These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#41 - 2015-06-10 17:39:06 UTC
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
Shield-tanked ships taking more damage because of their increased shield radius makes sense since the shield increases the surface area of the ship exposed to damage.

Since they're called "shield extenders" it indicates that they increase shield HP by making the surface area of the shield bigger.

Assume that unextended shields are about 1m off the ships hull. If you had a perfectly spherical ship with a 124m radius (for easy maths), the surface area of the shields would be 196, 000m3. This is what would be exposed to AoE damage.

Assume further that a shield extender adds just 5m to that raduis. This increases the surface area of the shield to 212, 000m3. More area exposed to damage should mean more damage taken.


So my armor and hull actually inflate too?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#42 - 2015-06-10 17:41:10 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
Shield-tanked ships taking more damage because of their increased shield radius makes sense since the shield increases the surface area of the ship exposed to damage.

Since they're called "shield extenders" it indicates that they increase shield HP by making the surface area of the shield bigger.

Assume that unextended shields are about 1m off the ships hull. If you had a perfectly spherical ship with a 124m radius (for easy maths), the surface area of the shields would be 196, 000m3. This is what would be exposed to AoE damage.

Assume further that a shield extender adds just 5m to that raduis. This increases the surface area of the shield to 212, 000m3. More area exposed to damage should mean more damage taken.


So my armor and hull actually inflate too?

1.6meters for a 1600mm plate. Bulkheads would be internal though.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-06-10 17:44:09 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
Shield-tanked ships taking more damage because of their increased shield radius makes sense since the shield increases the surface area of the ship exposed to damage.

Since they're called "shield extenders" it indicates that they increase shield HP by making the surface area of the shield bigger.

Assume that unextended shields are about 1m off the ships hull. If you had a perfectly spherical ship with a 124m radius (for easy maths), the surface area of the shields would be 196, 000m3. This is what would be exposed to AoE damage.

Assume further that a shield extender adds just 5m to that raduis. This increases the surface area of the shield to 212, 000m3. More area exposed to damage should mean more damage taken.


So my armor and hull actually inflate too?

1.6meters for a 1600mm plate. Bulkheads would be internal though.


Except my shield extender makes my armor and hull take more damage somehow because my bloated sigs which makes bomb do more damage to me is my ship literally inflating from the shield extender. Shield extenders should also give armor and hull HP bonust since they are offectively bigger plates installed now that they grew in size.

Can I stop now or need I go on?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#44 - 2015-06-10 17:52:58 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I 100% agree that any issue with bombers lies in bomb mechanics, and not bombers themselves. While there may be a few people out there who wish they could return their torpedo deliveries, by and large the complaints about bombers stem from their massive AOE death waves.

That said, my concern with these solutions, while cool, is that they don't fundamentally shift the impact of bombs. Right now bombs do the most damage to things with large signature radii that are too slow to burn out of the explosion radius before they impact.

#1 still punishes slow-moving ships. Industrials, battleships etc will still be taking the brunt of bomb damage while frigates and destroyers, which were already fast enough to get out of the way within 12 seconds, will still be taking zero or nearly zero damage.

#2 is the same thing, and is essentially what the explosion radius currently does. Ships with lower signature radius already get bomb damage reduction. This may be increasing that reduction but ultimately on a high level doesn't solve the "problems" that bombs cause.

#3 through #5 are therefore mixes of the same thing. I guess I just wonder if it will change enough, essentially

(EDITED to not go off on a tangent)


makes sense, but still leaving them as they are is worse, perhaps alongside the epicentre and velocity you could look at what reduces speed too well, webs and HIC bubbles with those reduced in effectiveness that would help with the issue, also AB's getting a buff would help incase you're scrammed or know you will/dual prop fits.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Ele Rebellion
Vertex Armada
The Initiative.
#45 - 2015-06-10 19:40:21 UTC
Actually I think the best way to fix them is to reduce the Resistances of bombs.

This limits the number of bombs that fired on a target at once.

Reducing this number down to about 7 or 8 means the bombers have to allow a short bit of time between waves of bombs. Thus allowing for the targets a chance to escape.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#46 - 2015-06-10 21:18:03 UTC
Ele Rebellion wrote:
Actually I think the best way to fix them is to reduce the Resistances of bombs.

This limits the number of bombs that fired on a target at once.

Reducing this number down to about 7 or 8 means the bombers have to allow a short bit of time between waves of bombs. Thus allowing for the targets a chance to escape.

Already is 8 IIRC. Dropping it so you need something like a 4s stagger between waves of 4-6 would be ideal IMO.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Doctor Carbonatite
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2015-06-16 00:06:30 UTC
Why not a warp speed penalty on the launcher module that is in effect even if it's offlined? E.g. with T1 launcher you warp 1 AU/s, maybe 1.5 for T2 (actually giving people a reason to train for it).

Most of what I've read suggests that the warp speed changes were what made bombers broken; slowing bomb-fitted ones down should "fix" that without smacking just about every play style.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#48 - 2015-06-27 06:42:21 UTC
Love potion #5.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#49 - 2015-06-27 07:59:30 UTC
Currently you need 3 to 4 waves to kill battleships. Its 12 seconds! before the first wave hits, and if timed perfectly 6 seconds for each wave after that. So 24 seconds for the 3rd wave to hit.

24 freeking seconds at least (often longer). What the hell are you guys doing to die to bombs at all? Clustering together and going AFK or something?

And still "bombs are a big problem" is just *not* supported by the data.

In fact bombers seems to be used far far more often with just Torps.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Previous page123