fewer bombs required to kill the target.

At any rate AoE damage scaling could be all that's needed to put the skill back into bombing without nerfing all cov ops doctrines into oblivion. I really hope the cloak change doesn't happen cause we might as well take the Stealth out of Stealth Bombers.

So all this means smaller ships survive longer and can be used again. Massed blobs of hard hitting battleships can still be countered by bombers. The smaller ships being able to survive bombs easier with those mechanics will EAT BOMBERS ALIVE with current stats on bombers. Smaller ships not dying so easily = bombers getting locked up and killed = bombs not detonating.

Think about it. Varied fleet comps become a thing again and all those fleet types have viable counters.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#698 - 2014-10-22 17:38:02 UTC
I think that other cloaked ships in fleet should be visible to the player in their cloaked form and on overview. Only if they are in fleet. This would assist in knowing how close you are to a fleet member so as to avoid decloaking unintentionally.

This change is going to affect far more than just bombers.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#699 - 2014-10-22 21:44:22 UTC
Whatever they do, I doubt CCP intends to make any significant changes to bomb damage code that could result in it being more complex than it already is. Those hamsters have a tough enough time as it is per tick, determining all the cause and effect of each AOE.
Pritovsky Pootis
Eschelon Directive
Quantum Inquisition
#700 - 2014-10-22 21:50:48 UTC
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Any update from CSM/CCP on the cloak change?


Yes, it would be nice to have a response from CCP after so much negative feedback regarding such senseless change.

Also, the loss in agility of the bomber will nerf it on a niche usage that is hunting covert ops in exploration sites. The ship is already quite a slug compared to a cov ops and this increase in mass might push it out of this niche usage for a solo bomber.


As seen in the hyperion "feedback" threads, none of what we say actually matters- it gets pushed through anyway. They obviously know what they are changing is for the best and everyone who actually plays the game and can see how changes so poorly thought through like this one will negatively effect gameplay are wrong.

Though I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong this time. Your move, CCP.