These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
El Space Mariachi
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#961 - 2014-10-29 17:31:36 UTC  |  Edited by: El Space Mariachi
Aurelius Valentius wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
Step in the right direction, Fozzie. Now we just need to get rid of ISBoxing bombers and we're good.


oh you had to mention that didn't you... you had to go there... now they will be watching you... *hands him the special foil hat and a passport, ticket and sunglasses*... try to get out the back while you can.


*raises paw* ammzi is one of our most cancerous isboxers, he's immune to reprisals from CCP

gay gamers for jesus

Porucznik Borewicz
GreenSwarm
#962 - 2014-10-29 17:39:22 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
Step in the right direction, Fozzie. Now we just need to get rid of ISBoxing bombers and we're good.

+1 to that. Don't forget about the ISBoxing ISK printing machines.
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid
#963 - 2014-10-29 17:51:03 UTC
dephekt wrote:

I like the jump drive changes and the fact sov is being reworked, but that's not here or there regarding the bomber and ISBoxer issue you guys are dodging and giving yourself breathing room on with these changes. If you don't see the problem with 1 user controlling 30 accounts simultaneously in PvP, then I'm afraid I can't do anything to help you.



I very much doubt you'll see Fozzie respond directly to the ISBoxer point but one of the main objections to the decloak change from many people, myself included, was that it was actually a nerf to non-ISBoxer bomber groups. ISBoxer has pre-existing internal tools allowing those abusing it to warp their ships in at set ranges from eachother, thus avoiding the decloak issue entierly.

TL:DR - The changes did nothing to ISBoxer bombers
Aram Kachaturian
Aram Pleasure Hub Holding
#964 - 2014-10-29 18:11:45 UTC
I'm quite mad that an alliance such Pasta can still isboxers without any risk.

Isboxers are ruining this game since years, completely killing any gameplay and the eve community.

Im not surprised CCP soundwave left, last words i heard from him:

" Isbox..errrss..madness.. has to s..."

Im sure he tried to say "stopped"

Servant of the Secret League, Wielder of the Monocle Clubhouse Flame.

Bisba
Teddybears.
Dead Terrorists
#965 - 2014-10-29 18:15:25 UTC
Why not add explosion velocity to bombs, say equal to that of rage torpedoes?
Sbrodor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#966 - 2014-10-29 18:21:07 UTC
check please the damage of void bomb, actually with "old" damage they nuke normal damage bomb in same volley.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#967 - 2014-10-29 18:25:32 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Capqu wrote:
Zverofaust wrote:
Incredibly disappointed. More experienced and skilled wordsmiths have explained why better than I ever could, but I feel this change was needed. I love wheniammzi as much as anyone but erasing entire fleets of enemy shis is simply too easy at the moment and the pressure of that fact has had a huge effect on the meta. That fight a couple of weeks ago in which almost 800 tengus faced off from a half dozen different fleets should have been a wakeup call that **** is getting ridiculous.

I don't know the best way to do it but the announced changes seemed to be on the right track -- not so much a nerf as simply requiring mote effort, organization and planning to wield the horrific power that bombers undeniably hold.

I'd hoped like many that ccp was serious about revolutionizing the game with huge changes but this really hits me in the feels.


wheniaminspace and ammzi have both posted in this thread telling you why this change didn't really change their ability to bomb effectively with isboxer
in fact both of the previous people have argued in favour of banning the use of isboxer with bombing instead

everyone agrees isboxing bombing is completely out of control but that nerf wasn't going to effect to even nearly the same extent it would have classic bombing


Despite all this, the PL talking heads still say the same thing "nerf bombers", like it will put them into BS fleets.

So what would they be saying if bomb launchers could be fit on something like a battleship? Align, MJD, launch. 10 12 seconds later, no more enemy fleet.

NERF BATTLESHIPS! BATTLESHIPS OP!

Never mind that it was the bombs that did the damage. Applied damage from bombs has almost nothing to do with the ship that launches it. Yet they still cry to nerf the ship, leaving the weapon system untouched.

In reality, they're going to be rolling around in OP T3s that can be blops bridged with 50% reduced fatigue and cooldowns, refit on the fly with mobile depots or at a POS, and be completely combat ready in 2 minutes with a fleet that is stronger than any BS fleet for the exact same reasons they always have: reduced sigRad and massive tank.

1337 pvpers: "These aren't the nerfs you're looking for."


