These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Fixing the Bomber Problem

Author
Sven Tekitsu
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#1 - 2014-11-14 01:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Tekitsu
In most of the recent null-sec conflicts, Stealth bombers have become an increasingly strong tool, capable of eliminating entire fleets with little to no true counters. However, I don't think the ship itself is the problem, most stealth bombers will evaporate under any kind of return fire, it's the bomb launcher on these ships that is their true power. It is my opinion, that the solution to this problem should come in the form of player interaction with the offending bombs, rather than a overall nerf of the stealth bomber ship class.

The solution is right in front of us,as the humble Defender Missile. Currently, Defender Missiles are considered so worthless, that they are worth a fraction of the materials used to create them. Why? It is because they are limited by a clunky system that sabotages their effectiveness. It is my proposal to change the use of these missiles from their current purpose of attempting to block missiles to blocking bombs. To do this, I propose a two part system:

Fleet Area Defense System I:

Attention Limited to Interdictor Class Ships

Attention Limits ship to manually targeting bombs only when activated

Attention Adds Substantial Scan Resolution to aid targetting Bombs

Attention Active Module requiring low cap use

Attention Uses significant amount of PG/CPU to effect fitting

Attention Utilizes Defender Missiles 4 as prerequisite

Defender Missile:

Attention Four types with select-able damage

Attention 5000m/s Missile Velocity

Attention 7s Flight time

Attention 40 Damage per Missile

Addressing first the Fleet Area Defense System (FADS), it would be limited to Interdictor class ships to balance the mitigation these new missiles would effect on incoming bombs. By tying a counter to bombers to a relativly equal level of skill points and isk, Bombers would become more balanced efficiency wise. As far as the module goes, it would operate as an activator for the defender missiles, allowing the player to fire against incoming bombs within a reasonable period of time.

Next, the Missiles themselves, would be in the neighborhood of 3-4 missiles per bomb reaching the target in a short period of time. Price wise, these new missile would replace the pre-existing Defenders at around 150K in material price, with the current defender missiles reverted to their base materials to prevent a massive profit run.

I look forward to getting responses, criticisms are welcome.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#2 - 2014-11-14 01:47:08 UTC
Alternatively, ban ISBoxer! Problem solved!

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Sven Tekitsu
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#3 - 2014-11-14 01:52:12 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Alternatively, ban ISBoxer! Problem solved!


ISBoxer isn't going anywhere soon as far as I can tell, and removing it would not reduce the massive player bomber fleets currently active. Also, the small number of bombs launched by the ISBoxer would be more highly effected by this, as it would be easier to counter smaller concentrations of bombs
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#4 - 2014-11-14 04:54:49 UTC
Sven Tekitsu wrote:

ISBoxer isn't going anywhere soon as far as I can tell, and removing it would not reduce the massive player bomber fleets currently active. Also, the small number of bombs launched by the ISBoxer would be more highly effected by this, as it would be easier to counter smaller concentrations of bombs

You don't sound like you have much experience with bombs.

ISboxer or real player gangs, each wave of bombs is still the same size, due to the EHP limits on the bombs themselves.

Additionally removing ISBoxer allows for human error to creep in, ISBoxer deliver perfectly synced attacks while human gangs have the potential for someone to be late on their click, and the wave to arrive spread out being less effective due to reps being able to land half way through the wave going off any the like.

Finally, you are putting someone into a ship that can easily be snipped off the field first, who's only possible role is to stop bombs and who still requires split second precision to be able to stop even 1 bomb per wave assuming they are in the perfect place. At which point they will just launch a few extra bombs per wave so that even if you kill some they still get maximum damage per wave of bombs.
Sven Tekitsu
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#5 - 2014-11-14 05:58:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Tekitsu
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Sven Tekitsu wrote:

ISBoxer isn't going anywhere soon as far as I can tell, and removing it would not reduce the massive player bomber fleets currently active. Also, the small number of bombs launched by the ISBoxer would be more highly effected by this, as it would be easier to counter smaller concentrations of bombs

You don't sound like you have much experience with bombs.

ISboxer or real player gangs, each wave of bombs is still the same size, due to the EHP limits on the bombs themselves.

Additionally removing ISBoxer allows for human error to creep in, ISBoxer deliver perfectly synced attacks while human gangs have the potential for someone to be late on their click, and the wave to arrive spread out being less effective due to reps being able to land half way through the wave going off any the like.

Finally, you are putting someone into a ship that can easily be snipped off the field first, who's only possible role is to stop bombs and who still requires split second precision to be able to stop even 1 bomb per wave assuming they are in the perfect place. At which point they will just launch a few extra bombs per wave so that even if you kill some they still get maximum damage per wave of bombs.