You sound like you need a hug from a PL bro.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#968 - 2014-10-29 18:33:31 UTC
Aram Kachaturian wrote:
I'm quite mad that an alliance such Pasta can still isboxers without any risk.

huh?
Pen Ris
Eden Risk Management
#969 - 2014-10-29 19:19:58 UTC
Good change Fozzie until such time that Eves mechanics allow you to see other invisible ships in your fleet and avoid them, then this is great.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#970 - 2014-10-29 20:53:28 UTC
Removed an off topic post.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#971 - 2014-10-29 21:03:27 UTC
I honestly didn't think my post sounded mad. Was just pointing out the irony of PL supporting an ineffective nerf to something that they claim is OP and ruining the game, while they're still third-partying everyone they can in an obviously OP ship doctrine.

Nerfing all cloaked ships would have done nothing to change bomb damage application differences vs BC/BS armor and shield tanks. It would have penalized living players working together, and done nothing to ISBoxers.

I'm glad CCP Fozzie saw the light on this one and has chosen to take the time to do a more thorough and effective investigation and rebalance effort.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Blastcaps Madullier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#972 - 2014-10-29 21:19:39 UTC
Viktor Fel wrote:
Mrs Comfortable wrote:
Bombers remain OP, nothing to see here.

That 15 players can basically remove BS from fleet fights is lame.

Might as well bring tracking titans back its that level of lame.


15 players? come up to Fade and Deklein you can see one player ISboxing 47 bombers and 4 scouts. Again, epic gameplay issue dodge there CCP Dev Team.


And there is boxing players in CFC as well, point still comes down to multi boxing software like ISBoxer IS the problem really where as fozzie seems to want to address this your still going to loose expensive things to MOA :) worry more when its all of MOA and replicator at once
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#973 - 2014-10-29 21:45:03 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
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


I just read through the CSM Summer Minutes. This specific thing was mentioned. Repurposing Defender Missiles into some sort of CIWS system could make them very effective bomb killers.

Light Defender Missiles have a base velocity of 8000m/s and a flight time of 10 seconds. This makes their base range = 80km. But they only do 60 explosive damage. There are no damage type variations. So they would be useless vs Shrapnel bombs.

The base cycle time of T2 Light Launchers is about 12 seconds. With the new 12 second flight time for bombs and skills, you can get two volleys off before the bombs detonate. A RLML ship with a RoF bonus would work very well, too.

There is also the issue of them targeting nothing but missiles. But the way I see it, if they can be coded to target nothing but missiles, they can be coded to target nothing but bombs.

There is a Heavy Defender variant with slightly shorter range and slightly more damage.

Flycatcher and Heretic come with 6 and 7 launcher slots respectively. Sabre and Eris only have 1. Coupled with their bubbles, they could be very effective in this role. Which ship you fly could depend on which type of picket ship you want: anti-bomb, or anti-bomber.

Personally, I'd like them to have stats sufficient so that a Flycatcher or Heretic that has been completely dedicated to picket duty with a full rack of standard launchers could wipe an entire squad of bombs per volley. 7 bombs, 7 launchers. With their damage bonuses, at max, they both get a 50% bonus to damage. So 90 damage. 116 is required to pop the bomb. So it would require 2 volleys if each launcher targeted a different bomb, which I don't think they currently can do.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Mario Putzo
#974 - 2014-10-29 22:08:17 UTC
I am glad that CCP stepped back on this, I don't think the cloaking mechanics were the issue, I also don't think ISBoxer is an issue either. The issue has always been with the bombs themselves, they are largely unavoidable once launched, and the suffer minor drawbacks to any means of tanking outside of buffer. They impact shield ships more than anything due to the sig bloom of shields, and the supposed trade off of more agility/speed than armor isn't accounted for.

I think to really put bombs in to line you absolutely must allow for speed tanking the damage as a form of mitigation. Giving bombs a similar explosion radius as torpedoes will allow for gangs designed around a speed concept more chance at survivability, while still allowing for stopping power against larger ships...however if larger ships fit smart bombs they can mitigate damage using a fire wall technique.

Tweaking the bombs for a speed check is probably the single best thing one can do to balance bombs in the game right now. It isn't the ship or the number of them, it is the essentially unavoidable damage.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#975 - 2014-10-29 22:12:11 UTC
Repurposing defender missiles is romantic and all, but it comes with some pretty serious technical debt to pay down. Namely -- defender missiles only shoot down incoming missiles that are targeted at you.

Yeah.

Putting them on anti-bomb duty would require a significant rework of their code.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#976 - 2014-10-29 22:16:03 UTC
but it has semantics on its side, which is 95% of what drives balance, so
Eklykti
Zion foundation
#977 - 2014-10-29 23:19:41 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are going to take some more time to work on the best way to have ships interact with cloakies
Possible some sort of 'beacon', visible only to selected broadcast receivers, appearing when sending 'In position' broadcast?
JoveBishop
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#978 - 2014-10-30 00:11:01 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
JoveBishop wrote:
What a lame move.
******* crybabies win.

How are you not a crybaby? Because you can't have immunity to bombers? May need some support? Boo hoo.


Immunity?
How about learn to play and HTFU instead of isboxing 30 accounts with I WIN button.

You don't have skill that's why you need this mechanic to show others how awesome you are.

Noob.
MukkBarovian
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#979 - 2014-10-30 01:51:52 UTC  |  Edited by: MukkBarovian
Some people are saying the solution to bombers is to bring dedicated pickets.

When you actually get into a fleet fight those dedicated picket ships tend to die first. An instacane has laughable EHP. A shield instacane is a joke. And something like, say an instaloki still has terrible HP compared to the Tengu. The enemy FC knows he has bombers on standby. He spends 30 seconds blapping your picket because those ships are the only thing keeping you from dying in a fire to bombs. He tells the bomber FC he has cleared the way. Then the bombing run happens. In the meantime while the pickets were dying they were not contributing very much to the fleet fight.

It's so much easier just to use a doctrine that won't die easily to bombers in the first place. If I was lying about this you would be able to point to shield BS doctrines in use by 0.0 entities defended by instacanes or something similar. You can't. Anyone who thinks an instacane is an answer to bombers when there is also an enemy fleet on the field is an idiot. Instacanes only work when bombers are the only threat, isolated skirmishers in need of suppresion.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#980 - 2014-10-30 02:19:49 UTC
MukkBarovian wrote:
Some people are saying the solution to bombers is to bring dedicated pickets.

When you actually get into a fleet fight those dedicated picket ships tend to die first. An instacane has laughable EHP. A shield instacane is a joke. And something like, say an instaloki still has terrible HP compared to the Tengu. The enemy FC knows he has bombers on standby. He spends 30 seconds blapping your picket because those ships are the only thing keeping you from dying in a fire to bombs. He tells the bomber FC he has cleared the way. Then the bombing run happens. In the meantime while the pickets were dying they were not contributing very much to the fleet fight.

It's so much easier just to use a doctrine that won't die easily to bombers in the first place. If I was lying about this you would be able to point to shield BS doctrines in use by 0.0 entities defended by instacanes or something similar. You don't. Anyone who thinks an instacane is an answer to bombers when there is also an enemy fleet on the field is an idiot. Instacanes only work when bombers are the only threat, isolated skirmishers in need of suppresion.


I believe your line of thought is fairly correct.

Requiring a line of single purpose ships for a fleet is usually fairly boring gameplay. Most people want to be the one up front shooting their guns and doing damage. This can be reflected in most games where the damage dealing classes are abundant and utility classes are highly sought after. IE Tanks, healers, buffers.

The reason we still have players that play those utility based classes is the need for them regardless of the situation. You are almost always going to need a tank, healer, and or buffer. The benefits aren't niche, they are a requirement.

With that line of thought, introducing a line of ships or in our case, a fit for a ship, that is dedicated 100% for anti bomb or bomber, the players arent going to want fly a ship on the offchance that they may be bombed. Putting those launchers on a dic ( which are almost always primary'd anyway ) puts a target on a target already.

Instead of forcing an entire ship to be balanced around anti bomb, how about a single module that can be put on anything battlecruisers or larger?

Balancing issues aside, i was thinking maybe a BC+ sized module that works similar to ECM Burst. Long cooldown with an area effect that disables launched bombs. Cooldown on these would have to be long so that you cannot have 1 or 2 defend an entire fleet from bombs, but at the same time allow larger ships to still defend against bombs somewhat.

The drawbacks would have to be fairly large, but you would also have to be unable to see that the ships are packing these anti bomb emp burst ( lol? ) modules until deployed. Coordination in large fleets to be able to spread these modules to cycle them within a fleet to maintain bomb defense would be vital. However this would pretty much make BC and larger fleets immune to bombs 100%. The drawback would ahve to be implemented to counter this. Perhaps it works similar to ECM Burst and guarantee target break within that zone. This would allow the opposing fleet to take advantage of the enemy fleet using these modules.

100% ecm can also be bad as it can be abused to break locks on tackle and used inappropriately. so a different penalty would have to be implemented. But I'm just tossing ideas around right now.

The problem right now is that battlecruiers and battleships see very little deployment due to the threat of bombs. ( and warp speed, but thats another can of worms ) perhaps giving larger hulls a means of defending against bombers would be a move int he right direction. The issue of bombers being OP isnt always necessarily their stats, but the balance of available defense moves against them, or lack these of.

just 2cent