I'm not saying that I support ISBoxer, I just don't see CCP removing it anytime soon. To clarify, an ISBoxer is traditionally not the size of a normal fleet, which is what I meant when I said this would effect the smaller groups of ISBoxers. Regarding your point that the dictors would only be immediately removed from field, dictors already can be sniped off the field, this simply gives them another purpose. Additionally, this is not a perfect counter to bombs, so some will get through yes, but it does serve the purpose of mitigating the successive bomb waves. Every bomb used to get over the dictors is one less than would already hit the fleet.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2014-11-14 06:06:59 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Additionally removing ISBoxer allows for human error to creep in, ISBoxer deliver perfectly synced attacks while human gangs have the potential for someone to be late on their click, and the wave to arrive spread out being less effective due to reps being able to land half way through the wave going off any the like.


I'd like to point out that properly setting up ISBoxer on any number of accounts over 4 or 5 is a time consuming, patience-obliterating, tedium-wrought, very frustrating process.

There are a million things that can go wrong by a single pixel in EVE that can mess up your ability to execute a command. As the number of clients goes up, the number of potential errors goes up exponentially as well. Not to mention difference in skills per account, difference in ping, lag, hiccups, EVE sometimes "freezing" for a second....

If you think multiboxing EVE is easy, please go watch the videos by Pinkskull The Multiboxer of WoW PVP boxing and raid-boss boxing.
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#7 - 2014-11-14 06:26:15 UTC
yes go watch videos for WOW concerning EVE.. As we watch EVE ISboxers do way better work daily all day every day. Let us not compare the lower class player of WOW to the better citizens of EVE.
Andrew Indy
Cleaning Crew
#8 - 2014-11-14 06:28:54 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
[quote=Sven Tekitsu]
Finally, you are putting someone into a ship that can easily be snipped off the field first, who's only possible role is to stop bombs and who still requires split second precision to be able to stop even 1 bomb per wave assuming they are in the perfect place. At which point they will just launch a few extra bombs per wave so that even if you kill some they still get maximum damage per wave of bombs.


Its not a Ship that I would want to fly.

Totally useless unless you encounter bombers and cant even use a TP/drone to KM whore.
Sven Tekitsu
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#9 - 2014-11-14 06:41:35 UTC
Andrew Indy wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
[quote=Sven Tekitsu]
Finally, you are putting someone into a ship that can easily be snipped off the field first, who's only possible role is to stop bombs and who still requires split second precision to be able to stop even 1 bomb per wave assuming they are in the perfect place. At which point they will just launch a few extra bombs per wave so that even if you kill some they still get maximum damage per wave of bombs.


Its not a Ship that I would want to fly.

Totally useless unless you encounter bombers and cant even use a TP/drone to KM *****.


This is not a new kind of ship and the (FADS) is an active module meaning that you can swap between normal missiles to the defenders when you encounter a solution needing them. Also, this would be limited to interdictors who already have a place in the current meta, just giving them another choice in fitting.
Andy Koraka
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2014-11-14 07:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Koraka
The OP's specific proposed details are kind of crappy, but the general premise of Defender Missile = Antibomber platform is sound.

Limit the defender missiles to a specific new support ship class and balance the ship's tank so that a hostile fleet can kill them but not without some effort. Maybe do some sort of mechanic where they manually lock/shoot the bombs in flight, not sure how viable that is.

Effect: When fleets fight the if one side has a bomber wing the FC can consciously make the decision to spend time dismantling the other's antibomber protection. At the same time unless one side makes the specific (and significant) effort to strip anti-bomber protection, any independent 3rd party bombers who just show up would have some portion (pending balance) of their bomb damage intercepted.

Result: Bombers are a force multiplier, but they're significantly less effective unless they're working in concert with another fleet prepping for the run. Also, an entire half of the battleships in EvE might be viable for the first time in years.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-11-14 09:52:23 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Alternatively, ban ISBoxer! Problem solved!

( ̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅[̲̅ ̲̅]̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅ ) Apply directly to the butthurt.

To the op, kind of like the idea. An interception missile (you don't usually intercept dumb bombs), though maybe a type of gun (like 800mm autocannon) that launches suicide guided drones using T1 drones would be more useful Roll against the bomber.
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#12 - 2014-11-14 10:01:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Just make bombs deal a direct hit damage, like other missiles. We have smartbombs that do area of damage and its enough!
Sigras
Conglomo
#13 - 2014-11-15 04:59:41 UTC
lol.... We should get rid of the blob counters... says the person with the largest blob...

Seriously, this game needs MORE AOE to keep blobs in check not less!
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#14 - 2014-11-15 05:05:53 UTC
Didn't CCP say something about wanting to rework Defender Missiles to be useful, and that anti-bomb was on the list of considerations?
Jurico Elemenohpe
Flipsid3 Tactics
#15 - 2014-11-15 11:02:49 UTC
Entire fleets? Are they really that strong? I thought they only did a few hundred damage.
Also, smartbombs are a nice counter. Smartbomb interceptor, approach the bomb(s) and destroy 1m (?) in a couple of clicks. Or just SB battleships. Also, what about FOF interceptors? Same as the SB concept, burn towards the bombs and activate.